Firm chosen to supply armour for new Boxer vehicles

I also heard with the right headgear the issue is negligible.

Anti vibration head gear?

It’s just what I was told.

Good point Jay

That may fix or greatly aid the noise problem. It does nothing for the vibration problem(s).

Unfortunately with occupational injury it can be a small margin that makes the difference, the vibration levels between to vehicles could be minor, but if it tips over to the damaging level to the occupants then it’s a bit irrelevant that it’s a small difference.

How do noise levels in Ajax compare with older service vehicles I wonder. Are they really noisier than WW2 era machines or a Chieftain?

Nope, not by a long way, but legislation has changed.

👍

The track links don’t clang on challengers sprockets and it has hydro gas suspension, the ajax has old fashion torsion bars which you would only use because they are cheap -boosting profits! Suggest you pop down to the test track viewing area at Bovington to hear it yourself before you pass judgment ?

Does the fact that it’s as bad as Chally 2 make it acceptable 40 later? If your not the poor beggar riding in it, anything is OK.
But, my personal opinion, as someone who has ridden in both Warrior, and its twice as expensive Ascod , I’d prefer the Warrior and spend the billions saved on better weapons, why pump money into Europe, when we’ve left it, and USA when we’re only allies till they decide otherwise

I suspect they only started trying to solve it once it made it to the media, and now they are haggling over who pays what and what’s in the statement about how it went wrong.

? What did I say was easy? Nothing about Ajax’s vibration problems have been or will be easy to fix.

Ian, you are a very optimistic and positive fellow!

The HCDC report criticised everyone (not by name of course) and every organisation connected with the Ajax debacle, including MoD staff, as you say. MoD programme management has been lamentable, but then so too has the performance of MinDP (disinterested until it was too late) and the manufacturer. The only people who come out of this well is the army trials unit, especially the CO.

I too understand that GDUK has supplied a (small) number of Aries variants to MoD and they seem to have been accepted, but I don’t know if they have been issued to the army’s training organisation yet.

I would not like to be one of the 5 or 6 soldiers who have been trialling Ajax, who have permanent hearing damage. There is nothing apart from close proximity to a moving Ajax that would have caused such hearing damage, unless they were all also standing next to an AS90 when it fired, without hearing protection.

Hi Graham, the 5-6 guys have been working in/ next to/ around AFV’s of all types so it’s a sweeping statement to say “There is nothing apart from close proximity to a moving Ajax that would have caused such hearing damage,”. Funnily enough, a moving AJAX is surprisingly quiet, even at speed. On concrete it’s a tad rattly, but cross country, from the front it’s very quiet, as per the MOD requirements.

Thanks Ian, I spent a fair bit of time with AFVs but never heard of permanent hearing loss due to the in-service AFVs, hence my comment.
The Noise Induced Hearing loss in this case (Ajax) seems to be from a defect in the headphones, which picks up engine noise and magnifies it, so I heard. I also heard these were noise-cancelling headphones – so engine noise should have been cancelled, not magnified. The info is all over the place.

Without the armour packs, you might just be able to transport one Ajax in a A400M – or very easily transport two in a C-17.

We don’t routinely fly such heavy vehicles in AT though as it would take so many sorties to move a significant number.

I struggle to recall seeing a photo of any British AFV being flown into Theatre.

Graham, you’re correct. It would be a monumental task and waste of valuable resources to airlift armour to a conflict, however, that’s what the MOD wanted. RORO is the way.

Good spot. Strike is something you do; its not a permanent structure. Whatever assets you use to strike must be able to do other things. The failure of the Warrior upgrade is a blessing in disguise. But Ajax with its 40mm CTA must work.

Hi Paul, I am not sure why it is a good thing to fail to upgrade Warrior, let it further lose capability over several years, then scrap it. We will lose a very effective IFV for the armoured infantry, that is an excellent ‘partner’ for Challenger.

What replaces it? Boxer, which is unlikely to have as good mobility (especially in mud and snow) and I doubt each one (if any) will have a 40mm stabilised cannon.

