A new facility to support the British Army’s Ajax programme is under construction at Warminster Garrison, according to a press release from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO).
The £17 million project, being delivered by Aspire Defence, will provide a state-of-the-art synthetic training facility for Ajax regiments based on Salisbury Plain, with completion expected in autumn 2025.
The facility will house advanced driver, gunnery, and crew trainers, enabling military personnel to undergo ‘real-world’ training for the operation of Ajax vehicles.
The Ajax programme is set to deliver a family of tracked, all-terrain, digitally-enabled vehicles equipped with a range of weapons and sensors, bringing transformational capabilities to the British Army. The facility at Warminster Garrison is a key part of this programme, providing critical infrastructure for training.
Brigadier Pete Quaite OBE, Head of Infra Plans, expressed optimism about the project’s progress, stating: “The Warminster Garrison Ajax facility is progressing at an impressive pace and will deliver a critical capability to the army. This project demonstrates the significant investment underway across our estate to modernise our training infrastructure and deliver benefits for our people.”
The internal fit-out of the 226-tonne steel superstructure is currently underway, with the installation of the Ajax simulation capability scheduled for next year.
Colonel Jamie Hayward, Armoured Cavalry Programme Director, highlighted the importance of this facility in reducing running costs and wear on the platform: “This new infrastructure is a vital component of the Ajax programme. It allows the appropriate technical solution to train our Service Personnel and enables a reduction in running costs, platform wear and dependence on live training areas.”
Warren Webster, Director of Army Major Programmes and Projects at DIO, commended the collaboration between the project team and Aspire Defence, saying: “Continued collaboration between our project team and Aspire Defence will ensure that construction remains on track, to meet the infrastructure requirements of the Army’s Armoured Cavalry programme.”
This facility is part of a wider infrastructure effort for the Ajax programme, with similar developments already completed at Tidworth Garrison and Bulford Camp on Salisbury Plain Training Area, and Bovington in Dorset, where the Ajax simulation capability is currently being installed.
Allan Thomson, Chief Executive of Aspire Defence Ltd, expressed pride in delivering the project, stating: “We are proud to be delivering this project for DIO to support the British Army, which showcases Aspire Defence’s ability to successfully deliver quality infrastructure on behalf of the Ministry of Defence and the army. This first-rate facility supports the contemporary vision of training that’s in keeping with the modern army and its readiness for today’s challenges.”
Too large. Undergunned for the modern age; never mind the gun being overly complicated and the ammunition expensive. How much of that electronic equipment will FFBNW?
Please explain Stephanie, what you mean by “undergunned”? I believe in sheer kinetic energy, the CT40 APFSDS round is about 50% more powerful than a 30mm AP round. Bearing in mind it is a RECCE platform, it’s not designed to go toe to toe with other, heavier armour unless that is the only way out. Also, what electronic equipment do you expect to FFBNW? The AJAX has Thales Catherine MP thermal imagers (fitted), an HD colour TV based video system (fitted) acoustic sensors (fitted), radiation detectors (fitted), HCDR comms (fitted), a state of the art Fire Control System (fitted).
Cheers
Oh! And screen washers too!
Tea maker ?
Well, BV is definitely fitted!🤣
Now now you have left out the BV😂
Not designed to take on heavier armour, but that famous video from last year where a Bradly solo’d and beat a T-72 head-to-head would indicatate recce vehicles can hold their own with the right crew!
And that was with a 30mm Bushmaster, a load of attitude and balls of steel!
Thought M2 Bradley IFV and M3 Bradley CFV had a 25 mm M242 Chain Gun?
To be honest Graham, I was lazy and didn’t check. Bushmaster comes in so many different flavours. I think the rest of my reply stands though!
cheers
Yep. You really would not wish to bump into an MBT if in a Bradley recce vehicle or IFV, especially at short range. The Bradley got lucky on this occasion.
I understand it shot the optics out of the tank.
Especially a trained or veteran MBT crew. IFV’s largely rely on MBT crews being panicked and stressed out for long enough that they can damage an optic or something.
It’s the accuracy of the Bushmaster and the volume of fire, first rounds impacting and blinding its ability to return fire, then work over the turret and the tracks and it’s out of the fight.
That must have terrifying for the crew, the roar of those 25mm rounds hammering into it…
The CT40 on Ajax is a generation on, it will hammer holy hell out of anything, with impressive accuracy…
You don’t have to kill a tank, just blind it and bug out….
