The Ajax armoured vehicle programme, a £5.5 billion initiative for the British Army, has faced numerous challenges and scrutiny.
As the most significant UK armoured vehicle order in over two decades, the programme aims to develop six new tracked vehicle variants on a shared platform. General Dynamics is assembling these vehicles at their facility in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales.
The Ajax programme has encountered a series of obstacles, including multiple service entry delays. This has prompted critiques from the National Audit Office, the Defence Select Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee.
In March 2023, the Minister for Defence Procurement declared a new in-service target of 2025, with full operating capability projected between late 2028 and 2029.
Review
Following the identification of the programme as “troubled,” the Defence Secretary commissioned an independent Lessons Learned Review, led by a Queen’s Counsel (QC). Upon its reception, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) intends to publish the review alongside a statement to the House of Commons.
Ajax and the Future Soldier Plan
The British Army’s Future Soldier plan positions Ajax vehicles as a central element of the modernised warfighting division. This division will also feature Boxer infantry vehicles, Challenger 3 tanks, AH64E Apache helicopters, long-range precision fires, and unmanned aerial systems (such as drones).
Challenges Faced by the Programme
Management issues and concerns about excessive noise and vibration, potentially affecting personnel health, have contributed to the programme’s delays. The Public Accounts Committee deemed the MOD’s management of the Ajax programme as “flawed from the outset,” while the National Audit Office cautioned that the programme confronts “significant challenges.”
Lessons Learned Review Update
In May 2022, the MOD appointed Clive Sheldon QC to lead a lessons learned review of the Ajax programme. The Minister for Defence Procurement pledged to publish the review, accompanied by a statement to the House, once it is received.
Armoured Vehicles Modernisation
As part of ongoing efforts to modernise its armoured vehicle fleet, the British Army is introducing new Ajax and Boxer vehicles and implementing an upgrade programme for its existing Challenger main battle tanks.
It’s years late, over budget, has more problems that you can cover in a week of meeting. You can’t sell it as anything other than a monumental waste,f**k up and many other words and sayings.
They MOD mainly the army should bite the bullet and bin it off. They are many other proven platforms out there.
Well, it may not be all doom and gloom as the Germans are having real issues with their equivalent! Many are being cannibalised to keep up frontline strength and others bung into storage until the vehicle can be sorted.
What annoys me most about Ajax is after all the delays the vehicle will not be in service until 2027!! Someone needs to start kicking posteriors and speed up the ISD by at least two years as many hulls are already completed.
Interestingly I believe the ‘German equivalent’ was proposed by some as a ready made alternative to this troubled platform.
Yes, I was one such advocate. Just shows made in Germany does not guarantee quality. I’m sure the upgrades to Ajax during its lifespan will iron out most of its shortfalls. Now all that is needed is a rapid ISD to ensure our troops get the most modern kit.
The technical fixes were done over 6 months ago, the vehicle completed User Validation Trials and has spent 4 months on RGT and no untoward reports on progress. The MOD is satisfied enough to resume planned staged payments. Andy, did you miss all that?
It makes no sense to bin a programme that is back on track.
Hmmm…as the Ajax program may be considered an archetypal defence/defense project, perhaps we should review the bidding re the current project phase:
1.) Enthusiasm
2.) Disillusionment
3.) Panic
4.) Search for the guilty
5.) Punishment of the innocent
6.) Praise and honors for the non-participants
As is apparent from the text of the article, the project is now between phases 4&5. Thus, we can confidently predict IOC in 2025 and FOC circa 2028-9. All hail the final managers! 🤔😳😉
Er…Ajax programme…will eventually get the King’s English under control…😊
No problem we understand English is a second language to you guys and make allowances😂
😁
And it’s NORMALITY, not Normalcy.
I suspect this vehicle will be one of the few projects that won’t eventually have its name changed to the King Charles this or that, though King Charles 1st might have actually been rather appropriate I guess having been so close to getting the chop.
…except that I don’t think anyone is searching for the guilty!
Previous British AFV programmes have not had such issues. We used to design and build families of AFVs quickly and efficiently and at reasonable cost and they gave long and valuable service.
This programme was different and far too many mistakes were made, just about all of them being avoidable.
A certain irony I think that better we design and build something the more certainty that the company that achieved that won’t be around to replace them. Not only military either, the 125/225 trains ran reliably for so long we now have to buy foreign to finally replace them as their designers/builders are long gone. The new ones won’t last 50 years either.
An observation from a disinterested party w/out a self-discerned bias, based on text of this post: “General Dynamics is assembling these vehicles (Ajax family) at their facility in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales.’ To an American, this place name could be lifted straight out of J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic trilogy ‘Lord of the Rings,’ and ‘Merthyr’ provokes an association w/ ‘mithril’ the fabled chainmail, stronger than steel, which the Elves forged in their redoubts. Bilbo and Frodo Baggins fared well in their battles w/ the Orcs, and it is just possible that in future years British Ajax crews will be well pleased w/ the additional protection the upgraded extra armour affords them. At this point, regardless of trials, no one can validate the real world performance of Ajax under combat conditions. Take heart, Ajax may prove the doubters wrong, eventually… 🤔😳😊
I am more positive about Ajax now that fixes were done, it completed User Validation Trials and is 4 months into its Reliability Growth Trials with no reports of issues. Plus MoD has resumed staged payments so they must be quite happy.
There is little doubt that it has got massive protection levels, quite unlike any recce vehicle we have ever had before.
I will be interested to see how my old Corps, REME, get on with maintenance, repairs and recovery, in due course.
👍
Ah, you’re well on the way to honorary Welsh citizenship with that comment, Former. Should you come over for the ceremony, I cannot recommend too much a trip to Bannau Brycheiniog in the first instance. Just ask anybody for the Satnav👍😊
Though maybe not our PM for the time being 🤔
😁👍
👍
Agreed. If we binned projects just because they ran into difficulties then we would not complete very many projects. Some issues are papered over however it looks like this one has been placed under a microscope and failure to resolve the issue was not an option. On face value problem solved.
Over budget? No it isn’t! As has been discussed in multiple threads on this subject the cost of binning Ajax and the time it would take to identify,trail and order any replacement would be years down the line and taking into account money already spent and the cost of the new vehicle the costs would go through the roof!
No roof left. I’d rather have some F35’s and cheap drones.Almost as much as well you name it and for what a recon AFV?
The British Army needs a replacement armoured recce vehicle – Scimitar is over 50 years old. Buying more F-35s and cheap drones is no alternative.
Totally unproven self justifying cant.
I have heard this kind of nonsense from every failing project principal I’ve dealt with over thirty years. “The alternative would be worse” “It will cost more to cancel than to fix it”.
If a project fails to deliver on KPIs it gets cancelled, period. If the contract is too loose then you take it on the chin, fire the idiot responsible and learn lessons for next time. But you never ever force a marginal product into service to save face. It is not worth it. Who is going too support this orphan product? Pay for the upgrades? Deal with weight growth over a 20+ year life?
Top brass will have long since retired / moved onto greener pastures, it will not be their problem.
Order 200 recce modules for the already-budgeted-for Boxer buy, job done.
Does the Boxer recce module have a stabilised 40mm cannon? If not, it does not meet the Requirement.
Boxer recce is not budgeted for – but Ajax is.
Why buy it when Ajax is through UVT and is part way through RGT?
It depends it you include the exhorbitant lead times due to the issues in any budgetary considerations.
Alhough financially speaking they may not be consderations – in reality they do have financial implications.
It would be like saying something 50 years late but still costing the same wouldn’t be over budget- technically a correct statement but still delilivery dates have an impact of their own.
As for saying we should keep on with a project purely because we started it which is the logical extension of your rationale -well thats a question for risk and impact analysis – but purley as a statement of its own it’ssurely incorrect.
Not really what I said was it? Ajax has now got to the RGT stage with working vehicles albeit mega late. So to bin it is obviously too late don’t you agree? As it’s a fixed price contract the full price has yet to be paid and GD wasn’t paid while all the problems were being sorted! Still all this has been discussed in other articles on this very site.
