Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Caribbean wrote: 28 Nov 2021, 23:12
mr.fred wrote: 28 Nov 2021, 22:25
BB85 wrote: 28 Nov 2021, 21:40 … if Jaguar price is 1 million euro…
It isn’t. It was €6m each to the Belgians.
The Jaguar seems to have bee the model for the the T31 contract - build us an armoured vehicle for EUR1 million, then we can bolt on all the stuff that makes it useful afterwards
Yes, the expensive stuff like sights, weapons, gun control, engines…

Here’s the source for €6m
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/ ... pport-avis
I.B.1.a
“un programme d’engin blindé de reconnaissance et de combat (EBRC), appelé Jaguar. Son coût unitaire s’établit à six millions d’euros.”

“ an armoured reconnaissance and combat vehicle (EBRC) program, called Jaguar. Its unit cost is six million euros.”

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

So basically the same price as Ajax. Oh well there was me thinking there was a cheaper alternative for an actual scout vehicle.
CTA will probably limit its export chances as well then unless they can get this cost of ammunition down. Surely the money is in the fancy electronics inside each round rather than if it's in a traditional case or telescopic. I don't know the first thing about the canons other than public information but there must be some significant benefits to out weigh such a high risk and expensive design.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 10:50 So basically the same price as Ajax. Oh well there was me thinking there was a cheaper alternative for an actual scout vehicle.
CTA will probably limit its export chances as well then unless they can get this cost of ammunition down. Surely the money is in the fancy electronics inside each round rather than if it's in a traditional case or telescopic. I don't know the first thing about the canons other than public information but there must be some significant benefits to out weigh such a high risk and expensive design.
The majority of the rounds have no electronics at all, they're firing pin initiated. Only the Airburst rounds are electronic (I believe this relates to two versions now, the General Purpose (ground) and the Kinetic anti-air Airburst).

I think part of the issue is no one has used a CT40 in anger. I believe once that happens (with it's full air burst capability), we'll start to see the interest grow.

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Yeah, it would be interesting to see how capable the air burst rounds are to counter of UAVs and helicopters could they even counter an incoming missile as Thales are working on a CIWS version. That's bound to require an unmanned turret for that option though.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 11:37 Yeah, it would be interesting to see how capable the air burst rounds are to counter of UAVs and helicopters could they even counter an incoming missile as Thales are working on a CIWS version. That's bound to require an unmanned turret for that option though.
Why would it require an unmanned turret?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 12:30
BB85 wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 11:37 Yeah, it would be interesting to see how capable the air burst rounds are to counter of UAVs and helicopters could they even counter an incoming missile as Thales are working on a CIWS version. That's bound to require an unmanned turret for that option though.
Why would it require an unmanned turret?
Point defence systems tend to move rapidly to create a wall of flak. You wouldn't want to be inside.

I'm not convinced you'd want CT40 as a point defence system. It's not an unreliable system, but you want exceptionally reliable if it's your weapon of last resort.

sol
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 12:57 I'm not convinced you'd want CT40 as a point defence system. It's not an unreliable system, but you want exceptionally reliable if it's your weapon of last resort.
Well Thales and Nexter are developing a naval CIWS system RAPIDFire which will use CT40. Apparently it could also be used by ground forces

Image



Future French OPVs should be equipped with it

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... naval-ciws

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Yes this is the one I was thinking about. I guess it will he a competitor to the BAE 40 mk4.
It seems strange BAE pumped money into CTA unless it was under political persuasion if it could have just pushed their existing 40mm cannon onto the mod for the likes of cv90 and utilised it as an air defense system as well. For the money invested in CTA, Warrior and Ajax I just don't see the return when we could have purchased proven off the shelf systems with the latest sights, ammo, aps, digital networking without having to cut the number of units to the extend we have.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 14:55 Well Thales and Nexter are developing a naval CIWS system RAPIDFire which will use CT40. Apparently it could also be used by ground forces
Well aware it exists, but I'm not convinced by it.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 12:57 Point defence systems tend to move rapidly to create a wall of flak. You wouldn't want to be inside.
Turret crew tend to be close to the centre of rotation so I wouldn’t expect problematic accelerations to arise from turret movement.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you with the response times required, the turret would need to be automated so any crew would be redundant and simply make the turret larger, heavier, more complicated and more expensive. I suppose there is a reason Phalanx was not built as a manned turret.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

