The British Army have ordered 589 AJAX vehicles – including the Ares variant – which will be delivered between now and the end of 2024.
According to the British Army in a news release here, the first six vehicles were delivered to the Household Cavalry Regiment at Bulford, Wiltshire.
“The Ajax family consists of Ares a troop-carrying reconnaissance vehicle, Ajax armed with a formidable 40mm cannon, support variants Apollo and Atlas, a command and control variant Athena, and an engineer variant – Argus. Ares, part of the Ajax family of armoured vehicles, is being built by General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil, bringing hundreds of jobs and wider opportunities to Wales. The vehicles will give the Army’s Armoured Infantry and Strike Brigades a critical advantage over any likely opponent, through a combination of the latest technology, exemplary levels of crew protection, and, of course, our world-class professional soldiers.”
Colonel Justin Kingsford, the Ajax Programme Director said:
“This is an exciting moment for the Army. The delivery of ARES this week is an important step on our journey to give the Army an amazing state of the art, world beating Armoured Fighting Vehicle.”
Describing the vehicle in greater depth, he went on to say:
“Ajax will allow us to manage battlespace information faster from a modern digitised platform, with increased lethality through the new 40mm cannon. Better mobility, alongside enhanced protection levels and increased reliability underline the transformational nature of the capability. A comprehensive simulated training suite supports this fleet and ensures we invest fully in our crews to get the very best of this capability.”
Ares, and the other variants in the Ajax family of armoured vehicles, will replace the Army’s Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) vehicles which have been the mainstay of armoured reconnaissance for almost fifty years.
Any idea when the first ones with CTA 40 will be delivered?
Also seen recent interesting pics of a Rheinmetall concept with a 130mm cannon on a Challenger 2 chassis. Wasn’t a decision due this year (end of last year) for the Challenger upgrade?
Decision on C2 upgrade has been pushed out to 2021. I personally think they would be better upgrading the sensors in line with the black Knight proposal and leave the cannon alone. The benefit does not out weigh the increased cost and complexity plus delaying the overall delivery date.
In an ideal world I’d like to see the new turret/gun combo but including the Black Knight upgrades, especially the Iron Fist APS.
Exactly the black Knight upgrades including iron fist should be possible on time and on budget. By the time a new turret is devoted, tested and delivered it will be 2035. Current C2 ammunition will cut through any Russian tank for the foreseeable future. Realistically they will already be obliterated by Spear 3 launched from Typhoon and F35 before any land campaign kicks off.
The Black Knight proposal has been rejected by the MoD in favor of the RM proposal of a new turret with new gun & sensors. The old rifled gun is in itself not obsolete but its ammunition is. So it needs to be replaced. I assume your suggestion that the army relies on the RAF for tank busting to be a joke. If not, you should study the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.
Didn’t the air force kill way more tanks than the land based assets in the war?
No, not even close.
Over 4,000 Iraqi tanks where destroyed in the first gulf War. From the limited detailed data puished the number of tanks destroyed through land engagements is in the hundreds. Yet entire armoured divisions where destroyed by air strikes in the desert which triggered a fundamental change in land warfare going forward.
Absolute nonsense BB85. Most Iraqi tanks destroyed by land forces. You do have a vivid imagination.
Sorry Ron, you are incorrect on that point. The air campaign smashed nearly every Iraqi Divisions armoured capability. To be fair after most of the crews legged it and the vehicles were stationary! And Ron, maybe try to answer other posters views with less teeth gnashing, its more social that way! Cheers
So not true airborne, check your history books
Oh dear oh dear…….cheers Ron, have a great day being right!
No mate……the US maybe but not the British, we simply don’t have the numbers of aircraft required or even a designated anti tank aircraft in our toy box to do it.
Bingo
Apache?
