The Royal Armoured Corps recently highlighted the Ares, an armoured reconnaissance and troop-carrying vehicle, in a tweet emphasising its role in the British Army’s Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities.

The Ares is a key part of the Ajax family of vehicles.

Named after the ancient Greek god of war, the Ares vehicle marks a significant upgrade in battlefield technology. The Ares features advanced digitised systems designed to improve the management of battlespace information.

Four years ago, the first six Ares vehicles were delivered to the Household Cavalry Regiment at Bulford, Wiltshire, initiating the replacement of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) vehicles that have served the Army for nearly five decades.

The Ajax family, which includes Ares, Apollo, Argus, Athena, and Atlas variants, is intended to supersede the CVR(T) vehicles. These older vehicles have been utilised in various conflicts, including the Falklands and the Middle East. However, the changing nature of modern warfare has necessitated the introduction of more advanced replacements.

Ares is equipped with digitised systems for better information management in combat scenarios. The vehicle is also designed with high levels of crew protection and includes a comprehensive simulated training suite to ensure effective operation by the crews.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

91 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_819036)
5 days ago

Sounds like a very smooth engine and looks purposeful. I wonder if the current planned Ares fleet might be increased once the initial tranch is completed?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819051)
5 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

Or, even give it a stretch plus a turret/RWS and you could have a IFV! Could call it the “Ares-ST”. Any takers?

Sam
Sam (@guest_819052)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

How many of these does the Army already have and are they ready to use?

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819058)
5 days ago
Reply to  Sam

Several dozen and yes

Graham b
Graham b (@guest_819067)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

a dozen is below token level. Any thing less than 50 is almost useless!

Sam
Sam (@guest_819101)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

They are supposed to be receiving 94 variants this year, but it isn’t clear what the mix is.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819206)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

Deliveries are underway. Would you expect all 500 odd Ajax variants to be delivered at once?
No. Not would I. So the current number is immaterial. When the capability is in service in bulk, then one can judge.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819263)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

See ‘several’ in the OED.

Trooper
Trooper (@guest_819349)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

Good for reconnaissance where the role is to see without being seen.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819609)
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

The ARES variant (93 ordered) is used to transport small specialist teams of up to 4 men to/from their task location under armoured protection.

Rolling out a new fleet takes several years. I really don’t think we need over 50 of them in the first year of issue.

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_819869)
2 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Graham, what is replacing FV432? Will ARES take up some of its roles and if so, surely 93 and 600 Boxer is not enough to replace FV432/Bull Dog and Warrior? The Army’s fighting fleet is going to take a huge hit unless we see follow-on orders for the new vehicles. My hunch is the MOD is probably waiting to see what transpires in the long term in Ukraine before committing to new orders. One issue that needs to be reviewed is maintaining the Telford factory output and retaining the current skill build-up after CH3 and Boxer. One way would be… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820111)
1 day ago
Reply to  maurice10

Going way back to the first involvement (1996-2003, yes it was that long ago) of UK in the Boxer programme, it was always the case that residual FV432s would be replaced by Boxer. No change over 20 years later!! 432 Ambulance will be replaced by Boxer Ambulance and 432 mortar carrier will be replaced by Boxer mortar carrier. I am unsighted as to which other FV430 variants are still in service, but they should be replaced by relevant Boxer variants. ARES is a small-capacity APC taking 4 dismounts. I am sure that it replaces CVR(T) SPARTAN which was the ‘mini… Read more »

Ex-RoyalMarine
Ex-RoyalMarine (@guest_820173)
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Think how many tasks originally identified for Ares, which can now be done by drone and two kids sitting miles away. Recon units not intended for getting into a fight. What capabilities has advancement in drone technology removed from Ares? £1,000 a pop and able to cover a battlefield/tens of miles in minutes. While delivering HD real-time video with AI identification of opposing forces and their equipment. Cameras HD cameras, embedded cameras, thermal cameras, infrared camera sensors, LIDAR and image capture systems.

How many can you buy for the price of an ARES and the value of the humans inside?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820338)
20 hours ago
Reply to  Ex-RoyalMarine

The ARES vehicles will be used by the British Army to deliver specialist troops across the battlefield, including anti-tank Javelin teams, MANPADS teams, sniper pairs etc.

Could a drone deliver the same capability as the above?