If, as we are told, the problems have been solved, why is FOC still 6 years away?
Because we are only 4 months into RGT and there is probably at least another 6 to 10 months to go, then manufacturing and fielding IOC batch takes you to 2025. Then GD has to make at least 400 more wagons to get to the FOC total. Not to mention manufacturing speares packs, training aids etc.
Training the crews as well. As I understand it IOC will involve the first 50 vehicles by December 2025.
Thanks. Much to do to bring in a new equipment other than to build them and issue them.
I had not heard the IOC metrics before – presume those 50 are split between the Trg Org and at least one field force unit.
In Feb it was revealed 414 hulls out of 589 total had already been built. An FOC after a period as long as WW2 is far too slow given that full manufacturing approval was 2014.
The same applies to the timescale for Ch3 upgrade with deliveries not completed until 2030.
I fully agree. A slow delivery is hopeless, as we must keep the old and the new fleet running in parallel for ages with all its attendant disadvantages, and we need to be upgrading the first tranche delivered whilst still fielding the latter tranches.
In the past we have effected far quicker ‘change-overs’.
Should have sacked it off ages ago and now it’s too late🙄
It got fixed. It got through UVT. Its on RGT. Its coming. Better late than never.
But we did buy the wrong vehicle from the wrong company and the project was badly managed by politicians, the army/MoD and industry.
What is the thinking behind only having 148 main battle tanks? Why does Ukraine need 300 for an offensive but the entirety of the British army only needs 148?
Because the Ukraine has a land border with Russia, while the UK is an island whose neighbors are Ireland and France.
Geopolitical realities also explain why, say, Canada or Spain (whose major military threat is being drawn into war by alliance partners) are somewhat less enthusiastic about NATO spending then, say, Poland.
Faulty logic. The USAs neighbours are friendly Mexico and Canada, yet they have 5,500 tanks including those in storage.
We invented the tank in WW1 not for defence of our homeland but solely for expeditionary operations in support of our European allies and that
rationale has not changed.
During the height of the cold war, the UK had some 900 tanks compared to some 3500 in West Germany; even during a period when the British Army was heavily oriented toward land warfare in Europe, its force was significantly less than a frontline NATO state.
I think “developed for expeditionary warfare” while technically correct (given the British were fighting overseas) gives the wrong impression if you’re talking about a weapon developed for a war with solidified front lines that your army is already heavily engaged in. The tank was developed for an existing war at a time when the British Army was already fighting an enemy it was in direct contact with (Often well under a km). The needs of a British army with dozens of divisions already locked into battle with an enemy a kilometer or so away is indeed close to the UKRAINE’s situation today, which is why the Ukraine needs plentiful tanks. It is not similar to the UK’s situation unless the UK envisions its present role as likely to be direct armored warfare with the Russians.
Now, if the UK does intend to see it’s armored forces as decisive element of a main european battle, obviously it needs more than 150 tanks. But it doesn’t seem to at the moment….
We are not alone in slashing MBT numbers. France is upgrading just 200 of its operational fleet of 220 Leclerc. Italy is upgrading 125 of its fleet of 160 Ariete. Germany has @ 350 L2 hulls but only some 225 in service. Of these countries, only Germany has retained MBT production lines.
Ideally all these countries and UK should retain a significant reserve. But as Russia has discovered, keeping modern tanks with sophisticated electronic systems in operating condition isn’t easy.
What is the UK’s situation? We are a founder member and are a leading current member of NATO which seeks to deter and if necessary defeat threats to the Euro-Atlantic area. Mostly the threat in this area is from Russia. So we need kit that is configured to deter, defend against and if necessary to attack Russian armed forces having first been attacked by them. That includes tanks and other AFVs, as Russia (still) has a lot of them. We should not have a Fortress UK mentality, suggesting we only defend the homeland. Our island position does not mean that we run down the army and only emphasise the Navy – we commit suitable and sufficient forces to the NATO alliance.
Clearly the heavy lifting of armoured forces should rest with those with more to lose – like their country! So no problem that Poland and Germany and to some extent Italy and France shoudl have larger armoured forces. But just 150 tanks (two regiments) is bordering on tokenism.
From what I understand, the armed forces are focusing on Navy, Air Force Cyber/Space. Now, I’m not sure if that focus has shifted in other reviews. And what DP said.
Because we are part of NATO. Very few scenarios would require the British Army to deploy that many tanks overseas on our own. That is the way of thinking anyway. Be that right or wrong.
We have deployed tanks on expeditionary operations in support of allies since 1916 and continue to do so. I can think of no contemporary scenario requiring us to use tanks at home to defend the motherland or overseas on their own.
This is true, the only reason we didn’t deploy MBT’s to Afghan was cost.
Not sure that is meant to re-enforce the argurment we need more MBT or not tbh? It certainly re-enforces the thought that we need to re-evaluate our doctrine & strategic aims vs. available monies for procurement & costs analysis.
Put it like this: Denmark found the cash to deploy Leopard 2’s to Afghan.
I saw the Danish tank company up close and personal when I was COS Camp Bastion in 2008/9. They were there solely for very infrequent Show of Force demonstrations. Don’t think there was a need for any more tanks in Helmand.
Surely we could always use more – just in case?
No, I don’t think so. There were no targets for MBTs in Afghan. The Danish squadron were only occasionally used for Show of Force, tanks deploying in pairs usually. Terry Taliban didn’t need reminding every day that we had some heavy kit.
Not sure about the Danish, but I had the personal use of a couple of Canadian Leo 2s. Very, very useful in knocking on doors so to speak.
Wow! Not many can say they have personal use of two tanks!
Benefits of being the force protection commander, amongst other things. Plus the type of raids we were doing necessitated making doors in compound mud brick walls. Mind you it was absolute bedlam when trying to get only two Canadian Leo’s through Kandahar city to the police station. What is it about donkeys with an attitude?
Gotcha- 👍
Defence cuts to make financial savings. No other reason.
If you are an optimist ( the MOD?) 148 is the minimum number to ensure the ability to always to be able to deploy and armoured brigade. Those who know more about these things than I do would say that number is more like the 200+ tanks we currently have.
I would argue we do have an obligation to be able to fight alongside NATO allies in Europe but a fair and sensible strategy is for nations like Poland, Ukraine and Germany and the Nordic countries to provide the bulk of the resources to resist any Russian threat. Poland is stepping up to the plate and is on track to become the lead defender of western values in the decades ahead….
We can’t afford to do everything everywhere.
Absolutely. Whats the point in being in the NATO club if we can’t rely on other members for mutual support? We have our strengths and they have theirs. Lets get this straight we do not have the resources to deploy an Armoured force without the support of allies. We also do not have that force forward positioned anymore. Just getting the tanks to the battlefield would be a mission let alone supporting them.
We have always deployed armoured forces without the help of allies. What’s changed in the last ‘5 minutes’?
We do have tanks forward positioned – we have tanks in Estonia fully manned and operational – and others in depots in Germany.
You over-estimate difficulties in deploying tanks overseas and supporting them – we have done this since 1916.
Hi Graham. The battlegroup in Estonia has additional support from Denmark and France and is integrated into the 1st Estonian Brigade. Now if thats not being supported by allies i don’t know what is?
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9639/
You make a good point with regards to the basing of Vehicles in German depots but i would still contend that this is not a deployed force and could only be activated as part of a general NATO mobilisation supported by allies.
Im not denigrating the Army but with the withdrawl of our Armoured Brigades from Germany we need to play to our strengths and budget rather than attempt to be a poor all-rounder.
agree, fight alongside but east europe has to take the lead on the tank warfare. germany should also not have a strangle hold on the leopard given the previous misguided passivism towards russia
Spot on point about Leopard. That said Germany is bailing out our manufacturung capabikity in armoured vehicles. Notwithstanding the difficulties of European projects I do think that’s the best way to go for ‘future tank’.
