The British Army has brought the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle into service, marking a major milestone for one of the UK’s most significant land equipment programmes.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed that Ajax has achieved Initial Operating Capability, meaning it can now deploy a squadron on operations following several years of development and testing.
Ajax is the first new armoured fighting vehicle to enter British Army service in nearly 30 years. According to the MOD, the programme supports more than 4,100 jobs across a supply chain of over 230 companies nationwide.
Defence Minister Luke Pollard said Ajax reflects how investment in modern equipment can boost both capability and industry. “Defence is an engine for growth. Ajax is contributing not only to the economy in South Wales but also across the UK,” he said. “This is a hugely important milestone that shows our ability to deliver a safe, effective and world-class vehicle.”
The platform has undergone extensive trials, including more than 20,000 rounds fired from its 40mm cannon, hot and cold weather training, and 42,000 kilometres of driving in operational scenarios. The vehicle family includes six variants and will replace the long-serving CVR(T) fleet, providing advanced reconnaissance, command, and support capabilities. Equipped with state-of-the-art sensors, a modular digital network, and a 70 km/h top speed, Ajax is designed to give the Army improved lethality, mobility, and situational awareness.
Former Defence Secretary says Army erred with Ajax, not CV90
Captain John Hutton of the Household Cavalry Regiment, one of the units testing the new platform, said Ajax delivers “a noticeable step change from the previous generation of armoured vehicles,” offering “360-degree vision and far greater control and awareness for the crew.”
Wales Secretary Jo Stevens said the project demonstrates how defence investment contributes directly to regional economies. “The delivery of hundreds of Ajax vehicles for the Army, made in Merthyr, cements the defence industry’s crucial role in the Welsh economy,” she said.
Rupert Pearce, the National Armaments Director, called Ajax “a transformational capability for UK defence” and highlighted its potential for export as discussions with international customers continue. He added that the programme shows how “thousands of skilled workers across Britain are strengthening national defence while supporting economic growth.”
Mired as it has been in all manners of controversies, it would be great to hear soldiers’ honest opinions on what they make of it
Main problem is there probably isn’t any active duty soldiers that have used a scout in an active war situation against a peer or near peer enemy. There definitely isn’t any that have used one in a drone rich environment. As such all the comments will just be comparing against the older vehicles, which is interesting but doesn’t tell the full story.
Excellent point. The introduction of drones into warfare APPEARS to have fundamentally changed warfare but I suspect it won’t be clear in what ways (if at all) it has for a while yet.
The worst thing we could do now is think we know all the answers and refuse to keep an open mind.
We know one thing for sure, traditional tactics /defences don’t work. Which means the Ajax doesn’t have the solution as it stands. What capabilities and defensive aids it will get fitted out with to counter the problem is the unanswered question.
Steve, you probably mean that tactics/defences as used by the Russian Army don’t work…and I would agree with you!
Tactics that NATO has trained Ukraine with don’t work either. It has been reported their summer offensive was such a failure was because they tried NATO tactics and they were totally unsuitable for the modern battlefield. So who knows.
Ukrainian Troops going into the summer offensive where mostly green, with very short duration NATO courses, some as short as 5 weeks, into the most heavily defended Russian positions, without air superiority or fire superiority.
The idea that it was a failure “because they tried NATO tactics” is at best utterly stupid.
Not entirely. NATO tactics are based on air superiority which would no longer exist in a drone rich environment. They are also designed on high mobility which wouldn’t work in a high land minded environment. They just haven’t been tested in a modern battlefield to be able to know if they work or not
All we know is the closet thing to testing them failed badly. Agree it’s only part of the picture /story but it’s info that should be learnt from and not just ignored.
Why wouldn’t air superiority exist somewhere with lots of drones? FPV drones are hardly downing fighters.
Lack of air superiority is one of the reasons for the reliance on drones.
Fighter planes are not all there is about air superiority. The concept is aimed at giving you a tactical advantage on survallince over the enemy. Bombing runs alone don’t do a whole lot.
Okay so as soon as challenged your changing your tune.
No this isn’t as “close to testing them” as it gets, and it’s really funny how you ignore the successful Ukranian counter offenses in Kursk and Kharkiv because they don’t play into your narrative, despite the successful use of high mobility maneuver by those forces.
Those offensive happned before the front line became a drone nightmare. They happened when Ukraine still had the survallince advantage from US spy sats etc. they haven’t been able to repeat it because it’s now impossible for either side to build up a force without the other side seeing it coming and their drones flying in destroying supply lines.
