British Wedgetail aircraft fleet taking shape

Snap! Saw it too. It’s good news. I would have thought that all the vibration testing would have sorted the reliability issues on the way!
Now for the IFV issue. A DCE Rarden stabilisation and a modest upgrade to Warrior could be a lot cheaper than a buy of turreted Boxers…….

Hi Paul, I agree the DCE mods would be cheaper, almost anything is cheaper than a Boxer! My only issue with updating the WR turret is the antiquated 30mm RARDEN and its 3 round clips.
Cheers

So who is the best person or company to fix that?

DCE engineering a 30mm Bushmaster into their solution? Not LM!

😂
but on a serious note, I think I recall BAE ( who acquired the intellectual property on Warrior from GKN) say, in regard to the original WCSP proposal to fit a new (CTA) turret, don’t do it – it won’t work.
I have no idea of its possible, but what would be good to know, as you say, is whether an autoloading 30mm can be fitted into the existing turret; replace the cannon; not the whole turret. Seems to me the best company to assess the feasibility of that would be BAE.

Agree with that thought Paul

Well if one reads widely online on the subject, you will find this differentiation is equally profoundly confused even amongst those described as ‘military analysts’ and some with military backgrounds so it’s not surprising really.

Agreed

Try telling someone that it’s not a Tank!!! the abuse that follows is comical…

Unlike stupidity, ignorance is curable.

I know the difference between an Ajax Recce and an IFV, but I must admit Boxer CRV with a turret and six dismounts looks a bit IFV-like to my untutored eyes.

I’ve not served in the army, so perhaps you could give some help with what a reconnaissance vehicle is expected to do that you feel is incompatible with an IFV? The proposed ISTAR fit out for Ajax is supposed to be excellent, but why couldn’t it be integrated into a Boxer?

IFV can go right into the contact battle, it has the protection and mobility to be in an armoured battle and the firepower to directly support the dismounts. An APC is a protected taxi, it’s normally good for small arms and shrapnel but you wouldn’t want to dismount in the contact area from it.

Boxer actually sits somewhere between. It’s certainly not got enough firepower to be a true IFV, and with the turret its mobility is hugely reduced, especially if the ground is ‘soft’. But, it’s protection is way better than a traditional APC.

Thanks, Bob. I get the difference between APC (aka our fit out of Boxer), and IFVs (eg Warrior). Ajax has no dismounts at all which makes it a AFV?

What I don’t get is what makes a recon vehicle special, such as Scimitar / CVRT. Is it just the sensor/comms fit out? Does it need stealth? because there doesn’t seem a lot stealthy about Boxer CVR, or Ajax for that matter. Does it need to be able to screen? Undertake recon in force?

Ajax does have space for a couple of dismounts. Yes, one of Ajax’s roles is to screen a heavy brigades flanks.

It is big and heavy as it is because the Army decided it wanted a vehicle that could survive multiple hits from 30mm armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds. Which they felt would be the most common threat to the vehicle from other IFV/APC, such as BTR90s or BMP3s.

Unfortunately, when it comes to armour and defeating “Fin” rounds you need either really thick armour, spaced armour or expensive composite armour. A Warrior can take a few hits to the front from 30mm Fin rounds but not the sides. Ajax has armour boxes, which are probably a combination of spaced and composite added down it flanks. These are to give it flank protection from the Fin rounds, but they won’t be light.

Not really a good example, but the Russian BMP 3s, which have better armour than the earlier BMP 2s. Have been absolutely shredded by the Ukrainian BTR4s. The Armour on Scimitar is thinner than the BMP 3s.

But as you quite rightly point out, by being big and heavy you’re not exactly stealthy. If they actually bit the bullet and bought band tracks. These would help massively quieten the vehicle’s audio signature. Plus give the crew less fatigue from vibration. The Norwegian CV90s trial led the band tracks in Afghanistan. They worked better than expected.

If not, then they will have to rely on Ajax’s sensors and networking. It has the latest generation of thermal cameras. Which hopefully means it can detect enemies from further away, then share the location as fast as possible. By encrypted Bowman radio data-link or maybe satcoms.

It will likely carry a pair of dismounts for more covert reconnaissance or even being used to launch a drone or two. But the vehicle will be able to do reconnaissance by force. As it will have the durability to take a few hits, reporting were the shooters are. I am hoping if money is available, that Ajax will get an active protection system (APS). It will need it to survive against anti-tank guided weapons. But the APS’s sensors can also help its reconnaissance role, by geo-locating a firing position.

The Army could quite easily have chosen a lighter vehicle as per the Tracer trials vehicle. But would it survive in today’s combat environment?

The Household Cavalry and other units, will take delivery of 59 or so, of the turretless ARES variant. They are specifically for the foot soldiers of the armoured recce units. (Plus anything else deemed necessary. CO’s golf clubs, BBQ etc.)
Recce units be they armoured or wheeled Yeomanry, deploy foot soldiers for the sneaky beaky side of the job. They are vital for many reasons.
The most dangerous weapons they carry will be the communications equipment and that’s where both fully integrated ARES and AJAX excel.

I wonder if it is time to rethink the weapons fit on ARES? A 7.62mm GPMG, 50 Cal or 40mm GMG judging by Ukraine’s experience won’t cut it, especially when coming up against opposing recce units. Perhaps ARES should have something heavier, but still as a non-intrusive remote weapons station. Similar to Ukraine’s BTR4. Thereby allowing it to keep a similar number of dismounts.

