Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

ASCOD Ulan/Pizarro dimensions. 26 to 28 tonnes with a 30mm turret



Ajax without add on armour and turret, <26 tonnes?

with turret, upper bolt on armour and lower skirt, 38 to 42 tonnes.

with upper and lower bolt on armour

Griffin II MPFS 35 to 40 tonnes

The Griffin II at 40 tonnes is going to need different suspension than the ASCOD Ulan at 26 tonnes I would think. But the GRiffin is going to wear that weight all the time.

The Brits are trying for a single vehicle that they can take into combat at both 26 tonnes and 40 tonnes and carrying the weight outboard of the running gear.

I wonder if the Brits will have to split their fleet between their 26 and 40 tonne goals?

 

[Kirkhill]

Weren't the Argentinians mostly conscripts? If so, they would have required a closer and more robust leadership control at all levels. Probably means not daring to disperse them too much.

What logistics did the Args have on the islands? Helicopters? Trucks? Resupply matters big time.

Funny though, its all hindset 20/20 and as history shows us, make the best plan you can but don't forget the enemy gets a say in your plan.

Everybody needs a map....

Follow the link

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/maps/falkland_islands.gif

 

[Kirkhill]

And that campaign explains the SupaCat ATMP in Kosovo

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212813899969499137

Think Defence
@thinkdefence
·
Jan 2, 2020

The design of ATMP focussed on three things 1. Being there (wherever there was) 2. Shifting weights 3. Shifting weights in any terrain

Chinook was cleared to carry 2 ATMP’s internally without lowering the roll cage or 4 as a single underslung load.

Merlin internal carriage,

Puma sling load and

multiple stacking options also exist for carriage in larger aircraft such as the C130 and C17.

The original platform was designed in pre-OHSA days to be used without the roll cage as seen in Kosovo. The seats and the steering yoke folded so that you could stack them two or three high inside the Hercs and two wide.

https://supacat.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/07/Supacat_ATMP_Data-Sheet_V1.0.pdf

Argo is a lighter weight and amphibious version. Mudd-Ox is an Argo competitor.

MUDD-OX VS ARGO - Mudd-Ox Inc

Mudd-Ox Inc Background Building amphibious ATV’s has always been in our blood. As a child, Matt Oxender was introduced to amphibious ATV’s when he purchased an Amphicat from his neighbor. After repairing the Amphicat, Matt and friends from school would go on to purchase and repair […]

www.muddox.net

 

[Kirkhill]

More Mudd-Ox

 

[Kirkhill]

This could go into Future Structure but seeing as how I have dragged this discussion into the Light weeds I present for your consideration my hero:

The Think Defence Guy.

Particularly his Light Strike Brigade proposal. Fundamental principle - wheels are essential. Airborne/Airmobile forces need wheels that work with helicopters.

Revisiting the Light Strike Concept - Think Defence

Light Strike was new wine in old bottles idea I had a while ago, a concept based on modernising Cold War-era ideas of a highly mobile anti-tank screening force.

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

The Light Strike Brigade - Think Defence

The Light Strike Brigade is therefore based on the core principles of the joint land strike concept but with much lighter vehicles that can exploit the

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Coincidentally he has prepared an article on this - 10 km solutions

Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) - Think Defence

Which he warns is not to be confused with this - 80 km solutions

Land Precision Strike - Think Defence

Land Precision Strike will rapidly engage relocatable high value targets in warfighting and lower intensity operations

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Which in turn led me to this remembrance



That cute little CVR(T) variant - the Striker equipped with a boxset of 4km SACLOS ATGMs (5 ready to fire and 5 reloads)
In an 8 tonne heliportable vehicle

A memory reinforced by this and the noteworthy comment

https://twitter.com/x/status/1629599000327335938

How much speed and reach could be achieved with another 8 tonne tracked vehicle - even if it could only carry a couple of Javelin teams?



And what TD describes as Swingfire's Party Piece - remote control (wired).

 

[Maxman1]

ASCOD Ulan/Pizarro dimensions. 26 to 28 tonnes with a 30mm turret

View attachment 76581

Ajax without add on armour and turret, <26 tonnes?

with turret, upper bolt on armour and lower skirt, 38 to 42 tonnes.

with upper and lower bolt on armour

Griffin II MPFS 35 to 40 tonnes

The Griffin II at 40 tonnes is going to need different suspension than the ASCOD Ulan at 26 tonnes I would think. But the GRiffin is going to wear that weight all the time.

