AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

When did that one come in? Fairly late on, as IIRC it was always meant to be much bigger than just...Cavalry...?
Since 2015 it is actually "Armoured Cavalry 2025"

First Report (2016) stated "The programme is on track to deliver the planned capability to performance, cost and time."
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Unless, (back in the day), one was the 2IC of a medium recce squadron with Sqn working in clear but regimental secure and a harness set up to render it impossible to have secure in one ear and insecure in other. Hence secure on handset, with headest pushed back. All while sitting over idler of a Sultan.
Put that man on a charge!
 
Oh the joy of all informed BG nets.

Completely unnecessary; work on all informed Sqn/Coy net and list to BG Comd net in other ear. Which works fine unless poxy driver starts singing...

Unless, (back in the day), one was the 2IC of a medium recce squadron with Sqn working in clear but regimental secure and a harness set up to render it impossible to have secure in one ear and insecure in other. Hence secure on handset, with headest pushed back. All while sitting over idler of a Sultan.
The thinking of some of the procurement teams seems to beggar belief and still does hence this thread!

The CLR issue rose it's head again whilst I was on HERRICK and I told the Lt Col Guards Officer who still thought it was a good idea that the same issues had not gone away. He squealed like a stuck pig when I went straight back to HQ LAND and PJHQ with all of the issues.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Looking at your list it strikes me that none of them would actually require a person sitting in the vehicle.
Someone has to get the sensor (attached to the vehicle) to the place whence it can observe without being killed. That's what recce does (and why it's usually fond of small vehicles that it can sneak about it). Yes, some are postulating autonomous / remote vehicles. It's bloody hard to teach tactical driving and the use of ground when you're sitting in the vehicle. Again, writing the flow chart to do this in a simulation is non trivial (we tried). And of course acceptable risk is dynamic, depending on where the enemy is and what kit they have.

The digital bit though is, supposedly, to replace the voice or data transmission from the sensor's vehicle commander when he/she sees something worth reporting. Which of course, is another judgement call which yet more computing would be needed for.

We seem to have this disease of trying to replace the bits that we do well (i.e. junior commanders doing their job) with postulated computerization, rather than perhaps focusing on giving the soldier the tools they need rather than a self propelled house that doesn't work anyway.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Someone has to get the sensor (attached to the vehicle) to the place whence it can observe without being killed. That's what recce does (and why it's usually fond of small vehicles that it can sneak about it). Yes, some are postulating autonomous / remote vehicles. It's bloody hard to teach tactical driving and the use of ground when you're sitting in the vehicle. Again, writing the flow chart to do this in a simulation is non trivial (we tried). And of course acceptable risk is dynamic, depending on where the enemy is and what kit they have.

The digital bit though is, supposedly, to replace the voice or data transmission from the sensor's vehicle commander when he/she sees something worth reporting. Which of course, is another judgement call which yet more computing would be needed for.

We seem to have this disease of trying to replace the bits that we do well (i.e. junior commanders doing their job) with postulated computerization, rather than perhaps focusing on giving the soldier the tools they need rather than a self propelled house that doesn't work anyway.
But that runs right across the board.

We used to pride ourselves on skill at arms and the individual's inherent ability. Now, there's an obsession with technology as the answer. See threads about small arms. Soldiers not shooting well? Well, then we need better sights, more accurate weapons and so on. The real solution is more realistic range time.
 
The digital bit though is, supposedly, to replace the voice or data transmission from the sensor's vehicle commander when he/she sees something worth reporting. Which of course, is another judgement call which yet more computing would be needed for.
The digital bit was to allow seamless and de-centralised C2 across the entire battlespace. The Comd wouldn't have to speak per se if the FMV feed was established and the real time imagery was flowing into the BG/Bde HQ etc.

The practical issues arise when it's about 80 degrees Celsius in the wagon and the kit is going tilt, the vehicle has thrown a track and dropped the contents of it's pack on the floor, or the Bowman fit decides to go into self preservation mode. The joys of Armd warfare
 
that doesn't sound very de-centralised.
1634122411057.png

Part of the concept of both in barracks and deployed - Nuancing would be required of course
 
...which is why I made the specific point that I was not looking to fall into the Vietnam-era trap of body counts.

