Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Since this is quite a good discussion, but is a little out of place here, maybe a mod could make some sort of operational philosophy/hypothetical army type thread?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

benny14 wrote: We know the vehicles will have Protector RWS, which is capable of been equipped with a Javelin. We dont know if it will or wont have ATGM fitted, we wont know until we start seeing Ajax and Boxer operational.
Whilst a ATGM on a protector station would be useful, as pointed out you only get one shot.

A better choice perhaps would be Ares/Athena modified to take an Exactor fit. Something that could probably be done quickly if you chose not to fully integrate the system (i.e. mechanical bolt on and independent operators station).

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Pongoglo »

benny14 wrote: We know the vehicles will have Protector RWS, which is capable of been equipped with a Javelin. We dont know if it will or wont have ATGM fitted, we wont know until we start seeing Ajax and Boxer operational.
That one's easy, this is the British Army we are talking about here, it wont!

BV Buster
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jun 2018, 20:13
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by BV Buster »

Lord Jim wrote:Right been trying to catch up with the conversation here and there are a number of opinions that seem to oppose one another. I will try to keep this focused on Ajax but I will deviate so heads up in advance.

One of the key arguments I tried to make a while back was that the British Army, with its current funding could not afford to do everything and had a choice to make. Putting aside the rapidly deployable formations, I believe the Army can either reconstitute its Heavy formations or develop a true Medium capability but not both.

If the Army decided to do the former it would have to basically roll back it plans for the MIV and MRV(P) to a great extent. The MIV would in essence become a replacement for the FV430 series in the two Armoured Brigades, with the MRV(P) filling the role of a support platform, often replacing the Land Rover and its variants. The Ajax would form both a Recce Regiment for each Armoured Infantry Brigade and form close Recce units within the Armoured and Armoured Infantry Regiments. The numbers required though would be considerable less than currently planned, unless variants were uses to take the roles current envisaged for the Warrior support variants. The WCSP would need to be accelerated, not saying much considering the pace it is currently progressing at and the Challenger 2s upgrades as planned, again faster than planned at present. The above would give us two effective formations, but that would be all the Army has to offer besides 16 Air Assault and numerous Infantry Brigades comprising of "Light" role units.

If the Army went down the Medium route then the WCSP and Challenger Programmes would have to be cancelled. In addition, the UK would have to look seriously at where it intended to operate these formations in any future conflict. For the medium formations to work however, both Ajax and the MIV will need the development ant procurement plans seriously revised to add capabilities to both platforms. But where and how they will operate is as important as how they are equipped. At present the political focus is on the Baltics. These medium formations could be deployed far more easily than the heavier formations it is true but against a peer opponent they sound be very fragile. The idea of them operating in a dispersed manner seems to simply allow an opponent to take them apart piece by piece. The ITAR assets deployed by Russia for example would mean individual units could be located and identified far more easily than in the past and persecuted far more rapidly than was historically possible. This raises the issue of how these formation would be used. The British Army has never had a Medium weight force and simply does not currently know how to use one. On the plus side this could mean the Army is starting with a clean slate and write its own rule book, taking advice form nations that already use such forces. Btu more likely it will try to adapt existing doctrine resulting in a mishmash ideas from the infantry and armoured schools, that may appear good on paper but actually be unworkable once the bullets start to fly.

Of the two options the first is the easiest to implement, as it uses and adapts the existing equipment programme and the doctrine behind the operations of such formations is well known. The second is far more a gamble and will take far longer to implement, in additional to requiring additional resources. It could however provide the army with a far more flexible capability with formations far more compatible with the UK's two rapid deployment formations. this in turn opens up the idea of utilising them not in the Baltics or central Europe but possible on the flanks, and also provides increased capability in operations outside the European theatre.


So which route should the Army take it will have to choose one or the other to retain any true viability in the future.

I have often thought of this, heavy armor is not our strong card (believe me I know), other nations do it way better in terms of mass and quality. Why don't we stick to what we do well and become world leaders at it.

For example, scrap CR2 (and variants), WR and AS90, basically anything not medium weight. Without having to maintain the said vehicles and not having to upgrade them we can save a fortune. Put more money into boxer and Ajax (we have already paid for the development) and have one large rapid deploy-able divisional sized unit equipped with just a few vehicle types. Will this unit have the same kinetic effects as a heavy unit? no, but whats the use of kinetic effects if your a 1000 miles away from the battle field on low loaders in a traffic jam in France?