It’s a shame about the rejection of the Black Knight upgrades but the M.O.D obviously favours the RM package instead. Is it cost or is there something that we haven’t noticed?…… I don’t know. The sensors, optics and targeting systems are obviously in need of modernising and I want the 2 piece ammunition issue to be sorted, it’s not compatible with everyone else in NATO. And the cannon? Well………just ask the forces that were on the opposing sides when they faced the Chally 2 how good she was and her younger sister still holds the record of the longest ever… Read more »
I don’t disagree the CHARM rifled gun still has legs in it. The problem is the ammunition and specifically the lack of continuous development. When the Royal Ordinance Factories (ROF) were sold off to BAe. BAe being a commercial business quickly saw there was no money in two part ammunition, so promptly closed them down. I believe the two part HESH (three part really) ammunition is made in Belgium these days. BAe have been developing the gun’s APFSDS rounds, but not continuously as would have been done at the ROF. The HESH round is still devastating, however unlike the newer… Read more »
Correct, it’s all about the ammo and the RM 120 smooth bore has ammo types in spades which is why the gun will be fitted to the CH2. Your tinfoil hat theories on private ownership of ROF are irrelevant, developing and producing ammo for the UK’s small and unique needs by anyone would be totally unaffordable. The Challenger upgrade with 120mm L/55 gun plus DU dart & DM11 programmable ammo plus improved armor and Thales Orion sights will produce the Wests most potent tank and will remain so for many years to come.
Woah, there’s no need to be demeaning. I merely stated that if the ROF was still government owned the ammunition for Ch2 may have been progressively developed over the years rather than what has being going on in the last 20 years. If we use DM63 fired from the Rh120/L55, it will definitely be an improvement over the L28A2 as currently used in the Ch2 L30 gun. However it uses a Tungsten two part long rod penetrator. Fired from the L55 gun it is on par with the US M829A4 fired from the L44 gun. If the M829A4 is fired… Read more »
I have no idea what politics you are referring to, the l/55 120mm gun in the upgraded ch2 will be using American du darts. No debate. The program will not be using a developmental 130mm gun with zero proven available ammunition and zero user base. Thar would would be like jumping from the frying pan into a very expensive fire. Even the MoD procurement isn’t that stupid.
Right. 1. At the last general election both the Labour party and the Greens stated that they would ban the UK’s armed forces from using depleted uranium ammunition, amongst other barmy suggestions. 2. I agree the combination of the Rh120/L55 and the US M829A4 APFSDS depleted uranium round will be awesome, but will it be enough to beat the frontal armour of the T14 Armata? 3. The Rh130mm/51 has been designed by Rheinmetall as part of the requirement for the main ground combat system (MGCS). This will the next MBT that replaces the French Leclerc and the German Leopard. One… Read more »
A long reply. Prolly more than I deserve. Anyhow, the RBSL are up to their ears in designing and costing in great detail the Challenger upgrade package for presentation to MoD main gate later this year. It’s based on an in production/in service gun (RM L/55 120) & in production/in service ammo set with a new turret, new armor, and in production sensor set with FFBNW APS. The plan is to get MG approval 4Q20, contracts 1H21 and in service 2H25. I don’t know service life but I assume 2035+. Rheinmetall & Nexter/KMW are competitors fighting over who will supply… Read more »
You are correct, there are literally two elephants in the room! Firstly, do we follow France and Germany and go with the larger calibre being either the 130 favoured by Germany or the 140 favoured by France? Regardless both will necessitate an autoloader due to the size and weight of the one piece ammo, which are 30 and 40 kg respectively. Secondly, what route will the US go down? The Abrams M1A3 being the latest version, still uses the Rh120/L44 gun. The turret mantlet restricts the overall length that the turret can accompany as it was originally designed for the… Read more »
Dammit, nothing for me to disagree or be disagreeable about there, your politeness puts me to shame. But can a leopard changes his spots (see what I did there?). Anyhoo, nothing would please me better than a future Anglo-American tank but I’m just not that sure the US thinks there will be be one (a next tank that is). I wonder if the BA thinks there will be one either?
I think there will always be a need for a Main Battle Tank, whether that is in the same mould as the current 65ton behemoths is debatable. The MBT is still the go-to option for holding or taking ground. The combination of armour and firepower gives it the punch and more importantly the durability to last out a fight. Something along the lines of the fire support Stryker with the 105mm gun, just can’t compete, even the CV90 equipped with the 120mm gun is just the same, they both lack the armour, so they don’t have the durability to withstand… Read more »
Used to say that about the horse.
Now that would be good ;P
I hear that the cannon will be the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore and that it can take a GW that can defeat Armata. Frankly, if MLU CR2 cannot defeat Armata it will not be very useful.
