Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SKB »

Image
^ Pre-production prototype of the Scout SV Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variant

Introduction
The Ajax (previously known as Scout SV (Specialist Vehicle)) is a family of armoured fighting vehicles being developed by General Dynamics UK for the British Army. The Ajax is a development of the ASCOD armoured fighting vehicle used by the Spanish and Austrian armed forces. The Family was originally developed by Steyr-Daimler-Puch Spezialfahrzeug and Santa Bárbara Sistemas in the early 1990s and in 2010 General Dynamics UK was selected as the winner of the Future Rapid Effect System contract with the ASCOD Common Base Platform, beating BAE Systems proposal with the CV-90. The Ajax will be procured in a number of variants, initially planned to be in blocks, with the first vehicles planned to be delivered in 2017 and full operation capability being established by 2019.

Development history
Ajax has its origins in the Future Rapid Effect System program which can trace its origins back to the 1990s when the joint UK/USA (TRACER) program was cancelled. The purpose of the FRES program is to find a replacement for the British Army's Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) family of vehicles which have been in service with the British Army from as early as 1971. General Dynamics UK won the Future Rapid Effect System contract in March 2010 after years of competition from BAE Systems CV-90 proposal. After the Ministry of Defence had selected the ASCOD 2 Common Base Platform, BAE tried to reverse the decision by offering to manufacture the CV-90 at their Newcastle facility. Despite this the Ministry of Defence kept to the contract with General Dynamics UK and offered them a £500 million demonstration phase contract. Following on from this, General Dynamics conducted design review work using the input of soldiers and bringing the ASCOD 2 Chassis in line with the British requirements.

The Ajax program passed the "Preliminary Design Review" (PDR), initial design point in December 2012. At this stage of development, a review of system maturity, and preliminary system design where held. Following on from this, in late 2013, the "Common Base Platform Critical Design Review" (CDR) was completed and development continued further. In June 2014, the PMRS variant of the Scout Family had officially completed its CDR and a "Mobile Test Rig", the precursor to a prototype, which had been undergoing rigorous testing, including cold weather and Operational and Tactical (O&T) mobility trials, as well as Accelerated Life Testing (ALT), had completed system de-risking. At DVD 2014, the first pre-production prototype of the PMRS variant was unveiled, built at General Dynamic's facilities in Spain.

Initially the Ajax was planned to be procured in a number of blocks totaling 1010 vehicles. With the first order of Block 1 vehicles encompassing Scout Reconnaissance, PMRS APC, and Repair and Recovery variants, with Reconnaissance, C2, and Ambulance variants to follow in a second, Block 2, order. There was even a possibility for a third Block of vehicles encompassing a "Direct Fire" vehicle with a 120mm main gun, "Manouever Support" and a "Joint Fires" variant equipped to succeed the FV102 Striker in the anti-tank role. However, as of September 2014 Block 3 vehicles have been dropped and the ministry of Defence has said that there are currently "no plans" to order any Block 2 vehicles.

On the 3rd of September 2014, the British Government announced the order for 589 Ajax vehicles ahead of the NATO Summit in Wales on the 4th of September 2014, totaling a cost of £3.5 billion excluding VAT. A number of Block 2 variants has been merged into the Block 1 order, which still encompassed the planned 589 vehicles.

The variants ordered include:

244 turreted 'Scout' variants
198 Reconnaissance and Strike
23 Joint Fire Control
24 Ground Based Surveillance
265 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants
59 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC)
112 Command and Control
34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch
51 Engineer Reconnaissance
88 Engineering variants based on the PMRS
38 Recovery vehicles
50 Repair Vehicles

Further variants, including an ambulance type are speculated in a future Block 2 order. The vehicles currently on order will be handed over to the British Army in 2017 with the last being delivered around the 2026 mark.

Vehicle design
The Ajax is manufactured and designed by General Dynamics UK, with the new turret and fire control system fitted on the Reconnaissance variant being designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin UK. Lockheed Martin is working closely with the "Defence Support Group" for turret manufacture and assembly. 75% of turret and CT40 work will be carried out in the UK. The turrets ring is 1.7m in diameter allowing for much more work-space than comparable AFVs. The Ajax is also equipped with a state of the art ISTAR package with advanced sensors and space for further future growth. This advanced ISTAR package allows for automated search, tracking and detection, more than doubling stand-off range at which targets can be identified and tracked.