We can’t afford to do it ourselves and we can’t afford the Abrams.
No accident that Charles first overseas visit was to Germany
I just thought he was visiting relatives….
Not too proud to accept help from the Prussians to resurrect our armoured vehicle building skills. When William ascends the the throne the Stuart dynasty will be reinstated…maybe horse cavalry, swords and romantic Skye ballads will make a comeback.
Just like the WCSP contract the winning company over-sold their capability, went in under budget and politicians had an anyone but BAE policy. Its an absolute disgrace! Heads should role on all sides!
WCSP was poorly project managed and not gripped hard enough by MoD. Timelines were leisurely. Senior officers and politicians were not engaged. There was no production funding set in place. Total disaster. Army needed this programme badly. I doubt if Boxers will be good enough to replace Warrior, and Boxer for the AI seems to be a far more expensive option.
There’s two people I now work with who were on the WSCP. Both have said Warrior would have been ready with all the bugs sort out, if it was given another 9 months.
As a chartered engineer and ex-REME, I can well believe that…and I could guess that it would have been cheaper than buying more Boxers.
It was my understand that some of the hulls coming from Spain had the defected hulls. I don’t know how true that is, but that’s what I remember reading a few years ago. Can someone let me know about that?
The ASCOD based light tank made by Ebit systems of Israel don’t seem to suffer the AJAX problems . They were ordered in January 2021 and it seems two have been successfully delivered to the Philippines without bad press!
We got some of our hulls from General Dynamics Spain. UKdefencejornal did an article ‘296 Ajax armoured vehicle hulls delivered from Spain so far’ on the delivery. What you quoted was a variant based on General Dynamic’s ASCOD and manufactured in Ebit Systems Israel.
Although as a program to build six different variant vehicles on the same chassis, I wonder we should expect it to have six times the complication of
a normal program.
“Management issues and concerns about excessive noise and vibration”
I wonder why this is such a big problem for a 2020-era vehicle? Surely the issues of controlling noise and vibration in automotive designs are something that other armored vehicles must have faced and dealt with after 1916 so that it isn’t just something that comes up out of the blue?
Was there a collapse in the knowledge base of tracked vehicle design in the UK or something?
Not really.
The weight ballooned as the protection level and kit ballooned until it was at the very limit of the suspension and drive system.
Daily fundamental engineering you never push any parameter close to 100%!!
Abrams did not sound, er, too quiet to me:
https://youtu.be/GXnCPOsHPAM
Abrams is a main battle tank not a quiet, stealthy recce vehicle.
Yes, Graham – but the question concerned tracked armoured vehicles. The high pitch associated with the Abrams gas turbine is surprisingly intense on the various uploaded videos i.e. without us observers being inside as crew (I regard the headphones / defenders being a constant for many types, of course).
The noise issues majored on most news channels as damaging to operators, with associated compensation awarded in instances (appropriately chased by the firm that bombards- ! – this sight, Compensation.co.uk.
That does not excuse design faults with Ajax, of course, but does remain a valid comparison, I’d contend.
Rgs GG
Thanks Gavin. I remember spending time in 432s – the noise and vibration was very wearing.
👍No worries. I’m lucky enough not to have spent any time in such vehicles, so was not belittling issues, of course. Ship engine rooms on occasion mind….
The army requirement was flawed. The decision to base the design of Ajax on a much lighter vehicle was flawed.
The choice of GDUK was irrational – the company was brand new, had zero track record (pardon the pun) in designing and building AFVs (although GDLS US did) – GDUK did not have a proper tank factory, so they had to use a corner of a fork lift truck factory, with many facilities lacking. Still, at least it created regional jobs in Wales!
Then the project was badly managed and controlled by politicians, the army/MoD and Industry. QC in GD was weak and not helped by MoD having no QA team based in the Welsh or Spanish factories.
What went wrong was having degraded our armoured vehicle building capability , the powers that be decided to buy a Spanish/Austrian vehicle keep the same chassis and add loads of extras which came in at an extra 10 tonnes ship all the parts to a converted forklift factory in Wales and look bewildered when something didn’t go as planned. Yup welcome to the British military of yesterday and today Pound foolish and penny shy. Just look at:
Warrior
Lack of Challenger 2 upgrade
Lack of AWACs upgrade
Sentry sell off
Anti-ship missile debarkle (Only recently resolved)
Lack of an AS90 upgrade
Type 45 Engine debarkle
Carrier with no Cat
Splitting the replacement for the type 23 with 2 different classes
As I state above pound foolish penny shy, its all about cutting money from the defence budget in which to save money, which as we have seen time and time and time again resulting in costing the MOD even more. It’s a f-ing joke and I personally would like to see heads roll, (Civil servants , MPs and Military experts) who appear to get it wrong more times than they get it right.
Add Sale of C130 Hercules fleet.
I don’t think the sale of the Hercules is a bad thing. What is bad is no new orders of A400M. The airframes are exhausted and the A400M can do everything the C130 can other than SF so well. An order of 4-6 MC130 and more A400M will be good enough.
That is the caveat, and even I, as one who bemoans its loss, can agree with you, IF there are replacements ordered that are smaller than Atlas and more Atlas added.
Ultimately it’s all smoke and mirrors. BAe 146 is gone and the half a dozen or so airframes are replaced by 2 jets that can only do passenger transport. MC130 won’t be bought because we will be told that a limited fleet would increase costs, despite lots of other countries operating limited C130 fleets.
Refuelling is probably the biggest disgrace. We were often relied upon by allies and now we only have 9 aircraft. Boom isn’t an issue to be honest as I don’t see it having any use other than for the RC135 and E7 but if we only have 6 then it isn’t very justifiable in a cash strapped environment.
More E7 past the 5 suggested but at least 5, more P8, more F35B, upgrade tranche 2 Typhoons, more A400M needed.
Spot on👍
Agreed on the first point. BAE even said after the Terrier build that they would have to close the Newcastle site if no new orders came in. As expected no new orders came in and we lost a really good factory there.
Cats has its ups and downs and I think STOVL is ultimately the better choice. It would’ve been better if we still had a squadron of Harriers although we’re a bit past their usefulness.
T31 is a very good ship and a necessary one at that. A navy with just T45 and T26 as escorts is very expensive and we need that lower end capability.
We should at least have upgraded all tracked AFVs at the BAE site, not only to give them work, but because you need to upgrade AFVs several times during their service life.
Agreed, what both the Army and RAF need is something similar to National Shipbuilding Strategy.
Where armoured vehicles have a planned calendar life, which includes modifications. But the modifications are capped towards a vehicle exit date of 20 years. Where they then get replaced with new builds incorporating all the modifications or a new type is purchased. It’s a similar problem with keeping aircraft up to date and dealing with obsolescence. More through life planning should be put in place at the start of the program. Where the decision to keep the upgrade cycle going or buy new can be factored in to the cost of the program.
Too many times have I seen “lets get the aircraft into service first!” Then deal with upgrades and modifications at a later time. Which has led to modifications/upgrades going massively over budget and delivery times pushed to the right. Which inevitably pushed the price past purchasing new and led to the program being cancelled.
We do now have a (military) Land Industrial strategy but it looks to be a bland document compared to the naval equivalent.
It was not so long ago that we had 5 independent AFV manufacturers, all with comprehensive manufacturing facilities including weighbridges and test tracks etc. They all made good equipment at a good price, which was upgraded and stayed in service for a long time – also development times were quite short.
Contrast to today’s situation: BAE’s modern tank factories sold off or re-purposed; a start-up company with inexperienced personnel designing and manufacturing advanced recce vehicles in part of an old fork lift truck factory; prolonged development times with the ISD being missed by years; assembly halls instead of proper fully-equipped factories with even hulls being bought-in.
Vehicle exit date of 20 years! I wish!
CR2 has been in service for 27 years and counting; AS90 for 31 years, Warrior for 37 years and CVR(T) for over 50 years.
