CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6409
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 41 times
United Kingdom

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Great video form the British Army regarding the deployments of the Royal Lancers Recce Regiment to Germany for exercise Somme Lancer. Nice to see an entire unit deploying once again, now we just have to see if we can deploy a combat ready Brigade over the same timeframe.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Yes it is a nice video. On the other side it is also disheartening to see that units need to came up with improvisations like those racks to carry NLAW outside turret so that commander, while exposing himself, could reach and use if needed. And its replacement, Ajax, is not addressing this in any way. It would be ridicules if units would transfer those racks to the new vehicles once they arrive, to be able to fight heavy armour, as they are not providing anything beside 40mm gun to counter those threats. I really don't understand why British Army is so against putting AT missiles on their vehicles.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 13 times
France

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

I would agree there is a lot of good and bad maybe bolting on a Hero 120 or two on to every other vehicle giving the units some organic air search and strike.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
:lolno:

If they'd baselined the turret 10 years ago they wouldn't be having these delays ;)

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
What do you think is obsolete compared to other turrets?

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 13:00
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
What do you think is obsolete compared to other turrets?
No AT missiles
No sensor mast
No APS
No anti-drone capability

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 10:34
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
:lolno:

If they'd baselined the turret 10 years ago they wouldn't be having these delays ;)
If they'd selected Bae for both programs, Ajax and Warrior CSP would be in service by now :lol:

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 15:05
RunningStrong wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 10:34
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
:lolno:

If they'd baselined the turret 10 years ago they wouldn't be having these delays ;)
If they'd selected Bae for both programs, Ajax and Warrior CSP would be in service by now :lol:
Oh yeah, with the CV90 MK4 that is barely out of trials and just got told try-again by the Czech :lol:

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 14:41
mr.fred wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 13:00
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
What do you think is obsolete compared to other turrets?
No AT missiles
No sensor mast
No APS
No anti-drone capability
1. Been around for decades. Hardly a obsoletion issue.
2. :lol:
3. Valid
4. Airburst CT40

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

It could do with a thermal Slieve or shroud over the barrel to reduce its IR signature. That would be an easy win.
I know APS and ATGM's can be bolted on after but they are very much a after thought. It looks clumsy, they will probably end up falling off with the vibration issues 😂

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Even if we had purchased the CV-90 Mk3 and developed a recce version with improved sensors, yes including a mast which does have value, we could have added a twin ATGW launcher as other nations have done, though maybe not on all vehicles. In fact we could have used the IFV version initiall as a recce platform and improved things later on. So a single order to cover the requirements of three to four Armoured Infantry and three or four Recce Regiments, basically using the same platform as other nation, bar the CTA40. This combined with Boxer would have covered two to three Brigade Combat Teams depending on the size and shape of the Armoured Regiment.

Me I would have created three Heavy Cavalry Regiments each with two eighteen strong Challenger 3 Squadrons and one eighteen strong Recce Squadron in this case equipped with CV-90 mk3. Then add an Armoured Infantry Regiment with CV-90 Mk3, a Mechanised Infantry Regiment with Boxer and an Artillery Regiment with either Archer of Boxer RCH. Each BCT would also have a Combat Engineer Regiment, a Signals Regiment that would also cover cyber and EW and a Logistics Regiment. Air Defence, besides that integral with the Infantry would be provided by one or more Batteries form a "Divisional" source and UAV assets would also come from that level though the Artillery Regiment would have a number also.