The question is what to fit. Logistic commonality is key. Therefore the Nexter unmanned turret with the CTAS40mm autocannon looks pretty good. Especially as it can have either a coaxial machine gun plus optional ATGMs along with another RWS on top. But perhaps more importantly, is that it does not protrude into the hull. Thereby keeping the same number of dismounts.

Sounds good to me. I can’t imagine the boot troop in ARES patrolling without AJAX in support. Which already has the 40mm canon with those amazing smart rounds. If that unmanned turret you mention has zero impact on the vehicles interior space. Then why not something to compliment AJAX, ATGMs being my choice.
However, if ARES becomes more than a recce section transport and at some stage replaces Warrior. It will need a decent weapon of some kind. Capable of engaging the best any potential enemy can field.

The recce section deploy and operate some distance from their “ride.” Sometimes kilometres. Typically with man portable antitank missiles in the mix. Either scouting or observing the route the armour plus their mechanised infantry screen will soon take.

Some of the new snooping and designation kit they are receiving. Makes the equipment from my Cold War days look decidedly prehistoric. Back then, the only tablet to be found, was the Valium in the cap of the Combo Pen

Ares is the dedicated “troop carrier” variant for what is lovingly known as the “boot troop” in armoured recce units. Such as the Household Cavalry. Call it an additionally armoured APC, IFV due to its remote weapons station on top or whatever. It carries seven dismounts (infantry) who advance and collect intelligence (Using the Mk1 eyeball and other things.) that a vehicle simply cannot do. The ARES has exactly the same high level of protection as Ajax. Quite possibly due to the lack of a turret and ammunition, it could have more. Notably for the future. Warrior carries between seven and ten troops with varying amounts of equipment.

The definitions and distinctions between the current global batch of AFV/IFV/APC are becoming blurred. Things have come a long way since the WWII days when infantry rode on the outside of tanks, to keep up with armour. One thing that has not changed, armour deployed without accompanying / screening infantry is doomed. Go ask the Russians in Ukraine.

I am sure that ARES carries 3+4 dismounts, and is termed the APC version of the Ajax family. Not heard of the term ‘boot troop’ – what is that? The dismounts are not necessarily Infantry – they only would be if the vehicle is in an Infantry battalion. My understanding is that ARES transports a small specialist team of up to 4 (eg engineer recce, CBRN recce, anti-tank/anti-air missile team etc) for dismounted work then conveys them back again afterwards.

From military-today website:” The Ares is a specialist combat team carrier. It means that this vehicle operates not as an infantry section carrier vehicle, but as a combat engineer, battlefield reconnaissance or air defense missile team carrier. This vehicle will deliver under armor and support specialist troops across the battlefield. The Ares will be used alongside other armored vehicles from the Ajax family.”

Warrior is 3+7 dismounts. With the rifle section aboard it has 10 occupants and when they are dismounted it has 2 occupants (driver and gunner), as clearly the commander dismounts to command his section on the ground. So it will carry 2 or 10 normally.

Very true that tanks need accompanying infantry who must be able to keep up in all terrain and weather conditions (CR2 is very fast across the ground and CR3 may be faster – so I hope Boxer will be up to the job) – and take out all enemy infantry threats (so I hope all Boxers will have a beefy stabilised cannon).

“Boot Troop” used to be the unofficial affectionate term for the foot recce section, within the armored reconnaissance units. Be they tracked or wheeled based. They are termed specialists but in reality they are well trained infantry. Particularly good at fieldcraft and highly proficient with communications equipment. (In theory.) Quite capable of performing a dedicated antitank missile role or directing artillery fire and close air support, when needed. I know of infantry soldiers who transfered to armoured units, specifically to perform that role.
Depending on the unit, they used to deploy in Spartan or FV432 but FV105 Sultan was not unheard-of when Warrior became more widely available.
Having never seen an Ares other than videos and photos, it is more than possible that the reported specifications are wrong.
The old FV103 Spartan was a relatively small APC that only carried 4 dismounts. The vehicle commander was also the section commander, making 5. The remaining “crew” being the driver and gunner on the GPMG. Sultan had more room and 432 more still.

Thanks George. I had not heard of this “Boot Troop” before. Seems very strange for a 4-man foot recce team to rock up to a very far forward debussing loc in a massive 432 or to commandeer an essential C2 vehicle (Sultan). Also, didn’t think armoured recce regts had any 432s.

Not sure what your point about Warrior is? Are you saying that arrival of Warrior in quantity released some Sultans and that those were used by this Boot Troop?

Hi Graham, on the subject of Boot Troop and use of the term. Here’s an entry in the often hilarious Army Rumour Service. Scroll down to Dragoon Scouse. A lad from my era.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/tank-crewman-reconnaissance.77416/

As for Sultan and 432 being used. I’ll dig through my old photos and post any interesting examples.

Very interesting George. Many thanks. I wonder if this Boot Troop is still ‘a thing’.

The role will still be there, dismounting and being sneaky beaky. But the unofficial term of endearment by the armoured boys for the ground pounders. I’d like to think so. It’s better than Scally Back (Signals), Slop Jockey (Catering Corp) or Rickshaws, Cabs and Taxis. (RCT) etc etc. I miss the banter, so thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Here’s wishing you and yours a merry Christmas Graham.

