This Post Has 39 Comments

1. 

   ArmChairCivvy September 21, 2015

   A good read, the last two chapters.

   Was wondering if the previous parts also have updates?

2. 

   PhilEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee September 21, 2015

   GD were showing the LAV 6.0 at DSEi, not a Piranha.

   I think you’ve missed GE IP from your list.
   http://mil-embedded.com/news/british-army-scout-sv-program-to-use-ethernet-switches-video-servers-data-servers-etc-from-ge-intelligent-platforms/

   And Rolls Royce (MTU)
   http://www.rolls-royce.com/news/press-releases/yr-2015/pr-270515-rr-to-supply-mtu-engines-for-british-armys-scout-sv-armoured-fighting-vehicle.aspx

3. 

   Think Defence September 22, 2015

   ACC, yes, every single section is updated

4. 

   Think Defence September 22, 2015

   Thanks Phil, will add

5. 

   Hohum September 22, 2015

   Absolutely no reason to think VBCI would be a “shoe-in”, especially since its notable failure to win a single export order. Same goes for Boxer, in fact given that vehicles production schedule I would not be at all surprised if KMW is thinking of abandoning it if it doesn’t achieve an export win in the next couple of years (basically Land 400).

   The real platforms to watch are LAV/Piranha and AMV (inc derivatives).

6. 

   The Other Chris September 22, 2015

   Not quite FRES/UV related but confirmation that GD are pitching a combination of Ocelot/Foxhound and MOWAG/Eagle V for MRV-P:

   http://www.janes.com/article/54694/dsei-2015-general-dynamics-outlines-its-proposal-for-mrv-p

7. 

   Hohum September 22, 2015

   Actually they are basically saying it they could offer Foxhound, Eagle V, both in competition with each other or a combination of the two.

   In short, they don’t know yet.

   MRV-P could be interesting, it’s the larger variants that are the complicating factor.

8. 

   Essaich September 22, 2015

   So now both the RAF and Army have a vehicle called Atlas, helpful. Fortunately Atlas can’t transport Atlas.

   I doubt there’s any political appetite to put a larger gun on Ajax. A shame, the CV90120-T of its vanquished CV-90 competitor looks impressive and would help against anyone with a T-72.

9. 

   Dahedd September 22, 2015

   There is a version of the Ascod with a 150 mm gun.
   http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/ascod3.html

   Given the heritage of the Ajax would this not be a good place to start ?

10. 

    ArmChairCivvy September 22, 2015

    I thought you were serious… but then realised it was a typo

    I give you 120 mm, regardless:
    http://www.defence24.com/253525,mspo-2015-a-new-concept-rosomak-with-a-120-mm-cannon

11. 

    Chris September 22, 2015

    Afraid I look at the modern wheeled turreted armour and can’t see past a tall vehicle with a really short wheelbase and long overhangs front & rear. They must rock and roll like a fishing boat in heavy seas.

12. 

    Dahedd September 22, 2015

    Oops real typo there. Yes Ascod variant with a 105mm gun.

13. 

    PhilEeeeeeeeeeeeee September 22, 2015

    @Essaich – Pretty sure you will be seeing Atlas (land), within Atlas (air). Hell what if they put an Atlas inside an Atlas and then rolled it into an Atlas?

    TD: You also missed Williams F1, because you know, it’s not British engineering anymore unless you can say there’s F1 tech.
    http://www.williamsf1.com/advanced-engineering/news/waebringsf1technologytothedefencesector

14. 

    Jackstaff January 15, 2016

    TD,

    Just finished my third read-through (I like to do it every few months esp. since you finished the last installments, at least until the hash of MIV is settled.) Truly one of the site’s crown jewels, especially the work on those two crucial periods c.2001-2003 when the workable vision was binned and c. 2006-09 when FRES ran down the cliff and lit itself on fire. Also the gift for illustration (I’m a sucker for R&D blueprints of familiar designs, or designs that should’ve been purchased but were not, like the beautiful HS.681 or the American YC-15 both of which — despite its remarkable incremental development — should’ve replaced the C-130 long since.)