I am just going to suggest you have a look at the timeline. Because you don’t seem to be at all familiar with it.
Can’t the MOD have the Ukrainians test out a couple for Battlefield assessment .Then at least the Army can see if the wait was worth the time and money spent
Dern the Google warrior would claim to know…like everything else.
Well as he is a serving soldier whose life may well depend on the kit he is given I would say it’s in his own interests to find out the pros and cons don’t you? If he then wants to share that to us on here then more power to his elbow!
Well said.
Pissed in your cereal this morning did I?
They’re not allowed to say anything negative. Lots of “stop whinging” comments from above.
Steve, to hear what soldiers really think, listen to Dern, but also take a look at the ‘Community section’ of Army Rumour Service (arrsedotcodotuk and (obviously) type in Ajax to the search box.
There’s headlines as above and then there’s headlines like Sky News:
Expensive, noisy and delayed – but is the Army’s new fighting vehicle any good?
Billed as a “next generation” fighting machine, the nearly £10m Ajax left 17 soldiers requiring treatment for hearing loss. A minister tells Sky News the army “have put those (issues) to bed”.
I’m cheered that the Army has finally declared IOC and will start to ramp up training. Let the users decide whether the platform can perform as advertised (the concensus is that the troops like it) and it adds to capabilities.
To be fair pretty much every person I know who served on the old RN carriers flight decks suffered hearing loss…
Wonder whether the noise issue could not be turned into advantage. Amplify and broadcast the sound and terrify the opposition w/ the knowledge the BA has arrived and is preparing to kick ass. 🤔😉
Read the excellent Book by Simon Sebag Montifiore ( spelling ? ) ‘ Dunkirk’, in 1940 the noise or imagined noise of advancing Armoured Vehicles did cause considerable panic for the French Army during the Battle for France, it was an horrific thing.
This is positive news for once…great!
Nice to see a positive statement as well, thank you!
Good News
Now get the rest of them built and into service.
In September GD revealed an IFV variant of Ajax ….. forget Boxer, we should be going with that as a replacement for Warrior.
They probably would be, but there no money for it!
I say cancel the APC Boxer variant (keep the other variants) and look to invest the money in a tracked IFV with a cannon.
The Infantry Carrier variant, what was it…89?!
Nowhere near enough.
Boxer will hopefully end up in 7 Bde.
From what I can find, the variants ordered are:
Infantry Carrier(APC) 285
Command Post 77 Tactical command and control
Ambulance 61 Armoured medical evacuation
Specialist Carrier 60 Includes mortar, engineer, and logistics roles
Repair and Recovery 50 Battlefield maintenance and vehicle recovery
Joint Fires 20 Artillery and air support coordination
Engineer Section Vehicle 20 Combat engineering support
Surveillance and Reconnaissance 15 Sensor and observation platforms
Electronic Warfare 10 Signals intelligence and jamming
Protected Mobility Recce Support 10 Reconnaissance support
Training Variant 5 Driver and crew training
I think your both right. 85 was the initial Infantry Carrier Order. Then there was a follow on order that increased the ICV numbers to about 150
The boxer APC is very good for one thing and that is proving a heavy mec battalion with the most heavily protected wheeled (and tracked) APC money can buy.. for the really hot end of the wheeled infantry brigade boxer is top end.. the armies boxers are equipped with STANAG level 6.. that allows it to come under 30mm APFSDS and be protected as well as take 155mm blasts at 10meters range.. that is an exceptional level of protection.. if you pop a belt feed 40mm grenade launcher on a weapons mount it will have the ability to deliver its dismounts right into contact and stay and provide fire support..
Now you don’t need that protection for most tasks.. but it’s a not a bad capability for a few of your mec infantry battalions.. but the armoured infantry need a tracked IFV.
stanag 6 is for frontal armor, rest is stanag 4
Yep but you always have the pointy bit towards the enemy.
that isn’t what is happening in Ukraine. Drones can hit anywhere.
Direct fire is still a thing…
Also STANAG IV still gives you protection against a lot of drone attacks.
not really – drones and loitering munitions (not to mention ATGM) are destroying MBTs in Ukraine that offer a lot more protection than stanag 4
Yes really. Some drones are, but it requires a pretty hefty drone to take out an MBT. Your average drone with a underslung grenade is not going to take out a boxer.
