Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Gaby had done the sums (in July, so must have missed it)
" The notice specifies that additional variants and requirements could follow, and it specifically mentions the adoption of a “medium gun”, basically implying an IFV variant.
Moreover, the notice specifies that the MOD is asking for the option of ordering up to 900 more vehicles, for a total of 1500.
1500 does not appear to be a casual number: the Army has been planning for 380 upgraded Warriors; declares on its website 409 FV432 still in use; and fields / stores a fleet of 305 Mastiff Troop Carrier Vehicles plus 127 specialistic variants (Enhanced Communications Variant, Interim ECM, Interim EOD [possibly 23], ambulance, Protected Eyes / Praetorian) plus 118 Ridgback Troop Carrier Vehicles and 51 specialistic variants (Command, Ambulance), supported by 125 Wolfhound (Utility and at least 44 between Military Working Dog and EOD).
The total is 1515. Coincidence? Probably no."

and comes up with a fairly plausible (further) conclusion:
" MIV notice seems to prepare for a WCSP cancellation scenario by making provision for the numbers and the addition of a medium gun."
- my recommendation is for 1 in 4
- would make for 3 x 245 troop carriers
- the rest (1500 - 980) in 'specialist' versions?
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 »

Seems like someone in the MoD has been reading my notes about doubling down on the MIV and retiring the Warrior. I wonder if the Turret designed for the Warrior CSP could fit the Boxer and for it to still carry six dismounts? Ideally we would want a unmanned one with the CTA40 but the design and development for that aimed at the Warrior has been paid for and the bonus of the Boxer is you only have to modify a module to fit it rather then the whole vehicle.

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: I wonder if the Turret designed for the Warrior CSP could fit the Boxer and for it to still carry six dismounts?
Go up? ;) As for fitting: it is all about the turret ring.

The volume of the two (AFVs) is totally different... while the protection levels are (can be made to be - a la Oz) similar... or better. For the Boxer.
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 »

Regarding the turret ring, that is what I was referring to, design from scratch an module with the necessary or adapt an existing design, like used on the new German cavalry variant. Either way a Boxer so armed with at least six dismounts is what I have been advocating as the way forward for the Army as against proceeding with the WCSP. As was mentioned quite a while back, the UK has a chronic shortage of HETs and NATO as a whole no longer has the rolling stock to move large amounts of equipment by rail. Therefore kit has to get to where it is needed under its own power. Reserving the HETs for the CR2s and its variants eases thing a bit. Commercial transporters can handle things like the Terrier CET, but moving the heavy artillery raises a few issues and makes a case for the current AS-90 and GMLRS to be replaced by light platforms. Taking things forward I would also replace the Stormer as the platform for the SP HVM with another Boxer variant /module with another as a Radar variant to support these batteries. As part of all this I would again suggest that the number of Ajax be reduced, to enough to equip two Recce Regiments and the close Recce for the two now Mechanised Infantry Brigades. The planned "Strike" Brigades would be scrapped with two Motorised Brigades formed using the 6x6 and 4x4 MRV(P). Between the Boxer and MRV(P) the Army would replace the:

CVR(T) Support Variants.
Remaining FV430 Series.
Warrior and planned BASV.
Stormer/HVM.
All remaining MRAVs including Foxhound.

The Army would now have a properly equipped Square Division of two Mechanised and two Motorised Brigades.

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: As was mentioned quite a while back, the UK has a chronic shortage of HETs and NATO as a whole no longer has the rolling stock to move large amounts of equipment by rail. Therefore kit has to get to where it is needed under its own power. Reserving the HETs for the CR2s and its variants eases thing a bit. Commercial transporters can handle things like the Terrier CET, but moving the heavy artillery raises a few issues and makes a case for the current AS-90 and GMLRS to be replaced by light platforms.
Really ;) ?

Terrier can fit; and the other two not... or is this about angling for 'exact' information?
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 point I was making is that we really lack the transports to move out heavy AFVs. Commercial carrier could move lighter platforms like the Terrier but as for the Army, its small fleet would be prioritised moving the CRs and its engineering variants leaving the Royal Artillery stuck at its barracks, hence the need to seriously look at replacing current platforms with lighter, and ideally wheeled alternative. Replacing the current GMLRS with a version of the US HIMARS using a platform already in UK service like the MAN would be a start.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Or you could increase the HET and LET fleets and use the wheeled Force as a screen protecting their movement towards the front. That's what Italy's "strike" with Centauro and Puma was about. If MIV was decently armed instead of being an oversized Saxon, the whole thing would be a lot more believable.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Either way, investing in more HETs/and or our wider logistics capacity is something we should be doing anyway.