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_820373)
10 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Thanks, Graham for that comprehensive overview there will be a lot of ex-military vehicles on the market in the coming years. Interestingly, many groups are restoring FVs to a high level of reliability and in a strange turn of fortune are providing a modest reserve if they were ever needed. 😀>

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819061)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Or buy ASCOD?

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_819120)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Too late to change, the production lines are running now.
As of January 2024, 25% of the fleet has already been built,152 units, 44 delivered to the army.

Last edited 5 days ago by Bringer of facts
Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819267)
5 days ago

The production lines aren’t making an IFV so if the UK MOD wanted a tracked IFV based on ARES (which is ASCOD) it could be done.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_819488)
4 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

None of the Ajax family are tasked as IFVs

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819542)
4 days ago

Yes, I know that, see my comment above:
“ The production lines aren’t making an IFV”.

George
George (@guest_819233)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

It’s more likely to be the US ASCOD derived Armoured Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV). Already developed and ready to deploy. It is based on the Ajax and Ares family or should I say includes lessons learned. As for the turret – see Pearson Engineering and their John Cockerill design. It’s all heading in one direction. General Dynamics rather than the excellent CV90 line. Which likely means GD will also provide the Challenger replacement.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819257)
5 days ago
Reply to  George

Hi George, you are misinformed as to the manufacturer if the AMPV. It is based on a turret less Bradley, not an ASCOD and made by BAe, not GD. I agree with your comments in the Cockerill turret.
Cheers

George
George (@guest_819297)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Thanks Ian, Well spotted. I’m chalking that one up as a senior moment formerly known as a brain fart. I’m confusing the Bradly replacement submissions with the AMPV. The excellent YT video by LtCol Nicholas Moran explains thing nicely.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819301)
5 days ago
Reply to  George

👍😁

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_819346)
5 days ago
Reply to  George

It’s the Booker M10 that is an ASCOD derivative, but GD used ARES as the more up to date start point.
The Bradley replacement will be either a version of this or Rheinmetal US version of Lynx.
To me the obvious choice is the GD option due to commonality.

George
George (@guest_819789)
3 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes, I’m well confused with all these new vehicles tracked/wheeled AFV, IFV, AMPV, APCs and the associated multinational conglomerate interplay. I agree about commonality for all the obvious beneficial logistical and training reasons. So long as our troops are not being short changed with second rate kit. That said, high on my list of priorities is the reestablishment of a fully British strategically important armaments industry. Where we can ramp up production with very little warning when necessary. If that means a mishmash of designs and several unrelated factories – so be it. A few logistical hurdles is worth the… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_819319)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Weird thing is the M10 Booker is based on ASCOD, which does make one scratch one’s bonce. The US army are introducing 2 vehicles based on completely different IFVs.

George
George (@guest_819796)
3 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

They have a force large enough to place sufficient orders, to keep both production lines viable.

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro (@guest_819762)
3 days ago
Reply to  George

Does that mean it will come with in built cooler problem’s

George
George (@guest_819797)
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

😕Let’s hope not.

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_819100)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yes I think its best option for uk to have a gdls Ares ifv or apc specific as isn’t the Ares originally advertised as engineer support vehicle ? . All made in Wales . I think there is a good chance the usa will choose the GD ifv which should be built in next year or two , for its future ifv program. Which seems to be based roughly on ascod but maybe new chassisv, the Griffin based on ascod . So would be great I reckons if uk builds a specific Ares Apc / ifv and maybe build the… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819119)
5 days ago
Reply to  rst 2001

The MOD may think differently on this. If any change they’ll probably have to use up the Boxers ordered first or have their quantity reduced for a more mixed wheel/tracked fleet. Here’s hoping.

rst 2001
rst 2001 (@guest_819136)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I believe the mod has already officially planned to replace all 4 ? warrior battalions with boxers . Hopefully this is a stop gap plan and if maybe either a german Boxer tracked ifv or similar , or new USA GD ifv project matures I think there is a hope the uk will jump onto one of those

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819146)
5 days ago
Reply to  rst 2001

There’re others here who can make a better judged comment than me on this. I think that we all just hope that the army has the absolutely right vehicle for given IFV tasks. Current decisions can be changed and maybe the US IFV choice might influence future choices the UK. It might not.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819183)
5 days ago
Reply to  rst 2001

There will be 5 Boxer battalions.

