Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[RetroSicotte]

The big questions then are:

1 - If it did cancel, what platform to carry out the role could it acquire within the same entry-into-service timeframe as Ajax that would not cost any more than the current Ajax forecast?

2 - How would it retain the jobs and industry that Ajax has in the UK for those who rely on the program?

3 - What, if any, loss in capability would be resulted from it?

Even if the end result is better, I feel those are natural catches that anyone would have to have a firm answer for before that can be done.

[CMOR]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... a41a7aa603

Unless the unknown problems (with the turret?) alluded to in the linked piece are completely insoluble, I think Ajax is too far gone to cancel. And, in its originally intended recce role in the Armoured Brigades, it's probably just fine. The problems with Ajax are really problems with the whole overly ambitious Strike Brigade concept. If the Army cancels Warrior CSP, switches Boxer to the IFV role, and uses Ajax for recce + firepower (alongside MBTs), you have a fairly decent start on a solid conventional armoured brigade, especially if you rebuild your railway capability and buy a couple hundred extra HETs to make the whole thing a lot more deployable.

[mr.fred]

If the Army cancels Warrior CSP, switches Boxer to the IFV role, and uses Ajax for recce + firepower (alongside MBTs), you have a fairly decent start on a solid conventional armoured brigade, especially if you rebuild your railway capability and buy a couple hundred extra HETs to make the whole thing a lot more deployable.

Trouble with that is that you run into the three questions above, just now pertaining to Warrior.
Then you saddle yourself with the not insignificant cost of fitting and qualifying turrets on Boxer

[Ron5]

If the Army cancels Warrior CSP, switches Boxer to the IFV role, and uses Ajax for recce + firepower (alongside MBTs), you have a fairly decent start on a solid conventional armoured brigade...

I'm struggling to see the advantage of that vs keeping the Warrior CSP and leaving Boxer and its wheels for Strike i.e. the current plan.

I really don't see Boxer keeping up with Challengers in cross country. Urban yes, elsewhere?

[Ron5]

Seems there is a consensus that Ajax has a role with the armored brigades as a recon, forward screen and the debate is whether it has a useful role in Strike.

To address the latter would be it productive to assess whether Ajax would have been useful in Afghanistan? Other nations claim to have gotten excellent results there with CV90. So wouldn't the BA with Ajax?

[CMOR]

If the Army cancels Warrior CSP, switches Boxer to the IFV role, and uses Ajax for recce + firepower (alongside MBTs), you have a fairly decent start on a solid conventional armoured brigade...

I'm struggling to see the advantage of that vs keeping the Warrior CSP and leaving Boxer and its wheels for Strike i.e. the current plan.

I really don't see Boxer keeping up with Challengers in cross country. Urban yes, elsewhere?

The French don't seem worried about this, given that they've got rid of tracked IFVs entirely and put VBCI in their heavy brigades alongside their Leclercs. Yes, Boxer is somewhat less all-terrain than a tracked IFV would be, but the deployability benefit of wheels probably helps to make up for it, especially given how short the Army is of HETS/LETs/railway capability.

Everything is a compromise, but the Army simply does not have the money to do Strike properly while also recapitalizing the traditional Armoured Brigades, so it's one or the other.

Seems there is a consensus that Ajax has a role with the armored brigades as a recon, forward screen and the debate is whether it has a useful role in Strike.

To address the latter would be it productive to assess whether Ajax would have been useful in Afghanistan? Other nations claim to have gotten excellent results there with CV90. So wouldn't the BA with Ajax?

Surely Afghanistan isn't comparable at all to the range of missions that Strike is really envisaged for?

[CMOR]

If the Army cancels Warrior CSP, switches Boxer to the IFV role, and uses Ajax for recce + firepower (alongside MBTs), you have a fairly decent start on a solid conventional armoured brigade, especially if you rebuild your railway capability and buy a couple hundred extra HETs to make the whole thing a lot more deployable.

