Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Blackstone
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Blackstone »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.
Lots of talk about 105 and 120 mm but could 76mm with Vulcano guided rounds be made to work
Vulcano may have direct-fire capability, but it's really an artillery round with a different mission set than that of a normal tank round. Possiblly there's an argument to make for something like Vulcano making high-angle attacks on tanks to defeat modern armor/APS, but that's a long and separate debate. At any rate, you would need a new gun designed for it, the OM naval gun is too heavy and liquid-cooled to boot. So it's an expensive direction to go in.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by seaspear »

https://dsta.gov.sg/docs/default-source ... f?sfvrsn=2
This article also provides more background for the earlier discussion on vibration

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well surprise, surprise for a British Army AFV programme, according to this weeks Jane's Defence Weekly, its Ajax programme has been delayed further, having already missed its mid and late 2019 milestones for the delivery of a mix of all six variants of the Ajax family to the Army's Household Cavalry to allow it to begin training with the aim of an IOC around July this year. To date no turreted Ajax have been delivered to the Army, only six Ares troop carrying vehicles have actually been delivered so far, and these have gone to the British Army Armour Centre at Bovington. Neither the MoD or GDLS UK were willing to provide any further information of when deliveries would take place though the MoD did say that "programme milestones are meant to be flexible". In the meantime the Household Cavalry have been issued Warrior IFVs to allow them to "simulate the experience" of operating the Ajax.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.
Lots of talk about 105 and 120 mm but could 76mm with Vulcano guided rounds be made to work
Too big for general use, too small for anti-armour.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

If we went down the route of a MGS variant of the Ajax, I would stuck to a 105mm. Yes a 120mm would give it better MBT killing capability, but would you really want to be going head to head with T-90s for example. A 105 is big enough for a good support weapon, can deal with anything short of a modern MBT and still has access to the new generation of smart rounds like the Israeli APAMs, plus you can carry more ammunition.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: To date no turreted Ajax have been delivered to the Army, only six Ares troop carrying vehicles have actually been delivered so far
A bit like the Armata thing (they did deliver 50, but those did not work)
- whereas the derived IFV did work, and is being delivered
- admittedly: it does have a turret
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

OK, that is the spend so it can't be compared to Warrior whole life costings
- but also underlines why the Warrior testing (MTBFs coming out of it) is so crucial
- as the life time costs could be anything between £ 1.2 and 1.8 bn; for a very much lower number of units
- divide the top estimate (note: it has not been confirmed in any way by the testing results!) by the number of IFVs received
... and you come close to buying new - the same number of units - which version of Ajax does not exist though
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The latest ASCOD 3 is basically an Ajax with a more convention turret on a conventionally sized turret ring. So in theory use that platform but use a RWS with the CTA-40 and AGTW (say Spike-LR) and you could have eight Dismounts, matching the Boxer allowing standard organisation between Armoured and Mechanised Infantry Battalions.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:OK, that is the spend so it can't be compared to Warrior whole life costings
- but also underlines why the Warrior testing (MTBFs coming out of it) is so crucial
- as the life time costs could be anything between £ 1.2 and 1.8 bn; for a very much lower number of units
- divide the top estimate (note: it has not been confirmed in any way by the testing results!) by the number of IFVs received
... and you come close to buying new - the same number of units - which version of Ajax does not exist though
It's even worse - to make it a fair comparison you should divide the cost not by the number of platforms but by the number of platform-years. A brand new vehicle will give 30 years of service, Warrior 15 tops, with likely lower availability within those years.

