CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
As has been pointed out on the Ajax thread, it actually appears to have quite a lot of armour for its type, and the 40mm is quite a deadly piece of kit. With the sensors she's carrying she'd be quite lethal agaisnt her intended opponents. So against 3rd world enemies (which I believe the Strike concept was meant to face off against) it does appear to be able to act as a tank. So not as entirely stupid as many make it sound.
You're making the assumption that 3rd world enemy has neither tanks (T54 etc.), BMP or equivalent, nor ATGW.

Sure, Ajax can blat a technical. It doesn't need 40mm CTA to do that, 7.62 would suffice. CVR(T) could too, as can Jackal.

Ajax's primary role is armoured reconnaissance, at both formation and battle group level. As exhaustively explained several times in this thread, that requires stealth. Given it's size Ajax is not really fit for that role.

Sure, 40mm CTA is a tad more lethal than 30mm. But both are easily capable of defeating non MBT AFV at 1000m or so. So there is zero capability gain in the primary role, or really in secondary roles either. IF (big if ATM) cunning ammunition natures are adopted then yes, there is an argument that 40mm projectile has more space inside for funky fuses, but (big but) provision of direct fire support (secondary role) puts vehicle into line of sight of enemy so question of armour able to withstand whatever enemy has (.50, 14.7mm, 23mm, ATGW etc) becomes relevant.

Aside from interconnectiveity (cf. yebbut Rangers) it's hard to see anything like £5Bn worth of capability uplift from CVR(T). That has always been the case.
 
Someone earlier in the thread asked why we didn’t just buy CV90. Plenty of people on Twitter quoting anecdotes about MoD’s unofficial “Anyone But BAe” policy, but the reality is far simpler.

Why no CV90 for the FRES Scout/AJAX role?
Because the MoD requirements could not be met by any COTS AFV, and it was accepted that a significant modification of an existing platform would be required. This came down to a BAe bid based on CV90, and a GD bid based on ASCOD. When the tender responses were received, the GD bid for a modified ASCOD was more compliant than the BAe bid for a modified CV90. End of competition.


The real question is whether - having concluded that COTS was impossible - MoD should have been more conservative in its requirements, and accepted a low risk baseline followed by spiral improvements. Unfortunately, a big influence was the years of campaigning in Iraq/Afghanistan - and the ubiquitous IED threat - which leaned towards mods required in the very fabric of the vehicle. Plus also analytical mobility studies, which were quite specific in terms of ground pressure and BHP/Tonne.
 
Someone earlier in the thread asked why we didn’t just buy CV90. Plenty of people on Twitter quoting anecdotes about MoD’s unofficial “Anyone But BAe” policy, but the reality is far simpler.

Why no CV90 for the FRES Scout/AJAX role?
Because the MoD requirements could not be met by any COTS AFV, and it was accepted that a significant modification of an existing platform would be required. This came down to a BAe bid based on CV90, and a GD bid based on ASCOD. When the tender responses were received, the GD bid for a modified ASCOD was more compliant than the BAe bid for a modified CV90. End of competition.


The real question is whether - having concluded that COTS was impossible - MoD should have been more conservative in its requirements, and accepted a low risk baseline followed by spiral improvements. Unfortunately, a big influence was the years of campaigning in Iraq/Afghanistan - and the ubiquitous IED threat - which leaned towards mods required in the very fabric of the vehicle. Plus also analytical mobility studies, which were quite specific in terms of ground pressure and BHP/Tonne.
No . . . !!
 
Someone earlier in the thread asked why we didn’t just buy CV90. Plenty of people on Twitter quoting anecdotes about MoD’s unofficial “Anyone But BAe” policy, but the reality is far simpler.

Why no CV90 for the FRES Scout/AJAX role?
Because the MoD requirements could not be met by any COTS AFV, and it was accepted that a significant modification of an existing platform would be required. This came down to a BAe bid based on CV90, and a GD bid based on ASCOD. When the tender responses were received, the GD bid for a modified ASCOD was more compliant than the BAe bid for a modified CV90. End of competition.


The real question is whether - having concluded that COTS was impossible - MoD should have been more conservative in its requirements, and accepted a low risk baseline followed by spiral improvements. Unfortunately, a big influence was the years of campaigning in Iraq/Afghanistan - and the ubiquitous IED threat - which leaned towards mods required in the very fabric of the vehicle. Plus also analytical mobility studies, which were quite specific in terms of ground pressure and BHP/Tonne.

Because everything needs to uniquely bespoken and U.K. made?

Rather than good enough, cheaper, in service faster, actually in service, more in service (see cheaper) and if necessary licence built
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
The real question is whether - having concluded that COTS was impossible - MoD should have been more conservative in its requirements, and accepted a low risk baseline followed by spiral improvements. Unfortunately, a big influence was the years of campaigning in Iraq/Afghanistan - and the ubiquitous IED threat - which leaned towards mods required in the very fabric of the vehicle. Plus also analytical mobility studies, which were quite specific in terms of ground pressure and BHP/Tonne.
The subsidiary question being if your spec is one that there is no COTS option for, perhaps the spec is ill-considered....