Trouble with that is that you run into the three questions above, just now pertaining to Warrior.
Then you saddle yourself with the not insignificant cost of fitting and qualifying turrets on Boxer

I think they're fairly easily answered. Boxer is already budgeted for and due to arrive in the next few years. It's surely much cheaper just to buy Boxer and convert part of the buy to the IFV role, than to both buy Boxer and also proceed with Warrior CSP. Meanwhile, given the age of the hulls, the costs of Warrior CSP could easily rise substantially, and the programme wouldn't exactly fix the basic problems of aged hulls & and a dubiously adequate powerpack. So you're both saving money and not losing out on time into service.

Re loss in capability, yes, a wheeled IFV can't do everything that a tracked IFV can, but it can do most of the role, & is enormously more deployable & has less of sustainment burden. The French seem to be fine with this, given how they've put VBCI in their heavy brigade alongside Leclerc.

& re loss of industry/jobs, I think Lockheed Martin will survive if Warrior CSP does not proceed.

[Ron5]

Surely Afghanistan isn't comparable at all to the range of missions that Strike is really envisaged for?

Srsly?

Everything is a compromise, but the Army simply does not have the money to do Strike properly while also recapitalizing the traditional Armoured Brigades, so it's one or the other.

If it's one or the other, the most economical solution is to cancel Boxer altogether and proceed with the Warrior CSP..

[CMOR]

Surely Afghanistan isn't comparable at all to the range of missions that Strike is really envisaged for?

Srsly?

Everything is a compromise, but the Army simply does not have the money to do Strike properly while also recapitalizing the traditional Armoured Brigades, so it's one or the other.

If it's one or the other, the most economical solution is to cancel Boxer altogether and proceed with the Warrior CSP..

Well, from the Army's descriptions (which are admittedly a little vague), Strike seems to be primarily envisaged as the opening play in a war vs Russia, with Strike deployed super-rapidly over 2000km to snarl up the initial Russian assault while NATO's armoured brigades gather for the counter-attack.

Alternatively, Strike is envisaged for the kind of rapid operation to regain territory over vast distances and drive off insurgents that the French performed in op. SERVAL. But neither of these seem too comparable to most of what happened in Afghanistan, although the latter case has some similarities.

And yes, while cancelling BOXER to proceed with Warrior CSP could be a plausible option - perhaps the cheapest, although the cost of Warrior CSP to date has been enormous and costs could well rise further - I think that comes the wrong side of the capability/economy trade-off. Boxer is very capable & brand new, and in vastly better shape than Warrior would be even after the CSP, since it's not going to fix the fundamental problems of aged hulls & an outdated powerpack.

The British Army also has an enormous deployability problem. It simply cannot get itself to a fight against Russia within an operationally relevant timeframe as matters stand, and has very limited capability to move its tracked vehicles quickly, in particular. Boxer's ability to drive itself to the fight is really quite a big plus, given where we are.

[ArmChairCivvy]

to do Strike properly while also recapitalizing the traditional Armoured Brigades, [so] it's one or the other.

The money aspect is in the works, but setting it aside for just a minute:
- the previous Review complied with the Parliaments express wishes that the UK should able to deploy a division, capable of manoeuvre warfare
- So, what would the composition of such a division, were we to stick with the EITHER - OR?

[mr.fred]

I think they're fairly easily answered. Boxer is already budgeted for and due to arrive in the next few years. It's surely much cheaper just to buy Boxer and convert part of the buy to the IFV role, than to both buy Boxer and also proceed with Warrior CSP.

I don’t see how there can be any surety in it. I suspect that there’d be a bunch of set up cost, replicating that already carried out on Warrior. Then it would cost as least as much as Warrior to produce the turrets and install them.

Meanwhile, given the age of the hulls, the costs of Warrior CSP could easily rise substantially, and the programme wouldn't exactly fix the basic problems of aged hulls & and a dubiously adequate powerpack. So you're both saving money and not losing out on time into service.

The costs might rise, or they might not. I don’t see why Boxer should be quicker into service since you’d have to do the same trials that Warrior is already halfway through.

