General Dynamics Land Systems–UK, working with Lockheed Martin, has unveiled a new Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) variant of Ajax at DSEI 2025 in London.
The design builds on a lengthened Ajax hull, stretched by about 30 centimetres compared to the baseline Ares, and integrates a new uncrewed turret developed in Britain by Lockheed Martin. The turret carries the 40mm CTA cannon first acquired for earlier Army programmes, offering greater firepower and flexibility.
The vehicle is configured for a crew of three plus eight dismounts. Features highlighted at the show included space for anti-tank guided missiles, active protection systems, and the use of composite rubber tracks from Soucy Defence.
The unveiling at the ExCel centre drew a strong crowd, with industry noting the significance of the UK-developed turret and the move to broaden the Ajax family. General Dynamics described the new IFV as “a major step forward in British armoured vehicle innovation”, pointing to sovereign investment, collaboration and the aim of delivering operational advantage.
At the unveiling, company representatives highlighted how the new variant “leverages the advanced Ajax electronic architecture and a proven survivability solution, both passive and active, enabling the highest level of protection for our British and NATO soldiers.”
Presented as export-ready, the platform is designed and built in the UK with a view to supporting NATO operations and future partnerships. Its appearance at DSEI is a signal to international customers that the Ajax family can be adapted into a more combat-oriented role.
Is this the Warrior replacement we have been waiting for?
Yes but with a hefty development price tag no doubt
Of course, we should be buying this to reequip the armoured infantry but we won’t. It’s probably far too expensive, more expensive than say upgrading Warrior or buying CV90. Anyway the Army is committed to Boxer, with it’s high profile, wheels & wholly inadequate weapons station (top side GPMG).
Might not be so simple, Rob.
There are lots of rumours and reports that the Army is looking at Ares to replace the Warrior in AI Battalions and that Boxer will migrate to 7 Brigade.
Now with this in the mix, who knows.
Maybe but you can’t fit a proper infantry section into Ares can you unless you are splitting the section into two vehicles which would be mad cost wise. I do think something will have to give because, although I’m a fan of Boxer, it most certainly isn’t an IFV.
I read something about removing storage racks at the back to increase dismounts.
Agree on Boxer. The reasons for HMG turning in desperation to it have been discussed many times here, it was not originally planned to fulfil this role.
I hope they reduce any further orders of it and to compensate increase numbers of a cheaper OTS type for supporting roles.
Put Boxer in all wheeled 7 Brigade and move Foxhound into 4, which would be an uplift for that formation at least.
Even though the elephant in the room, sod all regular CS CSS for it, remains.
Also heard mods to Ares turret too, not sure how accurate but it would make sense. Very limited number of Ares ordered though (Wikipedia says 93).
Those 93 are for carrying small teams in varied roles, much as Spartan did previously.
If they want to put 4 or 5 Battalions in a modified Ares more would be ordered.
I’d read the idea was to order fewer Boxer in any future tranches and more Ares.
With this IFV type now unveiled, no idea any more.
I’ve heard, not sure on validity so could just be Chinese whispers, that they are already converting some of those 93 to IFV spec.
Certainly a convoluted mess….again.
As I understand it, even enlarged you only get 6 dismounts from Ares, but this is the full 8.
My understanding too.
Probably why the hull has been lengthened for this version.
“it most certainly isn’t an IFV” – As specced by the UK, no. But there are modules which could be fitted with essentially the unmanned turret of the Puma IFV, turning the base vehicle into a wheeled IFV. It’s already got the armour of an IFV. There is even a tracked boxer variant (though not the one the UK purchaced, but there’s nothing to say an IFV has to have tracks).
As for the GPMG on the base Boxer IMV, I think it’s a stop-gap while the MoD decides whats the best defensive weapons fit. I would expect it to get replaced pretty quickly with some sort of remote weapons station designed to counter drones (I expect EVERY armoured vehicle to eventually get fitted with one going forward). However, the state of the arts is changing so rapidly at the moment, it’s difficult to commit to a solution.
As for Warrior, the WCSP was already developed, tested and cancelled by 2021. But there is only so much you can do to upgrade the original Warrior platform, especially in terms of armour. Maintenance costs for the 40-year-old drive train is also going to be expensive and less reliable than a replacement system (honestly, the reason why I feel the Challenger 3 upgrade is futile).
GPMG is unlikely to be a stop gap. Boxer probably will in service just have a mix of GPMG, HMG and GMG as per existing Mechanised infantry formations
Replace ‘looking at Ares’ with ‘ looking to new Ares IVF variant’ and your scenario makes sense, no?
This is beyond an adapted Ares.
Cost will be interesting. And timescales.
Cost isn’t likely to be that different. There are variations such as a more powerful engine option, rubber tracks to lessen noise and so on, but it’s broadly the same base, same LM turret, same 40mm gun – although the recon vehicle on display had a slightly upgraded cannon. They did say there was a manned turreted version with fewer dismounts, but I can’t see the Army going for that. It’s just another member of the Ajax family.
