AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

VSOs can be embarrassed whether serving or retired, if retired having fingers pointed at them by giggling ROs in their clubs and if serving quiet guffaws in the Mess as they pass by :) .

Disposing of eqpt & selling off the spares (or gifting them) makes perfect sense, and not only to the bean counters, which is why we've done it many times. If eqpt are not part of the Land Eqpt plan then they cost a fortune to store & maintain (Sheds, manpower, spares, lubricants, fuel, deterioration etc etc etc) and spares that can only be fitted to obsolecent eqpt take up the limited & valuable storage space we have left. To continue to use obsolescent eqpt as you suggest costs a huge amount from the repair budget, you'd spend much less on new replacement eqpt and of course the obsolescent eqpt becomes less and less effective the longer it is kept in service, if you can keep it going that is!

As an aside, I lead a team inspecting & conditioning all major assys returned post GW1. During that project the depot ran teams disposing of things like desert boots that were no longer in service (left boots one week, right boots the next, seriously and no thought of selling them to the mil wear shops) and a huge amount of the green combats that had gone out of service before I joined in 1975! There comes a time when stores are for storing becomes absolutely stupid and nowadays every action has a price tag on it.

It’s says stores on the door, not issues
 
Re the DSTL Qinetic comment, not surprised, DSTL has good people but have been so thoroughly hollowed out it feels like they've all given up and are just marking time. Qinetic have thorough pivot towards the prioritising more commercial activities, which is thoroughly unsurprising tbh so it's not a criticism as such, just the nature of the beast.

So as @Listy, @Cold_Collation and most of us have complained, we need to reinstitute the public sector predecessors of both. Bring back RARDE (going to get that made as placard at this rate)
I’m not convinced of the argument that reconstituting RARDE would solve the problem.

Unless there is a coherent, long term program of investment in armour, they’d have no work stream and no means of gaining or maintaining expertise.

It should be recognised that there is almost no expertise to build on; no uniformed customer expertise, no appropriate programme management expertise, commercial naivety, no research capability and no real product development and manufacturing capability It’s all been hollowed out over the last 30 years because there’s been no proper armoured programme. Just a series of catastrophic failures.

It needs some deep thinking about how best to structure armoured vehicle procurement. Where the interfaces between client / public sector and industry need to be.

I don’t think RARDE would have made the slightest difference to Ajax…
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I’m not convinced of the argument that reconstituting RARDE would solve the problem.

Unless there is a coherent, long term program of investment in armour, they’d have no work stream and no means of gaining or maintaining expertise.

It should be recognised that there is almost no expertise to build on; no uniformed customer expertise, no appropriate programme management expertise, commercial naivety, no research capability and no real product development and manufacturing capability It’s all been hollowed out over the last 30 years because there’s been no proper armoured programme. Just a series of catastrophic failures.

It needs some deep thinking about how best to structure armoured vehicle procurement. Where the interfaces between client / public sector and industry need to be.

I don’t think RARDE would have made the slightest difference to Ajax…
More than that. It needs some deep - as distinct from superficial - and honest thinking about how to structure an army.
 
Ive mentined this before but many many years ago did work with DERA and then QINETIQ at Longcross and Hurn. There was a lot of experience there as well as interesting kit. But as BTB correctly states its not there now and you would have shiny expensive offices, test track(s) that has to be bought back off the commercial sector(££) and a workshop with a couple of AJAX with 5 newly employed graduates (because the blurb would have been "this new establishment will culture the newly qualified youth to provide expertise in 30 years time world leading armoured vehicles", walking around them saying "electric is the future, take the nasty engine out"!
Funnily enough the last time I saw Qinetiq involved in a program they were brought on towards the end for some consultancy and the report ended ".....so we feel the vibration exceeds allowed limits"! Gen!
 
[DRIFT]

Published by: BNS, LRT ENGLISH, on 18 January 2022.

Lithuanian military tests Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles for first time.

Spike missiles, fire-and-forget guided missile systems mounted on Vilkas Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs), have been tested for the first time by the Lithuanian military.

The Israeli-made system was tried out on January 14–18 during a combat shooting drills of the Grand Duke Algirdas Mechanised Infantry Battalion.

Spike missiles have been installed on Lithuania's newly-acquired Vilkas IFVs and are one of the three types of weapon systems installed on these vehicles.

Under the contract with their producer, German consortium ARTEC, Lithuania is buying 88 IFVs equipped with Spike missiles, as well as US-made 30 mm MK-44S cannons and 7.62 mm machine guns.

1642763993013.png
[photo: Lithuanian military tests Israeli Spike anti-tank missiles for first time / Lithuanian MoD]


For information, posted on this AJAX thread, and also on the Baltics thread.