[Lord Jim]

+
Whilst this is the Ajax thread and I am working on a rather long post for the "Future of the British Army", thread I might as well add my two pence worth here.

As has been mentioned above, whilst I seen no value in having the Ajax family in the "Strike" Brigades it would for rather nicely into the Armoured Regiments as integral Recce and one or two Recce Regiments properly equipped would make fine screening forces. However if we went down this path we would need less than 200 platforms from the Ajax Family and that includes variants used to replace other CVR(T) platforms such as the Sultan Command vehicle or Samaritan Ambulance vehicle. That is almost cancelling two thirds of the existing planned buy. But that could save the Army over £1Bn which could readily be used elsewhere.

So we have two Recce Regiments equipped with Ajax, so what do we do with them. Well we form a Cavalry Brigade comprising these two Regiments, plus and Artillery Regiment equipped with our current inventory of GMLRS, as well as a Battery of SP SHORAD platforms, and a AAC Recce Regiment of 2 squadrons of Wildcat AH-1s. This formation is forward deployed, ideally in north eastern Poland to act as NATO's screening force in that area, primarily operating in and around the corridor between Poland and the Baltics, I forget its name at the moment. This provides NOTO with an effective screening force, shows the UK's real commitment to he alliance and removes the issue of deplorability. WE could even get NATO funds to establish to barracks etc. for such a formation.

But for this to work we need the Recce Regiments to be properly equipped. At present nothing in the Regiments arsenal can take on heavy armour if the need arises. To solve this either the actual Ajax needs to be fitted with a modern heavy ATGW like Spike-LR or a dedicated over watch platform equipped with an NLOS missile system need to be developed and deployed. Ideally both options should be pursued, with the former being used at the point of contact with hostile armour and the latter to allow the force to disengage whilst maintaining pressure on the enemy fixing him in place whilst the Artillery comes into play, as an example. The Recce Regiments will also need suitable engineering platforms to support them including Bridge layers, Combat Engineering vehicles and so on, all ideally based on the Ajax, though the Terrier CET will fit the latter role nicely.

On a different subject, turning the Boxer into an IFV would not be a difficult of costly task. Rheinmetall have already developed a number of IFV modules for the Boxer, and installing the turret that has be extensively tested for the Warrior would not be a problem. SO you have an IFV module developed and successfully tested for various turrets so is capable of handling the stresses and strains that come with firing a large Autocannon, ,and you have a turret also successfully tested, that is now know to be safe to operate, and meets BA's requirements. The amount of testing of the resulting marriage would be minimal and we would have a platform that with all things considered, would be superior to the Warrior CSP, especially in the future the way our doctrine is developing. Would this significantly delay the Boxer programme, well no to be blunt. The initial deliveries are to be the basic APC version, but this is also applicable to the Engineering, ambulance and Command versions, so no money would be wasted, and the delivery of the IFV plus other versions such as the Mortar Carrier would arrive later. With say £1Bn coming from Ajax and £0.5Bn coming from Warrior CSP we would have most of the funding required for the additional Boxers and the additional variants.

What would 3rd (UK) Armoured Cavalry Division look like, Well one version would be simply three Mechanised Brigades each with one Armoured (Type 44) Regiment, with Challenger 3, two Heavy Mechanised Regiments with Ajax IFVs and one Mechanised Regiment with Ajax APCs like those planned for the "Strike" Brigades. To this would be added an Artillery Brigade of two Regiments with HIMARS and Two with advanced 155mm Guns. With three identical Brigades we could always have one at high readiness for deployment, and such a deployment may or may not include the Armoured Regiment, depending on the mission.

Well that's my two pence worth added.