Boxer might be a stop gap? Treasury does not allocate that amount of money for a mere stop gap.

I don’t see our Infantry getting another proper tracked IFV until Boxer is eventually phased out in 30+ years time.

Having said that it may be that some Boxers (in late Tranches) are ordered as cannon-equipped models…or we could buy IFV Boxer mission modules.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819180)
5 days ago
Reply to  rst 2001

ARES moves small specialist teams (up to 4 men (dismounts)) around the battle space in forward areas. It is described as the APC variant, but that is not to be confused with an APC that takes a rifle section of Infantry (UK – 8 men).

MoD announced 3 years ago that we would not proceed with WCSP, that in-service WR would be phased out from 2025 and be replaced by Boxer. ie – we are not having an IFV!!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819209)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Can see Warrior OSD pushed right. Otherwise, our Mech Infantry will have no APC and at the same time the RA no 155mm guns, the way things are going with the glacial delivery rate of Boxer.
All while there is a war on in Europe and return of the Cold War.
Nice work…..

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_819353)
5 days ago

Why can’t MOD just accept that we need a Tracked IFV as well as Wheeled and now there may be a bit of extra funding available. I may not know much about the Army but I can read a spec, the advantages of commonality involved with a generational development plan. Run the existing Warriors on a while but speak to GD about producing an IFV after the Ajax. No fancy massive development costs, KISS principle, so the baseline would be the M10 Booker (Griffin III), as they used Ajax as their baseline just they reduced the number of road wheels… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819366)
5 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

We needed them in 2010 when the rock of the army was a deployable tracked Armoured Division.
We needed them after 2015 when Carter went all Strike, wheels loopy, anc changed the long standing plan, and they still existed in the form of WCSP.
We still need them now, nothing we’ve seen in Ukraine has changed things?
Politics and money mate. That is all.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819596)
4 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Depends on which bit of the MoD you are talking about. The army’s General Staff know we need a tracked IFV to work alonggside the tanks – thats why they wrote the Staff Requirement for one to succeed in-service Warrior. Politicians and those concerned with budgets in MoD are content for the army to lose a programme. I am sceptical as to whether the extra money promised by a dying Adminsitration will materialise within a matter of weeks or a few short months – and be ringfenced for use later. Certainly the army can run on old kit – it… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819528)
4 days ago

I read a while back that MoD had worked out the cost of running on WR for a while longer and put that into a future budget, but can’t recall if that was the WRs for the RAC as interim recce vehicles (pending delivery of Ajax in quantity) or a proportion of the IFV fleet due to duration of Boxer roll-out. Changing over an equipment fleet does take a very long time – I seem to recall that it took 6 or 7 years to fully roll out the much less complex SA80! Fielding started in 1985 – my Regt… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819537)
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Is Warrior “good enough?”
As in, could the Boxers go to mechanize other Bns in the ORBAT and Warrior remain in the AI Bns, as being better than nothing and still better than Boxer.
Or is their maintenance becoming prohibitive? What state are they in?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819634)
3 days ago

Much as I have long been a Warrior fan, it is criminal that the only upgrades it has received since first fielding in 1987 seem to have been fitment of BGTI and upgrade of comms from Clansman to Bowman. It should have been upgraded regularly throughout its life, with a major upgrade happening every Base Overhaul (about every 7 or so years). Thus for example the protection upgrade should have happened from about 1994, the lethality upgrade from about 2001 and the electronic architecture from about 2008. Instead all packaged into one unwiedly WCSP programme many, many years later. It… Read more »

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro (@guest_819764)
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

To me warrior is a new vehicle.e in service since late 80s what about the 43 series of vehicles, took over from brengun carriers(I know universal carrier) in service before I joined boy service JTR Troon 1964.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819889)
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

Andrew, that’s funny. Thinking a vehicle first fielded 37 years (and designed about 45 years ago) ago is modern.

Of course the FV430 series is even older, as you say. 432s were APCs and took over from 1950s era Saracen APCs, not from Universal (Bren Gun) Carriers.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_820170)
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

And yet with the upgrades the 432 has had it is still is a capable vehicle for doing its job despite its age! I am thinking of Engr section vehicles etc where all that is needed is a steel box on tracks.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820335)
20 hours ago
Reply to  Jacko

It would be interesting to hear if it costs a lot to maintain now.
Yes, it can still do its job. The US M113 similarly has had a long life with various armies around the world and is still in service with the US Army (until 2030).