I’ve seen a Boxer with additional explosive reactive armour (ERA) fitted all over it. If I remember correctly, Germany did it as demo vehicle for Ukraine. I’d guess this would take it above STANAG level 6, plus add less weight, than spaced applique armour?
sure ERA will add protection, but it will add weight to an already overweight vehicle. plus the loading ramp on A400 is max 33 tons if i am not mistaken.
ERA, like all Applique armour is removable. So if your ramp has a weight limit you just don’t attach it to the vehicle until after driving off. You aren’t landing an A400 into contact so not a big issue really.
According to the blurb. Kontakt 5 adds an additional 3 to 4t for full coverage. Apparently the A3 version we are getting has a standard weight (empty) of 25t, but has a max growth weight of 40t.
If the vehicle needs the extra armour, it’s likely to be fitted in theatre as an add on kit.
i suppose that 25t empty weight is just the chassis with driver section and doesn’t include the mission modules on the back?
Bringer, there is still an army requirement for a MIV (aka APC) for the mechanised infantry, as distinct from the armoured infantry who need an IFV.
Let’s be honest boxer is not a replacement for warrior at present HMG are planning to cut IFVs and armoured infantry and only have Mec infantry.. that is clearly a load of BS and a stupid idea..
I gather it’s still having issues. Seems to me that it was a bad buy.
What issues are these Rob?
Defence express article https://en.defence-ua.com/news/troubled_ajax_strikes_again_british_soldiers_hospitalized_after_training-16297.html – ‘Troubled Ajax Strikes Again: British Soldiers Hospitalized After Training’, dated October 28th. Last paragraph ‘After billions spent, it’s unlikely the program will be canceled outright in favor of another vehicle. Still, its unresolved flaws cast serious doubt on the UKs combat readiness already under strain from financial uncertainty and capability gaps.’
My reply is ‘awaiting moderation’ – probably because I put a link in to a Defence Express article dated 28th October whose last paragraph said ‘After billions spent, it’s unlikely the program will be canceled outright in favor of another vehicle. Still, its unresolved flaws cast serious doubt on the UKs combat readiness already under strain from financial uncertainty and capability gaps.’
HaHa, just read that article, pure comedy with no substantiation or facts. I wouldn’t put any credence in such an article.
Easy enough to say HaHa, but reports keep coming in… Sky News today ‘Soldiers hospitalised yet again after riding around in army’s problem-plagued vehicle’. ‘The Ministry of Defence confirmed that a “small number” of troops had reported noise and vibration concerns following trials on three variants of the 40-tonne, tracked vehicle. A spokesperson said an investigation was carried out and “no systemic issues were found”.
As I said, still seems to be having issues, even if the official view is that everything is fine.
Latest on the Ajax – ‘Army halts use of £6bn Ajax fleet after vibrations leave 31 injured’ – ‘The Army has suspended the use of its Ajax armoured vehicles after 31 soldiers fell ill while using them.Troops taking part in a war game on Salisbury Plain over the weekend reportedly emerged from the £10m transporters vomiting because of noise and vibration issues.The setback comes just weeks after Luke Pollard, the defence minister, showcased the Ajax fleet and declared them “safe”.’ Now, what was that you said?
A quotable source for a start! I’m not an apologist for AJAX. Give me facts and a reliable source and I’ll happily discuss.
Can’t issue a link, but a google search ‘Ajax health issues’ lists articles on this story from Sky News, The Independent, The Financial Times and the Express. Sky News, for instance, ‘The British Army has paused the use of its new Ajax armoured fighting vehicles after “around 30” soldiers suffered vibration and hearing problems following a training exercise at the weekend.’, ‘A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson said on Tuesday the two-week pause comes after “a small number of soldiers reported symptoms of noise and vibration” in the exercise, which was “immediately stopped”. The spokesperson said “around 30 personnel presented noise and vibration symptoms” after tests were carried out, but the “vast majority of these have now been medically cleared and are continuing on duty”.’ “Out of an abundance of caution, the minister for defence readiness and industry [Luke Pollard] has asked the army to pause all use of Ajax for training and exercising for two weeks, while a safety investigation is carried out into the events this weekend.’
UKDJ does not allow the posting of links
It does, they just have to be manually approved and the moderating team doesn’t get around to approving them for ages.
“The solution then was to hand out headsets and add seat cushions.“
You do put credence in some drivel.
No, I just don’t acept things at face value. There are still reports of issues; it’s persistent.
i know one caught fire recently
Really! Do tell.
There’s also been a high number of breakdowns, damage in use where other older vehicles coped fine and the simulator is…. interesting.