Thanks George, I remember Rag And Oil Company for RAOC. I was in Dreamy REME.
Have a great Christmas yourself!

Royal Engineers Made Easy, Motto “They bend them and we mend them.”

A Tiffy VM from the LAD was a drinking/snooker buddy of mine in the Sgt mess. Rumour had it he was being sponsored by Swarfega. There was always the odour wherever he went. The ribbing was endless, reciprocal and all in good humour.
Rob All My Comrades was another one that comes to mind. Always worth a laugh with the medics.

Hi Jon, thanks for the question. A Recce vehicle seeks to gain information stealthily (ie to not get seen) about enemy strengths, activities, dispositions, equipment etc and so is equipped with the best and most varied set of sensors and optics, crew trained to deploy stealthily and observe and make deductions and to communicate their reports swifly and securely to their superiors and for such information to be processed by an all sources cell and used to inform high level commanders and their staffs who can adjust the contact battle if in progress and/or future battle plans. The vehicles are armoured if well forward and should be low signature, agile and fast. They have a cannon for self protection whilst moving if spotted by the enemy but it can be used to engage enemy recce vehicles by choice if orders permit. Traditionally British recce vehicles have had a crew of 3 none of whom usually dismount.

Ajax is being developed to replace CVR(T) Scimitar but there was no theoretical reason why another vehicle could not have been procured instead such as a CV90 recce vehicle or a Boxer recce vehicle. I shall leave to one side for now the evolution of Ajax to cover the newish Strike role in addition to its recce role.
Recce vehicles in a formation recce regiment are crewed by RAC, ie armoured cavalry personnel but recce vehicles are also found in the Recce platoon of an armoured or mechanised infantry battalion or the Recce troop of a tank regiment

An Infantry fighting vehicle is operated by the rifle companies of an armoured infantry battalion. WARRIOR is the in-service IFV and has a crew of 3 and 7 dismounts. The vehicle commander, a Cpl, also dismounts when his section dismount. That 8 man section comprises two 4-man Fire Teams. They engage in close contact with the enemy and either defend a position, conduct patrols or assault enemy positions. The cannon provides fire support for the section, whether they are mounted or dismounted, although the vehicle can move to a position separate from the dismounted section called a Zulu Muster.

As you can tell, totally different roles ie jobs. The untrained eye can confuse a photo of an IFV with an armoured recce vehicle, I concede as they can look similar, and even more so if the chassis is common.

An excellent and detailed explanation.

Agreed. Nicely explained.

Thanks, Graham. Very useful. Now I’ve no excuse to get it wrong.

The distinction has traditionally always been role dependant rather than the capabilities of vehicle itself. Where both ARES (3 crew +7) and AJAX (turret, 3 +?) score, is they are designed from the ground up to excel in the recce role. With both communication equipment and other specialist kit to aid the troops. Dedicated recce vehicles. At least initially because it makes sense to introduce the new sensors and data sharing capabilities, where they can be best used.

I imagine the future will see ARES redesignated or even stretched. As a fully integrated IFV in the true mechanised infantry role, to replace Warrior. That is if budgets permit. Rather than develop a completely new IFV needing even more logistical support.

That’s probably why GDUK are under such pressure to get the production sorted out. Lord knows how many future IFV orders are at stake.

I still think we should have gone with BAE and a CV90 variant. But it’s too late now. Throwing even more money at the GDUK plant to sort out it’s sloppy production line is the only way forward. If what I’m told is true, no reason to think otherwise. Some of the hulls will have to be disassembled and reworked. Quite shocking in the 21st C. Let’s hope it’s worth it.

George, you are certainly adding to my 34 years military experience!
But you may be incorrect in places.
I believe ARES (replacement for SPARTAN) has a crew of 3 and 4 dismounts – total 7. It is described as the APC version in the AJAX family (as it carries personnel but is not an IFV (no cannon)) – but it is not uniquely Infantry and is not a Warrior replacement now or in the future, whether or not funds are magically found to stretch it to carry a full section (but it would still lack a cannon). ARES carries a specialist team who dismount to do their job and need good protection in transit eg Engr recce, possibly CBRN recce, anti-tank team, anti-air team.

Warrior will be replaced by Boxer, rather than being upgraded by the WCSP programme – this was declared in May 2021, as I recall. Such Boxers need to be able to fill an IFV remit, so they must all have a beefy (30-40mm) stabilised cannon and mobility as good as a tracked vehicle.

I fully agree that we should have gone to a different company for a CVR(T) family replacement. I have always had faith in BAE’s ability to produce acceptable AFVs such as CV90 Recce, but other companies were available!

ARES crew:
1 x Driver
1 x Vehicle Commander
1 x Tactical Commander (Dismount Commander)
3 x Dismounts (normally a specialist team)

AJAX crew:
1 x Driver
1 x Gunner
1 x Commander

Depending on role fit, there is provision for a 4th crew member in the hull, currently not fitted.

Yes, I’m getting there Ian. Give the old guy time to catch up. It seems many of the usual online resources have made the same mistake, as you pointed out. Ares is very much a direct FV103 Spartan replacement with improved everything.

