Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[RunningStrong]

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?

Given the glaring inaccuracies in other parts of that video, I wouldn't take it too literally. Last AJAX variants I believe are due to be delivered by end of 2023 but that might have changed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Last AJAX variants

May be he meant (but failed to formulate) that the order for the whole family of variants would be fully delivered by...

I am relieved that it wasn't a sneak pre-release of some MDP outcomes!

[ArmChairCivvy]

The above, little detour made me think of the announcement that "all" Ajax AFVs will go to Strike Bdes... is that actually all early batches of them, to get those bdes properly stood up?

As the contract stands: 245 will be of the turreted reconnaissance variant.
Each regiment within Strike Bdes (2+2) is expected to get up to 44 turreted Ajax vehicles
Each armoured infantry (2+2) reconnaissance platoon should have 6-8.
Add one of those for operationally meaningful training in BATUS.
We get 176 + 24 (min.) + say, 8
Leaves 37 before considering the specialist Ajax versions ( Joint Fires Control, 23 vehicles, and Ground Based Surveillance, 24 vehicles) which will number 10 more, so the negative balance of 10 suggests them being mixed in. That is before even including any "float" for the number of vehicles that would, on average, be in upgrade/ deep maintenance.

Should we assume that the JFCs are with artillery units, whereas the GBSs will be mixed in with the recce/ direct fire support Rgmnts?
- I've seen absolutely nothing on this. Not a surprise - isn't e.g. The Gunner in restricted circulation?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Been cruising on the UKLandPower site and some great ideas emanating from there (with insight into what is going on behind the "drawn curtains"): Nicholas Drummond, writing in May

"While Warrior CSP is conceptually a good idea, we may find that we don’t have enough platforms to convert the full number needed. This is because the aluminium hulls of the existing fleet have suffered serious de-lamination issues, meaning that they have corroded. It would be daft to build new ones when the platform is close to 35 years old. Moreover, Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a number of design flaws that will not be corrected by the CSP programme. One of these is that the fuel tank is still located on the floor below the turret. In the event of a large mine detonating under the vehicle, survivability would be moot. Unless you relocate the fuel tank, you will never get protection levels above Level 2 or 3. With Ajax it must be at least Level 5. So while Warrior CSP is conceptually clever, it has been compromised by a lack of cash. How much should you spend re-vamping an old bit of kit, before it is overkill? I don’t know. But, new turrets on old hulls is never an ideal solution.

So, if you bin Warrior CSP and reduce Ajax recce buy, this gives you enough money for quite a lot of brand new Ajax IFVs. Or you could could use the Warrior CSP budget to put quite a lot of turrets on Boxer, which might be an even better solution. "

[mr.fred]

So, if you bin Warrior CSP and reduce Ajax recce buy, this gives you enough money for quite a lot of brand new Ajax IFVs.

Somewhat fewer than you would have got Warriors and Ajax combined. Changing horses in mid-stream is a phrase that would seem to apply too.

ne of these is that the fuel tank is still located on the floor below the turret. In the event of a large mine detonating under the vehicle, survivability would be moot. Unless you relocate the fuel tank, you will never get protection levels above Level 2 or 3.

Given that the original, unmodified in any way, vehicle is reported to have mine protection in excess of level 3 (assuming stanag 4569), that claim seems a trifle off.

So while Warrior CSP is conceptually clever, it has been compromised by a lack of cash. How much should you spend re-vamping an old bit of kit, before it is overkill? I don’t know. But, new turrets on old hulls is never an ideal solution.

Why would a replacement programme not be compromised by a lack of cash? How would it help actually deliver new vehicles?

[Lord Jim]

Been cruising on the UKLandPower site and some great ideas emanating from there (with insight into what is going on behind the "drawn curtains"): Nicholas Drummond, writing in May

"While Warrior CSP is conceptually a good idea, we may find that we don’t have enough platforms to convert the full number needed. This is because the aluminium hulls of the existing fleet have suffered serious de-lamination issues, meaning that they have corroded. It would be daft to build new ones when the platform is close to 35 years old. Moreover, Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a number of design flaws that will not be corrected by the CSP programme. One of these is that the fuel tank is still located on the floor below the turret. In the event of a large mine detonating under the vehicle, survivability would be moot. Unless you relocate the fuel tank, you will never get protection levels above Level 2 or 3. With Ajax it must be at least Level 5. So while Warrior CSP is conceptually clever, it has been compromised by a lack of cash. How much should you spend re-vamping an old bit of kit, before it is overkill? I don’t know. But, new turrets on old hulls is never an ideal solution.