    The failure to either offer (French pressure I’m sure, desperate for that shot to get VBCI 2.0 operating with the UK) or request (once again the braided upper-reaches refuse to admit error fifteen years on, that kind of inflexibility costs lives when applied elsewhere) Boxer borders on the criminal. Is it a perfect design? No. Is it easily one of the best (including built-in preparation for UK comms) for what the British Army *wants*? Absolutely. The service needs something that’s strong enough (armour and, crucially, engine for power-to-weight) to be part of battlegroups alongside C2 and Warrior WCSP, and that can be the armoured glacis in battlegroups built more around Foxhound et al. All the bollocks about how to transport it and building in growth potential (never met Scimitar Mk 2 did they?) was limited brains trying to outthink themselves or, also probable, justify chasing after “transformation” (which would either make them legends in their time, gotten right, or guarantee project-management postings out over the horizon while it took forever to get right. Win-win.) As it is, MIV trials should/should’ve been limited strictly to Boxer, Patria AMV-XP, and LAV 6.0 anyway. The reason? Interoperability with allies. Not with France — all this treaty jointness stuff is pleasant and a political/general staff-level alliance is crucial. But even in a major NATO war, much less Mali/Sierra Leone-style ops, Tommy and the Poilu will not be side-by-side. Much more likely British troops will fight alongside Scandinavian, or Dutch, or Canadian, or Polish, or US forces. French ground forces will be busy on other fronts, both in the Patrimonie and within NATO. Stick with something that interrelates to the comerades-in-arms.

    What is sickening — just sickening — about this whole fascinating story is the ease with which we can conjure an alternate procurement reality. By now one could’ve had a modular combat force (less rapid-reaction) at least on Canadian or Australian lines if not SDSR 2010’s MRB prescription. However many bdes, five was probably a good bet overall, on the lines of:

    1x cavalry regiment either with a family of partially-compromised TRACER or, much as we have, soldiering on with CVR(T) family to either a BAE or General Dynamics SV destination
    1x tank regiment with Challys
    2 x heavy infantry bns on Boxer IFVs mounted with CTA 40mm
    1x smaller infantry bn on a slightly butched-up (side armour) Bushmaster, plus a second such bn rotating out to other duties (Norn Iron, “upstream” jobs, etc.)

    All of it in service by now. Already. Maybe, without all the other ****ing about, even the 40mm turrets. And good (even the Bushmasters if you’re careful) across the spectrum of where you’d want to use any kind of armoured or protected mobility. Obviously you wouldn’t bring the Challys everywhere but that’s the one major adjustment for taste.

    And it was all sitting there. Being developed, or “on the menu” of potential procurement choices. We’d have much less to talk about, and perhaps there are even better (or at least more exquisite) solutions for equipping the pointy bits of the British Army. But I can’t help thinking we’d have been better off nonetheless.

15. 

    Jackstaff January 15, 2016

    PS: It’s remarkable (under camouflage) how much Ajax and its family looks like TRACER on Human Growth Hormone, with side armour and without the Very Useful recce telescoping mast. Sigh.

16. 

    @Ravenser January 26, 2016

    The, albeit brief, reference to Swingfire highlights an important ATGW capability gap. Having an anti-armour capability that outreaches MBT main armament can be advantageous. No one is particularly interested in, or cares very much about overwatch, until they are hightailing it away from rapidly advancing enemy armour desperate for even the slightest time-giving advantage. A well camouflaged stand-off anti-tank capability, that reaches out to 4km that can stop an advancing MBT in its tracks is an asset that shouldn’t really be overlooked.

17. 

    mr.fred January 26, 2016

    Jackstaff,
    Why does the service need a vehicle capable of operating in armoured battlegroups alongside Challenger and Warrior? It already has Challenger and Warrior for that role.
    Furthermore, interoperability with allies doesn’t necessarily mean using the exact same vehicles. Having a capability that complements an allies force or fills in where he is weak is just as, if not more, useful.