We used to modify and upgrade vehicles constantly – the Wiki entry for Chieftain lists all the Marks. Significant upgrades were often but not always done at a Base Overhaul by a REME static workshop – or else at the OEM’s site.
Many of our AFVs now get only minor modifications or small upgrades or only get tweaked to a new TES for a particular operation but rarely get significant upgrades – inexplicable to me.
Its a quite obvious fail. Underarmed-tick, overweight-tick and unreliable-tick.
What more could you want. Most variants are actually unarmed. Waste of woking space but good for crowd control with a water cannon.
40mm cannon is underarmed? Its predecessor was 30mm.
Unreliability is not proven, we are only 4 months into RGT.
Many variants of CVR(T) lacked a cannon but still had a MG. No surprise that the same is true for many Ajax variants. A recovery variant does not need a cannon and could not carry one together with its role equipment.
The American Government 1996 Audit into 30+ years of CTA development by American Air Force Lab’s suggests otherwise !
USAF were developing CTA? Interesting. What did their 30 years development show or prove – I cannot find references.
Why 30 years? You can develop a nuclear sub or a space shuttle in less time than that!
The report seems a bit hard to find on net now. Type in Battlespace updates , this will take you to Battlespace website where Julian nettlefold has written an article on the CTA 40 and information from the american report. Click on the all features button and search” CTA cannon in perspective” and” 1996 GAO report” In fairness the barrel life is now up to 750 rds and recoil reduced with a muzzle brake .
Yes a 40mm is underarmed.Overweight is going to be its major problem. It would be better to have had a light tank with a gun that demolishes some serious stuff like a 105mm.
We found all this out in 1944 when we had to make do with 75mm.
Without wishing to be obtuse, re your point on 1944 and the 75mm armed Shermans. The popular history take is that the 75mm gun was hated by crews as it didn’t have the muzzle velocity to penetrate anything the Germans had and was a “peashooter”.
As with a lot of the “known truths” about the Sherman, this isn’t actually true. Many of the crews with the 75mm short gun armed Shermans didn’t want to upgrade to longer guns. The British Army had the option to mass upgrade their Shermans to the long 76 and refused. This was because the longer gun had a rubbish HE shell compared to the very effective one the 75mm enjoyed and whilst undeniably superior in the AP role, German armour was rarely encountered at ranges where the longer gun would make much difference. The AP round for the “peashooter” 75mm could in fact deal with anything short of a Panther or Tiger frontally and could penetrate both from the side and rear no problem at up to 1000 yards. The feted Michael Wittman actually met his end in this way, not from a 17pd round from a British Firefly, but from a 75mm round from a Canadian Sherbrookes Sherman from the side. The 75mm HE round had a much superior bursting charge and was dramatically better against non-armoured targets and the British in particular loved it. Up close it was extremely effective. The “Big Cats” were comparatively rarely encountered and against the Marders, StuGs, Panzer IVs, assorted assault guns and so on that made up the majority of the Wehrmacht and SS fighting armoured strength in 44, the 75mm AP round did the business no problem. Where the comparatively rare “Big Cats” were encountered, these were almost never at range and were pucker close at first contact, particularly in Normandy and as I say, the 75mm AP round was still pretty effective up close out of the frontal arc. And, as the Poles discovered and loved to do, a 75mm WP round was brutally and almost invariably effective against anything, Jagdtigers, Jagdpanthers, King Tigers you name it.
Yes, the Allies struggled at first with the Schwere Panzer Abteilungs in the British and Canadian sectors but even these units were at least 50% Panzer IV formations that could be readily dealt with with 75mm AP shot from any angle at typical fighting ranges. Against their Panzer Grenadier and infantry support, the heavier 75mm HE round was superior and the British as I say were big fans.
I’d contend that the 40mm main armament on Ajax can be viewed in similar terms. It’ll defeat anything it is likely to encounter (the heaviest IFV / APC on the planet, the VN20 is still only STANAG6 and won’t keep out a 40mm AP round let alone the BMPs, BDMs and BTRs Ajax is likely to be fighting) in a recce role and will without a doubt have better optics and fire control to boot. As with the 75mm Shermans, if they encounter an MBT they cannot deal with (and I will give you decent odds on the 40mm AP round doing some surprisingly penetrative things to any T54/55/62 and earlier 72s) they back off and let the specialists do their thing. In Normandy it was tank destroyers and Typhoons and these days it’ll be mobile fires, Javs and, ironically, Typhoons and their ilk.
Problem is if you want to arm Ajax with something that can take on modern MBTs then you risk having some idiot use them for this purpose. 😊
Great post, full of detail and facts. As I have followed Waffen SS, Wehrmacht matters closely, especially on the Eastern Front, you are spot on and I enjoyed reading this.
Love the Jagdpanther and Hetzer BTW!
OK I hear what you say. I have had the privilege of visiting the Normandy battlefields twice with veterans of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry who were in Cromwells. They were I think a recce battalion. The first time I went, I was shown the place where the Cromwell my guide was in, was knocked out by a Tiger after hitting it three times at close range. The German tank was finally destroyed and had only been removed the year previously 1958! I think he was knocked out twice so no lack of courage! And yes they were used to spearhead Goodwood.
I think for recce you do need at least some of your troop to be armed with more than a 40mm both for HE and ambushing the enemy at close range hence a 105mm. Standard NATO round.
Jonno, you obviously do not believe in conducting recce by stealth, unlike the RAC!
Spot on👍
“The feted Michael Wittman actually met his end in this way, not from a 17pd round from a British Firefly, but from a 75mm round from a Canadian Sherbrookes Sherman from the side”.
Ive looked a few times on the web at this over the last year or so – and still ended up seeing conflicting reports regards this & the last I saw still implied it was the firefly that did for him.
Do you have the definative link for this as I’d like to have a look.
Hi mate – this was the best explanation i found. Have a watch and let me know your thoughts. I found it rational and quite logical. Battlefield Mystery’s The death of Panzer Ace Michael Wittman. – YouTube
Jonno, you do know that Ajax is a recce vehicle?
Some recce vehicles in the western world have just a MG, some have a cannon (mostly 20-30mm). So a 40mm cannon is big and definitely not underarmed.
Ideally a recce vehicle does not fire a single round in its mission which is primarily to gather information by stealth, except if ‘surprised’ by the enemy.
If however it is deployed on flank protection, then it uses its weapon.
If it is tasked/authorised to take out enemy light and medium armour such as enemy recce for example it will use its cannon – and 40mm will shred the enemy vehicle.
Scimitar and Ajax are not light tanks – they are recce vehicles. They will not be engaging heavy armour such as MBTs.
As we all know Ajax, will not just be used for Recce. It will also be used for force protection and possibly light strike roles, just like the CVR(T)s and Warrior were. Ukraine have shown how effective Scorpions and Scimitars are at thunder runs, out flanking Russian positions, forcing the Russian to fall back. I’m pretty certain if we were in the same position, we would do the same. Besides, if that’s all you have available, then that’s what you will use.
Although Ajax will weigh around 36t, with a supposed growth potential to 42t. It will be the most heavily purpose built protected “recce” vehicle available. Along with superior optics and other sensors, plus the CTA40. It does have the capability to be used more aggressively than passively. However, though the CTA40 will be capable of dealing with any IFV around. It could do with a bit more punch for those advance to contact scenarios. Which could be provided by an attached ATGM, such as Javelin, Spike or Akeron MP (MMP).
The conflict in Ukraine has shown, that having an armoured vehicle fitted with an ATGM can be enough to stop an armoured thrust. So perhaps, the Army will re-evaluate the need for installing ATGMs on IFVs etc, due to the lessons learned from Ukraine?
Good points Davey. I am sure that when Ajax was conceived of back in the FRES era it was to be a straight recce vehicle and then later became a proponent for ‘Strike’, once a certain CGS got involved. Recce will probably still be its main role.
Many seem to think that ‘Strike’ is dead because the two Strike brigades were lost from the Orbat, but maybe the concept lives on in a different way.