Apart from anything else a new Boxer (hopefully with turret and cannon) will surely cost far more than a WCSP upgrade.
So we will pay a lot of money to give the armoured (or mechanised?) infantry a vehicle with less mobility and firepower.I woudl call that another procurement cock-up.

Ajax, being a recce vehicle, is a different matter. I wish we had not bought this vehicle from that manufacturer. But, you are right – it must work.

Hi Graham, not arguing the procurement debacle or the WCSP screw up; and as a layman am not going go argue tracks vs wheels etc, And agree there will be less money but…let’s assume Ajax can be made to work and that its the only vehicle which can mount the CTA 40mm. Some thoughts…we have bought over 500 of these cannons; that’s 500 light tanks / reconnaissance / APC gunfire support go anywhere vehicles whose cannon can defeat a T72. One question I have ( my ignorance) is why so we need both Ares and Boxer; aren’t these both APCs? I’m assuming that in the same way you can have a mortar and an ATGM version of Boxer you could have equivalent ARES versions. Also if the OAs demonstrate that you can create a ‘logical IFV’ by pairing up an Ajax with an APC why would that not work?
Just trying to see this glass as half full. Cheers..

A demonstrator ARES equipped with Brimstone (I think) has been shown by GD. BTW, ARES is not an APC in the traditional sense as it carries only 4 dismounts.

Interesting about Brimstone; thx. I confess I was being lazy. Did some research and found as you say that Ares carries only 4 dismounts. So that clarifies things. Boxer is the only candidate we have to replace Warrior in the IVF role. Their are several 30mm turreted versions on the market. But JWF posts below that OA’s say that Boxer doesn’t work as an IVF even with a cannon. So unless we buy another proven IVF we have only one option; to create the functionality of an IVF by combining Ajax and Boxers; which the OAs say does work,

Ian,

Good, detailed info on Ares is hard to find.

This article says that Ares carries 7 dismounts (plus crew of 3)
– http://www.military-today.com/apc/ares.htm

Under the FRES programme a vehicle was postulated to replace Spartan and that would have only 4 dismounts, but of course FRES was cancelled and all the money channeled into the CV(F) programme (allegedly).

Hi Graham, just read the article. Badly written, full of factual errors or inconsistencies and not even spell checked. No wonder some people are misinformed.

Hi Ian, thanks for that. So it is 4 dismounts then? I wonder why there are not seats for more dismounts given that it is a Warrior size vehicle. I wonder what is taking up the rest of the space inside an Ares.

The space is taken up by all of the garbage that British Squaddies like to hang from the outside of an AFV, stored in racks inside, plus an awful lot of “other kit”.

The change in length meant fewer dismounts. And since Warrior was rarely full its almost understandable..but there’s never too much room for extra kit.Uparmour of Cvrt was designed to provide at least as much stowage as efore, and the turret cage mod on Warrior gave an additional 10 cubic feet of stowage internally
BTW, an external turret mounted fire extinguisher was offered to MOD for Warrior in Iraq. Costing less than 5 quid, rejected because of the cost of extra fire extinguisher..anyone remember the photo of the soldier bailing out of a burning turret?

Phil, I don’t follow your comment about ‘the change in length’.
Warrior is 6.3m long by 3.03m wide and takes 7 dismounts in the back. Ares is bigger at L7.62m x W3.35m, but can only take 4 dismounts. Why?

Golden rule of defence buying.
Like with cats, if you give it a name you HAVE TO BUY IT
TRACER, Fres Mrcv ..Ascod even. But now its got a name, its like killing a kitten

Ares is the APC version of Ajax and is non-turreted and is intended for small specialist teams such as engineer recce, anti-tank teams etc.
It is not being bought for the infantry as their main APC.

Thx for this. I’m getting there 😂

Warrior suffered greatly over last ten years with poor quality work and poor quality parts via DSG and Babcock,
The push for price reductions meant buying non compliant parts and carrying out unapproved, even condemned repairs. They even shot blasted wheel nuts to avoid buying new ones on major overhauls. The WCSP was a good deal, again animosity to BAES meant our Allies got the contract,
But she has life in her yet

Thanks Phil. As an ex-REME man I am disappointed with all that you say. Our Allies got the WCSP contract? Who?
WCSP was terminated – which means Warrior is terminated.