The UK needs to weaned off this fetish for trying to rehash old platforms it didn't work with Nimrod, didn't work with the Morris Marina unlikely to work here. Trying to do it on the cheap is costing us a fortune

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:to make it a fair comparison you should divide the cost not by the number of platforms but by the number of platform-years
absolutely, I was sort of driving at that
SD67 wrote: A brand new vehicle will give 30 years of service, Warrior 15 tops
where the Warrior could be forgiven somewhat as they and the LEP'ped Ch2's are likely to bow out together
So for this
and you come close to buying new - the same number of units
there are only two further mitigating considerations
1. Warrior is a known quantity (vs. developing a new version, from another platform)
2. When we are using Unit Costs as measurements, for a refurbed platform it should be easier to cut the numbers than for a still-to-be-developed one, without making those same unit costs shoot through the roof
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote:
It's even worse - to make it a fair comparison you should divide the cost not by the number of platforms but by the number of platform-years. A brand new vehicle will give 30 years of service, Warrior 15 tops, with likely lower availability within those years.
I fear that you are not making a fair comparison in that you are assuming that the new vehicle will see out its 30 year life with no further money being spent on it. In reality it is likely that there will be a mid-life update which will add to the overall cost.
The UK needs to weaned off this fetish for trying to rehash old platforms it didn't work with Nimrod, didn't work with the Morris Marina unlikely to work here. Trying to do it on the cheap is costing us a fortune
But it did work with Centurion and Chieftain. It has worked with M1, M109, M2, Leopard (1 and 2), CV90, ASCOD, F16, F18, F15, C130, C5, AH64, UH and AH 1, UH 60, T72, T80, T90 (more so if you figure that T90 is an upgraded T72), BMPs, BTRs, Mi24s going on Mi35s, Whatever Tupolev number the “Bears” are... plus some more I can’t think of off-hand.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:The latest ASCOD 3 is basically an Ajax with a more convention turret on a conventionally sized turret ring.
Yeah, practically the same if you ignore all the ISTAR, survivability and C4I elements. Identical!

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

RunningStrong wrote: Yeah, practically the same if you ignore all the ISTAR, survivability and C4I elements. Identical!
What survivability differences are there?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Yeah, practically the same if you ignore all the ISTAR, survivability and C4I elements. Identical!
Which were essential for Ajax in its intended role, but would they all be needed in an IFV?. By the way do all Ajax variant have the same equipment of the types listed? I was not suggesting buying the ASCOD 3 but rather that an IFV platform using many of the components already in use on Ajax already exists, so that if we wanted to replace Warrior with an Ajax based platform we would need to start from scratch. With regards to Survivability, I am pretty sure that any ASCOD/Ajax IFV would have the same armour package as the latter being the hull would be the same for all intents and purposes.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Yeah, practically the same if you ignore all the ISTAR, survivability and C4I elements. Identical!
Which were essential for Ajax in its intended role, but would they all be needed in an IFV?. By the way do all Ajax variant have the same equipment of the types listed? I was not suggesting buying the ASCOD 3 but rather that an IFV platform using many of the components already in use on Ajax already exists, so that if we wanted to replace Warrior with an Ajax based platform we would need to start from scratch. With regards to Survivability, I am pretty sure that any ASCOD/Ajax IFV would have the same armour package as the latter being the hull would be the same for all intents and purposes.
Besides the engagement sights on the turret (both Thales), and I believe the Thales gun-shot detection system, all AJAX variants have the same situational awareness kit and networking/processing hardware. So the British army have clearly identified that it's relevant on the engineering, recovery, C2 and recce support variants. Why wouldn't you put them on your IFV?

The Ajax hull is a development of the Ascod, whether GD Europe have directly copied it for the latest ASCOD is an assumption, not a fact. Ajax is also an applique armour fit, so again, it's all down to the specific/national requirements.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: Yeah, practically the same if you ignore all the ISTAR, survivability and C4I elements. Identical!
What survivability differences are there?
Go fish, comrade.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok lets start gain. GD based the Ajax on their ASCOD 2 platform but added additional equipment to meet the requirements of the FRES (SV) programme including all the equipment you listed as also an enlarged turret ring to allow the installation of a turret mounting a large calibre gun for the cancelled direct fore variant. Then in developing the ASCOD 3 GD took much of the new equipment from the Ajax, such as the kit common on all Ajax variants and incorporated them, but it has a standard sized turret ring and a new turret. Yes there will be some UK specific kit on the Ajax, but given the lineage it is easy to see the ASCOD 3 being the IFV derivative of the Ajax. Developing it further to include all said UK specific kit that an IFV variant would need such as comms would not be a major exercise. This is a case of progressive evolution by GD. Why should GS not use the improvements to the ASCOD 2 platform and paid for by the UK under the Ajax programme to produce an improved ASCOD 3 IFV

