Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Nick Carter fell in love with the decisive action of the mechanized groups of the french army in Mali, which traveled big distances over wheel within the country. It is no secret, and it looks pretty clear to me that the Strike Brigade is very much influenced by that.

Why Ajax? Because there is nothing else, it is brutally simple. The Strike Brigade would really need a wheeled tank like Centauro II, but there is no money for that. FRES SV itself included an actual Medium Armour segment, which would have taken the Common Hull and mated it with a 105 or 120 mm gun. But it was cancelled.
The recce section has instead been funded, and that is the only resource the Army can play with. Never mind the fact that the armoured brigades will have no recce cavalry of their own as a result; and never mind the fact that it is not what Ajax was designed and will be built for.

As for self-deployability, the requirement for FRES SV / Scout / Ajax is, according to the NAO:
The User shall be able to selfdeploy a total of 530 km (300 km by road, 200 km on tracks and 30 km cross country) on a single
load of fuel with the appropriate number of personnel and equipment according to role, ready to complete a Battlefield Mission after re-fuelling.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

It comes from General Carter's report to the defence select committee. He wasn't talking about vehicle range but the ability to deploy the Strike Brigades a distance of 2000 km overland if required. I am fairly sure he didn't mean self deploy, although I assume this would be possible for the future MIV and perhaps even Ajax given adequate logistic support. Would be more sensible to use Rail or HET,s. However the size and weight of Ajax does it no favours when trying to move it by road or rail.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

I am fairly sure he didn't mean self deploy, although I assume this would be possible for the future MIV and perhaps even Ajax given adequate logistic support. Would be more sensible to use Rail or HET,s. However the size and weight of Ajax does it no favours when trying to move it by road or rail.
I tend to believe he was thinking about more or less self-deployment, instead. Don't see a real reason why there should be a limit to the distance of deployment if we are talking about train transport.
HET problem is that the army has a great total of 92 of those...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by bobp »

Gabriele wrote:HET problem is that the army has a great total of 92 of those...
There is a great deal of civilian heavy equipment contractors both here and in other countries more than capable of hauling a few armoured vehicles from place to place. I see military vehicles daily going down the M5 on civilian vehicles. A lot of equipment was hauled overland into Afghanistan that way.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

I didn't think they had that many HET,s!
The problem with using civilian contractors is reliability, will they be available when you want them, will they go where you want them to go, maybe, maybe not. Good job for reserves I would think.
A pity the Mojos are no more they were very good.
In truth an ability to deploy 2000km is fairly meaningless without a timescale.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by bobp »

whitelancer wrote:The problem with using civilian contractors is reliability, will they be available when you want them, will they go where you want them to go, maybe, maybe not. Good job for reserves I would think.
I agree that it would be too much to ask a civilian to enter a warzone. But in times of need they could use Reserves as you say. I remember a long time back driving Tankers to shift fuel when there was a strike. And another driving the Dreaded Green Goddess during a Firemans strike. My point is it can be done and no doubt will be done.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Technically, a fair share of the HET drivers already are (sponsored) reserves as part of the FTI arrangement for the capability. Post 2024 (when the capability will have to be preserved as the current contract ends), who knows.

The problem with civilian contractors is that there will always be limits to what they can actually do, not just because of the drivers, but because of the trucks and trailers themselves. Up to N kilometers from the front line, it might be viable, but there are things that only the big green HET will do.
Stores and container and fuel movement are easier to fullfil with local contractors than movement of heavy vehicles, i think.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by LordJim »

The sooner they bolt on a couple of Javelins to every 40mm armed Ajax the better. Part of me is hoping that the unofficial plan is to introduce additional variants down the line if funds become available and the production line is up and running. Mind you, for medium armour, a 40mm is bigger than most with the obvious exception of the 105 Striker and Centauro.

What we really need is to speed up the MIV programme, build a version with either the Warrior or Ajax Turret and give the Ajax back to the Armoured Brigades. If we are careful we could equip the first Strike Brigade solely with an off the shelf 8x8 for around £800m, including all the variants often mentioned here.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by bobp »

Gabriele wrote:Technically, a fair share of the HET drivers already are (sponsored) reserves as part of the FTI arrangement for the capability. Post 2024 (when the capability will have to be preserved as the current contract ends), who knows. The problem with civilian contractors is that there will always be limits to what they can actually do, not just because of the drivers, but because of the trucks and trailers themselves. Up to N kilometers from the front line, it might be viable, but there are things that only the big green HET will do. Stores and container and fuel movement are easier to fullfil with local contractors than movement of heavy vehicles, i think.
True in general, there is no way civilian trucks will operate off road.

riksavage
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 May 2015, 02:05
Singapore

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by riksavage »