Hi Steve, you seem to have inside information. Which simulator is “interesting”?, there are several types in use. Damage in use is commonplace on all military vehicles, that’s the nature of a squaddie (I was one for 24 years!) As for breakdowns, well, ever seen a REME LAD or Battalion at work, on all types of platforms? I’m not downplaying your statements but trying to add context.
cheers
You are of course correct, things break down, especially the new shiney stuff nobody’s had experience with yet. I don’t have first hand knowledge, but sufficed to say I do know somebody well placed. There is tale after tale of Ajax or its variants breaking down or being damaged through light use as well as admittedly from heavy test conditions. To me it does seem a lot more than they are used to and it is causing high levels of exasperation.
As for the Sim, I’m going to keep my comments limited as I don’t want to get anyone in trouble. I will say it doesn’t seem very…robust.
Hi Steve, I too have an “inside track” on this programme. The initial tranche of vehicles have had a lot of abuse by the HCR and other units getting up to speed, so I do understand the level of non-availability. As it’s a new platform I reckon there’s going to be a running in period until common breakages and failures are finessed out. The simulators vary in design and manufacturer and perform multiple tasks, such as driver sim (static and full motion) and turret operations so I can’t really respond to that.
cheers
Hi Ian, one of my abiding memories is of my first posting to 2SG LAD REME in 1976, Munster – yes that ‘light is swinging a bit’ as we used to say about old soldiers recounting old stories. I remember hearing the considerable noise of FV432s on numerous occasions being driven on a road test on barrack roads at 8 or 9pm at night after some work had been done. The guys worked hard to keep these less than 10-year old vehicles on the road.
Hi Graham, my first posting as a young LCpl Tech was 13/18 Hussars in Hohne in ‘76. Those Chieftains were hard work too, and noisy as a noisy thing, along with the Cent ARV’s. Ooh! Hang on, my musket needs reloading!😀😀
As soon as UK requirements are met, keep production going and send them to Ukraine for real battle testing, and constructive feedback for optimisation in the European theatre.
I really hope the war in Ukraine won’t last quite as long as that!
John, it will take several years for UK requirements to be met. It takes a long time to build 589 complex vehicles and field them.
El Presidente Zelenski has his eye on these…..( sarc ) watch Starmer start giving them away.
I think a deployment to Estonia on Op Cabrit is more likely in the nearish term.
Zelensky has welcomed nations and defense companies to use Ukraine as a test bed for weapon systems so why not?
No way they get their hands on the brand new kit, for multiple reasons.
About time, i hear its very good though. Nice to see it was stuck with and got to work. An IFV varaint would be great and sensible better then Boxer. Good to see positive news and finallu new kit entring service.
It’s ISTAR fit, cannon, and protection are very good by all accounts.
Good to see you pleased for once Martin. 👍
A few arty orders and a tracked IFV, 432 replacement and anti drone defence will please me more. It was the right choice to fix Ajax it’s big but very well equipped better thsn What it replaced and way better protected. I hope they do not send any to Ukraine we have only just got them
They won’t.
They are more likely to send the Warriors to Ukraine you’d think, rather than our brand new kit.
very true but was merely asking as crap Leftie Sky news mentioned it, as for Warrior we still need them to get spares from until they are replaced by? no one really knows what? in the year never , never
1000 Patria of varied types would br a good start.
Greed but we both know if say 1000 vehicles need replacing then the UK will buy well under 1000 and make do.
Martin, its very unrealistic for any brand new Ajaxes to go to Ukraine for any form of testing for at least half a dozen reasons, just one of which would be that ‘a Rubicon’ would be crossed by British soldiers (HCR, REME, ATDU, whatever) deploying in one or more combat vehicles to the Ukraine Theatre.
Oh agree, but you know very on the ball Sky news brought it up, I do not see us gifting any and also do not see Ukraine buying any. Was merely a question in relation a crap sky news comment.
Fifteen years and nigh on £6 biilion. I hope to God it works.
How were the noise issues resolved in the end, was it just a case of issuing hearing protection to the crew and passengers of the other variants?
Can someone explain the logic of giving these “scout” vehicles an autocannon but our warrior ifv’s are being replaced by the boxer variant with a measly light machine gun?
You’d have to speak to the numbnuts in the MOD and the Treasury beancounters!
BTW, only the AJAX has the CT40, the rest have a Kongsberg remote weapon station.