Agreed.
CTA has airburst ammo as an option. You could essentially “wash” the enemy tank with fragment pellets and destroy every sight and viewport, having spotted it from miles away with superior sensors and used your better knowledge to set up an ambush.
One on one I would back an ajax against most Russian legacy tanks with my limited knowledge but I imagine the crew would always be looking over their shoulders for a way out.
TBH as each Ajax squadron should have an ATGM troop attached, the safer bet for enemy armour preseen would be to dismount the Jav’s and take it out like that.
No sense fighting fair, if you can avoid it.
Booooorring 🥳
Or maybe we get that Ares overwatch version with Brimstone and put that in with the Ajax? Ares has all of the same sensors so still Recce.
Brimstone Vs T-72 is about as unfair as you can get.
Indeed, if anything, Ukraine is showing that IFVs have more value than MBTs on the battlefield- although how that would bear out in a NATO-operated military I’m not certain. I can’t see why that would change though, just because they have more air cover…
Pity we are losing our IFVs then!
Yes, it is- although I can understand that something in the stretched budget has to give. That said, we do have a couple of solid options for the future when the army has the financial bandwidth to bring them back into service- while achieving some commonality across the service.
A variant of the ASCOD II platform that Ajax is derived from makes most sense to me. But that’s got to be a good decade away, I expect- unless Labour really do something incredible with the economy.
I don’t see the reintoduction of IFVs in the short term unless we buy at least some cannon-equipped mission modules as a lethality improvement. But I bet we would not buy one per section!
In the long term, a more comprehensive IFV solution would only be after the Boxer era, which is many decades away.
The Bradley shot the optics out of the Russian tank and the T-72 being driven blind crashed into a tree…as I understand it. The Bradley was lucky to survive the encounter.
In a recce vehicle on a very bad day you might very unexpectedly meet an enemy tank at short range, but I doubt you would usually ‘best’ the tank.
Agreed, I wouldn’t want to go up against an MBT in a direct fire fight if I was in an IFV. If I could engage from a bit of range with an ATGM (I know they don’t all have them, but quite a few have them as options at least), then I’d be feeling more confident.
That said, with the speed and rate of fire that the Bradley had I’d consider their chances of survival were relatively high- as the T-72 would likely have had trouble traversing fast enough to keep a bead on them. I would not have been entirely surprised that the Bradley was able to lay enough fire down to escape (which it did, if you saw the longer video of the encounter). The fact that it came back for seconds and forced the T-72 into the situation you describe, I agree is definitely surprising.
Thanks. Very brave and skilled Bradley crew.
Fitted? How many of these platforms have been built? All of them? 50% of them? So how can you say ‘fitted’ so glibly?
A 40 tonne vehicle with the same pressure signature as a Chally 2 may have no choice but to fight its way out of situations. If you followed moves in the auto cannon sphere you would perhaps understand why 50mm cartridges are being looked at? But obviously you don’t I am not here too teach you. I would expect a 40mm cartridge to how more power than a 30mm cartridge. Surely that is self evident.
If you had spent time with light cavalry officers and seniors NCO’s you were perhaps understand their concern about the size of the vehicle. CVR(T) size wise is just about spot on. There is no to put RECCE in block capitals. That is patronising.
Your post is typical of many here. A list of Top Trump specs mixed in with MoD press release garbage.
Cheers? Patronising sexism.
Come on now,that’s twice you have bought gender into your answers! NOBODY has questioned you on that so why do you think you need to bring it up?as far as I can see you get the same treatment as everyone else! Please keep posting your opinions👍
“Stephanie” or whoever you are as your ID keeps changing. Your post comes across as way over the top and quite confrontational.
As you said to me once in a condescending manner…
“this post shows you lack the experience and have not thought the matter through”
Well, this post has the same air of arrogant superiority about it.
“Cheers”
No, that is how Ian often signs off his posts. Overly defensive from you with no real justification.
“If you had spent time with light cavalry officers and seniors NCO’s you were perhaps understand their concern about the size of the vehicle.”
In Ian’s career in the REME and through his ongoing connections with the ATDU who are working on the vehicle, I’m sure he is aware of all these issues. And you would be too if you’d been reading Ian’s comments on the Ajax subject over a few years now.