I just wish I could have a sneak peak at the fully integrated battlespace this vehicle is obviously part of. Combining data from other recce vehicles, drones, F35, satellites and everything else. In real time. Gone are the days of squinting at map boards in the back of a FV105 Sultan.

Hi George,
Yes, the capabilities of the full fat AJAX with all it’s toys is light years ahead if anything else we have. The ability for the crew to observe, identify, classify and geolocate a target and then distribute that data, including video to other users is paramount. AJAX can listen to, identify and locate incoming fire as well as rotary aircraft, it can also detect radiation and chemical signatures. The list goes on……….😁

Are they equipped with deployable sensors that can be left along the scouted route of advance, to monitor enemy movement.
Such things were employed along the border in Ulster at one stage. During the days of “Heli tele” and “Night Sun.” About the same time “Clarabel” was first deployed on the Pigs, to give the direction of incoming small arm rounds. Late seventies I think. Certainly thereafter.

The easiest way to differentiate between the two roles is to give the IFV its old monicker if “Battle taxi”. An Infantry Fighting Vehicle must be able to deliver a section of effective troops to the point, or very close to where they must engage with the enemy. Offering fire support to those troops is an important task so a weapon system(s) able to suppress opposing forces is paramount. A Recce platform is utilised to gather information using optical, acoustic, chemical detection and the mark 1 eyeball. AJAX has a sophisticated EO fit along with the above mentioned chemical and acoustic systems. As a consequence of all this equipment and superior levels of protection, AJAX is a fat fucker.
Cheers

Cheers, Ian. But chemical? What is that looking for? (Assuming it’s not at all sensitive info.)

Chemical detectors look for and categorise chemical agents used by the enemy such as Harrassing, Incapacitating or Lethal Agents (such as blister, blood, choking or nerve agents).

There were plenty of books and publications about it in the Cold Thaw.

At its most basic, optical photometry or spectroscopy, gives a good idea for chemical agents.

More sophisticated would be sampled mass spectroscopy (these are like the little units that sit on a GC-MS) or for a really detailed look GC-MS itself can be used as it can separate blends in close to real time.

The formulae of the agents is well known.

The first question is ‘what is the simplest way of reliably detecting this in a lab that can easily be ruggedised and made portable?’

The second question is ‘what can detect a wide range of nasties?’

Spectrophotometry seems reasonable, but gas chromatography inside a fast moving scout vehicle? I really wasn’t expecting that. I suppose I never inquired into how those artificial sniffer dogs worked, but I’d guess miniturised GCMS would be it and the tech is available. Technology moves forward when you’re not watching.

It all depends what you are doing.

Are you having a look to see if there is a problem?

Or are you trying to quantity and parameterise that problem?

I was talking more about the specialist NBC units than about every vehicle. For the N bit you really need MS otherwise you are guessing. MS is also hard to fool.

You also need to be jolly sure of what you are dealing with to prevent harm to the team.

Slightly nutty example. About 15 years ago LFB attended a location: a CO alarm was going off. They sent their ‘specialist’ team in with their detector system: yes it was CO – clear the building. I was unconvinced it was CO as the boiler was isolated as was the incoming gas – CO level didn’t make any sense as there was nowhere for it to come from. Knowing a bit about how solid state gas detectors work I was pretty sure it was picking up a volatile organic: which I could smell. So I took a proper gas sample and got it analysed properly. Zero CO.

All instrumentation has its limits which is why you need more than one approach to be sure.

Solid state detectors are generalisable across a very wide range of platforms, small, light, easy to use and can give valuable early warning. But they are not the real deal. These are the sort of think that would be deployed widely across a fleet of vehicles.

GC-MS was miniaturised back in the 1990’s by Hewlett-Packard and was PC automated even back then. The MS part of it is about 150mm x 150mm x 200mm – tiny and because of the way it works highly robust. GC is very robust technology as it is essentially a long silica (or something) tube in an oven.

You do know that the British Army has had a CBRN (was NBC) wagon, Fuchs, since 1990, obtained from Germany in time for Gulf War 1? It came into Bundesweher service in 1988. The Soviet/Russian vehicle-borne capability dates from at least that time.
Fuchs incorporates a mass spectroscopy unit.

from tank-masters.de, which describes the Bundeswehr equipment:
“The TPz 1A6 Fuchs mit SEM 80/90 und EBS ABC-Spürausstattung Reconnaissance Vehicle mainly differs from the Standard variant by the nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) rear with a two-wheel surface sampler system, a C-agent probe, a round container for spare sampler wheels, and a drawer in which the gripper for samples is stored. The NBC rear is attached to the hull by four clamping flanges and it gives the rear of the cargo compartment a gastight seal. It also features an access and egress door.

With the NBC reconnaissance kit the vehicle conducts NBC reconnaissance missions to quickly check if large areas have been contaminated by NBC weapons. One of the most important systems of the vehicle is the MM 1 mobile mass spectrometer with extendable C-agent probe at the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle, also known as the Spürfuchs, has been in service with the Bundeswehr since 1988. Overall, a total of 114 vehicles were procured but some were passed along to NATO partners. Beginning in 1997, 37 vehicles were put through a combat capability improvement programme. These improved vehicles are designated TPz 1A6A1 Fuchs mit SEM 80/90 und Raumkühlanlage und EBS ABC-Spürausstattung. Major improvements were a new mobile radiation detection system, air-conditioning system, a weather station for gathering meteorological data, a gas-phase chromatograph allowing identification of complex mixes of noxious substances, an enhanced database in which more than 200 substances are registered, a GPS receiver for the vehicle navigation system, and the linking of all sensors to a CPU that features an interface for data communication”.
UK Fuchs are subject to an upgrade; contract was signed in late 2020.