I used Vietnam as an example. I should have perhaps used Tet specifically. There were some honourable exceptions but many 'war' correspondents had got used to sitting in bars in Saigon and just regurgitating the Five O'clock Follies. Tet scared the bejesus out of them because the VC brought a previously far-flung war to their doorstep. It suddenly wasn't a booze- and whored-fuelled bit of fun.

Tet was reported as a disaster. In fact, the VC got a right shoeing. And, in fact, the US never lost a set-piece battle in Vietnam. Wherever the enemy came out to fight, it got malletted. The problem for the US was getting them to come out and fight. The VC/NVA learned very quickly not to engage head-on.

The point I was making about Afghanistan is that one way or another the Western-led coalition would one day have to leave. Whomever was then left behind and gained power would claim to have 'won' - which is precisely what has happened.

A wider conversation, because the point I was responding to was the post poo-pooing @Cynical's comment that Heavy will defeat Light, is how one conducts a COIN campaign in concert with a Heavy campaign. On any given day, put Heavy on the same field as Light and force them to engage. The result is a Heavy win.

Put it another way: the Taliban didn't come out into the open and crow about winning until the coalition had wound down and left. Why? Because it didn't dare.

Depends upon your definition of leave

Conventional troops, SOF, mentoring, support, training etc
 
Someone has to get the sensor (attached to the vehicle) to the place whence it can observe without being killed. That's what recce does (and why it's usually fond of small vehicles that it can sneak about it). Yes, some are postulating autonomous / remote vehicles. It's bloody hard to teach tactical driving and the use of ground when you're sitting in the vehicle. Again, writing the flow chart to do this in a simulation is non trivial (we tried). And of course acceptable risk is dynamic, depending on where the enemy is and what kit they have.

The digital bit though is, supposedly, to replace the voice or data transmission from the sensor's vehicle commander when he/she sees something worth reporting. Which of course, is another judgement call which yet more computing would be needed for.

We seem to have this disease of trying to replace the bits that we do well (i.e. junior commanders doing their job) with postulated computerization, rather than perhaps focusing on giving the soldier the tools they need rather than a self propelled house that doesn't work anyway.

Except politicians believe that it isn’t acceptable for any friendly forces to die in war (which is unfortunately a likely outcome)
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
that doesn't sound very de-centralised.
One of the huge problems of IT systems is that they tend to centralise decision making, facilitate micro-management and engender management paralysis. This is not just an Army / MOD / Govt problem, it's true in commerce as well. Recently the unholy alliance between HR and IT has brought many companies to a grinding halt. I suspect it is as much to blame for the UK's productivity crisis as CS working hours.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
Your point around sharing of Recce info with Bde HQ is a point I made over 15 years ago and said why would a Bde Comd with (4 x BGs) each with recce platforms need to see what they are seeing. He would need the bigger picture from all his recce elements.
Tunnel vision of COIN, where commanders don't have to worry about where and what that enemy Armored battlegroup nearby is doing and can deploy the long screwdriver to meddle with the point section! Don't have to worry about things like Emcon either so units can emit like its going out of fashion, something else that may not necessarily always be the case against every opponent.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Don't have to worry about things like Emcon either so units can emit like its going out of fashion, something else that may not necessarily always be the case against every opponent.
Some of us are doing what we can to educate and inform on issues like that...
 
Some of us are doing what we can to educate and inform on issues like that...
EMCON was and always is needed, I will not go into the specifics capabilities of the some of our kit but it's actually very good.

My bug bear was when Staff Officers thought because Bowman was fully secure they could use it like a mobile phone and that transmission length and all the other stuff was yesterday's news!

Iraq and Afghanistan taught a lot of good lessons but many bad ones also. The first time we operated on the Iranian border at the back end of TELIC 10 we encountered jamming, it was very amusing to see lots of millennial officers and soldiers look absolutely perplexed and wonder why this was happening
 
Top