Gabriele wrote:the 2-vehicle approach was abandoned because it led to much increased radio traffic between the vehicles, with obvious correlate issues. The prototype fit eventually trialed was for a single vehicle solution.
- yes, the approach was abandoned; hence I was surprised to see that designation reappear (in one vehicle instance, for the trials)
I can understand that they want to go for a solution that is on the same hull as the rest of the formation... but can it do "Joint Fires"?
- or will there be something in those (next level) formations that these few bns will be attached to that can?
Going a bit further back in time:
ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2015, 17:01
I would not be surprised if there were to be three different levels of fit-out (taking the example from some other armies):
- artillery forward observation [this is probably what we will get?]
- battery command vehicle [this version of Warrior since long gone... and would not be up to it, anyway]
- a higher level command vehicle [that can also do joint fires -air/ ground coordination that is - and likely to be...] the Joint Fires Control (23 vehicles) version within the Ajax family. The question immediately arises whether such a number is enough
A. for two AI and two Strike Bdes
B. is the assumption that an AI bde will not be fielded without a Strike bde, ever? Would explain the deletion of lower level recce assets from the former,
and C. what about Joint Fires when other formations are fielded... will there be enough vehicles to be embedded in RA rgmnts? Whole fleet mgt, of course
, will be the answer