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 »

whitelancer wrote: comes to a total of 200 Ajax for the 2 Recce Regts and 2 Medium Armd Regts, leaving just 45 for training and sustainment
I think you've hit the ballpark there (or is it ' the right post code' these days?).
- allow for BATUS within those 45 as well

When the early roll-out was still the ambition, out of the three squadrons ('Strike' was not on the books yet) only one was to be Ajax and the other two 'light'
... in one form or another that might still come back (but take some time)
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)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

A thought that occurs following discussion in the Warrior thread:
The British Army has a risk due to lack of SPAA.
Ajax mounts a fire controlled CT40, has GVA and a demonstrated ability to swap out the big sight on the rear of the turret.
Could we use Ajax as a SPAAG?

We could use the rear turret sight either as-is, or use the hardpoint for a different sensor, for targetting small UAVs.

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 »

mr.fred wrote:Could we use Ajax as a SPAAG?
Any IFV autocannon with quality thermo-optical sights (for the gunner, not just for the commander keeping abreast of the situation) can be used for that... so we should. Especially bearing in mind that OpFor with long-reach PFs can prioritise the neutralizing of theater air defenses, and seriously limiting their ground mobility... and also bearing in mind that what we have (quantity wise) is more for show than anything else.

Without radar-assisted autolaying you cannot track fast, low-flying threats though. And the traditional SPAAGs (v expensive) might find that super-market priced drones dropping chaff - at the right time - all over the place will render them ineffective as well.
- so you will need to have networked AD all the way down to manpad launchers and AJAX autocannons (the latter though being a point defence against whatever is coming after their formation)
- for manpads to be effective you will need a lot of them, which will only be possible if there is a role in field formations that can deputise, by picking up the launcher and pointing it to the right direction (they need a couple of seconds for the electronics to fire up, anyway)
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 »

Mind you a Boxer SPAAA using the AA configured CTA 40 has been demonstrated, and US manufacturers have developed turrets with four small AESA dishes for use on similar sized vehicles. Eventually the two will come together, but whether the British Army would ever get some, well until there is some slack in the Equipment budget I think other priorities exist, rightly or wrongly.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

GD video on open architecture and spiral development.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: comes to a total of 200 Ajax for the 2 Recce Regts and 2 Medium Armd Regts, leaving just 45 for training and sustainment
- allow for BATUS within those 45 as well

When the early roll-out was still the ambition, out of the three squadrons ('Strike' was not on the books yet) only one was to be Ajax and the other two 'light'
... in one form or another that might still come back (but take some time)
I've shortened the quote (from the top of this page) somewhat, to bring into discussion some of the cross-pulls, like
- losing close recce in AI, just bcz the Ajax numbers are so tight
- they would not be so tight if at least one sqdrn with the Strike recce were to be 'light'
... could serve a purpose, as well

That of course would bring the need for Ajax support in formations that otherwise are/ will be Warrior.
- to avoid that it has been planned that AI would 'soldier on' with Warrior artillery observation vehicles
- and only Strike would have the Joint Fires (more capable?) vehicles.

Now functionality is one thing; minimising ('streamlining') support that will have to be right to hand by the front line (that won't exist) is another... I will just pose the question, rather than offer an answer
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)

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Defiance »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... x-variant/
LONDON - General Dynamics UK has joined forces with European missile maker MBDA to position itself for an upcoming British Army requirement to field an “Overwatch” anti-armor vehicle to support the army’s heavy and deep recce strike brigade combat teams.

The companies are offering the Ares version of the Ajax tracked reconnaissance vehicle already purchased by the Army fitted with a Brimstone missile capability carried in a modular cannister to meet a requirement to strengthen its anti-armor capability.

The teaming effort and the building of a capability demonstrator were announced by the companies July 26.

The Army already has a nascent program, known as Battlegroup Organic Anti-Armour (BGOAA), in the pre-concept phase, which includes the armed overwatch requirement.

Armed overwatch is a priority for the British and likely to be one of the first elements of the wider BGOAA program the military will look to move forward with as the procurement effort ramps up.

Ares is a troop carrying reconnaissance vehicle acquired by the British in a wider 2014 deal with General Dynamics worth £3.5 billion to provide 589 vehicles in the Ajax family.

The principal variant is a scout vehicle armed with a 40 mm case telescoped cannon.

