Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

xav, thanks for the vid

1. I wonder about those boxes in the back... the dismounts will have to leave in a "straight line"?

2. In two meters of snow? The CV90 mobility trials against other similar AFVs then in service in Norway left everyone immobile in less?
- is that powder snow, in the best skiing conditions , on top of a glacier?

[marktigger]

its big yet it can carry only 1 more trooper than a spartan!
might as well have saved money and put warrior back in production!

[Gabriele]

its big yet it can carry only 1 more trooper than a spartan!
might as well have saved money and put warrior back in production!

You can put as many seats as you want inside, but it is clear that, whatever the vehicle, more seats means less space per each soldier. If the soldiers carry more and more stuff and get bulkier, and if the protection level these days has to include greater mine and blast protection, more space is required, and the number of seats goes down. You can't have everything. It is also a fact that these days you can't pack soldiers as tightly as would have once been accepted, just as you can't ask them to sleep in horribly crowded tiny rooms on warships. Times have changed. If you want a tight fit, there's the Panther already...

[jonas]

It is a sign of the times and one with which I strongly disagree. I was one of those who were packe tightly into a confined space and at the time it was the norm. For all its nowadays so called 'unacceptable ' living conditions, It ws far from that, in fact it formed a camarderie that you will not find by seperating people into six people cabins
Unfortunately we are building an armed forces that seem to be focused more on the comfort, than the fighting ability, and it will not have a happy ending.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

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.

Ta very much, likewise

[arfah]

............

[sea_eagle]

I see the German Army have taken delivery of the Puma, how does this compare with what the British Army are planning and still planning to get?
https://www.defencetalk.com/puma-infant ... ice-64656/

[RetroSicotte]

Puma is an IFV, not a recce vehicle; so it's not really a comparison.

Regardless, the Puma is by all accounts an exceptionally high quality vehicle. Strong armour, an enormous engine for world leading mobility of a vehicle that size and a nifty unmanned turret mounting a solid 30mm cannon. It's no CT40, but the MK30 is not a weapon to sniff at. Germany knows their autocannons. Internally, it carries 6 men, which is about standard for IFVs right now with increasing soldier kit sizes.

The most common comparison would come no doubt through it being a "heavy" AFV similar to SV, but really they are in completely differing roles.

[ArmChairCivvy]

v true. You could have a thought exercise, by "mounting" the Puma unmanned turret on the SV PMRS, and then try to compare them as IFVs (price included).

[sea_eagle]

Puma is an IFV, not a recce vehicle; so it's not really a comparison.

Regardless, the Puma is by all accounts an exceptionally high quality vehicle. Strong armour, an enormous engine for world leading mobility of a vehicle that size and a nifty unmanned turret mounting a solid 30mm cannon. It's no CT40, but the MK30 is not a weapon to sniff at. Germany knows their autocannons. Internally, it carries 6 men, which is about standard for IFVs right now with increasing soldier kit sizes.

The most common comparison would come no doubt through it being a "heavy" AFV similar to SV, but really they are in completely differing roles.

Thanks RetroS, probably posted it in the wrong topic then but I get confused with all the Army acronyms for vehicles. Is the Puma their equivalent of the FRES or what is our current and planned equivalent?

[ArmChairCivvy]

That is a very good question, as the Fennek was (is?) the equivalent, but looking v different bcz of the sneaky-beaky approach to recce

[RetroSicotte]

Thanks RetroS, probably posted it in the wrong topic then but I get confused with all the Army acronyms for vehicles. Is the Puma their equivalent of the FRES or what is our current and planned equivalent?

Puma is their equivilent to Warrior.

At least without knowing the "soft" details (electronics, networking, sights, comfort etc) the Puma is better than the Warrior in all aspects other than two. The gun (The CT40 is a world beater) and the weight (Warrior is lighter, although that comes at expense of armour, most predict).

It's a very very good IFV.

Germany at current has no real comparitive to SV (No longer called FRES, that ones gone, confusing as it is!) as they have a differing doctrine in this way. At current they have the Wiesel, which is sort of a CVRT, however.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Wiesel is for the airlanded (do they still have that formation?).

My favourites: the recoilless 20mm autocannon, and the mortar that extends out of the back, to for the ground to absorb the recoil... and then off we go again.

They did have our equivalent of Airtanker/RFA Points contract: Lufthansa 747s with a special roll-on floor structure kit could ship 7 in one go.

[Tony Williams]

My favourites: the recoilless 20mm autocannon,

The standard 20mm cannon is the Rh 202, which is not recoilless. The recoilless Mauser RMK 30 was a powerful 30mm gun which was test-fired on the Wiesel but never adopted.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ohh...

Why don't these recoilless guns go anywhere? The German paratroopers and gebirgsjaeger had some, but I think they only had any significant role on Crete and later, taken by motorised canoe behind the enemy lines, to attack the Murmansk railway.

[Tony Williams]

Recoilless guns are still in use for certain purposes (mostly notably the shoulder-fired 84mm Carl Gustav, still being developed after over 60 years of service) but they have various downsides. These include much bigger ammo, and the need to allow a vast quantity of hot, high-pressure gas to escape to the rear. These problems may be acceptable in a single-shot, manually-loaded weapon, but an autoloader is a different matter.

