The Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) was the project name for a class of medium weight armoured vehicles that were intended to replace a number of legacy British Army vehicles such as CVR(T) Scimitar and FV432. FRES has been called the poster child for all that is wrong with the Ministry of Defence and the British Army; hundreds of millions of Pounds and many years frittered away for no value.
Based on a previous Think Defence project, this is a substantial re-write, bringing the story up to date.
The story of FRES, what went before and what came after;
From Scorpion
To Ajax
Table of Contents
As an outsider looking in – and a child of the original ‘Space Lego’ generation – hellfire….some of the shots look like giant Lego vehicles…. :)
I loved Space Lego.
I suspect some of the cost overruns is the result of “covering your arse” by the people in charge. Tests after tests with no firm results, or rather with results but no one dared to take the plunge and stamp their name on the conclusions lest it comes back and haunt their careers. So, more “tests” which absolutely do not matter. Most of the vehicles are analogous in performance so even if you picked X over Y, the “effect” is still the same. How much money could be saved if someone just went “screw it, pick a company with a good reputation and after sales service and place an order.”? A “super UOR” with long term maintenance and parts included?
First we should abandon the disingenuous attachment of the TRACER and other earlier costs to the current Scout/Ajax programmes- it helps nobody.
The current project is sensible, at reasonable cost, more-or-less on time and delivering excellent capability.
The earlier efforts failed for a variety of reasons ranging from over ambition down to (I would suggest) a lack of money to actually fund a procurement.
“More tests” are a very good idea, reducing risk as far as possible in the assessment phase cuts down on later nasty surprises and help fulfill requirements derived from operational experience. UORs are very effective at solving singular urgent operational problems (ie; my vehicles don’t have enough mine protection) but they are terrible at producing a well rounded product capable of operating in multiple scenarios for decades.
@Hohum
I do get the sentiment of “looking before you leap” that more tests provide. Unfortunately, there has to come a time when someone has to say “Enough information, make a decision already!”. As someone who worked in a Multi-National Company before, I have noticed a tendency for procrastination until close to deadlines even for major projects. I suspect with an open ended deadline, no one wants to take any action until something blows up.
As for the “UORs are bad for long term”, that is speculation and more importantly a situation very, very dependent on the product. Some are short term, short duration items. Others can be very robust and long lasting. It is not the selection process that produces a quality/non-quality product, the product stands alone regardless of the selection process. The selection process just chooses or rejects the item.
Hohum,
A platform acquired today may well serve 30 or 40 more years and have a procurement cost in the billions, I am quite happy that a few more million is being spent to make sure its right.
UORs are bad for the future, its not speculation its fact, we already know it.
Excellent series TD.
Although rather laughable. I think whatever happens they’ll be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Excellent series TD.
Although rather laughable. I think whatever happens they’ll be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Ajax will be almost identical to the Warrior, except it will be equipped like a cavalry / scout vehicle, such as for the family of the American Bradley, except for one detail, it does not have missiles on its turret, if it comes across a T-72 it will be destroyed. It will be a vehicle that cost about £ 6,000,000, which consume a lot of fuel, relatively slow, and no means to defend themselves against a tank, this leaves me very skeptical. The Scimitar had the Striker, who will protect Ajax.
“UORs are bad for the future, its not speculation its fact, we already know it.”
Prove it. Prove that a selection process will change the quality of a product.
MRAPs. Great for driving up and down roads in IED dense environments, wholly unsuited to anything else.
UOR is great at solving specific problems it is useless fir providing long enduring capability for diverse environments.
The fact you even wrote this “Prove that a selection process will change the quality of a product.” suggests you are completely out of your depth.
@Frenchie, I thought the whole point of a £6million network enabled recce vehicle with a glitzy day/night long range surveillance and targetting system is that if it comes across a T-72, the tank will be very unlikely to be able to know it’s there and quite quickly feel the benefit of Mr Apache or Uncle Brimstone.
@Frenchie, I thought the whole point of a £6million network enabled recce vehicle with a glitzy day/night long range surveillance and targetting system is that if it comes across a T-72, the tank will be very unlikely to be able to know it’s there and quite quickly feel the benefit of Mr Apache or Uncle Brimstone.
On UORs, we learn a lot fighting wars, and technological advances are usually accelerated by that process. In a way I think FRES also got lost in that process. If we ever have to go to Syria, God forbid, MRAPs will be useful, as will the lessons we learnt which required all of the other UORs. We learnt from Afghanistan and Iraq that land forces need to be armoured – scooting around in softskins is no longer an option. Its interesting that a basic MRAP with good off road performance is what we are looking at for MRV-P, not a light truck. UORs help us to respond rapidly to lessons learned, which then feed into better requirements for procurement processes, but of themselves they are often not perfect solutions. Personally, I’d rather we learned the lessons than saved a few pennies.
On UORs, we learn a lot fighting wars, and technological advances are usually accelerated by that process. In a way I think FRES also got lost in that process. If we ever have to go to Syria, God forbid, MRAPs will be useful, as will the lessons we learnt which required all of the other UORs. We learnt from Afghanistan and Iraq that land forces need to be armoured – scooting around in softskins is no longer an option. Its interesting that a basic MRAP with good off road performance is what we are looking at for MRV-P, not a light truck. UORs help us to respond rapidly to lessons learned, which then feed into better requirements for procurement processes, but of themselves they are often not perfect solutions. Personally, I’d rather we learned the lessons than saved a few pennies.
On the subject of UOR’s vs replacement programmes the new Humvee replacement might be a good example. The JLTV is costing £280k Inc R&D from Oshkosh ,a 4×4 with a little turret and a flatbed at the back to carry a pallet. 4 seater 4×4 bought by us costs £1m+ , no turret , no flatbed aka Foxhound.
That T72 will get a LAW 80 shaped whole. No need to fit an anti tank missile system at great expense when you can just carry two to three in the back of the vehicle.
as,
1) Law 80 is out of service
2) The T72 outranges the Law80 (or the NLAW) by quite a margin
3) the T72 takes much less time to fire and hit a target than it does for one of the vehicle crew to dive into the back, grab a LAW (or two) get out, get a firing position, set up, aim and fire a shoulder-launched rocket.
JFMBE – ref MRV-P – not really MRAP territory as the cash per vehicle can only deliver something like 7t armour. The JLTV costs more than MRV-P’s required price and that’s being bought in bulk (17,000?), not in small batches. The MRV-P DE&S information page that carries the target spec states they want sets of vehicles in the range 5t – 15t (all protected) – I suggest it would be a frosty night in hell before they get a 15t armoured vehicle for the price they are prepared to pay.
@mr.fred
Run and hide, then get out to shoot back or don’t get spotted in the first place.
Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon (NLAW) has a range of up to 600m.
Javelin has a range of 2500m.
That T72 can hit you out to at a push 4000m.
There are not many systems with that sort of reach.
So hide and wait till the get close enough to shoot back.
Its what anti tank teams have been doing right from the beginning.
I am not a fan of Ajax but we are getting it so we should make the most of it. I am now focusing on how we intend to use them, conjecture I know, but this is a forum after all.
Do we, given the reduced size of the Army, still need numerous Recce Regiments? Again Tier 1 opponents the Ajax will have to be paired with the Challenger 2 as it is outgunned by the opposition and to big etc. to avoid contact by stealth. The idea of relying on a few Javelin teams for self-protection, seems to be more a bit of spin to cover a gapping capability gap in the Army, that of a long range ATGW.
An Ajax equipped Regiment is going to be no less deployable than either an Armoured Infantry Regiment or even an Armoured Regiment. We will probably deploy combined arms Battalion level Battlegroups with a Squadron of Ajax, which leads me to the usage of the Ajax.
At most we should form a single Recce Regiment held a divisional level (Household Cavalry) like we plan to de with heavy artillery. It can deploy as a whole if we actually deploy on a divisional scale or squadrons to reinforce other formations. The bulk of the Ajax should be deployed as Recce Squadrons in each Armoured and Armoured Infantry Regiment. Other Ajax variants would also replace the Spartan and Sultan in these Regiments.
This will remove a Regiment form the Reaction Force Brigades, but hear again I think these formations are not what we really need for the future. They have a role and I would advocate retaining two, but I would also form two brigades equipped with what we are now calling the MIV. These would also be based around four Regiments. Each Regiment would have three infantry Companies equipped with a MIV armed with a RWS (12.7mm/40mm AGL), a Recce Company equipped with a MIV carrying the same turret as the Ajax, and a fire support Company with the Regiment support weapons. Ideally a direct fire support variant of the MIV should be developed in the future to equip a fifth company in each regiment, carrying either a 105mm or 120mm gun.
If you combing the above four brigades with the existing Rapid Reaction Brigade, you have a far more flexible force than the current planned three heavy Brigades. With the four brigades we have fourteen infantry Regiments, far better equipped than we do now. Once this is sorted out we would need to address the greater number of basically un-useable light role Regiments the Army retains. We will retain a Brigade for public duties, with a secondary role of rear area protection/support initially using many of the MRAPs brought back form Afghanistan. What is really need in the future is a cheaper protected platform able to operate as a battle taxi if required, a sort of a son of Saxon but with far better cross country mobility and mine protection, able to carry 8 dismounts. It would also be used to equip part of the RAF Regiment, supplementing or replacing their Panthers in a number of roles. If such a platform is ever procured it would equip at least one other brigade, preferably two, giving the Army a total of between twenty six and thirty Infantry regiments far more relevant to current and future needs that what is currently planned.
LJ – youch! MIV with Ajax turret atop? That’s a very heavy lump of ironwork to put on top of a wheeled APC; the thing would be forever falling over. Even worse with the extra tonne or so to fit a tank-sized gun.
@Hohum
I suspect you are unable to differentiate an opinion, specifically your opinion, from facts. UOR is a purchasing system, it does not affect the quality of the product. It seems like you are simply regurgitating “common knowledge” that has been repeated in opinion pieces again and again without understanding the logic behind the “knowledge”. “They” say that because long term logistics sales was not a primary consideration during UOR selection. There is nothing stopping you from adding after sales support into the contract in the first place. Or even later for that matter. This makes the “future maintenance will be difficult” line a bit moot. You bought COTS or MOTS, there is going to be a fair bit of spares floating around in the market, much more than a specialized limited localized design and build, adding a post-sales maintenance contract should be easy, especially if it was a global company with wide reaching sales. After all, it is what companies all around the world do. It is just that the British government call it by a fancy term “UOR”. And pretends that having a “U” in the term gets them the equipment faster than any company in the private sector. It doesn’t.
@as
LAWs are unguided weapons, if the target is moving, the chances to hit go way down. IIRC RPG-7s have a hit probability of about 50% at >100m for moving targets (can’t remember how fast), other unguided weapons should have similar characteristics.
Son of Saxon with better cross-country mobility sounds like the ideal role for the 8×8 (or perhaps 6×6) wheeled platforms, to me.
Make sure that it has a hole in the roof that you can use for a Protected Weapon Station or Remote Weapon Station or even a small turret (1 man or remote, keep the top weight and silhouette down).
Protection against infantry weapons and artillery – these things should not be going up against armoured vehicles with mounted cannon.
If you want a recce version with a manned turret then you’d have to look at some way to reduce the hull height, a la Centauro.
@Observer
NLAW guidence
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/
“In the predicted line-of-sight (PLOS) mode, the gunner tracks the target for three seconds and the missile’s guidance electronics makes a record of the gunner’s movement as he aims and computes the flight path to the predicted position of the target. It is unnecessary for the gunner to consider the range or angular speed of the target. After launch the missile flies autonomously to the target. The missile’s position in its trajectory always coincides with the target irrespective of range.”
@as
I was thinking of things like the LAW80 that you mentioned and the old 66mm LAW.
@LJ “a Recce Company equipped with a MIV carrying the same turret as the Ajax,”
So something like this then – 40mm CTA?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/jaguar_ebrc_6x6_reconnaissance_combat_armoured_vehicle_ebmr_scorpion_technical_data_sheet_pictures.html
Other the projects in train, Ajax, Warrior, MRV-P, MIV etc, I think the missing link is just some truly air portable firepower to support RM / 16 AAB or to act as recon in the adaptable brigades or firepower for RAF regiment say. This one even has built in missiles
The LAW80 had a ballistically matched spotting rifle built into it for the purpose of increasing the hit probability against moving targets.
The 40mm CTA Cannon Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot – Tracer (APFSDS-T) round is able to penetrate more than 140 mm of RhA (Rolled homogeneous Armour) at 1500 m. That is not that bad.
Ok no good for third gen tanks but most other Armoured vehicles should be able to deal with them.
Some older tanks like the T54 that have garbage amour.
AS, yes, but a single round costs more than the tank :)
@TD
That’s an interesting one. I’ve never seen any mention of the cost per round. How does it compare to a normal 40mm or 30mm round?
Have heard it said, fin is about 10 times the cost of standard 30mm
The GAU-8 avengers 30×173mm rounds supposedly cost something like $65 (£42) a round.
So our 40mm cost something like $650 (£423) per round if @TD Is right.
Ok that is expensive but compared to any missile its still cheap.
The cost per round should come down IF they can get more orders for the gun , more users , more rounds used etc . With only us and the French using them in very limited numbers its going to be very low production rates. In the end though aa 40mm 21st Century developed round is going to properly F**k up any equivalent opposition as well as trash the thinner bits , more vunerable bits of any tank whilst Ajax is accelerating backwards behind the nearest hill ;-) Sometimes its not just how you use it , its how big it is!
ha ha
Try quadrupling that, and add a cherry on top
http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/autocannon_ammunition.html
30mm Rarden
(APFSDS) $413 per case of 36 rounds
30x173mm
(APFSDS) $1172 per case of 100 rounds
Can not find a cost per round anywhere
I have to say I don’t like Scout/Ajax. I don’t understand the rational behind it. I believe it is too heavy, too large and under-armed. But even if you accept that a large heavily armoured vehicle is the way to go, its been poorly executed. Putting a large turret with a large sensor on what amounts to a standard APC/IFV hull does not produce an effective vehicle. It just makes it larger and heavier than it need be. Compare for instance Scorpion/Scimitar with Spartan, same basic vehicle but with different hull superstructure, this means that with turrets fitted Scorpion/Scimitar were no taller than Spartan and lighter. If the same had been done with Ajax at least it would have been a step in the right direction.
Moving on to the press release from GD when the order for Scout SV was announced I quote
To pick up on just one of the statements made, “…with a reduced logistic footprint”. Reduced compared to what? The only combat vehicle with a larger logistics footprint is Challenger 2, at best it will be no worse than Warrior. Unless the intention is to replace Challenger 2 with Ajax that statement is completely false. In fact considering it is replacing CVR(T) the logistic burden is going to increase enormously.
“
Actually I think @Frenchie is correct. Ajax needs some form of anti-tank weapon as does the M3 Bradley. In an ideal world, it would be a high velocity kinetic energy missile like LOSAT or the proposed CKEM to match the killing power and rate of fire of a tank gun. More likely, a few Brimstone in bins to the side of the turret….
Really we need a dedicated anti tank version. A replacement for Striker. Vertical launch tubes with brimstones in sounds good. Striker carried five plus five reloads so if it Ajax is a larger platform so may be eight with four reloads would be nice. Lease reloads if it gives you more room for launch tubes.
But how will the heavy focus in missiles be matched against the Russian preference for ERA and ADS? No point getting a missile based ATGM system, no matter how fond I am of them, if the enemy has defence against it, and layered defences at that, and for better or worse, the Russians are most likely to be the people you are up against. Or at least their exports.
I think Frenchie means that this would have been a better choice… 22 tonnes, gun and missiles ;-)
http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/174543_w7gbydei7lf2efjwfh_m8lobr.jpg
(Nice CGI, more here: http://www.coroflot.com/RoberDigiorge/Project-EBRC-Jaguar)
@HK
Whatever works. :)
The UK does seem loathe to equip its armoured vehicles wIth additional missiles. Didn’t the Kuwaiti Warrior come with a TOW system fitted?
I know they won’t want IFVs engaging enemy Tanks but “shit happens” Surely the addition of a Javelin to the turret or the purchase of a dedicated missile overwatch vehicle makes sense. That and a Tank Destroyer variant.
Would the current setup on the Stormer work vs a Tank? Would Starstreak or a variant of be an effective anti tank weapon?
