MBDA’s AKERON MP missile was successfully fired from a BAE Systems Hägglunds CV90 infantry combat vehicle at a test range in northern Sweden, in the presence of representatives from the Swedish Armed Forces.

The trial showcased the advanced capabilities of the AKERON MP missile and the BAE Systems Hägglunds CV90 combat system, providing “a unique and highly capable solution for target engagement in complex environments”.

The firm say that AKERON is a fifth-generation tactical combat missile, incorporating cutting-edge technologies including high-resolution multi-band imagers, multi-effect warheads, data-links, and AI-based multi-mode guidance algorithms. The CV90 infantry combat vehicle, on the other hand, features a state-of-the-art integrated combat system linked to broader battlefield management systems.

The combination of AKERON MP/LYNKEUS and the CV90 combat system provides a powerful solution for target engagement in challenging environments such as forests and urban areas.

BAE claim that the crew can lock onto a target before launching AKERON MP in lock-on before launch (LOBL) mode, or acquire a target in-flight in lock-on after launch (LOAL) mode. Additionally, the CV90 combat system provides crucial information to the crew, enabling AKERON to engage tanks at ranges of 4 km. The option for collaborative combat through the CV90 combat system with the integrated micro-UAV LYNKEUS for scouting further strengthens the solution’s capabilities.

The firing conditions for the trial were carefully selected to demonstrate the complementary capabilities of the CV90 advanced combat system and the unique capabilities of AKERON MP/LYNKEUS, with a successful lock-on before launch (LOBL) in the TV band, even in the challenging winter combat conditions of the Nordic country.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

42 COMMENTS

  1. The CV 90…yet again. Was there some strange reason why we did go for this instead of messing about for years with Ajax and Boxer? Did the MOD suddenly decide they didn’t like BAe or something?

    • I don’t know about Boxer vs CV90, but the army chose Ajax over the proposed CV90 recce variant for a few reasons. ISTAR capability being the obvious one, the 40mm cannon another.

      It all seems daft now. A CV90 fleet of recce and IFV was so obvious. We could have up gunned them, added ISTAR.

      It seems Ajax isn’t being cancelled now so perhaps the best option would be to go all in with that and get an IFV version. Won’t happen though, we seem intent on going for Boxer for everything beyond recce.

      • So why are we going Boxer exactly – is it just to keep UK manufacturing type jobs (as per AJAX) or is there some other additional technical rationale?

      • What the hell is in Ajax regarding ISTAR that you can’t put in a CV90? The CV-90 recce variant already has an integrated UAV and telescopic mast over Ajax.

      • I don’t really get the reasons you mention, back in the day, for rejecting CV90 recce to replace Scimitar – surely the ISTAR kit required could have been integrated?
        A CV90 (CV9040) with a 40-mm cannon has been in service with the Swedish Army since 1993 – could not have been impossible to swap in a CTA gun.

        There is no IFV version of Ajax.

        • I’m no expert, you obviously know far more about this than I do, but they were the comments from my cousin who had a minor role in it all. I’ll try and find out more.

          No there isn’t an IFV version of Ajax, but aren’t other armies developing IFV based ASCOD?

          • Plus the base of the US Army’s proposed Bradley replacement I believe. I wonder what commonality there is between these IFV variants and Ajax, and whether it makes sense for us to pursue this option or to continue solely with Boxer.

          • Hi Rob,
            I’m not aware of the Bradley replacement, called the “Optionally Manned FV” being ASCOD based. GD are in the mix but the requirements are for hybrid drive and an unmanned turret. I know the new MPF vehicle is based on a shortened AJAX hull (Griffin), only 6 roadwheels per side with a lighter, smaller, Abrams style turret (for commonality of operation). An AJAX based IFV is doable, possibly by adding a roadwheel pair, making for 8 per side and ditching a load of the CSups racking inside. The rear door is already hydrobolic allowing for rapid egress.
            More ideas on a postcard please.