So, if you bin Warrior CSP and reduce Ajax recce buy, this gives you enough money for quite a lot of brand new Ajax IFVs. Or you could could use the Warrior CSP budget to put quite a lot of turrets on Boxer, which might be an even better solution. "

If the condition of the Warrior hulls is as bad as stated the Army has a "Nimrod MRA4" situation on its hands with the CSP. How much money could be clawed back by cancelling the programme is debateable given how little has been put into it, and this being the main cause of its slow progress. But more importantly is it worth investing in a platform that will have serious flaws unless a substantial uplift in funding is made to correct the issues highlighted? In my opinion no. Should we look to reducing the number of Ajax to be purchased, yes because it is being pushed into a role it was never intended for, and ill equipped for. I am hoping that as part of the MDP the MoD will take the chance to re evaluate how the Army should look in the future and what equipment it needs. If there is no way to amend the totally quantity of Ajax purchased then the make up of the types should be revisited. Would the cancellation of the Warrior CSP free up enough funds to allow additional variants of the Ajax to be fielded or existing variants improved? In my mind the future of the British Army rests with the Boxer as its core vehicle. It is this platform that should replace the all warrior and FV432 variants in the Army's two Armoured Infantry Brigades, effectively turning them into Mechanised Infantry. The Ajax should be used to form true Recce Regiments in a similar format as those currently operating the CVR(T), plus providing close recce in the remaining Armoured Regiments.

So with the initial purchase of Boxer and that of Ajax the Army would end up with two Brigades comprised of one Armoured, one Recce, two Mechanised and one Heavy Artillery Regiments. This is the most cost effective option using the programmes under way but it does when the CR2 CSP is taken into account give the Army two effective and relevant formations. Of course this means the much advertised "Strike" Brigades are pushed back or even terminated, but then again they were, as planned, not fit for purpose. Another by product of this would be the inability of the Army to deploy a Division of they sort it aspires to, but then again whether the Army can or could actually do such a thing is debateable to say the least given the state of much of the kit that would be required to do so.

[Ron5]

Bit puzzled by the reference to delaminating aluminum. Delamination refers to layers coming apart as in composite materials when layers of different materials are pressed together during manufacture, or plywood, but surely the aluminum in the Warriors would have been cast. So no layers.

[jimthelad]

Probably the internal spall liner which was bonded on.

[mr.fred]

Probably the internal spall liner which was bonded on.

A peeling spall liner doesn’t exactly sound like a structural problem though.

[jimthelad]

True. I wonder if they mean aplique? Was that bonded on at factory level?

[mr.fred]

True. I wonder if they mean aplique? Was that bonded on at factory level?

Peeling appliqué doesn’t sound like a structural issue either.

[ArmChairCivvy]

surely the aluminum in the Warriors would have been cast. So no layers.

If you take this at face value
"Warrior 2000 is a version of the Warrior which was developed for the Swiss Army requirement. The first prototype was completed in 1998.

Improvements included all-welded aluminium hull, increased passive applique armour protection, digital fire control system, more powerful engine and a Delco or Land Systems Hagglunds E30 direct electric drive turret"

all-welded being an improvement over what? Cast is normally considered better (stronger) than welded. So what was the one for the BA? Layers laminated?

[Lord Jim]

Could it be that the core hull was one thickness but then this was increase in certain areas through bonding additional aluminium sheets for increased protection, with bonding being the lightest way to do this? Changing this to welding for the Swiss competition would be an improvement as it would be stronger, but heavier.

[mr.fred]

Warrior 2000 had a different hull shape to the original, but both are all-welded aluminium, going by what I can find.
Cast material is usually weaker than wrought plate, but welds introduce weaknesses that cast doesn’t have.

Cast aluminium is usually very brittle. I can’t see that being used for armoured structures.

[whitelancer]

Moreover, Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a number of design flaws that will not be corrected by the CSP programme. One of these is that the fuel tank is still located on the floor below the turret. In the event of a large mine detonating under the vehicle, survivability would be moot. Unless you relocate the fuel tank, you will never get protection levels above Level 2 or 3.

