The army is relatively fit for purpose. What is not, is the procurement side of it. This is mainly driven by sybil serpents (not a typo) whose main aim together with that of very senior ranks is to garner employment when they leave the services. Not my problem old boy
I feel that you dismiss the threat from IEDs a little too quickly. Surely any vehicle could at least have a 'V' shaped hull to give some protection when driving over an IED, considering how many recent conflicts have been against insurgency.
Also, any vehicle is very vulnerable from drones. Drones are not just used for reconnaissance but many are used as attack weapons, in swarms. This must be considered in the design.
Look up the ‘survivability onion’. Protecting every vehicle to survive a direct strike from an explosion underneath (like a V shaped hull) means it will do everything else very badly. It will have to be high of the ground and therefore big silhouette and easy to see and strike; it will not be manoeuvrable. And drones - you need to target it and protect against it by considering it as a system.
Lotus Engineering had a CVR(T) converted with active suspension, paid for by the British Army, powered by the Jaguar 4.2l XK petrol engine. The active system was prototype, and mostly worked day to day. The project was the most promising application for active suspension, to provide the required suspension control for off road as well as on road.
Is it too late to re-visit CVR(T)? The weaknesses were known, some of those can be eliminated now, so surely this has more potential than the Ajax family at a price well below £billions?
Yes. Your article makes the point very clearly. Thinking about the hollowing out of the required manufacturing skills, it would seem it is entirely possible to upgrade the later powertrain (keeping the essential features) along with other any other aspect as a very achievable objective - mostly using UK suppliers.
I do hope the rather odd current Defence Minister manages to stop playing MI5 / MI6 games long enough to make a real decision. He is not nor ever will be James Bond.
That is astonishing!
"had lower ground pressure than a human foot"!
The army is relatively fit for purpose. What is not, is the procurement side of it. This is mainly driven by sybil serpents (not a typo) whose main aim together with that of very senior ranks is to garner employment when they leave the services. Not my problem old boy
I feel that you dismiss the threat from IEDs a little too quickly. Surely any vehicle could at least have a 'V' shaped hull to give some protection when driving over an IED, considering how many recent conflicts have been against insurgency.
Also, any vehicle is very vulnerable from drones. Drones are not just used for reconnaissance but many are used as attack weapons, in swarms. This must be considered in the design.
Look up the ‘survivability onion’. Protecting every vehicle to survive a direct strike from an explosion underneath (like a V shaped hull) means it will do everything else very badly. It will have to be high of the ground and therefore big silhouette and easy to see and strike; it will not be manoeuvrable. And drones - you need to target it and protect against it by considering it as a system.
If every vehicle is blown up by either an IED or a drone, what do you do then? The battlefield has changed. Sorry.
You are in over your head and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Drones are low speed anti tank projectiles. Systems like Trophy render them ineffective.
Mines / IED problem is more complex, particularly in counter insurgency warfare, which is not the primary role of armoured reconnaissance.
Utterly brilliant.
Lotus Engineering had a CVR(T) converted with active suspension, paid for by the British Army, powered by the Jaguar 4.2l XK petrol engine. The active system was prototype, and mostly worked day to day. The project was the most promising application for active suspension, to provide the required suspension control for off road as well as on road.
Is it too late to re-visit CVR(T)? The weaknesses were known, some of those can be eliminated now, so surely this has more potential than the Ajax family at a price well below £billions?
The CVR(T) Jaguar petrol engine was replaced in tje late 1990s with a Cummins diesel and auto gear box.
I think it would not be hard to produce a more than adequate vehicle on the Stormer chassis.
Yes. Your article makes the point very clearly. Thinking about the hollowing out of the required manufacturing skills, it would seem it is entirely possible to upgrade the later powertrain (keeping the essential features) along with other any other aspect as a very achievable objective - mostly using UK suppliers.
I do hope the rather odd current Defence Minister manages to stop playing MI5 / MI6 games long enough to make a real decision. He is not nor ever will be James Bond.