quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 427
- Points
- 810
Would M10s fitted up with engineering and recovery gear be a useful addition to a LAV unit?
Canada's tanks
- Thread starter jfposada
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,076
- Points
- 1,160
Sorry I was distracted earlier and didn't reply.
Anyone can market something as a C-UAS system -- but it doesn't make it an effective one.
The Slinger RWS doesn't do anything that the LAV/Bradley doesn't do with it's 25mm (other than offer the 30mm proximity fuzed round).
It's a stabilized gun - but has no AD feed or STC to aid hitting the target.
So for some of the slow moving low altitude straight line flying UAS it could be effective once they where detected - but for an effective C-UAS gun system you need an AD intended fire control.
I wonder if there are any of the old M163 Vulcan systems sitting around?
The Return of Tactical Antiaircraft Artillery: Optimizing the Army Inventory for the Era of Small Drone Proliferation - Modern War Institute
As the war in Ukraine has unfolded over the past two years, a seemingly endless series of videos have emerged from the battlefield, depicting drones—of various shapes and configurations—targeting and […]mwi.westpoint.edu
I wasn't aware that the Delco turret was radar guided.
- High precision weapon platform weighing less than 400 kg
- Fully stabilised for on-the-move operation
- Echodyne ultra-low size, weight, and power (SWaP) 4D targeting radar with active beamsteering ESA
- 4-axis sighting system with sensor unit that moves independently of the gun in both elevation and azimuth
- Exquisite pointing technology for extreme accuracy
- Bushmaster M230LF 30 x 113mm cannon
- Lightweight 30 mm Proximity Sensing Ammunition with radio frequency proximity-fuzed, high explosive, fragmentation round
- Wind sensor
Slinger - Electro Optic Systems
Lightweight counter-drone lethality incorporating a radar, a 30mm cannon with specialised ammunition, and EOS proprietary stabilisation.
eos-aus.com
Having said that I think this is a piece of the puzzle I neglected to include
Controlling the Forward Aerial High Ground - Armada International
Stephen W. Miller looks at methods of countering UAS which are dominating at battlefield.
www.armadainternational.com
....
I see that there is now a dual feed / dual mode (air and ground) LF 30mm x 113mm
Northrop Grumman Unveils the Next Generation of Bushmaster Chain Gun
The new chain gun will offer two feed paths that can switch between air burst and high explosive.
.....
Add in
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,498
- Points
- 1,160
Lot of places the ferries are used to cross rivers. As I said the large MBT does not fit everyone's needs.
- Reaction score
- 8,076
- Points
- 1,160
Somewhere buried in there is the rationale for stopping with the Bison as a LIGHT Armoured Vehicle (13 tonnes).
If you want 30 tonnes of armour then you might could be better off with tracks. And at 60 tonnes you don't really have an option. Eh?
PS - the Grizz at 10.5 tons is still heavier than what the army thinks of as Light today.
....
13 tonne Bison/Coyote or 18.5 tonne TAPV? And the TAPV is Lightish or Mediumish?
- Reaction score
- 8,076
- Points
- 1,160
For that matter here is a Grizzly (Swiss Piranha) converted from a TUA version to a C&R version in 2007
....
Complete with rear ramp instead of doors
- Reaction score
- 21,126
- Points
- 1,260
Odd some of the literature I’ve seen missed that aspect.
- Reaction score
- 21,126
- Points
- 1,260
I think you’re 110% correct. The LAV-25 series (BISON, USMC LAV-25) was probably the optimal point of the series from a medium standpoint. Light enough to move effectively, and protection for most rapid intervention requirements and PSO’s.
I suspect that one could probably upgrade the power pack and suspension with minimal weight increase as was done for the LAV-25 A2 and A3. That way you could add a RPG cage around the vehicle without much issue should the situation require (think a TF Ranger ‘BlackHawk Down’ Somalia style intervention) where the threat is generally small arms and some RPG’s but no significant ATGM or Indirect Fire, and no Armor threat). Basically the entire purpose of protected mobility.
But when one started getting into the double V hull designs of Stryker 2.0 and LAV 6.0 I tend to question the validity, as you end up getting into the tracked HAPC/IFV range without the off route mobility.
- Reaction score
- 1,792
- Points
- 1,160
Ajax is the most awkward looking contraption that the Brits have dreamt up in a very long time.It's in the Brit's new Ajax.
I've always wondered about this system. Ejection of the expended casing is done by the new round entering the pivoting chamber and pushing the old casing out. That begs the question as to whether there is an override to eject an expended casing without introducing a new round so that the expended casing isn't left for a long time in the chamber after firing or a new round introduced long before needed.
This made me think about the Ajax/Ares systems.
I really doubt the viability of Ares as an infantry section carrier. The info on the number of dismounts carried is strangely muted which makes me suspect. I've found one (on a GDLS site) that says 4 dismounts while Wikipedia talks about a crew of three and seven passengers. All Ares has is a 50 cal RWS so you'd think there is some internal space there and it makes me wonder about the need for a "crew" of three. Ajax itself is pure recce and Ares seems designed to accompany recce with only a few dismounts. Boxer is the Brits solution for the armoured/mech infantry role (which handles a crew of three and six dismounts). The whole thing seems a bit inelegant to me.
