Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: During any given operation by tracked heavy units, 25% are down for maintenance to the vehicle and its tracks especially.

You have misread the article. What it actually says is that the mean rate of failure is four times higher for heavy forces equipped with Challenger and Warrior than that of light forces. Though it doesn't specify the light vehicles it refers to. That is a rather more reasonable picture than the one you presented it as.
Complex AFV are less reliable than simple platforms. Surprise of the century!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes, sorry everyone I did misread it, I do have problems reading and writing some times. But still is a time when every penny could be spent ten times over, having platforms that can do the same job as their tracked compatriots but have substantially smaller running costs and can self deploy once in theatre then why would you not adopt them. The only real remaining exception is these is no true non tracked solution to the role of Main Battle Tank, everything else is covered. As a result I would only have a tracked recce platform forward deployed in Europe, whilst the rest of the Army's formations would use wheeled platforms of varying weights with the exception of Challenger 3. This also means the Army has a bigger pool of units form which to choose for operations other than high intensity, as it would be far easier to deploy and support a Boxer than a Warrior or Ajax.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

How much of the difference is likely to be the running gear, how much do you think is the weight and how much is other systems that light forces don’t have?

sol
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Lord Jim wrote:... having platforms that can do the same job as their tracked compatriots ...
But question is can Boxer replace Warrior and effectively cooperate with CR3. I mean even if Boxer could follow tank in, let's say, 95% cases, but, for example, struggles with marshy terrain or in deserts then it might not be satisfactory replacement. After all, Boxer is replacing Warrior in HBCT not because it was part of the long planned strategy but simply because there was nothing else available when decision was made to retire Warrior. So there is a lot of to be tested before anyone can be sure could Boxer fit in this role. As far as I know, not other Boxer user is using them in combination with tanks as IFVs, neither Germany not Netherlands. Lithuania is the only one so far that is using IFV version, but it does not have any tanks in its arsenal. French Army is the only one that is using tanks and wheeled IFVs, but their VBCI is IFV, unlike British Boxer vehicles which are, currently, just ICV. Also French armoured brigade is somewhat bigger and has two tank battalions compared to British with just one, and could provide much more firepower. IMO, Britain is still quite far from effectively replacing Warrior as its primary infantry armoured vehicle, and even if Boxer could do that, it would require more than just .50 cal and some Javelin here and there.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by seaspear »

Would a version of Lynx be considered as a replacement for Ajax ?

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

It's very unlikely Ajax will be cancelled, in the event that all options are exhausted and the vehicle can't pass acceptance testing I think the mod would order additional boxer units in a scout configuration to get them into service as soon as possible.
Lynx would be an ideal replacement for Warrior but the mod doesn't have the time or money and it needs RBSL to produce Boxer at maximum capacity when CVRT's and Warrior are completely obsolete on a modern battlefield. Maybe in 2030 if they desperately need a tracked IFV and boxer production is winding down they will look at it as an option.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...
As he says in his book (zero points for reading comprehension), the costings are sourced from the contract costs for the CV9035 as purchased by Estonia, Denmark and Holland between 2004 and 2014.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2095.html
:lol:

Zero points for not understanding. The Dutch bought MK3, they're already out of date, they're already paying USD500m to upgrade a smaller fleet to the CV90 ~mk4 grade.

Where's the value in saying we'd replace AJAX/Warrior with an already out of date platform!?
I explained to you where he got his financials from because you had problems comprehending.

If you're not in agreement with his methodology, take it up with him not me.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

BB85 wrote:Unfortunately the bad press has all but guaranteed it will never win an export contract
Srsly??

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...
As he says in his book (zero points for reading comprehension), the costings are sourced from the contract costs for the CV9035 as purchased by Estonia, Denmark and Holland between 2004 and 2014.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2095.html
:lol:

Zero points for not understanding. The Dutch bought MK3, they're already out of date, they're already paying USD500m to upgrade a smaller fleet to the CV90 ~mk4 grade.

Where's the value in saying we'd replace AJAX/Warrior with an already out of date platform!?
I explained to you where he got his financials from because you had problems comprehending.