I am all for AFV-mounted ATGMs as our enemies may well have lots of tanks and other medium AFVs – and we should never have phased out Milan Compact Turret (MCT) on Spartan or CVR(T) Striker which carried 10 x LR Swingfire. Time to replace those much-missed vehicles.
Ah, sorry Graham, I have just said something very similar, did not see you’d covered this already.
Most of the vehicles it is replacing are unarmed too.
The 40mm CT cannon is hardly underarmed. It provides a step change in penetration and stopping power. All non AJAX variants are armed with a Kongsberg 151 SDW remote weapon station, capable of mounting 7.62 GPMG, .50 cal HMG or 40mm GMG according to role. Unreliable? You obviously have unique access to the RGT data, do tell!
The entire CVRT family it replaces bar Scorpion, Striker, and Scimitar were also “underarmed” with little more than a GPMG. They did not need to be. Spartan had some variants with Milan FP on the roof.
No genuine comparison.
Underarmed? I’d 100 % agree that overwatch variants with both Brimstone, ( to replace Striker ) SHORAD, with AA Cannon and HVM/LMM and so on would be desirable, but the Scout variant with 40mm Cannon???? 😀
And there was also a DF variant with 120mm Gun once that got cancelled. That does not make the vehicle useless.
The US are taking delivery of an AJAX based Mobile Fire Support platform armed with a 105mm cannon, tasty!
Thanks Daniele. I think some folk have lost sight that Ajax is a recce vehicle, that we Brits conduct recce by stealth and not recce by fighting and that a 40mm stabilised cannon is just right. It enables self-protection and deliberate engagement of light and medium armour if that fits the mission. If the mission is to conduct recce without being seen then you would not seek to engage enemy vehicles. If the mission is flank protection, then you would, aggressively, all the time.
Most Ajax (and before that Scimitar) variants are not there to engage the enemy but to conduct a very different role and a significant (ie large calibre/long range) weapon system is not required and/or could not easily be fitted, if at all. The Apollo repair vehicle has a roof mounted crane so no space for a turret and cannon (not that it would be required for role), so it has a RWS for self protection. I don’t accept that such variants are underarmed – they are armed commensurate for their role.
In the CVR(T) range there was STRIKER with Swingfire. Clearly that was a variant specifically for LR ATGW missions. Also SPARTAN MCT (Milan Compact Turret) for MR ATGW missions. Obviously they had significant weapon systems as their role required it.
Daniele, you have a lot of question marks in your penultimate paragraph – do you have doubts about having a 40mm cannon for a scout/recce vehicle?
Not at all Graham, you read my meaning wrong. The many question marks were incredulity at Jonno’s opinion that the vehicle is underarmed. I believe that calibre will wreck most things save MBTs it comes across and I’d not want to be on the end if it.
And given some footage from Ukraine, even MBT’s can be knocked out with a good close up dose of 30-40mm autocannon fire.
👍
yes, there’s at least one case of Ukrainian btr4 plastering a Russian mtb with 30mm autocannon, before tank crew had time to realise what’s happening. That said, it was a very close contact (Mariupol, if I remember correctly), within a built-up area, hit and run from around the corner.
Thanks Daniele. Makes perfect sense. I am incredulous that anyone should think a recce vehicle needs to have a 105mm tank cannon, and to be redesignated ‘light tank.
In the mean time the Israelis have built the Sabrah light tank based on Ascod and sold over a 100 to the Philippines. I wonder if they had any problems with the chassis and weight integration for some comparison?
They’ve bought a total of 20 vehicles. There doesn’t seem to be any integration issues. Can’t say for sure if they have problems with the chassis, we’d have to wait for the follow on order to find out. They’ve been quite open about the pros and cons of their weapons procurement.
Hi Iwan, yes, you’re correct, 20 plus 10 other support vehicles. No idea where my 100+ figure came from. Lol 😁
It will depend on how armoured the “light tank” is? If it’s purely based on the ASCOD hull platform, then its armour protection is less than a standard Warrior even without the TES additions. Which means its protected over a frontal arc against 20mm APFSDS rounds and 7.62mm AP rounds on the sides and rear. Which is between STANAG 4569 Level 4 and 5.
The Ajax armour requirement was STANAG 4569 Level 6, though some report is as 6+. This means its protected over the frontal arc against 30mm APFSDS. For steel RHA to have protection against 30mm rounds you need over 100mm of steel. If 10mm of steel adds around 1t in weight, it soon adds up. Ajax uses a mix of primary steel armour, overlaid with composite and an applique stand-off hard steel plate. This why it can provide the required protection, but also one of the reasons it s weighs so much.
The Philippines have a requirement for a light tank mounting a 105mm gun to provide fire support. It is designed to operated in the jungles and small islands of the Philippines, primarily in support of anti-terrorist operations. Therefore, its armour requirements is not the same a the UK’s, hence why it is a lot lighter.
Thanks for you detailed reply. Yes, I looked up on the Sabrah, which is around 30+ tonnes, so lighter than Ajax and as you say the Ajax spec is pretty high tech and weight wise. But i still have to admire Elbit getting on with this variant, selling it overseas and it obviously works!! Elbit seems to be in everything these days!! Anyway I won’t add anymore to this thread, many comments have been said already.
Am I the only person who thinks NATO would benefit tremendously if we used one base type of IFV, one base type of MBT, and perhaps even one base type of tracked 155mm gun. I know individual countries want to maintain their military industrial capability, and we could still do that. I am not thinking about production savings (e.g., each country producing part of the system) but rather fielding systems in the end that can be repaired and maintained in combat conditions by everyone. So each country could make the number they need and even be involved in foreign military sales to outside NATO. One set of parts, one set of special tools, and incidentally one set of expectations of performance by battlefield commanders regardless of nationality. (Let’s see how Ukraine does with all of the different types of vehicles they have been given).
It’ll be fine. My understanding is the issues have largely been worked through and the certification for the fixes are well underway now. It is late, it is over-budget and it is heavier than we wanted but that’s not the fault of the platform. At its heart it is a highly capable bit of kit and the issues – the vast majority of them at any rate – have been caused by scope creep, a deeply flawed procurement process and our unerring tendency to want to put more shiny gleaming things on platforms mid-dev cycle that makes a mess of the testing and certification timelines and so on.
It’ll be delivered and it’ll be really good when it is, but when that happens is the crux of the issue now.
Seems silly to blame the platform when it was the people asking for it that are to blame.
A balanced post which speaks to the subject of the article. Well done! 🙂
The Government report put some blame on the poorly jigged and made hulls which were out of tolerance. Yet they still have ISO 9001 certification !
At last! Some sense!
Agreed, saved me lots of one finger typing!👍
Well said that man!
I agree with this but it is near impossible not to reassess a programme that runs for over 10 years and then not to tweak the requirements at least once – technology changes and so does the threat and vehicle-related legislation etc etc.
I understand this happened once for Ajax in 2016 – suitable Contract Amendment done – carry on.
589 recce vehicles to scout for 150 tanks. No IFV’s. The recce vehicle has no APS, integrated drone or ATGM, weighs 40 tons and isn’t amphibious. The project started before some of the people who will operate it were born. British Army things.
Only some of that number are the “Scout” variant, so no, it is not 589 scouting for 150 Tanks.
Semantically sure but everyone one here is aware there are a lot of support variants in the Ajax family. Effectively though, to deliver the scout/recce role the army has ordered 589 vehicles and it’s prioritised those order numbers over things like more C3’s or an IFV. It doesn’t make sense and the Army effectively admitted that when it tried to shoehorn spare Ajax vehicles into the Strike concept as a fire support light tank and then into Deep Strike BCT carpark.
Agree with your wider points re Strike and BSBCT.
On the overall number, it should be remembered though that when the Armoured Cavalry Ajax program started the army still planned to field 3 Armoured Bdes, 3 Armoured Regs, 3 AS90 Regs, 6 Warrior AI Bns, and 3 CS Armoured Engineer Regs.
So the number is a legacy amount based on the previous ORBAT.