As point defence on a ship, with central fire control, you don’t need a turret crew but I don’t think anti-missile fire precludes a crewed turret. It ought to follow that a manned turret, with the right fire control, could engage in anti-missile fire.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 10:18 As point defence on a ship, with central fire control, you don’t need a turret crew but I don’t think anti-missile fire precludes a crewed turret. It ought to follow that a manned turret, with the right fire control, could engage in anti-missile fire.
Two issues, firstly a manned turret would need to be sufficiently armoured which would in turn reduce azimuth drive performance. Secondly, if you could achieve the azimuth drive performance needed for point-defence the positive and negative acceleration on the crew would be brutal if you wanted to achieve the necessary target coverage and multi-target performance.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 10:20 Two issues, firstly a manned turret would need to be sufficiently armoured which would in turn reduce azimuth drive performance. Secondly, if you could achieve the azimuth drive performance needed for point-defence the positive and negative acceleration on the crew would be brutal if you wanted to achieve the necessary target coverage and multi-target performance.
I don’t think those are problems. Manned anti-aircraft guns have been running for years.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 797
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 10:41
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 10:20 Two issues, firstly a manned turret would need to be sufficiently armoured which would in turn reduce azimuth drive performance. Secondly, if you could achieve the azimuth drive performance needed for point-defence the positive and negative acceleration on the crew would be brutal if you wanted to achieve the necessary target coverage and multi-target performance.
I don’t think those are problems. Manned anti-aircraft guns have been running for years.
Yes, and it's the 21st century and missiles are far more manoeuvrable than manned aircraft.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 10:45 Yes, and it's the 21st century and missiles are far more manoeuvrable than manned aircraft.
In any way that makes a difference to a weapon tracking them?
If it’s coming at the turret, it can’t move much off its trajectory or it won’t hit. If it’s going after something else the crossing speed is more important, but you wouldn’t be using a gun on it.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

BB85 wrote: 29 Nov 2021, 15:10 Yes this is the one I was thinking about. I guess it will he a competitor to the BAE 40 mk4.
It seems strange BAE pumped money into CTA unless it was under political persuasion if it could have just pushed their existing 40mm cannon onto the mod for the likes of cv90 and utilised it as an air defense system as well. For the money invested in CTA, Warrior and Ajax I just don't see the return when we could have purchased proven off the shelf systems with the latest sights, ammo, aps, digital networking without having to cut the number of units to the extend we have.
It's been mentioned in more than one place that the army preferred the Bofors 40mm for Scout/Ajax and Warrior upgrade. Not particularly because they thought the gun itself was fantastic but they did want the 3P ammo.

PS Bae didn't use their own money to develop CTA, it was an Anglo-French joint project.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The Bofors/BAEs 40mm is a very large gun for its size. One of the key selling points for the CTS was that it, like the 30mm Rarden, is very compact, especially in teh amount of space it actually takes up in the turret. It's ammunition, though expensive, is very powerful, many times that of rival 30mm and 35mm systems which were of comparable size. As for the desire for 3P ammunition, rounds of a similar capability are being developed for the CTA and I believe are ready for service or soon will be. But once again cost becomes an issue.

Does an AFV turret have to be manned? Nowadays no, with modern sights and other optics the Commander and Gunner can be safely housed in teh better protected hull of the vehicle. Remote stations also take up less room in teh actual vehicle allowing for more dismounts in the case of an IFV, and can still be reloaded for inside the vehicle as well. Here the CTS has advantages as well as its ammunition is very compact compared to that of the the 40mm L/70, meaning you can store more ready rounds in the turret and reserve in the hull, as well as being easier to handle.

Cost has been mentioned as an issue multiple times with regards to the ammunition, but both France and Belgium seem to be happy to pay for the advantages this weapon and its ammunition bring. Surely the UK with its budget can afford to cover the cost?