[DRIFT]
 

Majorpain

War Hero
I’m not convinced of the argument that reconstituting RARDE would solve the problem.

Unless there is a coherent, long term program of investment in armour, they’d have no work stream and no means of gaining or maintaining expertise.

It should be recognised that there is almost no expertise to build on; no uniformed customer expertise, no appropriate programme management expertise, commercial naivety, no research capability and no real product development and manufacturing capability It’s all been hollowed out over the last 30 years because there’s been no proper armoured programme. Just a series of catastrophic failures.

It needs some deep thinking about how best to structure armoured vehicle procurement. Where the interfaces between client / public sector and industry need to be.

I don’t think RARDE would have made the slightest difference to Ajax…
That's assuming that you get anything useful by re-incarnating RARDE and throwing money at it, really AFV development has plateaued since the 1980's, with majority of improvements being the subsystems rather than the "good enough" hull. UK Industry currently has no problem with supplying subsystems.

Ajax/Warrior were really expensive teething troubles as Gov re-learned how to do procurement after the 30 years drought, i think its important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, AFV procurement can be done well as Scimitar 2 showed.

I think most important thing going forward is to work with industry to develop platforms that show promise, and that means turning up with cash to spend (not necessarily huge amounts), rather than £0 budget expecting industry to fund everything. There are signs that the MOD has learnt that lesson.

1642764612150.png
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
That's assuming that you get anything useful by re-incarnating RARDE and throwing money at it, really AFV development has plateaued since the 1980's, with majority of improvements being the subsystems rather than the "good enough" hull. UK Industry currently has no problem with supplying subsystems.

Ajax/Warrior were really expensive teething troubles as Gov re-learned how to do procurement after the 30 years drought, i think its important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, AFV procurement can be done well as Scimitar 2 showed.

I think most important thing going forward is to work with industry to develop platforms that show promise, and that means turning up with cash to spend (not necessarily huge amounts), rather than £0 budget expecting industry to fund everything. There are signs that the MOD has learnt that lesson.

View attachment 633181
Analogy: the car industry.

We lost Rover, but we gained a top-end automotive consultancy sector.

Why's that a good thing? Because of the intellectual property, value-add and profitability which resides there. Building a metal box with dynamic capabilities has now become commoditised.

The previous CR2 thread which was binned held a lot of good stuff in this vein. It's a shame it got scribbled all over and binned.

But, essentially, we still have the capabilities here in the UK to build an AFV. That's from the heavy metal fabrication through to the development/realisation of the sexy bits that are fast becoming/have already become essentials to survival.

What we lack is a bunch of people at the top capable of seeing properly which way the wind is blowing and act accordingly.

I bet those Rangers are going to wreak havoc in Ukraine.
 
Analogy: the car industry.

We lost Rover, but we gained a top-end automotive consultancy sector.

Why's that a good thing? Because of the intellectual property, value-add and profitability which resides there. Building a metal box with dynamic capabilities has now become commoditised.

The previous CR2 thread which was binned held a lot of good stuff in this vein. It's a shame it got scribbled all over and binned.

But, essentially, we still have the capabilities here in the UK to build an AFV. That's from the heavy metal fabrication through to the development/realisation of the sexy bits that are fast becoming/have already become essentials to survival.

What we lack is a bunch of people at the top capable of seeing properly which way the wind is blowing and act accordingly.

I bet those Rangers are going to wreak havoc in Ukraine.
I hear tell the CWGC are looking at land in the Ukraine...
 
That's assuming that you get anything useful by re-incarnating RARDE and throwing money at it, really AFV development has plateaued since the 1980's, with majority of improvements being the subsystems rather than the "good enough" hull. UK Industry currently has no problem with supplying subsystems.

Ajax/Warrior were really expensive teething troubles as Gov re-learned how to do procurement after the 30 years drought, i think its important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, AFV procurement can be done well as Scimitar 2 showed.

I think most important thing going forward is to work with industry to develop platforms that show promise, and that means turning up with cash to spend (not necessarily huge amounts), rather than £0 budget expecting industry to fund everything. There are signs that the MOD has learnt that lesson.

View attachment 633181

As I'm an magpie when it comes to new shiny tech, do you have an I'd on that quad tracked lovely?
 

Londo

LE
This came up on my Facebook feed this AM .
Someone being too clever perhaps ?
Should it be on facebook in the first place or should I get it taken down ?
Are his figures anywhere near correct /
Any thoughts please .