    If we’re going to put on the 20:20 hindsight prescription lenses, we could go back further to a point where we could have had Stormer in place of CVR(T), Warrior 2000 with a common turret, old warrior chassis taking over from FV430 chassis and plenty of scope to look at replacing Saxon.
    Round about now it would be about time to upgrade the fire control across the fleet, using common sensors and systems. Possibly upgrading the 30mm guns to Super 40. There might even be enough in the kitty to look at bringing Challenger replacement forward to deal with any lethality problems with the gun. Or at least the money spent on CT40 could have been spent on 120mm work.

18. 

    stephen duckworth January 26, 2016

    Is the uMIV (unMechanized Infantry Vechicle) this ?http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/22/article-2017721-0D1DEF0400000578-126_634x375.jpg
    Once again TD a great read , like British Rail , we are getting there in terms of updating our armour all be it a bit slowly !

19. 

    MikeKiloPapa January 26, 2016

    @Jackstaff
    “MIV trials should/should’ve been limited strictly to Boxer, Patria AMV-XP, and LAV 6.0 ”

    The LAV UP/ LAV 6.0 (i swear, GDLS Canada chose to call it 6.0 just to piss MOWAG off) is really not in the same league as the other 8x8s in your line-up. Despite the fancy name and the double v hull modification, its still basically just a souped up LAV III, and so is smaller , has far less armor protection, mobility and payload than newer designs like Piranha 5. Unlike the latter, the LAV platform also has very limited, if any, growth potential left.

20. 

    Jackstaff January 27, 2016

    @MKP,

    Tusind tak on the info (I am absolutely certain you’re right about GDLS’s reasoning. Ain’t corporate life fun?) Like our blog boss I’m less concerned about maxed-out growth potential as long as it’s been used well (and my original reasoning, besides commonality, for LAV 6.0 was that its mods are the result of input from people who saw its earlier failings in actual combat and wanted to correct them) but you make a perfectly valid point — do we know for sure which GD ginned up and ran up the M1 last year? Still think Boxer would be the way to go for the UK, and AMV XP, well, I am a Patria fan. Anything you can say in public without fear of repercussion about Denmark’s selection process and plans for use? (My layman’s guess was that, as the Danish Army are Old Believers in the battlegroup church, they would do everything up front that’s not the tracked pointy bits of Leo 2A6 and CV9035.)

    Stephen Duckworth,

    Shame we don’t have emojis, I’d be cry-laughing all the way (as I was) at your MIV. :) Well at least its axles are in the same league as Mastiff’s…

    @Mr. Fred,

    On interoperability, it’s rooted in my suspicion that a British heavy division deployed in a NATO direction will probably end up absorbing a “local” heavy brigade (Norway’s Brigade Nord up in Finnmark, Lithuania’s Iron Wolf Bde that’s to get Boxer with a gun on it, or elsewhere in the northern NATO reaches perhaps a full-cream Danish heavy bde to top the division up.) At that point, and operating in the same neighbourhood as allies like the Poles, Finns, Swedes, etc. (yes the last two aren’t NATO but they know whose side they’re on if the Russians get greedy with the Arctic and want to keep salami-ing NATO out of existence.) Then whether or not it’s the exact same model and although they’ll have some different gubbins in the cabin, having stocks of the same sort of tires, fuel mixes, oils, gear bits, axles, armour add-ons, etc., would be useful to loggies of each country along the front. Of course it would probably be more like a case of borrowing from the likes of the Poles and Finns who think actually having stocks (rather than cadging money around in the budget with surcharges on them) is a good idea….