[mr.fred]

On a different subject, turning the Boxer into an IFV would not be a difficult of costly task. Rheinmetall have already developed a number of IFV modules for the Boxer, and installing the turret that has be extensively tested for the Warrior would not be a problem. SO you have an IFV module developed and successfully tested for various turrets so is capable of handling the stresses and strains that come with firing a large Autocannon, ,and you have a turret also successfully tested, that is now know to be safe to operate, and meets BA's requirements. The amount of testing of the resulting marriage would be minimal and we would have a platform that with all things considered, would be superior to the Warrior CSP, especially in the future

There are a lot of assumptions there. The testing on Warrior reduces the risk, but does not remove the need to test. Similarly the testing of other turrets on Boxer reduce the risk. but do not remove the need to test.
Then Boxer is huge and either heavy or lightly protected by comparison to Warrior.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Then Boxer is huge and either heavy or lightly protected by comparison to Warrior.

Not sure where that is taking us, so adding another angle:
The internal volume available enables sustained ops (and speed on wheels makes the area relevant enlarged by an order of magnitude, before resupply. All these things need gas of some sort, though, and we have nothing like the Alvis Stalwart to keep up regardless of terrain. This one https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1969- ... k2-limber/ was for arty rounds, but you get the gist).

[Lord Jim]

I stated that the testing already carried out reduced the rick but that some testing would be required and that this would not be required to be as extensive as some other had predicted and wouldn't delay the introduction of an IFV Boxer variant by that much. As stated the boxer is a large vehicle but not much more than many of the 8x8 platforms out there. It will be easily to cope with the Warrior turret even is this is enlarged to fit two heavy ATGMs, and this has also be trailed by Lockheed but no adopted by the British Army.

Also important is that the Boxer is as well protected as a Warrior and is rated as the best protected western 8x8. IT has the benefit of reduced running costs and is able to cover large distances under its own power. It will of course require a supply train, which can be provided by the Army's fleet or protected MAN 6x6 and 8x8 trucks. But again the size of this will be smaller then that required by either Warrior or Ajax.

The boxer is a good compromise to replace Warrior. Yes there may be a 5% of terrain the Boxer cannot go but the Warrior can but the benefits in speed, reduced running costs, smaller logistical foot print and being a new digital platform with a flexible mission module, far out weight this.

[Ron5]

Strike seems to be primarily envisaged as the opening play in a war vs Russia, with Strike deployed super-rapidly over 2000km to snarl up the initial Russian assault while NATO's armoured brigades gather for the counter-attack.

I wonder how realistic this is. Rather sounds like sending a bunch of guys with knives to stop a gunfight. Seems a needless sacrifice.

Given recent history, surely Strike is far more likely to be used for COIN. There seems to be always some hot spot that needs light/medium forces to cool it down.

[CMOR]

Strike seems to be primarily envisaged as the opening play in a war vs Russia, with Strike deployed super-rapidly over 2000km to snarl up the initial Russian assault while NATO's armoured brigades gather for the counter-attack.

I wonder how realistic this is. Rather sounds like sending a bunch of guys with knives to stop a gunfight. Seems a needless sacrifice.

Given recent history, surely Strike is far more likely to be used for COIN. There seems to be always some hot spot that needs light/medium forces to cool it down.

I mean, I absolutely agree with the knife to gunfight comparison - this is the whole problem with the Strike Brigade concept as it stands - but I didn't come up with this idea, CDS/the Army did. Don't shoot the messenger!

If Strike is really aimed at COIN then we don't need a "Strike" brigade, we need something much more like the "Multi-Role Brigades" as envisaged by the 2010 SDSR, with their emphasis on Protected Mobility. Boxer is essentially pointless on that kind of deployment, we could have just as well stuck with Mastiff & the other UOR buys.

[Ron5]

Strike seems to be primarily envisaged as the opening play in a war vs Russia, with Strike deployed super-rapidly over 2000km to snarl up the initial Russian assault while NATO's armoured brigades gather for the counter-attack.

I wonder how realistic this is. Rather sounds like sending a bunch of guys with knives to stop a gunfight. Seems a needless sacrifice.

Given recent history, surely Strike is far more likely to be used for COIN. There seems to be always some hot spot that needs light/medium forces to cool it down.

I mean, I absolutely agree with the knife to gunfight comparison - this is the whole problem with the Strike Brigade concept as it stands - but I didn't come up with this idea, CDS/the Army did. Don't shoot the messenger!