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

It also looks like things are coming full circle with the need for an Over Watch/ Precision fires capable platform, using the Ajax chassis in this artist's impression.
https://www.janes.com/article/94844/mbd ... initiative

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Fishing expeditions aside (that info is hard to get even for the 1st gen ASCOD)...
RunningStrong wrote:hull is a development of the Ascod, whether GD Europe have directly copied it for the latest ASCOD is an assumption
It is interesting that in the proposed US light tank just about everything exc. the hull has been swapped out for other components... so the protection features must be worthwhile
Lord Jim wrote: an enlarged turret ring to allow the installation of a turret mounting a large calibre gun for the cancelled direct fore variant
... see above.
- aren't the American s proposing to use the 'lightened' 105 mm version of the Abrams turret; echos of Eric Shinseki's AirMech initiative?
- his memo on retirement emphasises (p.2 in his retiring memo https://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv ... inseki.pdf) how the organic direct fire component in formations other than the heavy brigades has been neglected. Later in the text this is put into context as the inability (at the time) of the mounted, follow-on component to properly support early entry forces... before the arrival of the heavy brigades
... something that sounds familiar as for our own force structure, of today
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Then in developing the ASCOD 3 GD took much of the new equipment from the Ajax, such as the kit common on all Ajax variants and incorporated them, but it has a standard sized turret ring and a new turret.
This is where you're wrong. You're thinking in 20th century AFV standards, not 21st.

The metal work on Ajax is he easy part, the systems integration is why it's a complex platform, anyone that's looked inside can see that from the amount of harnesses alone.

Ascod 3 doesn't have any of that systems integration, you can see hat immediately from the lack of external sensor systems of which Ajax has many!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Obvious the ASCOD 3 as it currently exists is not going to have all the toys we are fitting to the Ajax, but the important parts are such as engine, transmission, armour package and so on. What I am trying to say is that there is a platform that could be evolved into an IFV with a lot of commonality with the Ajax, and would be more of a family member than a new platform type.

As for Ajax, it is costing way more than was forecast. We have already spent more than £2Bn on the programme and have only had six non turrets Areas variant delivered to the Army. The current forecast for the total cost of the programme as it stands is now£5.382Bn, which is a hell of a lot for a platform the Army is really still trying to find a relevant roll for. Of that £3.5Bn is for the production phase so maybe there could be some savings if the numbers were reduced, in my view by at least a third and even better if by half.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Something Iv been wondering while Iv been looking at the latest IFV being put out is why does the Ajax IFV variant put forward for Land 400 have a raised body under the turret when compared to our own Reece variant ?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote:Something Iv been wondering while Iv been looking at the latest IFV being put out is why does the Ajax IFV variant put forward for Land 400 have a raised body under the turret when compared to our own Reece variant ?
Headroom for the dismounts would seem the logical reason. Look at the APC Ajax variants, they have a higher roof.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Something Iv been wondering while Iv been looking at the latest IFV being put out is why does the Ajax IFV variant put forward for Land 400 have a raised body under the turret when compared to our own Reece variant ?
Headroom for the dismounts would seem the logical reason. Look at the APC Ajax variants, they have a higher roof.
I first thought that but then comes the part that makes me question it, the Reece Ajax has 4 dismounts and doesn’t seem to need that extra head room. My understand of the Reece Ajax is the reason it can’t seat 6 dismounts is due the all the recognisant equipment, if that is the case I can’t see how giving that extra head room makes any difference since if your doing a IFV variant you wouldn’t have all that equipment in the first place.

Post Reply