The Mauser RMK family of 30-35mm weapons not only tackled this, but also added caseless telescoped ammunition and an unusual backwards-loading automated revolver mechanism. A good basic rule with any new development is to introduce one innovation at a time - trying to make too many changes is a recipe for trouble...

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Thanks RetroS, probably posted it in the wrong topic then but I get confused with all the Army acronyms for vehicles. Is the Puma their equivalent of the FRES or what is our current and planned equivalent?

Puma is their equivilent to Warrior.

At least without knowing the "soft" details (electronics, networking, sights, comfort etc) the Puma is better than the Warrior in all aspects other than two. The gun (The CT40 is a world beater) and the weight (Warrior is lighter, although that comes at expense of armour, most predict).

It's a very very good IFV.

Germany at current has no real comparitive to SV (No longer called FRES, that ones gone, confusing as it is!) as they have a differing doctrine in this way. At current they have the Wiesel, which is sort of a CVRT, however.

I think we can probably excuse people's confusion about Scout principally because, to all intents and purposes, Scout is itself an IFV - albeit one fitted with a hitherto unthinkably comprehensive ISTAR suite for a land vehicle (best analogy i can think of is a track mobile R1/RC-135!)

You are quite right though, in ORBAT/inventory terms the FV510 is our equivalent of the Puma, or vice versa. The FRES SV (Scout) will not usually be expected to fulfil roles assigned to either the Warrior or Puma aside from potential over-watch/fire support roles i should think. It is designed to act as battlefield reconnaissance as i am sure many know; and ergo why it is divergent in capability terms from the likes of the Puma.

Scout as an AFV however (ignoring the ISTAR suite), will in its own right most likely take the crown as THE definitive world beating example of its kind (it would be a pretty phenomenal IFV if it was to be used as such). Quite simply, i can't think of any machine that even approaches it as a capability equivalent apart from the Puma - and even then only in some respects. In its intended role moreover, it is quite literally peerless. Certainly the programme has been controversial, but the end product is bordering on TSR-2 brilliant to my mind. Let’s just hope that comparison doesn't play out entirely in full though

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now we finally have a befitting parallel for the cost of the Scout; when the first RC135 rolled onto the tarmac, it was the most expensive warplane by then, ever: $2 bn.

Not that they all cost that much, having become more run of the mill than experimental and pushing the envelope ($2 bn, isn't that the current per piece price for B2s? ref Unit cost: Approximately $1.157 billion [fiscal 98 constant dollars]). Then again, they each an take out a whole airbase in a single pass.

[The Armchair Soldier]

£150M Cannon Contract Signed for UK Armoured Fighting Vehicles

The Defence Secretary has announced that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has awarded a £150 million contract to supply a new cannon capability for the UK Armed Forces.

The Cased Telescope (CT) cannon will be fitted to the Scout SV, the Army’s first fully digitised armoured fighting vehicle, and the in-service Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. The 40mm cannon will be able to use a variety of ammunition to defend the vehicles and destroy a range of battlefield targets.

The CT cannon takes up less space than a conventionally configured 40mm cannon without any loss of firepower and because the ammunition is more compact than conventional rounds, more can be accommodated in the turret.

The production contract was signed by the MoD and CTA International (CTAI), a joint venture between the UK’s BAES and French company Nexter. The contract will supply 515 CT Cannons for fitting to the Scout SV and Warrior platforms. It will also supply initial spares, special tools, test equipment and some early training equipment.

Read More: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/150m ... g-vehicles

[bobp]

I am surprised by this announcement because it is separate from the order to GD for the Scout SV, making them cost even more than originally announced. 515 guns plus test equipment ,spares manuals etc for 150 million. Well at least the order is still going ahead.

[Ron5]

To be fair, the original announcement did say that the gun would be goverment supplied material which implied an additional expense.

By the way, why the chorus on the FRES Scout being so expensive? Without looking, I'd bet if the German Puma has equivalent electronics (which it probably doesn't), it's twice the price. Scout seems to come with a reasonable price tag considering all it will contain.

P.S. Hard luck to the English ladies, they were the better team and could only be beaten by themselves.

[Gabriele]

The one annoying thing in the announcement is that with 245 guns bound for the Scout, there are only 270 left for the Warrior CSP. That works out at 45 vehicles per armoured infantry battalions, with no margin for reserve or training fleet.

Whole fleet management all the way, and one or two battalions will be virtual, as there won't be vehicles for mounting them, not even in emergency.

[ArmChairCivvy]

42 (?) turreted Warriors per AI bn... so 3 can be sitting in the repairs shop (or allocated to BATUS use, which would mean that in that battle Group only one AI Coy can be fielded at a time as 3 x 6 is about 14, for heavy use)?

[ArmChairCivvy]

BTW, how many test guns were procured. Surely the barrels are knackered, but a swap-out could bring back up to a dozen more for fitting.

[Gabriele]

No, wait, according to Jane's it is even worse. Only 245 guns are for Warrior. WCSP is just for 380 vehicles, 135 of which in support roles (artillery, REME).

25 guns are for trials and training, apparently.

And armoured infantry is supposed to be the core of Army 2020...