@Dahedd
I think they used to. They had Swingfire missiles on quite a lot of things IIRC, then for some reason it fell out of fashion. It got replaced by the Javelin, but I guess mounting the Javelin hasn’t trickled down to a lot of units yet, especially considering that COIN was the BA’s biggest headache in recent years instead of Soviets pouring across the Fulda Gap.
For your viewing pleasure
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/vehicle-mounted-anti-tank-missiles/
Observer,
You are talking crap, you are genuinely trying to argue that simply buying stuff without proper evaluation is a good idea for generating long-term capability. You will be arguing against oxygen for humans next.
In service, Swingfire was only mounted on two AFVs, FV438 and Striker. The former served the mech inf, the latter armd recce. Swingfire was ‘fly-by-thumb’, a mode significantly inferior to SACLOS and automated guidance.
May 2014 saw successful trials of a LM turret with Javelins mounted. That particular turret had a 30 mm gun installed, so even though the test firings were in the UK, the effort may be directed at the US upgunning initiative (from their current 25 mm).
LMUK Ampthill is the UK party in that project.
TD’s viewing pleasure included a short vid which must be from those said trials. So a little bit of tweaking with turreted AFVs and something like this
http://armyrecognition.com/israel_israeli_armi_light_heavy_weapons_uk/spike_nlos_rafael_electro-optically_guided_missile_israel_israeli_army_pictures_technical_data_sheet.html
onto the SV Overwatch versions that will number about 1 in 10 vs the turreted versions
– handy though, direct fire and indirect fire in the same package; no need for line-of-sight gives a far greater “overwatch radius”. This may be the explanation for the relatively low total number planned?
All the images of EBRC (Jaguar as now named) look narrow, short in length and tall? I noted before that the modern turreted wheeled vehicles seem too tall for their own good, especially when they teeter on a narrow track short wheelbase chassis. I suspect there is a hint of ‘looking modern’ about it – making all armour cheese-nosed and externally featureless? In doing so the annoyances of wheelarches and suspension pockets and driveline accommodation all give the underlying armour structure unnecessarily complex shapes with lots of internal corners to trap blast pressure fronts. More fashion than functionality, trying to look sleek (if such a thing is possible with armour) in the eye of the purchasing government as a lever to gain sales.
@Chris “All the images of EBRC (Jaguar as now named) look narrow, short in length and tall? I noted before that the modern turreted wheeled vehicles seem too tall for their own good, especially when they teeter on a narrow track short wheelbase chassis.” I agree, there was an earlier vehicle called the Sphinx (not sure if it got beyond demonstrator) that looked lower and better in my view- a modern day Saladin!
I thought Sphinx (Sphynx?) was a good effort too. A lot of thought went into that design, from the information available online.
@Hohum
So what is stopping you from getting the supplier to sign a long term maintenance contract? He gets a fixed rate, any long term problems are his problems, not yours. I think you did not work out quite what the “evaluations” affect. And quit it with the ad hominem attacks if you please, it has no place in a serious discussion.
So can you tell me why signing a maintenance contract for a fixed rate means more cost for the UK when you have actually shuffled most of the risk to the supplier?
AS, that website you link to is a resource for the game Twilight 2000, not really applicable as a source of real world data! :)
Observer,
Epic misdirection, we were talking about UORs are unsuitable for developing long-term capability and you start banging on about maintenance agreements- where you still manage to be wrong.
Contractors have a choice in what they bid for, try and put too much risk onto them and they walk away. I know of several who have been burned badly and are actually reducing their risk tolerance as a consequence. For a public example look at Serco and the Australian Armidale contract. The alternative is to make the contract extremely expensive so the contractor can still make a profit even if things go badly.
@AKM
:)
Believe it or not, some game vocabulary did “infect” our army jargon. Specifically THACO from D&D. It became a slang term for “luck that doesn’t depend on skill”.
“He shot the ground and the round bounced into the target? That’s just THACO (prounounced Thy-ko).”
“His friend shot his range target by accident and he got his marksmanship badge? THACO!”
:P
Lets get started. I suggested that a MIV carrying the same turret as the Ajax would be a good fit for the Recce Company in the Infantry Regiments I proposed by equipped as such. This was simply the easiest option. Modern 8×8 can carry such a turret and many demonstrators have been shown doing so. Yes they are large platforms but that is reality. In addition the CTA40 would give the Regiments some direct fire capability. It would also allow the correcting of one recognised omission in the Ajax, in that the Recce MIV could be fitted with a Telescopic mast as there would be plenty of space to do so.
Regarding heavy ATGW, I was under the impression the British Army intended to replace Swingfire with TRIGAT LR, but that this was cancelled at the same time as TRIGAT MR. By the way Swingfire was in its final version a SACLOS missile and very accurate and effective against many targets due to its long range and large warhead (excluding ERA etc.).
Why the Army has not brought in a replacement seems to be purely as a result of higher priorities. Long range AT work is now the domain of the Challenger 2, partly justifying its retention and of course the Apache. NLAW and Javelin give the infantry some punch, but the Infantry battalions lack an integral long range AT capability. If the MIV brigades were formed I am pretty sure the priority for a long range AT capability would rise, either as a direct fire platform or a ATGW carrier. My preference is for the former as active protection systems are going to become more affordable in the future and hence more common. Fine you can overwhelm these with numbers but given the cost per round and probable shortage of launch platforms this would be far from ideal.
Could a platform such as the MIV carry a large gun. Well yes but It would be better if a platform “Based” on the MIV was developed, as has been suggest like the Centauro, rather than just bolt on a turret to the standard platform. In principal this could also replace some or all of the Challenger 2 fleet if the protection, both active and passive was acceptable.
It is a great shame, if as suggested, the Boxer is out of the running for consideration in filling the MIV requirement. its modularity gave it many advantages over its rivals and it was basically designed to UK specs. If politics can be ignored I would like to see the AMV being adopted, rather than the VBCI, as it is far more developed. As for the Piranha, well I believe it has reached the end of its development potential. It is still an effective platform, but with out a complete redesign, becoming a totally new platform, it should not really be considered, and the VBCI needs much greater development which I believe the UK should not fit the bill for.
I truly hope the CTA40 becomes a success. Its small size compared to other weapons of a similar size and the compactness of the ammo should make it very appealing to other customers. The problem is at present it is the new boy on the block and is not actually in service. Once it is I think things will look quite bright as countries overhaul and replace existing platforms and look to counter opposition that has improved their defences against ATGW and smaller calibre auto-cannons.
Finally giving the Ajax and AA capability using the planned AHEAD style round would be very useful against smaller UAVs and other targets. I would also like to see the Ajax being used to replace the Stormer as the platform for the Starstreak, with the turret being modified to the Thor configuration allowing alternative weapons to be fired such as the Martlet (LMM) and ATGWs, allow a multirole capability and flexible support platform. The Thor has been developed and tested so should be low risk option. With both a SPAA based on cannon and missiles, but being effective against other targets, yet more holes in the Army’s capabilities would be filled, but again it is a matter of priorities.
Talking of cannons/guns, at DSEi Denel had a similarly compact 30mm gun called GI-30; described as a 30x173mm externally powered cannon. The NATO standard ammunition is held in 25-round magazines attached to the breech so no belts or chutes to contend with, and spent cartridges (the flyer says) are punched out forward above the barrel. Quite a neat device to integrate I would imagine.
@Hohum
If you see it as “Epic Misdirection” and cannot accept any viewpoint but your own, then I think any further form of conversation or even communication with you is useless.
Chris
http://admin.denel.co.za/uploads/b76a57869d6b1447a1e8489d3781c195.jpg
Observer,
I accept fact based viewpoints, that is where you have fallen down.
TD – that’s the one. In the image there the LH magazine has less capacity presumably to leave space for a coax MG (or gunners sight?)
we might have lost an empire and no longer be a world power but at least we can still come up with awesome names for stuff. Loving Athena.
Personally, I think that one of the weaknesses in the trend towards RWS is the fact that a lot of the ammo storage is outside of the hull. It is going to be a very brave gunner who is going to have to stick his head out of the turret, sans even a gunshield and reload the weapon. If someone even thought of carrying extra ammo inside the vehicle and not just rely on the “ready to use”. Call me a traditionalist, but I still think the internal ammo-bin/feed chute system is still the way to go, even if you have to mount the HMG/GPMG/GMG on its side.
@LJ
Regarding telescopic masts, I’m not sure if they are really worth the extra cost and effort. Like RT, my idea of the perfect recce is 2 men deployed belly down on the crest of a hill with binos while their “recce vehicle” hides on the reverse slope. If you want to engage with ATGMs, EO missiles carry their own camera, so there is no need for a mast mounted camera when you can use the missile’s. I just don’t see the point in adding another thing that can break for a marginal capability that proper deployment and other equipment is able to cover.
As for the gun/missile systems et al, I do agree that it seems like a sensible way to go. I was thinking that one of the possible “future” developments for ATGMs to bypass ADS might be a standoff trigger somewhat similar to the old SADARM where the round fires the metal “spear” into the top hatch before the round enters the engagement range of the ADS. Might help bypass the Russian tendency towards anti-missile systems.
Observer, the operational analysis for TRACER specifically concluded that a mast provided a significant uplift in survivability. Interesting that the Spanish and I think Norwegians are putting masts into the Pizarro and CV90 recce variants
@Lord Jim
I don’t think that you need a large 8×8 for your wheeled vehicle program, it would make a new heavy vehicle, a wheeled 33 tonnes vehicle like Boxer would be redundant with tracked vehicles, it would make more sense to take a median vehicle . Patria AMV 6×6 version would be a better choice, or an American Stryker. I am for the creation of one or two “Stryker Brigade” which would expand the options for action of the British Army. Otherwise you will only be involved in conflicts of high intensity due to lack of operational mobility by the fact that these vehicles are not transportable by A400M and that the British army would not be able to deploy a brigade anywhere in the world in a short time.
@TD
Guess I’m just old fashioned. And paranoid. Seen too many things break in normal usage, even when they are “theoretically” not supposed to. Especially during rollovers. Unless the mast is stowed really well, the vehicle is going to roll over it. There goes your camera, TI and NVB. On the other hand, that is what happens to turrets and RWS when a rollover happens too so I guess it’s just my “comfort level” doesn’t reach up to the level of masts. :)
@Lord Jim: be aware Javelin has the kinematic capability to go out to 4750m, it’s the resolution of it’s IR sensor that restricts it to 2500m. At the moment, anyway!
With GDLS Europe building both the AJAX and the Pirahna V ( the European Stryker) could commonality be a factor. Same engine series , a manufacturer already familiar with the British Army’s needs and wants in detail of fit out etc could sway the choice and a cast iron guarantee to manufacture in the UK along side a greater UK involvement in AJAX (@ units 200 up IIRC) perhaps on a side by side production line. The US version has used a heavy cannon(105mm) in service and much will of been learnt in this respect.
@Frenchie
In my idea of an ideal world the proposed MIV would actually replace the Warrior, possibly using the turrets designed for the upgrade to turn the MIV into a wheeled IFV. I agree that the MIV I envisage will be on the heavy side (30t+) but it is going to be a front line platform and need protection. For the two to three brigades outside the reaction force something like the AMV would be ideal if the price was right.
What I would like to see is the UK following the US example and try to borrow (both Italy and Spain need the money) a number of wheeled platform variants, enough for a company say, to carry out operational trials to see what works and what doesn’t in regards to organisation, tactics and so on. I would prefer this to ordering platforms and then adjusting their roles to fit.
With Javelin, for a vehicle mounted version would it be possible to have a larger sighting unit to increase its effective range? That would certainly go someway to fill the lack of a Heavy ATGW in a British Army. Adapting the Thor turrets sighting system to be compatible with Javelin would be useful in theory.
Turning to two man team, EO Masts etc. well this works but we will have the wrong platform. Using the Wolfhound for Recce sections would be a way forward for the dismounted option, and probably be the cheapest. Better still would be something like the Fennek which combines the best of all worlds, small, “Stealthy”, excellent sensors and can carry its crew plus 2 to three dismounts. One issue currently with using dismounts is the amount of gear they need to observe, communicate to everyone, target etc. A platform like the Fennek carries all that. As things get smaller and lighter I am sure things will get easier for the footslogger though. When mentioning my theoretical Brigades I was trying to avoid introducing a new platform such as the Fennek for the recce role in the MIV Regiments, but that would be my first choice, even using it in the ATGW role as the Dutch are.
Thanks TD for the link to the old thread on missiles.
The first comment features a Spike being launched from a Plasan Sandcat. The Foxhound would surely be an excellent platform for similar use.
Replacing the Warrior with an 8×8 seems to me to only be an option if we were five years ago and it hadn’t happened, or if someone came up with a substantial sum of money to compensate for the wastage.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the gap in the British Army’s fleet is that currently filled by Mastiff. A relatively cheap, wheeled and hence mobile, protected mobility asset.
Weapons stations and support weapons are probably a good idea, but thirty to forty tonne armoured fighting vehicles are too heavy to provide the mobility needed, especially on wheels. It is also a hollow force as it has nothing to back it up.
6 wheelers look useful, but I wonder if an 8 wheeler might be more appropriate for long range transport, more of a tour bus than a battle taxi. Maybe there is room for both and a vehicle platform with both chassis available would be useful.
mr.fred I bet you’d never guess my set of vehicles includes just what you ask for…
Thank you for your reply Lord Jim, I understand better what you want to do and I agree.
I would also add that the limitation on the Javelin’s range is more likely a limitation of the seeker’s resolution (64×64 pixels) than that of the sighting system (240×2 scanning)
Interesting to see that in the Army 2020 reorganisation each of the 3 artillery regiments attached to 3rd mechanised divsion now has 3x AS90 batteries, 1 xMLRS battery and a troop of Exactor in addition to a HQ battery with Joint Fires Teams (who will probably get Ajax as targeting taxis). A troop of Exactor is not a lot, maybe 2-4 systems, but that’s some long range anti-tank punch too.
Interesting to see that in the Army 2020 reorganisation each of the 3 artillery regiments attached to 3rd mechanised divsion now has 3x AS90 batteries, 1 xMLRS battery and a troop of Exactor in addition to a HQ battery with Joint Fires Teams (who will probably get Ajax as targeting taxis). A troop of Exactor is not a lot, maybe 2-4 systems, but that’s some long range anti-tank punch too.
I think we underestimate what bringing the Ajax family, Warrior II, Wildcat and Watchkeeper into the fold will do. Overnight we will have gone from rather elderly metal box and power whisk force to a network enabled new armoured infantry, cavalry force with excellent tactical ISTAR. If we can add to that an air mobile wheeled IFV brigade (for urban/hybrid conflicts at range), AH-64Es with brimstone, reasonably good CLEP or new buy of MBTs and enough MRV-P to make sure all of our force troops and elite light infantry can have protected mobility if deployed, we will be in a very good place. A few more heavyweight ATGWs and some more capable artillery and ammunition would help too – but one thing at a time.
I think we underestimate what bringing the Ajax family, Warrior II, Wildcat and Watchkeeper into the fold will do. Overnight we will have gone from rather elderly metal box and power whisk force to a network enabled new armoured infantry, cavalry force with excellent tactical ISTAR. If we can add to that an air mobile wheeled IFV brigade (for urban/hybrid conflicts at range), AH-64Es with brimstone, reasonably good CLEP or new buy of MBTs and enough MRV-P to make sure all of our force troops and elite light infantry can have protected mobility if deployed, we will be in a very good place. A few more heavyweight ATGWs and some more capable artillery and ammunition would help too – but one thing at a time.
@James
Maybe. Before you decide what to buy, it might be a good idea to decide how you want to fight beforehand. For example, if you are on the defensive, it would be a good idea to strengthen your infantry, which is ubiquitous and suited for holding territory. This means a long ranged light support tank along the lines of the CVR(T) is viable since it is the infantry that is taking the bulk of the work of taking enemy fire and that investments into infantry ATGMs would yield good dividends. Inversely, if you are taking an aggressive stance that involves penetration into enemy held areas, the need for mobility almost certainly calls for vehicles, while the need for protection and hence the weight of the vehicle shoots up like a rocket. So before the buying spree, let us think of how we are going to use the Army first.
