Jump to content

Ajax Issues


Dawes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

17 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Apples and oranges. The CV9040 works, yes. So do a lot of other legacy vehicles. But that doesn't change the fact that it was designed 40+ years ago around an increasingly obsolete AA gun of which vast stockpiles had accumulated.

The CV9040s protection level is, I would guess, based on the British Army's demonstrated priority for armor protection in past projects, simply inadequate. Once that you up the protection to a modern standard you end up with "an office building", see CV9035, with all the functional compromises that their desugn entails.

You want protection at the cost of size, use Challengers for recce and Namer for APC.  They're actually smaller than some of the newer vehicles out there.  You want vehicles that aren't obvious and aren't big targets that still can't take ATGM and tank fire, get something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think a Challenger would work. Granted, its going to be expensive when it comes to a war, but then I think any peer on peer war would be these days.

Funny thing, Bob Griffin told me he had the job of taking his Chieftain out forward of the rest of his regiment to let them know when 3rd Shock Army was coming across the border. I guess they figured it was more survivable than a Ferret....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These problems actually made the news here this week in the Antipodes.  Must be a slow news week here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they told me in the seventies that a Jeep was cheap.  So long as we could get a contact report out, survival wasn't important.  Recce just isn't a safe activity.  Someone eventually has to drive down a route waiting for the bad guys to fire first.  Chances are a bit better in a Chieftain than a Lynx or a Jeep, but it may also mean they just use main armament instead of coax.

There's a happier medium between a sixty ton MBT and a quarter-ton truck.  A forty ton medium tank as big and costly as the MBT, but not as survivable, isn't it.  SA twenty to thirty tonner that works, even if the design is as old as an Abrams, Challenger, or Leopard 2, is a lot better than a behemoth that doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want recce to be able to use as many bridges as possible, so MLC is probably the prime reason why not all recce is done by MBT platforms. Also, yes, drones will transform the reconnaissance business more than any other novel gadget since, maybe, the introduction of thermal imagers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recce has a role for information gathering that is not always just about detection of enemy position or movement but also of strength and composition. A little of actual engagement could illuminate more information on enemy composition then just scoting after a very brief contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But you can always send a heavier force if you want to test the enemy that way. On the other hand you also want to find out whether a road is clear, a bridge is strong enough to support the movement of your battalion, etc.

In those cases a lighter, fast platform is usually better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dingo: mobility of a jeep, smaller than a light tank but with fair armour for its size.  Not great for long range recon, but great for close recon supporting armoured units.

It seems to have been forgotten that recon comes in various forms, and may require different platforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well CVRT blurred the lines between what was a recce vehicle suitable for high intensity warfare, and one that was useful in bushfire wars. I gather the specs for it were written with the gap between Malay rubber trees in mind.

I think we are getting to the point where one vehicle suits all wont work. If they really want a mobile recce platform for the strike brigades, give them an armoured car. The French have lots available. I can see the point of Ajax and associated vehicles for the armoured brigades, but as we are soon to have only two, you have to wonder at the prodigious investment into a vehicle with such a limited scope. I

blame the MOD for their obsession with early 2000's American doctrine which has completely bent our doctrine out of shape. I dont believe there is any need for 4 light role infantry brigades. The only reason the MOD is going for them is they are relatively cheap.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 The French have lots available.

 

French light armour platoons usually have three heavy armoured cars (105mm armed AMX-10RCs, soon to be replaced by Jaguar with 40mm gun and MMP AT-missiles) and three light armoured scout cars (VBL), so a mix between light and heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Lets buy it off the peg. If we want to do recce for the mechanised brigades, put a 40mm turret on a Challenger 2 hull and leave it at that. Its going to cost to run, but its going to be survivable if nothing else.

So spend a bunch more years and hundreds of millions of pounds developing a Challenger 3/40 which would have what advantage over a Challenger 3/120?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, R011 said:

So spend a bunch more years and hundreds of millions of pounds developing a Challenger 3/40 which would have what advantage over a Challenger 3/120?

1) More costly. A clear advantage for industry

2) more rounds on board. Good for pretty much everything BUT other MBTs

3) A longer development phase opens the opportunity for last minute design changes to add new gizmos, see point #1.