But would the existing cannon defeat T-14 Armata?
Delayed now until 2021 for challenger. Probably due to the defence review.
You wait, they’ll shrink the bloody size of our MBT force to an even more embarrassing number……
In an ideal world, we need about 500 MBT’s. In reality, we have less than half of that…….Something needs to be done about this, asap.
Yes, Lordtemplar, that Challenger LEP looks very advanced and equipped with a 130mm gun would suddenly project the CH2 to the forefront of modern MBT developments. That new gun would be a game-changer and could just convince the MOD/Treasury to go ahead with the LEP?
Is it not the same gun/turret combination that the new Franco/German MBT might be getting? So will it have an autoloader that the French prefer?
If the turret houses the new 130mm canon being developed it must be an auto loader as the rounds are significantly bigger than the current 120mm. Loading them manually just wouldn’t work.
No, it is not.
This is a tricky subject………the British Army have always hated the “auto loader” way of thinking, even though loads of our Allies have been doing it for years. It’s a whole new system and as you are probably already aware…….the British Armed Forces don’t like change. As an example, look how long it took us to switch to an easier to use 5.56mm personal weapon from the elephant gun that was the beautiful, unbelievably powerful and accurate, phenomenal 7.62mm SLR.
6.2 mm or 6.8 mm is the future
@maurice
The video a couple days ago of a Challenger with a 130mm gun was not related to the Challenger upgrade program. However the video from July 10 from the same source (RM) ago titled “MBT Challenger 2 Advanced Technologies” was and it featured their 120mm gun as will Challenger 2 after the upgrade.
Thank you for that, but would it be worth waiting to trial that turret as shown in the latter video. The external designs look very similar and a shift up to 130mm would make the LEP a real deal for the British Army?
Not really, very unlikely to be any depleted uranium dart ammo made for the 130 because Germany cannot use it by law. The US makes excellent DU darts for the 120 which would make the Challenger gun the most effective anti tank gun in western service because as well as having DU it will be longer than the US tank guns.
Where was that mate? I’d like to see it….
Youtube
To be at the forefront, I think it would need the power pack upgrade too. All of these extra electronics etc. plus the continuing increase in weight (probably more so with a heavier gun) has left it lacking in a pretty significant way.
The latest iterations of the Abrams are probably still at the forefront, even without a 130 mm.
Hence the need for the UK to be a co-developer of the M1 replacement programme. There are so many plus points for being a future customer of what could be a class-leading machine, if given the right investment.
That would be a good option; we have expertise that we could bring to the party, and a setup similar to the F-35 construction share would be awesome. We’d probably not quite get a full 15% of every unit made though… I just wonder whether we’d want to go US or Germany, from the perspective that the Americans are likely to want to go turbine powerplant again. They’re way more efficient these days, so that’s not really as much of a concern as trying to bring in a whole new technology into the maintenance and training regime. I’d go for… Read more »
@Joe There is a separate UK program running in parallel to the Challenger 2 upgrade looking at ways to improve its power train. It will not be funded on the same scale so don’t expect a new engine but expect detail improvements. By the way, not everyone considers Abrams to be superior to the current Challenger, let alone the improved version.
Thanks Ron, yes I had heard of the powerpack upgrade- either a new caterpillar engine or some modifications to the existing one I believe? Either way bringing it up to about 1,500 hp- which is about on par with the Abrams and Leopard 2s if I recall. I’m glad it’s still an active project (at elast for the time being!). I fully accept that the MBT wars are always going to rage, but I think it’s fair to say that the latest production models of the Abrams (SEPv3 is already with US army units) take some beating. I know that… Read more »
Some folks are talking 10 to 12 million per upgraded Challenger. They will be substantially improved. However I think we will all be very disappointed with the total upgraded.