Put the Kongsberg RWS on Patrias and do a deal with Rheinmetal to swap the Boxers which aren’t 155mm SPG for Lynx IFVs with CTA.
Admittedly Patria’s are an inexpensive option for an armoured truck and we could use them. CT40 is a low intrusion weapon that could be fitted to many unmanned turrets suitable for IFV’s. For commonalities sake I’d like to see the AJAX IFV fully developed and then bought in sufficient quantities. Lynx is a really good option but I think there’s a queue for them now.
Commonality is a good argument. Standards cut costs and generally increase availability. The ‘Ajax/ Ares’ option would also generate more UK jobs. Warrior will have to soldier on.
Lynx is insanely expensive.. like boxer rite large I believe they are over 10 million dollars a go.
Crikey! Warrior WCSP – CTA and new seat cushions – looks more attactive every time you look. UK jobs too. 😉
Because Ajax is a replacement for CVRT which had an auto-cannon. Warrior was supposed to be upgraded and Boxer ordered for Medium weight forces. Budget didn’t stretch so the upgrade to Warrior was cancelled and the newer vehicles ordered. That’s why.
So we end up with an armoured bus and no IFV force for the future?
Sounds about right
Yes, but unfortunately that was the right choice when it was made.
It’s been a long road but it does seem to be now all good I would love to know more about how the 40mm and how good it is
It has 50% more “punch” than a 30mm.
Does it really wow I would also assume that as it’s 40mn u can put in more explosives with HE rounds
Tim, the APFSDS with a muzzle velocity in excess of 1500m/s can penetrate 140mm of RHA at 1500m, the General purpose HE round will go through 210mm of concrete at 1000m. Plenty of bang available.
£10million a pop, for a 38 tonne pile of junk! ‘They’ fixed it so well, soldiers operating the thing, have to wear speciality secured hearing protection! Generally the vehicle is way too loud, its so loud, how it’s supposed to carry out it’s primary function of reconnaissance, is anyone’s guess.
£5.5 billion down the swanny for a vehicle that will never last as long as Warrior. Frankly General Dynamics should have stuck to their interests in aircraft, and left IFV’s to outfits with a proven track record in that kinda thing!
Having listened to it going around Bovington and out on the plain it sounded no noisier than any other tracked vehicle!
Anyway it’s hardly going to go into its recce role at full tilt is it?
Have you personal experience with the vehicle to qualify your opinion of it being junk?
It’s literally bigger than a main battle tank
It literally isn’t🙄
It literally is – it’s as long, wider and a lot taller than a T72 and weighs the same
Maybe the Russian’s should start building bigger tanks??
Check out the weight of Lynx Kf41 & late model CV 90 not to much between them👍
The T72 is a really small light MBT.. so if your being factual you should have said it’s larger than some MBTs
It’s an MBT with proper MBT level armour and a proper MBT sized gun
It’s light and small that is how Russia builts them armour was compromised.. a 45ton tank cannot have the same amount of protection as a 70 ton tank.. physics and all that.
I mean that’s because Russian tanks have always been built very small and accepted a lot of design compromises to achieve their small size. Go into the back of a BMP-1 and you’ll understand why western IFV’s and MBT’s are big.
Rubbish
Personal experience no… but a work colleague’s son (serving) had his hearing damaged whilst driving one. Does that count?
Sorry for him there were some others as well wasn’t there. However that has now been mitigated so you still really can’t judge it now and call it “junk” without some firsthand account.
When CVRT came into service we laughed at it because the armour cracked,when fixed how long was that in service?
Warrior on trails with Scots Guards on ex crusader 80 I personally saw two being towed after breaking down,we laughed,still in service aren’t they?
Challenger 1 got a bad rep when it actually went to war and the proper support was given it was excellent!
You get my point you can’t label something’junk’until it’s given a chance to prove itself👍
Jacko, first I have heard of new CVR(T)s having armour cracking issues. I am surprised. You learn something new every day. Certainly armour welds were checked using NDT techniques at Base Overhaul (BOH) and ‘re-welding’ done if required, but BOH was about every 7 or so years.
Don’t take it for gospel mate but it was the talk in Tidworth when Scorpions appeared😀
However I can confirm the Warrior breakdowns as I did see them👍
Just done a quick google the early ones did suffer stress cracks as the aluminium wasn’t good enough and that was changed to a higher spec to rectify the problem!
Thanks Jacko. Of course aluminium armour was very new technology then. Guess they didn’t quite get it right first time.