For some reason I had thought that it had been withdrawn/mothballed. I’m sure I heard Hamish de Breton Gordon say that but I may well have been mistaken.

The text you posed states that the vehicle is equipped with a Mass Spectrometer (MS) and a Gas Cromatograph (GC) it doesn’t say what the detector is on the GC or if it connects to the MS.

I’m dubious about the 200 fingerprint library on the GC as commercial libraries are orders of magnitude larger than that.

A “Falcon” Squadron RTR operate the Fuchs at Warminster. In the field they are attached to 28RE who are now have the CBRN role after it was removed from the RAF Reg and went back to the army.

You know far more than I do, when it comes to the ever changing dance of whom does what: that is for sure!

Our Fuchs 1 are very old now – think they were secondhand when we got them in 1990 in time for GW1. They were put into long term storage in 2011 – as it did not seem likely we would face a foe with the capability and intent to release CW – and no doubt to save money.
There was some debate (see Daniele’s answer) as to who should take on the role – no-one wanted it. 1RTR (last of the RTR units; when I joined there were four) were mortified to give up Chally’s to take on an ageing wheeled sniffer wagon.
UK Fuchs now being upgraded at last – this is typical of todays army – not to do regular upgrades – no idea why this is the case!

Sorry but I can’t answer ‘the chemistry’ questions!
Wiki: “11 Fuchs 1 NBC variants (ex-German Army) delivered in 1990. These vehicles were put into storage in 2011 but a regeneration project was launched in February 2014. Eight vehicles are used by Falcon Squadron, Royal Tank Regiment, 22 Engineer Regiment (think that should be 28 Engr – GM’s italics) with one attrition reserve and two training vehicles. The Fuchs Regeneration and Availability Service contract secured the vehicle’s service life until 2019.[2][8][9][10] The UK also used a small number of electronic warfare versions during the 1991 Gulf War[11] In October 2020, RBSL (Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land) announced a £16 million sustainment contract award for the UK MoD’s Fuchs fleet and training simulator. The award will address equipment-related obsolescence issues and upgrade the system with the latest generation of sensing capabilities. The new support contract includes technical support, provision of spares and repairs, maintenance, training, and design services.

What do you make of Boxer as the next IFV, and should we be getting a mix of tracked and wheeled versions? The numbers seem to stack up, 1000+ funded with aspirations of 1300. As long as Ajax comes into service for recce and fire support then (to this layman anyway) it seems to be the basis for a balanced army.

I was quite content with the Warrior upgrade (WCSP) even though the programme was runnning a little slow and over-budget.

For Boxer to be a convincing IFV (WR replacement) all section vehicles must have a stabilised cannon (30-40mm), and it must be confirmed that its mobility is at least as good as WR has been and WCSP would have been, including in ice, snow and deep, glutinous mud.

KMW market what they call a tracked Boxer although it apparently has little to no commonality with the wheeled ARTEC product (confusingly) – however perhaps that should be considered also as a candidate for our next IFV?

Ah ok, I don’t think many people realise that tracked Boxer is so different. So that leaves us with Ch3, Ajax family, and wheeled Boxer. I can see how Ajax can be for recce and fire support, but how on earth is wheeled Boxer going to work as an IFV? It just sounds like a confused mess. One can only hope that the new integrated review solves this. I won’t hold my breath!

The decision to replace tracked and soon-to-be upgraded Warrior by wheeled Boxer was taken well over a year ago. I don’t see that it would be revised due to the next IR.

I think only the French have wheeled infantry carriers operating in concert with tanks – I don’t think they have much experience of armoured warfare in the last 30 years to draw on, so don’t know if it actually works effectively.

TBF the army has made these choices and caused this by changing their mind every few years rather than just sticking with a plan.

These days it’s mostly the sensor fit. Some IFV’s have been repurposed into recce vehicles over the years (M3 Bradley, ASCOD has both Ajax and a Spanish Recce Vehicle version). But it a Recce vehicle doesn’t have to be based on an IFV (see the Fennek Recce Vehicle the Germans have for example). Go back 30 years and the lack of sensors meant that IFV’s could almost be recce vehicles (the M3 is almost identical to the M2 Bradley for example), but back then the emphasis was on “small”. So today most Recce vehicles are rather big, often with masts, so they can set up a Observation Post and just listen for enemy radio comms, or watch for thermal signatures (and probably increasingly as drone piloting stations), but back then they had to be much smaller because to observe the enemy they had to creep up and deploy mkI. binoculars (Hence CVRT, Weasel, etc are really small and why Warrior wasn’t used as a Recce vehicle back then).

Recce vehicles don’t really need turrets, they don’t really need dismounts, because they’re not there to fight. A lot have turrets just to get them out of trouble if they get into it, some can carry dismounts because there was space left over after fitting sensors, yes. But they don’t need them. They’re bonuses. And IFV needs both because they’re integral to it’s mission role.