    As for working with C2 and Warrior WCSP (and with Ajax and Foxhound in the “strike” — naff name — bdes), it’s based first on the history of the Army with armoured battlegroups in the post-Cold War era (chiefly Granby, Kosovo, and Telic I), which shows favouring BGs with about five maneouvre elements (squadrons/companies) within them, which gives you at least a “square” (four elements) force and when you have the luxury (as with the packing of 7 Armd Bde in Telic I) a fifth as a reserve and rapid-response component. This rather than the square-at-most and often triangular American approach, or the very triangular French one (the frogs have bigger elements, so they can make up a little at platoon level but it’s still a stretch for them.) On recent exercises regaining combined-arms experience, a typical heavy battlegroup from one of the “armoured infantry” bdes has been 1x Chally sqdn, 2x reinforced Warrior companies, and 1 x Mastiff company. Why the wheeled bit? Speed of response unless you’re in an actual, geographic mire, plus rear and flank security (it’s like an infantry-intensive cavalry element b/c of the added ground speed of wheels), ready reserve, and maneouvrability whenever the BG is forced to operate in or around towns or suburbanised areas. Plus when you have an armoured regt, two Warrior-based bns, and a wheeled bn, you can build three BGs for action, and have a fourth BG’s HQ and support coy in reserve in case that element of one of the “working” BGs exhausts itself or — in an age when Redfor have electronics too — they are targeted for decapitation fires and need replacing (a command/support “spine” for the BG elements already in the field) because of losses. A lot of folks have looked at the five regiment/battalion maneouvre HQs in the heavy bdes as curious, really it makes sense if you’re expecting a serious fight.

    My own hindsight is a little less generalised — Warrior 2000 and Stormer were good ideas and frankly I’d rather have a tweaked-up Stormer “40” (rather than 30, bet it could just about handle the turret assembly and ammo) as “Ajax” although perhaps, just perhaps, they’ve got good stuff under the bonnet for a future fleet beyond FRES, like AS90 replacement and a “21st-century Centurion” rather than a 75-tonne behemoth [Chally LEP, God love her] as future MBT.) But they were Nineties ideas, when the climate was driven by Options and by that ugly post-ERM minor depression we’re old enough to remember. There was a “sweet spot” around 2000 when there was both institutional and engineering traction for things like a working TRACER and Boxer (leading Shinseki’s “interim” idea and accompanying VBCI with a better vehicle) which was missed — a little, military procurement version of AJP Taylor’s old line about 1848 when “Europe reached a turning point, and failed to turn” — and then we’ve had fifteen years of Olympic deck-chair arranging and scrambling to get back to an equivalent of that sweet spot.

21. 

    Jackstaff January 27, 2016

    @MKP,

    Errata: “they” being your service’s new Patria Vs.

22. 

    Jackstaff January 27, 2016

    @Ravenser,

    Also a very good point. What needs to happen, and it will be like pulling teeth because the service is so hidebound, is now they’ve decided to have a light cavalry tank like the American M3A3 or the French AMX-10RC successor the Jaguar, they need to put ATGM launchers on Ajax itself. These are *not* Scimitar successors, who had a very nice (calibre, bugger to use often I am told by those who did) 30mm for self defence in a defensively armoured little recce box, they are light cavalry tanks. They should be able to 1) contribute to a heavy bde’s anti-armour efforts, 2) overwatch themselves, and 3) the regts with the “strike” bdes (I suspect we are going up to four Ajax regts while something else takes their place as regimental/battalion recce with the Chally and Warrior formations) can plink stray bits of functioning enemy armour or mousehole buildings and revetments in their “Anglo-Mali” deployment scenarios.

23. 

    stephen duckworth January 27, 2016

    On the choice of the MIV I personally think the Piranha V should be selected .As the production version of the Piranha Evolution that won the trials of truth and has been specifically designed for the British Army with the same architecture as the AJAX family , Bowman fitout , the V6 version of the same series of MTU V8 engine used in AJAX etc etc it should be a shoe in but we will probably buy French with zero British content but a bumper sticker and get them 10 years later than GDLS could deliver the Piranha which has a much cooler name than VBCI which sounds like you should of worn a condom.Rant over.
    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranhav/

24. 