Dern
Dern (@guest_819275)
5 days ago
Reply to  rst 2001

You’re thinking of Argus.

The AJAX variants are:

Ajax: Scouting and Recce vehicle with a 40mm cannon, no dismounts.
Ares: Specialist APC for carrying things like ATGM teams,
Athena: Variant of Ares that is designed for command and control (extra radios, and probably removes the space for dismounts in favour of a map table)
Apollo: Repair variant with a crane
Atlas: Recovery vehicle optimised for towing broken down vehicles and extracating bogged in ones.
Argus: Engineering vehicle with Bulldozer blade.

Last edited 5 days ago by Dern
FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN (@guest_819145)
5 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Could go down the unmanned turret route, that would help with lack of recruit’s to actually operate all the systems we already have.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819060)
5 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

The engine, an MTU (RR) 15.1 lt, 805 bhp unit is a beast. Serious performance available. Makes for a smooth cabby.

Julian
Julian (@guest_819117)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

How does this Ares version compare armour/weight-wise with Ajax?

Some commenters here seem quite impressed by this video and the engine so I’m wondering whether that translates to some optimism regarding how completely the earlier issues with Ajax have been solved or is Ajax a very different proposition to Ares due to extra weight from the Ajax turret and maybe Ajax carrying heavier armour (hence my question about whether the hull armour specs are the same between Ares and Ajax)?

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819261)
5 days ago
Reply to  Julian

ARES comes in at c. 38t and AJAX at c. 40t. Armour fit is role dependent but is the same across variants (roughly). Performance differences across variants is negligible, c. 72kph top end.

George
George (@guest_819271)
5 days ago
Reply to  Julian

I think you are on the right track asking that question. Pardon the pun. Although the current thinking seems to be removable modular armour for all AFVs. Giving less weight for training tasks and the full Monty for fighting. It’s the budget driven reverse of the “train hard, fight easy” idea. The old problems with Ajax may or may not have been fully resolved. Either way, the MOD were never going to admit to making the wrong choice. Going back to BAE with cap in hand, begging for the CV90 and a UK production plant. It would completely scupper the… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819598)
4 days ago
Reply to  George

George, are we really going 100% General Dynamics? That goes against competitive procurement ethos.

What are they building for the army after Ajax and variants?

RBSL is producing CR3. WFEL with some subcon work to RBSL is producing Boxer.

Looks like BAE is back in the MoD’s ‘good books’.

George
George (@guest_819613)
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I hope it’s not set in stone that we are going fully with GD. Even though commonality across the fleet of vehicles is a good idea in principle. I’m not silly enough to think Ukraine and Russia have the monopoly when it comes to corruption. Remember there is still the Warrior, SP90 and Challenger replacements to procure.

I’m still sold on the CV90 as the “goldilocks zone” vehicle of the APC/IFV concept. Not too big or small, etc. Tracked Boxer is also a very sensible option with interchangeable modules from the wheeled version.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819766)
3 days ago
Reply to  George

It really would go against normal MoD procurement policy to routinely go to a single company and to avoid competitive tendering. Single-source procurement is very rarely used and very good reasons have to be supplied to the politicos and Treasury to get approval. The Warrior replacement, like it or not, is wheeled Boxer A3- MoD declared that over 3 years ago. AS-90 replacement is Boxer RCH-155, declared earlier this week. Challenger 2 replacement is Challenger 3, which is currently ‘in build’ by RBSL. [I worked on this project in 2016 for Rheinmetall]. I too am a CV90 fan – I… Read more »

George
George (@guest_819801)
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes mate, I know. But who said I had to accept it without moaning and taking the hump. It’s not in my nature grumble mutter, grumble mutter. I think the unspoken plan for the past twenty years has been to reduce our army to a none MBT force. With no need for heavy tracked infantry to keep pace. Why else would they have failed to plan an indigenous next gen MBT replacement and only 140ish Challenger 3. While stalling the warrior replacement. Lessons from Ukraine notwithstanding. (Being the only glimmer of hope for a reversal.) At best we could end… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820101)
1 day ago
Reply to  George

Thanks George. Certainly the MBT numbers go down every time – 900 Chieftains to 435 CR1s to 386 CR2s to 148 CR3s.

