Ajax, the British Army’s troubled new generation of armoured fighting vehicle, has been put through its paces during cold weather trials in Sweden.
The British Army say here that service personnel from the Household Cavalry Regiment (HCR) based in Bulford, Wiltshire have successfully demonstrated the Ajax platform’s capability to operate in extreme cold weather, and fire on the move with accuracy.
Major Robert Gardner, Ajax Trials and Capability Development, said:
“We were aiming to prove that Ajax works as effectively in these conditions as it does in a temperate climate, therefore allowing it to be deployable all over the world. The live crew clearance showed that the turret is safe to use, and also demonstrated we lost no lethality or effectiveness whilst operating at extremely low temperatures.”
Major Robert Gardner concluded that ‘over the trial Ajax demonstrated itself to be very effective in this environment’, he said:
“We’ve seen no drop in its effectiveness compared to those in the UK, which is really positive. And now we’ve proved the cold climate, the next step is to prove it in the hot weather this summer, and at that point it is essentially proven and deployable in all situations.”
Am I alone in taking this with a pinch of salt? Only after real service for a few years will we know its reliability.
It’s probably being pushed a lot harder and longer than it will be in service! That’s the whole point of the trails to try to push them till they break.
Okay so what in your book is real service?
Servicing neglected and not cleaned very well and unf bolts put into metric threads. lol
Are these the bolts on special offer from Screwfix? It’s just that my sister-in-law’s friend’s dad says those are just as good as the ones the Army use, and if they weren’t afraid of picking up some Black Friday bargains, MOD would be able to afford a complete IFV to replace Warrior for £206.99, including the walkie-talkie from ToysRUs.
ToysRUs you can’t beat old school thinking.
Screwfix and tool station bolts are made in China , Babcock did source some substandard CR2 wheel nuts that cracked and fell off after the 700 Nm was applied and substandard bearings which resulted in a new quality standards regime after some flapping about reputation damage!
It’s called RGT, reliability growth trials. These platforms are hammered a lot harder than in service vehicles to find out what breaks, when and why.
Will they be be bending idler arms and cracking idler wheels like on CR2 then ?
Oh! I expect so, you know what Squaddies are like👍
Ah, you’re suggesting they put salt on the ice? Cunning. Still, s’pose at some point we’re going to have to give these Ajax trials benefit of the doubt. Now likely as good a time as any.
Blimey George….. It’s hard enough to keep up on just one new post, let alone so many all at one time mate…. please spread them out more equally…. 😄
After so long in the making, not to mention the costs, hopefully Ajax & it’s variants will be amongst the best of their type(s) anywhere in service 🤞
It will be a relief to everyone if this kit is effective. Perhaps we will be all complaining they haven’t built enough before long.
A very good idea, the commonality of parts springs to mind as I have mentioned many times before on here.
Poland Partners with South Korea to Develop New Armored IFV from K9 Howitzer Chassis. Citing information released by the Polish Ministry Of Defense, the new tracked armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle based on the tracked chassis of the K9 155mm self-propelled howitzer fitted with a ZSSW Remote Controlled Turret System.14 Aug 2023
Equipped with a 30 mm Bushmaster Mk 44/S gun, the turret is capable of firing ABM ammunition and can be upgraded to a 40 mm calibre. Additionally, it boasts a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun and a dual Spike ATGM (Anti-tank Guided Missile) launcher.
Enhancing its capabilities further, the turret integrates an advanced fire control system with auto-tracking and dual optronic systems, catering to both the gunner and the commander, offering a hunter-killer/killer-killer solution the K9 chassis was also used by the Polish Defense Industry to develop and design the Krab, a 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzer.
Using the K9 howitzer’s chassis as a foundation for developing an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) offers several notable advantages. Firstly, the K9 howitzer has a proven track record, having been exported to multiple countries and subjected to real-world combat situations.
It’s established reliability and durability would provide a solid starting point for an IFV. Moreover, by using a shared chassis for both artillery and IFVs, military forces can benefit from a commonality of parts.
This streamlining could make logistics, maintenance, and training more efficient and consistent. The K9’s inherent design provides a robust level of armor protection, which would naturally benefit the infantry housed within.
Furthermore, the powerful engine of the K9, originally intended to swiftly transport heavy artillery, might offer enhanced mobility to the IFV variant, making it swift on the battlefield. Lastly, from a fiscal standpoint, leveraging an existing platform for a new vehicle design could result in significant cost savings, as foundational research and development expenses have already been incurred.