The Brits are trying for a single vehicle that they can take into combat at both 26 tonnes and 40 tonnes and carrying the weight outboard of the running gear.

I wonder if the Brits will have to split their fleet between their 26 and 40 tonne goals?

The more I read about the Ajax IFV, the more it sounds like an attempt to reinvent the Bradley.

 

[Kirkhill]

The more I read about the Ajax IFV, the more it sounds like an attempt to reinvent the Bradley.

That's probably fair.

The ASCOD is a Euro Bradley. It was built as a national alternative by neutral Austria (which has strong cultural links with Spain - think Lippizaner stallions) to the German Marder. Just the same way as the CV90 was built by neutral Sweden to the German Marder. Austria and Spain seem happy with their ASCODs. Sweden and Sweden's customers all seem ecstatic with their CV90s. Germany is still trying to decide if it wants to build and sell Marders and their replacements.

On the other hand the Bradley, designed by a US committee in the 1970s as an American Marder really hasn't found many customers outside of the US. Saudi has bought a few hundred but they'll buy anything American to offset their oil income.

The AJAX is the Brits saying to the Americans "hold my beer". Brit committees are much more capable of designing camels these days.

The Brits actually had a good solid base, at least as solid as the Swede's CV90, with which to start with the Warrior. They could have chosen to go the Swedish route and iterate their way forward. But they opted to go the American route and take the Great Leap Forwards into the unknown and start from a clean sheet. Or at least someone else's slightly used sheet.

The Americans, in the meantime bought the manufacturers of the ASCOD, the Warrior and the CV90.

 

[quadrapiper]

On the other hand the Bradley, designed by a US committee in the 1970s as an American Marder really hasn't found many customers outside of the US. Saudi has bought a few hundred but they'll buy anything American to offset their oil income.

Was it being sold at inflated rates, or dependent on things the US was being "difficult" about, like controlled sights or missile replenishment?

The AJAX is the Brits saying to the Americans "hold my beer". Brit committees are much more capable of designing camels these days.

The Brits actually had a good solid base, at least as solid as the Swede's CV90, with which to start with the Warrior. They could have chosen to go the Swedish route and iterate their way forward. But they opted to go the American route and take the Great Leap Forwards into the unknown and start from a clean sheet. Or at least someone else's slightly used sheet.

Watching the chatter on Arrse, it seems they found the worst balance between a fully clean sheet, an iterative approach, and just buying ASCOD, bolting a BV into it, and calling it good

 

[Kirkhill]

Was it being sold at inflated rates, or dependent on things the US was being "difficult" about, like controlled sights or missile replenishment?

Watching the chatter on Arrse, it seems they found the worst balance between a fully clean sheet, an iterative approach, and just buying ASCOD, bolting a BV into it, and calling it good

Where they are at just now I am plumping for the ASCOD with the BV, hold all the on again off again armour. And polish up the Warriors and put them into storage - just in case.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Skyranger 30 follows the same general configuration as the Skyranger 35, a remote turret with a 1.414 m-diameter turret ring, but with less weight of 2-2.5 tonnes enabling it to be installed on lighter 6×6 wheeled vehicles. The turret features a central armored structure with basic Level 2 protection, which can be fitted with add-on armor to increase to Level 4. It is fitted with a modified version of the Oerlikon KCA 30 mm cannon used on the Saab 37 Viggen fighter jet named the KCE.[1][2][3]

While it has a shorter effective range than the Skyranger 35 at 3 km, it has a higher rate of fire of 1,200 rounds per minute. It maintains the ability to elevate 85° to combat terminal diving targets. 252 ready rounds are carried. The gun fires a 30 mm airburst munition based on the 35 mm AHEAD ammunition carrying 160 tungsten cylinders, each weighing 1.25 grams for a total payload of 200 grams, which is time-programmed upon leaving the muzzle to open up in front of a target to form a lethal cone.[1][2][3]

Skyranger 30 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How would this Skyranger 30 work as the principal RWS on both the LAV 6 and a CCV based on something like the ASCOD or the CV90?