Some 34 Ares vehicles were purchased as part of the deal and deliveries of the variant got underway last year.

In a statement Carew Wilks, vice president and general manager of General Dynamics Land Systems–UK, said the vehicle makers “collaboration with MBDA further demonstrates the versatility of the Ajax fleet through the delivery of an ‘Overwatch’ capability quickly and effectively for the heavy and deep recce strike brigade combat teams.”

Brimstone has been widely used by the Royal Air Force in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya as an air to ground weapon. The missile has also been exported.

The latest version of the missile will be a key weapon deployed on the new General Atomic Protector drone purchased by the British to replace the Reaper vehicle.

As far as is known Brimstone has not been purchased to date as a surface-to-surface weapon, but the weapon has been extensively test fired from land in support of maritime development campaigns.

The British are looking to step up their missile equipped armored vehicle capabilities.

Aside from the emerging BGOAA requirement the British are also looking to boost land anti-armour capabilities with a possible purchase of missile equipped Boxer wheeled armored personnel carriers.

The Army is looking at adding more fire power to it’s new Boxer force following the recent decision to axe the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle program.

One option might be to increase the number of Boxer reconnaissance variants fitted with anti-tank guided missiles.

For the moment the number of missile equipped reconnaissance vehicles purchased by the British stands at 50, but the Army is conducting an analysis to determine if more Boxer’s should be fitted with ATGMs.
Looks like the armed overwatch Ajax is being reborn again!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Defiance wrote:Looks like the armed overwatch Ajax is being reborn again!
Hope funding is found for this and also for Boxer plus of course more missiles.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Looks like a real vehicle not one of those endless supply of CGI :thumbup:

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Now all we need to do is order some as part of the rethink of the Ajax order that is supposedly going on at present. Would be a great capability if we actually get it, but a version on a Boxer Mission Module would also be nice.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Within the order for 589 vehicles are 256 PMRS types of which 34 are the Formation reconnaissance overwatch

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Wow, Strike Brigades gone; but the Striker concept of an anti-armour vehicle reborn :o
Defiance wrote: requirement to field an “Overwatch” anti-armor vehicle to support the army’s heavy and deep recce strike brigade combat teams.
Defiance wrote:a nascent program, known as Battlegroup Organic Anti-Armour (BGOAA), in the pre-concept phase, which includes the armed overwatch requirement.
Defiance wrote:Aside from the emerging BGOAA requirement the British are also looking to boost land anti-armour capabilities with a possible purchase of missile equipped Boxer wheeled armored personnel carriers.
The bits bolded, in the above quotes, are three different rqrmnts:
- nothing to do with the Recce-Deep Strike construct; supporting this "thinner screen" from further back (at distance)
- the Operative Word is in BG (OAA)... so at that level, the Battle Groups being supported
- and as for an aside, the last quote, I'm ready to take bets as for what will be procured ;) for that (making the Boxers look less like armoured boxes); some of my earlier commentaries might give a hint
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

So we get ground launched Brimstone 3+ with added "A man in the loop", for the "+" and mount it on a Boxer Module to give the Mech Inf some decent stand off AT bite then? Would be a good start, then a lighter version, say only four missiles on the back of a MRV(P) 4x4 for the Light BCTs and we are good to go. Give the Deep Strike BCT our existing Extractor units to keep them happy.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Give the Deep Strike BCT our existing Extractor units to keep them happy.
Would think those assets are more like: if you (as a light formation) can only have LG to support you, then
... at least in c-bttry we can take the nasties out
Remember Nam: the 105s, the std at the the time, could be flown to any hill top (by helos), but then they were outranged by the (towed) 130 mm artillery piece, namely the M-46 developed from the M-36 130 mm naval gun used on ships.

In those days you could build enough heft (read: Khe San) and beat the hell out of the the oppo just by having heavier guns and more rounds)
- these days, it will be more mobile, and more directed at the fleeting oppo(rtunity), READ: the Exactor (et. al)
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:Within the order for 589 vehicles are 256 PMRS types of which 34 are the Formation reconnaissance overwatch
That's way off on PMRS Ares numbers. Ajax is 245, and Athena C2 is next biggest order.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:Ajax is 245, and Athena C2 is next biggest order.
Those two can 'always ' be used.

The we come to Combat Engineers (can always be used), and
- Joint Fires ... is that too small a number, considering the 'new' emphasis on DeepStrike (from the ground)?
- Ground Surveillance (about right?)