Keep a second division of light Inf and Cav for capacity building and COIN ops (and to keep the sacred inf regimental names)

The overall yearly operating costs of running this new force structure would be tiny in comparison to what it is now, so what do we do with the saved money? (this is where I get incoming) Put the cash in the RAF, we can effectively become Europe's air force flying from Airstrip one, completely dominate that sphere which would be a massive deterrent.

BV

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I few want an effective and properly equipped Army we are going to have to accept a much smaller fighting force. The Light Role Infantry are the prime target here, but with their loss we would have to also accept that the Army will lose persistence to maintain any deployment turning it into a get in, get the job done, get out format. For me that is not a bad thing. There are many nations that can do the stabilisation type of mission where the number of boots on the ground is one of the key drivers.


What the Army would end up like is basically five front line Brigades plus the SF and its supporting units. Each of the Brigades would contain integral support formations from Artillery to logistics and Engineering. A single Divisional Headquarters would remain as there would be a number of formations held at this level. If we keep all our current capabilities we would end up with;

2 Armoured Regiments.
4 Armoured Recce Regiments.
4 Armoured Infantry Regiments.
6 Mechanised Infantry Regiments.
Special Forces.
1 Special Forces Support Battalion.
4 Airmobile Infantry Regiments.
2 Heavy Artillery Regiments.
2 Medium Artillery Regiments.
1 Airmobile/light Artillery Regiment.
2 GBAD Regiments.
1 GMLRS Regiment.
2 AAC Attack Regiments.

This basically reduces the Infantry component of the Army by over half, but we can also add the three Royal Marine Battalions to this together with a further Airmobile/Light Artillery Regiment. There would still be gaps in capability or at least capabilities below what would be necessary to be fully effective in some areas but the savings in personal costs would go somewhere to resolve this, as well as saving in infrastructure support costs as the number of garrisons can also be reduced. The above would be a hard pill to swallow but it may be an option that should be considered.

Feel free to move this to another thread is it is too off topic.

BV Buster
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jun 2018, 20:13
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by BV Buster »

Lord Jim wrote:I few want an effective and properly equipped Army we are going to have to accept a much smaller fighting force. The Light Role Infantry are the prime target here, but with their loss we would have to also accept that the Army will lose persistence to maintain any deployment turning it into a get in, get the job done, get out format. For me that is not a bad thing. There are many nations that can do the stabilisation type of mission where the number of boots on the ground is one of the key drivers.


What the Army would end up like is basically five front line Brigades plus the SF and its supporting units. Each of the Brigades would contain integral support formations from Artillery to logistics and Engineering. A single Divisional Headquarters would remain as there would be a number of formations held at this level. If we keep all our current capabilities we would end up with;

2 Armoured Regiments.
4 Armoured Recce Regiments.
4 Armoured Infantry Regiments.
6 Mechanised Infantry Regiments.
Special Forces.
1 Special Forces Support Battalion.
4 Airmobile Infantry Regiments.
2 Heavy Artillery Regiments.
2 Medium Artillery Regiments.
1 Airmobile/light Artillery Regiment.
2 GBAD Regiments.
1 GMLRS Regiment.
2 AAC Attack Regiments.

This basically reduces the Infantry component of the Army by over half, but we can also add the three Royal Marine Battalions to this together with a further Airmobile/Light Artillery Regiment. There would still be gaps in capability or at least capabilities below what would be necessary to be fully effective in some areas but the savings in personal costs would go somewhere to resolve this, as well as saving in infrastructure support costs as the number of garrisons can also be reduced. The above would be a hard pill to swallow but it may be an option that should be considered.

Feel free to move this to another thread is it is too off topic.
This is not far off what the new force structure looks like, minus a load of light Inf. Shocking times ahead.

BV

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Lord Jim wrote:I few want an effective and properly equipped Army we are going to have to accept a much smaller fighting force. The Light Role Infantry are the prime target here, but with their loss we would have to also accept that the Army will lose persistence to maintain any deployment turning it into a get in, get the job done, get out format. For me that is not a bad thing. There are many nations that can do the stabilisation type of mission where the number of boots on the ground is one of the key drivers.


What the Army would end up like is basically five front line Brigades plus the SF and its supporting units. Each of the Brigades would contain integral support formations from Artillery to logistics and Engineering. A single Divisional Headquarters would remain as there would be a number of formations held at this level. If we keep all our current capabilities we would end up with;

2 Armoured Regiments.
4 Armoured Recce Regiments.
4 Armoured Infantry Regiments.
6 Mechanised Infantry Regiments.
Special Forces.
1 Special Forces Support Battalion.
4 Airmobile Infantry Regiments.
2 Heavy Artillery Regiments.
2 Medium Artillery Regiments.
1 Airmobile/light Artillery Regiment.
2 GBAD Regiments.
1 GMLRS Regiment.
2 AAC Attack Regiments.