The Ajax also has a 20Gbs/s Gigabit Ethernet intelligent open architecture, which enables it to capture, process and store 6TBs of intelligence gathered by the sensors. It can then share this data, be it images or other information via a real-time integrated BOWMAN communication system as fitted to the Challenger 2. Power for these advanced systems comes from a silent auxiliary power generator. 80% of the vehicle manufacture will be completed in the UK, with 70% of the supply chain companies UK-based. 5 Pre production prototypes will be produced in Spain for further development and testing. The Ajax will support 300 jobs at General Dynamics UK's facility in South Wales and an estimated, further 1000 jobs in the UK supply chain.

Type Armoured fighting vehicle
Place of origin United Kingdom
Designer General Dynamics UK
Manufacturer General Dynamics UK
Weight 38 tonnes with growth potential to 42 tonnes
Crew 3 + 8 passengers
Main armament CTA International CT40 cannon
Secondary armament
L94A1 coaxial 7.62 mm chain gun
Kongsberg Protector Remote Weapon Station (PMRS Variant)
Engine MTU 600kW 8V engine
Transmission Renk 256B
Suspension torsion bar



User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by SKB »

Rolls-Royce has signed an €80m (£57m) contract with General Dynamics European Land Systems to deliver 589 MTU Series 199 diesel engines for new British Army Scout SV armoured vehicles.

http://www.cityam.com/216595/rolls-royc ... army-tanks

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

Thanks for this.

Anyone wanting learning more about the revolutionary 40 CTWS and how it compares with other light AFV weapons and ammunition might be interested in this article on my website: http://quarryhs.co.uk/WLIP.htm

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by marktigger »

can these be lifted in an A400m ? airdropped by the A400m?

Pymes75
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:17
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by Pymes75 »

marktigger wrote:can these be lifted in an A400m ? airdropped by the A400m?
Doubt it. Combat weight exceeds the maximum lift of the A400. Can't really see the SVs being lifted anywhere in great numbers anyway (just replacement vehicles) as we simply don't have the requisite number of C-17s.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Well, an SV is 34 tonnes. With the armour packs its 38. So they could go in an A400, but youd need separate module transport.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Too large, too heavy, not well enough armed.
Can't see the point in taking a pretty standard IFV sticking on a new turret, weighing it down with loads of extra armour and filling it full of electronic gizmos. All of course at an exorbitant cost!
What's the difference between it and an updated Warrior?
Its also been ordered without any proper prototypes, looks to me as though the MOD was desperate to get something, anything, because I can't believe its what the Army actually wants.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Rolls-Royce has signed an €80m (£57m) contract with General Dynamics European Land Systems to deliver 589 MTU Series 199 diesel engines for new British Army Scout SV armoured vehicles.
589 Scout SV ordered, 589 engines ordered! No spares? None to train on? None being overhauled?
Perhaps in the wonderful world of fleet management, they only intend to fit engines to those vehicles they issue to units as needed!!!!

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

whitelancer wrote:not well enough armed.
Giving it the most advanced autocannon available to any AFV is "not well enough armed"?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
whitelancer wrote:not well enough armed.
Giving it the most advanced autocannon available to any AFV is "not well enough armed"?
Not when it still needs ATGW to take on tanks.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by marktigger »

with the survilence kit it needs more space 20. we should have bought coyote from the canadians years ago

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
whitelancer wrote:not well enough armed.
Giving it the most advanced autocannon available to any AFV is "not well enough armed"?
Not when it still needs ATGW to take on tanks.
If we're trying to engage tanks with recon units with no alternative, something has gone terribly wrong.

Handy in a pinch, but certainly not underarmed. Literally anything but a modern MBT the CT40 can absolutely devastate. Leave tank hunting to the Challenger/Apache/Brimstone/Reaper/Javelins. It'd be nice to have some Spike on them, but it's low priority on the budget when it's just "adding more on" to something who's role should not be chasing MBTs around that can wipe it out.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
If we're trying to engage tanks with recon units with no alternative, something has gone terribly wrong.
Indeed.
Handy in a pinch, but certainly not underarmed. Literally anything but a modern MBT the CT40 can absolutely devastate.