As a broad brushstroke, I think we can peg the operations into 2 components: 1) Aggressive or defensive and 2) Against a military or against an insurgency. Aggressive vs defensive I already broadly laid out the differences, against a military or against an insurgency affects things like “IED” protection. Against a military, “IEDs” or “mines” are actually less of a threat, uniformed enemies don’t have access to your lines of supply that an insurgency has. Levels of protection also differ. It is rare for an insurgent to have a 125mm high velocity cannon, usually you get things like RPG-7s or Kornets. Weapon wise, MGs and GMGs are usually more than enough, 105/120mm on insurgents is usually overkill. Not that it is a bad thing, just that the armoured vehicles that the 120mm is meant to kill are not usually part of an insurgent’s toolkit.
So what is the concept of operations for the “New British Army”?
Well it seems someone has well and truly lit a fore under the British Army’s ideas department. First we recently has the announcement of the MIV programme to provide the Army with a wheeled platform. Them came the announcement of the “Land Joint Strike Concept. Now the Head of the British Army has announced that the future of Britain’s MBT fleet is rising up the priorities ladder, with options ranging from a basic CLEP replacing obsolete parts, to a major CLEP to actually buying a new platform. No timescale has been announced but it appear the appearance of the Russian T-14 Armata has stirred things up. Given that in the past only the first option has been thought likely, and even that was on the slow burner, Are the Army ramping up the ante ahead for the SDSR to make the case for additional funding to cover all these new concepts and programmes?
I had a good look at Ajax at DSEi. It isn’t MOTS, but a comprehensive redesign of the ASCOD 2 platform and gives us exactly what we want for heavy armour reconnaissance and medium weight strike roles. The level of protection is astonishing for this class of AFV. It seems as though it will be a highly flexible and capable platform and much more so than the French EBRC Jaguar wheeled vehicle. (As Chris points out, a 6×6 configuration weighing 25 tonnes with a 6-tonne high-mounted turret is not an ideal recipe for cross-country agility). The Scout SV family will go anywhere without a problem. Of course, Cold War 2 underlines the enduring need for heavy armour and the tank killing ability of CR2’s 120 mm kinetic APFSDS projectiles. If we deployed Ajax against a peer threat, it is almost certain that Javeline launchers would be added and i think you’ll find that Javelin’s range is now well beyond the original 2,000 metres.
Also at DSEi was the latest version of CV90. This has matured into a truly an excellent vehicle. It now has hydropneumatic suspension, banded tracks and a pretty impressive digital backbone. We may not have bought it for Scout SV, but that hasn’t stopped BAE Systems from developing it further. Norway has just acquired a bunch of CV9035 Recce vehicles with the 35 mm Bushmaster III. I think it will be interesting to compare it to Ajax.
Where both Ajax and CV90 will struggle is in operations that require independent self-deployment over long-distances. Neither will be able to keep up with an 8×8 fleet on roads. Fleet mechanical availability tests I’ve seen show that tracked vehicles still don’t have the same degree of reliability as wheeled ones. Those armies that have 8x8s love them because they genuinely offer a superb range of capabilities across different operational scenarios. For this reason I welcome the adoption of MIV and I’ll take as many as we can afford, please. AMV, Boxer, VBCI 2 or Piranha 5 have all come a long way since the 2007 Trials of Truth. They’re very close in performance and we’ve seen the category converge in terms of specifications, weights and variant types. What the BA chooses will be a great vehicle. I guess it will boil down to cost. However, as US Army experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows, whatever we choose will need a larger weapon than a 12.7 HMG in a RWS mount. Germany is considering adding 30 mm cannon-equipped regiments to its Boxer infantry battalions to create wheeled rapid reaction brigades. All US Stryker Brigades in Europe are getting the 30 mm Bushmaster II. We should do the same. I would mount 40 mm CTA or 30×173 mm Bushy II in an unmanned Kongsburg MCT-30. It weighs 2 tonnes instead of 6. By the way, 40 mm APFSDS rounds cost well north of £1,000 each – they’re eye-wateringly expensive; some would say unaffordable.
In terms of our overall Army 2020 structure, two proper UK divisions would make a lot of sense. I would have one heavy armour division on tracks with CR2, Warrior 2 and Ajax plus a medium division on wheels with MIV, MRV-P and Jackal. Add 16 Air Assault Brigade plus ad hoc infantry regiments to reinforce the two primary divisions and such a structure is definitely achievable within manpower levels of 82,000. This structure would enable us to do anything anywhere with a pretty fast reaction time.
@as
The T-54 and early T-55 have more than 200mm of armour (RHA) on BOTH turret and hull front and as such will have no problem stopping 40 mm APFSDS-T rounds , even from point blank range. T-62s and later versions of T-55 have much better armour so are even more immune.
Now the CT40 might be able to puch through the side armor of these tanks but then again so will any other medium caliber round from 30mm and up.
In short…as good as the CT40 might be , its NOT a “tank killer”
@Monty
While the upgraded norwegian CV90’s are indeed now mkIII’s, AFAIK they are retaining the 30mm Bushmaster II/Mk44 as their main armament,
http://www.tu.no/industri/2014/02/28/her-er-norges-nye-panservogn
google translated excerpt
@MikeKiloPapa
CV9035 is in service with Denmark and Netherlands, not Norway. My bad. Holland is selling its vehicles to Estonia. (Holland also sold its entire Leopard 2A6 fleet to Finland too. Nuts if you ask me.) CV9035 turret with Bushmaster III turret will be used on AMV CRV for Australian Land 400 bid.
http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/#folio=34
I note they are fitting an elevating mast to it as well Monty
Monty,
In the main I am in agreement with your argument, but this
” The Scout SV family will go anywhere without a problem”
is not true as there is no bridging capability provided within the same weight class. [ And Ajax, of course, is not amphibious either.]
@Monty
The Dutch are now going to lease back a Sqn’s worth of Leo’s from the Germans after they have been brought up to 2A6 standard. They are also going to integrate their 43 Mech Bde with the Germans 1 Panzer Div.
Dutch mechanized brigade to be integrated into German panzer division
http://www.janes.com/article/54636/dutch-mechanized-brigade-to-be-integrated-into-german-panzer-division
TD do you think the reason not to go for an elevating mast on Ajax is beacuse;
1) Not as good as a UAV and a lot more expensive than a day/night panoramic commander’s sight?
2) Cost – part of vaunted the ‘growth potential’ of the platform?
3) they want them to be dual purpose – light armour with a RWS or recce with the Orion commanders sight?
4) any combination of the above?
TD do you think the reason not to go for an elevating mast on Ajax is beacuse;
1) Not as good as a UAV and a lot more expensive than a day/night panoramic commander’s sight?
2) Cost – part of vaunted the ‘growth potential’ of the platform?
3) they want them to be dual purpose – light armour with a RWS or recce with the Orion commanders sight?
4) any combination of the above?
Also the ‘joint fire control’ and ‘ground based surveillance’ roles are due to have dismounts with addtional equipment, presumably for targeting and optical/radar surveillance. Do they think that a couple of guys climbing the nearest minaret or ridge is a better solution to a mast maybe?
Also the ‘joint fire control’ and ‘ground based surveillance’ roles are due to have dismounts with addtional equipment, presumably for targeting and optical/radar surveillance. Do they think that a couple of guys climbing the nearest minaret or ridge is a better solution to a mast maybe?
Monty, great find, that last link:
” soon to be three users in *Europe*, not speculating on the Australia deal.
As NL has only a training squadron of tanks, Estonia none at all, I feel the supershot for the ATK 35 mm soon coming? One CV buyer (of the std 30mm Bushmaster) assessed the kill capacity of the 40 mm Bofors and the supershot to be the same… and chose the (potential) upgrade path, rather than the dead end with a gun that has not been developed since the 90’s, or probably 10-20 years before).
With reference to other comments on the thread.
1. The biggest gap in the army is not Mastiff, it is a Bulldog/432 replacement which could be replaced by an 8×8 if you want to go down the route of mixing wheels and tracks. (I am personally not a fan of doing this)
2. If you want something lighweight and portable then you are really looking at nothing above 15t. Anything heavier and you do not gain any advantage from the reduced weight of the vehicle. All of the new French vehicles are in the 22-24t range which excludes lifting by C130 and only allows one in an A400, so a vehicle in the weight ranges of Boxer, AMV etc would give you better protection and growth with pretty much the same air portability.
3. There is zero point in giving just the Infantry a new vehicle without also making it available to the close support units that support them. Mounting your CS units in Mastiffs will drastically reduce the maneuver capability of your formations. We have had a problem with CS units keeping up with the armoured formations since the introduction of Warrior and Challenger and they are mounted in Bulldogs so a Mastiff is going to be of no use in those formations.
4. There is no longer such a thing as a front line any more, it has been proved from the Balkans to Afghan, Hybrid, 3 block war whatever you want to call it is here to stay so we need a vehicle that is usefull enough in these scenarios and capable of supporting heavy armour when needed in the usual ten year dust up (if recent history is any indication) which generally points to an 8×8.
@ACC
‘is not true as there is no bridging capability provided within the same weight class.’
We purchased a few sets of REBS for Afghan so there is assault bridging available or you could launch from a TBT plus we have ABLE.
@TD
Are you aware of what has happened to REBS since the draw down , has it been taken into core?
DN, not sure about REBS
Jaguar is currently only a vehicle that does not exist, but from what we can see from the specifications, there are many relevant things.
1- variable ground clearance. This gives an accurate driving profile.
– Down to the high speed highway;
– Medium for off-road;
– Up to the trapped areas.
2 – rear axle steering is a very good thing. This is a very big plus. Also for its inflation pressure variation.
3 – panning viewfinder is paramount. The observation skills, especially at night, are improved.
The shooter and the driver can control. This will be night observation without moving the turret. Low acoustic signature and energy saving.
The disadvantage of my idea is to extend the front of the survival of the cell frame. This increases the weight because it takes more shielding.
And don’t forget that it will be amphibious.
@MikeKiloPapa
T54 armour:- Frontal glacis 120 mm (4.7 in), sides 80 mm (3.15 in), rear 45 mm (1.77 in), turret front 200 mm (7.87 in), roof 30 mm (1.18), bottom 20 mm (0.79 in)
T55 armour:-Frontal glacis 120 mm (4.7 in), sides 80 (3.15 in), rear 45 (1.77 in), turret front 200 (7.87 in), roof 30 (1.18 in), bottom 20 mm (0.79 in)
T62A armour:- 20 (hull bottom) to 214 mm (turret front)
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/coldwar_soviet_tanks.php
The 40mm CTA Cannon Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot – Tracer (APFSDS-T) round is able to penetrate more than 140 mm of RhA (Rolled homogeneous Armour) at 1500 m. So it can pierce everywhere but the turret front which is 200mm.
Don’t know about any of these, and would be happy to learn:
“We purchased a few sets of REBS for Afghan so there is assault bridging available or you could launch from a TBT plus we have ABLE.”
My point was that if you have a recce formation that has high mobility and and high protection, but the bridges have been blown… is there anything in the same category that can get them across?
The Chally2- based assets are numerous (now that the MBT number is much down), but they don’t really fullfil that definition.
@as
RHA numbers are only approximates, not to mention weapons testing is done fired 90 degrees at the target. In real life, the armour would be sloped which throws calculations off, especially on the front glacis. Add to that the effects of ERA and spaced add on armour and any calculations would end up very suspect.
I don’t think anyone uses RHA anymore, the measurement is a historical standard, not an “in use” armour type.
as,
my source says 100mm hull front, but sloped at 60 degrees, so that’s 200mm line of sight.
Side is 80mm, so that’s resistant to 40mm fire over a 30 degree frontal arc.
And that is neglecting any up armour work or limited behind armour effect on a marginal penetration.
@as Re comment 90,
I don’t know why we are discussing ancient tanks, except for the reason (perhaps?) that there are actually stats on them . A forum called InvisionFree says:
” Always hitting the side armor is unlikely, as that’s what the Israelis did during the Six Day War yet close to 35% of the hits are registered to hit the tank front 60º. During the Yom Kippur War near 55% of the hits were registered on the front 60º and during the Second World War (the most ‘copied’ war of NationStates) this percentage increases up to the 70% mark!
This doesn’t even begin to take into consideration the armor protection between the 60º and 90º protection arc in main battle tanks, or up to the 120º degree arc! The Black Eagle, for example, has explosive reactive armor integrated into the front 120º arc of the turret. One source claims a turret armor protection of up to 880mm for the Black Eagle, although if an improvement in side turret front armor over the T-80U is assumed then we’re looking at more than 400mm worth of protection against kinetic energy (KE) threats in terms of conventional armor.41 If Kontakt-5 provides 300mm worth of equivalent armor against APFSDS,42 then it’s possible that the Black Eagle has a side turret front protection level of over 700mm RHAe, and possibly up to 800mm RHAe.”
– quite different from the 120 to 204 mm RHAe?
– that nice frontal nose, around a modern Leo’s gun turret probably beats these numbers (from 2007) by order of 2 x ?
@ArmChairCiccy
“I don’t know why we are discussing ancient tanks”
Because to this day the T55 is still the most numerous tank in service world wide so they have a tendency to be the tank that any enemy will have. A lot of these country’s use stock no upgraded examples.
Ok, let’s fight the Ogaden and Angola tank battles again. Can’t remember any, barring the Arab-Israeli ones where the thousands of tanks involved required the young & old to be put into the line, where the at least a T72 standard would not have been the main one to contend with?
Saying that the Ajax will not be able to fulfil it recce role as it isn’t amphibious and there is no AVLB in the same weight class ignores the fact that the CVR(T) was in exactly the same position.
The Iraqi army had far more T55 and Chinese knock off that T72s. The latter only equipped the Republican guard division where as the former though updated somewhat, provided the armour in all the Army divisions. Some ex soviet clients still use the T62, especially North Korea where it is their main tank. Yes there are many operators of the T72, but with the exception of Syria, the majority have at most 150, and many of these are actually second hand from ex-Warsaw Pact militaries. If we move to the T80, these are few and far between with Pakistan being the main export customer, with other user having less that 100 each. Finally with the T90, the main operators are India and Russia, the former having four times as many in service as the latter which was a surprise to me.
Ok the CVR(T) could cross rivers if it use a flotation screen, but rather you then me.
Regarding the Iraqis, I was of course referring to the first Gulf War and meant to say Republican Guard Divisions.
LJ – ref floating CVR(T) – a story. There was a sales team sent to South America to push CVR(T) exports. One of the selling points was that the armour could cross rivers without bridges. A demo was set and officials were invited to watch. One of the company team was on the ball – noticed that the river crossing had enough of a flow compared to the pedestrian speed of a swimming Scorpion for the vehicle to be washed downstream and out of sight before reaching the opposite bank. Not good for the spectators. So there was a conflab; the decision was made to run a line across the river to the obvious exit point onto which the vehicle would be hooked front and rear (so it kept pointing in the right direction and could continue to make its slow progress across). Big-wigs arrived; the demo team erected the canvas floatation screen; the top of the screen was as decided hooked onto the crossing line front & rear. The driver set the vehicle off into the water. All looked just fine until buoyancy lifted the tracks clear of the river bed… The force of the current pushing against the bluff side of the vehicle and its screen tried to push it downstream but the tethers at the top resisted – with a pivot axis at the top, the vehicle tipped with the force of the flow and the upstream edge of the screen dropped. It took just a few seconds for the canvas bucket, and the vehicle below, to fill with water. The driver reported that despite the flow of water piling in, his exit was the fastest he’d ever managed. I believe the senior officials left a bit unimpressed.
In all the attempts of floatation screens they share the same blindingly obvious issue; that they are wide open at the top and generally float with less than a foot of freeboard. that gives precious little resilience against choppy water, uneven terrain on landfall, or leakage. It would seem obvious that a spraydeck of canvas drawn in from the upper rim would dramatically increase resistance to water ingress over the top – shame this wasn’t tried. As it is, the effectiveness of floatation screens beyond the point where tracks can keep contact with the sea bed/river bed would seem best illustrated by this D-Day DD Sherman:
http://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/imagelibrary/IMG_7%20wrecks%20of%20D-Day.jpg
@LJ, sure, but when I said “to contend with” I meant what you have to be prepared to meet. Then there are the other assets, down to 1t trucks with a canvas cover over the back.
