Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Ian Hall]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... itive-year

[Ian Hall]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/trouble ... ns-corner/

[Jackstar]

Ajax cold weather testing.

[Jackstar]

British Armed Forces Ajax vehicle passes extreme cold tests in Sweden


The British Army's Royal Armoured Corps announced on January 21, 2024, the successful testing of its new Ajax armoured vehicle in Sweden's extreme winter conditions, with temperatures reaching -36°C. The tests, conducted by the Household Cavalry, demonstrated the Ajax's capabilities in harsh weather, a crucial aspect of the vehicle set to be central to the Army's future armoured fleet.

This exercise was not just a demonstration of the vehicle’s endurance in extreme cold but also highlighted its advanced capabilities in intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) under challenging conditions.

Featuring six distinct variants based on a common platform, the Ajax family is designed to enhance the British Army’s operational effectiveness. These vehicles offer improved lethality, survivability, reliability, and mobility. They are equipped with sophisticated sensors enabling all-weather, round-the-clock operations.

A notable feature of the Ajax programme is the inclusion of the first British vehicle equipped with the Case Telescoped 40mm Cannon (CT-40 Cannon). This innovative cannon, a result of UK-France collaboration, is capable of firing various ammunition types, including High Explosive, Armour Piercing, and Training rounds. The non-turreted versions of the Ajax are equipped with a versatile Remote Weapon Station (RWS), capable of mounting different calibres of machine guns and grenade launchers.

[Jackstar]

"152 Ajax armored vehicles already built for British army.
In a response to the British Parliament dated January 17, 2024, it was revealed that 152 Ajax vehicles have been produced, surpassing the 25% mark of the planned fleet. Additionally, the latest standard of the Ajax, known as Capability Drop 3, has been accepted by the UK Ministry of Defence, and deliveries are underway to achieve initial operating capability.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense ... _army.html

[Chris Werb]

Given that the parent vehicle is an IFV (OK, arguably TWO IFVs), was thought given to replacing Warrior with Ajax in the IFV role?

[sol]

Given that the parent vehicle is an IFV (OK, arguably TWO IFVs), was thought given to replacing Warrior with Ajax in the IFV role?

Considering there is no active or announced program for new IFV, I doubt there is much serious thoughts given to any vehicle that could fill that role. And while Ajax would be logical choice, considering all issues with introduction of the Ajax in service and public backlash, it would be hard to expect that anyone would just jump into new contract with GD when current one is still years from completing. And, after all, Ajax might not be the best choice, as currently IFV version of it does not exist and there are some other vehicles which could either be better suited and/or cheaper option.

[Chris Werb]

Given that the parent vehicle is an IFV (OK, arguably TWO IFVs), was thought given to replacing Warrior with Ajax in the IFV role?

Considering there is no active or announced program for new IFV, I doubt there is much serious thoughts given to any vehicle that could fill that role. And while Ajax would be logical choice, considering all issues with introduction of the Ajax in service and public backlash, it would be hard to expect that anyone would just jump into new contract with GD when current one is still years from completing. And, after all, Ajax might not be the best choice, as currently IFV version of it does not exist and there are some other vehicles which could either be better suited and/or cheaper option.

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

[sol]

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

Sorry my mistake. Well, time and money probably had major role. Keep in mind that Warrior upgrade program started in 2001, when Warrior is still relatively "young", but whole program dragged too long, from 2011 when LM officially was selected for upgrade till 2021 when it is finally canceled just when it was supposed to deliver. When everything started, there was little reasons to get new vehicle, and keep in mind that Ajax was selected in 2010 while not fully developed so was not really a viable option. Money probably played a major role too, as upgrading Warrior should be cheaper than getting a new vehicle, and considering all the cuts then it have a sense to go with cheaper solution.

[RunningStrong]

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

ASCOD 2 with a simplified electronics fitment and possibly an non-penetrating, unmanned CT40 turret would give some fleet commonality.

Similarly, you could adapt ARES or ATHENA with reduced internal equipment fit and a medium calibre remote turret.

[Ron5]

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

ASCOD 2 with a simplified electronics fitment and possibly an non-penetrating, unmanned CT40 turret would give some fleet commonality.