If by 'modern' you mean T55 and up, then I'd agree, but I'm not sure that you do. The CT40 is no more powerful than a Bofors L70.
Leave tank hunting to the Challenger/Apache/Brimstone/Reaper/Javelins. It'd be nice to have some Spike on them, but it's low priority on the budget when it's just "adding more on" to something who's role should not be chasing MBTs around that can wipe it out.
For its weight, cost and role, it's underarmed. You have a recon screen that can be rolled over by anything with half-decent armour. Every other army deems it necessary to fit ATGW to vehicles half its weight and cost, so by comparison it is under armed.

It's a brand new vehicle that isn't yet in production and its lethality is proportionate to the comparison between Challenger 2 and other western MBTs.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:If by 'modern' you mean T55 and up, then I'd agree, but I'm not sure that you do. The CT40 is no more powerful than a Bofors L70.

It's a brand new vehicle that isn't yet in production and its lethality is proportionate to the comparison between Challenger 2 and other western MBTs.
Image

The CT40 can indeed knock out T-55's, as sourced via CT40 International themselves.

That's also accounting only for front armour. There is virtually no way that any thing even up to (and including) T-72 and T-80 could resist a CT40 or Bofors L70 from the side unloading rapid shots. They certainly are within the kill bracket.

Fixing the Challenger 2's woeful anti-tank ability is of far higher priority than adding tasks to vehicles that shouldn't be doing it in the first place. America can afford it because they're America. Other countries do it because they often don't have the same alternative assets that we do. (Few have large attack helo fleets, or have armed drones, or large quantities of high quality infantry AT, let alone all of the above)

Like I said, it'd be nice, but it is comparitively low priority right now regarding the current threat or need. Remember that Javelins are alreasdy Protector RWS integrated (or are at least in testing) and the Scout can use Protectors, so if the need does arise, it's a simple matter. No point in adding even more gold plate when there are far higher priorities right now, especially when the "target niche" is such a specific thing.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:
The CT40 can indeed knock out T-55's, as sourced via CT40 International themselves.

That's also accounting only for front armour. There is virtually no way that any thing even up to (and including) T-72 and T-80 could resist a CT40 or Bofors L70 from the side unloading rapid shots. They certainly are within the kill bracket.
I don't see how. T55 frontal arc armour, on the most basic, unupgraded version is 200mm+. Penetration of the CT40 APFSDS round is given by CTA International themselves as 140mm at 1500m. Long rods don't lose velocity very quickly so at the muzzle it might be 20% higher? So barring a side shot at a reasonable obtuse angle I don't see it happening.
Fixing the Challenger 2's woeful anti-tank ability is of far higher priority than adding tasks to vehicles that shouldn't be doing it in the first place. America can afford it because they're America. Other countries do it because they often don't have the same alternative assets that we do. (Few have large attack helo fleets, or have armed drones, or large quantities of high quality infantry AT, let alone all of the above)
Odd how such assets cannot compensate for an obsolescent weapon system that is still effective against 80% of likely battlefield AFV targets and we hardly take anywhere but can compensate for a brand-new vehicle that is likely to be at the forefront of our deployments for the next two decades or more and is maybe effective against 20% or armoured targets? It's not like there is even an overwatch vehicle like Striker to cover the formation.

[/quote]Like I said, it'd be nice, but it is comparitively low priority right now regarding the current threat or need. Remember that Javelins are alreasdy Protector RWS integrated (or are at least in testing) and the Scout can use Protectors, so if the need does arise, it's a simple matter. No point in adding even more gold plate when there are far higher priorities right now, especially when the "target niche" is such a specific thing.[/quote]
If they manage a range upgrade on Javelin that might work, but until then you're stuck with a 2.5km reach against potential opponents who regularly reach out to twice that. In any case a protector gets you one Javelin per vehicle ready to fire and mounting protector on the turreted scout costs you your good sight.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:I don't see how. T55 frontal arc armour, on the most basic, unupgraded version is 200mm+. Penetration of the CT40 APFSDS round is given by CTA International themselves as 140mm at 1500m. Long rods don't lose velocity very quickly so at the muzzle it might be 20% higher? So barring a side shot at a reasonable obtuse angle I don't see it happening.
To be precise, CTAI says that it is "greater than" 140mm at 1.5km. And simply taking the "front is Xmm" thing doesn't speak the whole story about the protection of a vehicle, especially when it's a 200 RPM weapon hammering shots into it. There are untold variations in armour density and thickness across any vehicle. Not to mention, as above, the exact upper limit is unknown, but CTAI have put that it can take out T-55's frontally.
If they manage a range upgrade on Javelin that might work, but until then you're stuck with a 2.5km reach against potential opponents who regularly reach out to twice that.
The Javelin mounted on vehicles has, thankfully then, shown it can reach out to at least 4km.

