Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Sounds more like a murmur between officials to look at other options as a possible alternative.

The above can easily be interpreted by a newspaper as ARMY LOOKING TO NOT DO IT ANY MORE.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Sounds more like a murmur between officials to look at other options as a possible alternative.

The above can easily be interpreted by a newspaper as ARMY LOOKING TO NOT DO IT ANY MORE.
Iv always thought an Ajax based IFV made more sense over all, yes would of cost more up front but would reduce through life and training costs as well as giving us a more modern platform.

Iv said it over and over but IMO the enter medium armour fleet should be replaced with solely Boxer and Ajax based platforms going forward.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Jake1992 wrote:Iv always thought an Ajax based IFV made more sense over all, yes would of cost more up front but would reduce through life and training costs as well as giving us a more modern platform.

Iv said it over and over but IMO the enter medium armour fleet should be replaced with solely Boxer and Ajax based platforms going forward.
At this stage I'd expect to see a Boxer replacement for IFV due to cost.

Not that I don't agree. An Ajax IFV would be excellent. Although one wonders if only the money was available what a chance this would be to combine the learnings from Warrior 2/Ajax and make an actual British vehicle again...

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Iv always thought an Ajax based IFV made more sense over all, yes would of cost more up front but would reduce through life and training costs as well as giving us a more modern platform.

Iv said it over and over but IMO the enter medium armour fleet should be replaced with solely Boxer and Ajax based platforms going forward.
At this stage I'd expect to see a Boxer replacement for IFV due to cost.

Not that I don't agree. An Ajax IFV would be excellent. Although one wonders if only the money was available what a chance this would be to combine the learnings from Warrior 2/Ajax and make an actual British vehicle again...
IMO an IFV variant of both is needed as both tracked and wheeled have pros and cons but both are needed for a well round force ( this means doubling up on some capabilities )

While I’d love a true British design as you describe I’d stick with an Ajax and Boxer based designs to allow logistics through life and training cost to be reduced as much as possible.

A true British design and build should come from the challenger 2 replacement to bring a new generation of MBT to the field ( be daring and truly inative )

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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
But which way do we read that?
The Army is considering buying new hulls - doesn't that imply faith in the project?


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 »

I see it as buying the basic metal hull and by doing so the MoD does appear to have faith in the programme to delver what they need. The only issue is where would these come from? When was the last Warrior built for home use or export?

We have here another "Nimrod" programme where the MoD decided to use existing major components which in the case of the Nimrod caused a multitude of issues like the wings not fitting back on the plane. With Warrior it could be that the existing hulls are simple knackered after 30 odd years of use. It does make sense though using new hulls if you are investing in new turrets and other components you want the platform to last as long as needed without a major rework down the line. In addition by manufacturing new hull they can fettle them to make them more accommodating for the new systems.

What we are going to end up with though is no longer a rework but rather a basically new vehicle that like Ajax should have been in service years ago. I hope they learn the lessons with the MIV and MRV(P) programmes.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

It was said that the UK Boxer deal was partially to do with Australian movement on the programme.

Perhaps the WCSP replacement will be related to the Australian Land 400 Ajax-basrd IFV? Maybe it will get the CTA40 too?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:I see it as buying the basic metal hull and by doing so the MoD does appear to have faith in the programme to delver what they need. The only issue is where would these come from? When was the last Warrior built for home use or export?

We have here another "Nimrod" programme where the MoD decided to use existing major components which in the case of the Nimrod caused a multitude of issues like the wings not fitting back on the plane. With Warrior it could be that the existing hulls are simple knackered after 30 odd years of use. It does make sense though using new hulls if you are investing in new turrets and other components you want the platform to last as long as needed without a major rework down the line. In addition by manufacturing new hull they can fettle them to make them more accommodating for the new systems.

