Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by NickC »

EDR has a write up on the technical an financial assessment that had led to the Slovaks to chose the CV90 as the preferred bidder for Phase I, 152 vehicles, following their “Feasibility Study for the Procurement of Tracked Combat Armoured Vehicles and Tracked Combat Vehicles”

The four contenders, BAE Systems Hägglunds CV90 Sweden 1st, Rheinmetall Lynx KF41Germany 2nd, GDLS Santa Bárbara Sistemas ASCOD Spain 3rd ("Although ranking second in the field, the ASCOD was moved to the third place following the manufacturer information related to noise and vibrations, something that clearly emerged in the testing of the UK Ajax which is based on that chassis") and the Polish Armaments Group – PGZ Borsuk 4th

The CV90 comes with its D turret and Bushmaster II 50mm cannon and came first in firing trials.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/the-slovak-m ... -programme

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... ed-at-dsei
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
MikeKiloPapa

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: 27 May 2022, 16:47 D turret and Bushmaster II 50mm cannon
So we have moved on from from changing the each &al mechanisms on existing guns.
BTW, what is the US Cavalry upgrade-installation? The same?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks @sol,,, so the Rgmnt Yeomanry (tanks, Res.) is balanced out in the other bde by having one more of AI, hence the total of 5.
- raises the age-old question: is the reserves tank unit providing replacement crews, or will it be a formed unit?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 27 May 2022, 17:13 Thanks @sol,,, so the Rgmnt Yeomanry (tanks, Res.) is balanced out in the other bde by having one more of AI, hence the total of 5.
- raises the age-old question: is the reserves tank unit providing replacement crews, or will it be a formed unit?
The Royal Wessex Yeomanry will provide only replacement crews. Beside two armoured regiments, there are only two squadrons worth of tanks available, basically one additional squadron for both regiments.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

If Israel is still prohibition the delivery of any of the Spike family to Ukraine from European sources then they are going to shoot themselves in both feet. been getting a very good reputation in NATO with Germany probably being the digest user but many of remaining member's have chosen one or more of the family as their current ATGW for good reason. Basically, the latest versions for the Spike family are at least a generation ahead of Javelin and Spike-ER3 is two generation ahead being one of the first "Network enabled" ATGWs on the market. Preventing the shipment of Spike to Ukraine is going to make countries that were aiming to select Spike take a step back, and could also hurt the adoption of other equipment of Israeli origin as well.

So for the UK, if we decide we do not want to be beholden to Israel, we can either wait fot the US replacement for TOW to enter service or look to the French MMP in its heavier format. Alsop having thought about this for a while, I also think the Armoured Regiments should regain their ATGW troops, using whatever platform(S) are in use with the Infantry and Recce units.

As for Terrier, to the best of my knowledge they are still concentrated in the Royal Engineer Regiments, but it would make perfect sense to move detachments of Royal Engineers to the Units that make up the BCTs as has been the case with REME detachments for decades.

Army units have too many capability gaps and insufficient capacity to be viable combat units in any future high intensity conflict. Future soldier does provide a viable framework but that is it. The Army must make a case for these gaps to be filled and for sufficient platforms be purchased arcos the board. For once personnel level are not an issue, the Army has more then a few Light Role Infantry Battalions that could be re-rolled.

Finally on Ajax the recent extension to teh Ajax Contract's timeframe must be the last. We cannot have deliveries pushed back any further as we need to replace the CVR(T) family much sooner then later. GDUK must be told that if they do not meet the new timeframe and deliver the required number by that date, in fully operational condition then teh contract is void and the MoD will be seeking compensation for their failures to deliver as per the contract. To replace it we either have to chose a totally new platform or adop tthe only other option, which would be to develop a Recce Mission Module for Boxer.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 27 May 2022, 21:12 For once personnel level are not an issue
72 k
err, where does that place us?

Probably to where the BEF was, as a bit player... and tried to get out plenty quick (please refer to WSC WW2 pile of volumes; that the far more numerous Belgian divisions surrendered "too quickly") for us to get out 'in good marching order'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I am not an expert on manning levels, no intent at being sexist, but we have nearly twenty "Light Role" infantry Battalions that have little or no use ion a high intensity battlefield. I see the number of effective units that a country can deploy and operate effectively more important the total numbers. The latter only come into focus when dealing with medium to large persistent campaigns, and we are no longer really set up for those either. Now if those "Light Role" Battalions all were equipped with say a 4x4 APC, like many of their French counterparts are it would be a different story.

On a different chain of thought, I am now starting to think we need a third Armoured Regiment or at the very least need to attach one squadron from each of the two planned Regiments to each of the two Recce Regiments in the Deep Strike BCT to provide these units with greater direct fire support. In exchange one of the Recce Squadrons could be attached to each Armoured Regiment.

I am still not keen on each Heavy BCT containing an entire Recce Regiment, believing that each of our Armoured and Mechanised Infantry units should contain a Recce Squadron or Company by design. The Armoured Regiments could obtain one as mentioned above, but for the Boxer units, these Companies would be the ideal place for any initial up gunned variants purchased. These could be equipped with manned turrets, again no intent of being sexist, with any IFV Boxers being equipped with unmanned versions. This bring the German Lance-R turret into focus as it has both types already in production, and both can be equipped with up to two retractable ATGW launchers.