Don't ask me what's different, but I remember Gabe mentioned it once. Maybe he could fill in.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:To be precise, CTAI says that it is "greater than" 140mm at 1.5km. And simply taking the "front is Xmm" thing doesn't speak the whole story about the protection of a vehicle, especially when it's a 200 RPM weapon hammering shots into it. There are untold variations in armour density and thickness across any vehicle. Not to mention, as above, the exact upper limit is unknown, but CTAI have put that it can take out T-55's frontally.
That 200mm+ is homogenous steel, so it's as good as you are likely to get for multiple impacts without degradation. How many shots do you think it would take? How many shots do you think you are likely to get? You might get a lucky shot at the lower hull sides, more than 30 degrees to the side and you might get the upper sides? The turret is cast which is less efficient than rolled steel, though I forget what the ratio is. Perhaps 80% would get you 160mm+, which is getting close, especially at close range. Not, however, something I'd like to stake anything important on.
The Javelin mounted on vehicles has, thankfully then, shown it can reach out to at least 4km.

Don't ask me what's different, but I remember Gabe mentioned it once. Maybe he could fill in.
I read that they were working on it, not necessarily that it had been achieved. Google tells me that it has gone further, out to nearly five kilometres. If I had to guess what was different I'd say that the vehicle sights can cue better than the man-portable launch unit. It's still only one and it's still limited by environmental conditions
http://www.deagel.com/news/Javelin-Man- ... 11204.aspx
Note the comment regarding favourable conditions. The missile seeker still has to be able to see something to lock onto, even if the vehicle sight is better.
Also, if it's mounted on the RWS, it's horribly vulnerable to small arms and fragments - no protection bar the tube. If it is being used manually, I'm pretty sure that the end cap has to be removed to permit the seeker to see out, so the seeker head is exposed to the elements.

90inFIRST
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:00
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by 90inFIRST »

Hi guys

A little confused here SBK's intro lists 1198 vehicles to be bought the but the order is for less then 600, could any shed some light on this?

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by jonas »

90inFIRST wrote:Hi guys

A little confused here SBK's intro lists 1198 vehicles to be bought the but the order is for less then 600, could any shed some light on this?
Probably because the original article is quite old, this para may throw some light on the latest orders:-

"Initially the Scout SV was planned to be procured in a number of blocks totaling 1010 vehicles. With the first order of Block 1 vehicles encompassing Scout Reconnaissance, PMRS APC, and Repair and Recovery variants, with Reconnaissance, C2, and Ambulance variants to follow in a second, Block 2, order. There was even a possibility for a third Block of vehicles encompassing a "Direct Fire" vehicle with a 120mm main gun, "Manouever Support" and a "Joint Fires" variant equipped to succeed the FV102 Striker in the anti-tank role. However, as of September 2014 Block 3 vehicles have been dropped and the ministry of Defence has said that there are currently "no plans" to order any Block 2 vehicles."

90inFIRST
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:00
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by 90inFIRST »

Thanks Jonas, guess the initial 600 is it then.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by marktigger »

is scout replacing the Warrior Artillery OP vehicles?

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1527
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by xav »

Not the UK variant but here is a video on the ASCOD my colleagues recorded recently


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Nice. Rubber tracks? On one hand they are supposed to reduce weight and vibration, on the other, those in the videos look somewhat beaten up on an otherwise pristine vehicle. Surprised that there are only six dismount seats in there though, considering that the turreted IFV version has seats for as many (or more)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote:Well, an SV is 34 tonnes. With the armour packs its 38. So they could go in an A400, but youd need separate module transport.
Bit late to the party on this one but yes, to my knowledge, that Scout will fit in to an A400...just. As you say however, that is only for the vehicle itself - her combat load (ammunition, parts etc etc) and the modular armour kit will require seperate arrangements.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Scout SV Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Well, an SV is 34 tonnes. With the armour packs its 38. So they could go in an A400, but youd need separate module transport.
Bit late to the party on this one but yes, to my knowledge, that Scout will fit in to an A400...just. As you say however, that is only for the vehicle itself - her combat load (ammunition, parts etc etc) and the modular armour kit will require seperate arrangements.
Glad to see you here mate. :)

Post Reply