If they went and cut the number, which they might not be able to depending on contract, we’d still have moans abut numbers!!
Hi mate,
agree that the number is a legacy issue from the previous ORBAT, which, to my mind would indicate that with the new ORBAT, we now find ourselves with not only too many Ajax vehicles, but might not the legacy mix of variants now also be a potential issue?
Its also a very heavy vehicle, Europe where it will be fighting, has lots of rivers that need crossing, Ajax isnt amphibious, so are we getting a dedicated bridge laying variant to support said formations? As they will be fighting alongside Boxer, perhaps a Boxer bridge variant is a requirement too!
Im sure someone (Ian?) with more knowledge than me should be able to shed more light on this thread.
The concern is the hugh number of c2 in both the Ajax and Boxer orders. When at one time we were to have effectively 2 separate fleets, Boxer in 2 Strike Bdes worth of CS, like its 2 Engineer Regs, and Tracked in 2 Armoured infantry Bdes and the 2 Eng regs assigned to them.
Now it is effectively merged.
Not aware regards the bridge layer butvuts a good point.
Ian? I’ve been waiting for him to “surface” from under his bridge since I saw this article! And he’s here!
Well, since we are effectively losing Warrior around 2025, tbr by Boxer – which I don’t really have a problem with, my major concern is the lack of supporting variants that are required (6-8 at least) which doesn’t seem to have gotten any airtime!!
I also still believe that where possible some of the CS/CSS units should be taken out of Boxer and put into something cheaper shall we say – a 6×6 (Patria/Pandur/Puma et al}. This would allow for more ‘fighty’ type Boxer variants to be procured, putting more ‘boots’ into Mech formations. Totally radical I know,but…..
Mate, on your last para especially in in total agreement! The old Warrior Bns still had 432s, so, makes sense to me.
Understand the Patria is cheap by comparison?Maximise the expensive Boxer in the Bns.
It is a bit weird, embarrassing even, that in a multi billion program for potentially 1,000 plus vehicles, ust 5 Bns are so equipped, in an army with 31 Bns ( I lose count )
Pre FS the A2020 had 9 Armoured or Mechanized Bns, 6 Warrior, 3 Boxer, which at that time was to be from the late 20s AFTER Ajax and WCSP were dealt with. 2015 wrecked all that and brought the program forward.
And to think people were moaning about A2020! Seems amazing compared to the current situation..
I have no problem with Boxer replacing upgraded Warrior (WCSP) providing they all have a beefy stabilised cannon (preferably 40mm), have equal or better mobility in snow, ice and deep glutinous mud – and costs less than the WCSP programme.
It seems as if we have not ordered enough Boxers for the 5 Inf Bns in the ABCTs – just ordered two Bn sets so far!
This is the issue with wheels is it not, their mobility in certain types of terrain isn’t as good as tracked. Having said that, the Finns, French and Italians have large wheeled fleets and not being as mobile as tracked units doesn’t seem to bother them. Perhaps they are happy to accept any such limitations?
Yes, it will be interesting to see what else they fit to Boxer long term, and, how the number we are buying eventually gets divided amongst the different variants required.
Believe we are looking at some 1000+ vehicles over time, but as you say, currently out of some 600 on order, only enough for 2 Bns so far. From someone on the outside looking in, it just looks a very odd mix!
Hi Deep, we are in a string debating Boxer as a replacement for Warrior IFV, and IFVs absolutely must keep up with the tanks across the terrain the tanks cross. You are right that Finland, France and Italy operate wheeled infantry vehicles alongside tanks rather than tracked IFVs. Interesting that the French replaced the tracked AMX-10P with the wheeled VBCI, so is something similar to what we are doing.
The rest of the world favour tracked IFVs.
Who is right as regards mobility?
But it’s essential that the Boxers supporting tanks in the ABCT brigades have a beefy stabilised cannon..and that we buy enough wagons for 5 Bns.
Catching up Daniele.😁
Hi Deep, GD have demonstrated a bridging variant already, just need the MOD to buy it. Also, a Brimstone overwatch ARES has been seen.
Cheers
The Army should have a replacement for the aptly named CVR(T) STRIKER – crazy that it went out of service, as did SPARTAN MCT. Anyone would think our enemies had given up their tanks years ago! The Brimstone wagon sounds ideal.
Cheers Ian wasnt aware, its one of those unfashionable unsung capabilities that are always needed and are never in the spotlight until they are..
Of course, therein lies the problem – we need to buy it!!Also like the idea of Brimstone on ARES, something else we need to buy then.
Recce vehicles, such as Ajax, operate well forward, on their own. They don’t have combat engineers with bridging next to them, so they need to cross all obstacles without support or detour around them.
However the brigade as a whole clearly needs and has combat engineers who can provide bridging.
I don’t see that Ajax is fighting alongside Boxer – that was the old Strike Brigade concept which is dead. Ajax, being recce, will operate forward of Infantry in Boxers (and RAC in tanks). Don’t need a Boxer bridge variant – the sappers have a range of bridging options depending on the unit to be supported, ranging from tank-based TITAN AVLB (assault bridging) to truck-carried BR90 to M3 amphibious Pontoon/Ferry rigs – and more besides (ie heavier LofC bridging).
Cheers mate, will need to brush up on UK bridging equipment for my own benefit, if nothing else. Didn’t realise we had so much TBH.
Appreciate that Ajax will be out in front compiling a picture so to speak. What I actually mean is that the other variants – ARES et al will be supporting the battle-group as and where required.
Not sure if its a requirement, but believe Ajax itself would benefit from having a ATGW fitted much like the French Jaguar. The 40mm is by all accounts a good gun, but if Ajax bumps into a tank/tanks, then its going to be a very shit day for them I would imagine.
Too many Ajax? The original army requirement was for 1,000 – although defence cuts since project inception have had a bearing.
Yes, that was more in reply to @DM’s comment on the reduction in AI Bdes from 3 to 2, where we have ordered some 600 (589) Ajax and variants.
We have now lost an AI Bde, so, does that mean broadly speaking, that we have some 200 Variants more than we now require, and, is the split in variants still valid?
Appreciate it might be somewhat difficult to answer directly, it was just something that intrigues me, given the armies urgent need to modernise lots of equipment and the amount of money available to do so..
Deep,
We have two ABCTs each with one armd cav regt (KRH in 12x; RDG in 20x) and two armd cav regts in 1 DRSBCT (HCR and RL). So four regts in all. Can’t recall how many Ajax per cav regt but it may well be 38, so that is 152.
Then there is the Ajax recce tp for each of the two armd regts, so another 16.
Then there is an Ajax recce pl with each Boxer (AI?) Bn so another 40.
Grand Total in the Field Force – 208.
Then you have to add in Ajax with the Trg Org and also those in depot as a Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve, so say – Fleet Total of 250.
Yet we are only buying 198 Ajax recce. So my assumptions are wrong somewhere! Perhaps AI Bns have a different veh in their Recce Tp. Perhaps the A-Tk Sqn and the Fire Sp Sqn in the Cav Regts have a different variant of Ajax.
I very much doubt though that we have ordered too many Ajax.
As for Ajax variants – my guesses are likely to be wilder, so I best keep shtum!
Daniele is the Orbat King so he might be able to sort this out!
For what it is worth, I feel intuitively that we have too many recce regiments. Other nations have one medium recce sqn per brigade and we have a whole regiment.
Ha, nice of you to say mate, though there are others too like Dern, and Louis who know their ORBATS.
I agree, I’ve no issues with how many we are buying, as you say, attrition reserves, the ones with LTF, AC, and so on.
On variants, beyond what you’ve outlined I’m nowhere near confident myself, beyond guesswork at the units who would get examples simply based on historical presadent with CVRT variants and who used them.
Hi Graham, thanks for the reply.
Just my cynical mind at work here, have the 2 armd cav regts been parked in 1 DRSBCT because they are perhaps ‘orphaned’ with nowhere else to really put them, or, are they really a vital component of the BCT?