This basically reduces the Infantry component of the Army by over half, but we can also add the three Royal Marine Battalions to this together with a further Airmobile/Light Artillery Regiment. There would still be gaps in capability or at least capabilities below what would be necessary to be fully effective in some areas but the savings in personal costs would go somewhere to resolve this, as well as saving in infrastructure support costs as the number of garrisons can also be reduced. The above would be a hard pill to swallow but it may be an option that should be considered.

Feel free to move this to another thread is it is too off topic.
If this was the level we were going down to its time to turn the lights off and all go home.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Those are the numbers of army 2020 refine. Actually, there are just 4 mechanized infantry battalions planned, so it is worse.

1st division contains literally nothing but light role battalions and light cavalry on Jackals. No CS or CSS. It has less artillery than a regiment of foot in Wellington's times. In its current form it is not worth the big money it still swallows. There are better ways to use that manpower and budget.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

That's what I think. The whole idea of "Light" role battalions seems to be a left over form Empire where we needed to garrison numerous locations around the world, and is of little relevance these days except for boots on the ground in UN operations. As stated there are far better ways to use the funds currently spent marinating these formations and related infrastructure. The issue is going to be political as the Cap Badge brigade are going to go nuts and MPs are going to attack the cut in numbers without seeing the whole picture.

Now turing back to Ajax, the retained formations will only need a Maximum of 400 Ajax including spares, which would equip four Armoured Cavalry Regiments and Recce, Command and other support variants in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry Regiments. IF the Warrior support variants ever see the light of day or Boxer variants are used instead this number drops to just of 300. This would give those running the Ajax programme some leeway in what they deliver to the Army, with the money saved from not purchasing the additional planned hulls, to develop the Ajax variants needed to balance the force structure of the four Cavalry Regiments.

What will also be obvious is that I am only having one Armoured Cavalry Regiment in eack of the two Mechanised "Strike" Brigades, with the number of Boxer equipped Mechanised Infantry Regiments increased form four to six. Like the Ajax Regiments, these need to be equipped with additional variants to oncrease the firepower of the idividual units and the Brigades need more integral capabilities to be fit for the role envisaged for them but that is for the MIV thread. Needless to say, bith Ajax and Boxer formations need an integral under armour anti-tank capability at the very least for which there are numerous low risk options.

Like with so many programmes run by the MoD the Ajax has a lot of potential but has become a victime of salami slicing over the years and as it stand will only realise a fraction of this. By Reducing the size of the programme and the Army as a whole this could possibly be reversed to some extent, a result sorely needed by the British Army.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

This appear to be the next generation ASCOD, leveraging technology off what was done to develop the Ajax. The variant shown would be a good way forward for the British Army providing a replacement for Warrior as well as giving the Medium Formations more firepower.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Frenchie »

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... -year-end/

British Army to receive first Ajax vehicles by year end

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

An upgraded entrant for the US future armored vehicle at AUSA 2018. Griffin III, basically an Ajax from the waist down with a new full width turret carrying an auto 50mm gun. Two crew and 6 dismounts.

814cf63d45e18d8a0471be23546cea1c.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

Smacks of the Israeli new line up (in general terms)
- can't surely be under the Gabriel name, again, as that was and is the ASM missile...something biblical, anyway (forgetting the name for the mo)

But v good if there is cross-breeding... some components will fit, and the unit cost will go down
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)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Ron5 wrote:An upgraded entrant for the US future armored vehicle at AUSA 2018. Griffin III, basically an Ajax from the waist down with a new full width turret carrying an auto 50mm gun. Two crew and 6 dismounts.

814cf63d45e18d8a0471be23546cea1c.jpg
Would this not indicated that the CT40 could be comfortably fitted to allow an Ajax IFV to replace the Warriors ?

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:something biblical, anyway (forgetting the name for the mo)
Had time to look for it (after dinner):

"Much like the United States and its Ground-X Vehicle Technology project, Israel is aiming to develop smaller, lightweight tanks that can operate in urban terrain. In Israel’s case, the IDF is mindful of the lessons of Operation Cast Lead, the 2014 incursion in Gaza that saw Israeli soldiers challenged by a city with narrow streets and crisscrossed by tunnels. Also in line with U.S. thinking, the Israeli vehicle will be heavily networked into battlefield command and control systems.

