Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[RunningStrong]

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)

And yet an ambulance version was also part of the AJAX development contract.

[Lord Jim]

From what I have been able to read, the British Army is now looking at the Ajax and Boxer contracts as well as what they believe they will need in the future from both platforms. The aim is to possibly alter said contracts to either increase or decrease the quantity of each variant already ordered as well as add new variants to fill capability caps that have been identified.

So For Ajax, especially in the Regiments in the Deep Strike BCT, there is a need for engineering support especially a Bridging vehicle, which as luck would have it has already been designed and built based on the original FRES (SV) requirements. A Ajax CEV is also needed though this requirement could be met by attaching Terrier CEVs to the Regiments support unit. In addition a number of Ajax or other variants in each Regiment or even Squadron need to be have either a dozer blade or mine plough assigned for use if required. In their role acting as a screen out in front of the rest of the units, these Recce Regiments are going to need some form of self propelled anti air platform. Dismounted SHORAD Teams from Ares vehicles really will not cut it. One option would be to modify the turret in a similar way to what the Swedes did with their CV90, adding a radar and also adding the appropriate sensor fused ammunition and FCS. This BCT also need a higher number of Ajax Joint Fires vehicles and the majority of the CTA40 equipped vehicles also need to have an ATGW added to the Turret.

Although the Turret on the Ajax incorporates some outstanding optics and other sensors, have the Recce specific variant equipped with a mast mount sensor pod including a high resolution day/night EO sensor and a GSR. Adding an Overwatch vehicle with say Brimstone 3+ is an essential capability, but not just for the Recce Regiments. Reintroducing the ATGW Troop to the Armoured Regiments using the same platform and a Boxer based version for the Mechanised Infantry Battalions should also be a high priority.

The need for an Ambulance for use in areas under fire will probably be covered by additional Boxer Ambulance versions and the Boxer will probably be the Mortar Platform requirement.

I would rather not see a full Ajax Regiment in each of the Heavy BCTs. I would rather see three Recce Regiments in the Deep Strike BCT and then in the Heavy BCTs have each Armoured Regiment have a full Recce Squadron of fourteen Ajax integral to it. I would much prefer to have each Heavy BCT contain three Mechanised Infantry Battalions mounted in Boxer variants. The Armoured Regiments would also utilise numerous Ajax variants to replace any remaining legacy FV432 and CVR(T) variants still in existence. For other units still utilising these platforms, they should see versions of either the Boxer or the MRV(P) replacing these out dated platforms.

Having the Ajax refocused on recce is one of the few positives to come out of the Command Paper as well as the resultant scrapping of the Strike Brigades. On the Down side 3rd (UK) Division has gone from two heavy and two medium Brigades to what are for all intents and purposes two Medium and two Light Brigades. This is more in line with the Governments idea of a more globally deployable Army, but the Heavy BCTs as going to require sufficient funding and new capabilities to meet the aspirations of both the Army and Government.

[ArmChairCivvy]

would rather see three Recce Regiments in the Deep Strike BCT and then in the Heavy BCTs have each Armoured Regiment have a full Recce Squadron of fourteen Ajax integral to it.

Sensible allocation.

Bridging vehicle[, which] as luck would have it has already been designed and built based on the original FRES (SV) requirements

What is this in reference to?

[RunningStrong]

Ajax Bridging.

https://militaryleak.com/2020/10/11/gen ... -bridging/

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thx, Pearson sold some solutions to Indonesia and Malaysia mounted on Stormers and I guess was also part of the Warrior stop-gap conversion proposal - that did not then proceed

Didn't know that there was a "full-metal" concept on Ares, too.

[Ron5]

From what I have been able to read, the British Army is now looking at the Ajax and Boxer contracts as well as what they believe they will need in the future from both platforms. The aim is to possibly alter said contracts to either increase or decrease the quantity of each variant already ordered as well as add new variants to fill capability caps that have been identified.

Are you sure about that? I don't really get the same impression.

[Lord Jim]

That's what I made of the comments by the RUSI chap during the debate. IF they aren't then the Army is going to be up S@#t creek without a paddle!

[Lord Jim]

What is this in reference to?

I am sure I saw a picture of such a vehicle a while back but cannot find it now. It must have been an ASCOD mock up or such like. Anyhow the Deep Strike BCT cannot rely on the Challenger 2 based Titan AVLBs, possible the M3s Ferries would do the job, but we need more of those anyhow.

[ArmChairCivvy]

@RunningStrong saved the day
... a couple of posts up

[Lord Jim]

At least I haven't been seeing things which is a blessing!

[SW1]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mini ... qQR9jgoGxE

It is the tank that has cost the taxpayer more than £3 billion with nothing to show for it.

Parliament’s spending watchdog has described as “extraordinary” new payments of nearly £600 million for Ajax light tanks, which the Ministry of Defence rejected as unsafe.