- Reaction score
- 16,571
- Points
- 1,010
Ajax does not even crack the top 20 awkward British contraptions.
- Reaction score
- 26,790
- Points
- 1,090
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,462
- Points
- 1,160
There's a lot in "Future Soldier" that makes sense (e.g. 1 Deep Recce Strike) but a few that leaves me scratching my head. The lack of an under armour ATGM launcher on AJAX is one. I understand there were to be several direct fire variants including one with ATGMs in the cancelled Block 3 build. All they have now is hand held Javelins.
I'm not so much anti-Ajax. What I can't understand why they didn't use an AJAX variant to replace the infantry's Warriors and eliminate the Boxers so that 3 UK Div would have one basic chassis to work from. There are ASCOD variants that have a crew of three with eight dismounts - Spain's Pizzaro. There is even a 155mm Variant - Donar - that carried the 155/52 AGM turret that is now being bought by the UK on a Boxer chassis. I guess the anti-track, highway bound mobility, wheeled infatuation has kicked in once again.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,498
- Points
- 1,160
Does not appear that they are currently planning a ARV version. Some more infor, along with some of the ammunition orders being made.
- Reaction score
- 1,554
- Points
- 1,060
Boxer is supposed to replace Warrior even though it looks like a Bulldog replacement and Ajax is a hilarious replacement for CVRTThere's a lot in "Future Soldier" that makes sense (e.g. 1 Deep Recce Strike) but a few that leaves me scratching my head. The lack of an under armour ATGM launcher on AJAX is one. I understand there were to be several direct fire variants including one with ATGMs in the cancelled Block 3 build. All they have now is hand held Javelins.
I'm not so much anti-Ajax. What I can't understand why they didn't use an AJAX variant to replace the infantry's Warriors and eliminate the Boxers so that 3 UK Div would have one basic chassis to work from. There are ASCOD variants that have a crew of three with eight dismounts - Spain's Pizzaro. There is even a 155mm Variant - Donar - that carried the 155/52 AGM turret that is now being bought by the UK on a Boxer chassis. I guess the anti-track, highway bound mobility, wheeled infatuation has kicked in once again.
fewer and fatter
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,498
- Points
- 1,160
Ajax is crossdressing like a turreted Warrior
- Reaction score
- 1,792
- Points
- 1,160
A wide, ugly, over pimped out Warrior that looks and performs like it could tip over left, right or forward like a drunken frat boy at a kegger.
quadrapiper
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 427
- Points
- 810
So a massive great TAPV?
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
No it’s upright
- Reaction score
- 21,126
- Points
- 1,260
AJAX is virtually impossible to tip, but one would question the build concept.
Most designs that are envisioned for add on armor packages have upgraded power plants and suspension, but the chassis is just fitted with attachment points for bolt on armor.
AJAX seems to have add on armor built into the initial concept, and it is removed for training and operations that doesn’t require it - which is kind of like running a plate carrier without plates as it doesn’t fit right.
Worse without the additional armor, the exterior armor holding frame seems to bend and buckle, and not take additional armor correctly, and without the weight of the armor the suspension didn’t seem adjust to the lighter weight and was shaking everything to its core (troops included).
It should be fairly easily adjusted- but the MoD seems to be resistant to changes and one wonders if it is just to double down on the Boxer family.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,462
- Points
- 1,160
I'm a little confused about the UK Boxer. In looking at the videos etc for the UK Boxer, it describes it as an MIC (mechanized infantry carrier) and shows it without a turret, just a RWS MG that looks to be in the nature of a .50. It's replacing Warrior in the mech inf battalions (which was equipped with a 30 mm Rarden turret.)
I may be jumping to a conclusion here, but it seems like the Brits are going to something in the nature of a slightly up-armoured Stryker rather than an IFV. Rheinmetall does offer an IFV version of the Boxer but that doesn't seem to be what the UK is buying. That raises a question for me insofar as Strykers are designed to transport infantry close to the battle area but support a dismounted fight while Warrior was meant to fight through with the tanks dismounting when required.
I've seen a lot of articles about Boxer's "state of the art" and an emphasis which seems to be on driving 1,000 miles to the fight. There is nothing that I could find that discusses the ability to fight once there and if it will be a change of tactics from Warrior. Am I missing something?
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
I think the answer is more about budget issues than an actual intent.I'm a little confused about the UK Boxer. In looking at the videos etc for the UK Boxer, it describes it as an MIC (mechanized infantry carrier) and shows it without a turret, just a RWS MG that looks to be in the nature of a .50. It's replacing Warrior in the mech inf battalions (which was equipped with a 30 mm Rarden turret.)
I may be jumping to a conclusion here, but it seems like the Brits are going to something in the nature of a slightly up-armoured Stryker rather than an IFV. Rheinmetall does offer an IFV version of the Boxer but that doesn't seem to be what the UK is buying. That raises a question for me insofar as Strykers are designed to transport infantry close to the battle area but support a dismounted fight while Warrior was meant to fight through with the tanks dismounting when required.
I've seen a lot of articles about Boxer's "state of the art" and an emphasis which seems to be on driving 1,000 miles to the fight. There is nothing that I could find that discusses the ability to fight once there and if it will be a change of tactics from Warrior. Am I missing something?
Similar threads