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 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:investing in more HETs
Is the current one a PFI? Comes without drivers, I assume (in case it is a PFI)
- ideal for swapping out the whole fleet in one go (but only once in a couple of decades)
- does not solve the quantity problem, 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 »

We all remember the "Front line first" policy right? Well it still seems to be going strong.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Is the current one a PFI? Comes without drivers, I assume (in case it is a PFI)
It is a PFI and it includes drivers and maintainers available for up to 9 months when called. They are Sponsored Reserves and come under Army Command when called. The contract ends 1 July 2024.

As it stands, 2024 will be the "year of the truck", with decisions needed for both HET and Tanker fleet, which in turns means LET fleet as well since 77 Tanker tractors have been taken and "converted" into LETs.
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:The contract ends 1 July 2024.
[...]
77 Tanker tractors have been taken and "converted" into LETs.
Thx, I had that sort of opportunity for a 'wholesale' renewal in the back of my mind, but could not remember the exact details.

Now, should anyone ;) happen to be interested to find out where the numbers for such an arrangement are reflected:
"
From 2011/12 equipment support
costs category has been extended to include
operating leases and equipment support
Private Finance Initiatives (PFI)
that had previously been reported separately."

How come?
As the capital values are baked in when a PFI is chosen, this presentation, together with
" the much discussed" topic about how value of equipment is carried in the books (and then amortised) in that other main category, fixed assets, enables a neat comparison for deciding between project execution alternatives:
kit+support sum total comes out on a comparable basis, be it
- the traditional outright purchase
- a PFI , or
- an operating lease.
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 »

In the MoD we had Financial cells to do that sort of work, please don't turn this Forum into one for Accountants" :D

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Halidon »

Ajax extended family news:
BAE and GDLS selected for MPF prototype phase.
Both Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems will have the next 14 months to build and begin delivering 12 prototypes of the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle.

BAE Systems will build an M8 Buford Armored Gun System with new capabilities and components.

GD submitted an offering that puts a version of its latest Abrams turret together with a chassis that uses past work on the United Kingdom’s AJAX program.



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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Contract out for fire direction sensor for Ajax..
https://des.mod.uk/ajax-threat-detectio ... nsor-army/
Seem fairly cheap to buy.


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 the system has now been developed and it shouldn't be too hard to adapt it to the Ajax family...…
https://www.janes.com/article/88972/ide ... t-of-ascod

moggey
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 26 Jun 2018, 22:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by moggey »

Defence chiefs are considering an about-turn on a delayed £1.6bn project to upgrade the army’s Warrior armoured vehicle.

After spending eight years and more than £400m trying to refurbish the hull of the 30-year-old vehicle, army officials are considering buying new hulls instead. Tracks, engines and a new cannon would then be fitted.

The Warrior upgrade is one of the Ministry of Defence’s most troubled programmes. Last year, the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority said that “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,

Another M.O.D shambles , why not buy Ajax IFV's that would be brand new and last the next 30 years

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

moggey wrote:Defence chiefs are considering an about-turn on a delayed £1.6bn project to upgrade the army’s Warrior armoured vehicle.

After spending eight years and more than £400m trying to refurbish the hull of the 30-year-old vehicle, army officials are considering buying new hulls instead. Tracks, engines and a new cannon would then be fitted.

The Warrior upgrade is one of the Ministry of Defence’s most troubled programmes. Last year, the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority said that “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,

Another M.O.D shambles , why not buy Ajax IFV's that would be brand new and last the next 30 years
Source?

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Dahedd »

I think it's in the Times. Mate of mine mentioned he'd read it as well. Not sure if he meant yesterdays or today's.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Yes it is in the Sunday times behind a paywall,,,,

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Cooper »

bobp wrote:Yes it is in the Sunday times behind a paywall,,,,
If you're running the Firefox browser google for 'bypass paywalls by adam' and fill your boots.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

So what they getting at then, are they hinting that the army are now considering Ajax IFV or just that the warrior project is in a complete state and won’t delive so we’ll end up just mucking along with what we’ve got ?

Post Reply