Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
What would you recommend cutting to obtain the £2bn needed to do that?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
What would you recommend cutting to obtain the £2bn needed to do that?
British military presence in Afghanistan.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »



Some interesting stuff from Soucey at dsei on their composite tracks. They can run on a 55t vehicle now and sustain blasts up to stanag level 3. Anything above that would blow apart the suspension so kills off the argument for all of those steel track purists

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

What is interesting is that the company developing Rubber Tracks for AFVs borrowed a Mortar variant of the Warrior firm Rheinmetall/BAe Systems! They kept that development quiet didn't they!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:What is interesting is that the company developing Rubber Tracks for AFVs borrowed a Mortar variant of the Warrior firm Rheinmetall/BAe Systems! They kept that development quiet didn't they!
Not really. That mortar variant has been kicking around for a while, I think I saw it at DVD in 2016, and Soucy had developed some CRT running gear for a Warrior hull some years back for trials. Looks like they put the two together.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
What would you recommend cutting to obtain the £2bn needed to do that?
British military presence in Afghanistan.
I fear you’re a bit late to be making a saving there.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Boxer is more than capable of accompanying the Challenger 3 in all but the most extreme terrain conditions. Saying that, purchasing a quantity of CV-90 Mk4 to equip two Infantry Battalions and organising the Heavy BCTs to each include one of these plus two Battalions mounting in Boxer APCs along with the planned Armoured Regiment and Artillery Regiment would be a good option moving forward, with the additional firepower the IFVs would bring to the BCT as well as providing sufficient Infantry to carry out most mission types. Recce would be provided by the Recce Squadrons/Platoons in the individual Regiments/Battalions equipped with a common platform, as well as integral UAVs and other ISTAR assets.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:What is interesting is that the company developing Rubber Tracks for AFVs borrowed a Mortar variant of the Warrior firm Rheinmetall/BAe Systems! They kept that development quiet didn't they!
Not really. That mortar variant has been kicking around for a while, I think I saw it at DVD in 2016, and Soucy had developed some CRT running gear for a Warrior hull some years back for trials. Looks like they put the two together.
2014 infact. Presented as an option for the Warrior hulls that wouldn't received WCSP and to finally (sigh) retire the FV432.

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/ ... 14-update/

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks, that is good to know. Did it use the same 81mm mortar as the FV432(m)?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... witter.com

LONDON – A top Ministry of Defence official has been given charge of resetting or recommending termination of the troubled Ajax armored reconnaissance vehicle program destined for the British Army.
David Marsh, the MoD’s director of project delivery, was named as the senior official responsible for one of Britain’s most high-profile military programs in a letter released by the department and the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority.

“You are also responsible for ensuring the ongoing viability of the program and recommending its pause or termination if appropriate,” said the letter.

J. Tattersall

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

The new Senior Responsible Owner's (SRO) letter of appointment is given here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... md_Cav.pdf
Always dangerous to be selective but a few notable quotes from the letter:
As SRO, you are directly accountable to me as the Accounting Officer for Ministry of Defence, for the delivery of the Programme and its benefits
You have personal responsibility for the delivery of the Armoured Cavalry Programme and are to develop a robust plan to recover and reset it, then ensure its ongoing viability and delivery
You are also responsible for ensuring the ongoing viability of the programme and recommending its pause or termination if appropriate.
You have full responsibility for the workforce resources for delivering its planned benefits and outputs to Initial and Full Operating Capability.
This will be a full-time role to enable effective delivery of the programme and execute your responsibilities in full.
The programme is based around delivering into service the AJAX family of vehicles and their training, support, infrastructure and information system solutions, integrated with other Defence Lines Of Development.
You are responsible for ensuring a comprehensive approach to safety management within the programme, including close liaison with the appropriate regulatory authorities and in-service duty holders.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well it will either make or break the SROs career.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
What would you recommend cutting to obtain the £2bn needed to do that?
By cancelling Ajax. There's at least 2 billion yet to be spent. And this is assuming no compensation from GD.

There were only ever 250 - odd turreted versions, I'm assuming the supporting variants were thrown in to bring the production run up to a minimum viable quantity.

Another point is that unlike Nimrod MR4A, there are decent MOTS alternatives available now.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
What would you recommend cutting to obtain the £2bn needed to do that?
By cancelling Ajax. There's at least 2 billion yet to be spent. And this is assuming no compensation from GD.