@Observer, if RHA as a std has been abondoned , how would you make any comparisons? Is there a new std (I believe it is still customary to convert into RHA equivalent while, of course, OpSec plays a big role).
UK explores Stryker vehicle platform at US exercise
http://www.janes.com/article/54803/uk-explores-stryker-vehicle-platform-at-us-exercise
‘Brigadier Robin Sergeant, the brigade’s commander, said the bulk of the UK contingent was at the AWA “to demonstrate that we are able, as a UK brigade – an organisation of five to seven thousand men and women – are able to fit into a US division”.’
Is there a possibilty of Strykers being purchased for MIV with the new brigade being seen as slotting straight into US formations?
@ACC
Think you misunderstood. as(the person) used RHA as the benchmark for penetration, then assumed that any armour thickness figures was automatically RHA, which is not a given. It could be 200mm of composite for example, or ERA, or spaced armour, which would make like for like comparisons unreliable.
I really should compile all these into one reply.
@DN
I’m really not so sure about the Stryker, in my eyes, it looks light. Very light. I know the later models have weight creep up to the 25+/- tons, but that is using up their growth potential early. Might as well get a 25 ton monster at the start (and all the protection that implies) and have some room left over for weight creep, applique etc. It might be a visual illusion but it looks to me that the wheeled IFV/APC might have a bit more protection than the contemporary tracked IFV. Or it could simply be a matter of newer armour technology. Or simply an illusion. Compare how a Warrior looks with how a new Boxer looks, it does seem that the Boxer is tougher.
I read it that the Army is experimenting with how a company and a brigade can use 8×8 in the generic sense. It happens to be Strykers becuase this exercise is with the Americans and they’ve got enough of them not to mind lending us a few, plus they train at scale. So far so interesting but I wouldn’t conclude that Stryker is put at any significant advantage in the MIV competition by this exercise.
@ACC
I understand, it brings up a question I have asked many times but all I have received in return is silence. That question is, “Who are the opponents we should be using as a benchmark the planning the future procurement, ad structure of Britain’s armed forces”?
Many people talk about the need for Heavy formations but not who we are likely to need them against. If the heavy equipment is to be used to support lighter formations them do we really need three large heavy Brigades?
There is also the size of possible deployments, and the much vaunted ability to deploy a Heavy division to support the Rapid Reaction brigades, actually down to one as 16 Airmobile Bde, has lost its integral Apaches and so is now a very weak formation with only two battalions plus support units. Yes we will be retaining this ability on paper, but even if Mr Putin rolls into the Baltics I cannot see us deploying more than a heavy Brigade, two at most.
Observer @10:18, sure, the conversion to RHA is the dark art… worth a lot of money
DavidNiven said:
1. The biggest gap in the army is not Mastiff, it is a Bulldog/432 replacement which could be replaced by an 8×8 if you want to go down the route of mixing wheels and tracks. (I am personally not a fan of doing this)
MIV IS CONCEIVED TO BE A REPLACEMENT FOR BOTH MASTIFF AND FV430 SERIES VEHICLES. MOST MODERN 8X8S CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FV430 COULD DO BUT ARE BETTER PROTECTED AND MORE MECHANICALLY RELIABLE. I AM NOT A FAN OF MIXING WHEELS WITH TRACKS EITHER: TRACKS CANNOT KEEP UP WITH WHEELS ON LONG ROAD DEPLOYMENTS.
2. If you want something lighweight and portable then you are really looking at nothing above 15t. Anything heavier and you do not gain any advantage from the reduced weight of the vehicle. All of the new French vehicles are in the 22-24t range which excludes lifting by C130 and only allows one in an A400, so a vehicle in the weight ranges of Boxer, AMV etc would give you better protection and growth with pretty much the same air portability.
FOXHOUND AND JACKAL FALL INTO THE SUB-15-TONNE CLASS AND WE ALREADY HAVE PLANS TO EQUIP THREE INFANTRY BATTALIONS AND THREE CAVALRY REGIMENTS WITH EACH TYPE RESPECTIVELY.
3. There is zero point in giving just the Infantry a new vehicle without also making it available to the close support units that support them. Mounting your CS units in Mastiffs will drastically reduce the maneuver capability of your formations. We have had a problem with CS units keeping up with the armoured formations since the introduction of Warrior and Challenger and they are mounted in Bulldogs so a Mastiff is going to be of no use in those formations.
THE MCC TEAM AT ARMY HQ ANDOVER WOULD LOVE YOU FOR THIS REMARK. YOU ARE 100% RIGHT. WE NEED CAVALRY REGIMENTS EQUIPPED WITH A DEDICATED 8X8 MGS / FSV VEHICLE AND ARTILLERY REGIMENTS WITH AN 8X8 MOUNTING SOMETHING LIKE A 120 MM BREECH LOADED MORTAR AS A 105 MM GUN REPLACEMENT.
NOT SURE ABOUT USING M1126 (PIRANHA 3) AS THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE WEIGHT FOR THE VEHICLE IS ONLY 19 TONNES, MEANING IT CANNOT CARRY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ARMOUR AS BOXER, VBCI OR AMV WHICH NOW ALL GO TO 32 TONNES. PIRANHA 5 WOULD BE BETTER THAN PIRANHA 3.
4. There is no longer such a thing as a front line any more, it has been proved from the Balkans to Afghan, Hybrid, 3 block war whatever you want to call it is here to stay so we need a vehicle that is usefull enough in these scenarios and capable of supporting heavy armour when needed in the usual ten year dust up (if recent history is any indication) which generally points to an 8×8.
AMEN.
ACC,
RHA conversion also comes with the entertainment that it is different depending on what the threat is. CE vs KE and AP vs blunt to name a few.
Lord Jim,
Whatever the answer is, it ought to be consistent and should not delude itself.
I would suggest the broadest range of utility available, so some wheeled, lightly protected AFVs would seem sensible. What I wouldn’t want to do is try and put these large silhouette, thin-skinned up against a half-way competent fighting force with modern weapons. Defences against 30mm cannon, for example, is deeply questionable since the only place these weapons are found are on AFVs, If you are fighting someone operating AFVs then you need something equivalent.
An example opponent, at the moment? Russian or Chinese equipment seems the most likely adversary right now. We might want to consider the likelihood of systems traditionally linked to the Western hemisphere being used against us. Since we are likely to procure systems for the long haul, the ability to cover all bases would seem sensible, even if that requires the dreaded FFBNW.
Monty,
Why do you want a 32 tonne wheeled vehicle? What is it going to be protected against?
The capability to go that high might be nice if you could also reliably and efficiently run the vehicle at a 10t level.
120mm Mortar might be good off the shelf, though I’d like to consider a 105mm light gun update.
A modern vehicle beating the 1960’s FV430 in terms of mobility, reliability and protection (at twice the GVW) shouldn’t really be any kind or surprise or really anything to crow about.
The FV430 series is to be replaced by SV and ABSV, both of which make more sense for supporting their respective battlegroups in terms of logistics and mobility than a wheeled vehicles.
So the Mastiff-equipped formations, brought into core from UOR and wearing out, are for me the gap in capability.
mr fred, think the more appropriate question might be “What do you want to do with a 32-ton wheeled vehicle?”, and the answer is probably something along the lines of “Replacement for the Warrior/Bradley”, a medium weight cav screen vehicle. I disagree on the 10-tons low weight limit because by the time you uparmour it to 30 tons, there is no longer any more margin for error. Unfortunately, this might mean a dual vehicle fleet, one high mobility 10-ton vehicle and another high intensity 30-ton combat vehicle.
On the other hand, the characteristics of a 10-ton light armoured vehicle and a 30-ton medium armoured vehicle is so different that both of them can’t possibly use a similar playbook, so maybe a split might be for the best lest a 30-ton configured vehicle hides from 14.5mm rounds while a driver forgets that he is driving a 10-ton missing applique and drives into penetrating fire.
Personally, I think the main problem we have is that there are 2 types of possible wars to plan for in the future and both have somewhat contradictory requirements, along with a few other unique quirks of the NATO army. First you have possible high end opposition like Russia or more likely other Middle Eastern states, which require fairly heavy protection and firepower and mobility to strike deep into the enemy. This is counterbalanced by the COIN wars that you have been sucked into post-invasion, which do not need heavy firepower or protection, but require substantial presence, route security and IED protection. Parts of these 2 conflict with each other and finding a vehicle to suit both is a very herculean task.
The quirk of NATO that I mentioned before is a bit strange, at least in my eyes. To defend the outskirts of the countries in the organization, NATO forces require a high degree of mobility to actually reach the area of ops in time, and when they reach the location, they are required to take up defensive positions, which is where the contradiction arises as mobility is more of a criteria for an *attacking* force rather than one on the defensive as the defenders are usually more able to… I forgot the term for it… reposition in the interior?…shorter lines to reposition?… the term will probably come back to me when I least need it, but the jist of it is that the defenders usually do not need to move as much as the attacker and can afford to lose a bit of mobility, which was why light infantry is still so effective despite being as mobile as tourists on a tour bus. NATO on the other hand is a high mobility long ranged *defensive* force, which does end up having a mish-mash of expeditionary qualities and local defence qualities. Not to mention that your “defensive” force is often used recently in a distinctly none defensive way.
So you end up with equipment that tries to do it all. Good luck. You really might have better luck splitting the requirements to get something that won’t be neither fish nor fowl.
I don’t understand why you want wheeled vehicles for the infantry of heavy brigades. I don’t see why you don’t use the Warrior that you have in surplus, with the enhancements, to make the same thing. I know why the French have wheeled vehicles, but the heavy brigades of the British army, I don’t know.
Then to light forces, the Jackal and Foxhound are too lightly armed and protected for conflicts of medium intensity. The French will have the Jaguar in the role of the Jackal and the Griffon in the role of the Foxhound.
Similarly we will Leclerc in the role of Challenger 2, the VBCI in the role of the Warrior, the VBL, the Griffon and perhaps the CRAB in the role of AJAX. I don’t know if tracked vehicles are better than wheeled vehicles, it would require a real war for see, what I don’t want.
Well, that’s all I have to say.
@Monty
“. . . AND ARTILLERY REGIMENTS WITH AN 8X8 MOUNTING SOMETHING LIKE A 120 MM BREECH LOADED MORTAR AS A 105 MM GUN REPLACEMENT.”
You seem to be more than a bit of an expert on wheeled vehicles. I just wanted to ask whether a wheeled vehicle, even an 8×8, would be a) stable enough and b) sturdy enough to mount a 120mm Mortar. I don’t know much about the subject but I do know that the Americans had a considerable amount of trouble with their attempts to mount a Direct Fire weapon on Stryker. I think those problems have been mostly resolved now but would there be similar problems with a mortar of such a size and weight?
Mike W,
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3346.html
Seems to work.
@Mike
Then there is also the AMOS mortar. Or the ST Kinetics 120mm SRAM on the Saudi Agarab. Or even a light strike vehicle.
@mr.fred
‘The FV430 series is to be replaced by SV and ABSV’
What FV43’s are the the SV variants replacing? I was under the assumption that they were replacing the CVRT series of vehicles. The ABSV as far as I understand are going to replace the 430 series within the armoured infantry btn’s such as those used for mortars, command and ambulance etc. What will you use to replace the 430 series within the close support units of the armoured brigades?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyn5uWCXgJg Rosomak (AMV) with heavy mortar, and
a direct fire (support version Wilk of the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X65qPiRoGe0
While I was looking for them, a new Polish MBT (with a citadel and active protection… Armata-like) seems to be emerging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5tzKYwpT1o
DN,
Good point, I’d forgotten about the armoured regiments. I’d recommend SV for them but I don’t know if that’s going to happen.
On that subject, anyone know what vehicle will fill the recce role of CVR(T) in the armoured regiments and AI battalions
ACC,
The PL-01 is a dressed-up CV90 with a 120mm gun. Interesting, to be sure, but nothing radical.
Many thanks to all who have replied, providing examples of 120mm mortars on wheeled 8×8 vehicles. I was obviously worried about nothing really.
@Observer
Interior Lines?
@Mr.fred
I’m assuming that Ajax will replace Scimitar in Armoured & Armoured Infantry units, taking on the close recce role. A role I think it is more suited to than Medium or Formation Recce.
I should think each Armoured Cav regiment will have not more than 40-50 turreted Ajax, so plenty left over for Armoured Regt. and Armoured Infantry Bn. close recce. troops. and for RA OP (or Joint Fires Teams, as I think they are now called)
@Observer. Very interesting post. Yes interior lines (Napoleon and all that). I beleive the thinking coming out of the US is about having to fight hybrid wars against mixed SF and militia in large coastal cities very far away in the blurry space between war and peace (Sevastopol, Tripoli or Lagos). Need something to provide protected mobility in urban spaces against infantry weapons and ieds, maybe amphibious, very rapidly deployable by air and with a punch to deal with legacy amour. Not a replacement for heavy armour, but a rapid response force. In a peer to peer punch up on the Ukrainian Steppe or Syrian desert you need tracked armour. But that’s not the most likely scenario – more likely some sort of shadow world where Russian SF are supporting lower grade Syrians and so on, everything deniable. Reckon medium wheels are more survivable than light infantry and and can get to the fight much more quickly than heavy armoured infantry. They might be wrong though ;-)
@JF, 23 of those “and for RA OP (or Joint Fires Teams”
“The UK does seem loathe to equip its armoured vehicles wIth additional missiles. Didn’t the Kuwaiti Warrior come with a TOW system fitted? I know they won’t want IFVs engaging enemy Tanks but shit happens”
I think that the most elequont answer that can be provided is this clip from “Pentagon Wars”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
I think it answers that better than anything I could say in a reasonable amount of text.
Fitting Ajax with ATGW would be a sensible option, particularly as its meant to fight for information! Making it so large and heavy isn’t.
The Land Joint Strike Concept seems rather confused as the talk is of combing the future MIV with Ajax, wouldn’t it make more sense to either base it around MIV or around Ajax and its derivatives?
Not knowing what the Land Joint Strick Concept actually is and how its to be implemented, apart from the above, I suppose we will have to just wait and see.
Yeah fitting the Bradley with missiles was such a dumbass idea that no one has followed that model going forward…clearly the Russians and Germans who really know armor took one look at that and said hell no.
Thy movie is funny, but it really has little basis in reality.
I always hated how people treat that movie like it was the gospel and not tabloid media sensationalized to an inch of its life.
@Peter
The Bradley was not developed in isolation. It was a counter to the Soviet BMP, it was found that when the Soviets armed their “APC” with medium calibre weapons, turning them into the first IFVs, a battlegroup that did not have similar weapons is at a severe disadvantage, simply because in a maneuver environment, they can kill your APCs and threaten your tanks while an M-113 simply can’t reply effectively except at closer ranges where the M2 “might” penetrate. People don’t slap things on armour for the sake of looking pretty, they do in in response to certain threats. Something the show never told you.
Here is another issue I have with the planned Heavy Brigades in the Reaction Force (I know yet another issue). If, for want of a scenario, Putin decides to threaten the Baltics and move force to the region to reinforce those already there. NATO responds by deploying its forces. How do ours get there? Remember we will not have any troops remaining in Germany. We have only a fraction of the HETs required to move a Heavy Brigade I one go so it would have to be a relay. The Heavy Protected Infantry Regiments can easily self deploy, but driving the Challenger 2s, Ajaxs and Warriors all the way from the Channel ports to Talinn would result in a fair number of breakdowns etc. I would argue that trying to ship them in by sea through the Baltic, though possible could end up with us regretting the lack of our platforms amphibious capability as they sink to the bottom.
If however we have decided to use the MIV to form the core of the new Army, replacing not just the FV430 series and Mastiff, but also the Warrior and planned ABSV, using the new Warrior turret for a MIV-IFV for example, and producing sufficient combat variants like Mortar Carrier and LR ATGW Carrier we could drastically speed up the deployment as only the Armoured and Cavalry Regiments would need HETs.
Finally as our use of Javelin in Afghanistan has shown, ATGWs have more uses that taking out tanks, be it expensive.
@LJ
That is a disturbing scenario in more ways than one. If the wheeled armour outstrips the tracked on the way to Poland for example, it is highly likely that your 8x8s are going to be facing off with T-80s and -90s without the help of CR-2s. In a case like this, you’ll probably need to develop a doctrine that allows them to take on MBTs by themselves and survive, be it defilade ATGM shots or long range standoff pseudo-artillery.