That’s the truth, I don’t see the full number being upgraded. That said, I have some reservations about whether we should put too much money into MBTs at this point and would rather get Strike in a combat effective place first. Even if it means gapping the capability until the next gen one comes around or running with dated gear… For perspective, and I know there are big savings when buying in bulk, brand new M1A2Cs, with Trophy APS and all the bells and whistles, come in at $11.1M a pop. That’s cheaper than a reconditioned CR2 LEP without the… Read more »
Buying “new” tanks off the lot can be a bit misleading. Look at the Australians for example, they bought Abrams at those low low prices and then had to pay the same per tank again to get them up to fighting trim. Even at 10-12 mill pounds per tank, Challenger will still be cheaper than a “new” Leopard or Abrams to comparable standard. And they will be a shedload more effective. Most of the Ch2 upgrade work will be done in the UK at Telford.
Now, the work being done at home is certainly something I can get behind! Do we still have the capability to build new though, or is that something we’ll have to go international for when it comes to Ch2’s final replacement? You make a fair point, there are other costs that aren’t considered in the driveaway price. That said, we’d have to get every single thing on the LEP wishlist, plus the powerpack upgrade, to be toe to toe with the latest Abrams, surely? That’s kind of what I meant; we’ve got a big “maybe” hanging over what a Ch2LEP+powerpack… Read more »
The Ch2 power pack upgrade is as far as I’m aware still going ahead. Its part of a different budget so isn’t part of the life extension program. The Perkins V12 will be getting common rail diesel injection, new turbos and an uprated gearbox. I have also heard the primary drives will also be updated. This will put the engine in the same ballpark as the Leopard’s MTU at 1500bhp. However, this will the extent of the engine upgrade. The engine being 26 litres compared to the Leopard’s 47 litre one, will not have an easy life trying to shift… Read more »
Not heard that level of detail, thanks.
So we have a new turret, gun, armor, primary drive, transmission, uprated engine, common rail new turbos. Why not just make it a new tank? 20% more power moving 20% weight will likely mean 20% more stress on every component some of which are getting old and have already been hard worked. I really don’t understand the UK aversion to new build, especially when you’re already building a brand new turret.
The Challanger 3 capability upgrade is now in designphase so that detail costings can be prepared for a main gate decisions. That’s the point where funds are actually committed to the program. The last official comment I read was in the recent NAO report where it said that was expected at the end of 2020.
The capability upgrade includes a new gun (RM smoothbore 120mm), new turret, improved armour and new sensors. Fitted for but not with APS. Probably some engine improvements. Numbers of tanks to be upgraded to be decided at main gate based on costs.
The 130mm is the real goal and should be the main objective. If that is not the MOD’s intention, then I would question the worth of the whole LEP project.
Then you would be mistaken. There is existing depleted uranium dart and programmable ammunition for the 120 mm gun. Nothing comparable or on the horizon for the 130.
Good point, but why couldn’t the UK develop depleted uranium darts for the 130mm? Would it not be wise to swing over to the new gun, as it will become the standard fit for future European tanks? Or, start a development programme to retrofit the 130mm on the LEP at some future date?
Making DU anything is a very expensive and rather dangerous business. I suggest you do some research on the last times it was attempted. Best leave it to the US.
As for the 130mm, once again why not wait and see which way the UK’s #1 ally, the US leans before deciding which way to go on the next tank?
There hasn’t been much mention of the review announced into the delayed delivery due to issues raised with the first set of vehicles. Was it just minor problems or similar to the R2s where they where glued together to meet target dates. I believe no date has been announced for Ajax which is very worrying due to the never ending rumours about the Canon and barrel life issues.
Regular little muck spreader arn’t you.
I’m not spreading any muck. The defense select committee has ordered a review into the ajax program due it’s delayed in service date, cost over runs and defects identified in acceptance trials. They will also be looking at overall armoured procurement which I think everyone will agree has been pretty awful when you look at the money spent on warrior lep and now the mod wants to make the same mistakes with challenger 2 lep.
Dropping unsubstantiated hints that Ajax may be a) glued together b) have “canon” problems c) have barrel life issues. Sounds like muck spreading to me.
Now added d) MoD wants to make “same mistakes” with challenger 2 lep.
Just cut it out dude
Here you go from the same article https://battle-updates.com/warrior-wcsp-in-perspective-looking-good-by-julian-nettlefold/ BAE owning up to the barrel life issues which was a major cause of the delay. Hopefully now fixed. The representative from CTAI the joint BAE Systems, Nexter company told BATTLESPACE that the CT40 Programme was back on trac and that the original teething problems related to weight and barrel wear had been solved with 515 canons required for the UK, 270 have been supplied to the UK and 120 to France, with a rate of 14 per month now achieved. 100 of the original spec barrels, supplied to the UK MoD… Read more »
Also I never said the Ajax was glued together, I was simply asking if the delayed acceptance was comparable to the River 2 vessels.
