Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Quick Look at the Ajax AFV

TamH70

MIA
Could a modernised CVRT be worthwhile ?
I mean Gucci optics in the same sized hull? Or is it considered too last Tuesday ?
 
Warrior at 3.03m is only just within the rail envelope when on a Warwell using an infill. Ajax looks like it would take a fair bit of prep to move by rail in the UK but we have a decent enough road haulage system.

However in Europe it will fit on rail (caveat, hopefully this has been thought of...).

Never likely to see it parked next to a Sherman but in Holland the road bridges are low enough we have to strip the .50 mount from the turret roof to fit under bridges .... that looks taller than a Sherman
 
Could a modernised CVRT be worthwhile ?
I mean Gucci optics in the same sized hull? Or is it considered too last Tuesday ?
The optics (BGTI) on CVRT always seemed pretty Gucci to me, especially compared to an ACOG or Mk1 eyeball on Jackal.
 
Could a modernised CVRT be worthwhile ?
I mean Gucci optics in the same sized hull? Or is it considered too last Tuesday ?

It has its place, but it just can’t keep up with CR2 and WR - you can upgrade the engine, gearbox, final drives etc, but across rough ground it’s short wheelbase and torsion bar suspension make it bounce around like a Mirror Dinghy in a force 10 gale.

Now, a Stormer-sized chassis on the other hand...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Could a modernised CVRT be worthwhile ?
I mean Gucci optics in the same sized hull? Or is it considered too last Tuesday ?
Scimitar 2 (Scimitar turret on Spartan hull), was it a success (I don’t know)?

The thing is the protection level demanded means a bigger less strategical mobile vehicle.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The thing is the protection level demanded means a bigger less strategical mobile vehicle.
Yes, no, yes.

Someone has decided a protection level.

CVR(T) was proof against - from memory - 7.62mm AP and shell fragments. I can see how that might have needed to go up on the modern battlefield but what are the protection levels on, say, the Fennek, which is used for reconnaissance by the Germans and Dutch?

A quick Google says a base level of 7.62mm all round, so CVR(T)-ish.

Did we need such a big vehicle, especially for reconnaissance, and did it need Warrior-level (or greater) protection?

Stealth is a great protector, and I'm really concerned by the motive sound levels in every video I've seen that hasn't had a dramatic marketing soundtrack added.
 
Yes, no, yes.

Someone has decided a protection level.

CVR(T) was proof against - from memory - 7.62mm AP and shell fragments. I can see how that might have needed to go up on the modern battlefield but what are the protection levels on, say, the Fennek, which is used for reconnaissance by the Germans and Dutch?

A quick Google says a base level of 7.62mm all round, so CVR(T)-ish.

Did we need such a big vehicle, especially for reconnaissance, and did it need Warrior-level (or greater) protection?

Stealth is a great protector, and I'm really concerned by the motive sound levels in every video I've seen that hasn't had a dramatic marketing soundtrack added.

That's great as far as it goes - but if you're seen, don't be hit, if you're hit survive the hit.

On a sensor dominated battlefield being stealthy is going to be mighty difficult.
 
Yes, no, yes.

Someone has decided a protection level.

CVR(T) was proof against - from memory - 7.62mm AP and shell fragments. I can see how that might have needed to go up on the modern battlefield but what are the protection levels on, say, the Fennek, which is used for reconnaissance by the Germans and Dutch?

A quick Google says a base level of 7.62mm all round, so CVR(T)-ish.

Did we need such a big vehicle, especially for reconnaissance, and did it need Warrior-level (or greater) protection?

Stealth is a great protector, and I'm really concerned by the motive sound levels in every video I've seen that hasn't had a dramatic marketing soundtrack added.
Absolutely but the demand is for better protection.

even the mine Protected vehicles are big and heavy
 
Never likely to see it parked next to a Sherman but in Holland the road bridges are low enough we have to strip the .50 mount from the turret roof to fit under bridges .... that looks taller than a Sherman


Bridges? Bridges! We can go over bridges. Oh, under bridges? You want to go U N D E R bridges? We don't think you asked for that in the specification. Let's see, bridging weight, bridging width .... no, nothing about bridge height. We can obviously make amendments but this will require a redesign and that is outside the contract because you didn't specify a bridging height. We'll review the cost of design, production and of course timescales as soon as we draw up the new specification and contract which, oh yes, late client changes to specification incur costs for administration and contract changes...... we'll invoice in advance for the costs of specification and contract and then we'll look at the changes you require....

What? Oh excuse me, my consultant wants a word with me.... what's that @Had_enough_of_this_poo ?
Don't forget "thank f***, we were not going to deliver what you wanted in the first place on time, we can now blame our tardiness on your new requirement to cover our short comings"

Yes, indeed, I must also add that due to your change of specification requirement at this very late stage there may be a delay in delivery while we obviously ensure that the complete unit is suitable for acceptance by you, the end user for which we are obviously not responsible.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
even the mine Protected vehicles are big and heavy
By their very nature. But they were also intended for a specific environment/conflict.

(Fully conceding that we could well end up back in such an environment at some point, however the threat now is orienting towards 'traditional' heavy.)
 
The requirements setters never intended AJAX to be big and heavy - however:

- They wanted the lethality of a 40mm gun in a turret and a multi-nature AHS - more weight and volume
- They wanted massively increased ISTAR capability compared to CVR(T) - more weight and power
- They wanted increased mobility compared to CVR(T) - larger wheelbase and more power (and weight)
- They wanted considerably more protection than CVR(T) - more weight per square metre (and more square metres!)




...and the laws of physics did the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stealth is a great protector, and I'm really concerned by the motive sound levels in every video I've seen that hasn't had a dramatic marketing soundtrack added.

I agree with you about the value of stealth but contemporary technology has changed the context - smart CCTV, motion detectors, passive and active night vision equipment and even sound detection, not to mention satellite, aerial surveillance and drone tech.
 
In defence of the Ajax family*, while the vehicles are considerably bigger than CVR(T), the UAV/UGV you can operate out of the Ajax is considerably smaller than CVR(T).

Also a UAV buzzing around doesn’t give away your position away like a MMS.

That said, if you had some king of articulated arm you could stow a “M”MS in a fairly small volume.


* That felt weird to say.
 
Bridges? Bridges! We can go over bridges. Oh, under bridges? You want to go U N D E R bridges? We don't think you asked for that in the specification. Let's see, bridging weight, bridging width .... no, nothing about bridge height. We can obviously make amendments but this will require a redesign and that is outside the contract because you didn't specify a bridging height. We'll review the cost of design, production and of course timescales as soon as we draw up the new specification and contract which, oh yes, late client changes to specification incur costs for administration and contract changes...... we'll invoice in advance for the costs of specification and contract and then we'll look at the changes you require....
Don't forget "thank f***, we were not going to deliver what you wanted in the first place on time, we can now blame our tardiness on your new requirement to cover our short comings"
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top