@Observer
Yes I agree, hopefully we would have deployed at least one Apache Regiment and 16 Airmobile already as things escalate but before the shooting started, and more importantly other NATO member that are nearer such as Poland have sent what they can bearing in mind they have a very long border with Russia. I would also hope that at a minimum NATO would deploy enough air assets so that the airspace is at least contested.
We have often discussed the need to be able to get units to the front fast, by air usually when we talk of what is now MIV. Hopefully the example I used above shows how the mobility of 8×8 allows them to self deploy around a theatre whereas tracked AFVs cannot effectively. Using MIV equipped Regiments, fully kitted out with the necessary variants can get places quickly with their reduced logistics tail an added bonus. With air support they could be an effective holding force until the Challenger 2s and other heavy units arrive.
This is also where Ajax has problems. It will be great for close recce operating as integral assets to Armoured Regiments, but having Cavalry Regiments solely equipped with Ajax may have no more offensive and defensive power than the MIV Regiment and lack integral infantry support. Fighting for intelligence is a expensive option without MBT support, as the day of the opposition being made up of armoured cars with nothing more than a 14.5mm HMG and paper armour are over against tier one opposition. Given our limited number of HETs I would rather transport Challenger 2s that Ajax to the front personally.
An out of the box suggestion would be to Reorganise the Armoured Regiments so that we have four each with 2 squadrons of Challenger 2 and 2 squadrons of Ajax. Then form four Regiments of Armoured Infantry with MIV-IFVs and eight Mechanised Infantry Regiments with MIV-APCs and you have four effective Brigades with far more flexibility to deal with different tier levels of opposition, be they conventional or not. Round this out with three Brigades of four Infantry Regiments in the Light Protected platform and we have a two Division Army fit for purpose, now wouldn’t that be a change.
I’m not sure if armoured vehicles *can* be efficiently deployed to the front via air. Sure, people are going to tell me about X,Y and Z vehicles that can be carried by C-130, C-5, C-17 etc, but look at what you give up. A single plane can usually only carry about one or two vehicles and maybe their add-on armour. Or 200+ infantrymen. Sure, the infantrymen may not be as mobile as a tank(ette), but in comparison to their respective firepower, 200 infantrymen properly equipped will rip apart any 2 vehicles that you can transport. The US only got over that inefficiency by using huge amounts of air transport. It was still inefficient, just that they had a *lot* of inefficient to make up for that. That being said, I do understand that sometimes, infantrymen need the support and firepower vehicles can bring to stand a chance against heavy enemy armour, so some vehicles are necessary, but the less and smaller there are of these, the better.
Wonder if anyone is interested in resurrecting bicycle infantry? :) I’m sure 200 men with foldable bicycles should give both a fair amount of firepower/manpower and mobility.
I really don’t understand the desire to replace Warrior with wheeled vehicles.
Warrior is supposed to operate with Challenger. The improved operational mobility and reduced tactical mobility of wheels doesn’t seem like a good complement. I’m not convinced that the operational mobility advantage of wheels over tracks isn’t horribly overstated either.
Trying to add turrets to everything doesn’t seem like the best idea either, since each turret means you have one (or more) less vehicle.
Obs – ref deployment by air – there is a tendency to look at scenarios from a very narrow viewpoint, for example in your last where you force a choice between either LAVs or infantry. Similarly the assessment is viewed without inevitable development as in ‘how would LAVs win a war against heavy armour?’. I see both these points differently (and I suspect you and others with experience do too, away from TDworld).
In the case of a sudden emerging military threat, I’m guessing we can find more than one transport plane. The choice then is (in my world) do we have only the ability to deploy infantry and a few light armour taxis/MG carriers to make initial contact and try to disrupt the plans of an aggressor, or do we send both infantry and light/medium combat vehicles to act together? Seems to me (although I defer to those with experience) that adding combat armour – especially those of high mobility and tactical agility – to infantry that can really only move at walking pace significantly improves the capacity to be in the right place at the right time to cause maximum delay to opposition progress. While this is going on, you would expect a fleet of HET with Challengers and a flow of trains with Warrior & Ajax would be rumbling toward the conflict zone to take up the fight. Once they are there the lighter vehicles cease to be the main combat element, obviously. So in my mind the question is whether the initial stages of conflict are better performed with infantry alone, or infantry with agile combat armour?
The heavier this vanguard armour gets, the less effect it can deliver in this situation. The need (I suggest) is to get a decent number of high mobility ‘effects’ (borrowing a FRESism) into theatre without hogging all the air bridge such that infantry deployment is minimally compromised? By the time the minimum weight armour gets to 37t then A400M would not be able to deliver a single vehicle in fighting order, and C17 could carry one (plus other lighter stuff) – not really an air deployable force.
So in my opinion the advantage of properly air transportable combat armour is that it can be used to help hold the fort until the heavyweights arrive (either being carried or, in the case of Monty’s 8×8, being driven). I suggest it also has benefits in other tasks where a smaller footprint, smaller size, and ability to access more difficult locations work to advantage.
mr.fred – ref turrets with everything – turrets on vehicles with other primary functions compromise vehicle dynamics, payload, internal volume, stealth; apart from having the option to take a pop at an enemy chanced upon, there seems little advantage. Best to keep the turreted vehicles separate (proper non-compromised focused designs, obviously) from the personnel carriers, utility vehicles, etc. although I see advantages in using the fighty vehicles as minders for the APC/utility type vehicles.
I do not understand why it takes wheeled vehicles for heavy brigades. The heavy brigades with tracked vehicles for the infantry would be fine, anyway heavy brigades can not be transported by sea, it changes what have wheeled vehicles for infantry heavy brigades.
By against, it would be advisable to create three light brigades with vehicles under 15 tonnes, so that one can put two in A400M, for rapid deployment in the Baltic Sea, with armed vehicles with anti tank missiles , anti aircraft missiles, mortar, direct fire and troop transport.
@Chris. Don’t forget, we do have the four remaining Point Class for heavy sealift of the heavy armour, although two were released from the contract in 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship. But it takes time. With C-17 and Atlas is is possible to airlift a medium brigade (after all we airlifted a brigade back from Afghanistan recently using only C-130 and C-17). The advantage is both range and especially speed. If you want to nip something in the bud on the other side of the world, you can get there before the T70s/Armatas turn up and secure the ground. Its all about strategic manoeuvre.
@LJ
You do not require a HET to move Ajax a LET or any civilian low loader will be capable. I personally would not replace Warrior with an IFV version of the MIV but reduce some of the non mech light infantry to make at least three MIV bde’s and reduce the armoured brigades to two with the remaining Warriors from the third bde moving over and the tank regiment used as a pool to supply sqn’s to the medium formations if required or reinforce the armoured units.
@Frenchie
‘I do not understand why it takes wheeled vehicles for heavy brigades’
Is that not the French concept using VBCI with heavy armour?
@DN. I agree completely.
MIV is about replacing Mastiff/Ridgeback medium battalions which was only ever an interim solution. I makes absolute sense to develop those battalions as an air transportable strategic manoeuvre formation (think Mali, Libya and Syria). Warrior should be left out of this equation and focussed upon the northern european arena with C-2. We do need to replace FV430 in the support roles in the Mech Brigades too. For me more Ajax/Ares specialist variants and Warrior ABSV is the answer.
– On ATGW. I would like to see some more Spike NLOS (they have a useful dual role) – some on Warrior or Ares chassis for the Armoured Infantry and Cavalry and some on trailers for Medium and Air Assault/Cdo brigades.
– On ATGW on Ajax. I think there is a role/training issue too with hanging more Javelin on IFVs and Recce Vehicles. Specialists with Exactor and Javelin are likely to have a better tacticla posture and skills in the AT role than trying to get IFV and Ajax crews to multi task as overwatch/MBTs. There is an interesting story from the ’80s-’90s, where air superiority trained FAA Sea Harrier and USN F-14 and USAF F-15 crews had very high kill rates with AIM-9L sidewinder (70-90%), whereas used in the self-defence role on F-16s and F/A18s operating in a primarily strike role they had a 0% launch to kill ratio – mainly because the F16 and F18 pilots were trained primarily in another role: so when they got to launch an AIM-9L (not often admittedly) it was usually in the wrong tactical posture and without intensive air defence training, so it was not much use and took up a pylon.
@DavidNiven,
Yes but in our Army VBCI is the equivalent of your Warrior, so we can carry one at a time by A400M, so you can carry the Warrior only by sea, or may be by C-17, I doeshave over the capacity of C-17 in my memory.
But I am not referring the French army, I’m here to talk about the interests of the British Army who is our ally, so the interest of the British Army is our interest somewhere.
So I said I do not see the role of a wheeled vehicle for reaction brigades, as infantry battalions are supposed to follow the Ajax, the Challenger 2 and Warrior, it changes what they are wheeled or tracked.
By against light forces are under equipped Foxhound and Jackal and the Wolfhound are not adequate vehicles for emergency strength.
@JamesF
Spike NLOS seems to be one of the systems we should be seeing to leverage as much as we can from, especially as you say with their dual role. As for fitting ATGW on Ajax I am in agreement with you, we as an army have always favoured specific vehicles/units to supply overwatch and AT capability Swingfire and Milan compact turret mounted on CVRT being one example.
As for the 430 replacement within the armoured formations I would agree a mix of ABSV and Ajax variants would be an ideal solution but with limited funds what would you prioritise the MIV formations or the 430 replacement or using the MIV as a compromise and replace the 430 with that as well? as I cannot see a reduction in manpower being accepted to pay for them and like it or loathe it our RF is based around the armoured units at present and it will take time to equip and train the new medium formation.
@DN. I suppose with a lot invested in upgrading 600 FV430 to Bulldog and buying Mastiff and Ridgeback, the first thought will be to keep using these platforms through to an OSD in the 2020s. so I suspect its MIV now and more copmromises on FV430 replacement by converting those refurbished platforms and a slow development of ABSV and maybe a trickle of addtional Ajax. It will be interesting if GD get the MIV contract, as they have built a new factory at Oakdale (and LM a new plant to build turrets for Ajax and Warrior II) with MoD support, and I suspect there might be some incentive to rebuild an armoured vehicle industry around keeping those plants going, either producing an exportable Ajax variant or producing additional Ajax and maybe MIV. It was interesting that MoD have now taken a stronger role in marketing UK defence products and I suspect we will see a change back towards a UK industry focus in coming years. I think Fallon is especially interested in this.
@Frenchie
Sorry if this is repeated my last reply seems to have been eaten.
We are not replacing our Warriors with a wheeled vehicle, what we seem to be doing is setting up a medium wheeled formation to give a medium weight strategic capabilty which can respond faster than our heavy formations. As to light formations I completely disagree, the Foxhound, Jackal and Viking are perfectly suited to light mech formations if we wanted to add a bit more firpower we could always mount a light cannon on either Jackal or Viking.
As to creating light formations to rush to the Baltics I cannot see how light formations would be any military deterrent to the Russians. A light force would not have the mass to repel a conventional mechanised army regardless of the amount of ATGW it took with it. For that to work we need a large amount of fires and air superiority which in regard to fires we don not posses and as to air superiority we are probably not going to achieve easily and in time to save our light forces from either the Russians or any capable peer adversary. The medium weight option would allow us to deploy by road quickly enough and have some mass to stand for a short period until the heavy units arrive.
Thank you for your explanations DavidNiven :-)
@JamesF
I think GD will get the MIV contract. The Piranha 5 was chosen after the trials of truth and it did not even exist at the time and now jobs are in the mix with the desire to rebuild an AFV industry, after all was that not the reason for moving production of Ajax from Spain? I would be very surprised if any other platform was chosen.
P5? Denmark, now Spain… seems to be making good headway
I think the quiet success of Nissan’s Washington, Tyne and Wier, plant is in government’s minds. It now produces more cars than the entire Italian passenger car industry (over 500,000 year) and has the highest productivity of any car pant worldwide. It began as a government induced job creation scheme in the ’80s – assembling 6,000 Japanese products in the first year. Nissan cars are now designed and built in the UK for global markets (they even export to Japan) – every Juke and the new Infinti Q30 model – and much UK industry is engaged supply chain, especially in the North East. A lesson from France maybe, a little government intervention can work wonders. Oakdale is in South Wales. A region that needs industrial transformation, as Tyne and Wier did in the ’80s. A lost fact is that after almost total collapse in the ’70s and 80s, UK passenger car production is back up to early 1970s levels. Why not defence?
JamesF,
Seeking clarity; when you refer to mechanised brigades, do you mean Armoured brigades? The MIV covers the mechanised infantry so should replace the FV430 series in all roles. The armoured infantry should get ABSV (hopefully) and it looks like the Ajax family would cover the rest. Although it’s not clear what would happen with an ambulance variant.
@Mr Fred. Yes. I think 3rd Div. is called a Mechanised Division after Army 2020, not an Armoured Division. I mean the three Army 2020 brigades with 1 CVR(T) Arm Cav, 1 Challenger MBT, 2 Warrior Arm. Inf. and 1 Mastiff Mech. Inf. Bn assigned to 3rd Mech. Division – the so called Reaction Force. The mechanised infantry battalions have Mastiff/Ridgeback not FV430. Legacy FV430 and Bulldog are used for support roles in 3rd Division (mortar carriers, command vehicles, ambulances and so on). 300 MIV will not be enough to replace Mastiff/Ridgeback in the three Mech Bns and FV430 in support roles. I agree on ABSV and Ajax. To add, I think the long term desire was to re-role Mastiff and Ridgeback as protected mobility for force troops: RA, RE, RLC, REME etc. I think a number of Ridgeback are already used as ambulances.
It is confusing. While the combo of armour and AI is internationally called “mechanised”, be it the Div or the Bde as the combination level; mechanised generally refers to mainly tracked formations.
I think this was heeded by calling the Mastiff bns Protected Mobility (Heavy).. as opposed to protected mobility otherwise which were given the “surplus” A-stan heritage vehicles unable to take a section.
Then we have Cavalry Rgmnts (Heavy) and the others “light”. Quite rightly someone has called the Heavies by the name “Armoured Cavalry” by virtue of them getting the near-tanks (Ajax), but I don’t think the MoD has ever given this label to formations… would sound a bit too medieval?
@ACC
As opposed to sounding Russian by calling them motorised regiments? :)
@Chris
It’s not simply a matter of “when we need it, more transport planes will turn up”. Of course if that happens, good, but you cannot base plans on “when that happens, something will solve it”, so it behooves us to make plans on the worst possible scenario, that of a constricted air bridge. As I pointed out, you get *one* vehicle to the area of operations per flight, as opposed to 200-300 men per airlift. Of course, in the best case scenario, you can requisition British Airways airliners for the men and leave the vehicles for the C- series planes, but the first in force will almost always be men in boots with vehicles trickling in later due to their logistical constraints (size as well as weight).
The SOP over here is civilian airliners for men followed by transported AH-64s, not armour. The Apaches act as flying fire brigades/gun platforms/fire support while the infantry hold the line. Just how we do it, not recommending you blindly follow, you have to evolve your own protocol depending on your equipment and tactics. Hell, even our own “Marines” subunits (Guards) have a different protocol and that is within the same army no less. For them, they lift in their own artillery and Spike equipped LSVs instead. Part of the difference is their anticipated area of operations. Apaches for the units with interior lines of control, intrinsic artillery for those that might be working behind enemy lines to avoid aircraft overflying hostile territory.
Scenario this out. You have 4 C-17s and the Russians are moving West. What would you bring along if you can scrape out only 2 flights?
As part of your “Mechanised infantry vehicle” program, for replace all the role of the FV430, it would be interesting to have a vehicle of the size of your FV430, as Lord Jim suggested, the Fennek is very interesting, It can do :
– Starstreak platform
– Anti Tank platform
– Command and Control Vehicle
– Reconnaissance vehicle
And for Field Artillery, Self-Propelled, I propose our Caesar, and for ambulance, load carrier and APC, I propose our Titus.
This would give some punch to your mechanised brigades without being redundant with your heavy brigades.
@Observer, I think we have 8 C-17s, and there are 22 Atlas on the way. Voyager is a strategic lift platform as well as a tanker – and can carry personnel and palleted loads, and there are 14 of those. But your point is well made, its not enough.