The Below the Turret Ring blog offers a thoughtful analysis of what’s known about Project Carmel vehicle so far. The Israeli vehicle is considerably lighter than the forty-eight-ton Armata, which is Russia’s next-generation tank. Its active protection system might stop antitank missiles, but its armor won’t stop heavy cannon rounds from tanks such as the T-72. “The closest Russian counterpart to the Carmel might be the BMPT/BMPT-72 Terminator fire support vehicle designed by the Russian company UVZ,” the blog notes.

In that sense, Project Carmel sounds less like a main battle tank that can replace the Merkava or Abrams in a turret-to-turret armored slugfest. A small tank protected by medium armor and armed with an autocannon and missiles, it would seem to have its own niche as an infantry support vehicle."

by Michael Peck, a contributing writer for the National Interest
- since the "early look, June 16, 2017" into the project, it has been revealed that there will be a whole family of them. Anyone? Which 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)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:An upgraded entrant for the US future armored vehicle at AUSA 2018. Griffin III, basically an Ajax from the waist down with a new full width turret carrying an auto 50mm gun. Two crew and 6 dismounts.
It may share AJAX running gear/hull, but it won't be able to fit 6 pax and all the gubbins that make AJAX the recce vehicle that it is.

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 »

Is the 50mm the long-rumoured ATK supershot modification?

There has been much speculation that Carmel, in the end, would get something akin to the very high velocity Italian/ Israeli tank gun
- which by now is very old, and has only sold to refurb prgrms of even older tanks (Chile)
- but it is an all rounder, capable of punching holes into walls (MOUT, the stated driver for a new type of AFV) and in addition to being used against armoured vehicles, it ( HVMS 60) can also be used to engage helicopters and fortified field positions.

Most importantly, considering the need to get numbers fielded, instead of 70t Behemoths only - still waxing biblical here - as it can be fitted into a turret with an inner diameter of 1.5 m.
- and 60 mm vs. the later ARES 75mm would help with the all-important factor in infantry support: number of rounds

With all this in mind, which one will turn out to be the 'passing curiosity'? Our 40 mmm Coke can design or HVMS (growing from the prototype stage)?
- 40 & 50 mm supershot developments were known of when we made our decision, so lapsing back is v unlikely
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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is the 50mm the long-rumoured ATK supershot modification?
Yes, it's a 35mm Bushmaster III that was cranked up to 50mm. ATK has been absorbed into Northrop Grumman, though. I don't have confirmation, but this appears to be borrowing or lifted from the EAPS program guns which were 50mm BmIII launching 50mm guided projectiles for C-RAM.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

I was a tad surprised by the gun. I thought the requirement was for a mini tank. The previous Griffin's had a lightweight 120mm in a stripped down Abrams turret.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:I was a tad surprised by the gun. I thought the requirement was for a mini tank. The previous Griffin's had a lightweight 120mm in a stripped down Abrams turret.
The requirements and program structures have flowed a bit, but I don't think they intend the 50mm for the Mobile Protected Firepower request. This gun looks aimed at the Bradley Replacement, the Optionally Manned Combat Vehicle, and the version with the XM360 120mm for MPF.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Dahedd »

Time to bin the Warrior upgrade & go with the Griffin ? Keep the Warriors to use as chassis to replace Sultans etc

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Ron5 wrote:I was a tad surprised by the gun. I thought the requirement was for a mini tank. The previous Griffin's had a lightweight 120mm in a stripped down Abrams turret.
This is a different program, or a different part of the program, I believe. Being angled as a Bradley replacement. (Which is kinda odd since they just committed to the Bradley chassis for decades longer on the support vehicle, thus making it extremely unlikely they do anything but just upgrade the IFV/Recon versions.)

The direct fire "light tank" (as its often vaguely stated by everyone except the US Army) is still a separate intent, I believe.

Would be interesting to see the Ajax chassis get some traction over there though. Especially if it goes through for Australia and Czech Republic as well.

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 »

There is a precedent as the US Army retained a multitude of M113 variants when the M2/3 was introduced, cancelling the variants of the latter that were supposed to replace the former as they decided it as not cost effective. Now they are planning to repeat this, or so it seems with a new IFV but using the M2/3 chassis for the support vehicles.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Little J »

From Janes, with a bit of info on some of the variants...

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 »

That Jane's piece (above) states AJAX becoming operational in 2025... how does that rhyme with the statements that both Strike bdes would be up and running by 2023?

Also, it is now "official" that Ajax will be the fire support vehicle for Boxers
- I guess an outcome to spread the available money across as many (base version) Boxers as possible
- not exactly what other armies are doing: having enough versions of the same platform to fit out rounded units, capable of independent operation. In the short run such units can be lower level than a bde (the latter, in theory, comes with sustainment elements to match the deployment)
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)

Post Reply