This as you know isn’t my area, but it just looks like an odd mix to me, unless of course this is just a placeholder formation for a few years while we get numbers of new vehicles up and running to form other BCTs – IE Mech etc?
Those 2 armd cav regts in 1 DRSBCT were no doubt intended to be in the two Strike Brigades in a former Orbat, where they would have worked with Infantry in Boxers – in part conducting formation (or medium recce) recce ahead of the brigade main body and in part providing additional fire support to the Boxers (not sure what weapon they would have had, probably just a MG in a RWS configuration). Upgraded Warriors (WCSP) would of course be elsewhere in ABCTs with tanks, until some buffon cancelled WCSP.
All change.
Those Cav units in DRSBCT now have no infantry to work for and with. But they do have artillery units to work with. I guess the cav working well forward do medium recce and help to acquire targets for the guns, but are also not amiss to engaging targets of opportunity (ie enemy AFVs in forward areas.
Who then assaults and winkles out enemy infantry and holds ground? – whoops! – no-one.
Who kills tanks? The A/Tk component in the cav regts. Is that beefy enough?
Moot point as to whether this Orbat is a placeholder – the Orbats seem to change frequently. As Daniele has said the Orbat in Future Soldier (FS) especially for the warfighting div (3 Div) is full of holes.
Well something must have been cut somewhere as the original number is now expected to cover four regiments. Although even the maths with the three regiments only just adds up.
Agree, one could look at the timeline to try to work it out. And yes, the RAC has been contracting for years.
In BAOR it was Tank heavy with 13 Armoured Regs, 12 of which were in Germany, and the Armoured Recc Regs were a Divisional asset with 1,3, and 4 Divisions.
After the Cold War, with 1 UK and 3 UK Div, I recall, maybe incorrectly without checking, that each Brigade had a Recc Reg.
So 6 Recc Regs and 6 Armoured Regs, plus the JNBC Reg. This was at the late 90s, when DS Robertson converted 24 AM to a 6th Mech Bde, with 24 merging with 5 Airborne.
19 Mech then got converted ( cut ) to 19 Light, so goodbye 1 Tank, and 1 Recc Reg.
2010 – 4 Mech and 7 Armoured got cut, so there went another 2 Tank and 2 Recc Regs, with CVRT equipped formations becoming equipped with Jackal.
Which left 3 Tank, 3 Armd Recc (CVRT) 3 Light Recc (Jackal) which now gets adjusted to 2 Tank, 4 Armd Recc, 3 Jackal.
It is a game of musical chairs with cuts that has taken place since the late 90s and is hard to keep a track of.
But we manage. 👍
I think before 19 brigade was converted to light there were 10 RAC regiments plus HCR. It was split 1 T44 tank regiment and one recce regiment per mech brigade and 1 T58 regiment per armoured brigade.
1 recce regiment was division recce for 1 armoured division but I’m not sure what the other one did, maybe 3 division recce.
Cuts are disastrous but the more I think about it the more I realise that the hark back to BAOR isn’t the right solution either.
A bigger issue in my opinion is the fact we had 19 regular RLC regiments in 2010 and now have 11.
Artillery has been neglected for an extremely long time, even in BAOR it wasn’t really that powerful- only 54 MLRS planned to support a Corps.
Air defence, artillery, RLC all need investment.
REME seems to be doing quite well though with the new battalion, ridiculous that DRSBCT has a REME battalion but no logistics regiment.
My point about Ajax was rather the numbers ordered are too small.
198 to fill four regiments and 7 recce platoons. Only way it can reasonably add up is 4 regiments of 36 and the recce platoons to reduce to 6 vehicles.
Yes, noted.
Agree on CS, CSS, you know my feelings on that!
Agree the DRSBCT needs to have its own organic CSS if it is to be a “proper” brigade. It’s own infantry ( and Tanks, a Dern suggestion ) would be good. Just a REME Bn bit no organic CS Log Reg to carry the ammo for 4 Regs worth of guns and MLRS???
My own opinion is that it was a desperate army creation to keep up the number of “Brigades” as it’s really 1 Art Bde, an administrative formation, expanded as the DAG. They call it a “merger” with 1 AI Bde, which to me is flowery army nonsense.
If they give it the tools it needs then I’d support it, it’s own logistics for starters.
4 LBCT needs a set of CS CSS to be fully deployable too, without having to rely on the reserves.
Exactly!
Very sad that the army is in such a state. Everything is always said to be revolutionary but pairing MLRS with armoured recce was used in the Gulf War.
7 and 4 BCT have too many infantry battalions. If we aren’t going to increase numbers past 73,000 then some must re-role to provide all CS and CSS for 4 BCT and a logistics regiment for DRSBCT.
Some recce regiments need to disband as I’m convinced, after looking at US future divisions that we have too much recce. Light infantry and armoured brigades have 1 company, airborne, air assault and penetration Brigades have 2 companies and Stryker brigades have 3. Yet Future soldier has 7 regiments for 4 brigades.
Might be an unpopular opinion but I think 11th SFAB and ASOB are both useful, after all the US has both. In fact I think the fifth Gurkha battalion should stand up to provide us a Far East capability. With a specialisation in Jungle warfare.
If turreted Ajax can actually accurately fire on the move after the noise and vibration mitigations, I would be fine with two regiments of armoured cavalry. Four regiments seems like a luxury due to the other well-known drawbacks:
1. Expensive to operate
2. Takes heavy equipment trailers to move to the front
3. Difficult to repair this complex AFV when it is doing recce away from the main force
4. Lack of a mounted anti-tank weapon (ATGM teams can ride in Ares)
5. Lack of real dismounts in case needed for dismounted recce (Ares only really mean to transport ATGM and sniper teams).
6. Lack of a bridging variant
7. Lack of mounted SHORAD / anti-drone options
8. The 40mm cannon uses unusual and expensive ammunition
Given the next Defence Command Paper will likely have more cuts than adds, I doubt there are funds for IFV Ajax, larger-capacity-than-Ares APC Ajax and bridging Ajax. The MoD has promised around 1000 Boxers, but these have wheels and shouldn’t battlegroup with Ajax too often if the recce role is going to exploit the extra mobility from tracks.
I don’t see a huge benefit to the current structure where two armoured cavalry regiments are included in the brigade with regiments of MLRS. Drop two of the armoured cavalry regiments and store the extra Ajax (or gift them to Ukraine if the war is still on). Put all the artillery in a separate brigade reporting to 3 Division. Put the 7th light mechanized brigade (formerly an armoured brigade!) into 3 Division so the division has three deployable brigades.
On the light cavalry regiments, I am not a fan of Jackal lacking glass windows and a roof. If the land industrial strategy prioritizes British assembly, maybe buy more Foxhounds for the light cavalry to use?
1. Agreed
2. It can use the LET or MET or whatever the broshuis trailers are called. Boxer can self deploy so that and Terrier is all that would be carried by these trailers anyway.
3. Every armoured recce unit faces this issue.
4. Hopefully that’ll be resolved with brimstone and I would say there is a fair chance of that.
5. British army has operated like that for ages. I don’t see why the 16 man support troop with 4 Spartan won’t be continued in Ares.
6. Shame the original Ajax order was cut but most nations don’t have IFV based bridging vehicles for recce units so it’s not a pressing issue.
7. CTA 40mm can perform anti air. Stormer can also deploy with Ajax and maybe we’ll see an Ajax based replacement.
8. Not necessarily a bad thing if it proves to be better than comparable cannons.
Agree I would rather have 3 recce regiments and keep the third tank regiment.
Light cavalry isn’t supposed to be armoured. As soon as you start up armouring recce vehicles they lose mobility. At a certain point you may as well just use armoured recce vehicles, but that defeats the purpose of light units.
Jackal also would make a great base for MRVP. Covered of course. It could hold 6 passengers which none of its competitors can really.
I’m assuming by “the fifth Gurkha Battalion” you mean the 5th Ranger Battlion since, by my count, there are six Gurkha battalions atm.