What we are going to end up with though is no longer a rework but rather a basically new vehicle that like Ajax should have been in service years ago. I hope they learn the lessons with the MIV and MRV(P) programmes.
If it’s going to end up as basically a new vehicle then why not just go the Ajax rout and gain long term savings by reducing logistics and through life costs. The smaller the number of different families of vehicles we have the better.
RunningStrong wrote:It was said that the UK Boxer deal was partially to do with Australian movement on the programme.

Perhaps the WCSP replacement will be related to the Australian Land 400 Ajax-basrd IFV? Maybe it will get the CTA40 too?
I hope this is what they are planing on, Iv been saying it for along time now but not only could it benefit our selfs going the Ajax IFV rout with reduce life costs but it could also help push the Ajax choice with the Aussies Land400 and also with the Ajax in the US Bradly replacement.

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 »

Jake1992 wrote:If it’s going to end up as basically a new vehicle then why not just go the Ajax rout and gain long term savings by reducing logistics and through life costs. The smaller the number of different families of vehicles we have the better.
I agree if logic were applied to the situation, but too many people have too much invest in the WCSP for it to be dropped and the Ajax derived IFV were procured. How much this decision to purchase new hull is going to delay the programme is also gong to be an issue, but at least we will end up with a pretty good IFV in the end. The concern over the existing Warrior Hull does seem to deliver the final blow to the Warrior BASV programme though as I cannot see them buying new hulls simply to convert them to support platforms. Far better to use the Ajax variants already on order as well as any future variants of both this and the MIV/Boxer.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:If it’s going to end up as basically a new vehicle then why not just go the Ajax rout and gain long term savings by reducing logistics and through life costs. The smaller the number of different families of vehicles we have the better.
I agree if logic were applied to the situation, but too many people have too much invest in the WCSP for it to be dropped and the Ajax derived IFV were procured. How much this decision to purchase new hull is going to delay the programme is also gong to be an issue, but at least we will end up with a pretty good IFV in the end. The concern over the existing Warrior Hull does seem to deliver the final blow to the Warrior BASV programme though as I cannot see them buying new hulls simply to convert them to support platforms. Far better to use the Ajax variants already on order as well as any future variants of both this and the MIV/Boxer.
Like you say with the BASV program most likely dead which means an increase in Ajax or Boxer to fill the gap does it really make sense to then have what will be a small pool ( in comparison to the above 2 ) or warrior IFVs.
I get there’s been a lot put in to the WCSP program but some times it’s better to cut ya loses for greater savings down the line before you go even deeper.

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 »

Cancelling it would be the Army's equivalent of the Nimrod fiasco and I do not think the MoD will want another of those. AS for support costs, with the reduction in fleet size there should be sizable pool of spares to maintain the fleet and support is already in place for the new turret and other new systems. Yes we will end up with a relatively small fleet but the platform should be able to provide the Army with a pretty good IFV for the future. In an ideal world maybe we should have gone for an Ajax IFV variant instead of the WCSP but one didn't exist at the time. Then again the WCSP should have been in service by now and the argument would be mute. My attention is really on the Challenger 2 CSP and I worry how things have gone so quiet!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Considering this:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ntest.html
Lead ship HMS Glasgow is now under construction in Scotland. Float-out is expected in late 2021, followed by fitting out, acceptance by the Royal Navy in 2025 and entry into operational service in 2027, according to information provided to Parliament.