So, within the total (ordered) what is the room for adjustment - within the rest - and is there :!: any need
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Within the order for 589 vehicles are 256 PMRS types of which 34 are the Formation reconnaissance overwatch
That's way off on PMRS Ares numbers. Ajax is 245, and Athena C2 is next biggest order.
The 256 PMRS Types are made up of

93 APC ( Ares )
112 C&C ( Athena)
34 FRO ( Ares )
51 ER ( Argus )

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Within the order for 589 vehicles are 256 PMRS types of which 34 are the Formation reconnaissance overwatch
That's way off on PMRS Ares numbers. Ajax is 245, and Athena C2 is next biggest order.
The 256 PMRS Types are made up of

93 APC ( Ares )
112 C&C ( Athena)
34 FRO ( Ares )
51 ER ( Argus )
Not sure where you have the 34 FRO from. I think you've double counted what's included in the Area variant total (93). Athena C2 is the second largest quantity after AJAX.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:Within the order for 589 vehicles are 256 PMRS types of which 34 are the Formation reconnaissance overwatch
That's way off on PMRS Ares numbers. Ajax is 245, and Athena C2 is next biggest order.
The 256 PMRS Types are made up of

93 APC ( Ares )
112 C&C ( Athena)
34 FRO ( Ares )
51 ER ( Argus )
Not sure where you have the 34 FRO from. I think you've double counted what's included in the Area variant total (93). Athena C2 is the second largest quantity after AJAX.
when I look back I see what you saying about doubling up still good to see the Army making use of Ares

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

From Wiki, I would guess (overall the list below adds up to 598 vehicles, not the 589 stated as the total order)

245 turreted 'Ajax' variants
  • 198 Reconnaissance and Strike (Ajax)
    23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax)
    24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax)
256 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants (actually adds up to 290 vehicles, not 256 - adds up to 256 without the 34 FRO versions)
  • 93 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) (Ares)
    112 Command and Control (Athena)[9]
    34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch (Ares)
    51 Engineer Reconnaissance (Argus)
88 Engineering variants based on the PMRS
  • 38 Recovery vehicles (Atlas)
    50 Repair vehicles (Apollo)
I suspect that, with the scaling back of armoured forces proposed, a number of the C2 variant orders (c. 20% of total vehicles) could be changed to cover additional APC and FRO vehicles (or mortar carriers, MGS etc).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

I don't see the C2 Athena variants being decreased for the simple reason that in a dispersed fighting force you need a greater ability to disseminate information on the front line, and that includes both having a person in the loop, and also the physical need for a C4i node to ensure the robustness of the Comms net.

There's already been some work on this with Foxhound, demonstrating the HAWK hotspot with Link16 capability. But that seems a role unsuited for the proposed uses of foxhound in the future force.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

On a general point, it's usually a very bad idea to open up a contract to fiddle with numbers & types. Once it's open all kinds of crap come floating in. End result is you're left unhappy and wish for the original. But too late.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:On a general point, it's usually a very bad idea to open up a contract to fiddle with numbers & types. Once it's open all kinds of crap come floating in. End result is you're left unhappy and wish for the original. But too late.
We do however now have 93 ARES on order, and GD demonstrating both a bridge layer and an overwatch variant on that variant.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: The part of "Recce" that has most to do with any "DeepStrike"
- Joint Fires ... is that too small a number, considering the 'new' emphasis on DeepStrike (from the ground)?
- Ground Surveillance
Caribbean wrote:245 turreted 'Ajax' variants

198 Reconnaissance and Strike (Ajax)
23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax)
24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax)


256 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants (actually adds up to 290 vehicles, not 256 - adds up to 256 without the 34 FRO versions)

93 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) (Ares)
112 Command and Control (Athena)[9]
34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch (Ares)
51 Engineer Reconnaissance (Argus)
RunningStrong wrote:We do however now have 93 ARES on order, and GD demonstrating both a bridge layer and an overwatch variant on that variant.
This FRO is the thing that (surprisingly!) does not exist
- and as for the bridging., the proposal (when SV numbers and versions were curtailed to meet some budget number) the proposal was to convert 36 Warriors into the bridge layer role

Whatever happens, we will still be missing
- the ambulance version, to operate within the 'direct fire' zone
... and the mortar carrier (easily could be a Boxer version)
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