‘Scenario this out. You have 4 C-17s and the Russians are moving West. What would you bring along if you can scrape out only 2 flights?’
MLRS
We have 8 C17 but in any case we would look to utilise the channel freight tunnel and ferries/STRAT RO RO. Channel only 30 miles wide then we are on the continent and the rail/road network.
@James
And when I see all the planes in the air force committed to a single operation, it would be the first time. You won’t get all of them. Some will be too far away, some will be in maintenance, some will have other jobs. IIRC, the time needed to maintain the plane on landing is somewhat in the range of how long it spent flying, but that is the ground crew taking it easy I guess. Anyone know the approximate range of the turnaround time for transport aircraft?
Which also reminds me. Forward deployed ammunition stockpiles. Does the UK have any on the mainland? That can help alleviate the pressure on the air bridge. And local sourced food, water, fuel and transport (buses), that one is the embassy’s job.
@APATs
So that is about 1,000km as the crow flies to Lodz assuming Warsaw has been taken. That is 16hrs +/-? Not too bad.
I think the general idea is to deploy to the continent before a large scale conventional conflict occurs. The Russians could not exactly hide the build up of the number of troops required to invade Poland. The Poles these days are a very very different proposition from 1939, they also have the Bundeswher handily placed as a reserve/counter attack force and the Russian flanks would be exposed to NATO nations on both sides.
Obs – I think we’re talking at crossed purposes? According to Wiki (who am I to argue) the UK has 8 C-17 and will have 22 A400M Atlas. If there was a full-on military emergency that needed a forceful response then I would expect a significant proportion of the 30 transport aircraft to be made available to get stuff – personnel and equipment – to where its needed? Surely not unreasonable? And of course this wouldn’t be a single flight each; if stuff needed transporting the aircraft would be running relays as quickly as procedures allow. Which is why I said before I do not think arguing whether troops or vehicles should be flown in is realistic; given the transport capability we have the question ought to be what mix of personnel and equipment makes the best fighting force while the heavier stuff is making its way to the front in slower time. You might be right; maybe AH and infantry have all points covered. Maybe the right thing to do is to set aside 4 C-17s to take a troop of Ajax. Maybe every transport aircraft should fly infantry and associated supporting logistics only. Or maybe it would be better to take 4 C-17s aside to ship in 20 light armoured vehicles to add to the fray.
When the operation in Afghanistan was in full throw it seemed the RAF had a regular service – daily? – comprising a pair of C-17. I live under one of the military airlanes and on a few occasions happened to look up as the two hunched-shoulder forms of C-17s flew back towards Brize around mid-afternoon. Considering the numbers of personnel deployed I imagine their cargo was more likely to be food bullets and loo-paper than infantry or vehicles, but the regular air bridge seemed to work pretty reliably.
Most of the heavy stuff to Ukraine would go either via Bay and Point Class or the dozens of regular ro-ro ferrys that ply the Channel, North Sea and Baltic to Gdansk, Hamburg and Cuxhaven and then rail and/or rail straight through the Channel Tunnel – Europe has a pretty good road/rail transport system which would be quick. Personnel and some freight would go via the humungous numbers of airliners that fly every day from our airports. Ukraine is not the problem. Its if we need to get to Timbuktu (as we did recently), or Sanaa. Not sure about maintaining stockpiles in Germany, we certainly did until recently.
But in truth, Ukraine would by like Korea in 1950 (and a similar wake up call). You’d lose it and then have to take it back.
Yes, go to Timbuktu to fight against jihadists, with an army as you conceive would not work.
@Frenchie
We are equipped to go to Timbuktu to fight jihadists now with all the kit from Afghanistan. The medium weight formation that is being conceived would only improve our ability to do so.
@DavidNiven
Yes now, but in the future, I don’t see, I hear only talk about vehicles over 30 tonnes. I do not understand the logic.
Frenchie, so you end up with very small enemies. :)
What’s the problem? Insurgency is a years long op, no need to be in such a hurry. It’s the invasions where you have to be fast.
@Frenchie
Your VBCI is over 25 tonnes and was used in Mali, why would our 30 tonne vehicle not be capable of doing what yours does? The VBCI is no more air portable than a 30 tonne vehicle as you are constrained to the same aircraft and in the same numbers as we would be.
The logic is that anything worthwhile needs to go by sea or land anyway to be present in decent numbers. If we are fighting insurgents then the main threat is going to be IED not conventional.
So there is no point compromising our conventional IFVs by making them light enough to just about fly into a theatre where they are cock all protection against the main threat.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I don’t think its rocket science – they are thinknig about getting a brigades worth of something in between Warrior and Foxhound, to fight a battle somewhere between Warrior and Foxhound capability, the premise being its a go-anywhere capability that sacrifices some protection for air mobility, but is better suited than foxhound to a hybrid rather than wholly asymmetric fight – i.e. more Syria than Afghanistan. Seems ok to me, but Frenchie is right – don’t cock it up by larding the requirement and buying something that is no more air transportable than Warrior and no better protected or mobile than Foxhound. After all its basically FRES (the Rapid Effects bit). And that go lost up its own rectum too.
The whole idea that the UK can move a brigade by air is and always will be b0ll0cks. The manoeuvre element alone represent 60-odd big vehicles, which is a lot of sorties when you only have 30 airframes. Once you add in CS and CSS and other logs elements, you’ve got to have doubled that. And that’s before you start adding ammo, POL, vittles’ etc.
Nothing wrong with a Bn group with limited support, but even then you’re going to be limited by distance.
@NOB, I agree – but you probably need a brigade to generate a battalion group at short notice.
@Jf
The minute it goes over 15 tonnes they are flying one per A400 that is all they can move.
The KUR for A400M is 30 tonnes but it has a proven capability to 37 tonnes I think
We are efficient in the Sahara-Sahel band because we occupy the field with light wheeled vehicles that go far, are fast, and low fuel consumption. The only thing we lack is a larger number of helicopters, your Chinooks would be very helpful.
Actually if you are going asymetric, then you really don’t need air-mobility. Insurgency is a long drawn out process, you’re not going to go in there, kill everything and get out by next week. This is part of the schizophrenic nature I mentioned before. If you are doing COIN, you don’t need fast. If you are defending against “Russia”, you need fast, but the vehicles don’t support fast too well, hence the new 8x8s.
No one is thinking of moving a medium brigade by air, the MIV is an 8×8 wheeled vehicle for a reason so it can self deploy to and from a port or straight to the area of interest by road if you are extremely lucky. The advantage of it being air portable is that you can replace or reinforce small numbers of vehicles quickly if required with an airbridge just as we did in Afghan. If you are going to make it airportable then you may as well have a well protected 30t vehicle than a less protected 25t vehicle as the A400 cannot carry two of either vehicle.
@APATs – don’t tell Fallon. We’ll get nothing at all. I guess we’ll have to ask the septics and France for some help. Seriously, Stryker is 19t, no? I think that’s the place to be. I’m sure a bit of wartime pressure and you could get two in an Atlas (probably not if its driven by Crabs), or one and plenty of other kit. Three in a C-17, even squeeze one in a C-130J if we manage to keep a few. Simples.
Also if you look at the Ajax design and the Warrior upgrade they have two armour modes. I.e. a light protected base version, and then bolt on armour. That should work so you can have it light and air transportable and heavy if you need to use it in a more challenging environment or to move by sea.
I’m more used to the Terrex, the “Interim Combat Vehicle” always seemed too light to me, being close in weight (and in my mind, protection) of the M-113s.
Stroker was hobbled by the requirement to be C130 transportable, even then it cannot fly with slat armour and the C130 struggles to fly 1000 miles, which was the requirement.
We are not going to field C130 and A400 is not going to fly 2 Stryker or 2VBCI but it can fly 30 tonnes 2500 miles so why should we have a 20 tonne vehicle?
Where on earth did the discussion move to talking about flying in units to a trouble spot! With the exception of Light Role Infantry, like Not a Boffin clearly stated is utter b0ll0cks.
Regarding tactical mobility, except in extreme terrain, across country there is little between tracked and modern 8x8s and by road 8x8s win hands down. On protection its is pretty even as is firepower. On maintenance and running costs again the 8×8 win hands down. As a result I am seriously thinking that IFVs are beginning to fall into the “Nice to have”, category. 8×8 can do 90% of what a tracked IFV can do, but the lower the intensity of conflict the more applicable 8×8 platforms become, along with lighter protected platforms.
Yes you can put Warriors and Ajax onto many types of flat beds but does the Army have these or are we going to have to commandeer the whole of Eddie Stobart?
Also are the railways in eastern Europe and he Baltics compatible with western European rolling stock. I am most concerned regarding the Baltics, having been part of the old Soviet Union?
Except it isn’t utter bollocks.
Rapid deployment of light armoured vehicles has been proven to an effective and valuable capability.
There is als a great misconception that FRES called for Brigade sized deployment by air, it never did. It actually proposed an air portable medium weight capability at small scale.
So it remains a valid and desirable concept
Nice pic of RAF C-17 ‘flying in units to trouble spots’ (French ones on wheels) here http://www.raf.mod.uk/gallery/rafmalioperations%20.cfm
The Russian come to us all alone, no need to be very fast against a invasion of Russia, which is not probably to happen. By against to go to the end of the world you need military aircraft, It’s like to bomb Syria, it is convenient to have an aircraft carrier if there is no close bases of the field. Have military aircraft to project forces quickly is important, and have vehicles that can enter in, is even better.
All the more reason for whatever we fly to be as “fighty” as possible.
@LJ
The army will have enough low loaders to move the Ajax for the MIV formations.
I cannot see an 8×8 keeping pace with heavy armour once wet weather sets in regardless of what the French or any manufacturer says.
The Canadians were using their LAV’s in the Balkans and during one of the many firepower demonstrations we used to dissuade and reasure the parties involved we were supporting a coy of Canadian infantry for a troop of tanks. During the brief before hand the Canadians stated that the tanks should be careful not to out run the LAV’s and that the LAV’s themselves may have to find their own route at times and therefore may be slower than expected, imagine an entire brigade constantly doing this? the 430/Bulldog series has trouble keeping up with CR2 and Warrior due to speed not because it cannot cross the same ground as them.
Thank you TD, I felt alone :-)
@LJ, the first part “no”; the second part “yes”, RE
” I am seriously thinking that IFVs are beginning to fall into the “Nice to have”, category. 8×8 can do 90% of what a tracked IFV can do, but the lower the intensity of conflict the more applicable 8×8 platforms become, along with lighter protected platforms.”
– if you need MBTs, you will need IFVs as well
– if you don’t need MBTs (the lower the intensity…) then you can probably best manage with an all-wheeled force (plenty of versions required; on that account the VBCI is not there yet)
@TD
For a given value of “rapid”. :)
As pointed out, one or two vehicles per trip only + supplies, so the time needed to build up a significant force is still fairly long. Give it about slightly less than a week for a battalion (36 vehicles) or so.
Wait, that’s not right…36 is too low, think I was using historical data. IIRC, your regiments are now 58? vehicles? That would put it past a week to ship.
Totally dependent on range and assets available.
I can’t help thinking about those Panhards stuck in Port Stanley while CVR(T) yomped with the best of them.
Let’s say that in the future the French army will be more flexible than the British Army, if we stay here.
Modularity is a good thing, RE
” A400 is not going to fly 2 Stryker or 2VBCI but it can fly 30 tonnes 2500 miles so why should we have a 20 tonne vehicle?”
Have a
– standard Finnish Army Patria AMV, armed with Protector M151 remote weapon stations, fitted with 12.7-mm machine gun and 40-mm automatic grenade launcher and weighing between 16 and 26 t according to armor and weapon systems
– and a Patria AMV 6×6. It is a lighter version of the standard 8×8 vehicle. Combat weight of this vehicle is up to 18 t and it can carry a 6 t payload
So you can have one of each within the A400M 37 t limit, and fly additional armour kits separately, to be fitted as and when needed
– one would have integral fire support capability; its “twin” would be a pure battle field taxi (and no turret or other extras eating into the available internal volume)
There is no doubt the British Army now has much lower strategic mobility than it had
So you are maxing out the A400 which is going to have major maintenance issues if possible at all. Then you still need to fly in the armour separately.
Given that we will operate only A400 and C17 what are you using to do this? Another A400? Oh look we could utilise those 2 A400 to fly in 2 fully armoured much more capable 25 tonne vehicles ready to go.
Sorry for grumpiness and this is not my area but Ops planning is and caps and lims are caps and lims
I agree with ACC, a limited number of Patria 6×6 would be a very good thing for the British army.
I know that after every trip an aircraft has to undergo through maintenance, they have a distressing habit of leaving parts of themselves at the touchdown point, and the maintenance is needed to check which parts are missing. I heard quotes of 1:1 flying hours for maintenance time, so the assumption that you have the plane available 24/7 is also wrong.
‘Let’s say that in the future the French army will be more flexible than the British Army, if we stay here’
In what sense? If the creation of the MIV 8×8 formation goes ahead why would we be less flexible? we are just as flexible now with our Afghan legacy kit, so to flip the question what have the French got to slog it out with a peer enemy? from my view point of looking in you are on the light side of a medium force, great for Mali but not much help when it comes to the heavy stuff.
For those interested in airlift capacity, this seems like an interesting (US) document. Plenty of formulae plus supporting data tables, by the looks of it
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/afpam10-1403.htm
Edit: After a bit of hunting around the web, I’ve found a service hours: flight hours ratio of 20:1 for the C17.
Seems to me we need a highly mobile light armoured vehicle, to support light infantry as an initial quick reaction force. Say something like CVR(T)! 2 transportable by C130, 3 by A400, 6 by C17.
Interesting and yes if we are going to go really light, accept the limitations and get 3 in an A400m instead of pretending 1 Stryker is as good a use a 1 28T better protected harder hitting vehicle when the choice is 1 or tit other as Geoff would say.
The limiting one there might be getting two into the C130 – it would limit your vehicle to around 9.5 tonnes – isn’t the CVR(T) closer to 10 tonnes now? The others would allow a vehicle of around 12 tonnes. Mind you, the C130 will be out of service in a few years, so maybe not so much of an issue
Land rover with a WOMBAT anyone? :)
I think our TRADOC Opfor still actually have some of those.
@ACP
Table 6:
A surge utilization rate of 15.15 hours per day for the C-17. Figures are probably from the Gulf War, if it is intra-theatre hopping within Europe, the utilization figures might go up.
W already have an 8t wheeled armoured vehicle, Foxhound. We plan to buy another, MRV-P. So are we saying there is no need to buy a medium weight vehicle. We should only have 7t Foxhound or 30t Warrior – or other 7t or 30t wheeled equivalents?
@ACP, RE “isn’t the CVR(T) closer to 10 tonnes now? The others would allow a vehicle of around 12 tonnes. Mind you, the C130 will be out of service in a few years, so maybe not so much of an issue”
A Scimitar2 weighs 12,25 t but is listed at 13t ( is the difference in filling the tank and putting the ammo on?)
“The upgraded power pack [a diesel now] allows the engine to power an air conditioning system [and even turns the turret!] which incorporates spot cooling and drivers’ cooling vests. At the same time, night vision and enhanced radio power management increase situational awareness around- the-clock.
Capability Enhancement also involves a number of upgrades to the vehicle’s protection, taking it to an intermediate level. These include:
– Ceramic ballistic armour: for KE threats
– Bar armour around the hull to increase protection against RPG attacks
– Mine blast protection and electronic countermeasures agaisnt IDED, mounted at the top of the turret and to the front of the hull.
The new seating hangs from the roof of the vehicle and sits on a piston, rather than sitting on the floor. This dramatically decreases the effect of mine blasts from beneath. In addition, the redesigned fuel tanks are protected against blasts, reducing the risk of damage and fire. Targets of all types can be more swiftly engaged thanks to a turret powered solution. ”
Just as we got them, the HH Cavalry detachment was removed from the 16X . This makes no sense, unlike the removal of the flying tanks (much more recent, and likely to be in preparation for the Joint Land Strike Force and/or the AMPh. Ready Group also being supported from within the future AH total of 50…I guess they won’t stop being hangar queens even when they will be “new” – as in remanufactured – again.
