Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

It does sound a bit on the ridiculous side: that is for 17.5 AI Companies, the establisment is eighteen.

So you rob the first 14 test guns for the Batus (extra) Company, and the 11 left will help to fill up the missing half company, and a few spare still left (they did test a few to the death...).

[Gabriele]

It does sound a bit on the ridiculous side: that is for 17.5 AI Companies, the establisment is eighteen.

So you rob the first 14 test guns for the Batus (extra) Company, and the 11 left will help to fill up the missing half company, and a few spare still left (they did test a few to the death...).

Pulling all Warrior vehicles from the Support Company, and with no margins left at all...? Talk about fleet management...

[seaspear]

What should this vehicle do and be capable of ,these vehicles are becoming heavier but is there an amphibious need required for different terrains like an aslav

[bobp]

I just realised the BAE who were the losers in the FRES competition to build the scout, are actually one of the contractors to build the main gun along with Nexter of France.

[mr.fred]

What should this vehicle do and be capable of ,these vehicles are becoming heavier but is there an amphibious need required for different terrains like an aslav

Is there a requirement for an amphibious vehicle? The RM already have Viking.

[seaspear]

I ask the question because the Australian army has 250 plus of these in different versions able too 100km or 10km in the water with the widest possible tyres for all terrain and air-conditioning for areas of 50c ,the scout appears to lack some mobility in this comparison and its not always certain that the army will be deployed with the Marines so as to use the Viking

[mr.fred]

I ask the question because the Australian army has 250 plus of these in different versions able too 100km or 10km in the water with the widest possible tyres for all terrain and air-conditioning for areas of 50c ,the scout appears to lack some mobility in this comparison and its not always certain that the army will be deployed with the Marines so as to use the Viking

The SVs aren't amphibious, true. Do they need to be?
Have the Australian LAVs used their amphibious capability on operations?

[seaspear]

I'm not aware of the Aslav during its nine years of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq needed to cross rivers but what certainty is there that this vehicle will only be used in desert like conditions ,certainly the Aslav can train in Australia in areas that require this amphib use

[mr.fred]

I'm not aware of the Aslav during its nine years of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq needed to cross rivers but what certainty is there that this vehicle will only be used in desert like conditions ,certainly the Aslav can train in Australia in areas that require this amphib use

How about East Timor?
Do you think it is worth compromising a vehicle's design to obtain amphibious capability?
How do you resupply an amphibious vehicle?

[ArmChairCivvy]

That's how



Err, we don't have them anymore

[R686]

I ask the question because the Australian army has 250 plus of these in different versions able too 100km or 10km in the water with the widest possible tyres for all terrain and air-conditioning for areas of 50c ,the scout appears to lack some mobility in this comparison and its not always certain that the army will be deployed with the Marines so as to use the Viking

The SVs aren't amphibious, true. Do they need to be?
Have the Australian LAVs used their amphibious capability on operations?

ASLAV is indeed Amphiboius but that's to say it will only operate in fairly sheltered water, it cannot ride in the surf or wild raging river water

[seaspear]

The ability of the ASLAV to be fast and have amphibious ability provides it more options and means to access and egress areas for scouting duties minimising risk , the Scout S V seems to have a more aggressive scouting in its design

[riksavage]

The expense of making Scout SV amphibious is not worth the extra cost. UK military doctrine does not advocate an amphibious landing against a fortified beachhead (Falklands for example, hence no direct attack against Stanley).

Viking II can swim ashore to an uncontested beachhead from the Albion's to provide a lightly armored and armed presence if required until the heavy stuff (Scout SV, Challenger II & Warrior) are offloaded from the Bay's or accompanying Point Class. Scout SV can then go on to fulfill its primary role as a forward, fully networked recce screen. Any major water obstacles could be marked-up/recce'd and overcome by the follow-up Royal Engineers (RA).

If needed (3 Commando Brigade leading the way) you could get creative, mix and match SCOUT SV with Viking once ashore. Scout SV provides over-watch leaving Viking to undertake any river crossings to establish a presence and ascertain what's on the far bank until the RA rock-up with their bridging equipment. Keep your battle group flexible and use all the tools in the box.

The ASLAV may be amphibious, but it's not designed to operate in anything other than pancake flat conditions.

If anything I would rather see money spent on developing a Scout NLOS variant fitted with Spike LR. Ratio of 2/3:1 per troop, 2/3 x Scout SV/40MM + 1 x Scout NLOS.

[mr.fred]

The ability of the ASLAV to be fast and have amphibious ability provides it more options and means to access and egress areas for scouting duties minimising risk , the Scout S V seems to have a more aggressive scouting in its design

In an absolute sense, that's true. In reality, how often is that amphibious capability used, and does that offset the compromises in design necessary? In which situations do you think that it will be useful?

[seaspear]

Under Land 400 the Aslav and M113 versions are due for replacement over the next few years, also under project Beersheba an amphibious capability looks to be kept for the Australian army , I would also ask if any version of arena protection is included in the Scout S V similar to other deployed and planned vehicles elsewhere .