    Jackstaff January 27, 2016

    @Stephen Duckworth,

    Again :) You should rant more. I still like Boxer’s stronger engine, and the fact its current operators are already building field experience with the vehicle. But the advantages of Piranha V vs VBCI are clear, even the done-up Mk 2 version being offered instead of Boxer. I would, however, say to GDLS, “right, Britain is now officially in the tank for you for its next generation of armoured combatants. Given that, how about you come help rebuild at least some bits of the once-mighty British armoured-vehicle industry? I mean actual physical plant and design teams in-country where possible. Spain are buying in as their BMR-600 replacement because they get to put the things together.” Of course the Right Sort of Chaps in government and out are perfectly happy to outsource all industry when possible, then there are fewer domestic competitors to the financial-rentier sector for economic and political power. But it would be a Good Thing if a grand bargain with GDLS for Ajax family and MIV (potentially up to 1000 vehicles total between the two, a good-and-proper production run counting all the variants) resulted in actual practical work in the UK, not just hunt-and-peck contracting of systems integration. We know from past experience France would **** the UK on workshare with VBCI Mk 2 for a less-well-suited vehicle. So that’s my own rant then :)

25. 

    Frenchie January 28, 2016

    If I may, I have not much to say, I agree with your concept of mechanized infantry vehicles for Strike Brigades, they correspond to our “medium brigades” for short, but there is a big problem, our “medium brigades” are used for the wars in southern countries with not very modern and solid infrastructures, there is a problem of vehicle weight.
    Our current vehicles weigh between 4 and 20 tonnes, future vehicles will weigh up to 25 tonnes, I think that’s already a lot. If you want to cross a bridge with a 30 tonnes vehicle, this will require a great prayer.
    So there is a little thinking to do about the weight of the selected vehicle.

26. 

    stephen duckworth January 28, 2016

    @Jackstaff
    I agree on levering GDELS to start actual cutting metal and welding up of the kit we are paying for in the UK in the same way Hitachi have had to build a plant in the North East if they want to supply the UK rail network. All well and good us being all chummy and playing with a straight bat and all that tosh but French armour is built in France , German armour in Germany , Italian armour in Italy and as you say Spain is insisting the Piranha V\’s they are buying are built in Spain and quite right too in this case.

27. 

    mr.fred January 28, 2016

    Would handing GD a monopoly be a good idea?

28. 

    stephen duckworth January 28, 2016

    @mr Fred
    Handing GD a monopoly is obviously problematic but so is sourcing from overseas. If the host country decides to have an issue with us , say Spain over a Rock and that’s where our new tracked and wheeled armour is coming from we may have problems. Yes we could go to court ,in Spain , to force them to deliver the goods but after how many years? Our buy of armour is always going to be in the mid hundreds at best so we are going to pay through the nose so why not leverage our purchasing with one supplier who stands to win long term consistent orders in these times of economic uncertainty.

29. 

    mr.fred January 28, 2016

    I think we’d be better off spending the money making sure we have a number of commercially viable manufacturing facilities with the capacity to build armoured structures and the systems that go into an armoured vehicle rather than handing it off to a systems integrator who is good at powerpoint.
    While the hulls for the SV are built in Spain, how much of the systems in the vehicle also come from there? The engine, the suspension, drivetrain periscopes, armour systems, weapons systems; all come from all over the place and the lack of any one would restrict the supply of AFVs.
    One reason I rather like the Patria is that they tend to license the production – Poland and South Africa have production lines.

30. 

    stephen duckworth January 29, 2016

    On the indigenous capacity to manufacture the complex components required for modern military combat vehicles I couldn\’t agree more we should encourage it. It is possible we may allready be capable of manufacturing all that is required within the UK . The 2011 Japanese tsunami impact on the car manufacturing industry where very small \’mom and pop\’ companies where destroyed affecting the supply of complex critical (aren\’t they all?) caused the Japanese motor industry to diversify their supplier base but also illustrated how very complex components can be manufacture by tiny companies.The case for a feasibility study to investigate whether we can reliably produce all the components required is begging ,a lot better than spending £120m on seeing if we could produce a EuroUCAV IMHO. If a ability is found to be lacking then some form of government sponsored stimulation to create it could be implemented. When the Caliphate has established itself in Rome and the barbarians are massing on the Pas de Calais we could regret not doing so.