So a rough and ready vision, but the point is by going with BAe and not messing about too much with the design of the CV-90 mk3 besides the turret, and leave BAe to develop that without interference, we could by now have replaced both the CVT(T) and Warrior and be looking forward to the introduction of the Boxer and have at least the first new BCT operational by 2025.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 15:20
Ron5 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 14:41
mr.fred wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 13:00
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
What do you think is obsolete compared to other turrets?
No AT missiles
No sensor mast
No APS
No anti-drone capability
1. Been around for decades. Hardly a obsoletion issue.
2. :lol:
3. Valid
4. Airburst CT40
1. Being around for decades yet still not fitted to an Ajax turret is the very definition of obsolete

2. The UK predecessor programs to Ajax featured sensor masts. Something Ajax hasn't managed to deliver 20+ years later. Here's photo's of one of the early prototypes from the late 1990's. The vehicle was also required to carry anti-tank missiles..
Image

4. And how is the Ajax supposed to locate, id and target a drone? with a lad using bino's sticking his head out the top? That's assuming the air burst ammo is ready which it doesn't appear to be.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 15:18
Ron5 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 15:05
RunningStrong wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 10:34
BB85 wrote: 05 Dec 2021, 09:46 The Ajax turret is 10 or 11 years old now. It's out of date relative to what's offered by Rheinmetall and Hanwah defense in the Australian land 400 program. How these programs managed to get delayed by 5 or 6 years without heads rolling and financial penalties in the contractors is insane
:lolno:

If they'd baselined the turret 10 years ago they wouldn't be having these delays ;)
If they'd selected Bae for both programs, Ajax and Warrior CSP would be in service by now :lol:
Oh yeah, with the CV90 MK4 that is barely out of trials and just got told try-again by the Czech :lol:
The CV90 Mk4 did very well in the Czech trials and both it and all the other competitors (including Ajax cousin ASCOD) were thrown out for the same issue - incorrect submission documentation. Nada to do with vehicle performance.

I wonder if Ajax could manage to get around the Czech trial course without incapacitating its crew :lol:

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 15:17 1. Being around for decades yet still not fitted to an Ajax turret is the very definition of obsolete
Clearly you don't own a dictionary. AJAX doesn't have a 120mm gun either, obsolete! Wasn't that a Daily Mail story?
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 15:17 2. The UK predecessor programs to Ajax featured sensor masts. Something Ajax hasn't managed to deliver 20+ years later. Here's photo's of one of the early prototypes from the late 1990's. The vehicle was also required to carry anti-tank missiles..
Image
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for :crazy:
Ron5 wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 15:17 4. And how is the Ajax supposed to locate, id and target a drone? with a lad using bino's sticking his head out the top? That's assuming the air burst ammo is ready which it doesn't appear to be.
There's these things called electro-optics. They're often passive. Which is useful unless you want to send a big RF beacon into the sky.

The ammo isn't an AJAX issue.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I assumed Ajax would carry a tethered drone with optical sensors if it was trying maintain radio silence or avoid jamming then untethered the rest of the time. I like to think the army has significantly underplayed it's investment in UAVs.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

It might help to look at contemporary Masts such as fitted to the Fennek or to the Canadian Recce LAV, which I believe is or has now been replaced. The Canadian Mast had both EO and Ground Radar whilst the Fennek is just EO. Having the ability to observe the Enemy without anything but the Mast above intervening terrain must be advantageous? If the platform were also equipped with a ATGW like Spike-LR2 with its man in the loop capability, even better as the missile could be launched out of sight of the Enemy, giving his sensors little to react to. Just a few thoughts. And remember the time everyone was looking at sticking ATGW launchers on very high masts!

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

Perhaps a tethered drone would be a good short term fix. The recce screen is already using them and they have much wider field of view.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for :crazy:
In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.

BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework" :D

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:27 In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget.
You will note the absence of an ATGW from the BAE turret, or in fact any British Army vehicle.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:27
RunningStrong wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for :crazy:
In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.

BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework" :D
So every manufacturer of UK vehicles and upgrades have conspired to deprive the British Army of masts until recently? Why didn't Scimitar 2 have one? Or Supacat vehicles? Or the Bushmaster?