If you're not in agreement with his methodology, take it up with him not me.
You're the one that shared the information into this discussion, and this act as advocate. Either you stand by the information or you critique it.

You appear to have stood by it for so long as it took for others to point out it was incredibly flawed analysis :lol:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...
As he says in his book (zero points for reading comprehension), the costings are sourced from the contract costs for the CV9035 as purchased by Estonia, Denmark and Holland between 2004 and 2014.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2095.html
:lol:

Zero points for not understanding. The Dutch bought MK3, they're already out of date, they're already paying USD500m to upgrade a smaller fleet to the CV90 ~mk4 grade.

Where's the value in saying we'd replace AJAX/Warrior with an already out of date platform!?
I explained to you where he got his financials from because you had problems comprehending.

If you're not in agreement with his methodology, take it up with him not me.
You're the one that shared the information into this discussion, and this act as advocate. Either you stand by the information or you critique it.

You appear to have stood by it for so long as it took for others to point out it was incredibly flawed analysis :lol:
Grow up and stop your personal attacks. Half the content & value of this board is sharing info from sources.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: Grow up and stop your personal attacks. Half the content & value of this board is sharing info from sources.
Of course it is, but everyone that shares a link AND quotes it has a responsibility to ensure it's a valid source and contributes to the discussion. You did not.

Instead you took it as another opportunity to spam the thread with yet more anti-AJAX rhetoric.

SD67
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

To put this in perspective - when MR4A was cancelled there was literally no alternative. P3 was out of production, P8 had not yet entered production, all the other options were Vapourware. This is is simply not the case with Ajax.

Now, one can argue that CV90 mk3 is "obsolete" (I doubt it) or mk4 is very high risk (ditto) or we couldn't countenance Jaguar because it is French (but still - 300 are to be delivered by 2025) or a Boxer based version cannot work because you need tracks, or Lynx cannot work because, I don't know just because.. But these are all second-order debates. The bottom line is there are alternatives. Which is best? I don't know, hold a 6 month competition and find out. Or get the Aussies to do it for us, it might actually happen then ;-)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

If the JEF is a central part of the army's future in europe, does that tilt the balance in how desirable a CV90 based platform is to be viewed?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: Now, one can argue that CV90 mk3 is "obsolete" (I doubt it)
It is.
SD67 wrote: or mk4 is very high risk (ditto)
Prototype revealed in last 12 months.
SD67 wrote: or we couldn't countenance Jaguar because it is French (but still - 300 are to be delivered by 2025)
At the least it has a CT40, but still.not a production vehicle.
SD67 wrote: or a Boxer based version cannot work because you need tracks
If we're buying OTS turret, sure.
SD67 wrote: , or Lynx cannot work because, I don't know just because..
How many delivered?


Stinks a lot like Nimrod. Nothing equivalent available, but soon to be (P8, P1). Chose your risk pot.

sol
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote:Or get the Aussies to do it for us, it might actually happen then ;-)
Australia already chose Boxer as a new recce vehicle. And both Lynx and Redback are actually competing for IFV to replace aging M-113. None of those might not be suitable for British Army as it might have different requirement than those of ADF. Especially as replacement for Ajax. If British Army decide to drop Ajax, they first need to decide what they actually want and not just jump to buy first platform that someone considering as fitting for replacement. And, IMO, any decision of choosing proper replacement should go through specifying new requirements and setting competition between those willing to offer their solution instead of buying from shelf.

But, as much as I personally think that Ajax is not a great vehicle for British Army at this time, I doubt Ajax will be scrapped and will be adopted in the British Army one way or another.

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

SD67 wrote: or we couldn't countenance Jaguar because it is French (but still - 300 are to be delivered by 2025)
At the least it has a CT40, but still.not a production vehicle.
SD67 wrote: I thought a handful entered service earlier this year? It's embarrassing Ajax contract was awarded at least 5 years before the Scorpion program was awarded. Jaguar and Griffon look exactly like what the British army need from a scout and MRVP program so its a pity we didn't team up with them on it as I expect they will do extremely well in the export market. I know Ajax will have better armoured protection than Jaguar but in terms of networking ability it would be interesting to see how compatible they would be.