Graham. Yes they have cut the two strike Bdes. The original CONOPs was that the 2 Bdes would be light armoured wheeled formations that could deploy rapidly, if necessary by driving directly to the area of operations to produce immediate affect, thus the term strike (which is an awful, misleading Americanism).

Thanks Rob. It is ridiculous to incorporate Americanisms in to British military use, thus we have ‘Line of Departure (instead of ‘Start Line), ‘fires’ (instead of ‘artillery support’), and Rivet Joint (instead of Airseeker) – to name but a few.

However I recall seeing the word ‘strike’ in British use years ago. I seem to remember the ‘Find, Fix, Strike’ mantra from my army days 15 or more years ago.

Strike in a modern context, though, needs defining – as said I have had to produce my own definition as I can’t find a MoD one.

Clearly Strike will be done by the Deep Recce Strike BCT.

Spot on

Before 2011, she was lined up for build, till Bean counters. Finland does have tracked vehicles by the way.

Thank God they may actually get some IFVs. Good news to hear some will be anti tank variants.

Finger crossed we increase our order!

“The IFV variant can transport up to 8 soldiers, besides the driver. A variety of individual modules allows for either a two-man or a remotely controlled turret design – one concept with two configurations.

RMMV presents this latest Boxer IFV internationally, these including specific demonstrations of mobility in rough and adverse terrain, HVAC (heating ventilation and air condition) capabilities, and live-fire events.”

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_wheeled_vehicles/boxer/index.php

I think we have to because 4 infantry battalions cannot only have 85 section vehicles between them

I knew you’d be happy Daniele. 😂
As I’ve written before, indecision is the signature characteristic of the British psyche. you just have to love it. If the OAs say it works then I’m good, What I’m missing now is a Boxer variant for AA, Can the Ajax 40mm do that?

No idea.

RA expansion should include a SHORAD Regiment with AA vehicle mounted guns.

RA expansion should include a Precision Fires Regiment with Brimstone, mounted on Boxer / or tracked vehicles.

RA expansion should include a MRAD Regiment to augment Starstreak/Sceptre.

RA expansion should include a HIMARS type Regiment.

That is 4 regiments, get the headcount from cutting a few cap badges!

RA should be priority to expand firepower across the board.

Instead, we have talk of a future ER CAMM, and a handful of GMLRS which will be upgraded after all with the new longer range rockets being procured. Good, but window dressing to what is needed.

The expansion in the GMLRS long range fires comes at the expense of a conventional RA gun regiment.

That is not expansion. it is moving the goalposts.

So far HMG/Army, your Future Soldier is the usual glossy brochure full of spin and “new” that is not new at all.

max elevation is c.45 degrees. CTAi have developed an Anti Aerial Airburst round for the 40mm.

Thx.

Oh, now come on Graham, be fair. The behemoth is a direct result of MOD requirements, has a fully digital architecture that is light years ahead of a CVRT equipped with M-SPIRE, is much better protected than any other vehicle in it’s class and can “see” a sparrow at 10kms. See, good things!

😂👍

Thanks Ian. I think the Combat Development and the Requirements guys got a bit over-excited and gold-plated the requirement. Looks like it’s ‘fools gold’ they used. The concept with CVR(T) was that if you recce by stealth and do it well, you won’t be seen and won’t be engaged, so you don’t need 40 tonnes of armour to protect you.

Those sparrows better watch out when this thing finally gets into service!

😆😎

Hi David,

“The Army have pissed away the last 25 years worth of AFV budget.”

Sums it well – sadly. The problem is the secondary impact of that is that the UK has lost its AFV industrial base as a result of the foul ups and with our historical AFV customers have gone over to other suppliers. In effect, we do not have a creditable AFV stance anymore, not for a tier one military power.

Some progress on rebuilding the industrial base is being made but it is struggling to deliver. It was the same with the SSN programme, but in this case the country has lost an entire generation of AFV engineering experience. Full regeneration will take decades. As I have said often enough, it takes 15 years to train an engineer and give them the minimum experience they need to achieve (sub) team leadership capabilities. Chief design engineers take even longer, or they used to.