It's cute you pin everything back to one company. It's almost like they refused to hire you ;)

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:32
Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:27 In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget.
You will note the absence of an ATGW from the BAE turret, or in fact any British Army vehicle.
Yes, I have always thought that strange. The last serving ATGW platform I believe was the Striker with Swingfire (1st/2nd Generation), retired after the second Gulf War and the last developed was the Spartan MCT, unless you count adding existing pedestal Milan (2nd Generation) launchers to a number of Warrior for the first Gulf War. Now we only have infantry carried Javelins (3rd Generation), which might have been fine when we thought the days of nation on nation let alone peer conflict were past us.

Things have now changes and the threat has greatly increased compared to a decade ago. Many nations continued to develop and deploy new ATGWs and now the British Army needs to, and needs an interim heavy ATGW until the planned 5th Generation systems is developed. There are a number of 5th Generation ATGWs out there that can be networked etc. But the MoD seems happy to defer the capability for at least a decade in order for a home grown system to be researched and developed.

In the past the Army also preferred separate platforms for ATGWs such as those listed above with the exception of Warrior/Milan. Moving forward, this is a valid doctrine for weapons with very long range, 20km plus such as Brimstone, Spike-ER2, Spike NLOS, but at shorter ranges we need something more capable than Javelin and we cannot rely on the Challenger 3 especially for our light forces. Ideally we need a weapon with a range in excess of 5km and with a "Man in the loop", capability. It should be able to be man portable as well as vehicle mounted and be subject to on going development to ensure it is kept up to date with emerging threats. If said weapon system was also in use with many of our allies it would also be preferred. Well lucky for us such a weapon exists and is manufactured in Europe under licence, and this is Spike-LR2 (4th Generation), a weapon I repeatedly go on about I know. It would be the ideal interim weapon even if only for mounting on vehicles. Its man in the loop capability makes it less susceptible to passive counter measures for one thing and it has a greater range than Javelin. Both BAe and Rheinmetall have integrated the weapon onto numerous turrets they have developed and the pedestal launcher can easily be installed on light vehicles whilst being easy to dismount if required. The Army has already shown it has little interest in having common guided weapons across different platforms with its choice of ATGW for he Apache Guardian so having both Spike-LR2 and Javelin in service together, at least initally, should not be an issue.

As stated above, we cannot rely on Challenger 3 or Javelin to effectively engage enemy heavy armour moving forward. The former will not always be available and then only in limited numbers. The latter though improved lacks what are becoming essential capabilities. Add to this the need to have an under armour ATGW capability and there is a strong case for at the very least an interim purchase of a weapon like Spike-LR2, which has the possibility of being developed into a 5th Generation weapon.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:32
Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:27 In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget.
You will note the absence of an ATGW from the BAE turret, or in fact any British Army vehicle.
Which Bae turret? They have more than one turret type featuring an ATGW.

Regarding the BA, the discussion is what is or isn't obsolescence. The armored vehicles in BA service are on the whole obsolete. Hence the Cr3, Warrior & Ajax programs.

I believe the Kongsberg RWS in UK service (Boxer etc) is capable of mounting a Javelin although I do not know if any mounting kits have been purchased. But of course that doesn't help Ajax in its war fighting configuration.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:37
Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:27
RunningStrong wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for :crazy:
In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.

BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework" :D
So every manufacturer of UK vehicles and upgrades have conspired to deprive the British Army of masts until recently? Why didn't Scimitar 2 have one? Or Supacat vehicles? Or the Bushmaster?

It's cute you pin everything back to one company. It's almost like they refused to hire you ;)
They did offer me a directorship if I would get my company to place a multi-billion order but both my and my companies ethics wouldn't allow me to accept.

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

Re: CRV(T) Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 15:38
Which Bae turret? They have more than one turret type featuring an ATGW.
The WCSP/ SV turret. Not required so not fitted.
LM have put missiles on every turret concept they’ve show that’s not for the MoD

Kind of suggests that the lack of ATGW is an MoD thing rather than a supplier thing.

Post Reply