If you look at the US defence department report, think it was 1996. They spent over $200 million developing the CTA and had the same issues and binned it. That said 200 rds to 700 rds per barrel could be seen as a big improvement although the bushmaster 50 mm seems to be their thinking?
The CTA 40 round does not seal in the barrel till it has travelled down a tapered section, the blow-by strips away barrel. you can’t change the laws of physics?
Yes the Spanish messed up alot of the first batch of Ajax some of which even the wire looms where not installed properly , General Dynamics have just bought in another UK company to help project manage it.
The MOD this time were not happy and actually stepped in for once saying it was far from acceptable.
That is good news for once. After decades of delay I am glad British troops are finally getting new armoured vehicles.
Do you have a source for this story about wire looms and the MoD insisting on a UK company being brought in to fix? Not seen anything in the regular press. Thanks.
Sorry my inside source from some one in the industry and involved so I dont want to say to much,I don’t know if it would be made public or not in the future.
Industry gossip.
That’s fine. I understand.
are these replacing warrior or working alongside,just not much has been mentioned about the warrior turret/gun upgrade that was being trialed a long while back,so wondering if that idea had been scrapped.
The intention was that these will replace the Fv432 bull dogs and the Warrior would continue to support the heavy brigades. Warrior Lep has been such a disaster though I’d be surprised if it made it out of the defense review. They have already spent over 50% of the budget with only a handful of trials vehicles to show for it. I think it could be scrapped with additional boxer vehicles ordered instead.
Huh? That’s the first I have heard of it. Last I heard the Ajax system was to replace the CVRT family, with Ares and Athena replacing CVRT Sultan and Spartans.
FV432 is going to continue to be in support for the Armoured Infantry Brigades, Ares is only for Strike Brigades. Warrior will continue but since it doesn’t have an APC variant it can’t replace 432 in support roles.
The article does state that Ares will be used in the armoured infantry brigades. Does seem odd though as these will no longer have Ajax.
Apollo and Argus maybe for the respective vehicles but I’ve not seen any indications of 432’s being replaced by the (lets face it) rather small Ares buy.
Would it be worth replacing the 432s with upgraded warriors, but lacking the turret as they are not needed for a 432-role? We should have lots of spare warriors that could be used.
There have been several attempts at doing just that, I think there’s a Warrior ambulance variant that a few examples where made of.
Problem is 432 isn’t very sexy, and works “okay” in the role of being a protected box people sit in, and honestly there are more important things to fix, so nobody does.
Scrapping Warrior if that’s what could happen may not be a bad idea if we get the up-gunned variant AJAX or Boxer
Wonder what they decide on the Challenger LEP because that could mean we really need the previous mentioned!
But losing the last of our Heavy Armour may be a step too far!
Boxer maybe, but turreted Ajax doesn’t have room for a infantry section IIRC. So if Ajax replaces warrior it has to be the Ares variant, and then you loose the 30mm RARDEN/40mm CTA.
I think additional boxer will end up replacing warrior for the troop carrying role.
I is strange how ascod could carry 8 infantry soldiers but Ajax is 3/4. You would think if the dimensions where the same ares wouldn’t have an issue
Ajax is designed as an ISTAR asset, equipped with a panoramic Primary Sight, digital networks (note the plural), video recording, transmission, CBRN detection etc etc and a 40mm cannon for aggressive reconnaissance. It was never intended to carry troops. The ARES was called PMRS (Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support) carrying a sub section of 4 troops. If you compare an ASCOD with an AJAX (as I have) you will notice the absolute lack of internal equipment in the Spanish vehicle and its lack of protection. It is just a mobile metal box. The Ajax family of vehicles offer huge layers of… Read more »
Thank you, I have been wondering for some time why a vehicle roughly the same size as a Warrior can’t carry an infantry section and a turret! Are we saying that the Ajax family of vehicles have greater armour protection than a warrior as well, then, given the size constraints? I’ve been looking at the Warrior CSP for some time thinking that replacing it with an Ajax variant would be a better way of spending our money, but if there’s no way of fitting a section in then I guess it’s not going to be. I heard somewhere that Ajax… Read more »
The Ajax family of vehicles all have a common hull, with minor variations to accommodate special to role equipment (cranes, winches, turrets etc). The platforms haven’t been lowered, it is a tall beast, in fact the underside of the hull is shaped to mitigate blast. The vehicle have applique armour as standard giving excellent protection against peer weapons. As DaveyB mentions below, the ARES can carry up to 4 dismounts for snap VCPs or dropping off some snoops. GD have experimented with fitting an Abrams turret and gun to an AJAX for the fire support role!