For Ajax (and ASCOD Recce) the reason it can’t play at an IFV is because the sensor suite and computers that allow it to scout more effectively take up most of the room for troops that is in the back for the default ASCOD variant, hence only a crew of three. Warrior is a poor replacement for Ajax because although it’s a tracked turreted vehicle, it doesn’t have the sensor suite a modern Recce Vehicle has.

So TLDR;
APC: Carries troops forward then runs away.
IFV: Carries troops into battle then fights alongside them.
Recce: Doesn’t carry troops, sits in a bush and spies on people.

*edit* Ah as I scroll down I see Graham has already explained it. Good to see!

Seems so. Understandable to some extent if ones not aware of the differing roles the varied Corps, Regiments and Battalions provide and how they link together.
Any more updates you can give Ian from your sources, beyond the previous?

Yes that staggers me too. Its like confusing a frigate with a destroyer.

😀 Best laugh I’ve had all day, Graham.

The CV90 platform has both IFV and Recce variants, so you apparently you know something that BAE doesn’t.

Ajax is based on ASCOD, which guess what…..has an IFV variant! And Ajax has a bigger gun and more armour than ASCOD does.

Change the Ajax/Ares ratio of the order to increase the number of Ares hulls. Add an unmanned turret and clear out some of the storage to make room for dismounts. You have a tracked IFV that can keep up with C3 off-road.

Hi DFJ, yup, I know lots that BAe don’t!🤗
AJAX is based on ASCOD which is an IFV, there aren’t any other variants I’m aware of ( happy to be corrected here). If some if the internal stowage on ARES were removed it could be possible to squeeze in more dismounts but not seven I don’t think. It would be able to keep up with CR3 right enough.
Cheers

Think ARES can take up to 4 dismounts – they would be a specialist team not bog-standard infantry riflemen.

Hey Ian.
LOADS of ASCOD variants out there:

1. Pizzaro (Spanish Variant) with:

• IFV variant
• C2 variant
• Recce variant
• Vehicle recovery variant
• 2 seperate engineering variants

1. Ulan, the Austrian version with a more powerful engine.
2. A few experimental prototypes including a 155 howitzer and a 105 Direct fire variant.
3. ASCOD 2, a improved version of ASCOD with a bigger engine and larger hull on which is based:

• Ajax, Ares, Argus, Athena, Apollo and Atlas in the British Army
• Sabarah Light Tank in the Philippian army.
• Griffin Light Tank in the US Army.

👍

Recce comes with binos fitted.

IFV fitted for but not with.

Astute Mr GB

In defence of the confused, the protected mobility reconnaissance support vehicle role, will be undertaken by both AJAX and ARES. ARES being a true armoured personnel carrier APC for the “boot troop.” While AJAX is an ARES hull fitted with a turret plus other nice shiny things. Intended to replace CVR(T) Scimitar in the tracked reconnaissance role.
Logistical and support requirements in mind. It is not inconceivable that the future Warrior replacement infantry fighting vehicle IFV and others, will come from the ARES range of vehicles:-

• Ajax (turreted, reconnaissance and strike)
• Ares (reconnaissance and Armoured Personnel Carrier)
• Argus (engineer reconnaissance)
• Athena (command and control)
• Atlas (equipment support recovery)
• Apollo (equipment repair)
• Overwatch (Brimstone Anti-tank Guided Weapon variant)
• With more to follow!

When announced, those of us with some military experience were literally salivating at the thought of such a smorgasbord of potential delights. Look how quickly that bubble burst. If the level of General Dynamics UK manufacturing incompetence is true.

Oh BAE Systems CV90. Where art thou when the country needs you most?

Wrong.
PMRS aka ARES is NOT an APC . It only carries 4 dismounts. It annoys me that posters still don’t grasp the different roles and capabilities of these platforms. Try as I might, some people just seem to be obtuse.

No it’s an APC, it’s a litteral 1-1 replacement for the Spartan (also an APC). It’s just not an APC for an infantry section but for a specialist team (Jav det, Combat engineers etc) that don’t require a 432 sized vehicle.

Hi Dern, in a purely literal sense you are correct, it is armoured and carries personnel, however my comment was based on vehicles designed to carry an infantry section which ARES certainly cannot.
Cheers

It’s designed to carry specialist sections, rather than a standard infantry squad. It literally fulfills the exact same job as an APC, just for units that do not require only 4 dismounts not 10.
It carries them into a hot zone, where they dismount and do their job, while the vehicle withdraws. Then after the fight it returns to pick them up and move on; in doctrine, design, form, function and use, it’s an APC.
Point being, calling it an APC is not obtuse, it’s accurate.

Dern, having already agreed with you I’m moving on.
Cheers

Ian my friend. I’m at a loss to explain this in a better way. Ajax is a variant of the same base vehicle APC called ARES.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/uk/modern/ajax-reconnaissance-tank-apc
“Ares Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC)

The British Government ordered 59 Ares Armoured Personnel Carriers (PMRS) on the 4th September 2014. It has a crew of two: commander/gunner and driver. There is accommodation for up to 7 troops. There is space for specialised and personal equipment of the soldiers. There are internal racks and stowage boxes. More equipment can be stored externally. …”

It is the APC for specialist troops including the “boot troop” of recce units. I’m sure that role will expand if/when it is mass produced for future use. We could see it supplement Boxer as the Warrior replacement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA55bN-cD4Q
Lt.Col Berry of the Household Cavalry explains it better than I can. With no turret it becomes a “Troop carrier.”