Ian is quite capable of answering your aggression but just thought I’d give you my opinion. And I don’t give a flying fig for your response.
Your attitude is not necessary.
Oh and another thing, “Light Cavalry” are the Jackal Regiments.
Ajax is Armoured Cavalry.
Ooh! Burn!😉
Sorry to butt in on your convo mate.
Some things piss me off, and nose in the air arrogance is one of them.
Absolutely fine Daniele, I appreciate the support👍. I have replied myself now.
When someone pisses Daniele off you know they’re off the rails.
It was looking down its nose at me the other week. I kept my council on that one and observed.
Then it had a run in with you, then BobA on ISTAR in Afghan, not conceding an inch to even experienced professionals. Then snapping at Paul P the other day.
So then coming out with such gems as “If you followed moves in the auto cannon sphere” and “But obviously you don’t I am not here too teach you” to Ian M who, for anyone who has been following for some years here knows, does actually know a thing or two on armoured vehicles….and then reverses the “attitude” onto others comments made in all innocence….I’m thinking…you arrogant twat I’m going to say something.
🙄
TBF, if Steve went through 4 years of HRT and is now Stephanie I’m happy to respect that, or even if Stephanie felt they had to pretend to e Steve on this site. I’m afraid I missed the drama, and really don’t care enough to try and find it. I just know it takes a lot to get you that heated.
But tbh I’m not surprised, her posting style is clearly meant to antagonize and cause issues, not discuss.
Hmm, good point I’d not even considered that possibility.
Looking at the history I did indeed see Steve, but also “Noodle”!
Your being deliberately confrontational for some reason, not a St Petersburg troll farm graduate I hope??
Anyway, while many of us have found Ajax’s size and weight a tad concerning, it requires the space and armoured protection for a lot of secret squirrel gear, anything CRV sized just won’t cut it it today…
A pair of binoculars, a map and a radio, then bugging out at top speed isn’t enough any more.
It will just get you very dead, very quickly…
Hmm? I seem to have touched a nerve “Stephanie”. I shall respond to your observations as I read them (if they make sense).
“Fitted? How many platforms of these platforms have been built?”
An odd way of asking questions but, hey ho. As the AJAX production line is just that and production is slated to continue for a couple more years, why ask if all of them have been built?
I can say “fitted” so glibly because I was stating facts, no more, no less.
Research into larger calibres for use on medium weight platforms is an ongoing task. It’s the conundrum of weight of fire versus weight (and size) of weapon, which is where CT40 scores highly. It has a very small turret intrusion factor and minimal recoil distance, coupled with the huge increase in hitting power from both kinetic and HE rounds.
“Spending time with Light Cavalry officers and Senior NCO’s”.
Well, I don’t spend time with Light Cavalry officers because they won’t get AJAX, however, I am acquainted with Officers and men of units slated to receive the AJAX series of vehicles and they seem to be very happy with their new systems, including the advanced training systems mentioned in this article.
“There is no to put RECCE in block capitals”.
I think you need to proof read your posts. I capitalised the abbreviation in order to emphasise, not to patronise.
“A list of Top trump specs mixed in with MoD press release garbage”.
My (incomplete) list is not “Top Trumps”, that suggests I was in competition with someone. Not true, just a list, of facts.
I endeavour to keep the information in my posts to that which is already in the public domain or deliberately a tad vague, so some of it will indeed have appeared in Government and industry handouts and publications, nothing wrong with that. I believe in some quarters this is called Opsec.
cheers
The army seems quite pleased with the results of the AJAX trials this year. They have been testing it in all sorts of challenging environments, manoeuvrabilityand speed do not seem to be a problem
The gun is okay but the turret should be modified to be able to do anti drone.
According to the company, the Ct40 cannon can be elevated for air defence mode, apparently. (Link)
I can’t see every vehicle on the battlefield having an anti-drone system.
Can’t or can? it will have to be otherwise they will be dead.
Drones will be autonomous and swarming in the future, you upload a 3 model of various enemy vehicles and the drone track them down without human intervention.
Can’t.
All vehicles have been subject to attack from the air, whether by fast jet or AH for a very long time indeed. Yet we never fitted all vehicles with a dedicated anti-air capability before. Drones are one more aerial system to add to many aerial threats that have gone before.