Ah, fair enough, I hadn’t realised it was so big. Anything that can take an MBT turret is some size! What I don’t really get, then, is why is it so big, yet still can’t take that many dismounts? It’s supposed to be level IV STANAG protection, which is the same as Warrior (and Boxer, for that matter), from what I can make out: both offer ballistic protection to 14.5 mm AP rounds all around, 155 mm arty rounds, and 10 kg mines. Unless the standard aplique armour you mention improves on that STANAG level IV, but the stuff published… Read more »
The Boxers we’re getting are built to Stanag 4569 Level 6 similar to the ones Australia are getting.
Wow, reallly?! That I didn’t realise. Aside from the mobility question regarding wheels then, why are we bothering with a warrior upgrade at all- 40 mm CTA turreted Boxer would seem to be the way forward?
I can still see the benefit of tracked recon in the form of Ajax, as it’s smaller overall than Boxer I believe. But it becomes a harder sell, doesn’t it?
Design philosophy isn’t it.
Ajax was designed to replace Scimitar like for like in the same role, so a Light reconnaisance tank. For that role it doesn’t need to carry a dismounted infantry section, so why design for it? Instead you can use all that lovely space for other things (no idea what they did use it for, but it removes a lot of design restraints).
The space is for a couple of dismounts to do sneaky “quiet” reconnaissance, such as a sniper team. Although it probably wasn’t designed for it when the Ajax concept was first put together. There is just enough space for a pair of guys and a UAV such a folded up Desert Hawk.
You need to do some research about what Ajax is for and what it is not for.
Hasn’t an Ajax derived IFV been proposed as a replacement for the US Bradley, but I think it can only carry 6 dismounts. Ajax was also a development of the Spanish/Austrian IFV which carries 8 dismounts, so an IFV version of the Ajax should be possible.
Scrapping Warrior will be very frustrating due to the amount of money poured down the drain. The numbers they are now talking about ordering (due to the cost over runs) aren’t far off what would have received if we ordered brand new Ajax using the original budget. The mod went for the riskiest option to send a message to BAE after the Nimrod fiasco, but it failed spectacularly. If they haven’t learned their lesson when it comes to the C2 LEP someone really needs to be strung up. It’s a disgrace the UK has not received a new armoured vehicle… Read more »
You mean besides Ajax and Boxer?
Yes. If the UK did had not cancelled boxer back in 2003, it would have come into service around 2008 (maybe that’s a bit early but still 10 years ago). That would have saved us purchasing a lot of the MRAPs which will soon be scrapped.
“Scrapping Warrior will be very frustrating due to the amount of money poured down the drain. The numbers they are now talking about ordering (due to the cost over runs) aren’t far off what would have received if we ordered brand new Ajax using the original budget”
Apart from the fact that Ajax cannot do the job that Warrior does. Your comment is SO not true. Refurbishing Warrior is much cheaper than buying a new vehicle which has been proved to the Treasury on many occasions. They do keep asking.
OK so Ajax has not been configured to carry trrops so let’s use boxer. Over 500 vehicles for £2.3 bn vs 245 Warrior for £1.5 bn. What is better value?
You really don’t have a clue do you.