We are going to have to work in partnership with allies to rebuild the capability, both with in industry and the army. In the meantime we need to build and exploit on areas where we excel. For example, we could use specialist capabilities such as small and medium precision missiles such as Martlet, CAMM and Brimstone derivatives and the supporting ISTAR and C2 technology developed for the RN / RAF as the basis for vehicle mounted precision fires systems (including autonomous vehicles). This would give the Army and UK industry niche capabilities around which expertise could be developed. A tracked missile system still has tracks, so experience gained could read across into future AFV, for example.

Upgrading Challenger is another way to redevelop the industrial base, but industry will need early view of long term plans so they can develop their own investment plans with confidence. That means some discipline needs to be brought to bare on the requirements and through life sustainment and development of equipment. No more changing the requirements every two years during the development cycle of a new system…

We know what is wrong, but it appears we still wait for the Land Industrial Strategy which in turn ‘should’ advise the formulation of a detailed plan to fix it. Strategies are vital but they are, relatively speaking, the easy bit. The detailed plan is far more difficult and the government needs to decide what it wants from the Army over the next 20 to 30 years! The Army then needs to understand what it needs to do the job.

Next comes detailed equipment, recruitment, sustainment, basing and housing and infrastructure plans all of which need to be consistant and mutually supportive. Frankly, I cannot see the Army being able to meet its NATO obligations without expansion at some point in the future. The next round of cuts have to be the last, but the Army needs to understand that it has to be responsible with taxpayer money or face more pain (I sense cuts are being used as some kind of punishment…).

Meanwhile, the Army’s equipment becomes increasingly decrepit. We risk being end up with just two effective armed services a la 1940, at least when considered against a peer enemy in Eastern Europe.

Cheers CR

You make perfect sense in my opinion except on 1 point. The Army isn’t being punished with a smaller headcount. There are 2 parts of Army spending wholly within the Armys control. Manpower and equipment. If it needs to spend a bigger % of it’s budget on one then it must spend a smaller % on the other. The disasters of the last 25 years means the Army has to catch up on AFV procurement and that will not be cheap even they manage it brilliantly. Admittedly recruitment has been affected by the end of the war in Afghan as well but that’s not within the Army’s control. On long-term planning for equipment and industrial strategy I couldn’t agree more but I am extremely dubious that the Army has the collective intellect to implement it. Your summary of where the Army is is both shocking and spot on.

I don’t think the raf or navy will have to pay for the army mistakes. It would have to be extra money. As a multi year one off kind of thing. Go to Rheinmetall and ask for help to make lynx ifv, artillery guns, challenger upgrade etc put together in the uk. Then over the next few years try and make more of the parts in the uk that can be made easily without massive cost increases. Get research teams to look at improving and developing designs. Or Bae or suitable company.
It may cost but it’s the only way out this mess. It has to have a steady drumbeat for next 30 years etc to make it work and to make development possible. If there are enough vehicles for 2 companies then great.
Or it’s mostly buy foreign from now on unless we have the tech in this country. If we don’t buy things here why would anyone research the tech.
What a mess.
And the army must stop messing about with designs. Almost every complicated thing they touch has been a shambles. Watch keeper, Ajax, warrior upgrade, fres, bowman, etc etc. The list goes on and on.

The forces have just had and are having a big increase in the budget over the next few years. One that was not popular anywhere in Whitehall outside of 10 Downing Street. There’s not going to be another one at least this decade thanks to Covid.

We have discussed a few of your ideas in the past, but I cannot see why you would put the AAC under RAF control – the RAF has no expertise at flying light/utility or armed/attack helicopters – that is army business to be done by army helicopters. Would you also put the Navy’s helicopters under the RAF?

If anything the RAF should hand over Chinooks and Pumas to the AAC (with the requisite headcount of aircrew and maintainers) as these are solely used to support army operations.

I think we are now at a size where we merge into a single force, we will be far more effective.

I don’t care about cap badges etc. I do care about our service people having great kit, leadership and excellent housing and benefits.