Interestingly on the original MCV 80 prototypes the fuel tanks were located similarly to those on FV 432. It was pointed out however that moving them would free up valuable stowage space and reduce their vulnerability. Hence the current location. So the first question to ask is are mines and IEDs going to be the primary or even one of the primary threats that Warrior is likely to face in the future? If the answer is yes, is the location of the fuel tank a problem? (Are their more casualties to the personnel on board than would be the case if the fuel tank was in another location). If the answer is again yes, could steps be taken to reduce the problem without moving the fuel tank? Finally, is their a better location, taking into account that mines and IEDs are not the only threat?

It would be interesting to know how many Warriors have been destroyed or damaged by mines and IEDs compared to other causes, and whether the location of the fuel tank contributed to additional damage or casualties.
My personnel opinion is that while mines and IEDs are a threat, in the type of operations that Warrior is likely to be involved in, their are going to be much greater threats to deal with. It is though probable worth taking steps to mitigate the secondary effects that may be caused by the fuel tank in its current location. Frankly I don't think the location of the fuel tank is a major problem, unless someone can prove otherwise.

[ArmChairCivvy]

in the type of operations that Warrior is likely to be involved in, their are going to be much greater threats to deal with.

I fully agree. Rather than tinkering with the interior layout, any investment (after the "re-turret - or no turret, at all" dilemma has been addressed) should go towards addressing improved protection from primary threats. In achieving that, what Jane's picked up in 2017 could be relevant
"The UK MoD announced in September [2017] that it had awarded a contract to Leonardo UK to lead
industry work as part of the Icarus technology development programme (TDP), which is intended
to bring together a team of UK companies to develop an integration system for modular APS
components, sensors, and effectors.
A UK-based ‘controller’ will own the Modular Integrated
Protection System (MIPS) electronic architecture (EA) intellectual property as a ‘sovereign
capability’. The ability of the system to plug components into a common architecture would allow
components to be rapidly upgraded to overcome countermeasures developed by adversaries or to
replace components damaged in the field. "

p.11 has a photo showing how busy the top of an IFV/APC looks with a 360 degree Iron Fist fitted:
https://www.janes.com/images/assets/618 ... fleets.pdf

As for Ajax, with its passive protection "on par with MBTs", whether there are any APS plans... don't know. May be the priority there is to roll them out first, and assess then?

The Dutch have already ordered APS for installation on their CV90s, but have not seen any photos (yet).

[Luke jones]

Moreover, Iraq and Afghanistan revealed a number of design flaws that will not be corrected by the CSP programme. One of these is that the fuel tank is still located on the floor below the turret. In the event of a large mine detonating under the vehicle, survivability would be moot. Unless you relocate the fuel tank, you will never get protection levels above Level 2 or 3.

Interestingly on the original MCV 80 prototypes the fuel tanks were located similarly to those on FV 432. It was pointed out however that moving them would free up valuable stowage space and reduce their vulnerability. Hence the current location. So the first question to ask is are mines and IEDs going to be the primary or even one of the primary threats that Warrior is likely to face in the future? If the answer is yes, is the location of the fuel tank a problem? (Are their more casualties to the personnel on board than would be the case if the fuel tank was in another location). If the answer is again yes, could steps be taken to reduce the problem without moving the fuel tank? Finally, is their a better location, taking into account that mines and IEDs are not the only threat?

It would be interesting to know how many Warriors have been destroyed or damaged by mines and IEDs compared to other causes, and whether the location of the fuel tank contributed to additional damage or casualties.
My personnel opinion is that while mines and IEDs are a threat, in the type of operations that Warrior is likely to be involved in, their are going to be much greater threats to deal with. It is though probable worth taking steps to mitigate the secondary effects that may be caused by the fuel tank in its current location. Frankly I don't think the location of the fuel tank is a major problem, unless someone can prove otherwise.

Iv seen a good number of Warriors damaged by IED's (incuding a turret blown off!!!!!)
Never known of a fuel tank igniting though.
Not sure of the figures though and they wont be in the public domain

[ArmChairCivvy]

Easy to believe that, but how much (x out of the unknown y; in theory, countables) is actually down to the rather loose usage of the term IED, e.g. pulling these two categories out of Wiki (the latter lives up to the letter "I" in the designation, but the former...)

"IEDs have been deployed in the form of explosively formed projectiles (EFP), a special type of shaped charge that is effective at long standoffs from the target (50 meters or more), however they are not accurate at long distances. This is because of how they are produced. The large "slug" projected from the explosion has no stabilization because it has no tail fins and it does not spin like a bullet from a rifle. Without this stabilization the trajectory can not be accurately determined beyond 50 meters. An EFP is essentially a cylindrical shaped charge with a machined concave metal disc (often copper) in front, pointed inward. The force of the shaped charge turns the disc into a high velocity slug, capable of penetrating the armor of most vehicles in Iraq.