The ZSSW-30 is a cutting-edge, remotely controlled turret developed by the Polish company Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW) for modern armored combat vehicles. Its centerpiece is a powerful 30mm autocannon, supplemented by a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun. Additionally, the turret boasts an integrated system of Spike anti-tank guided missiles, empowering it to tackle even heavily armored enemy threats, including tanks.”
Courtesy Of Army Recognition
https://
armyrecognition.codefense_news_august_2023_global_security_army_industry/poland_partners_with_south_korea_to_develop_new_armored_ifv_from_k9_howitzer_chassis.html
Hi Nigel, quick request, would you be able to refrain from copying and pasting entire articles into comments here? The reason I ask as it’s generally bad form to reproduce the work of others in the same link as a source from elsewhere. Cheers.
It’s strange how you choose to mention this now George, as I have been doing this on here regularly for the past five years, as have others????
Perhaps you might consider advising Navy Lookout and other military websites to do the same, or even ban posters who make veiled threats as they tend to do.
As previously communicated, this practice contradicts our website’s policies, which have been established not only to comply with copyright laws but also as part of our efforts to enhance our site’s search engine optimisation (SEO). SEO is about optimising our content and site practices to improve our visibility on search engines like Google. High-quality, original content is crucial for achieving this, and reposting content from other sources can negatively affect our rankings and, by extension, our overall visibility online.
Despite our previous discussions and your clear awareness of these issues, it has become evident that there has been no change in your approach. This stance, which comes across as confrontational, undermines the spirit of cooperation we strive to foster within our community. It is important to clarify that this policy has been uniformly applied; other users engaged in similar practices have been asked to cease this behavior.
We have thoroughly addressed your concerns regarding threats and inappropriate behaviour in the comments section. These matters have been resolved in line with our community guidelines. Continually bringing up these issues, which we consider closed, cannot be used as justification for not adhering to our policies regarding the posting of copyrighted material. It is crucial to understand that adherence to one aspect of our community guidelines does not provide leeway to disregard others.
Please focus on the matter at hand, which is the essential need for compliance with our content and SEO policies.
Continuing to disregard this request, particularly in a confrontational manner, will leave us no choice but to take further action, which could suspending your commenting privileges. This is not an outcome we desire, but it is essential to maintain the integrity and legal standing of our website.
We hope for your cooperation moving forward, acknowledging that while we respect and value open dialogue and diverse perspectives, adherence to our site’s policies is non-negotiable. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I am available for dialogue.
Best regards,
George
“Despite our previous discussions and your clear awareness of these issues, it has become evident that there has been no change in your approach. This stance, which comes across as confrontational, undermines the spirit of cooperation we strive to foster within our community. It is important to clarify that this policy has been uniformly applied; other users engaged in similar practices have been asked to cease this behavior.”
I no longer comment on this site George, 2, check your dates, 3, who allowed the post you refer to as I am under moderation.
Problem solved then, take care.
A troubled start but will be one the best vehicles on offer when operational, As will C3 , it just takes time to get there.
It certainly does and hopefully not too late!
Defining IOC and FOC for Ajax
“On 20 March 2023 the Defence Procurement Minister Alex Chalk set a new
timeline for Ajax’s entry into service. It is now expected to begin to enter
service in the latter half of 2025, with a full operating capability towards the
end of 2029.
In 2011, the MOD was still expecting what was then known as FRES-SV to
enter service around 2017. However, by the time of contract award in
2014, this shifted to July 2020.
The contract was reset in 2018. In September 2020 the MOD reset the initial operating capability (see box) to June 2021.
Full operating capability was still expected to be achieved in 2025.
The emergence of noise and vibration issues (see following section) meant
that for 18 months, from September 2021 until March 2023, the MOD did
not commit to an in-service date for Ajax.
A timeline of changes to in-service dates can be found in section 6.
“In 2023, the Minister defined IOC as a “trained and deployable squadron”.
This is scheduled to be achieved between July and December 2025.
In response to a written parliamentary question, Mr Chalk explained that a
deployable combined arms squadron will consist of 27 Ajax vehicles, being a
mix of all variants. This will require 50 vehicles to be delivered: 27 for the
deployable squadron and 23 to train crews and maintainers.
The Minister explained that IOC will be declared when a squadron “is trained, equipped and ready to deploy and be sustained for six months.” The MOD expects around 115 trained, deployable personnel will be required at IOC as crew.