LordJim wrote:What we really need is to speed up the MIV programme, build a version with either the Warrior or Ajax Turret and give the Ajax back to the Armoured Brigades. If we are careful we could equip the first Strike Brigade solely with an off the shelf 8x8 for around £800m, including all the variants often mentioned here. The sooner they bolt on a couple of Javelins to every 40mm armed Ajax the better. Part of me is hoping that the unofficial plan is to introduce additional variants down the line if funds become available and the production line is up and running. Mind you, for medium armour, a 40mm is bigger than most with the obvious exception of the 105 Striker and Centauro.
Warrior and AJAX turrets have different sized turret rings I understand? Wasn't AJAX deliberately built with a larger turret ring to accomadate a future direct fire version? More likely to see the Warrior variant added to the MIV programme, less sophisticated, plus LM have said they want to offer up the turret for international sales.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:What's going to be the difference between it and an updated Warrior?
Survivability, mobility, ISTAR, C4I.

There's no questioning that AJAX is very big and very heavy when compared against legacy platforms, but that's a combination of modern threats and the political pressure that no casualties are acceptable.

I think the combination of 40mm CT and superior ISTAR means it will be surprisingly effective, though it doesn't make up for the lack of guided missiles.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Who knows, they have been playing around with Protector mounted Javelins out to 4.3km, British Army sponsered too.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

The Protector RWS can only be fitted in place of the Primary Sight. A bit of a disadvantage if you intend to target at 4.3km.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Hopefully the RWS with Javelin will be put on the Ares vehicles for the Guided Weapons Troops. There is supposedly an "Overwatch" sub-variant, but no news of any more development for it.

A single Javelin on the RWS is a bit underwhelming, but still better than calling "Overwatch vehicle" a vehicle that needs to dismount the team to do any AT overwatch at all.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

The advantage of the RWS is on the vast multitude of vehicles that could suddenly use it, at the very least. It'd certainly be a lot cheaper than adding an ATGM box to the Ajax or Warrior, or a dedicated launch platform to an Ares.

Still, better than nothing, and Javelin is a very capable missile. It won't be a small capability to have everything that isn't mounting a commander sight able to fire those things.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

@RunningStrong
There maybe a marginal advantage for Ajax as far as survivability and mobility is concerned but as far as ISTAR and C4I is concerned they could put exactly the same kit on Warrior as they are putting on Ajax. The point I was trying to make was that they could have chosen virtually any IFV as the base vehicle for Ajax, but without a major redesign, the result would be the same too large too heavy and under armed. If they were happy with its size and weight why not design it as a medium tank. Something like a modern version of Leopard 1.(Don't take that to literally) That's got to be better than what we are getting.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by jimthelad »

The video from LM of a vehicle mounted 2 round box launcher being fired in the UK. It looks like an early AJAX turret iteration they retrofitted the launcher. If this is indeed the case then it will not be difficult to fit out.

cant paste the link for some reason but if you search you tube for vehicle javelin launch t is the top entry.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

^ Isn't it only a single round launcher??

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by jimthelad »

2 i think.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »


Looks like only one loaded, but with space for two.

Something else which came up in the related links

4 times hellfire plus mast-mounted sight ought to cover overwatch?

Though I think I prefer Spike NLOS due to its greater range or Brimstone for its local production and performance improvements. The latter particularly as you could fire a salvo along the axis of attack and run away immediately

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:@RunningStrong
There maybe a marginal advantage for Ajax as far as survivability and mobility is concerned but as far as ISTAR and C4I is concerned they could put exactly the same kit on Warrior as they are putting on Ajax. The point I was trying to make was that they could have chosen virtually any IFV as the base vehicle for Ajax, but without a major redesign, the result would be the same too large too heavy and under armed. If they were happy with its size and weight why not design it as a medium tank. Something like a modern version of Leopard 1.(Don't take that to literally) That's got to be better than what we are getting.
It would not have been possible to use warrior without manufacturing new units, which given that I'm told none of the facilities still exist, was not feasible. Cutting through-hull on an old, stressed chassis doesn't work (and would be required to implement the ISTAR capability). LM realised this when they tried modifying the existing warrior turret, and why they are now manufacturing a new one entirely.

You're correct that any other platform could have been used, but unsurprisingly GD bid a platform already in their catalogue.

If the direct-fire version existed, would it not be a medium tank?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: Cutting through-hull on an old, stressed chassis doesn't work (and would be required to implement the ISTAR capability).
The ISTAR equipment on the Ajax is in the turret isn't it? why would that require cutting into the hull?
If the direct-fire version existed, would it not be a medium tank?
An assault gun, tank destroyer, Self-propelled gun or something along those lines, perhaps. Not really optimised enough to rate being a tank.
It would be a weapons system mounted on a standard chassis rather than a dedicated fighting vehicle.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: The ISTAR equipment on the Ajax is in the turret isn't it? why would that require cutting into the hull?.
Nope. Not all of it.

Post Reply