I do think we should have a set of Commands that are aligned to the capability required. an example would be the Northern Command that would have all the required assets to fight across the Northern Flank.

by being clear on the capabilities and geographic spread of those capabilities

• Strategic Command
• HA: Europe
• 16 ABD: Global
• Strike1: Europe
• Strike2: Home
• RMC1: Global
• RMC2 Northern Flank
• SFG: Global

Now if we want an extra Heavy Armour Division to be based anywhere else, then that is fine but it will be at the cost of a strike Division or 16ABD or we fund the extra div.

All Commands should get their agreed % of the budget and spend as they see fit, promotions then go to those who leave the division in a better state than it was previously in.

This is all achievable the ADF and IDF are doing amazing the former with their equipment and industrial strategy and the latter with their innovation of relatively cheap equipment that is world leading and extensively tested in combat.

Neither have massive budgets, but over time have just nailed it. we can do the same and need to start.

It is also proven that the quality of equipment has a major impact on casualty count, with estimates in Afghanistan showing that UK troops were far more likely to be injured or killed than their US counterparts. This in my eyes is totally unacceptable.

Hi Pacman, the only armed forces who have merged their forces were the Canadians a few years ago – pretty much disastrous for morale and esprit de Corps – and did not markedly improve efficiency. You may not bother about capbadges, but everyone in the army does, and I doubt the RN and RAF would like to lose their service identity. The Canadians have largely reverted to seperate services after the ‘failed experiment’. Their Navy and the Air Force are once again proud to be the RCN and the RCAF.
We have smaller armed forces than before but they are not so small as most other nations in NATO – none of the minnows have merged into a single force so why us?

I have always thought that some rationalisation is overdue – why does the RAF operate Chinooks and Pumas that almost exclusively support the army? The AAC could take this on with the approprate budget and manpower grant – and would pare back the overblown support service enjoyed by RAF helos – army (REME) helo technicians don’t work shifts!

The problem with commands dedicated to a geographical area is that you lose flexibility. What if Northern Flank command has nothing much to do but Strike 1: European command is facing WW3?

Interesting point about Industrial strategy. The army is finally soon to get a Land Forces strategy, years after the navy got theirs.

I am exceptionally interested in your comment that UK troops were more likely to be killed or injured in Afghanistan than US counterparts. Where is the article or report?

You raise valid points and perhaps there is a way around this, all air is raf, all land is army and all sea is navy, but importantly it is one command

I would like to see the command structure flattened and layers of duplication removed, it is also very clear that inter service rivalry is becoming counter productive.

If my old cap badge can go, then any can. We can accommodate individual units but I do think force commands should now be capability aligned instead of service aligned and then it becomes far clearer whether a capability is needed and / or funded properly.

Key capabilities would have all the force types they need and broadly would be:

1 home defence force
2 CASD
3. Northern / Arctic force
4. NATO 1 (Central Europe)
5 NATO 2 (other NATO)
6 BEF 1 (commonwealth)
7 BEF 2
8 Global SFG

Not exhaustive but I think a good starting point, importantly the commands have access to all the resources they need to do their tasking and can operate autonomously if required.

If you want to keep cap badges fine, but reorganise them into forces that can actually do stuff.

There is time to really get things done but does anyone have the will to grasp the nettle. I think your other comment about inter service punch ups and who gets the top job is and always was called the old boy network. What school old boy, what club old boy, what money old boy. Sad but true.

Hi Graham, Interesting phrase “role specialization” isn’t it? Could be a politicians excuse or in the right hands it could make sense. I make no excuse for my rabbiting on on UKDJ about the need for us to do somethings well instead of trying to do everything. You have picked this up yourself in some ways. Inefficiencies and shambolic and painfully slow procurement are a constant irritation.
I am not even against heavy armour. What I am against is the years of the army being messed about, sometimes of their own making, with constant restructuring and projects badly handled. Similarly, I really don’t see how tracks and wheels efficiently go together. They are chalk and cheese.
You mention no comments about role specialization for the R.N. or the R.A.F. I’ve been pushing this for the last couple of years. The carriers should become the main striking force along with improved amphibious capability and receive their full complement of aircraft as a matter of urgency. The R.A.F.’s main role should be the defence of the U.K. and the northern flank of N.A.T.O.
There is a lot more that could be said but enough for now I think!