Here’s a good example why you should not leave it out there for the Public to see lol
-
L28A1 is identical to L27A1, only difference is the penetrator Rod material. L27A1 is DU / L28A1 is WHA
-
Now that we know the dimensions anyone with an L-O equation can easily work out the true capability of the L27A1 Charm 3 apfsds
-
I calculated:
522mm @ 2000m (0)
305mm @ 2000m (60) — 610mm LOS
===
Penetration written in NATO standard:
[LOS against plate at 60 degrees]
640mm @ Point Blank
625mm @ 1000m
610mm @ 2000m
-
L27A1 is basically the performance limit of the 120mm L30 rifled gun. The Americans already had M829A1 Silver Bullet in 1991 rated 650mm @ 2000m.
-
As you can see the Challenger 3’s upgrade to the 120mm L55A1 Smoothbore gun was a very well needed one. I saw 120mm DM63A1 being loaded into the Challenger 3 prototype showcase video. If that is the starting worst round for the new Challenger…
We have already jumped from
610mm @ 2km (L27A1)
to
715mm @ 2km (DM63A1)
[Without taking DM63A1 anti era capability into account... It should defeat T-72B3/T-90A armour beyond visual range. It should defeat T-90M with Relikt up to 2500m, again longer distance than that if DM63A1 has anti era capability and can reduce the Relikt's effect.]
-
Sure L27A1 will defeat T-90A up to 2500m, but Russia’s T-90M using Relikt instead of Kontakt-5 makes it utterly immune to the British Charm 3 even in theoretical point blank range engagements.
shell.jpgshell2.jpg
 
The Odermatt equations are publicly available but they are entirely dependent on the information put into them.

The ballistic performance of any round will only be correct if you put the right parameters in. If those parameters are publicly available then anyone can do the maths and come up with similar numbers.

There's a certain assumption that the input parameters are correct and they may or may not be, but there's no sense to confirm or deny that, though it could serve as a lesson in synergistic intelligence.

When it comes to ERA performance there's a lot going on that isn't necessarily captured in the mathematical model.

Then there are other factors, such as armour coverage not being uniform across the front of any vehicle, much less one with appliqué ERA.

At the end of it all, what is really being stated is that a gun and ammunition that are at least 20 years old are being outperformed by gun and ammunition that have been kept up to date. Which is a bit of a "duh?" comment to me.
 

Londo

LE
The Odermatt equations are publicly available but they are entirely dependent on the information put into them.

The ballistic performance of any round will only be correct if you put the right parameters in. If those parameters are publicly available then anyone can do the maths and come up with similar numbers.

There's a certain assumption that the input parameters are correct and they may or may not be, but there's no sense to confirm or deny that, though it could serve as a lesson in synergistic intelligence.

When it comes to ERA performance there's a lot going on that isn't necessarily captured in the mathematical model.

Then there are other factors, such as armour coverage not being uniform across the front of any vehicle, much less one with appliqué ERA.

At the end of it all, what is really being stated is that a gun and ammunition that are at least 20 years old are being outperformed by gun and ammunition that have been kept up to date. Which is a bit of a "duh?" comment to me.
So I shouldn't be over worried that the above is being posted on a really open and public site ?
 
So I shouldn't be over worried that the above is being posted on a really open and public site ?
Doesnt really matter, by the time CH3 gets out to the big wide world, 3 -stage plasma weapons would of replaced big smoothbore guns anyway!! ;)
 

Londo

LE
Doesnt really matter, by the time CH3 gets out to the big wide world, 3 -stage plasma weapons would of replaced big smoothbore guns anyway!! ;)
It did make me laugh though at this bit of his post
Here’s a good example why you should not leave it out there for the Public to see lol
Then what did he do ?
 
So I shouldn't be over worried that the above is being posted on a really open and public site ?
I wouldn’t have thought so.
It isn’t necessarily accurate and if it were you could do more damage by confirming it when calling for it to be retracted.
Bear in mind that the Odermatt equations are empirically derived and provide estimates of performance against RHA, so any results derived from them are only ever indicative.

If the poster has linked his sources for the parameters and any of those are protectively marked then those should be taken down as they have greater legitimacy and there is a crime going on in sharing them.
 

Londo

LE
I wouldn’t have thought so.
It isn’t necessarily accurate and if it were you could do more damage by confirming it when calling for it to be retracted.
Bear in mind that the Odermatt equations are empirically derived and provide estimates of performance against RHA, so any results derived from them are only ever indicative.

If the poster has linked his sources for the parameters and any of those are protectively marked then those should be taken down as they have greater legitimacy and there is a crime going on in sharing them.
Thank you . I was even a bit worried about posting it on this site . However arrse is not as widely read as facebook is .
Must admit I was a bit shocked to see it there to be read by millions .
However I'm now a bit more reassured by yourself and @incendiarycutlery 's posts
 

Latest Threads

Top