Hi George, my contention is that ARES isn’t a conventional section carrying APC, not that it doesn’t carry troops. Unfortunately the publication you have quoted is fundamentally incorrect. ARES has a crew of 2; Driver plus Vehicle Commander. Sitting across from the Vehicle Commander is the Tactical Commander (who also can control the SDW). He then commands the 3 (only 3) dismounts who will perform specialist tasks.
Cheers

And then there were the cancelled variants! Like the Direct Fire with 120mm that is now in effect the US Army Griffon I think?

Hi Daniele, you are correct. The Griffon as demonstrated was based on the AJAX hull with an Abrams type turret. The production MPF platform now under contract has a 105mm gun and a much modified hull (only 6 roadwheels per side).
Cheers

Thanks for the clarification and corrections Ian, those vehicle details are beyond me!

Always a pleasure, never a chore🤗

Golly that is far too real world.

Surely what we need to do is to set up a project to modify something that would do the job perfectly well and make it into an all singing and all dancing version at 300% of the price and 150% of the weight of the original version?

This means at least 8 years of R&D and committee meetings with head shaped holes in walls from frustrated project managers and engineers.

The genius of this approach is that by the time it is about to come into service we can say it is ‘out of date’ and cancel the whole project and therefore save more money.

From 2015 we would have had, with two tracked Armoured and two wheeled Strike.

Like other reviews the hype did not match the funding, plus add the delays to Ajax and WCSP and come 2019 the plan was shelved.

I believe there is such a Boxer though I’m not up to speed on all possible variations.

I still support Ajax and keep faith myself, not in how the program has been run but the potential it has and what SMEs say it can give.

Daniele, This is not a trick question, although it may be a stupid one! With only two tank brigades (2 X 56?) where are all these Ajax variants going to be used. With a small army I can’t help but think that more very well equipped light forces, including more helo’s and transport aircraft would be a better option. HIMARS? Where are we going to use heavy armour which is what Ajax is about? Are we ever going to want to do another Iraq?
With one exception in the RAF my family are all navy so I do lean that way with the global reach policy so may be I’m being a bit simplistic.🙄

Geoff, we have used heavy and/or medium armour such as Warrior a huge number of times in the last 30 years – Gulf War 1 Kuwait, Gulf War 2 Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Afghanistan and virtually all in serious warfighting situations.Much is currently deployed in Eastern Europe in a very serious way.
Much as I love our Navy they have not done a great deal of warfighting in a similar timespan yet they are being well resourced for acquiring ew platforms. I say this not to score any inter service points but to bring some reality to those who think procuring and using such land equipment is not required.

I get your frustration with how Navy seems to be making all the news on procurement. If only in our little world. But I believe the reason is the Navy seems to have a plan and it has had for a long time. The Army doesn’t and hasn’t for at least a decade. They seem to be getting the lions share of the next equipment budget but stability and a long term strategy is what the Army needs more than anything else.

Very fair comment. I can barely keep track of the army’s constant changes on Structures, presumably because continuously a new CGS or another senior General doing doctrine and combat development wants to make his mark on appointment by creating a new vision of the future.
I think Daniele once said that there was nothing much wrong with the Structure that postulated 5 identical Multi Role brigades (+ 16 AA Bde), a few years back. Then you can Task Org to suit a given mission.

To be totally fair army have been given budget to do vehicle things that haven’t turned out too well on a couple of occasions now.

Hence why army are increasingly COTS/MOTS orientated. Which is not necessarily the right lesson. Things like NLAWS were not as off the shelf as some try and make out and army has many good systems.

Yes the army has taken the brunt of cuts and penny pinching by the government over the years and we could have done without the Ajax problems.

Hi Graham…I take your point and certainly your right in mentioning the conflicts we have been involved in. I wasn’t really thinking of just AEW, although I believe five would be a lot better then three, but more about where we are going generally. If we are going to see another freeze in funding or a tiny increase can we afford to do everything. I can’t help but think that we are trying to maintain power in almost every service and not fully achieving anywhere.

Hi Geoff, my point about listing those conflicts was to say that the army actually does warfighting (and frequently) and needs its heavy and medium armour.
AEW – Three is ridiculous – after a few years, as they age, one will always be in some form of maintenance, so we really only have 2 to use – and the sky is a big place!
We are maintaining less than the bare minimum of combat power in the army – we will no longer be able to do enduring brigade operations (as per Afghanistan) – and cannot currently deploy just one modernised, networked warfighting division.
The Navy perhaps has less to grumble about given the number of new platforms introduced in recent years and expected in the next 5-10 years, although I know there are still capability gaps. They remain one of only two Level 2 bluewater navies in the world and are arguably the second most capable navy in NATO.
We urgently need to have fewer procurement fails and to increase overall Defence spend towards the 3% figure. Its hard to see what, if any, capability we could drop – although I am not totally convinced we need (for military reasons) to remain a nuclear weapons power.

Hi Geoffrey.

Off my head, there may be others I miss, you have these units with Ajax variants.