The Minister defined FOC as “when the Army has trained and converted
forces to the Ajax platform to deliver Armoured Cavalry capability to the
Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade and its two Armoured Brigade Combat
Teams.” This is scheduled to be achieved between October 2028 and
September 2029”
Courtesy Of The House Of Commons Library
https://
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9764/CBP-9764.pdf
Just needs some export orders now
I trust you are right Martin
I hope I am, we as a country can make the best kit in the world, we just do not make enough of it or up date it.
Agree.
The sooner this and the Boxer gets into service, the sooner we can retire the Warriors, preferably in the direction of Ukraine.
Seems plausible. They haven’t been given any Warriors yet I don’t think, but they do have Bulldogs and Scimitars.
George, think of another adjective, not “troubled”, it’s old now.
Oh Dear, I hope this vehicle is not too heavy as experience with CH2 in Ukraine is raising eyebrows.
The CH2 is just too heavy on open prairies if the ground is wet, as I just witnessed watching a brilliant Sun on YouTube. I would hazard a guess the true weight of CH3 will be greater than the current machine, leading me to believe this may not be an exclusive problem for UK-made tanks. Call me daft but should the Army be looking at smaller MBTs that sacrifice weight and gun type for greater agility? 45-50 tons would allow for improved speed, which has been an asset in Ukraine and a 120 mm gun but reduced ammo storage. The current conflict is rewriting the land warfare manual and there must be a direct impact on CH3, Boxer and Ajax short and long-term development. In retrospect, British armour has been designed to operate on Eastern prairies however, was there enough emphasis placed on ground conditions? Both sides have experienced heavy ground problems, yet the Russian MBTs appear to cope with the issue due to lighter vehicles.
The war is not really rewriting the manual,both sides have failed to establish any air superiority,it has been reduced to an old fashioned slug fest just like the old days.
Bloody sure it’s being rewritten according to military experts.
Trench warfare,massive artillery fire!missile attacks instead of aircraft bombing civilians,deadly but hardly cutting edge is it? Drones are the only modern thing about it!
The territorial performance of CH2 and Abrams should be well known by now. The rainy (mud) season is about to start in the Ukraine. It will make no difference how much any tank weighs, nothing moves in that season.
I doubt if the inoperability of CH2 in wet conditions has been recognised. Not all MBTs fall victim to mud only those that are obviously too heavy. If were a war planner such facts would be of huge concern.
From the footage I have seen the ground in Ukraine gets so soft and water-logged (Spring Thaw) that even cars and trucks get bogged down, it is like a quagmire. Any MBT/AFV has no chance in those conditions
Absolutely no lack of evidence of t72s getting stuck in mud in Ukraine (image from a 20 second Google search to follow in a separate comment). A T72 btw weighs about 4 tons more than Ajax, so using Maurice’s (wrong) conclusions about weight: Ajax will operate where T72 can not.
Oh and let’s quickly acknowledge that Russian 40t tanks are no faster than British 60t tanks. Off road there are distinct limits to how how fast you can go.
What Ukranian mud does to “Superior” lightweight Russian tanks:
https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107048901-1650460959423-gettyimages-1239689362-AA_02042022_674095.jpeg
Pretty much the same ground is being fought over between Ukraine and Russia, as the Nazis were doing with the USSR. During WW2, Tiger 1 tank crews would test the solidness of the ground. By one crew member carrying another piggy back fashion on the ground they wanted to cross. If they started sinking, the ground was too soft for the Tiger.
The only vehicle I know that could cross such ground with relative ease, would be a BV206 or similar. I’d expect a Viking to cross that ground, but being a lot heavier than a 206, I do wonder if even it would struggle?
It’s not weight. It’s ground pressure. Anyway in Ukranian rainy season even light vehicles bog down.
Just FYI: the British Armys main Armoured Warfare training facility for the entirety of Challenger 1 and 2s life has been an open, muddy Prairie. I can attest first hand that CR2 was just fine on that.
Sadly the Sun video tells a different story one of underpower and weight….simply undeniable evidence. If the answer is horses for courses then the UK army needs a mixture of battle tank weights and sizes similar to those used in WW2.
Maurice I’ll take my own experience over a Sun Journalist thank you. Tanks get bogged down in mud, as does every vehicle, I’ve sent multiple replies explaining this to you but you’ve ignored them.
