Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rollover

New £3.5bn mini-tanks that are only useful against incompetent enemies who cannot hit them with heavy artillery

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

Ex-defence worker claims Army's new Ajax mini-tanks are 'death traps'

Hundreds of Ajax mini-tanks are due to be supplied to the Army next year with the full order of 600 delivered to the Ministry of Defence by 2024. Sources have claimed the delivery could be delayed due to complications with a revolutionary weapons system fitted on board each tank, although the MoD has insisted the project will be completed on time and will provide the 'best' tanks.

Raising concerns about the new tanks, one former defence official told The Times: 'It is fine if you are operating against incompetent enemies, but if you are up against a peer enemy this thing is useless, it's a death trap.' It is simply not up to the job of defending rival power from countries such as Russia.

 

Expensive, useless and not fit for purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they taking the view that now a days,  if you get hit you're probably dead anyway?

I don't know how many tanks can survive modern anti-tank weapons?

Sounds like they have traded off strength for weight saving, speed and better weapons/defence systems.

I'm sure our in-house experts will be along shortly to explain  eating_popcorn.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, rollover said:

 

Expensive, useless and not fit for purpose.

It's pointless anyway as Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, and if it did (which it won't) there would be no defence in any event.

Even the NATO/America simulations show that all NATO forces combined would fall before the Russian army in about a week (they ran their simulation 18 or something times and the result was ultimately the same every time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, libspero said:

I don't know how many tanks can survive modern anti-tank weapons?

Modern ones, like the Russian T-14 and modernised T-90 have inbuilt systems to intercept anti-tank weapons. So yes, the rule is don't get hit.

I should add that Russia is miles ahead of the US/West in tank defence systems. The kit on the T-14 is cutting edge:

The tank features the Afghanit (Russian: Афганит) active protection system (APS), which includes a millimeter-wavelength radar to detect, track, and intercept incoming anti-tank munitions, both kinetic energy penetrators and tandem-charges. Currently, the maximum speed of the interceptable target is 1,700 m/s (Mach 5.0), with projected future increases of up to 3,000 m/s (Mach 8.8).  According to news sources, it protects the tank from all sides. These systems put the Armata a generation ahead in terms of defensive technology. Such systems are "only in their infancy on British and American tanks". 

Defense Update released an analysis of the tank in May 2015, speculating that Afghanit's main sensors are the four panels mounted on the turret's sides, which are probably AESA radar panes spread out for a 360° view, with possibly one more on top of the turret. In their opinion, the active part of the system consists of both a hard kill and soft kill element, the first of which actively destroys an incoming projectile (such as an unguided rocket or artillery shell), while the second confuses the guidance systems of ATGMs, causing them to lose target lock. They believe that it would be effective against 3rd and 4th generation ATGMs, including Hellfire, TOW, BILL, Javelin, Spike, Brimstone, and JAGM, as well as sensor-fused weapons (SFW).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a tank (well, what everyone calls a tank, a main battle tank).  It is an armoured fighting vehicle.  It sits as a more heavily capable (but fewer passengers) warrior, similar to Scimitar (not the Reliant one), Scorpion, Spartan, etc.   It is nowhere near a Challenger 2 (or T14 or M1 or whatever) and isn't meant to be.

I suppose the press might have a point, in that the current wars and asymmetric so procurement forms to match the current requirement... while the next war is possibly more symmetric...  Still, there'd be just as much moaning if they bought 100 new MBTs -- they'd be unsuitable for modern warfare, too heavy for bridges, etc, etc.

Might still be crap, though... but criticise it on its own terms, not by comparing it to something it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MBT's have Chobham explosive reactive armor plating that blows off when hit deflecting the RPG warhead etc 

These are just puny recon vehicles

The MOD needs to ditch BAE Systems and all this "Bespoke" equipment it is forced to buy from them, it is crap. 

The Navy would be better off buying proven off the shelf Frigates from the US or Italy/France. 

A Submariner went beserk with an SA80 inside a new Astute class sub here in Southampton Docks after being cooped up in cramped badly designed living quarters for months, he shot some officers his name was Reggie Moondog.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14975547

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how does that work if we are getting then from a US company ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A spokesperson for BAE Systems claimed “deliveries were ahead of schedule,”while a Lockheed spokesperson insisted “early indications point to a component failure and not a design flaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ccc said:

So how does that work if we are getting then from a US company ?

Built in Wales and BAE build and supply the main gun for these "Tanks"

If there are problems with the main gun as stated, BAE have designed built and supplied it. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11711079/BAE-Systems-to-build-main-gun-for-British-Armys-new-tanks.html

You see they just have to get their fingers into every pie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The turret and feeding mechanism on the cannon is being supplied and tested by defence firm Lockheed Martin, while the cannon and ammunition are being developed by BAE Systems and Nexter.

BAE systems said the cannon had passed 'stringent qualification trials' and said there were no issues with its performance or when it will be delivered. 'Deliveries to date to the UK Ministry of Defence are ahead of schedule,' a spokesman said.

All here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892754/Army-s-new-3-5bn-mini-tanks-DEATH-traps-useful-against-incompetent-enemies-hit-heavy-artillery.html

Another example of a typical UK MOD  "piece form here & a piece from there" job creation scheme keynesian economics leading to an inferior product.

(i have an axe to grind BTW) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, workingpoor said:

BAE systems said the cannon had passed 'stringent qualification trials' and said there were no issues with its performance or when it will be delivered. 'Deliveries to date to the UK Ministry of Defence are ahead of schedule,' a spokesman said.

 

Yes, but the MOD probably forgot to put it in the contract that one criteria was a working gun :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

Yes, but the MOD probably forgot to put it in the contract that one criteria was a working gun :D

 

Referring to an alleged complication with the cannon's turret – a section attached to the weapon to feed ammunition to the barrel - a source claimed: 'As soon as the turret was subject to vibration and bumps the [feeding] mechanism failed. Mail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, interestrateripoff said:

So are they any use against an enemy using Toyota pick up trucks?

Don't know... but I'd love to watch Jeremy Clarkson's particular brand of investigative research trying to find out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

Yes, but the MOD probably forgot to put it in the contract that one criteria was a working gun :D

 

A much more likely scenario. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   100 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.