Such a leisurely schedule – which has been dictated by funding constraints within the UK Ministry of Defence –
Is it possible that this applies to the Land domain as well?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:Cancelling it would be the Army's equivalent of the Nimrod fiasco and I do not think the MoD will want another of those. AS for support costs, with the reduction in fleet size there should be sizable pool of spares to maintain the fleet and support is already in place for the new turret and other new systems. Yes we will end up with a relatively small fleet but the platform should be able to provide the Army with a pretty good IFV for the future. In an ideal world maybe we should have gone for an Ajax IFV variant instead of the WCSP but one didn't exist at the time. Then again the WCSP should have been in service by now and the argument would be mute. My attention is really on the Challenger 2 CSP and I worry how things have gone so quiet!
Yes and the problem with the nimrod muck up wasn’t that they didn’t finish it it was more that they didn’t pull out earlier, they kept going because no one wanted to say you know what this isn’t work let’s take a step back. A medium armoured fleet of solely Ajax and Boxer would give us a truly modern and capable fleet, a combined 2500 of the 2 to replace the nearly 3000 mismatch we have now would be a big step forward and would be looked back on as the right thing to do instead of having our heads in the sand over warrior and just keep hoping.
The Ajax would now make sense on every level like I said above not just for us having a common Morden fleet but would also help push the Ajax in the Aus land 400 and the US Bradley replacement.

Last I saw with the CSP a whole new turret was being proposed I really started to get my hopes up thinking it was going well but yes it has gone concerningly quiet.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Spotted while I was at Tankfest. Good grief it's enormous. Very neat looking in person.



Note the 7 men transported.


RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

More than 1 glaring inaccuracy in that "information".

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote:More than 1 glaring inaccuracy in that "information".
Go on then, what are they?

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 maybe we should start shopping around for a RWS with a bigger gun than the .50 cal. and use it on the Boxer as well.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:More than 1 glaring inaccuracy in that "information".
Go on then, what are they?
What's the point? RetroSicette has already made it clear in the CR2 thread that this poster is unquestionable.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I don’t know about anything being unquestionable.
It strikes me that both points of view could be true, depending on how you look at it.
The poster states that Ares can carry up to 7 troops. As anyone who has been to a sale can tell you, “up to” includes any number below that stated and doesn’t mean that you can achieve the stated number as presented. Having seen the back of Ares, it struck me that there is a lot of equipment racks facing the three seats in the back. In that configuration, which may well be the only one the army has procured you can, as you said, only fit four dismounts. However the racks are fitted into the vehicle, like the seats are, so you could, in theory, take the racks out and fit another three seats. Voila! The vehicle can seat 7 dismounts.
So it seems to me that both statements : “the vehicle can seat 7” and “the army has only bought ones that seat four” can be true.

So what else is wrong? You can fit other weapons to the Protector?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2779
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

The poster also states that there are two variants, one with 7 dismounts (59 ordered) and one "Formation Reconnaissance and Overwatch", with fewer "dismounts" (39 ordered). Explains the different versions seen, I think.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote:The poster also states that there are two variants, one with 7 dismounts (59 ordered) and one "Formation Reconnaissance and Overwatch", with fewer "dismounts" (39 ordered). Explains the different versions seen, I think.
That doesn't explain the error, as it also says the 4 seater version ARES is fitted for Command and Control. It's not. C2 variant is ATHENA (2nd largest variant order, 112).

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:Voila! The vehicle can seat 7 dismounts.
So it seems to me that both statements : “the vehicle can seat 7” and “the army has only bought ones that seat four” can be true.
Mine blast seats aren't exactly bolt-on equipment.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote:
mr.fred wrote:Voila! The vehicle can seat 7 dismounts.
So it seems to me that both statements : “the vehicle can seat 7” and “the army has only bought ones that seat four” can be true.
Mine blast seats aren't exactly bolt-on equipment.
I'm fairly sure that mine blast seats are exactly bolt-on equipment. If not, how are they fitted?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
mr.fred wrote:Voila! The vehicle can seat 7 dismounts.
So it seems to me that both statements : “the vehicle can seat 7” and “the army has only bought ones that seat four” can be true.
Mine blast seats aren't exactly bolt-on equipment.
I'm fairly sure that mine blast seats are exactly bolt-on equipment. If not, how are they fitted?
After a lot of design change and testing. Perhaps I was too facetious in my comment, but you don't just "bolt on" safety critical equipment after you've stripped equipment out.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

If you have designed your stowage racks to use the same fixings as your seats then you can just take the racks out and replace with seats.

Post Reply