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Imagine we didn't pull out of boxer in 2003 and ordered those 800+ vehicles to replace CVRT and teamed up with the French to deliver Scorpion for Scout and MRVP. We might actually be able to afford a replacement for warrior rather than cancelling it outright.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote: Grow up and stop your personal attacks. Half the content & value of this board is sharing info from sources.
Of course it is, but everyone that shares a link AND quotes it has a responsibility to ensure it's a valid source and contributes to the discussion. You did not.

Instead you took it as another opportunity to spam the thread with yet more anti-AJAX rhetoric.
Bollox. The Henry Jackson Society is a credible source and the author has this resume ...
Robert completed a BA in International Relations and Arabic (First Class Honours) at Nottingham Trent University, and an MA in International Conflict Studies (Distinction) at King’s College London.

Robert’s main research interests include emerging technologies within defence, alliance building and the trans-Atlantic partnership, and authoritarian threats to the global order. Robert’s most recent publications include for the NATO Defence College and Civitas.

He has regularly submitted evidence for both the Defence and Foreign Affairs Select Committees, and is a regular contributor for the UK Defence Journal, in addition to writing for The Telegraph, CapX, and The Wavell Room.

Robert served for nine years in the British Army, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for advocating and vouching for every piece of information in a linked article. That's fucking nuts.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:To put this in perspective - when MR4A was cancelled there was literally no alternative. P3 was out of production, P8 had not yet entered production, all the other options were Vapourware. This is is simply not the case with Ajax.

Now, one can argue that CV90 mk3 is "obsolete" (I doubt it) or mk4 is very high risk (ditto) or we couldn't countenance Jaguar because it is French (but still - 300 are to be delivered by 2025) or a Boxer based version cannot work because you need tracks, or Lynx cannot work because, I don't know just because.. But these are all second-order debates. The bottom line is there are alternatives. Which is best? I don't know, hold a 6 month competition and find out. Or get the Aussies to do it for us, it might actually happen then ;-)
The Czech competition is pretty close to that so just peek at their results. By the way, it also features the CV90 Mk IV which is not quite as high risk as maybe you think. A working representative pre-production vehicle is worth something. I bet the Ajax mob would like to be able to say they have one :D

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Given that when Ajax was down selected their was not even a prototype, just ASCOD, and even when ordered some 5 years latter still no sign of Ajax itself, that was high risk. Selecting CV90 then or now seems like a much safer bet. Ideally what you want is something fully up to spec and properly tested before placing a production order.
Hopefully the MOD/Army are looking at the options in case Ajax cannot be put back on track. Their are plenty of options available.

Directly replacing Ajax with CV90, Boxer or another similar vehicle.

Reinstating WRSC program, and retaining Armoured Infantry and retaining CVR(T) in the Recce role for the time being.

Reinstating WRSC program with modifications to replace Ajax.

Reinstating WRSC program and splitting them between Armoured Infantry and replacing Ajax. (2 Battalions/Regiments of each?)

Revisit the IR and develop a new structure and equipment plan for the Army, which doesn't require Ajax.

Plus any I haven't thought of.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

WRSC program? what's that?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Sorry.
All the bloody acronyms they use serves to confuse as much as clarify.

It should of course been WCSP, Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

whitelancer wrote:All the bloody acronyms they use serves to confuse as much as clarify.
I’m convinced that they mostly exist as a kind of slang to identify outsiders to the group.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote:I’m convinced that they mostly exist as a kind of slang to identify outsiders to the group.
Or just to baffle outsiders.

I have to admit they can be handy abbreviations, however their are so many with each "group" having their own bespoke set, (which constantly changes) that it becomes impossible to remember them all.

I wouldn't be surprised if they (whoever they are) decided to refer to Brigades as Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) simply to create a acronym.

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I see the Czechs have put their of competition on hold with none of the vehicles meeting national requirements due to inaccuracies in technical specs and arrangements with domestic suppliers. It would be interesting to see who was coming out on top. I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.

Post Reply