It's primary targets would be aerial but it would be highly effective against ground targets as well.

And leave the Anti Tank Weaponry in a second vehicle along with NEMO mortars and 90-120 mm DFS weapons.

It could also be provided on a static mount for airfield and naval defence and on a truck mount.

And Korea is fielding a low cost AESA radar capable of detecting small drones at 8 km.

South Korea to Test Anti Ultra-Small Drone Radar System

The South Korean military will begin testing a radar-linked solution that can detect ultra-small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), roughly the size of a baseball, up to eight kilometers away.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[KevinB]

Skyranger 30 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How would this Skyranger 30 work as the principal RWS on both the LAV 6 and a CCV based on something like the ASCOD or the CV90?

It's primary targets would be aerial but it would be highly effective against ground targets as well.

And leave the Anti Tank Weaponry in a second vehicle along with NEMO mortars and 90-120 mm DFS weapons.

It could also be provided on a static mount for airfield and naval defence and on a truck mount.

And Korea is fielding a low cost AESA radar capable of detecting small drones at 8 km.

South Korea to Test Anti Ultra-Small Drone Radar System

The South Korean military will begin testing a radar-linked solution that can detect ultra-small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), roughly the size of a baseball, up to eight kilometers away.

www.thedefensepost.com

I’d be more interested in keeping a common 35mm AD/CUAS gun.
Of course that would only work if the SkyGuards were reactivated .

 

[Kirkhill]

I’d be more interested in keeping a common 35mm AD/CUAS gun.
Of course that would only work if the SkyGuards were reactivated .

If we had a significant investment in 35mm then I would agree with you. Do we? Compared to the investment in 25mm?

If we are going to upgun then go for the 70% solution.

The Swedes used the 40 on their CV90s
The Norwegians, Finns and Swiss all use the 30 as will the Czechs and the Slovaks.
The Danes, Dutch and Estonians use the 35

ASCODs Pizarro and Ulan also use a 30.

CSC has gone with a 30 as well

MARLIN-WS Oto Melara Leonardo Naval Weapon System 25 30mm

marlin-ws oto melara leonardo remote controlled naval weapon system

www.seaforces.org

 

[GR66]

I’d be more interested in keeping a common 35mm AD/CUAS gun.
Of course that would only work if the SkyGuards were reactivated .

Both M-SHORAD and the Stryker Dragoon use 30mm so there would be common ammo supply available if our Mech Brigades work alongside a US SBCT.

 

[KevinB]

Both M-SHORAD and the Stryker Dragoon use 30mm so there would be common ammo supply available if our Mech Brigades work alongside a US SBCT.

Fair point. I was more thinking that it may be easier since Canada has already type classified 35mm.
@Kirkhill pointed out the 30mm is already coming to Canada as well.

 

[AC 011]

Both M-SHORAD and the Stryker Dragoon use 30mm so there would be common ammo supply available if our Mech Brigades work alongside a US SBCT.

M-SHORAD and Dragoon are both 30, but different 30s (30×113 vs 30×173). But yes, common ammo (30x173) with the US would be a good thing.

Fair point. I was more thinking that it may be easier since Canada has already type classified 35mm.
@Kirkhill pointed out the 30mm is already coming to Canada as well.

There have been rumblings about this for years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Where they are at just now I am plumping for the ASCOD with the BV, hold all the on again off again armour. And polish up the Warriors and put them into storage - just in case.

My Spanish contacts are underwhelmed by the quality of defense products produced in Spain. some suggestion is that the early hulls of the Ajax may not be in spec, leading to a lot of the issues.

 

[Kirkhill]

My Spanish contacts are underwhelmed by the quality of defense products produced in Spain. some suggestion is that the early hulls of the Ajax may not be in spec, leading to a lot of the issues.

They do seem to be having a bit of trouble getting their Leos out of the garage and into Ukraine. But that seems to be common to much of Europe.

 

[KevinB]

They do seem to be having a bit of trouble getting their Leos out of the garage and into Ukraine. But that seems to be common to all of their users.

Fixed it for you.

 

[OldSolduer]

Google Dodge 3/4 ton Army truck. There's the solution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Google Dodge 3/4 ton Army truck. There's the solution.

Learned to drive in the army on them.