4) Extended potential for mockery and .mil related satire and comedy

 

It's a win for everybody except taxpayers and soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

So spend a bunch more years and hundreds of millions of pounds developing a Challenger 3/40 which would have what advantage over a Challenger 3/120?

1 Survivable.

2 Does have an ability to cross a ditch without turning the crew into cripples.

3 Shares components with Challenger 3, so easier to maintain in a battlegroup.

4 would be cheaper than Challenger 3 because it doesn need an all new turret, you can use the turret on Ajax or warrior, and I suspect both companies would be keen to strike a good deal. Heck, you could probably get by sticking warrior turrets on it. The hulls already exist and only face scrapping or abandonment. So why not use them?

5 Mockery. Has anyone looked at Israeli heavy apc's lately? Its not such a step away from the Russian BMPT, which they are apparently trying to put into production.

Ive long through we are heading towards a situation that rather than direct fire  vehicles, we are going to have lookers and shooters. Recce vehicles uparmour to remains survivable, but dont really need anything more than a 40 or 50mm because you dont want to get them engaged. Whereas the shooters will remain out of sight about 6 km away dropping rounds on the targets the lookers find for them.

Im sure its a deeply flawed concept, but Ill warrant its going to be a lot cheaper than the flawed deely concept we seem to have bought. So....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 9:30 AM, Ssnake said:

The thing is from the mid 1980s. 

As a concept it was developed in the 80's yes, but actual production models didnt enter service until early 90's (93' IIRC) . And btw, the Puma's design is from the 90's ....are you going to argue it is obsolete as well? 

Quote

But they also have a serious issue with (the lack of) ready ammunition.

Encourages the crew not to miss and waste ammunition😁 In all seriousness , though i agree that 2x35 rounds isnt exactly optimal, but either it has proven difficult to rectify or it simply isnt the huge issue/limition it is often made out to be. In any case for the Dutch CV9035NL at least the situation is about to improve somewhat, with their new turret which supposedly features more ready rounds in addition to ATGMS and APS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2021 at 12:25 PM, Ssnake said:

Once that you up the protection to a modern standard you end up with "an office building", see CV9035,

Compared to the current crop of "heavy" IFVs like Puma, Ajax,Lynx, AS-21 etc, calling the CV9035 an "office building" is downright ludicrous. It is in fact only marginally bigger than a CV9040 in terms of exteriour dimensions.

Quote

with all the functional compromises that their desugn entails.

"all the functional compromises"...🙄....Yeah we all know its a horribly flawed and compromised design🤣....But at least it didnt take 15 years to get to FOC only to be partly obsolescent at introduction, like a certain other IFV!                         

And compared to the driving dumpster fire that is AJAX i'd say the Swedish bag of compromises is looking rather good right about now

What is it with you and the CV90(35 especially) anyway?....did it steal your lunch money or what?....you seem to be taking a stab at it every chance you get!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that the design compromises made in the CV90 (all of them) were terrible, that these vehicles don't work. But the fact that the Dutch are having completely new turrets built with, among other goals, the explicit desire to have more ready rounds indicates to me that the very customers are well aware of this, and not exactly happy about it.

The Bushmaster guns, especially the 35mm Bushmaster III, takes up a substantial internal volume (in that respect the 40mm CTA gun of the Ajax is an excellent choice). The 40mm Bofors L/70 is also a small volume gun (at the expense of not having a belt feed but three magazines of eight shots each).

The fact that every CV90 project in the past was a more or less complete redesign also speaks volumes of the whole platform. There are of course common parts but not even the fire control systems of the Danish and Dutch CV90/35 are the same despite being introduced almost simultaneously (yes, the Dutch wanted more bells and whistles, so it's down to customer choice, not so much the inability of BAE Hägglunds to deliver). The closest to a common family are the Finnish, Norwegian, and Swiss CV9030.

 

I'm not particularly peeved about the CV90 platform as such. I don't dispute that if the package has convinced half a dozen entirely independent customers it can't be all that bad. Still, 35 KETF in a feed where you're typically expected to fire a burst of four or five rounds. That's seven targets before the vehicle is down for a reload. I simply refuse to participate in any spin doctoring to declare that as a good thing.

Also, I'm not here to promote any other platform. Maybe I'm generally not too fond of the IFV concept as such (though fuck me if I could name a clearly better solution). If we accept 30mm APDS at 700m range as the ballistic protection limit (because otherwise we'd transition into Namera and Achzarit territory), I suppose the CV90s and the Puma are about as good as it gets overall. But are we, in all seriousness, happy with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really try to resist declinism but it’s increasingly difficult not to conclude humans are becoming stupider.  How on earth is it possible for a tracked vehicle’s automotive design to go so insanely wrong at this point in technological history???

If as Stuart states the turret works well, it should be relatively easy to mate to a decent existing tracked chassis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2021 at 9:44 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

1 Survivable.

2 Does have an ability to cross a ditch without turning the crew into cripples.

3 Shares components with Challenger 3, so easier to maintain in a battlegroup.

4 would be cheaper than Challenger 3 because it doesn need an all new turret, you can use the turret on Ajax or warrior, and I suspect both companies would be keen to strike a good deal. Heck, you could probably get by sticking warrior turrets on it. The hulls already exist and only face scrapping or abandonment. So why not use them?

5 Mockery. Has anyone looked at Israeli heavy apc's lately? Its not such a step away from the Russian BMPT, which they are apparently trying to put into production.

Ive long through we are heading towards a situation that rather than direct fire  vehicles, we are going to have lookers and shooters. Recce vehicles uparmour to remains survivable, but dont really need anything more than a 40 or 50mm because you dont want to get them engaged. Whereas the shooters will remain out of sight about 6 km away dropping rounds on the targets the lookers find for them.

Im sure its a deeply flawed concept, but Ill warrant its going to be a lot cheaper than the flawed deely concept we seem to have bought. So....

Challenger 3 already has a turret that doesn't need to be integrated into the hull.  Even existing  35 or 40 mm turrets would need extensive work on them and the hulls to fit.  They aren't drop in units.  Thus several years and lots of money for little or no benefit.

Or buy off the shelf recce vehicles.  You could buy from Nexter, pay the Ajax workers to sit around playing cards, and still get vehicles cheaper and quicker.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2021 at 4:52 PM, Ssnake said:

But the fact that the Dutch are having completely new turrets built with, among other goals, the explicit desire to have more ready rounds indicates to me that the very customers are well aware of this, and not exactly happy about it.

AFAIK the new turret will be able to carry an additional 7 rounds in each feed. I feel pretty confident in saying that the Dutch isnt investing a substiantal amount of money in a brand new turret just to get a grand total of 14 extra ready rounds! ....It's far more likely required in order to be able to accomodate their SPIKE atgms and Iron Fist APS, and that a happy side effect of the new turret design is more room for gun and ammo( supposedly the BM III will be mounted much further forward compared to the existing E-series turret)

Quote

The Bushmaster guns, especially the 35mm Bushmaster III, takes up a substantial internal volume (in that respect the 40mm CTA gun of the Ajax is an excellent choice).


Compared to what exactly?....if you look at the BM guns without their feeds they are actually quite small and compact....although i concede the 35mm BM a little less so. But it IS also a much more powerful gun...nothing is free.

As for the CT40...yes it is very compact.....its bulky ammo handling systems/magazines not so much!......and then you have all the inherent drawbacks of that "unique" weapon system: Excessive throat erosion and barrel wear, basically no growth potential as the ammo is pretty much maxed out from the start and ammunition so eye-wateringly expensive it makes 35mm rounds look like cheap surplus Partizan ammo in comparison!  

For all the merits of the CT40 , there is a reason why most armies stick with their Bushmasters, Mausers etc.

Quote

The 40mm Bofors L/70 is also a small volume gun 

You must be joking?  Its YUUUGE... even compared to the BM III ...

CTA%20comparison.jpg

Quote

The fact that every CV90 project in the past was a more or less complete redesign also speaks volumes of the whole platform.

Pure hyperbole....it speaks volumes about the flexibilty of the platform and  of Hägglunds willingness to tailor each CV90 according to customer requirements. Because we are talking about vehicles for 6 different countries with different demands and spanning more than a decade , ofc there are differences between them. Just like Ulan and Pizarro is also not similar despite the "common" ASCOD design. For CV90 at least you have commonality within the seperate generations ....Mk0 and Mk1 share drivetrain, hull and suspension, ...MkII featured the raised rear roof , uprated suspension and the new stronger powerpack all of which is also found on the MKIIIs . 

Quote

There are of course common parts but not even the fire control systems of the Danish and Dutch CV90/35 are the same despite being introduced almost simultaneously (yes, the Dutch wanted more bells and whistles, so it's down to customer choice, not so much the inability of BAE Hägglunds to deliver).

You are basically defeating your own argument here....as you point out the differences are due to customer requirements.....i simply cant fathom how that can be construed as a failing of the basic vehicle design .

Besides the CV9035DK/NL does have the same/similar FCS...the same SAAB UTAAS gps , with the same day sight, and Catherine XP thermal imager, same LRF....they even have the same FCS modes. The ONLY difference is the End Of Belt stop on the dutch version.  And yes they also wanted the thermal sigt for the commander and the DAS laser warning system...and bomblet protection, none of which is found on the danish version. That hardly makes them completely different vehicles though.

Quote

The closest to a common family are the Finnish, Norwegian, and Swiss CV9030.

Not really. The original Norwegian Mk1s have little in common with the CV9030CH and FIN which are both MkII's. Even the gun is "different" ...original bushmaster mk II vs upgraded MK44. 

Quote

Still, 35 KETF in a feed where you're typically expected to fire a burst of four or five rounds.


Says who? .....That is certainly not standard danish practice......granted its been quite a few years since i was in the army working alongside the CV90s but i dont ever recall them shooting that many rounds outside of demo/exhibition shoots. On the range i always saw them fire either single aimed shots or 2 round bursts.  Also i know a few of the CV90 units master gunners and i've NEVER heard them speak of the limited ready ammo as a serious issure or being an unsurmountable tactical challenge(reloading). 

Quote

That's seven targets before the vehicle is down for a reload.

Only if it actually takes 5 rounds to defeat each target....or you are stupid enough to waste your ammo. 

Quote

I simply refuse to participate in any spin doctoring to declare that as a good thing.

Im with you as far as i agree its not an optimal solution......i would have liked to see atleast 100 -120 ready rounds and in retrospect they probably should have designed a bigger turret for that gun. That being said the Bushmaster III IS a powerful weapon system featuring longer range, better accuracy and (much) more punch compared to its smaller siblings.....especially with its secondary ammo natures like HEI and AHEAD/KETF . In most cases it simply wont need as many rounds to do the job.....though im well aware that you probably dont agree with that assesment. 

Quote

Also, I'm not here to promote any other platform. Maybe I'm generally not too fond of the IFV concept as such (though fuck me if I could name a clearly better solution). If we accept 30mm APDS at 700m range as the ballistic protection limit (because otherwise we'd transition into Namera and Achzarit territory), I suppose the CV90s and the Puma are about as good as it gets overall. But are we, in all seriousness, happy with that?

You make some good points here. I too feel somewhat ambivalent wrt the IFV concept. While undeniably useful as infantry support vehicles, they are by design inherently compromised....not really great as carriers of infrantry, not powerful enough to knock out the heaviest targets on the battlefield( disregarding the 1-2 atgms potentially carried) and only broadly protected from its own class of vehicles..

The problem is that the straightforward answer to those limitations invariably end up as +€10M tank-sized behemoths, that are neither affordable nor supportable and which will in all likelyhood still be vulnerable to modern heavy antitank weapons.

I dont have a good alternative answer either. I only know that we will have to accept that simply increasing passive protection is a dead-end. We are already at the practical limit in terms of both size and weight and when tomorrows weapons render even the most armored vehicles of today obsolete, we will have to find another way.  Either accept greater risk and potential casualties OR leave the fighting to robots and drones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Bofors L70 gun is big, but the ammo feed is very compact. So the combination of ready ammo, magazines and gun is in effect not quite so bad as the pure gun silhouette suggests. Also, I'm not saying that the Bushmaster III isn't capable. It very much is. I'm not sure that the 5mm extra caliber are essential, though. I'm sure they were chosen for a reason, but then again the Bundeswehr apparently considered the 30mm cannon "still and for the foreseeable future" adequate.