Boxer is not an infantry fighting vehicle, Warrior is. Yes, Boxer is the top of the class for armour protected 8×8 vehicles, but it is a high mobility platform. Therefore, to make it mobile it sacrifices armour protection and is not meant to get in a fight. According to Artec, the Boxer we’re getting has a protection of STANAG 4569 level 6 (same as the Australian ones), which is supposed to be protected against 30mm APFSDS across the front and 14.5×114mm AP along the sides and back. The Warrior by contrast is supposed to get troops to where they are… Read more »
I don’t see a big difference in armour capability especially when the boxer has growth capacity to take on additional armour packages. The Cta 40 is being tested with the other option being the lance turret. When it comes to IED Boxer offers much better protection, so the question comes down to mobility. The UK prefers tracks because in a conflict with Russia they are expected to deploy to Norway. Boxer has been tested there and performed well. Any realistic deployment will be in North Africa or the Middle East where boxer is much better suited. 1.5bn for 245 upgraded… Read more »
It is really disgusting how the MoD are constantly being used as a cash cow by these defence companies. There doesn’t seem to be any recompense to the MoD due to mismanagement from the company. Why should the numbers of upgraded Warriors be cut, when it was the company’s fault of not producing the product on time or to budget? The remaining Warriors that won’t be upgraded should be done at the company’s expense. The Warrior although built to Stanag 4569 level 4, during the 1st Gulf War proved it offered up better protection than expected (better than the Bradley).… Read more »
Wouldnt Argus have been a better Greek reference for a Recon vehicles?
Turreted version: Ajax
APC variant: Ares
Command variant: Athena
Recovery variant: Atlas
Repair variant: Apollo
Recce Engineer variant: Argus.
Think the people who come up with these names are showing off their classical education, would be better to call a vehicle by its function eg ajax recovery, ajax command. Everyone would know what was for !
To be fair, the CVRT system it’s replacing had a similiar naming convention.
30mm: Scimitar
76mm: Scorpion
Ambulance: Samaritan
Command: Sultan
APC: Spartan
Recovery: Samson
I’ve not met anyone who really had problems with the naming conventions. If you worked on it you’d know it’s name, and if you didn’t it would be an Ambulance and you wouldn’t really care if it was a FV432 Armoured Ambulance or a FV105 Samaritan (for example).
Names already used – RFA Argus
And as Dern has mentioned Recce Engineer variant: is Argus ;P
Surprised they used it again
Just hope they spell the APC variant correctly ;P haha
I still think we should look at a heavier gunned version for the future!
Don’t forget that Ares is a typo….they meant!!!!!!!
Eventually, will get, and needs some kinetic effect clout, in the form of some turret mounted Javs, to be an effective replacement for striker! Striker, one of the biggest losses of AT capability in years!
Striker with swingfire, not the American striker…….oops
Hi mate. No articles for days and now a flood. Good to see.
Agree, Swingfire Striker never really replaced.
I think Javelin can be mounted to the Warrior turret but it doesn’t really look as integrated as it does on the cv90 and French turrets. Maybe the UK think it doesn’t matter so long as it works. They definitly need some sort of anti tank capability as you cannot guarantee they will not cross paths. Doctrine seems to be to diount and fire shoulder mounted atgm which doesn’t make sense if sensors on the vehicle are significantly better than those in a manually launched system.
No, Javelin is not mountable on either the old or the new Warrior turret at present but many would like the option on the new turret. As John mentioned below one Javelin can be mounted on the Konsberg RWS carried on many ba vehicles.
I didn’t say it was mounted though did I, I said it could be. The Konsberg RWS has so far been tested on Ajax, Boxer and a Range of other vehicles. Warrior is still only half way through its trials which is why it has not been tested yet but we both know it can be so your point is completely irrelevant.
Well you were wrong, it can’t be mounted on a Warrior turret.
Javelin that is.
Something along the lines of the Kongsberg Protector RWS fitted with Javs has or is being tested.
So yes some anti-tank capable platform is needed
Oh and might as well push the boat out and say we need HIMARS as an extra platform to accompany the Strike Brigade!
Ha, there’s a rather long laundry list the strike brigades need, give them time, money’s tight!
Yep, the Kongsberg RWS was tested at Bovington with a single mount for a Javelin. It was fitted to a Spartan which fired a total of five Javelins during the trial.
A number of Warriors were modified to fire Milan during the last Gulf War. These used the basic Milan firing post, but put the electronics inside the turret so it could be fired from inside.
Sorry does this mean then new upgrade warrior they work on not going to be used now then.