It emerged in 2019 that there were problems with the first batch of an order for 589 Ajax vehicles. Now, documents released under freedom of information laws show the contractor, America’s General Dynamics, was nevertheless paid £577 million in the year to April.

Technical experts discovered “safety issues”, including excessive vibration that prevented cannons being fired on the move, so the army refused to accept them. Test crews also reported that they were too noisy to sit in for long, even with hearing protection.

[SW1]

[ArmChairCivvy]

3 SDSR's later - it was the follies in and leading to the one in 2010 that got me to reach for the keyboard - I am almost ready to give up (lose interest)
... any more of these news in the offing

[RunningStrong]

Is it like a competition between UKDJ and other Twitter "experts" to post the most clueless AJAX stories possible? Are they aiming for commissions from the Daily Fail?

[Caribbean]

@TOC usually seems to know what he's talking about. 5cm would have seemed an excessive variance in size, however, never mind 40cm. I hope we are returning them to Spain for re-work!

[bobp]

@TOC usually seems to know what he's talking about.

Yes Indeed

[RunningStrong]

@TOC usually seems to know what he's talking about. 5cm would have seemed an excessive variance in size, however, never mind 40cm. I hope we are returning them to Spain for re-work!

I'd love to know what verification is applied to confirm he knows what he's talking about. I suspect none.

[Caribbean]

I'd love to know what verification is applied to confirm he knows what he's talking about. I suspect none.

As with all contributors on the various fora that we all frequent, we can only go by a long history of posting contributions on TD and similar sites that seem to correlate closely with what actually transpires on the ground. On that basis, I would stand by the phrase "usually seems to know what he's talking about". No-one is infallible, of course, but his contributions would fall into the "to be disproved", rather than "to be proved" category, for me at least

[Lord Jim]

Ajax is simply "Too big to fail", for the Army in their opinion. We obviously do not know the full details of he Contract with GD, but I seriously doubt there are any serious penalty clauses in it. However GDs total failure to deliver serviceable vehicles, the delays regardless of the issues with the turret and CT40 cannon, should mean the MoD needs to go to GD and say that if they do not pull their finger out the contract will be drastically scaled back, and is GD try to increase the unit price as a result the whole contract will be cancelled.

I myself would cancel the contract and demand GD repay at least part of what they have received already. The whole programme is a mess with GD not delivering on almost every aspect that we know of, like number of jobs, timeframe etc.. We really need to draw a line under the whole Tracer/FRES saga, even though we cannot afford to replace Ajax with a clean sheet design. We also need to move away from the idea that the replacement for the CVR(T) family has to be a tracked platform. We then need to decide whether we want a platform that can gain intelligence by avoiding contact or one that fights to intelligence or a combination of the two.

Personally I would go with a Recce focused variant of the Boxer backed up by an upgraded Jackal. Taking the Australian Boxer CRV, adding a Sensor turret mounted on a telescopic mast, controlled by crew in the rear of the platform. With the Jackal I would install the same mast.

Ajax has turned out to be a typical Army procurement programme from the bad old days, with an undoubtedly poor contract and a poor set of customer requirements, over complicating the programme and with the Army left holding all the risk. GD must be laughing all the way to the bank at present. This does not bode well for the Army's new plan to transform itself in my opinion. It has set itself some substantial stretch targets and I doubt all the programmes it now has on the go a fully funded up to and including the actual delivery of all items concerned. We are at least two Elections and two reviews away from the time the transformation is due to deliver and unless the Treasury can the forces to continue to do multi year settlements, history may repeat itself for the worst.

[Ron5]

@TOC usually seems to know what he's talking about. 5cm would have seemed an excessive variance in size, however, never mind 40cm. I hope we are returning them to Spain for re-work!

I'd love to know what verification is applied to confirm he knows what he's talking about. I suspect none.

Virtually every commentator that's actually seen and heard the Ajax in person, remarks on how noisy it is.

[Ron5]

Seems like yet another triumph for "anyone but Bae". Few more in the pipeline

[SW1]

That may be an option lord jim but you think than having spent close to 2 years doing a defence review published not much more than couple of months ago they could of taken such decisions.

[RunningStrong]

Virtually every commentator that's actually seen and heard the Ajax in person, remarks on how noisy it is.

People standing outside are now experts on the crewspace?

[Lord Jim]

That may be an option lord jim but you think than having spent close to 2 years doing a defence review published not much more than couple of months ago they could of taken such decisions.

As i said at the beginning, as far as the Army is concerned Ajax is simply too big to fail.

[SW1]

3 SDSR's later - it was the follies in and leading to the one in 2010 that got me to reach for the keyboard - I am almost ready to give up (lose interest)
... any more of these news in the offing

Further twist