Of course they are a concern and drones need to be dealt with. It does not follow that all vehicles will have an anti-drone system any more than all vehices will have an anti-mine system or an anti-artillery system or an anti-ATGW system…or that dismounted soldiers will have an anti-MG system or an anti-rifle system or an anti-AP mine system.
Clearly where a low-cost anti-drone system can be adopted such as cope cages or the nets that UKR CR2s have recently been issued with, then that must be done.
The £4.5bn UK Defence Drone Strategy will deliver solutions, but we should not assume that every vehicle will have a bespoke, expensive anti-drone system in future. It may be the case or it may not. It may be that specialist anti-drone units will operate close to those that need the protection, much as classic AD as previously stated is not dished out on the scale of one per vehicle but is operated by specialist troops.
An aircraft is something rare, it needs an huge investment starting with pilot. You can have ten thousands of drones for an aircraft.
ATGM’s until and majority of them still are only line of sight.
Yep. Fair points. But I have been in MoD and they will not spend a lot of money on kitting out each and every AFV…and every PM vehicle and every soft skinned vehicle with a recently developed and expensive antidrone system this side of the Strategic Drone Study reporting.
MoD might still be planning for only 60 CR3s to have an APS. That illustrates the parsimonious nature of the Department.
I don’t think they expect to get in land combat in short time.
Maybe, except that many are telling us of major war within 3-5 years. Previously we used a TES kit solution (with max use of the UOR system) to make vehicles ready for the specific combat environment they would be entering.
and their associated disregard for the crews involved…
Are you thinking of the sending of Snatch LRs to the sandbox wars?
CTA has air burst rounds that can take out drones with ease. I believe Ajax will have jammers fitted that should aid in blocking the signal to low cost drones. All sorts of new equipment being development to combat drones at the minute, half of it probably isn’t even made public.
the 40mm can already engage drones. an Ajax won’t be alone on the battlefield, there are other assets also deployed. it’s called combined arms operations.
since the Ajax will be connected to the battlefield management network it will get target info in real time from other systems deployed. In fact the gun will auto aim to the target based on target info it receives from a nearby radar. (like an AWACS, or a Saab Giraffe radar mounted on a 4×4, truck etc…) This is called “slew to cue” exactly like how Nexter Jaguar works within the Scorpion program for the French army.
Not to mention other dedicated SHORAD deployed on the battlefield to create a protection bubble, like upcoming laser based systems, gun based like RM Skyranger or BAE Tridon, missile such as Starstreak etc…. and finally Electronic Warfare that has been very effective at jamming drones in Ukraine.
sum of the parts …
the real problem for the armed forces is mass not quality or capability.
Alex, the ammunition already exists for the CT40. Check the CTAi website.
I know the ammunition exists, my question is more related to the mount gun elevation, fire control.and sensors.
Btw it seems Rafael presented a Trophy APS with anti drone capability. Should be good for smaller ones.
Alex,
One of the showpieces of the CT40 on AJAX is it’s high elevation. As for the fire control, the sights are independent and can auto slew the turret to a designated target. The imagers on AJAX are top drawer both thermal and colour video.
Maybe get a 360º IRST. ships are getting that but weight and energy might be an issue.
So maybe we should be more worried about drones taking out all our Infantry in Boxers before they have dismounted and joined the fight.
8 wheeled incinerators?
Yep. Some countries, including certain superpowers, have a mere 25mm cannon on their recce vehicles, so 40mm is ‘top of the class’.
👍 Yup
Good luck, Stephanie is a troll who drops sh*t like this but never replies to corrections.
Cheers Dern, we live and learn👍
Tbf, I’ve seen that they’ve been on a reply spree since then.
Sadly it mostly seems to be a temper tantrum and name calling (some of my posts from months ago have gotten the same treatment).
But yes, we live and learn I guess.
The 40mm gun seems pretty devastating to me.
Check out the CTAi website for info on the cannon and ammunition:
Ammunition – CTA International (cta-international.com)
System – CTA International (cta-international.com)
It does.
Remember Ajax replaces the roles of the old CVR(T) fleet.
In that respect, it is a huge step change in terms of protection, firepower, comms etc.
Go M10 Booker and create commonalities with Allied forces; AJAX is not a recce vehicle, it is a Centurion lite tank.
Stephanie, please send your measurements to me, 36, 24, 30 would be great. Hugs.