31. 

    mr.fred January 29, 2016

    I think we’ve already got quite a lot of capability. A google search on “armour fabrication” turns up three UK companies. Suspension we have Horstmann, Tracks and Cast armour we have Cooks. Selex ES and Thales are based in the UK and do sensors and fire control. Pearson Engineering have taken over the Vickers factory in Newcastle and still do defence-ey things. Qinetiq do electric drives, as does Magtec, David Brown does transmission. There’s a few companies who do motion control who conceivably could do turret drives but none who obviously do. I seem to remember that Fairey Hydraulics did an autoloader for the Jordanians but that was a few years back. They’re now Claverham but the autoloader isn’t on the website.

    With all that, you just need someone to design the whole thing and stick it together in a barn somewhere.

32. 

    mr.fred April 23, 2016

    The Ajax has been firing recently:
    

33. 

    TSB August 10, 2016

    Just read an early draft of an article that starts: “Apart from Russia, the focus for new developments in AFVs has been the Asian sphere. In Europe, the most important development projects are represented within the framework of the French SCORPION programme, the British Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) and the modernisation of the WARRIOR MCV, as well as the Turkish ALTAY main battle tank (MBT)…” Now I’m not an expert, but has anyone anything to add to this, perhaps?

34. 

    Frenchie September 16, 2016

    DVD 2016: Bidders line up for British Army’s MIV 8×8 requirement

    https://youtu.be/CvlNVyjQeTU

    https://youtu.be/CiOJuSo6lUI

    From french sources, tests have selected Piranha IV Evolution, while the Piranha IV Evolution is available only on paper. It was a project at the time of testing. So who did the tests ? A Piranha IV.

35. 

    Frenchie September 16, 2016

    Sorry wrong source, it was at the time of the previous tests, I am an idiot :(

36. 

    Mickp October 8, 2016

    How about this for an Ajax variant? http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/04/gd-takes-shot-army-mobile-protected-firepower/

37. 

    Peter Elliott October 9, 2016

    It’s a smart looking idea. The weights quoted are presumably without aplique armour. Theatre Entry standard the vehicle would be a whole lot heavier.

    In terms of the UK I don’t see us putting the Challenger turret on anything else though. MIV will probably have an Medium RWS or at the outside a 40mm CTA. And that and the existing Ajax buy will take all the budget for the foreseeable future.

    Our next “firepower” vehicle is likely to be the Challenger replacement itself for which I wouldve thought we are likely to use whatever American or German smooth bore gun and turret are then in production. But that vehicle will want a new “maximum protection” hull and new automotive design. So not a reused Ajax.

    If we did buy something like this it would announce the end of Challenger and the end of our heavy armoured capability. And I don’t think we’re quite there. Yet.

    I could imagine a post Challenger ‘Army 2030’ where the deployable mech brigade has a mixture of Ajax, Warrior and MIV with firepower provided only by missiles and Apache -E. In that context the most likely new variety of Ajax would be a missile carrier with some mixture of Javelin, Exactor and Brimstone.

38. 

    Stephen Duckworth October 9, 2016

    @mickp
    Nice find on the GDLS Chimera (I bag’s it first) .
    That photo must be a naked AJAX body and running gear ) with a little rear add on. The ‘Chimera’s final weight of 27 t less the 8 t 120mm turret gives an AJAX core weight of 19 t at what protection level though it begs to question. The new Welsh factory is ready to start assembling and pre-service acceptance test (embedded Army staff) the Ajax family next year so off we go me boyohs! Or is it vamonos muchachos!
    A story 30 years in the making brought to you by TD Studios…,……

39. 

    Stephen Duckworth October 10, 2016

    It seems the proposed XM360 armed ( 120mm ) Ajax bodied vehicle is called Griffin :-(
    http://www.janes.com/article/64287/ausa-2016-gdls-unveils-demonstrator-for-new-army-light-tank