At any rate 3 RGR wasn’t disbanded, it was amalgamated with it’s coys going toward the increased establishment of some of the other battalions when the Group went from Spec Inf to Rangers. So you’re not going to see 3 RGR rise from the grave any time soon. Jungle Specialisation I raise my eyebrow at because pretty much every SpecInf battalion had a “Jungle Coy” in it’s orbat, at any rate, Jungles aren’t exclusive to the Far East, and several other battalions have Jungle in their orbat so, IMO, jungle warfare should be part and parcel for ASOB.
But what do I know 😛
I don’t think 3 RGR was ever raised, with some companies raised. You’re right about the jungle specialisation but a fifth battalion still makes sense to me. With two battalions in Africa, either you could re-role one or raise the half raised 5th Ranger regiment. Either Far East or High North but either way 1 battalion covering all of Europe and none covering the Far East doesn’t seem right.
3 RGR was raised, even deployed, then stood down, and redistributed. It can’t be re-raised without significant damage to the other Ranger Battalions at this point, so that ship has sailed (and tbh for the better).
Wouldn’t object to a 5th Battalion, but I think that’s currently unlikely. Rangers is already a considerable budget increase over the SIG, and manpower increase, good luck convincing the MoD to spend even more.
Wiki lists a good breakdown of all the variants,but you are right the ratio of Recce vs MBT is quite high.Obviously the art of Recce can be useful in different situations,not just full on Armoured Warfare.
Certainly but it’s not as useful as having an IFV, or appropriate fires supporting your Recce element. The Army is forced to choose, it chose badly. It should reconsider what it’s doing with the balance of variants and try create an Ares IFV.
But if Ares only carries 4 dismounts it’ll be of little use in the Infantry battalions as an IFV
Can be rearranged for 6 dismounts.
I asked that question and was told it can’t be configured as an IFV! If you know any better though please tell😄👍
Correct
I’d seen other more informed people state that there’s stowage racks for specialist recce gear that can be removed from Ares and it makes room for two more dismounts. If someone knows better I’ll defer to them. Obviously would require a remote turret and not a manned one.
No it can’t. Designed for 4 dismounts only. It is not and was never designed to be an APC or IFV. If the MOD were to issue a RFI regarding an AJAX family IFV then I’m pretty sure GDUK would move heaven and earth to come up with a solution, PDQ.
Need to dismount two x 4 man fire teams, and to add a turret with cannon.
The Scout, turreted versions were to furnish 6 AI Bns recc platoons as well as the 3 legacy AC Recc regiments that the 3 Brigades had, now altered to 4 with the Strike plan and still in effect with the DSRB.
I don’t have an issue with the number of scout variants when compared to the units they will equip and the numbers required for a reserve, training fleet, and so on.
More helpful if you think of it like 198 Vehicles scouting for 7 Battalions.
Just 198 are in the recce role; the others have other roles.
Medium recce does not just scout for the tanks – they scout for the whole of the brigade.
In fact the tank regiment will have its own close recce troop of Ajax (probably 8 vehs).
Ah yes, forgot to add them, the Armd Regs also have a Recc Troop so equipped.
As soon as I saw this article I thought…”Uh ohhh”
nothing sets off UKDJ posters more than a good moan re Ajax.
Good to see a few sensible comments.
👍😁
You’re here….thank God! 😆
Yup, been busy with armoured stuff.
Lies.
OPV’s with 30mm guns.
True…..🙄😏😆
Every Ajax needs at least 12 CAMM, a Flight Deck and Hangar, and some SSGM… wait…
Oh god what have I done.
😆 Maybe the masses won’t notice, it doesn’t take much to be fair to put ideas in their heads.
I’d settle for an APS as standard? No idea how much they cost though so even that might break the bank?
Depends how much you want to spend.
Use the Russian system of putting Pte Conscriptovich on top of the tank with a shotgun and it’ll be really cheap.
Had the expected order for a few hundred new Warrior 2000, gone ahead in the late 1990s, then the British Army would not be in this state.
There are a lot of discussions and anguish about issues arising from “gold plating” – adding extra bells and whistles mid development – but presumably at least some of those bells and whistles are of genuine value.
Assuming that Ajax does get through its difficult birthing process – and reading the posts saying that the issues do now appear to be resolved are encouraging on that score – will some of that gold plating make Ajax genuinely superior to other probably safer (hindsight is great, we can never know for sure) more off-the-shelf and established alternatives that could have been chosen?
After all the discussions about the painful development I’d like to indulge the glass-half-full optimistic side of me and hear some good stuff about the final product assuming there is stuff there to discuss.
Absolutely. DaveyB has previously commented on the types armour protection and Ian has often pointed out the ISTAR fit which is ahead of other types apparently?
I am unconvinced about the ISTAR loadout being amazing. The turreted Ajax lacks a sensor mask, like the 1990s Tracer was going to have before that vehicle was canceled. Turreted Ajax uses the same thermal imagers as Challenger 3, the last time I checked. And the turreted Ajax commander’s thermal imager can only be installed if the RWS with machine gun is not also installed. The main interesting sensor I have heard about on Ajax is an acoustic detector for the direction of gunfire. I wouldn’t call this an amazing feature although it may be rare worldwide.
Also, it is unclear how noise and vibration would affect the sensor performance and sensor longevity, if the noise and vibration has been only mitigated in the direction of crew safety.
The ISTAR equipment on AJAX is something our ‘murican’ cousins can only dream of. If you like, Google QWIP technology, hours of light (pun intended) reading.😁
I just did….I’d never heard of this, and it’s way above my pay grade. 😳
🤣🤣🤣👍
I’m happy with simple things like ORBATS and who is based where and does what and when, not “techie” star treck stuff!😳
Beam me up Spotty!🤣🤣🤣
Ajax-The sore that never heals. My heart sinks every time it is mentioned.
Frank,
Healing is happening. Vehicle completed User Validation Trials in late 2022, GDUK designed and implemented fixes and the vehicle is 4 months into Reliability Growth Trials with no untoward comments yet come to light. MoD has resumed staged payments. I guess you missed this info?
Thanks Graham, Ian & Davey. I think the Ajax program has been so traumatically awful for so long that my stomach turns every time another article & inevitable discussion comes up. That & the widespread use of acronyms in articles which often baffle me(thanks for explaining those you used Graham) & I have indeed missed that it may be finally moving out of the woods.
Of all the endless over running, over budget,delayed, convoluted, MOD programs, Ajax was the straw that broke my camels back!
Happy to help👍
As Graham says, RGT is well underway with no showstoppers coming to light. Training is full steam ahead. Live firing ongoing at pace. Payments made, deliveries made.
Are HCR still to be 1st to get some mate?
They’ve already got loads👍. Training going on all the time.
Cheers
Yes, I meant as operationally 1st Sqn equipped.
And I didn’t know they had that many. I saw months and months ago an Ares? being delivered via footage on Twitter but no more than that.
Good. Thanks.
Edit not working, also meant to say apologies for not being clear in my question.
Officially IOC is way off as per announcements but things are on the move👍
Cheers
I have a mate who was on the FRES program. Let’s just say I first met him with hair, after 3 years on the program he had none. If you think Ajax is bad, FRES was in the premier league of indecision, mismanagement and snowballing scope, that could never be met.
FRES evolved to become two programmes – Specialist Vehicle and Utility Vehicle – the first becoming Ajax and the latter becoming Boxer – so it is producing an end result. But I agree that the gestation period was massively long. Originally too big a programme to manage.
I seen a load of Ajax vehicles 2 days ago on the back of some flatbed trailers heading up the M5- there were 4 or 5 of them in total. They looked the real business and were completed vehicles with turrets. Looked decent. We must be getting close to have some for IOC soonish? how long does the trials programme run for if the issues with heat, vibration and noise have been improved. Note I said improved not resolved.
I really don’t understand why they won’t just ditch the programme and purchase CV90 instead
So much money dumped into inventing a cv90 oh wait that already exists, why didn’t they just buy that