We’ll get it if we order it.
We’re bound to.
Boxer was never an IFV.
New commentary suggests that current government spending could be urgently reviewed before the autumn budget. Additionally, the French financial situation could impact UK military spending as the spectre of general tax rises is on the horizon. The British Army needs investment urgently; however, naval programmes and aircraft projects appear to be protected under international agreements, thus ringfencing their budgets. This may result in the Army losing out on receiving any additional vehicles beyond what has been signed off. This new Ajax variant may become nothing more than a pipe dream until the budget performance improves.
Hi M8, As you know Army isn’t my Bag, but I do like to look at things from an industrial point of view. To me this enlarged Ares makes a lot of sense and I’m not surprised that GDLS have put this out there.
As mich as I hate the US MIC they do know how to smell an opportunity and this one comes at a very opportune moment from both parties point of view.
The US Army has just cancelled the Booker M10 MPF after @80 odd vehicles had been delivered out 594 ordered. It’s derivative of the Griffin II, which in turn is derivative of our Ares ASCOD.
Which ll means that GDLS are after maximising their present customer base and open to a deal. From their US perspective they have the Griffin III as one of the 2 last competing companies for the OMFV (M2 Bradley Replacement) programme which is MEGA Money.
Fact is I think CV90 is a dead duck as a UK IFV is concerned (it lost last time), Warrior CSP in addition to Ares and Boxer makes zero sense (they use the same engine) and besides whioch the Army never admits to making mistakes.
As for Boxer I imagine the cancelation costs would be prohibitive so you may as well just buy them and use them to mount the RCH155 instead of extra orders.
As to the timing I think the Army know damn well that they need a modern Tracked IFV to replace Boxer, ordering a developed version of the Ajax can be presented as a cost efficient add on. So if Rachel from accounts can be persuaded to release the funds they will go for this.
What about some Boxer Skyranger 30/35mm in the mix? Or will a CTA40mm version do the job?
This is like an Ajax 2 variants with an extended hull. Surely the UK can order some of these. As i understand it the Ajax assembly line will run dry on a few years once the UKs 590 or do vehicles are complete so this new IFV 2 version would be an excellent progression. Poland is also looking at purchasing the Ajax family so this may also be tilted to foreign orders as well to show how the ajax family can evolve. The USA also has General Dynamics in the last two for their Bradly IFV replacement so this can also be to show USA that GD can build tracked IFVs. ALL positive stuff really . Fingers crossed
Agreed. Exports must be at the forefront of their minds. If we don’t get significant Ajax exports, even as a design, the platform will be left to wither by the UK government.
No. Yes. No.
Rob, This ARES IFV variant will certainly be very expensive – north of £10m a copy plus programme costs. The Warrior upgrade was up to £1.227bn at the time of cancellation some 4 years ago. You say the Army is committted to Boxer to equip the Infantry in the armoured brigades. I doubt that is true. The Army Requirement is for an IFV to replace Warrior, not a MIV. The MIV was of course for the Mech Inf not the Armd Inf (AI). Boxer was forced on the army as a replacement for Warrior by politicians and bean-counters. The army should be committed to getting an IFV for the AI.
Now that what I talking about 😉🤠🌹💯 full auto 40 with time air burst amazing news 😁🇺🇸🇬🇧😎👍😉🤠🤔
4 rounds clips automatically feeding kind of like the tom tom.🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧😁😁💯
I hope stretching the hull by 30cm doesn’t introduce vibrations 😂
Good, good, good , good vibrations…
I wonder whether the MoD/Army will actually announce we are buying something at DSEI?
There is quite a list building, from the vehicles considered in the LMP to 120mm mortars to SHORAD and CUAS systems.
Yes, Staff Cars.
At this stage would they be able to announce actual purchases/numbers ahead of the equipment plan, which is likely still being argued over with the treasury considering everything else being dumped into the defence budget. I note the new National Armaments Director still is still not in place.
Cavs has been announced but you would think if numbers were ready the Govt would have made a big deal of ordering X number of vehicles for the mainstream media headlines, to show how they’re delivering on defence etc.
The Cavs announcement alone is interesting as part of the rumour mill had indicated LMP medium may have been re-scoped for additional Boxer so it seems they didn’t go that way.
Glad they didn’t, given Boxers cost.
I want to see vehicles that are good enough, with numbers plentiful, rather than gold plated perfect for every role.
I read they even plan a Serpens Boxer.
Why? Can a radar not sit on a flatbed truck?
I read they want a Boxer Bridgelayer, to replace Titan!
Why!? Not as capable neither is the bridge the same size.
An IFV, and Boxer, Ajax, then other cheaper types supplementing in greater numbers please.
