Monty1985 wrote:Is there any particular reason we are sticking with the Warrior? (I mean it was a good platform in it's day and at first glance it makes sense to upgrade it like other countries are doing to their IFVs). However we are in the process of introducing the Ajax family of vehicles to replace the CVR(T)s, but that in itself is based on an existing IFV design. Surely the sensible thing to do would be to have a stripped down Ajax with all the scouty bits taken off?
mr.fred wrote:I don’t know what the minimum number of Ajax is, but the turreted numbers are less than half of the total. I’d be reticent to commit to a medium armour fleet beyond 2030, with the changes going through the automotive industry with drivetrains.
but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gunRunningStrong wrote:245 Ajax turrets for a 589 all-variants fleet.
add maintenance/ upgrading 10% =187, and what's needed in BATUS for 'real(alistic) training' and voi la! 215 is not far offLord Jim wrote:so the maximum number of Ajax/CTA40 we should need is say 170 rounding up.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gun
mr.fred wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gun
I don’t think that’s true. Why would it be?
Lord Jim wrote:with the spare Ajax/CTA40 Turrets [if any]going to a Fire Support variant of the Boxer to give each Battalions a units of 8 or each platoon one.
Was working off the numbers in my head
- CTA guns 215 (plus ten for testing)
- Joint Fires Control, 23 vehicles, and Ground Based Surveillance, 24 vehicles
- the former have turrets (fake guns, not to be easily recognised, and saving space inside the turret for 'more essential' things)
Lord Jim wrote:The 380 for Warrior must include the support variants plus those earmarked for the mythical BASV programme as there are only 57 Warriors in a AI Battalion together with around 20 FV432s and 8 CVR(T)s.
Maybe. But could you answer what you’d do without the facility?BATUS is a strange subject and seems to be up their with other sacrosanct institutions where it is the greatest sin to even threaten its existence.
Lord Jim wrote:I was not suggesting converting Ajax/CTA40 into the IFV. What I was doing was saying that we take the 170 already on order and use them in the recce role as intended. 250 would be purchased as the latest ASCOD IFV which is basically an Ajax IFV using the turret LM developed for the Warrior upgrade. The support variant (the remaining 170) would be used to replace the FV432 and CVR(T) support variants in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units as well as the Recce ones.
ABSV. Which I don't think is funded?Lord Jim wrote:To help with this you would have the money earmarked for the production of the Warrior CSP and Warrior BASV to supplement the existing Ajax budget.
Lord Jim wrote:Obviously there is a lot more to this if one wanted to go right down into the weeds regarding detail but it is a real world option. It is a half way house between carrying on with what is currently planned and going for my actually preferred option and replacing the Warrior with Boxer variants and reducing the Ajax programme to roughly half of what it is now. Like the RAF the Army is going to have to get used to not having a large number of stored assets It is going to have to gain the maximum serviceability from the vehicle it has in the units.
Gabriele wrote:It's 245 real gun vehicles for Warrior and 245 for Ajax, out of an order total of 515 CT40 guns. 25 are for trials and test and stuff.
Whether negating or not; still a good idea in formations where the number of platforms needing REME support can be reduced - and making good use of the larger internal volume (of the high-roofed version of) the 8x8 vehicle.Lord Jim wrote:Some of the roles undertaken at present by the FV432 and CVR(T) would be taken on by variants of the Boxer such as Command vehicles replacing the Sultans currently used in this role, and also take on the role of armoured Ambulance, negating the need for the Ajax variant.
Not so sure as Whole Fleet Mgt makes a lot of sense for assets that are meant to last (and be trained on/ with) for 40 years or so.Lord Jim wrote:Like the RAF the Army is going to have to get used to not having a large number of stored assets
I fully agree with the 'pitiful' count for the bn of what amounts to 'any' kind of longer-ranged direct fire. At the same time LMUK can offer, off the shelf, the same kind of turret that went onto the Qatari order of half a thousand French 8x8s:Lord Jim wrote:These are the main AT weapon of the Battalion and will have to be fired out in the open not under armour, I could go on.
Lord Jim wrote:A demonstrator of the latest ASCOD IFV which is in reality a IFV based on the Ajax already exists, and being a simpler vehicle compared to the Recce version it would also be cheaper. We have a contact of around 580 of the Ajax family and if we followed such a fictional route these would be new build vehicle not conversions of vehicles already delivered. They would replace them in the contract. Only a few dozen Ajax have been built as yet so nothing is literally set in stone as deliveries are destined to take years.
Lord Jim wrote:
The option I was suggesting was one where he Army would get a totally new vehicle that is part of one family covering a multitude of roles within the Armoured Infantry and armoured units. This mean common training, maintenance and running costs, and these would produce saving through out the life of the Ajax family fleet. By putting money currently earmarked for the Warrior CSP into the Ajax programme the would be a negligible need for new money.
Lord Jim wrote:If I remember rightly the US Army has wanted to replace the M113 series with a platform based on the M2 Bradley for quite some time.
True. Just spotted that for two RHA/RA rgmnts the re-equipping with Joint Fires vehicles is noted as Ajax/ MIV, so that would indicate a Boxer version being considered that has not been announced yetLord Jim wrote:Boxer and JLTV are just beginning. The former could even replace the AS-90 being just one example.
Well, we will have the third one in Yeomanry - a formed unit, instead of the earlier "replacement crews". Subject to CR2 LEP numbers (not decided/ announced yet)Lord Jim wrote: It would still be possible to retain three CR2 Regiments
Looked into the 245 guns for the Ajax side of things, and the other two version aside (that will get such turrets), the pure-bred recce one will number 198. Makes for 16 squadrons; where would you use those 16... remembering the fire-support role for (any?) Strike formations?Lord Jim wrote:supported by two indepandant Ajax eqiopped Recce Regiments
Lord Jim wrote: Infantry have to make do for ne near future with what they have got.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests