Future Armour

[Maxman1]

Coming soon at CANSEC, the future of tank transporting

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057640953666503041

Looks a lot like the past of tank transporting.

 

[PrairieFella]

A day late and a dollar short - HETTs are part of the heavy side of LVM. A whole bunch of trucks that can tow 72T from what Ive heard.

 

[Maxman1]

Hopefully they increase the order from 500.

 

[PrairieFella]

Hopefully they increase the order from 500.

I wonder if theres an option for more they can exercise with all the new money. Itd certainly be an easy win and this truck seems pretty cool. Much much much needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

More on th UGV front in the British Army

Army awards first fast-tracked UGV contract to UK startup

Windsor-based XRC Robotics has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence for its RHINO uncrewed ground vehicle, in what the company describes as the first time the UK has fast-tracked a robotic platform into frontline experimentation programmes.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Kirkhill]

Ajax and Challenger 3 to go ahead.

The Ajax tank will go ahead. It’s the right decision

Every vehicle must be brought fully up to spec, including hard-kill active protection

www.telegraph.co.uk

"..transformative is the way reconnaissance is conducted. Where once soldiers patrolled on foot, burdened with equipment and exposed to risk, Ajax deploys drones to gather intelligence in real time to supplement and support its own sensors. The result is faster decision-making, greater survivability, and the ability to strike with accuracy, either directly or by calling in firepower from elsewhere – for instance Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) missiles fired by units of the Royal Artillery."

"Ajax, like Challenger 3, is not merely a vehicle; it is a node in a network. It delivers real-time, secure communications in a way that would have been unimaginable to previous generations. Gone are the days of laborious BATCO encoding and unwieldy paper maps. In their place are instant, encrypted data exchange and intuitive digital interfaces that allow commanders to understand and shape the battlespace with precision."

Maybe not...

Army’s troubled Ajax may never reach battlefield

MPs challenge MoD to explain why £6.3bn programme has produced an armoured vehicle that is ‘not fit for purpose’

www.telegraph.co.uk

"A report published by Parliament’s public accounts committee has now disclosed that soldiers have been instructed to mitigate the issues by conducting maintenance checks every time they stop the vehicle.

"The committee’s report said there were “unrealistic expectations” about Ajax’s future use, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had not explained how soldiers would be able to conduct such checks when “operating Ajax for long periods in combat”."

I am not sure how these maintenance checks may differ from routine maintenance checks common to all vehicles when they come to a halt.
The chairman of the committee at least has some military background - a Cold War Territiorial.

 

[ArmyRick]

Maybe not...

Army’s troubled Ajax may never reach battlefield

MPs challenge MoD to explain why £6.3bn programme has produced an armoured vehicle that is ‘not fit for purpose’

www.telegraph.co.uk

"A report published by Parliament’s public accounts committee has now disclosed that soldiers have been instructed to mitigate the issues by conducting maintenance checks every time they stop the vehicle.

"The committee’s report said there were “unrealistic expectations” about Ajax’s future use, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had not explained how soldiers would be able to conduct such checks when “operating Ajax for long periods in combat”."

I am not sure how these maintenance checks may differ from routine maintenance checks common to all vehicles when they come to a halt.
The chairman of the committee at least has some military background - a Cold War Territiorial.

Is the Ajax the UK's TAPV?

 

[Maxman1]

Is the Ajax the UK's TAPV?

I don't think even the TAPV is that bad. It's a questionable design that we haven't found the right use for, but for the most part it actually works and doesn't cause injuries just by being in it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Coroner ‘unlawfully’ ruled that SAS ambush of IRA men was unjustified

Government is appealing High Court ruling in Belfast, saying European Convention on Human Rights had been misinterpreted

www.telegraph.co.uk

"Vehicles must act as command centres in a wider digital combat system, controlling drones that enhance their lethality and survivability"

If Tanks are to be command centres for drones is the space taken up by the cannon and its 42 rounds justified? Or is a Heavy IFV command vehicle with a 30mm CUAS turret a Tank?

The big gun tank may be moving more towards the AVRE end of the spectrum. A specialist vehicle necessary in particular circumstances.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I don't think even the TAPV is that bad. It's a questionable design that we haven't found the right use for, but for the most part it actually works and doesn't cause injuries just by being in it.

Most of the time..

 

[KevinB]

Most of the time..

Sex Panther.
60% of the time, it works every time…

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe not...

Army’s troubled Ajax may never reach battlefield

MPs challenge MoD to explain why £6.3bn programme has produced an armoured vehicle that is ‘not fit for purpose’

www.telegraph.co.uk

"A report published by Parliament’s public accounts committee has now disclosed that soldiers have been instructed to mitigate the issues by conducting maintenance checks every time they stop the vehicle.

"The committee’s report said there were “unrealistic expectations” about Ajax’s future use, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had not explained how soldiers would be able to conduct such checks when “operating Ajax for long periods in combat”."

I am not sure how these maintenance checks may differ from routine maintenance checks common to all vehicles when they come to a halt.
The chairman of the committee at least has some military background - a Cold War Territiorial.

There again....

Britain’s ‘improved Ajax’ coming in two phases

The Ministry of Defence will restart trials of the British Army's troubled Ajax armoured vehicle under tightly controlled conditions, with a second phase of fixes to air filtration, crew heating and electrical power due within months.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

"Conservative MP for Huntingdon, Ben Obese-Jecty, who had asked what progress had been made on what he called Ajax 2.

"Pollard told him the department was “working on a phased approach to delivering an improved Ajax vehicle”, "

....

"a first phase that would restart trials on the current version of Ajax,"

How often do you have to inspect a turd?

"The second phase, Pollard said, would deliver “a number of significant enhancements within months”, including improvements to air filtration, crew-compartment heating and the electrical power generation system,"

I wonder if the problem is just with the AJAX version or if it extends to all the other variants?

 

[KevinB]

I wonder if the problem is just with the AJAX version or if it extends to all the other variants?

I’m guessing the UK MoD would prefer to go back in time and adopt the CV-90 instead, or continue the Warrior upgrade.

AJAX isn’t an ASCOD, the vehicle are dramatically different other than external aspects - and while GDUK may have used the ASCOD as the baseline it appears to have drifted heavily off the beaten path.

Looking at the various developments off the ASCOD original:
ASCOD: 27-31 tons
ASCOD II: up to 47 tons
AJAX: up to 47 tons
M10 Booker: 46 tons
GDLS MICV: up to 55 tons

A lot of AJAX issues seem to be based on the “modularity” and trying to make multiple different platforms out of 1 AFV.
Anyone with familiarity of up armoring vehicles will tell you there is only so much room in the inn. It gets worse with power requirements, as you just cannot stick a larger engine in most systems without accounting for cooling.
With AJAX it appears the Brits wanted to be able to have a stripped down version for training, that one could add around 10 tons (roughly 1/4 the vehicle weight) in additional armor --

While the M10 Booker was withdrawn from service down here, it didn’t have the issues the UK report - once may surmise the fact that it was built ground up to be a ~50t AFV, and had the backbone for the digital communication and fire control systems, and not seemingly added as an afterthought to the AJAX.

@Kirkhill the AJAX somewhat reminds me of the LAV growth whereas the original LAV 2.0 design was a reasonable system, the heavier it got, the further it got from the original intent - but unlike the LAV family growth which for the most part has been complete reworks of the entire system, the AJAX seemed to think that it would be able to plug and play systems and armor that it really could not.

Which goes back to my general principle - get a purpose built vehicle designed for the most arduous task, and don’t try to make a base vehicle something it is not.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m guessing the UK MoD would prefer to go back in time and adopt the CV-90 instead, or continue the Warrior upgrade.

AJAX isn’t an ASCOD, the vehicle are dramatically different other than external aspects - and while GDUK may have used the ASCOD as the baseline it appears to have drifted heavily off the beaten path.

Looking at the various developments off the ASCOD original:
ASCOD: 27-31 tons
ASCOD II: up to 47 tons
AJAX: up to 47 tons
M10 Booker: 46 tons
GDLS MICV: up to 55 tons

A lot of AJAX issues seem to be based on the “modularity” and trying to make multiple different platforms out of 1 AFV.
Anyone with familiarity of up armoring vehicles will tell you there is only so much room in the inn. It gets worse with power requirements, as you just cannot stick a larger engine in most systems without accounting for cooling.
With AJAX it appears the Brits wanted to be able to have a stripped down version for training, that one could add around 10 tons (roughly 1/4 the vehicle weight) in additional armor --

While the M10 Booker was withdrawn from service down here, it didn’t have the issues the UK report - once may surmise the fact that it was built ground up to be a ~50t AFV, and had the backbone for the digital communication and fire control systems, and not seemingly added as an afterthought to the AJAX.

@Kirkhill the AJAX somewhat reminds me of the LAV growth whereas the original LAV 2.0 design was a reasonable system, the heavier it got, the further it got from the original intent - but unlike the LAV family growth which for the most part has been complete reworks of the entire system, the AJAX seemed to think that it would be able to plug and play systems and armor that it really could not.

Which goes back to my general principle - get a purpose built vehicle designed for the most arduous task, and don’t try to make a base vehicle something it is not.

My only quibble is about designing for the most arduous conditions. That results in over-engineered and over-priced solutions. I would rather engineer for the anticipated situation and have other tools on hand for different situations. Then it is incumbent on the users not to misuse their tools.

 

[KevinB]

My only quibble is about designing for the most arduous conditions. That results in over-engineered and over-priced solutions.

I meant more Combat -- the AJAX was designed to get the armor on operations, with the theory that the armor wasn’t needed in training.
Also having an eye to some method of future proofing, but also being willing to say this is no longer a modern front line system - and is handed off to less demanding roles.

I would rather engineer for the anticipated situation and have other tools on hand for different situations. Then it is incumbent on the users not to misuse their tools.

Agreed --