Closure of CDS Impact and Armour Group and Ranges: Impact on Student Experience

Critical defence capability - must be retained.

I urge Cranfield University to not close or reduce the CDS Impact and Armour Group - the implications for the UK's capability in this area of expertise would be drastically reduced as a result.

As a former student closure would directly impact courses and academic performance.

Utterly sadden to hear of this quite simply shocking decision. One of THE best academics in the world works within the the IAG, and together with them the rest of the facility produce some of the most import research given the world's climate at the minute. The research conducted by the group is truly unique and world leading; the department should be supported, not closed. Without it, I would not have got my PhD. Without it, I would not have presented at international conferences promoting the work the department has done to increase the safety of both military and police officers lives.

Save the facility and staff to preserve its unique capabilities in providing a range of one-of-a-kind test equipment and expertise, and student exposure to the field work and methods.

Short term savings should not be permitted to destroy unique and necessary knowledge and resources!

Much like the Workshops, without these facilities Cranfield University would lose a major attraction and vital resource. These facilities aid a massive range of projects and people, losing them would be outrageous and detrimental to students undertaking courses at Shrivenham.

The ranges and their staff are a rare and important resource that allow students to do work that would not be possible elsewhere. Students will do higher quality and more valuable work when they have the use of a range available.

Please don't close this facility, it is such a valuable teaching resource.

Closing the impact and armour group would make a number of the most important courses run by CDS redundant, and mean that the MOD and industry will have to outsource a whole host of training. CDS should seriously consider whether it is really fit for purpose with all these cuts and whether they are actually able to fulfil the AP contract if they really think these closures are a good idea.

The IAG is vital for research and learning at Cranfield University.

This would be a severe blow to the BTC

A prestigious profit-making group with excellent academic output, but of course universities are not there to promote scientific excellence, they are obviously there to maintain senior salary levels so it makes sense to close anything to achieve this goal.

These facilities attract a lot of students, closing these may appear to save money, however you could well find a decline in student numbers. Additionally fees at Cranfield are above the average for a MSc in Forensics students accept this because of the facilities, removing them could result in the courses being considered overpriced again resulting in a decline in student numbers - loosing more money than you save.

Cranfield sells itself on its ability to conduct research and the excellent practical facilities available. I don't see how this is for the benefit of the University and there are better ways of balancing the books.

So they propose close the Group with two of the top publishing academics at Shriv in it! Great idea!!

The IAG and the ranges offer one of the valuable, unique selling points of the CDS. From a students point of view, without them, why choose Cranfield? I can't see how this could possibly "enhance the student experience" - sounds like nonsense justification to me.

As a long-serving member of the international armour community I must say that the planned closure of this group, and its facilities, will be a retrograde step. Over my 40 year career, I have given, and taken, much pleasure (and expertise) in interacting with this group. Together with hundreds of fellow students and national experts, I have benefited enormously from those interactions, whether they be through contract R&D, through utilization of the ballistic testing laboratories, or even via casual inquiries - the armour group, at the UK's Defence Academy, has always delivered. Long may it do so, and good luck with any rear-guard action.

Short sighted decision to say the least. How can the UK lead the way if we remove facilities like this?

This is a valuable faculty and facilities that needs to be saved