Very much a step back to get Boxer, a mere APC, in the armoured brigades – the Saracen of the 2020s.

The Warrior replacement is not stalled – it has been cancelled. Boxer replaces Warrior.

No lessons from the Ukraine war have been taken on board. Its all very shocking. No, I’m moaning!

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_819359)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

If you think that’s a beast the US have put the MTU 8V199 TE23 into their M10 derivative of Ares, 15.9 L and 1,070 hp.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819431)
4 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

As Clarkson once said: “MORE POWER!”
👍😎

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819607)
3 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

MoD has ordered 93 x ARES variants – that should be enough.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_819055)
5 days ago

Without anti drone/APS it is a coffin at frontline.

For me it is mystery that BA recon vehicles are tracked hence slower than wheeled ones. There should have been Boxer recon too.

Last edited 5 days ago by AlexS
dc647
dc647 (@guest_819092)
5 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Tracked has a better off road performance over wheels so where as wheels have a better performance ie faster on smoother surfaces. So as a recon vehicle tracked is better suited going places that wheels may get stuck like over ditches and over fallen trees because as recon you need to get close especially through trees an Ares can turn within its own length where as the Boxer it’s smallest turning circle is just under 8 metres and that is done using a skid method it’s much larger because you can’t use this method in woods and off road.

Last edited 5 days ago by dc647
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_819350)
5 days ago
Reply to  dc647

Yes, several WW2 era wheeled recon vehicles had dual control positions front-back to not have to turn around.

Ex-RoyalMarine
Ex-RoyalMarine (@guest_820186)
1 day ago
Reply to  AlexS

Alex, the number of Ukraine and Russian APC/IFV etc that were wheeled and got killed because they were stuck in the mud should make the head sheds think twice and look to get something suitable, not the route we have gone down. The faces of the Ukrainian Troops and Orcs when their 6-wheeled vehicles got stuck only to be blown to pieces by a $500 drone. That’s why I questioned the actual need to have a large screening recon force when a drone costing £1k can beam back 4K video via HD cameras, embedded cameras, thermal cameras, infrared camera sensors,… Read more »

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_819190)
5 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I think that applies to most AFVs in service today. In the future, every vehicle will need an anti-drone ECM, and each platoon deployed will need some anti-drone specialist countermeasures.

George
George (@guest_819288)
5 days ago

It’s the age old technology dual between attack and defence. I recall the attack helicopter being hailed as the master of all battlefields. We all know how that turned out. Anything that flies has inherent weaknesses. The modern quite flimsy drones being fine examples. If AFV can have active defence against ATGM, then drones … …

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_819489)
4 days ago
Reply to  George

Yes. In WW 1 the Germans developed anti-tank rifles and a lot of critics took that event to be the end of Tanks.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819600)
3 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I don’t see that we will bolt an anti-drone/APS system on every single AFV, any more than we currently have an anti-AH/anti-aircraft system on all such wagons. The British Army has a counter-drone strategy with multiple equipments to be fielded, the first being the SmartShooter SMASH Smart Weapon Sight Fire Control System for the dismounted soldier, More a/drone systems to follow to cover mounted troops, but they will not necessarily be mounted on every single AFV. Tracked recon vehs are not necessarily slow – Scimitar could do 50mph and some ‘tuned’ versions could do 70mph on very good surfaces. Ajax can… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Graham Moore
Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819059)
5 days ago

Makes a change to see the more numerous ARES variant the topic of conversation. It’s the workhorse of the fleet.

Dern
Dern (@guest_819447)
4 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Ares isn’t more numerous. There are more Ajax (245), and Athena (112) than Ares (93) on order.

Last edited 4 days ago by Dern
Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819450)
4 days ago
Reply to  Dern

True, I think I was referring more to the other non-AJAX variants that don’t have the flashy cannon and ISTAR fit. To be honest, if you stood next to an ATHENA you would be hard pushed to tell it from an ARES and an ARGUS is just an ARES with a Pearson dozer attached and different internal storage. Still, you are correct, 93 is far fewer.
Cheers

Graham b
Graham b (@guest_819066)
5 days ago

it would be nice to have some actual numbers

is this yet another MOD photo opportunity where a token number of vehicles are displayed or do we have multiple regiments ready for the new cold war.

similarly the demise of Warrior and CVRT has been announced. Is Mod doing its old trick of selling its old capsbility before the replacement is war ready in quantity?