          • The original ASCOD has been supplied to the Austrian Army as the Pizarro IFV and the Austrian Army as the Ulan IFV. But GDUK took the ASCOD platform in a different direction for Ajax.

          • There’s an IFV version of Ajax (at least a design) it was offered as part of LAND 400
            As for Ajax Vs CV90
            The systems four Ajax were more advanced similar to what CV90 mark IV offers now. It was offered with more UK content & industrial participation (until BAE almost offered UK production as an afterthought). BAE had I believe had a recent track record of increasingly expensive & delayed projects.
            Hindsight is wonderful – I’m not saying the right decision was made at the time though but only those who made it would know.

      • Why can’t there be a sensible mix of tracked and wheeled IFVs and even recce? Does it have to be one and not the other? Why is it so difficult to figure out for those in the know? No more time to waste really. We surely have enough real world miltary experience by now to make some right decisions!?

        • We have, and in the past have had tracked recce and wheeled recce:
          Tracked – Scimitar, Scorpion
          Wheeled – Ferret, Fox, Panther FCLV, Land Rover

          Again for infantry carriers (all APCs except Warrior (IFV)):
          Tracked: Warrior, FV432
          Wheeled: Saxon, Saracen, Humber Pig

          So we have a ton of exerience.

          There should be coherence to ensure effectiveness. Thus we should have armoured/armoured infantry brigades with tracked vehicles:
          Ajax, CR2/CR3, a tracked IFV family, AS90 or successor, MLRS

          and mechanised brigades with: wheeled equivalents.

      • Hi Rob. I’ve been out of it for a few days. Yes. I agree. it’s like marques of a car surely. If you have a BMW 5 series that works but you want to add different kit you start with the car, not the new item. It’s like the Boxer. Starts off an IFV but how many variants are there now? Nine, ten? I’ve just read in the Telegraph that General Dynamics were paid up front. If true there’s a whole new can of worms to be looked into.

    • At the time British army was still very much interested in warrior and pushing for future warrior which then gets unfunded and cancelled leaving us stuck with un-upgraded warrior and no replacement coming unless you count boxer which is a different project.

      Ajax never intended to replace warrior is the armoured recce and specialist vehicle which is being shoehorned into a warrior replacement by many, but with its problem’s is very unlikely to happen at least in numbers and time/cost terms.

      CV-90 although is now bae hagglunds was a project by original hagglunds/borfors in the late 80s, and even if pitched back then would never of been picked for political reasons as we still had Alvis Vickers who had there own project lines. And as said the army thought warrior was to stay/be developed further. Unfortunately I feel CV-90 came at the wrong time for us especially now but there’d be no guarantee it wouldn’t go the way of Ajax unless we buy them straight frow Sweden.

      But what are we to do about it since warrior will be going unless they keep a completely outdated vehicle for a while. Ajax is a disaster all round and wasn’t supposed to replace warrior. And the only thing we’ve got/done in decades is boxer which is already 20+ years old. My personal in short term is expand boxer with turret modules and buy into the tracked boxer which can be UK made and in the medium to long term get in on the US Bradley replacement also bae and make them here too.

      • The problem as as always with the army is the constant changes being made to what they want, or what they are told their structure is going to be. Nearly twenty years on we are back to where we were. Now though we only have 148 tanks, enough Ajax for each tank to have one each and around ninety APC’s. It’s going to interesting trying to build armoured brigades with that. I’ve seen two stories in the last few days. One that Ajax is fixed and going ahead and the other that it isn’t and is going to be subject to yet more trials? The mystery continues. I also read in the DT that General Dynamics were paid up front! Very odd.

    • The Ajax design was awarded the contract over the BAE CV90 based offer in 2010. That’s the same year Nimrod MRA4 was cancelled. I’ve always assumed either the MoD or the treasury was desperate to make it clear to BAE that it was still unhappy about that debacle.