Looking at the planned re-organisation of the British Army as it currently stands, its three main components will be;
The Reaction Force (3rd Div.) will comprise of;
3 Armoured Regiments (Challenger 2)
3 Armoured Cavalry Regiments (Ajax)
6 Armoured Infantry Battalions (Warrior 2)
3 Heavy Protected Mobility Battalions (MIV)
2 Parachute Infantry Battalions.
1 Airborne Artillery Regiment (105mm Light Gun)
the Adaptive Force (1st Div.) will now comprise;
3 Light Cavalry Regiments (Jackal)
6 Light Protected Mobility Battalions (Foxhound/MRV-P)
8 Light Role Battalions
The Force Troops will comprise of;
2 Attack Helicopter Regiments (AH-64E)
3 Artillery Regiments (AS90/GMLRS)
1 Artillery Regiment (105mm Light Gun)
1 Artillery Regiment (CAAM)
1 Artillery Regiment (HVM)
2 Artillery Regiments (Watch keeper)
To fill the suggested Mechanised Brigade we will have to take units form the Adaptive force and re-equip them with the selected MIV platform. Ideally these would be some of the Light Role Battalions, but it might also be one of the Light Cavalry Regiment and three of the Light Protected Mobility Battalions, reducing the total requirement for Foxhound and MRV-P, increasing the purchase of the MIV instead.
Adding a forth Brigade to the Reaction Force will increase its flexibility, but none of its formations except the weakened 16 Air Assault Brigade can realistically be deployed by air. Yes a small battle group could be rapidly deployed, but with the RAF available assets this is likely to be reinforced Company size to support the two Infantry Battalions and Artillery Regiment that form 16 AA Bde. After this the majority of fight are going to be bringing in Logistics and support units.
At a certain level this is a viable force but very dependant on the opposition and what they are bringing to the party. Other units would arrive in theatre but a lot is going to depend on how much time we have before things kick off. I doubt in future there will be a clear escalation path, but rather a series of events that keep Governments confused and hesitant about how to respond right up to the last moment.
If for example the Russian population in the Baltic States began causing trouble and started to receive unofficial covert aid from Russia, at what point does NATO start to deploy its Reaction Force north to support its allies. What if a Russian Motor Rifle Division is conducting exercises near St Petersburg at the same time, with additional ground and air assets move to this area as part of the exercise, does NATO begin to move units? The Russians expand the exercise, notifying NATO as per protocols and a Amphibious Task Group sets sail from St Petersburg with additional units from Kaliningrad, carrying a reinforced Naval Infantry Battalion. Does NATO move units now or do the Politicians dither. The situation in the Latvia escalates with ethnic Russians storming a number of police and Army barracks. The Latvian Police cannot handle to situation but the Government does not want to use the Army. Next what appear to be organised groups of ethnic Russians begin to attack Latvian security forces and drive them out of a number of towns in the eastern part of the country. The situation in Estonia also worsens. Russia announces that the actions of the Ethnic Russians in Latvia and Estonia are self defence as a result of provocation by local security forces. Russia declares it wishes the issues to be resolved peacefully if possible but the exercises continue. Unlike Ukraine, Russia is being very careful what covert support I supplies, only supply hardware know to be available in the Baltic States, and personnel who know the area and can speak the language as well. It warns western powers that any military action by outside nations against the ethnic Russians in the Baltics could lead to event escalating but offers to lead negotiations to resolve the crisis.
In all of the above how does NATO react. It could conduct an exercise but if not planned in advance and timely notification given to Russia, these could be seen as provocative and aggressive. What if event in the Middle East take a turn for the worse or their is an incident in Africa, either of which could cause some NATO nations to deploy part of the Reaction force there.
What I am trying to get across idea that NATO or the UK alone, may not get enough advanced notice to move its heavy units in time. We should not look a rapid deployment as solely by air, especially in the European area. That is why the US has deployed a Striker Brigade to Europe. In other areas, the front could still be hundreds of miles form the nearest port or large airfield. This is where 8×8 or even 6×6 come into their own, and why I believe the UK needs more than a single brigade equipped with the MIV, but rather the MIV should form the core of the Army supported by Foxhound/MRV-P and backed up if needed by heavier assets thought these should be mainly MBTs and SP Artillery. Many will disagree but this is a discussions board.
Not a fan of Scimitar 2. While I understand that it was produced for the particular situation in Afghanistan, and addressed a number of problems with using Scimitar in that environment, and as such was the right thing to do. I don’t think its viable for general use. It’s another case of sticking a turret on an APC, all be it a small one, expecting to produce a satisfactory vehicle. That fact that they have been fitted with role over bars would indicate certain problems with Scimitar 2!
With Ajax replacing Scimitar I believe their is still a need for a far more mobile and deployable Light Cavalry mount. A modern version of Scimitar if you like. One of the main problems with Scimitar is its internal volume. While this could be addressed to some extent even within the size constraints of Scimitar, (sponsons widened to the full vehicle width, turret ring diameter increased and a larger turret fitted), I doubt if that would satisfy modern requirements. Therefore some increase in both size and weight will probably be needed. I would keep such increases to the minimum necessary, for instance a maximum width of 8′ and weight, including any add on armour, of 15 tons. Any increase over this and you rapidly lose the advantages of a small light weight vehicle.
As for armament an automatic cannon (CT40) obviously, but I would include an ATGW as well. Light Cavalry has many roles other than just Recce for which an ability to engage MBTs and other targets at long range would be a very useful capability. Fitting as many armoured box launchers either side of the turret would be the way to go, with no reloads carried.
Personally I would have liked to have seen such a vehicle in lieu of Ajax, but as that is a done deal. it would still perform a role were deployability is at a premium. The light Cavalry Regiments being an obvious home.
@ACC & Whitelancer – thanks for those replies – so it looks as if around 12.3 tonnes and smaller than 2.6m wide by 6m long would allow you to fit 6 in a C17 and 3 in an A400. So a CVR(T) or variant is about as heavy as you could get.
The next weight point is 18.5 tonnes (2 per A400 and 4 per C17) – so something like the Panhard Sphinx would fit in that role.
@A Caribbean Perspective,
Yes but the Sphinx of Panhard has not been retained for the Scorpion program because the pilot is very little protection against direct fire, the Jaguar project of Nexter included the driver’s seat in the protective shell, that’s why it is heavier. But it is primarily a political issue to work more than another company. Perhaps the Sphinx will be produced for reconnaissance regiments of the 11th Parachute Brigade and the 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade.
I have always been of the opinion that we need something smaller in addition to the 38tonne Ajax.
something half the weigh (and ground pressure), lo-tech / low maintenance requirement, compact dimensions capable of maneuvering in something smaller than a football pitch, and fundamentally cheaper so that we can afford to actually equip non-priority army units like the light cav.
whitelancer, ACP – ref “need for a far more mobile and deployable Light Cavalry mount” – I have fine designs for exactly the sort of vehicle you describe (along with a set of other role vehicles of similar weight). Favourable reception by those that have been briefed. Just waiting for the order to be placed…
@Chris
I wouldn’t hold your breath, big and heavy seem to be in vogue at the moment.
@Whitelancer, completely agree with
“Not a fan of Scimitar 2. While I understand that it was produced for the particular situation in Afghanistan, and addressed a number of problems with using Scimitar in that environment, and as such was the right thing to do. I don’t think its viable for general use. It’s another case of sticking a turret on an APC, all be it a small one, expecting to produce a satisfactory vehicle. That fact that they have been fitted with role over bars would indicate certain problems with Scimitar 2!”
– just that they exist (but where, nothing said post A-stan?), have a suitable weight and (now) decent protection, and that a good number can be airlanded in 1st or 2nd wave…
– that makes them suitable stop-gaps as long as the Rarden remains in service
whitelancer – well its just as well if only the big and heavy are kept that we will never have to engage in the likes of the Falklands or Kosovo ever again, isn’t it? Can you imagine getting Ajax onto East Falkland with more than a snowball’s hope in hell that it could get to Port Stanley?
We should be eternally grateful our strategists are so skilled now that they know exactly what all our future military engagements will require, where their predecessors have only managed to believe that “All future wars will be exactly the same as the one we just had.” So its a relief we aren’t equipping the army solely to cope with wide open terrain where the major threats are IEDs RPGs and AK-47s – oh, wait a minute…
Chris,
Why wouldn’t Scout make it to Stanley? It has excellent tactical mobility.
Would be interesting to look at ground pressure and total weight bearing capacity of the ground CVR(T) skipped across.
Unusually for comments here, lets use a reference and some sums – a quantitative approach – rather than opinion hearsay and dogma. The reference is a paper titled ‘Standards for the Mobility Requirements of Military Vehicles’ by J.C. Larminie (Journal of Terramechanics, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 171-189, 1988); a document that until the advent of Def Stan 23-7 was about the best guide to formal tracked vehicle mobility.
According to Table 6 Scorpion’s Mean Max Pressure (MMP) is 106kPa for a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 8.26t. No doubt the combat weight they ran in the Falklands was greater but probably didn’t exceed 10t and so wouldn’t have caused MMP to rise over 130kPa.
The Argentine armour that sat in Port Stanley was the nominally 5.5t Panhard AML 4×4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML) which was reputed to have severe mobility issues on Falkland bog. The data in Table 6 unfortunately does not list AML, but it does have the somewhat similar CVR(W) Fox, a 4×4 of 6.1t – its MMP quoted as 349kPa – a vehicle half the weight of CVR(T) but three times the ground pressure – something to consider when equating tracks and wheels.
But what of Ajax? Clearly a document written almost 30 years ago has no reference to GD’s latest offering, and it is also clear the width of track links would have a significant effect on MMP, but some interpolation can be made. The length of track Ajax stands upon is similar (let’s say 105%) to that of Warrior. Its track link width is greater, by about 15%. The area it sits upon then is of the order of 22% greater than Warrior, meaning for the same weight its MMP would be of the order of 82% that of the Warrior. Major Larminie’s document gives MMP of 198kPa for a 25.3t GVW Warrior – if the weight of the vehicle was increased to 38t the MMP figure would rise to 297kPa, adjusting for Ajax’s greater track area brings the MMP to an approximate 244kPa – somewhere around twice the ground pressure of CVR(T) in its heavy combat state.
In terms of ground pressure then we know CVR(T)’s 130kPa resulted in good mobility over Falkland bog, and AML’s 349kPa denied bog mobility – whether an Ajax at 244kPa would float or sink is arguable, but clearly it would not have such an easy progress. Power to weight ratios between the CVR(T) and Ajax are similar.
But simple ground mechanics is but one aspect. CVR(T) would have frugal thirst for fuel compared to Ajax; maybe 4 times less? So the extra burden of bringing so much more fuel needs addressing. Ajax with its 800hp V8 booms like a bull-elephant where CVR(T) makes little more noise than a tractor – even in firefights I suggest the massed bellow of a troop of Ajax would gain opposition attention in the way apparently CVR(T) did not (hence TDs reference to ‘zapping’ where the Scimitars were able to engage Argentine positions with the coax and the Argentines responded as if dealing with infantry, only to find a 30mm HE shell heading towards their position). And CVR(T) could use existing road/farmtrack bridges and if extra bridging was needed it was lightweight – Ajax would need heavy bridging support. And CVR(T) could fit anywhere a LandRover would fit, where at 4m wide Ajax would be limited to wider routes. And getting 38t vehicles from ship to shore has greater challenges than moving 10t vehicles.
TD offered a reference to a discussion on Light Infantry held between a US Major and two British Colonels with Falkland experience (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/discussion.pdf) – in it there are several points where the utility of light armour was singled out as a major advantage. For example on the page numbered 14 in answer to Major McMichael’s question “What would you add [to a light infantry structure]?” Colonel Pughe answers “the first thing I would do is add light armour, without any doubt.” And in justification, states “light armour of the sort of our Scorpions, Scimitars, etc have many different roles. They have an anti-armour capability, they perform armoured reconnaissance (of course their primary role), but they are used in many other roles. They have the advantage of being easily transported strategically, parachute dropped, and that sort of thing. I would say that is a major requirement.”
Hohum, does that answer your question about tactical mobility.
Kind of does it for me
Looking at the current and planned spread of our army vehicles I suppose one question is how far is it sensible, practical etc to up arm and armour Viking 2 so that it can offer some punch at the lightest end of the mobility scale…?
No it doesn’t, not even close. It fails to take into account Ajax’s additional road wheels as well as suspension and transmission improvements compared to earlier vehicles. The noise comments are meaningless and unfounded (sorry but CVRT’s 1960s engine design made quite the racket at full pelt) and made lovely clouds of black smoke, noise is dependent on whats being done with the vehicle and the platforms noise attenuation.
UK amphibious lift capabilities have been uplifted significantly since the Falklands and are perfectly capable of getting Ajax ashore and sustaining it.
A man who wants light armour wants medium armour once he has it, and once he has that he wants heavy armour.
I get that Scout hate is religious here at TD but just like religion is it also unfounded nonsense. You have finally been given a Goldilocks programme (and are getting another in the form of T26) and all the crowd here can do is attack it.
Hohum, what utter cock
Read my comments on Scout and you will that I think it will be a very smart vehicle, yes, I think we have traded tactical and strategic mobility for protection but this is understandable in the contemporary operating environment. The costs I think are high leading to tradeoffs in quantity and variants and yes, I do have an allergic reaction to the marketing hype about it being transformational and British to its bootstraps, but don’t mistake that for irrational hatred.
What I think should actually happen is Ajax should be partnered with a sub ten tonne replacement for CVR(T)
On tactical mobility though, Chris is correct and you are not
Anyone want to tell me my idea of using Viking or Bronco for a light armour role is total rubbish?
Maybe theyre just the wrong shape, but couldn’t you stick a 40mmCTA on the back module and trundle them up narrow lanes and around bogs to your heart’s content?
TD
Would it be worth partnering the Scout with a sub ten tonne vehicle for the armoured and new medium formations?
@all
Can someone explain the problems you foresee with the tactical mobility of Scout as it is pretty much within the size and weight class of Warrior which has operated well enough in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan all with added armour.
TD,
Not cock at all, the hive mind here loathes Scout. Its an outstanding vehicle that sacrifices hardly anything in terms of tactical mobility and has a very realistic appraisal of strategic mobility (we are not airlifting any significant force).
I will go further. In one respect the British Army actually got very lucky by failing to execute FRES before now, unlike many other Army’s it is in a position to fully absorb all the lessons of the 15 years, something it has done with Scout and will likely do with MIV. Compare and contrast with Stryker.
Our 11th paratrooper brigade has Sagaie 9 tonnes as a vehicle for recce and support, VAB 13 tonnes as APC, the Caesar 155mm guns of 18 tonnes for the artillery.
The 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade too, and in addition has Viking, such as your 3 Commando Brigade.
It would be good for your 16AAB and 3 Commando Brigade, to have in terms of mass equivalent vehicles.
I doubt that our Sagaie will be replaced by Jaguar 25 tonnes, there will be an interest for light vehicles like the Sphinx or CRAB.
DN – ref Warrior – I guess it was a case of being careful with the choice of routes to be used by Warrior? There were tales from the time of mountain tracks being categorised as suitable for CVR(T) and LR only (after one or two Saxons had fallen off the same sort of tracks and tumbled into the valley below). Here is a picture of Warrior in Bosnia-Herzegovina looking nervous crossing a bridge that really shouldn’t have taken the weight: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205194997 I don’t think its an optical illusion or a photographic effect that makes the centre span of the bridge look like its bending.
@Hohum
Can you go easy on the ad hominem attacks? Just because others have a different opinion does not mean they are your blood enemies and deserve to be insulted, shot and have their bodies desecrated. You have a pronounced tendency to take difference in opinions as insults. Please keep it in check.
Observer,
I only “attack” the willfully ignorant.
These are the limits of big 8×8.
http://1reg.legion-etrangere.com/mdl_media/article/2/1reg_depannage-vbci.–1–%5B1600x1200%5D.jpg
@Hohum – I don’t perceive that bias myself – I get the impression that most here think that Scout will fulfill it’s role very well. Most of the discussion here (as in this thread) is about the perceived lack of strategic mobility, as it will have to move by surface transport (or one, maybe two, at a time by C17, which we have limited numbers of). This is not that much of an issue within Europe, where we have a good civilian infrastructure that can be co-opted for emergencies, but it is an issue in certain scenarios, where air transport may be your only option for moving vehicles into a theatre. After all, even the most ardent fan of any piece of kit must accept that it’s of no use whatsoever if it’s sat on a dockside 2000 miles away waiting for a Bay class to get back from the Caribbean or the Gulf to pick it up.