There were only ever 250 - odd turreted versions, I'm assuming the supporting variants were thrown in to bring the production run up to a minimum viable quantity.

Another point is that unlike Nimrod MR4A, there are decent MOTS alternatives available now.
That's what you consider "OTS". CV90 MK4 isn't there yet, but has the fore power options. Puma certainly is OTS, but has less lethality. Jaguar isn't OTS, but is certainly an option if the CT40 gun can't be avoided.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Not sure that gun size is a big factor in IFV. Kinda depends on how they'll be used.


PS Jaguar is not an IFV.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Not sure that gun size is a big factor in IFV. Kinda depends on how they'll be used.


PS Jaguar is not an IFV.
Neither is AJAX...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

quite Ajax is a Recce wagon for Cavalry units at least that is what it will be used as

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Try re-reading the comment that originated this subthread:
Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
PS Gun size is even more uninteresting when it comes to recce vehicles.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:Try re-reading the comment that originated this subthread:
Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
PS Gun size is even more uninteresting when it comes to recce vehicles.
And yet I thought we were in the AJAX thread talking about replacing AJAX if cancelled?

We already have light recce vehicles. Medium weight recce is armed with a medium calibre gun. It might be uninteresting to you, but it's the way most recce forces operate.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Upgrading a small number of Warrior, say thirty, as interim Recce Platforms should be done regardless of how things develop with Ajax. THis is enough to deploy a Recce Squadron as needed, and would take some of the pressure off Ajax whilst reducing the need to use CVR(T) variants.

In the mean time the Army should look at what it really needs from its recce platforms, and forget trying to adopt the US way of doing things. The Army is still getting a very good Networking hub with the same capabilities as Ajax, in the form of the Challenger 3, which is using the same sights etc. The boxer will be networked from its introduction as well and is Ajax does fail to meet the Army's requirements for one reason or another, it is a platform based on Boxer that should replace it.

I am a very strong believer that the Army should maximise the number of wheeled AFVs it operates, whilst minimising the number of platforms types. The difference in capabilities between tracked and wheeled platforms has closed to such a degree that there is barely any these days, and in some areas wheeled AFVs have distinct advantages, especially there ability to get places under their own power, resistance to mines/IEDs and lower support costs, the latter getting more and more important.

However whilst that Ajax's future is being determined, work should still be being carried out to look at developing the additional variants the Army will need should Ajax finally be adopted. This is obviously separate form the current contract and should be being carried out by a joint Army/GDUK team. It should NOT however be a means to spend additional money to correct issues that appear in the original contract.

Hopefully by Christmas we may have a clearer picture of the future of Ajax.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

I would say upgrade 40 Warriors for 1 Cavalry regiment now no matter what and have them be the last to covert to whatever the new type will be later. and if we are going to BCT's start to build the first one now with what we have. We have 2 years to come up with something that would work for the 2024 deployment

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Just so I am on the right page, are we taking over command of the NATO High Readiness force in 2024 hence the more urgent need to get things purchased/modified and in service by that date?

It will be interesting to see how long it takes to organise such a Brigade and get them into position.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Try re-reading the comment that originated this subthread:
Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.
PS Gun size is even more uninteresting when it comes to recce vehicles.
And yet I thought we were in the AJAX thread talking about replacing AJAX if cancelled?

We already have light recce vehicles. Medium weight recce is armed with a medium calibre gun. It might be uninteresting to you, but it's the way most recce forces operate.
The subthread was discussing the purchase of CV90 for an IFV role. Not replacing AJAX with CV90.

Medium armor requires a decent gun. But for recce, if you're engaged in a shooting contest, you've failed your primary task.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:The difference in capabilities between tracked and wheeled platforms has closed to such a degree that there is barely any these days
And yet the world's armies (except France) are still stocking up on tracked AFV's. In fact, tracked IFV's seem to be the hottest part of the market.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: Medium armor requires a decent gun. But for recce, if you're engaged in a shooting contest, you've failed your primary task.
Such a cliché :lol:

British Army (AJAX), French Army (Jaguar), Australian Army (Boxer), Canadian (LAV 6.0), American (Bradley, LAV).

Post Reply