It is not a surprise that the biggest military order of the decade has become publicly discussed and followed by the media. The most passion has been awakened by changes in placing. The transition from the requirement for a tower without crew to a tower with crew does not seem quite legitimate, which is not quite supported by the video of the ACR representatives. General Opata and others appeal therein that we need new armoured vehicles. However, have there ever been any doubts about this fact?

The first to attack the video was the server Lidovky.cz. Their heading “VIDEO: ‘I am general Opata and I have a very important message for you!’ The army changed their communication style because of a supertender.” is followed by presentation of the content of the tender and its subsequent strong critique using words of a marketing communication specialist: “The text is not comprehensible; it can neither convince nor explain anything...”

Picture: ACR is about to replace the out-of-date machines BVP-2 | army.cz

One can nothing but agree. The tender has been intensively discussed and written about for two years. During this time period no signs of an anti-campaign appeared, such as “The army wastes money”, “The army should keep on using BVP-2s for the next thirty years”. Today, the public support the armed forces more than ever before.

The interested public supports modernization of vehicles even more, because they know parameters of the contemporary ones. It is the interested public who give signs of critique, but not at all because of replacing the out-of-date and out-of-repair BVP-2s. The ACR fans want the best for the soldiers, especially for the sake of safety and sustainability.

Picture: New infantry combat vehicles are offered to the ACR by four companies: BAE Systems, General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS), Rheinmetall Landsysteme, and PSM

It is logical that a part of military fans incline to the most modern German BVP PUMAs. And with regard to the fact that they follow the development of the situation since the preparation phase of the tender, they noticed that the army originally ordered towers without crew. This fact did not cause any vigorous debates, everything changed after the about-face this spring.

Another favourite is the BVP ASCOD by General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS). This European branch of the General Dynamics has many years of experience with co-operation with local companies in many countries in the field of armament projects for NATO as well as non-NATO armies. A project involving Ajax armoured vehicles in Great Britain or production and supply of wheel vehicles Piranha 5 in Romania can serve as recent examples. In both cases GDELS not only won the tenders for new arsenal for local armies, they also transferred their production and connected technologies and know-how to local companies to a large extent. 

Within the ASCOD project for ACR GDELS also offers transferring production and technologies to the Czech Republic. The GDELS company is fully committed to industrial co-operation, participation of Czech companies in the project and transfer of technologies to the Czech Republic. As an inseparable part of their business model, GDELS realize worldwide their own long-term industrial development strategy that is closely connected to the activity of the mother company General Dynamics (GD), which forms one of the biggest co-operation networks of various companies in the field of defence technologies in the world. 

The content, way and timing of the final specification unfortunately look intentional. As if parameters should eliminate two of four potential suppliers. And this is the topic that has been discussed for two months in special forums, such as the Facebook group called “Vše o ozbrojených silách” (Everything on armed forces). The case has not been clarified and the video of the army YouTubers does not change the situation anyhow. It is not at all reflecting this question.

Video: Why does ACR need new BVPs / YouTube

And the video processing is... Nothing against addressing the audience directly, although this way is a bit breakneck. If such content had been communicated a year ago, it would have hit the goal. But now, in June 2019, the inscription “URGENT” appearing on the screen may frighten someone, that this is the beginning of mobilisation. We learn to know however, what we have already known for a long time. From this point of view the video has really not been a success, and it can be expected that it will rather sharpen the discussions.