Let me put it another way: You’ve watched one video of one tank getting bogged in, and come to a bad conclusion because you don’t understand why tanks bog in (as you’ve proven by constantly complaining about weight, when as I’ve pointed out: It’s not weight, it’s ground pressure that is important) [Plus if it’s the article I think you’re talking about it’s worth pointing out that a Challenger 2 with a more experienced crew had no dramas with the same mud, but you chose to ignore that bit]. Meanwhile Leopards, Abrams, Challengers, and yes, T-80’s, 72’s and 90’s all bog in in Ukraine… but less than wheeled vehicles that weigh a fraction of what they do (because again ground pressure).
Just watch the video. Obviously, wet ground conditions compromise many vehicles but CH2 appears to be underpowered according to Ukrainian tankers, which exacerbates the overall dynamic concerns. Due to the CH2 issues it appears they are being used in certain conditions only, which is not ideal. A lighter footprint is the answer if NATO MBTs are going to make headway east of Germany.
Sadly a lighter footprint will not provide the same amount of protection. as the presumption is a lighter tank, will have less armour. As a vehicle’s mass change’s, the vehicle’s ground pressure will also be affected, especially if the vehicle’s tracks have the same contact area.
To stop an armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) or Fin for short. You need a number of factors. The first one is material density. Having a denser material means it takes more energy for the Fin’s dart to push through. Another is effective armour distance, such as spaced armour. With darts now reaching nearly 800mm long. The distance between the primary (outer) and main (inner) armour must be of a similar distance. As you are trying to cause the dart to yaw as it passes through the outer armour. With the design of it hitting the main armour at an oblique angle, thereby increasing the dart’s contact surface area. Again making use up more energy to push through the armour.
Another factor is abrasion, which is where ceramics come in to play. These have a number of roles to play. The first is that when the dart hits a ceramic it imparts a load of energy into the ceramic, which will cause the ceramic to crack. As the darts starts to pass through the ceramic, the material abrades the dart, wearing it away and using up more energy. This was a major problem on tungsten based darts, as the point would get blunter and blunter, thereby increasing the contact area. A depleted uranium one shelf sharpens, helping it to push through ceramics with its smaller contact area. However, a number of manufacturers have discovered a way to make tungsten darts self sharpening.
Ceramics and steels usually make up a tank’s composite armour, put together in an array of alternating sheets. Some like the Abrams, have also included sheets of depleted uranium. As its density matches or is better than some darts. Thereby making it harder to penetrate. An aluminium alloy is ok for small calibre rounds. But against a 120mm Fin round, the depth of the armour would have to be at least three times that of a steel based one. Which would compromise the tank’s overall design and ergonomics.
One other material that has been used and is quite effective, when used within a composite array, is rubber. When placed between two steel sheets. When a dart hits the first sheet, it compresses the rubber behind it. Which exerts a force on the first sheet to push back against the dart. Again making the dart loose energy. It’s sometimes called non-explosive reactive armour (NERA).
When you combine the need for spaced primary armour backed with a main armour, made up from a composite array. To defend the tank against 120/125mm Fin rounds, this comes at the cost of mass. You will end up with a vehicle weighing around 55 to 60t using today’s materials. I think I read somewhere, that increasing a tank’s steel armour thickness by 1cm, increases the mass by 1t. To balance this mass, you design the track’s contact area to minimise the ground pressure. But there will be constraints, especially how wide you make the track. As this will dictate the overall width of the tank. Bearing in mind that it must be able to fit on a railway carriage, without impeding passing traffic etc. Or not be too long to hamper the tank’s ability to turn, without throwing a track.
Designing a lighter tank that has a low surface contact pressure, means that you will have to compromise on the tank’s mass. Which therefore means you compromise on the tank’s armour protection.
Very impressive post DaveyB, such a complex business making an ideal MBT but technology must take a grip of core weight and lighter additional armour and countermeasures. The only short-term option could be tracked Boxer or 120mm equipped wheeled variant?
CR3 is just one tonne more than CR2 as produced at the factory according to RBSL.
Be interested to know how they cope with the TES applique armour fitted. Plus the CH3 will be getting the uprated suspension and the engine mod. So in theory, it should be able to cope better than a Chally 2.
I don’t see why CR3 would have any issues with TES applique, if CR2 didn’t.
‘cope better’?
I think it should cope better as it will have the upgraded suspension, drivetrain and a bit more power. I know its getting upgraded hydropneumatic suspension. So does that mean the arms are new and therefore tougher?
All AFVs will have trouble in the Rasputitsa, especially those with high ground pressure. CR2 has a 1200 hp engine which gives it less P/W than Leo 2 but has superior suspension, so I doubt cross-country speed is very different. Anyway speed is not the main issue when tackling mud – although entering a large patch of mud at speed would be better than a slow entry speed – it is ground pressure. CR3 top speed may exceed that of recent versions of Leo2.