I was once in a leaguer (this was years ago, in BATUS) and I was being briefed by a REME officer. Someone turned a CRARRV on while he was talking and this was pretty much the experience:
“Right so lads what we need you to do is -CRARRV DROWNING OUT EVEN THE ABILITY OF MY BRAIN TO HEAR IT’S OWN THOUGHTS OTHER THAN HOLY SHIT THAT’S LOUD, OH GOOD IT’S BEING TURNED OFF- is that clear?”
Like, yes you need ear pro. Armoured Vehicles are loud. I knew blokes who where not allowed to work on CVRT or Bulldog because they’d suffered hearing loss and been downgraded MLD. Shocking!
They still have to wear hearing protection? My God.
I understand that all armour crews have to wear such when on the move?
Apologies Daniele, I meant additional hearing protection on top of normal – thanks for the correction. I just googled this and read that earplugs in addition to the integrated hearing protection/comms headset need to be worn?
Hello!
I’ve no idea to be fair.
I heard about the problems with this programme when the NAO criticised the delays and cost overrun etc which quite rightly they are expected to do in addition to the tax-paying general public. Then everything seemed to go quiet and it was sorted. I couldn’t find any information as to ‘how’ this was sorted. Unfortunately, some people have been medically discharged etc.
So, if you aren’t aware Tom Cotterill, at the Telegraph, has just released an article today at 4PM regarding a repeat of noise and vibration injuries on the summer trials of Ajax and some of its variants. I can’t reproduce the story here but it should be a leading story. Sounds like this issue is not resolved despite needing to wear double (!) hearing protection.
Ah! a defence journalist, It’s public knowledge and easily checked AJax is/was a fixed price contract of £5.5b for 589 vehicles,albeit late the extra costs for the problems were borne by GD!
As for the noise issues is he saying the MOD are seriously going to put a vehicle into service that could potentially lead to thousands of compensation claims?ear protection is a requirement for many jobs and bear in mind that servicemen don’t come off first parade and spend all the working day tearing around in their AFVs,even on exercise the time spent moving is limited! Compare that to a factory worker in a noisy environment 40 hrs a week.
Thanks, yes, I saw some reports.
I take little that ANY journalist says in any of our main newspapers seriously.
I would say wity confidence that more collective knowledge exists in this comments section.
The MoD official website is equally poor.
That applies to all armoured vehicle crews. If you’ve never heard a CR2 at full chat you’re not qualified to criticise
.
CR 2 bah! I’ll raise you Chieftain 😂
I’ll see your Chieftain (4 yrs with cavalry in Hohne) and raise you a Centurion! Actually had Cent OP’s when I was with 25 Field Regt RA!
(-;
Actually, to be honest, Cents were really quite quiet!
They must have been some of the ones that came to us in 32 Armd Engrs then?
Cent was a soft noise compared to Chiefy😂
Ah! The Meteor………..24 spark plugs, magnetos…….sigh
I see…for the CR2 et al they have to wear two layers of ear protection and they then decided to adopt this for the Ajax family to mitigate. Thanks for the clarification.
My first unit was 2SG LAD. Those 432s ‘screamed’ – the noise was so loud. If you were in the crew compartment with top hatches open (in a non-tac situation of course) you might be right next to the engine louvres on the top left of the roof. You would get a nice blast of warm air exiting the louvres (good in winter) but the noise was deafening. Hearing protection not worn in 1976.
A reconnaissance vehicle so big, it can only hide behind a house, not a hedge
So yes, CVRT could hide behind a hedge, but then there weren’t UAV hovering watching all in BAOR.
So the size doesn’t seem relevant to me?
It’s Cannon, armour, and ISTAR fit, queuing targets for Deep Fires via Asgard is.
Where I would still like a Regiment of CVRT Scimitar is for 16 Air Assault.
Ah yes, the wunderwaffe claims
I think it’s called progress, a proper comms suite v binos and a radio for CVRT.
Not really?
It has a good ISTAR fit, cannon, and Armour.
Plusses.
But it’s big. Ok, but so is a Tank? Drones might spot you, or they might not if you’re in a wood with an IR cam net and camouflage.
Do recc assets all need to be small? Surely all play their part, from a couple of guys in a hotel from 4/73 to sensors from 5 RA to Jackals to this?
Is Asgard wunderwaffe. With a billion pound budget, I hope it plays its part in the ISTAR chain.
But your comment singled out its size. With Drones, what difference does it make?
😆😅🤣😂 my phone autocorrect!!! Hotel!!! Lol
I just assumed you meant guys hiding in buildings with binoculars tbh, didn’t really notice.