[Little J]

A report on The Firearms Blog about MoD buying the new 40mm for SV and warrior:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015 ... d-afv-gun/

[R686]

Under Land 400 the Aslav and M113 versions are due for replacement over the next few years, also under project Beersheba an amphibious capability looks to be kept for the Australian army , I would also ask if any version of arena protection is included in the Scout S V similar to other deployed and planned vehicles elsewhere .

From my understanding of Land400 is there is no requirement for a Amphibious AFV capability and any vehicle selected if it has it is purely a bonus. All requirement of tactical manoeuvre from the sea is via landing craft either LCM-1E or via LCH replacement.

Personally I think amphibious capability is a compromise on the selected vehicle, as most members here agree that there are too many trade off's to reach the level needed in both protection and amphibious needs.

But for our needs within the south west pacific and island archipelago a support amphibious capability like Singaporean Bronco within the CSSB which is a function of supporting the Brigade but would also provide additional HADR capability here in Australia and our immediate region

[seaspear]

There is certainly mention of amphibious capabilities under the project Beersheba being kept with the introduction of the Canberra class ships .

[R686]

There is certainly mention of amphibious capabilities under the project Beersheba being kept with the introduction of the Canberra class ships .

Yes that's correct in an amphibious concept they refer to Ship To Objective Manoeuvre (STOM) via Air and landing craft


http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedi ... 9-5564.pdf

Page 14

"Army has specified that the LCVS was not to have the capability to swim (directed by DGDP-A at L400 IPT meeting"


LCVS= Land Combat Vehicle System

[seaspear]

Perhaps I am reading this wrong but the rest of the paragraph refers to the present conops being at odds with earlier requirments

[R686]

Perhaps I am reading this wrong but the rest of the paragraph refers to the present conops being at odds with earlier requirments

Is this what you are referring to?

"Australia’s Military Strategy includes operating across the full spectrum of threats in complex terrain, both on land and within the littoral environment. The future LCVS must be able of operating in the combined arms team as part of amphibious operations and be capable of insertion by strategic sea and air lift assets."


From what I have read in various places Army is favouring combat weight and protection over the swim capability

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/russia ... -land-400/

[ArmChairCivvy]

This one (for combat recce only?) will swim:

"BAE Systems is the prime contractor pursuing Defence program Land 400 Phase 2 Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability with Patria of Finland. Saab products are inherent in the vehicle design. Joining forces with Saab Australia will allow the BAE Systems-Patria team to substantially exceed the 200 Australian advanced manufacturing jobs and $100m in supply chain value already identified by the team for the manufacturing phase of the program. The vehicles will then be sustained in Australia for the next 30 years."

Interestingly the AMV came into being when its predecessor (a Russian BTR60) which was supposed to be amphibious went down with all hands (not popular in a country where most of the "hands" were conscripts). Not to be confused with the battle field taxi that Sisu/ Patria were already making at the time - not amphibious and mainly intended for peace keeping duties.
- AMV also came up with the USMC as the LM Havoc

[seaspear]

My reading of the paragraph and I will repeat it [Army has specified that the LCVS was not to have the capability to swim [directed by DGPA at L400 meeting oct 10 [date TBC] but requires review in light of the development of this CONOPS ] , but requires review seems ambiguous at the end if not qualifying the opening .
Certainly as I have read the various commentaries of the Armies view of the ASLAV is that it has performed well for recon duties is suited to this and has the high speed to retreat if under artillery fire ,the army is likely to look for an escort vehicle for the personnel carriers [m113 replacements] I apologise if this is going off thread and agree we should be on the Australian forces thread and this is probably as good a topic as any for it .
But to come back to the Scout in comparison to other modern vehicles of a similar role that have extra defence measures like the Puma of the German army could they have spent less on numbers to have the ability to spend extra on defensive measures

[riksavage]

Another recent development of note is the sudden influx of new advanced Russian armour and AFV's, all of which will be offered up in the international market to help fund the programme.

I for one am very glad the UK/French opted for 40mm cased ammunition, the marked improvement in range and penetration over 25/30mm should be more than a match for the new range of Russian AFV's likely to be purchased/copied by potential adversaries.

I hope the the Australian mandarins take time to review the new Russian armour and associated capabilities when choosing the L400 range of combat vehicles, wheeled or tracked?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Agreed "I for one am very glad the UK/French opted for 40mm cased ammunition, the marked improvement in range and penetration over 25/30mm should be more than a match for the new range of Russian AFV's likely to be purchased/copied by potential adversaries"

The other avenue is supershot for beefing up the many, many Bushmasters in service. Dutch Gvmnt stood for the purchase of the ammo for firing tests (in the US) so I bet they are quite close to adapting the upgrade. They did away with their tanks completely at first; Then lately brought back a squadron, which is so little that it probably only counts as a realistic OpFor on exercises.