Upgraded hydropneumatic suspension for CR3 – I haven’t seen the details. RBSL just says ‘3rd gen hydrogas’ to be fitted rather than 2nd gen as per CR2. Suggests these are new units.
Keeping a lid on weight must be an ongoing headache.
Yes, it is. Just like civvy cars, successive military vehicles seem to have become bigger and heavier than their predecessors. Ajax is an extreme example!
The weight spiral just has to end.
We certainly need to think about having a medium tank in addition to CR3, for fragile terrain, ease of deployment and supportability etc and to some extent to mitigate against having such a small MBT fleet.
Whilst the Americans do not wish to call M10 Booker a light tank, that is effectively what it is.
To fight successfully MBTs will have to be varied machines to allow commanders choices for environment and ground conditions. The current designs have not allowed the MBTs to work effectively during winter months in Ukraine. This has led to stagnation on a scale not seen since WW1. One option for the UK is to bolster the Tank Regiment with 120mm Boxer, if such a vehicle is in the pipeline. I’ve seen some variants with big guns but not sure if they are concepts only at this stage?
Deep glutinous mud experienced in late autumn, and early Spring in eastern Europe (Rasputitsa) have often caused stagnation of warfare…for centuries. [Winter conditions have also been treacherous for warfare due to snow and ice and sub-zero temperatures].
Wiki: “Rasputitsa has repeatedly affected wars by causing military vehicles and artillery pieces to become mired in the mud. In conjunction with the general conditions of winter, rasputitsa has been credited with encumbering the military campaigns of Napoleonic France in 1812 and Nazi Germany during Operation Barbarossa”
Anything with high ground pressure, be it heavily laden men, wagon trains, trucks and AFVs – will all be encumbered.
A 120mm Boxer would have to have much lower ground pressure than a MBT to be able to cope with Rasputitsa.
Tracked Boxer at 45 tonnes, has a 120mm smoothbore cannon – has been shown at arms fairs but no orders placed by anyone yet.
I know of only a 105mm (rifled) on the wheeled Boxer, a PV project – John Cockerill Defense supplied a two-person turret armed with 105 mm to KMW to be incorporated onto Boxer. Firing trials were anticipated to take place within the course of 2020, but Covid-19 intervened.
Until we find materials that are easier/cheaper to produce and has better protection properties that armoured steel. We will keep having this increase of mass issue. As weapons, in particular APFSDS get better kinematics and performance against armour. So you have to have more armour mass to defend against these improvements. Ajax is a case point. It’s armour protection levels are supposed to be better than when Warrior has its TES fitted. Which means protection against 30mm Fin rounds front and sides and number of HEAT types.
There may be light at the end of the tunnel. The Israeli active protection system Iron Fist. Has demonstrated during trials, of being able to deflect slower moving HEAT rounds (fired from a 120mm tank gun). However, it has also shown that it can deflect slightly a Fin round. Clearly more work needs to be carried out, to understand how this can be made more effective. If and it’s a big if, an Iron Fist type of concussion effector can deflect a Fin round, so it misses the targeted vehicle. This will be game changing. As it would mean you could then reduce the mass of the vehicle. However, not too much as there will always be splinters from shells to deal with.
It does look like the US has reinvented the infantry support tank, ala the Churchill. Admittedly it’s a bit quicker than a Churchill! Though why they chose the rifled L7 105 derivative over a short barrelled 120, is a bit perplexing, or is this a carryover from the Stryker MGS? As it adds another supply train and therefore a logistics burden. The CV90 120 seems like a better option. As the ammo it uses is the same as the Leopard 2, Abrams, Leclerc etc.
Of course there are choices other than Rolled Homogenous Armour in one thick plate – spaced armour, composite armour, ceramic armour, Chobham-type armour. But these are probably not cheap to make.
Iron Fist has beena round a while and sounds impressive. Wiki: “In May 2011, the system intercepted kinetic energy penetrators and Metis anti tank missiles during a test in the U.S.”
I think there is merit in having a medium tank in addition to the MBT, particularly as we will only have 112 CR3s in 3 Div.
I think you were referring to the US M10 Booker. It is not officially a tank but an Infantry Support vehicle or assault vehicle. I guess the selection of 105mm is because it is not going up against the latest enemy tanks and also can take more stowed rounds than 120mm. The Yanks are not bothered about logistics!