I found it hilarious, I must say.
I think 4/73 are more likely to dig in and hunker down in a hide than a building, but no idea really.
In the Cold War, 21 and 23 had a similar, stay behind role. Fascinating stuff.
‘Don’t be seen, don’t be there’
Small and fast ticks those boxes – a 42 tonne Behemoth clattering around leaving very distinctive track marks in its trail doesn’t
i think you confuse scout and recon. different roles. recon is like light cavalry, which is exactly what Ajax is.
Ajax is classed as Armoured Cavalry.
The Light Cavalry of the RAC are the 3 Jackal Regiments.
The RAC is effectively keeping the 3-3-3 format it has had for years now. 3 Tank. 3 Ajax. 3 Jackal.
That was to be changed post 2015 with the Strike plan of 4 Ajax, 2 Tank. Thankfully, it’s been reversed.
thx didn’t know Jackal was deployed with tanks. would have thought foxhound or panther would do that since they are not open top, but Jackal does offer more firepower. I imagine they carry a couple of Javelin, AT4 or NLAWS?
Morning.
As far as I know, it’s not! And many Ajax won’t be either if they’re deployed ahead of 12 and 20 Brigades as part of the 3 DRSB screen, or deeper.
Foxhound isn’t with Tanks either, as it’s in a Brigade with no Tanks, and it isn’t a recc vehicle.
Some Ajax are allocated to the Armoured Regiments Recce Troops, so they indeed do work closer to the Tanks.
A Regiment of Jackal is also with 3 DRSB but I don’t know if DRSB works directly with 12 20 Battlegroups or not from what I read.
Yes, I think Jackal has NLAW.
QDG and Royal Yeomanry are on Jackal in 3 UK Division, but yeah they would not be working with Tanks in any ConOp I’ve seen.
I’ve only ever seen Jackal with GPMG, HMG and GMG in weapons station. NLAW, Jav and ASM can be carried, but used in dismounted role, so it’s more about what the troops with it are given, and trained on.
sorry if unclear, i was not suggesting using an ATGM from within the vehicle, the backblast would prohibit that.
I imagine that Jackals are deployed on flanks or forward from tanks, so they can scout and spot enemies and warn the tanks.
FYI in France, we typically have 4 Leclerc and 4 VBL platoons. the VBL will scout typically the surroundings, and are each equipped with small drones and AT4 (sometimes Akeron) to be used when dismounted. these tank platoons would then usually be integrated within a S-GTIA (combined arms company) with a recce platoon (4 AMX10RC/Jaguar + 4 VBL).or an infantry section (4 VBCI). depending on situation, they could all be deployed together for concentrated firepower, or operate in various sub-groups to cover a larger area (this is called “articulation” and configurations would vary according to context -> ie 4 subgroups of 1 tank, 1 jaguar and 2 VBL, or 2 subgroups etc…) – VBL is going to be replaced by VBAE currently in development for entry in service post 2030
Oh yeah not fired from within the vehicle, but weapon mounts exist so you could in theory fire Jav from the HMG position if the mount existed.
In the UK Ajax kind of does both VBL and Jaguar roles. So a Brigade would have 12 Ajax Troops, 12 Challenger Troops, and 36 Infantry Platoons on Boxer/Warrior (+5 Reconnaissance Platoons) [this is where my bad maths will catch me out; 1 Tank Regiment of 3 Squadrons each of 4 Troops would be 12 troops right. If the numbers are off it’s me not being able to do multiplication), which can be combined into Battlegroups or Coy Groups in a similar way that you describe.
Jackal isn’t in that structure at all. Instead the UK has a seperate Artillery/Cavalry Brigade that consists of 24 Troops of Jackal and 24 Troops of Ajax. So yes Jackal will be operating on the flanks or far forwards, but they’re probably not close enough to warn tanks directly.
In the Mechanised Brigades Jackal does work the way you suggest, but they’re doing recce for Foxhound in that, not tanks.
About time I really pray it works has there’s not much good news for the Army of late ,they could do with a break lots of bad press putting them down because of Manpower & kit etc 🇬🇧
I don’t know why but I still like something along the lines of the FV107 Scimitar for recce. Ajax and family are big beasts, hopefully good to work alongside MBTs but recce?
Ron, are you doubting that Ajax is a recce vehicle?
Why is there no mention of the issues that have dogged the programme? No mention at all. I know two who suffer from hearing impairments during the trials.