As Ukraine has reminded us war is a numbers game. quality is irrelevant when you do not have enough to be where they needed when they are needed to sustain combat for long periods.

Sam
Sam (@guest_819103)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

(4 variants supposedly arriving this year and they already have 44, based on the numbers ahred on gov.uk and wikipedia. It isn’t clear what the variants are though and how ready they are.

Sam
Sam (@guest_819113)
5 days ago
Reply to  Sam

94 variants

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_819197)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

From questions asked in Parliament in Jan 2024: 152 units built, 44 units delivered, some 490 hulls fabricated so far. That is as much info as I could find.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819215)
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

No, no multiple regiments fully equipped yet.
Will be 4 in time, plus various versions will be in other Regiments and Corps.

Yes, they are. CVRT is gone, surplus Warrior are serving in the RAC Armoured Cavalry Regiments as stop gap until Ajax deployed at scale.

Quality is never irrelevant, but yes, mass matters.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819605)
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham b

It takes years to roll out a full fleet – I think the Ajax family rolls out over 5 or 6 years.

This is of course a MoD photo-op. It is the delivery of just the first 6 (out of 93) ARES variants.

Attritional warfare as is being seen in most areas of Ukraine is certainly a numbers game. We need to ensure that we conduct manouevre warfare and not attritional warfare.

lordtemplar
lordtemplar (@guest_819085)
5 days ago

seems like program is now running smoothly with the kinks ironed out.
interesting how front hatch opens diagonally.

Ralph
Ralph (@guest_819211)
5 days ago
Reply to  lordtemplar

I noticed that, and thought the same. Wonder why it’s designed like that? Cheaper to have one hinge?

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819273)
5 days ago
Reply to  Ralph

Nope, gives the Commander forward visibility.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_819102)
5 days ago

More videos in War Machine TV on you tube👍

Colin Dix
Colin Dix (@guest_819177)
5 days ago

Looks like a perfect Shahed attack drone target to me No protection No Iron Fist No Tow Missiles 12.7 mm machine gun.Should have bought the AS-21 Redback we here in the UK cannot delivery anything on time and on Budget always have to change the spec Also they where suppose to test the K9 Thunder UK never even tested the K9A2 went straight to the RCH 155 Self-Propelled Howitzer no mention how they are going to resupply this vehicle with Ammo The K9 came with K10 Ammunition Resupply Vehicle so another vehicle has to be found to supply the RCH… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_819251)
5 days ago
Reply to  Colin Dix

Right so let’s start with the Redback is anIFV which Ajax isn’t,There are six variants in the Ajax family and only one in the Redback! So we would have bought a vehicle we didn’t need and then have to modify it to do all the different tasks Ajax,Ares etc are designed to do. Now how much do you think that would have cost? Although agreed late Ajax is still within budget as is CR 3 which is ahead of schedule.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819274)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819328)
5 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

😀

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_819276)
5 days ago
Reply to  Colin Dix

Just a point; a Shahed drone can’t target a moving object, it has a quite rudimentary ( by Western standards) INS so an ARES would have to be very unlucky to be hit by a Shahed.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819539)
4 days ago
Reply to  Colin Dix

I’m pretty sure there is a resupply Boxer based variant for the Boxer RCH 155.

Last edited 4 days ago by Quentin D63
Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819606)
3 days ago
Reply to  Colin Dix

ARES delivers a specialist 4-man (or smaller) team to their task location under armoured protection. We don’t need a roomy IFV with all the ‘bells and whistles’ to do that.

I fully agree that the sudden selection of Boxer RCH-155 to replace AS-90 is a surprise. I would like to see details of the bidding process and related evaluation of competitors’ equipments (if there were any!). Maybe John Healey could ask a question in Parliament on this – it stinks!

Aj Davenport
Aj Davenport (@guest_819186)
5 days ago

Looks like sumthing from temu put 81mm mortars in them or 432 afvto do the job

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819887)
2 days ago
Reply to  Aj Davenport

temu?