I also agree that the reason the Dutch are buying new turrets are primarily motivated by Spike integration and Trophy, so that the extra ammo is a welcome fringe benefit and not the primary justification. Still. Seven rounds more per feed is a 20% increase. I'm not sure if I should celebrate "20% more" or weep because it just takes a mere seven rounds to add 20%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cramming lots of firepower and dismounts in a heavily protected platform means, a Class 50 tracked barn.

It would seem that we are at a juncture in which fission should occur with a return to an APC and Fire Support Vehicle built on common mechnicals. 

The APCs deliver the infantry to the point of contact and then hold behind while the FSVs support them along with other assets. 

APCs wont need 3 man crews, just 2. They dont need hard kill APS, just defensive screening. Not having the turret means they can carry more dismounts and their gear. A .50 RWS is probably going to keep them from being too aggressive. What I would probably carry on them  are drones and NLOS missiles.

The FSV can be your classic IFV loadout with autocannon, missiles and such. 3 man crew with a remote turret module. My preference would be rear engine/drive train for weight balance. 

Passive portection would be heavier than APC of course but probably still Class 30. 

Yes, it means more tracks, more personnel etc. but aren't we totally over the whole expeditionary thingie yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2021 at 2:44 AM, Ssnake said:

Yes, the Bofors L70 gun is big, but the ammo feed is very compact. So the combination of ready ammo, magazines and gun is in effect not quite so bad as the pure gun silhouette suggests. 

True the L70 has a fairly compact feed, but at the cost of only having 8 ready rounds of each ammo nature. And while it is easier and faster to reload, it does require the vehicle commander to stop commanding and become full time loader instead. Hardly a much superiour solution compared to the Bushmasters. 

Quote

Also, I'm not saying that the Bushmaster III isn't capable. It very much is. I'm not sure that the 5mm extra caliber are essential, 

A mere 5mm, which belies the actual size and power difference between the 35 and 30mm.....which is substantial. 

Quote

I'm sure they were chosen for a reason,

That reason primarily being the great utitily and versatility of 35mm AHEAD and later KETF ammo, which has proven very effective against both infantry, AFV optics, softskinned and light armored vehicles as well as infrastructure, helicopters and UAVs. In terms of AP performance the ability to penetrate even up-armored threat IFVs at longer range and the great growth potential (to 50mm) undoubtedly played a role as well.

Quote

but then again the Bundeswehr apparently considered the 30mm cannon "still and for the foreseeable future" adequate

As do many other armies which are sticking with the 30mm.....at least partly for reasons of commonality and security of supply im guessing though. Im just not so sure that assesment still  holds.... 30mm might be more than adequate against legacy vehicles, but our (most likely) enemies wont be driving around in stock soviet era BMP-1,2 & 3s forever.

Pretty much all newer IFVs, whether medium or heavy , is protected against 30mm apfsds to some degree....even Russian and Chinese designs. And while it will undoubtedly take a while before Kurganets and T-15s etc start replacing older vehicles in great numbers, at some point they will.  The trend towards heavier and better protected vehicles is as unmistakable as the trend towards bigger and more powerful autocannons, be it 35 or 40mm or  50 and 57mm.  The CV9035 (and 40 ) were just somewhat ahead of their time in that respect.

Quote

 Still. Seven rounds more per feed is a 20% increase.

And according to you will afford the Dutch exactly 1 more engagement per feed. Excuse me but that juice is hardly worth the squeeze.

Quote

I'm not sure if I should celebrate "20% more" or weep because it just takes a mere seven rounds to add 20%.

Weep all you like but fact is you made exactly the same choice (and compromise) when you went from the Marders generous 500 ready rounds to the Pumas "meager" 200.  The performance delta between 20 and 30mm isnt all that different from that between 30x173and 35x228mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...