Directionally focused charges
Directionally focused charges (also known as directionally focused fragmentary charges depending on the construction) are very similar to EFPs, with the main difference being that the top plate is usually flat and not concave. It also is not made with machined copper but much cheaper cast or cut metal. When made for fragmentation, the contents of the charge is usually nuts, bolts, ball bearings and other similar shrapnel products and explosive. If it only consists of the flat metal plate, it is known as a platter charge, serving a similar role as an EFP with reduced effect but easier construction."

The moral of this story being that armour can stand up to the latter, but often not the former. Hence the former (when not improvised at all) are part of the arsenal of the regular militaries, in their anti-tank mines whether those are road side or buried, or simply scattered ("instant" area/ route denial):


Blast

Shaped Charge (HEAT)

Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP)
(sometimes referred to as Self Forging Fragment (SFF))

[mr.fred]

Possibly discussion of the Warrior would be better in the Warrior thread?
viewtopic.php?t=210&start=250#p77924

[Lord Jim]

Watching the videos of the Ajax/ASCOD based platforms being presented to the US Army for its future family of combat vehicles it could show a path we could follow. They seem to have learned from the mistakes of the FCS programme and realise that there will still be a need for heavy armour, but also that there is also a need for more effective medium armour, superior to the current Stryker and see a tracked platform as possible a better starting point and Ajax is the starting point for this. The versions I am really interested in are the direct fire support variant which uses the light weight 120mm gun originally developed for the FSC programme. It has the same performance as the existing 120mm/L44 used on the M1A2 and fire the same ammunition but can be mounted on far lighter platforms and effectively used. The other is the anti-air/UAV weapon system with 4x Stinger, 4x Hellfire and a 25mm autocannon plus the necessary sensors and optics. This sound like a very good over watch system, and imagine substituting Starstreak and Brimstone and what capabilities that would bring.

We are contractually wedded to the Ajax order so one option we have is to fully embrace the platform. Just introducing the two variants mentioned above would transform the Recce Regiments. Purchasing fifty would allow each Regiment to have a squadron of eight of each platform. And guess what both the turrets described will also fit an 8x8 such as Boxer though this is only on paper/CAD at present. Now where could we find the money?

[ArmChairCivvy]

The version I am really interested in are the direct fire support variant which uses the light weight 120mm gun originally developed for the FSC programme. It has the same performance as the existing 120mm/L44 used on the M1A2 and fire the same ammunition but can be mounted on far lighter platforms and effectively used.

This first one is of significance. On its own (as a fire support vehicle) it did "not fly" even if air-transportability was one of the drivers for the rqrmnt.
- however, as part of a fleet of IFVs sharing the chassis it could be a very different story

How come there are TWO Ajax (hull) based vehicles coming out, in quick succession. Digging deep in the FY19 budget justification one can find this “TARDEC will take their existing contract using the [other transactional authority] and accelerate the [infantry fighting vehicle] build in order to deliver a first prototype by 1Q FY2021.”
- does not necessarily replace the "all new" effort, to field prototypes by mid-decade... quite a bit later than the above
- but could replace the ongoing efforts to remanufacture and re-role Bradleys. Having said that, onto our Warrior thread now, to see the predictions/ evaluations of where we ourselves will be headed as for the mix of new vs. remanufactured

[Ron5]

They seem to have learned from the mistakes of the FCS programme and realise that there will still be a need for heavy armour, but also that there is also a need for more effective medium armour, superior to the current Stryker and see a tracked platform as possible a better starting point and Ajax is the starting point for this.

The Americans at GD think that, not sure there's any evidence the US Army agrees.

[Ron5]

How come there are TWO Ajax (hull) based vehicles coming out, in quick succession.

If you add the GD entry to the Australian competition, there's three.

[ArmChairCivvy]

add the GD entry to the Australian competition, there's three.

True, I wonder how the pedigree between that entry and the US concept (still not a prototype, unlike the one for fire support?) runs?

[Lord Jim]

This does all point to the idea that the British Army could truly consolidate is AFV fleets on basically two platforms, that being Ajax and Boxer, and all the benefits such a decision would bring.