    • I don’t know whether the time fits, but I know that some years ago there was a feeling that we were single-sourcing everything from BAE and they were taking the tax-payer for a ride. It’s generally a good principle to have ome level of competition in supply chain, and it may be that the decision to go with GDLS and Ajax was a result of that.
      It’s probably also worth pointing out that we’d likely have wanted to make very similar modifications to CV90 to create the hypothetical Recce version that we’ve made to ASCOD2 to make Ajax- no guarantee that it wouldn’t also have run into problems…

  2. When people talk about AJAX compared to CV-90, shouldn’t it be referred to as ASCOD, not Ajax? Because AJAX is only one of many of the ASCOD family? Or was ASCOD renamed to the AJAX family?

  3. What I like about the French is they continue to support their weapons industry. Take for example the AKERON MP (formally known as MMP) when they realised that their world class Milan had become dated and had handed over its seat at the top table to others such as Javelin , they decided to build their own replacement and on paper, the AKERON is superior to the Javelin . But then Javelin came on line in 1996, the Akeron in 2017 so it has that extra 21 years of technological advances to take advantage of.
    It comes with three different operating modes:
    Fire-and-Forget
    Man In the Loop with optical fibre data-link
    Lock-on after launch (LOAL) for non-line-of-sight (NLOS) and using third party target designation.
    Lightweight, and easily man-portable. The complete round weighs 15 kilograms
    The missile has a range of 4,000 metres (4,400 yd) based on a French requirement, but in May 2018 two test firings were able to hit targets at 5,000 metres (5,500 yd).

      • Akeron is 4km only, it is a range limited missile.

        The Spike LR in same CV90 have a 5.5km range.

        Spike NLOS have 50km range.

      • Not really. Dramatically lower range.

        Remember there are 2 Akerons….one is a re-named MMP which has hardly set the world alight in terms of sales…

        And the other is CGI only….

        Neither come close to approaching the capability or versatility of Brimstone.

        And LPS could be on the way in the future…

    • No they handed the seat to Spike family.
      That is the most common anti tank missile in Europe:
      Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Netherland, Romania, Greece, Finland, Lituania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Croatia, Belgium, Slovakia, Slovenia. UK with Exactor.

    • Upgrade to the widely fielded but now outdated Milan shoulder/vehicle mounted Anti tank missile that puts it marginally ahead of the latest US Javelin in capability. Same missile can be used by infantry or as a secondary weapon on vehicles for added punch like the US TOW (though TOW requires a massive launch tube for infantry to haul around).

  8. “Col Phil Ingram, a former military intelligence officer, said Ajax should be replaced with a proven design such as the Combat Vehicle 90. 
    He said: “The programme has been a fiasco and it should now be scrapped.” 
    5 500 000 000£ = 70 221 800 000,00 Swedish krona! 
    For that sum BAe could easily have assembled over 700 CV9040 in UK! 
     
    “Slovakia Buys 152 CV90 Infantry Vehicles in $1.37B Deal 
    According to the British defence firm, the CV90MkIV features advanced capabilities and is built using the latest digital technologies. 
    They also feature the latest generation of sensors, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality software for better combat efficiency. 
    Additionally, the IFVs will be fitted with the “Iron Fist” active protection system solution from Elbit Systems and a SPIKE-LR anti-tank guided missile from Rafael.” 
    “We are committed to delivering an infantry fighting vehicle that meets the Slovak Army’s requirements now and, in the future,” 
     
    “The Czech Republic will receive the newest iteration of the CV90, known as the CV90MkIV, with the latest advanced capabilities and new digital technology. 
    BAE say that the vehicle combines “improved battlefield speed and handling with an upgraded electronic architecture to support future growth and meet the needs of the evolving battlefield”. 
    The Czech Republic will become the ninth member of the CV90 User Club, which includes countries that have CV90s in service with their armed forces.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here