@Lord Jim, they are already making changes. 16AAB was removed from 3 Div a couple of weeks back and put directly under Land Command, and the Apache regiments moved back to JHC.
Carribean Perspective,
GD says Scout is A400M transportable, I have no reason to disbelieve them so that sthe entire RAF fixed wing large transport fleet.
Airlifting of AFV’s is anyway extremely rare.
@Chris
There were numerous reasons for routes being classified for classes of vehicles and not all due to the capability of the vehicles. The cause of of one of the Saxon rollover was due to the local warring faction not allowing the use of tracked vehicles to use the route, because allowing tracked vehicles through would have meant that we could send RARDEN armed vehicles, the Saxon was well known to be a tad top heavy. Lets not forget that the NORDBAT used Leapord 1 as part of UNPROFOR succesfully and during IFOR and SFOR we deployed Challenger, AS90 etc.
@Frenchie
Which is why I think you made a mistake by replacing tracks with wheels to support your tanks. Warrior, 430/Bulldog would be capable of taking that route easier.
Yes, A400M can carry Ajax, but in a quantity of 1, a vehicle at 10 tonnes can go in threes, plus personnel and for a longer distance without refuelling.
Thats the point
DN – interesting factoid about warring factions that I didn’t previously know. All the same there will be places – like the track in Frenchie’s picture here – where narrower vehicles with lighter footfall would be able to pass and MBT scaled vehicles would not. That doesn’t mean MBTs or IFVs or Ajax are pointless and useless – far from it – but it does suggest reliance on nothing but big armour applies some level of constraint to Command’s flexibility.
@Hohum
“Observer,
I only “attack” the willfully ignorant.”
Which to you is everyone who does not agree with you. Keep that bias down if you please. It’s unsightly.
@TD
Can you get 3 to a plane? Thought you’d run out of lane meters before you can squeeze it all in. In this case, weight would not be a problem but space might.
In an A400M, no, space wise, you could probably fit 4 CVR(T)
Obs – almost 18m of flat cargo floor in A400M, and still presumably the option as in C-130 of leaving some wheels on the ramp if the load is light enough. It would be down to the air transport authority here, JADTEU, to decide what would be acceptable including the tie-down scheme which might as you say make three 10t vehicles in line too long to fit.
TD,
But its not is it. The point is that AFV airlifting is extremely rare and will be even more rare now we have slashed the airlift fleet- its just not a significant requirement. And even if it was the question is not “how many can we take” but what effect they deliver on arrival. Now I know its borderline sacrilege here but your 10t aluminium can with its un-stabilized near hand loaded main gun, with little space for electronics and crew creature comforts is just not going to deliver the same effect as Ajax in an IED/RPG/ATGM rich environment.
Is Ajax a heavy recce vehicle, yes. Does the British Army have a light recce capability, yes, it’s called Jackal. That combination offers a far better capability than relying on Scimitars and Lando Rovers ever did or could.
Does the Jackal have a roof or heater?
I guess that could be an example of the problems with UOR procurement? Great for the desert but not so good in the snow or northern Europe.
Lastly, how much of the kit at Bastion was air lifted? I got the impression (from the media) that all of it was so doesn’t that show that an A400M/C17 liftable IFV/AFV is pretty important?
If we want to quickly respond to something in the middle of Africa then it’s going to be airlift or nothing. Is 22 x A400Ms with 22 x Scouts better than 44 x something smaller or 66 x something smaller still?
Does the Jackal have a roof or heater?
I guess that could be an example of the problems with UOR procurement? Great for the desert but not so good in the snow or northern Europe.
Lastly, how much of the kit at Bastion was air lifted? I got the impression (from the media) that all of it was so doesn’t that show that an A400M/C17 liftable IFV/AFV is pretty important?
If we want to quickly respond to something in the middle of Africa then it’s going to be airlift or nothing. Is 22 x A400Ms with 22 x Scouts better than 44 x something smaller or 66 x something smaller still?
Could you put a 40mm on the back of a Foxhound?
Or do we have to accept that a light battlegroup won’t have organic firepower of that kind and will have to call in fire from AH or Artillery if they run into something unexpected?
Simon,
Use Foxhound then, though you wouldn’t as getting a Scout to Northern Europe is easy.
Not as much as you think.
Yes.
Actually I won’t really mind an infantry based air-deployed force with something like the Sphinx featured in open threads as mobile fire support. It’s a fairly good middle ground. Light, compact, decent small arms protection, decent direct fire capability.
@PE
What kind of 40mm? There are at least 3 kinds that I know of. CTA, MV grenade and LV grenade.
A good discussion, all I can add is a “101” on Goldilocks:
1. Ajax, it exists and can be evaluated
2. Goldilocks Economics… the stupidity (intellectual laziness?) and policy making stupor behind the 2008 crash… scores the “zero”
3. The second “1”, in the form of T26, which does not exist but is being (and has been, for ages by now) hyped as some sort of silver bullet,
So, not convincing under the headline, and I remain to be convinced. Sometimes it almost feels as if BAE (and GD, too?) have outsourced their press operations to free lance writers? Of course, we know of past misdemeanours, but then the guilty were just banished to Kazakhstan (not to an outright barren desert).
Obs, CTA in the back and an LV at the top of the drivers’ cab?
– more is better?
I was thinking of the new 40MM CTA on either Foxhound or Viking to give mobile organic fire support to a light battle group in challenging terrain.
@PE
Battlegroup? Armoured battlegroup? Those things don’t have the armour to be up front with the battleline, if you want to use them with armour, they are best used as indirect fire support, mortars and long ranged ATGMs instead of giving them weapons that allow the enemy to range on them if used.
If you are talking about infantry support, that is a different case, it can work well as the infantry screen delays and distracts the enemy until the ATTC can move for the kill. In fact, a 40/40 combo might work very well, the main gun blasting open cover that the enemy has taken position behind as well as handling light armour and the 40mm GL tossing rounds through windows.
Now if only you can convince me it won’t break the drivetrain. :)
PE – 40CTA is wide due to its autoloader, with a demand for a large mantlet bearing on that side (for the loader to run within), and it has a fairly large charge in the round so it kicks quite hard. Fine attributes if there’s a turret large enough to accommodate it. I’m not convinced the rear pod of Bronco or BVs10 could support a large enough turret. If the intent was to have 360 degree arc of fire then the turret would need to be high enough to clear the forward cab (with allowances for whatever depression angle was required) so quite a high CofG too. It would almost make more sense to mount such a weapon low down with limited traverse, and give the driver a cupola and a seat facing the other way so he could see over the roof, and drive the vehicle backwards… Not really the same vehicle, nor one with limited modification and qualification. And at the end of the process probably – um – a bit of a lemon?
@Chris
‘but it does suggest reliance on nothing but big armour applies some level of constraint to Command’s flexibility’
That’s the point though, we do have a range of vehicles. Just because we are purchasing Ajax does not mean that we have forsaken the light and medium brackets, we have Foxhound, Jackal, Panther and even the RWMIK in the light bracket we then have Husky, Ridgeback, Mastiff and the most numerous of all 430/Bulldog for the medium weight category. We are looking for MIV in the 8×8 medium’ish category coupled with the MRV-P requirement that will cover all other roles and be in the same weight bracket as Husky, how are we suddenly massively heavy or looking to be? Mastiff and it’s ilk are unwieldy and not really suited to general warfare, but they are not hugely heavy.
Observer / Chris
When I say “Light Battlegroup” I am thinking of a RM or Para formation with all its attached support, but projected at range where either logisitics or terrain is a big constraint.
So where in the past we might have attached a squadron or a troop of CVRT to give some mobile firepower what would we send in the future?
You could argue that that would be a very rare situation that totally precludes Ajax. In that very rare situation I guess you would: rely on existing Foxhound or Viking for mobility and call in fires from above: AH or Arty.
DN – agreed ref Mastiff; big and not very good off-road. As for the lighter vehicles then: Husky is a small cab and pick-up bed, Panther a smaller cab and cargo box, Foxhound a 4-dismount taxi, Warthog and Viking are high mobility people movers, Jackal is a blast protected open MG platform. While I quite like Jackal/HMT I struggle to list it as ‘armour’ when it offers no protection against frag, rooftop snipers, petrol bombs or half-bricks lobbed by rioters. Panther and Husky have had some questions asked about the real level of protection provided (I don’t know if criticism was justified), so for peace of mind the only bit of sound light-end armour I see at the moment would be the two bendy-APCs and Foxhound, and they are each unlikely to have a punchy (as in more than .50cal) weapon installed, aren’t they? MRV-P looks to be a lighter version of Foxhound in character and at its required unit price will be I suspect along the lines of JLTV. So at the light end with the exception of Jackal we have I suggest a collection of small APCs possibly mounting self-protection weapons and possibly carrying Javelin or MANPADS in the back.
At the heavy end we have Challenger 2 (not enough of them in my estimation but the same goes for RAF combat jets and RN combat vessels), and their siblings CRARRV, Titan & Trojan, a little smaller we have Warrior & Ajax which to the outside world look to be clones, and Terrier. And soon it seems a wheeled probably turreted vehicle slightly lighter than Warrior but about the same bulk which arguably would eventually replace Warrior anyway?
Hence pretty well all the mobile punch seems to me to be at the 30t end of the scale, with the light end serving to move infantry about. Turning back to the Falkland conversation document I referenced up-thread and looking at the current or planned armour, its not clear whether the Paras & Commandos would be assisted as well now as they were then.
PE – ref “what would we send in the future?” – I have a fine set of designs etc etc….
@Chris
All of the vehicles in the light category are better than what we had 10-15 years ago for the light forces considering that light in the British army generally meant you moved around in an un armored Bedford/DAF. We may be losing CVRT but in terms of mobility and protection we are in a much better situation for at least half of our light units. I don’t count any of the light vehicles as armoured they are protected if you want armoured the CVRT does not even cut it anymore and if we wanted we could probably mount heavier weapons on Viking and Jackal but as they are not really meant for going against a peer enemy without having some back up from heavier units why do we need to.
MRV-P would look something like the Dingo or a combination of light Foxhound and something heavier it ranges up to the weight class as Husky.
MIV and MRV-P will be our medium weight force along with Ajax so vehicles ranging from 38 – 10ish t.
In regards to the Falklands any force sent to retake the islands as in 1982 will be better served with the kit available now than then, the addition of Viking alone changes the scenario immediately not to mention all the 206’s we possess.
@Hohum
I’m obviously one of those who you refer to as “wilfully ignorant”. Now while I am ignorant of many things their are a few things I know a little about and feel I’m entitled to express my opinion, particularly on a forum designed for the purpose. If you want to pick me up on any factual errors that’s fine and of course you can argue your own point of view, if you make it convincing you never know I might even change my own opinion.
Why not give it a go!
One question for you which engine were you referring to when you said it made a racket at high speed and emitted plumes of black smoke?
Oh and certainly in the past it was not unusual for AFVs to be transported by air, (well CVR(T) anyway).
@DavidNiven
In 1982 the Marines did have BV 202. Obviously 206 and Viking are far superior, their cross country performance is excellent, but they couldn’t replace the capability offered by CVR(T).
We could always see if the Germans have any surplus Wiesels to provide 16 AA Bde some mobile fire support, or at least borrow some to see if they are up to the job. As for the RM I am sure their is more that can be done with the Viking. Take some of the soon to be surplus HVM turrets (The RA are planning to downsize reducing the number of Stormer/HVM from 108 to 84) and fit them to the rear cab for example. Another idea would be an under armour ATGW turret with Javelin, similar to the Milan turret we developed for the Spartan. Finally I think you could fit a CTA 40 on the back, but more like a portee mount firing to the rear (270 degree arc if fire). This would allow you to keep the total height roughly the same and lower the centre of gravity. Just an idea out of the box.
@LJ – I did think about the Wiesel 2’s as a niche capability for the paras / RM; ATGW / Mortar options might be a reasonable capability for a truly lightweight vehicle – how many would we get on a C17 / A400. I’m sure the pushback will be it is too light…
mickp – I think for many roles its 2-man only as well? Whenever I have suggested 2-man vehicles (beyond the likes of Landrover anyway) the response has been that three is the minimum. I think for something very much in the Ferret mould there would be a fighting chance (pun!) of arguing for a 2-man crew, but for anything more specialist/aggressive – despite any advantages there may be – the Army will demand 3 or more crew per vehicle.
Chris, thanks – need a ‘Wiesel 3’ then, or one of your designs…
I’m not an Ajax hater, in fact it is looking exceptionally good; that and MIV are key elements of a highly credible heavy / medium force that puts us at the top table where we should be (Ch2 upgrade would be good). CVRT was falling behind the curve for bigger better protected vehicles in the armoured formations. I am under no pretence about air portability; Ajax by air will be an exception. Basic mobility for the paras, marines is covered by Viking, Jackal, Foxhound and the MRV-P concept, I think it would just be desirable if there was a modern CVRT style AFV that was truly airportable and half a dozen or more by air would add some mobile firepower, cannon, mortar, ATGW to any landed light force until the big boys arrived. Other than Weisel (too small?) or perhaps Sphynx, or even retaining Scimitar 2 for 16 AAB, there’s not much OTS. Or is it a capability we really don’t need??
mickp – I might be a bit biassed… But clearly I think we do need such a capability and one that is better protected and more effective than CVR(T) and just as mobile/transportable. not only do I believe these to be necessary but I have sunk considerable funds into creating designs for them.
@Chris – are you having any luck with the MOD?
mickp – ever hopeful… The few Army personnel I have briefed seemed quite keen, but clearly there are a lot of officers involved in deciding what needs buying so I’m pretty sure I haven’t found the right people to brief yet. So no luck yet but I try very hard to make my own luck in this regard.
Didn’t 1982 vintage CVR(T) have an lovely old Jag Xj6 4.2 engine?
Going very light (in the back of a Chinook), there are a couple of British vehicles around (well Fox is Brtish/Jordanian), aimed at SF, I guess, and unprotected (and based on heavily modified SUV running gear – Disco and Toyota 70). Nice though.
http://www.jankel.com/fox-lrpv
http://supacat.com/products/lrv400/
JF – CVR(T) in the early days (up to the 90s) did indeed have a 4.2 litre Jag XK engine, with lower compression ratio than the car engine and a chunky Solex carb in place of the multiple SUs of the road car engine.
As for CH-47 carriage, I’m pretty sure the original truck that became Jackal was designed for CH-47 carriage internally (this was in its unarmoured state; its possible the armour increased external dimensions). Its 1.6t heavier with the armour, which might make RAF a bit nervous of carrying it inside their Chinook.
In the late 1990s we spent a weekend down on Castlemartin ranges exercising with a CVRT recce troop from the Worcestershire and Sherwood Forresters. I can confirm that the Jaguar engines were pretty loud :D
@Chris, is Jackal a direct descendant of Extenda, or are they parallel development lines (you know, the “knealing suspension” to get it through the back opening. They have something similar in Australia, also from Supacat.
ACC – all variants of the original HMT that started at Supacat. HMT was parcelled into a separate business entity that was bought by Lockheed Martin something like a dozen years ago, but hasn’t really done much with it since. Although I’m sure Supacat (or SC as they might want to be known) would make more HMT based vehicles if asked, their development efforts are being put into their newer non-HMT designs.
Chris/ACC,
LM owns the HMT IP, Supacat uses it under license.
@HH, Chris/AC. Did SupaCat develop the HMT extenda especially for Australia? They have used the same tech on the new LRV 400 by the look of it too – it comes convertable to 6×6.
Extenda was an early idea (2001/2 I think) which didn’t gain much traction until a couple of foreign customers took them on – Australia being one of them. LRV400 has no technical connection with HMT as far as I am aware, but the idea of extending a 4×4 to a 6×6 by bolting in a chassis extension complete with all the suspension and electrics has apparently been applied once more.
LRV400 was based on a Qt Wildcat chassis
LRV 400 Mk2 is based on a Land Rover Discovery chassis