If Strike is really aimed at COIN then we don't need a "Strike" brigade, we need something much more like the "Multi-Role Brigades" as envisaged by the 2010 SDSR, with their emphasis on Protected Mobility. Boxer is essentially pointless on that kind of deployment, we could have just as well stuck with Mastiff & the other UOR buys.

[ArmChairCivvy]

could have just as well stuck with Mastiff & the other UOR buys.

We still have them and the relations (only because Boxer deliveries will stretch over many, many years).

[SD67]

The big questions then are:

1 - If it did cancel, what platform to carry out the role could it acquire within the same entry-into-service timeframe as Ajax that would not cost any more than the current Ajax forecast?

2 - How would it retain the jobs and industry that Ajax has in the UK for those who rely on the program?

3 - What, if any, loss in capability would be resulted from it?

Even if the end result is better, I feel those are natural catches that anyone would have to have a firm answer for before that can be done.

1. Boxer CRV
2. None as Boxer to be built by RBSL and GD Wales was to be a screwdriver facility
3. Ask the Australian army

Seriously this is a no brainier decision. How supportable is a Spanish/French/British/German hybrid vehicle going to be, Assembled in a former forklift factory in Wales by a workforce that’s never built anything military before.

[military]

Seriously this is a no brainier decision. How supportable is a Spanish/French/British/German hybrid vehicle going to be, Assembled in a former forklift factory in Wales by a workforce that’s never built anything military before.

Hah, but Ajax is actually Spanish/Austrian/British/American; not sure where German and French came from!

The amount of work going on in Wales versus Spain is unclear to me. I think the idea is that the hull comes from Spain and the turret and electronics are added in Wales, although I could be wrong. There is little export potential here.

Some people say that £3 billion has already been spent on Ajax, which is a huge amount of sunk cost if true.

As for the future force, I just want something coherent. A medium brigade of wheeled Boxers with added firepower make sense and a tracked brigade of Ajax, upgraded Challengers and maybe Warrior CSP makes sense. The weird mix of wheels and tracks that is Strike doesn't make much sense.

I don't think any of these formations are going to last long in combat against Russians, given how much firepower and protection Russian vehicles have, not to mention the firepower of Russian artillery. Rapid deployment of Boxers without anti-vehicle weapons to a conflict with Russia makes even less sense unless the Boxers are just securing the flanks or rear.

Artillery might be the king of the future battlefield and it is unclear how much this is influencing Nick Carter and what he recommends to the politicians. The Royal Artillery needs upgrading and expansion as much or more than armoured vehicles like Ajax.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There is little export potential here.

The GD project mngr talked about 2 bn in export interest already having surfaced, but it seemed to be for the turret, not for the vehicle as a whole
- considering the wide turret ring, would be interesting to know onto which mount any such customers would fit it (e.g. Leo1s were extremely agile compared to the current western MBT behemoths)

[CMOR]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-m ... -76wb7kwx8

This, incidentally, confirms that the problem with Ajax was/is turret-related, and is apparently fixable/fixed/in the process of being fixed.

[Lord Jim]

"In an article for The Sunday Times website, Wallace also says the government needs to build products that can be sold to other countries to generate cash to help pay for Britain’s troops."

Since when did our Government have its own arms factory to raise revenue to pay for defence?

[Lord Jim]

Just those few paragraphs from the Times article show how poor the Governments understanding of Defence really is. Yes they are consulting but are compressing the process into such short a timespan such consultations are basically worthless.

Whilst drones are useful there is a whole industry now devoted to manufacturing the means to negate them. Also as the Government and Army have decided that Ajax is a "Light Tank" given its role in the "Strike" Brigades, when they say "Removing tanks", do they mean Ajax is also included?

At this rate this Integrated Review is going to make the 2010 effort look like a well thought out and balanced report! Why can't they just admit they do not want to spend the necessary money needed to properly equip our Armed Forces to carry out their duties because they want to spend the money on Health, Education etc. At least that would be being honest with the public.