4 RAC Recc Regiments.
2 RAC Armoured Regiments.
2 ( or 3 ) RE CS Regiments ( depending on the kit used by the Regiment supporting 7 LMBCT. )
Likewise the 2 (or 3 ) REME CS Battalions for the 2 ABCTs and maybe 7 LMBCT.
2 RA CS Regiments in DRSB, 1 allocated to each ABCT.

Also, when the order for Ajax was placed the Armoured Infantry Battalions on Warrior, which were 6 post 2010 then reduced to 4, presumably would have used Scout in their Recc Platoons too as they used Scimitar.

The 4 recc regs alone, known as Armoured Cavalry, primarily on the turreted Scout version could well have 50 plus each if they’ve got the 3 or 4 Sabre Squadrons on Scout plus variants.

I don’t know if the 2 RS Regs attached to the 2 ABCTs that form the main and alternate HQs would also use it?

Then there’s the RAC Centre Reg at Bovington with their fleet, the Land Training Fleet at Warminster, any kept in reserve at CHE sites at Ashcurch and Monchengladbach, and so on.

All adds up.

I too favour your expeditionary outlook, RN, RAF first. Though I also think 1 well equipped Armoured Division is a minimum the UK should also stick to, which is what the army is sticking with, though they’ve changed the goalposts somewhat as our Divisions have usually had 3 manoeuvre brigades that could deploy independently, not 2 as now.
The DRSBCT is not deployable in isolation as it lacks Infantry and most CS CSS.

Thanks a lot mate mate. Good stuff. I’ll read up on this properly.

The orbat of 3 UK division is as follows:
12 Armoured Infantry X

• 1x Ajax Formation Recce Regiment
• 1x Challenger 2 Regiment
• 1x Challenger 2 Reserve Regiment
• 2x Regular Mechanised Infantry Battalions on Boxer
• 2x Reserve Infantry Battalions

20 Armoured Infantry X

• 1x Ajax Regiment
• 1x Challenger Regiment
• 3x Regular Mechanised Infantry Battalions
• 3x Reserve Infantry Battalions

1 Deep Strike X

• 2x Ajax Regiment
• 1x Jackal Regiment
• 1x Jackal Reserve Regiment
• 2x AS90 Regiment
• 2x MRLS Regiment
• 2x Reserve Artillery Regiment

Plus a load of CS and CSS units.

You then have 1 UK Div with 7X on Foxhound, 4X in Light Role, 19X with the Army Reserve and Yeomanry in Light Role and Jackals respectively, 11 SFA X for Security Force Assistance.

And then 6 UK DIV and 16 Air Assault X

Thanks Dern, You and Daniele have done me proud. Much appreciated.

Hi Dern, thanks for posting this detailed orbat, really interesting. Am I correct in thinking that one of the three tank regiments will because (the Yeomanry reserve) under the planned reduction to 148 Challengers?

I imagine both 12 and 20 brigades also have organic AS 90 atrillery regiments assigned?

Hey Klonkie,
I suspect there’s a word missing from your post? One of the three challenger regiments will because…?

No Organic Artillery in 12 and 20, all 3XX Artillery is in 1DSRX

Apologies Dern -my bad. One of three challenger regiments will disband? Thanks for the reply re the arty in 12 & 20 brigades.

Some definitions of IFV contend that a wheeled armoured infantry carrier can be termed an IFV if it mounts a cannon. I

Equally there is a tracked Boxer now offered by KMW (not ARTEC) and first shown at this years Eurosatory (with a 120mm tank cannon, but other role equipment is available), however it has little in common with wheeled Boxer (puzzling):
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/boxer-tracked.htm

Thanks mate.

Hi again Dern.

Thanks for this update on our previous conversations. I’m still looking for their internal ORBAT.

Though I was amused to see the photo with the caption “UK Rangers Chinooks in the Californian Mojave Desert” which as far as I’m aware are US Army SOR examples, as they look like they are painted Black and have the refuelling probes, which I think 7 Sqns SF Flight Chinooks still do not have.

Any Chinook Rangers embark on becomes a Ranger’s Chinook, law of the seas.
“Look at me, I’m the Pilot now!”

I just hope your not looking for their ORBAT on my account!

Sweden also operates similar types.

Interesting read!

“It has sort of come to light that the budget for three aircraft is going to be not that dissimilar to the budget for five because of the gross underestimate of costs made by the MoD,” said Francis Tusa, a UK defense analyst.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/uk-industry-officials-raise-eyebrows-over-royal-air-force-f-35-e-7-and-a400m-programs/

As I read through the article I was waiting for the good news part but it never came. Basically everything is harder than we thought and nobody understands what’s happening.
How 5 E7 can cost the same as 3 I don’t know.

It beggars belief but nothing these days surprises me anymore!

Looks good. Can’t help feeling if the MoD knew what stunt Boeing were going to pull they’d have looked elsewhere. Perhaps to our Swedish friends.

Makes me wonder if this kind of this makes us wary about going with Ghostbat.

There’s zero evidence for that.

Yes it’s speculation but it justified to speculation. The focus is NHS and wind farms not 6th generation fighters. So as a counter there’s no evidence to suggest it won’t happen. And to add balance the Tories could also cancel it as unaffordable but more likely they’ll wait until next election. Then both parties will blame each other.