Similarly, you could adapt ARES or ATHENA with reduced internal equipment fit and a medium calibre remote turret.

Why does the turret have to be non-penetrating?

[Chris Werb]

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

ASCOD 2 with a simplified electronics fitment and possibly an non-penetrating, unmanned CT40 turret would give some fleet commonality.

Similarly, you could adapt ARES or ATHENA with reduced internal equipment fit and a medium calibre remote turret.

Why does the turret have to be non-penetrating?

A non hull penetrating turret frees up a lot more space within the crew/passenger compartment.

[RunningStrong]

Sorry Sol, maybe I did not put enough emphasis on "was" - I meant during the timeframe up to when the Warrior life-extension/improvement project was eventually decided upon. A current IFV version does indeed not exist, but it was developed from IFVs which were/are in service with Spain and Austria, so one could have been adapted in parallel to the other variants.

ASCOD 2 with a simplified electronics fitment and possibly an non-penetrating, unmanned CT40 turret would give some fleet commonality.

Similarly, you could adapt ARES or ATHENA with reduced internal equipment fit and a medium calibre remote turret.

Why does the turret have to be non-penetrating?

For internal space using the existing hull size. Even using a smaller turret ring than on AJAX (which is large for a medium calibre) would still greatly limit how many mine-blast protected seats for 95th percentile males you could fit in the back.

So use a medium calibre remote weapon station with some decent optics, have a driver and commander crew, and use a similar internal layout to ARES/ATHENA minus the stowage, plus the extra seats.

[Ron5]

Thanks for the replies.

Can you guys quantify the benefits? For example, with a remote turret the Ajax IFV could carry X number of troops and with a manned turret, Y.

I seem to remember the Ajax variant IFV entered for the Australian competition, was said to need to be extended to accommodate enough Aussies in the back. Although some put that down to the British Sergeant who accompanied the sample Apollo (?) vehicle, with his British sense of humor

[RunningStrong]

Thanks for the replies.

Can you guys quantify the benefits? For example, with a remote turret the Ajax IFV could carry X number of troops and with a manned turret, Y.

I seem to remember the Ajax variant IFV entered for the Australian competition, was said to need to be extended to accommodate enough Aussies in the back. Although some put that down to the British Sergeant who accompanied the sample Apollo (?) vehicle, with his British sense of humor

Behind the current AJAX (1700mm) turret there is depth for 1 'row' of opposing seats.

ARES has 3 seat 'rows' behind the commander and dismount commander seats but only on one side. So you could reasonably argue that opposite them another 3 seats could go in. When you estimate the width of a 95th percentile male is approx 50cm you can see how the turret space in the hull is used.

Note that the Wikipedia on ARES has been edited to be wrong, and the reference contradicts the article.

I believe the aussie variant had a longer hull to fit 4 rows as opposed to 3.

Remember in Warrior you had a bench and Fijians and Ghurkas just learnt to get along.

So remote turret you could get 6-7 dismounts. With a smaller crewed turret maybe only 4 dismounts. Longer wheelbase unmanned maybe 8-9 dismounts.

[Ron5]

Excellent reply. Many thanks

[Jackstar]

[Jackstar]

“2,118 CT40 rounds have been fired by Ajax on the move as of 8 February 2024.”

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/ajax-fi ... t-on-move/

[Jackstar]

[Jackstar]

"Firing on the move has been really successful."

Ajax, the British Army’s new generation of armoured fighting vehicles has been put through its paces.

During cold weather trials in Sweden, temperatures reached -38C .

[jonas]

Another decent write up :-

https://battle-updates.com/ajax-powers- ... ettlefold/

[Jackstar]

UK Outlines Measures to Boost British Army Ajax Armoured Vehicle Program Delivery Rate.

https://armyrecognition.com/defense_new ... _rate.html

[sol]

[Ron5]

So Merthyr Tydfil closes in 2030? Sounds good.

[BB85]

I thought I saw a post talking about Fox hound mark 2, maybe MRV-P will pick up again.

Unfortunately Ajax has been built so bespoke to British army requirements it has been a total flop in the export market. Too heavy to be a scout and reconasaince vehicle but too small internally to be considered an IFV.