It’s really great news, but it’s yesterday news, I don’t think it’s equipped to handle modern threats, I wouldn’t send it to Ukraine, the bare minimum is adding a RCWS with a machine gun that can put down small drones (not asking for APS, built-in ATGM launchers that could be loaded from the inside etc.)
actually Bradley have been more effective in Ukrains than MBT.
that said a Shorad version of Ajax would be better to handle drones -> maybs an upgrade down the line with a cage armor kit, short range radar, starstreak, 70mm guided rockets or stingers could complement the CTA40 gun which is supposed to have the A3B (AA airburst) munition available in 2026. they are also working on a cheaper version of that ammo with fewer tungsten pellets designed to counter FPV drones, though not sure when that will be available.
There’s a version of Ajax called Blackjack, it was shown at DSEI 2025 in London, its a technology demonstrator designed with potential anti-drone capabilities, but its not a dedicated anti-drone vehicle
IFV version👍let’s hope and pray MOD take notice🤞
All this sounds great, but what is really on the table? Abraham’s Tanks tested now with anti drones RCWS, Australian Redback, still in production, will also have one – a quick design update, the army lacks men, you can’t afford losing them, Billions are spent on more and newer submarines, can’t throw few millions on better protection?
I read that it was released that we have now given Ukraine all of the as-90s. Leaving a handful of archers, m270 (unclear how many operational units left post Ukraine donations) and unknown number of exactor. Until the new boxer artillery units enter service in maybe a decade the army isn’t really combat capable against peer or new peer opponents. Ajax isn’t going to solve that in the slightest.
But the RA has more than 200 Horses on it’s books, we’ll be fine 🏇🎠🤔.
And a fine ceremonial job they do as well.
Seems to me that they gave up on the idea of sending a fully independent ground force, you must rely on allies, this means joint operations at the regiment level, that’s very complicated
…you must be talking about a different Army if you’re talking about joint ops at the Regimental level?
Naturally I raised this as a silly idea, but I don’t see a fully heavy mechanised brigade being assembled with the current equipment inventory, you may send a Skelton command structure of a brigade but it will be lacking many organic units
It’s not, but that shouldn’t detract from Ajax. Different part of the Army.
Yes, the RA is a shambles at present. All well documented.
Courtesy of HMG.
Be interested so see what if anything is proposed in the defence industry plan. Read somewhere I think, there are a lot of Caesars doing well in Ukraine. Maybe more Archers? Problem is, the govt will be looking for a solution that creates UK jobs….answers on a post card.
Personally I think they just need to make a purchase of additional archers to be honest.
155 on a HX10 truck
They need something, it seems highly likely with the state of the world that British troops will need it be deployed in a peacekeeping role, in an environment that could turn quickly. The L118 is a great gun and combat tested but it’s going to be outranged easily.
Steve, HMG said several months ago that if we sent troops as part of a peacekeeping force it would comprise trainers and logisticians (but I hope they dont forget the need for these guys to have some Force Protection for themselves). I don’t see artillery therefore being part of the mix.
Transportable by C-17 and A400m 👍
Which is a very very good reason to have it.. strategy deployability is very significant.
Ultimately it’s a trade off. I think giving them all to Ukraine to effectively disarm Russia was worth the risk of the capability gap, as realistically Russia was the only current or horizon threat to the UK. China is a problem but that will be a war of choice. We can contribute what we have available if we decide to get involved
Steve: ‘I think giving them all to Ukraine to effectively disarm Russia was worth the risk of the capability gap.’
The BA has no significant SP artillery capability – only 14 Archers of which maybe 10 would be deployable is not a credible capability. The army could make up for this deficiency with Light Gun and MLRS but they really have a different role/mode of employment. Such a situation hobbles the ability of the army to do warfighting. The capability gap is likely to be a long one – I think it will be several years before Boxer RCH-155 (Sunak’s pick) is fielded in quantity with the BA.
‘Ajax is the first new armoured fighting vehicle to enter British Army service in nearly 30 years’. I wonder how many senior officers in the RN and RAF would have tolerated a similar situation as regards fielding of new surface ships and fast jets respectively.
I am not sure why we need large cumbersome, expensive platforms to do the job a drone could do, We do not appear to have learnt from Ukraine. .. the army needs its cavalry…
Rob, you think a recce drone can do all that a manned platform can do….and not be jammed or shot down? There is a serious amount of bulky and weighty ISTAR and comms kit on Ajax – could you get it all on the drone?