ETA welcome back from wherever you have been!
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Why no CV90 for the FRES Scout/AJAX role?
Because the MoD requirements could not be met by any COTS AFV, and it was accepted that a significant modification of an existing platform would be required.

A cynic with experience in the field might ask, that if the requirements could not be met or approached by any COTS solution... perhaps the issue was with the requirements, and a re-examination of them might be in order.

Indeed, one of the progenitors of AJAX was FRES DF... which was apparently going to achieve MBT-level firepower, survivability and mobility in a 17-ton package able to be flown into theatre inside a Hercules. We didn't find a COTS solution to that requirement either...
 
FRES DF... which was apparently going to achieve MBT-level firepower, survivability and mobility in a 17-ton package able to be flown into theatre inside a Hercules.

:D:D:D:D
Now there's a design I'd like to have seen.

20-30 tons might have been doable, but it wouldn't be cheap or have protection levels like we'd think. But we have designed a AFV with RHAe of 26in before, and that was only in the 20-30 ton bracket. Flank armour wasn't great though, and it was a two man crew.

So it's difficult, expensive and needs some compromise, but it's not as utterly pants on head stupid as it first sounds. Only slightly outlandish, with a bit of weight increase.
We did look at this sort of thing before, with exactly the same idea. Only difference is we had lots of our own research establishments, including FVRDE closely tied in, and we made it so that the scientists could actually spend time researching ideas that might not pan out, which costs money.
(~pp.78 Dark Age of Tanks)
 
The subsidiary question being if your spec is one that there is no COTS option for, perhaps the spec is ill-considered....

ETA welcome back from wherever you have been!
Indeed - I think there was a conspiracy of optimism at the time: “write the requirements, and the solution will come”.

I can understand some of this - everyone knew this was likely to be ‘it’ for a very long time when it came to major AFV acquisition, and hence wanted to get it right. Fundamentally however, we tried to produce a machine that could do everything an MRAP could (and more) in terms of survivability, whilst also delivering a 21st century digitised Recce vehicle.

In systems engineering terms, we ended up trying to change everything at once…

(And yes, I’ve deliberately avoided posting for a while - between this place and Twitter, it can be a time-sponge!)
 
A cynic with experience in the field might ask, that if the requirements could not be met or approached by any COTS solution... perhaps the issue was with the requirements, and a re-examination of them might be in order.

Indeed, one of the progenitors of AJAX was FRES DF... which was apparently going to achieve MBT-level firepower, survivability and mobility in a 17-ton package able to be flown into theatre inside a Hercules. We didn't find a COTS solution to that requirement either...
Indeed - see my response to @Cynical above!
 
one of the progenitors of AJAX was FRES DF... which was apparently going to achieve MBT-level firepower, survivability and mobility in a 17-ton package able to be flown into theatre inside a Hercules. We didn't find a COTS solution to that requirement either..
[COD JOCKANESE]Captain - ye cannae break the laws ae physics!!![/COD JOCKANESE]
 
[COD JOCKANESE]Captain - ye cannae break the laws ae physics!!![/COD JOCKANESE]
That whole FRES protection level bit was always daft. Even today with effective APS, they only carry a few rounds because the residual fragments will render the system inoperative before you run out of interceptor munitions.

Or your opposition has two braincells to rub together and reverts to full-bore shot that APS won’t disrupt and will go through your reduced armour anyway
 
That whole FRES protection level bit was always daft. Even today with effective APS, they only carry a few rounds because the residual fragments will render the system inoperative before you run out of interceptor munitions.

Or your opposition has two braincells to rub together and reverts to full-bore shot that APS won’t disrupt and will go through your reduced armour anyway
Hence every generalist in procurement needs to be permanently supervised by 1×Scottie and 1xSpock/Data . . .
 
Winning a contract (or not) by agreeing (or not) to a local build/large amount of local content.
Many countries actually have that as a requirement of public contracts, often doesn’t actually involve that specific project.

It’s called offsets

There was one when Ireland was going to buy S92s and an Irish aircraft maintenance company was going to get contracts for civvy airline maintenance as part of the deal. Ended up in courts because Eurocopter said they didn’t know offsets was a requirement
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Many countries actually have that as a requirement of public contracts, often doesn’t actually involve that specific project.

It’s called offsets

There was one when Ireland was going to buy S92s and an Irish aircraft maintenance company was going to get contracts for civvy airline maintenance as part of the deal. Ended up in courts because Eurocopter said they didn’t know offsets was a requirement
Yes, I know. BAE obviously hasn’t been offering enough of them.

A factor in GDUK winning was local content, which looks a bit sick given that a large problem is Spanish hulls.
 

Latest Threads

Top