ARES APC

[magman2]

 The ARES, light tracked armoured personnel carrier.

Net Photo  (General Dynamics UK)

[Kingsman]

Effectively the Spartan replacement, primarily for recce support dismounts: infantry sections in recce units.

 

Driver's hatch arrangement seems very ungainly.  I hope it's well counterbalanced!  Must restrict RWS arc of fire in that quadrant.  The enemy doesn't only open fire when you're closed-down.........  Armour protection on the sides of the RWS sensors.

[Rangerboy83]

Think the drivers hatch arrangement had to be changed to improve the commanders field of view when the crew are operating hatches open judging by some of the other pics that are online. 

[Kingsman]

Lift and swing might have made more sense but I'm sure GD looked at that.  Or lift and slide to the right: too easily jammed, perhaps.  I can see how rear-opening would have blocked the commanders' periscopes but not his head-out view.  Long old handle to pull the hatch down (curved thing between hatch and head), hence my hope that it's well counterbalanced.  I'm sure it is.  Maybe it can go further back to lie flat-ish behind the smoke dischargers.

 

But a vast improvement in capability all round on the CVR(T)s despite being twice the bulk and 4 times the weight.......

 

I guess we'll next see the squadron command or recovery variants on this hull and then the regimental command and medical on a taller hull.  Originally, 2 medical variants were proposed: an evacuation vehicle and a treatment vehicle.  I imagine they've morphed into 1 type in the light of the Afghan medical experience.  Sometimes MERT can't come on a Chinook.......

 

It would be nice to think that there might be a Son Of Exactor ATGW Overwatch variant with Spike, and a replacement platform for Starstreak SHORAD - still a very capable weapon system but on an old platform and mounting.  I don't believe there are plans for either.

 

And we'll all be crying out for kits shortly......................  And for a Boxer.  Or will that get a non-dog name too now?  That would confuse the hell out of everyone......

[Rangerboy83]

Yeah let’s hope the med variant appears in the future as these things can shift cross country by all accounts. The Army will need something that can keep up for casualty evacuation. Don’t want to be relying on bulldogs. Lol. Even more so for the units operating in the strike brigades as in a conventional conflict MERT might be a no go.

 

The Kongsberg can be fitted with ATGW if the MOD wishes but that will be more money and something they will only request if needed (in my opinion). It’s a shame cause would be a massive plus instead of relying on dismounted Jav teams as your AT capability.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Rangerboy83

[John Tapsell]

Actually - the driver's hatch, whilst offering some level of interference, is cleverly orientated in that it 'presents' edge-on to the RWS so it minimises the blindspot.

 

John

[Kingsman]

Indeed so.  But unless the RWS has an inbuilt interrupter at that angle the operator is going to need fine control and good anticipation if firing on the traverse to avoid damaging the hatch. 

 

Perhaps the low photo angle is confusing the relationship between the two.  The weapon obviously sits right up on top of the RWS and at zero elevation it probably does fire well over the open hatch.  But below the horizontal it looks certain to obstruct the arc.  And being so high up, firing below the horizontal is going to be fairly normal for ground-level threats within perhaps 200m.  Perhaps an unlikely set of circumstances to come together.  But that's the nature of war.  And Airbus crashes.

 

I recall that when I worked on this project some years ago the debate was raging over whether the RWS needed to elevate to 90 degrees.  The best available at the time was 85, IIRC.

 

On the mobility front, mentioned by RangerBoy, the chassis shares the growing trend in this size class for having 7 closely-spaced road wheels rather than the previously more usual 5 or 6.  CV90, T15 and Kurganets have the same feature.  This spreads the weight more evenly and gives a longer track footprint, lowering ground pressure while retaining traction.  Tight turns on hard surfaces, however, need more power and impose more stress.  Leopard started this trend and it has been one of its key mobility factors, copied by M1 and T14.  But that lesson was forgotten with the Puma SPz whose prototypes had only 5 road wheels and struggled, so that a 6th had to be inserted for the production standard.

 

In the genesis of this new family it was questioned whether a 6-cum-7 wheel configuration might work, with the rear idler being able to be lowered to become an additional cross-country roadwheel when necessary while retaining the hard-surface advantage of the shorter track on the ground with 6 wheels and a shorter vehicle overall.  No clear advantage and more to go wrong.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Das Abteilung
addition