If we still have Ajax to burn, and in my world we would have, amybe we could equip a Yeomanry Regiment with the platform, to act as a third Recce Regiment held at Divisional level for use as a force to protect supply lines and static high value locations.

Just a few more thought out of the box.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 May 2022, 06:38 we have nearly twenty "Light Role" infantry Battalions that have little or no use ion a high intensity battlefield. I see the number of effective units that a country can deploy and operate effectively more important the total numbers. The latter only come into focus when dealing with medium to large persistent campaigns, and we are no longer really set up for those either.
White man's burden, or Imperial heritage? Anyway (one wants to see it) I find it interesting that out of the three "army hubs' two (Oman and Kenya) are straddling the Indian Ocean.
- this sort of count leaves out the garrisoning of the Falklands... 32 Marines obviously not enough... and Cyprus (an airbase and jumping off point for the next flare-up in the ME).
Lord Jim wrote: 28 May 2022, 06:38 Recce Regiment held at Divisional level for use as a force to protect supply lines and static high value locations.
Yes, we do seem to forget some of the traditional cavalry tasks: secure the flanks and counter the OpFor fighting-for-information forays
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 28 May 2022, 09:59
Lord Jim wrote: 28 May 2022, 06:38 we have nearly twenty "Light Role" infantry Battalions that have little or no use ion a high intensity battlefield. I see the number of effective units that a country can deploy and operate effectively more important the total numbers. The latter only come into focus when dealing with medium to large persistent campaigns, and we are no longer really set up for those either.
White man's burden, or Imperial heritage? Anyway (one wants to see it) I find it interesting that out of the three "army hubs' two (Oman and Kenya) are straddling the Indian Ocean.
- this sort of count leaves out the garrisoning of the Falklands... 32 Marines obviously not enough... and Cyprus (an airbase and jumping off point for the next flare-up in the ME).
Lord Jim wrote: 28 May 2022, 06:38 Recce Regiment held at Divisional level for use as a force to protect supply lines and static high value locations.
Yes, we do seem to forget some of the traditional cavalry tasks: secure the flanks and counter the OpFor fighting-for-information forays
I think what we’ve witnessed in Ukraine show there utility in complex terrain again any opponent particularly in urban situations.

The widespread use of commercial drone tech to observe and then use nlos capacity like a simple 6 cell launcher on a 4x4 would be a really interesting experiment for some of these units.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

My personal favourite at present are the Ukrainian's use of small commercial drones to drop hand grenades into and around Russian vehicles. Maybe not as effective as a Switchblade but they scare the hell out of their victims. Talk about a low cost precision weapon!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

According to the Independent, the Public Accounts Committee has given the MoD a year to fix the problems with Ajax so that it is fit for purpose or cancel the whole programme. This puts the MoD on the spot, as they currently state they are "Cautiously optimistic", they may get Ajax into service by 2030! They do not state whether this is th whole planned fleet in service or just the initial deliveries built to the standards the MoD requires!

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jonas »

Article from the BBC just to flesh out the above from Jim :-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61679080
These users liked the author jonas for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Cooper »

How can a country capable of building the most complex weapon platforms on the planet, Nuclear Subs, be incapable of fixing a faulty drive-train.

...truly boggles the mind :crazy:

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

One day we are going to realise that choosing to radically upgrade an existing platform to meet a UK bespoke set of requirements will never be a cheap option. In addition our tendency to not carry out spiral upgrade programme for platforms but rather do nothing for decades and then try to fix everything through a major modernisation programme do not usually work either, fingers crossed for Challenger 3. Both Ajax and the Warrior CSP fall into this category.

What we should be do is either developing a new platform, obviously the most expensive option, or choosing an existing platform that may already meet say 80% of out needs and carry out the minimum modification to install radios etc. This is what we seem to be doing with Boxer, making adjustment to the mission modules we have on order to fit role we have identified so far that are affordable and require the minimum work.

Yes if possible we should try to manufacture or at least fit out any platform chosen if it is economical to do so, but this should not be a criteria that can veto any choice.

With regards to Ajax specifically, I strongly believe the twelve month deadline should be adhered to with no exceptions. if by the second quarter of 2023, Ajax is not fully compliant with the Army's full list of requirements the programme should be terminated. No matter how important it might be to the Army's future structure, enough time will have been spent on what was supposed to be a low risk programme. The Army then needs to look for an alternative platform to fulfil its Recce/Heavy Cavalry needs, be that a version of an existing platform of something new. I personal would like the Army to take this opportunity to revise the organisation of the Heavy BCTs to remove the Recce Regiments and increase the number of Mechanised Infantry Battalions to three, but giving these and the Armoured Regiment a full Recce Company. The Deep Strike BCT would still contain two Recce Regiments. IF a wheeled platform were chosen it would improve the mobility of teh BCTs as a whole and reduce operating and training cost over time. Both beneficial results when budgets are going to be tight, even if the initial outlay may be greater then the remaining funding from the Ajax contract.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jun 2022, 02:06 One day we are going to realise that choosing to radically upgrade an existing platform to meet a UK bespoke set of requirements will never be a cheap option. In addition our tendency to not carry out spiral upgrade programme for platforms but rather do nothing for decades and then try to fix everything through a major modernisation programme do not usually work either, fingers crossed for Challenger 3. Both Ajax and the Warrior CSP fall into this category.