Hi Geoff, even small countries fight shy of doing role specialisation (which to some is code for dropping some capabilities) with the possible exception of Belgium – they finally decided to give up tanks – they retired the Leopard 1A5 tank in September 2014, although they had fielded a full Corps in the Cold War. Canada seriously considered retiring their Leopard C1’s without replacement but had a rethink and equipped with Leo2. I find it hard to imagine what the British Army would ever contemplate dropping as a capability, although parachute forces came close to being lost or at least downgraded when 5 AB Bde was re-roled to 5 Inf Bde and at least one para bn came out of the para role. About the only thing the Army has dropped is the White Helmets display team!

Formerly the tanks were supported by tracked SP arty and infantry in tracked vehicles (APCs then IFVs), a handful of forward support vehicles were tracked (CS armoured engineers with Titan/Trojan and their predecessors – and forward REME vehicles with CRAARVs, FV434s and WR repair and recovery variants) – everyone else folllowing along was wheeled. It was mostly all fine.

In the near future, we will have tanks supported by infantry in wheeled Boxers and the Mobile Fires Platform (replacing AS90) might be wheeled. I doubt that Boxers will move as fast in deep snow and mud as tracked vehicles but I will be happy to be proved wrong. I sincerely hope that every Boxer has a 40mm stabilised cannon like upgraded Warrior (WCSP), but of course they won’t – so we will shell out a lot of money for something that is inferior to upgraded Warrior. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

You mention role specialisation for the RN and RAF but what capability would they drop to concentrate on the main role you have assigned them?

Hi Graham…answering your last paragraph.
My point about the army remains. It’s not that I want it to. It’s just that I don’t see how we can run the whole gambit of being on the ground in real force, ie BAOR, without the funds to match.
With regard to the RN and the RAF I don’t really see it as specialization, more like prioritization. As I say the carriers and amphibious warfare would be the main role but this wouldn’t stop the other activities other parts of the fleet are involved in. The RAF would look after the northern flank of NATO with fighter and recon but deploying an expeditionary wing oversea shouldn’t be out of the way. Other info. gathering and transport issues as before.
Mind you , what an extra half a per could achieve but i can’t see that happening soon. All the more reason to make the most of what we have.

Hi Geoff, we will never recreate BAOR (centred on a Corps of 4 armoured divisions, which totalled 55,000 – plus a Brigade of 5,000 in Berlin), or its smaller successor, BFG. That was Cold War.

My reading of the Future Soldier Guide shows that we will in future have a Deep Recce Strike BCT, two armoured BCTs, a Lt Mech BCT and a Light BCT. Plus a Global Response Force (16 AA BCT and 1st Avn BCT at its core), a Special Operations Brigade (Ranger Regt at its core) and a Special Forces Assistance Brigade. Sounds a lot but there is a fair bit of smoke and mirrors. Bottom line is that we are unlikely to deploy a modernised, networked div of 2 or 3 BCTs until 2030, although some think it could be achieved by 2025. The key issue for the army is modernising the AFV and artillery fleets – and fast. I have mentioned before that I think the army should be focussed on flank protection for NATO in Europe and providing a strong ‘heavy metal’ force in the west of Germany as a NATO Reserve – together with a versatile and flexible OOA Expeditionary Force. Reserve Army should lead on Home Defence and MACC/A/M, with any spare capacity for reinforcing the regular army on operations.

I am sure that the RN would put their CSGs and amphibious capability front and centre and you are right that most day to day activity will be at a much lower scale of effort. [Let’s not forget CASD as a very key remit]. I think it a pity that the SSNs seem to be entirely committed to protecting the CASD sub and any deployed CSG – and there is little to no additional capacity. I think there is scope for a number of SSKs with AIP to bulk out the numbers.

HI Graham…same info on the Future Soldier. Looks reasonably sound finally, save our doubts about time scale and enough kit being available. The trouble is we’ve already wasted ten years plus with the other restructuring so let’s hope they stick to this although I still have mixed feeling with Tracks and Wheels.
Agree with you on the number of SSN’s. I can’t see any more coming though. There is talk about the new autonomous subs taking on the CASD protection role so let’s hope again that the powers to be get a move on.