If Ajax goes ahead, and as yet nothing has been said to the contrary, the Regiments equipped with it need to be just that equipped. We have the basic family members on order, but there are other variants that are needed for these units to be able to fight effectively. There are three main capability gaps:
1. The lack of a long range ATGW to provide effective overwatch and precision strike. A weapon in the class of Extractor Mk2 is needed, either mounted on an Ajax chassis or on a towed trailer like it is now. WE already have a few systems but we need additional units not just for the Ajax formation but also for the Mechanised and Motorised Infantry units. This points to the trailer mounted version to save costs.
2. The Regiments are going to need integral Short Range Air Defence against everything from UAVs to Fast Jets. The Army's current SHORAD equipped Regiments are not enough to cover the Ajax formations effectively, and a platform with a rapid firing auto cannon is needed to supplement the existing Regiments but needs to be integral with the Ajax formations. Those Regiments in the Heavy Combat Teams will have access to the Heavy Combat Engineering platforms like the Titan.

If we can build our Recce Regiments equipped as such they will be very effective formations, wherever they operate. Is the Ajax the ideal platform for the roles it will be given, probably not but we have a production contract let so we need to make the best of it.
3. Combat engineering support, these formations and the M270s of the Artillery Regiments need combat engineering support beyond the Dismounts in teh Specialist Ajax variant. at a bare minimum there needs to be a Bridge Layer capable of launching a Bridge able to support Ajax and the M270 as well as Logistics vehicles. The relatively new Terrier CET is the other engineering component needed.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 18:31 Does an AFV turret have to be manned?
Depends on the AFV, the mission profile and the gun.
In some arrangements the manned turret will allow a smaller overall size AFV.
Protection levels is oft cited but frequently misunderstood. If it’s a fighting vehicle then the weapons need to be protected just as much as the crews. In some configurations the addition of crew will not much increase the area of armour needed.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 18:31 The Bofors/BAEs 40mm is a very large gun for its size.
Made me smile but everyone knows what you mean and its true! :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 20:03
Lord Jim wrote: 30 Nov 2021, 18:31 Does an AFV turret have to be manned?
Depends on the AFV, the mission profile and the gun.
In some arrangements the manned turret will allow a smaller overall size AFV.
Protection levels is oft cited but frequently misunderstood. If it’s a fighting vehicle then the weapons need to be protected just as much as the crews. In some configurations the addition of crew will not much increase the area of armour needed.
The latest CV90 120mm low profile turret is an interesting example. Has a small front view silhouette that's possible (I think) because it only holds one crew member or maybe one sits behind the other. In the photo, perspective makes it look even smaller.
Image

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 13:34 The latest CV90 120mm low profile turret is an interesting example. Has a small front view silhouette that's possible (I think) because it only holds one crew member or maybe one sits behind the other. In the photo, perspective makes it look even smaller.
The CV90 tank has an advantage in turret size because the hull is relatively deep, so the turret crew can be mostly in the hull. With a two man turret crew and an auto loader, the turret can be quite low to the sides.
The gun still needs to be high above the hull to achieve decent depression angles and if the autoloader magazine is in the bustle then the length is going to be similar to a manned turret with the crew higher up in it.
If the bustle magazine is wide to accommodate ready rounds, the frontal profile along the flat would probably be similar to a regular turret too. The real advantage is the frontal area exposed when firing at depression angles would be much lower for the CV90 low profile arrangement

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Yes, viewed from the side, the CV90 120 has a "normal" length turret.

I wonder how useful it would be as an infantry/IFV support tank.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote: 01 Dec 2021, 14:12 I wonder how useful it would be as an infantry/IFV support tank.
Probably quite good as a “tank destroyer” or self propelled gun, with the expectation that it would be operating from a reverse slope at range where the cleft turret design plays to its strength and the tall hull doesn’t matter.
Not so great as a manoeuvre vehicle, but the only tank on the field is still the best tank on the field, regardless of its other attributes.

sol
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

There is already a version of ASCOD equipped with Leonardo's HITFACT turret with 120mm. Ajax probably could be equipped with the same turret. Or any other turret like Cockerill 3105. I think that Cockerill also has(?) turret that could carry 120mm gun, XC-8, but if I am not wrong this is older generation than 3105. Anyway I don't see why British could not create an 120mm MGS version from Ajax if needed. Of course, if they make Ajax work properly in first place.

Post Reply