What we should be do is either developing a new platform, obviously the most expensive option, or choosing an existing platform that may already meet say 80% of out needs and carry out the minimum modification to install radios etc. This is what we seem to be doing with Boxer, making adjustment to the mission modules we have on order to fit role we have identified so far that are affordable and require the minimum work.

Yes if possible we should try to manufacture or at least fit out any platform chosen if it is economical to do so, but this should not be a criteria that can veto any choice.

With regards to Ajax specifically, I strongly believe the twelve month deadline should be adhered to with no exceptions. if by the second quarter of 2023, Ajax is not fully compliant with the Army's full list of requirements the programme should be terminated. No matter how important it might be to the Army's future structure, enough time will have been spent on what was supposed to be a low risk programme. The Army then needs to look for an alternative platform to fulfil its Recce/Heavy Cavalry needs, be that a version of an existing platform of something new. I personal would like the Army to take this opportunity to revise the organisation of the Heavy BCTs to remove the Recce Regiments and increase the number of Mechanised Infantry Battalions to three, but giving these and the Armoured Regiment a full Recce Company. The Deep Strike BCT would still contain two Recce Regiments. IF a wheeled platform were chosen it would improve the mobility of teh BCTs as a whole and reduce operating and training cost over time. Both beneficial results when budgets are going to be tight, even if the initial outlay may be greater then the remaining funding from the Ajax contract.
Is it me reading this wrong because it looks to me like you are saying remove the recce regiment from the Heavy BCT's and then put back 4 Recce companies so in real terms you are not removing the recce regiment but just adding a third Mec Battalion

Also from what I see Warrior CSP was ready to go but pulled due to lack of money

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by leonard »

When you need a modern MBT but you are on a very very tight budget don't worry in the Eurosatory 2022 you will find what you need!!!!!!


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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Old news masquerading as new to account for the media not knowing anything.
If the MoD had been asked if they keep any other AFV under review the answer would probably be the same.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Agreed, especially as it was the other option for the FRES(SV) contract.

Email Ittome
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Email Ittome »

OMG! Maybe Ajax can be fixed after all!

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/0 ... ry-forces/

If US Army can get GD to finally fix the vibration issue with this piece of shit vehicle, maybe MoD can finally get the vehicle that will not cause British Army soldiers to prematurely go deaf and suffer from death by vibration!

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Email Ittome wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 00:21 If US Army can get GD to finally fix the vibration issue with this piece of shit vehicle, maybe MoD can finally get the vehicle that will not cause British Army soldiers to prematurely go deaf and suffer from death by vibration!
I wouldn't hope to much. While it is based on ASCOD II, Griffin is not the same vehicle as Ajax. It will be not built in the same factory (quality control cold be much better) nor it will use the same equipment as Ajax. It is questionable does Griffin have same issues for same reasons. So even if US Army "fix" issues with Griffin it does not mean same could be applied for Ajax.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Email Ittome wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 00:21 If US Army can get GD to finally fix the vibration issue with this piece of shit vehicle, maybe MoD can finally get the vehicle that will not cause British Army soldiers to prematurely go deaf and suffer from death by vibration!
Maybe MOD can fix their headsets? Wouldn't that be a shocker, MOD actually providing adequate PPE to their troops.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I'm still in disbelief that it can take engineers so long to understand and remediate the problem.
If it was down to CQ on the hull, it doesn't take years to manufacture new hulls to the correct spec and then install the turret and sensors from the out of spec hulls.
Rubber tracks would go a long way to remediate it and proper head sets. All of this could have been achieved by now so why has there been so little update and talk of 2030.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 08:49 Maybe MOD can fix their headsets? Wouldn't that be a shocker, MOD actually providing adequate PPE to their troops.
Curious as to how the headsets will fix the vibration issues?

Maybe fix the vibration issues first, then see whether the standard headsets need changing?
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 12:33
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 08:49 Maybe MOD can fix their headsets? Wouldn't that be a shocker, MOD actually providing adequate PPE to their troops.
Curious as to how the headsets will fix the vibration issues?

Maybe fix the vibration issues first, then see whether the standard headsets need changing?
Well GDUK personnel after many years of testing prototype vehicles and early production vehicles didn't have the complaints... Because they weren't wearing the cheapest headsets, perhaps...

High vibration in tracked vehicles isn't news to anyone. Even the Def Stan has a harsher standard applied to tracked vehicles over wheeled. What has changed is the MOD approach to occupational health and safety. But the physics of tracked vehicles hasn't changed.

Post Reply