I had seen a bit on what you’re saying about some of the Boxer variants like Serpens and would agree, sense would have been providing the frontline roles first to benefit from Boxers high protection level over Cavs and use Cavs more for supporting roles.
Boxer would be much more beneficial in a Cavalry variant to give 1Div/7x recce using Ajax sensors and turret and a turreted IFV Boxer variant to support infantry (you know for that 10x lethality), plus additional numbers for the variants already on order to equip the intended Battalions (may still be more than just 7x as could be supporting roles in 12x/20x) before they consider others that don’t need to be so high spec when the money is all gone.
From what I’ve gathered reading about Boxer though, it was never ordered properly to begin with as the mix would never equip the Battalions properly and would always have needed a follow order on to balance the numbers. If this is true why not order in Brigade/Battalion sets I.e we can afford 3 full battalion sets now will order another 2 when the funding comes.
I too read about “Brigade sets” and indeed, it makes sense, to me at least.
TBH would rather see consistent Brigades with similar formations across the division to enable better usage by the divisional commander. I.e. 7 and 4 both consisting of 1 Light Cav Regiment, 2 Boxer Regiments and 1 Foxhound Regiment.
Morning Dern.
I touch on this elsewhere, my liking for consistent Brigade structure, at least.
I have no idea if its even desirable in reality, seeing it as a thing I have re orbat.
On kit, I assumed that given its cost only 7 would be Boxer equipped and 4 would take the newer MPV type, or Foxhound, steps up from the 7 with Foxhound and 4 with zilch at present.
Both 4 and 7 being equipped with both was not something I’d considered….very interesting.
Reminds me of the old 3 Division Brigades with 1 Warrior and 2 Saxon Bns.
Generally speaking at the divisional level it’s preferable because it means that the divisional commander has one less thing to worry about (and they generally should, as the saying goes, “only have a mild passing interest in what their brigades are actually doing.”)
It’s somewhat less extreme if you have two relatively light brigades on wheeled APC’s of different types, but for a more definitive example, look at 1 UK Division during Telic One, which had 1 Armoured Brigade, 1 Air Assault Brigade and 1 Commando Brigade. Div HQ was constantly having to assign armoured Battlegroups from 7th Armoured to the two other brigades because the Paras and Marines needed the firepower.
Thanks for this.
Daniele, just read this on the ARTEC site: “BOXER Bridge System can be equipped with a one-piece 14 m Leguan bridge that can span over a 13 m gap in less than three minutes and handle Military Load Class (MLC) 80 or 100. There is also a 22 m bridge available to bridge 20 m gaps in less than six minutes and handle MLC 50”.
In contrast Titan can lay: No. 10 (length 26 m); No. 11 (length 16 m); No.12 (length 13.5 m)
Thanks Graham. I think it nuts even considering getting rid of Titan, which, AFAIK, is a perfectly good and relatively new AVRE.
Did you say “Shorad”….?
With all of the focus on the impact of drones and missiles in Ukraine, there seems to be very little done by the U.K. in the past few years to rectify this anytime soon, I’d have thought prospect of an additional Boxer variant for the MOD to order would have pushed Skyranger to the top of the order list. Very odd considering the PM wants boots on the ground in Ukraine with very little protection from Drones considering how limited Skysabres numbers are and the missile stocks for them likely even worse.
The PM is clueless.
Buying IFVs built in the UK for the UK would be a clear Treasury / Defence win, it’s a no brainer and would begin rebalancing Army mobility, lethality and an ability to delete Warrior from ORBAT with her associated maintenance costs and deliver an operational maintenance cost across the tracked Ajax variants.
Just need several hundred panzers to bring the fleet back up to Division level and the requisite personnel…
… plus a new Regt of RMP for traffic duties 🙂
Behave.
If you delete the last sentence DB makes perfect sense, if they ordered 300 Ajax IFV, repurposed 96 of the Boxers for RCH155, started a production line for Patria to replace all the Bulldogs and somehow managed to convert 60 extra CR3 (from somewhere). I think you would be quite happy.
Or maybe not !
I’d be ecstatic mate.
My behave comment was regards David and his beloved RMP!
Thanks makes more sense. 👍 I’m also told that this thin thing is basically an ASCOD 2 but reworked by General Dynamics and in essence it’s the XM30 variant which the US Army is looking at as it’s Bradley replacement.
Yes, ABC just detailed that. Seems a no brainer as the AI need an IFV, not a Boxer with a MG on the roof.
But do you really need an IFV, because by Treasury maths, Boxer has RWS MG which carries a lot more rounds than 30/40mm turret which means it can fire more rounds, more means better ignoring other factors=10x lethality at lower cost.
DN, A Treasury win is to spend as little as possible on Defence!
Cardiff i.e. the GD plant in Merthyr Tydfil, is one of the Defence Industrial Strategy areas. Its odds on the MOD will be buying this IFV for the British Army.
A quick Google check it looks like 2028 will see the last build batch of 80 or so Ajax delivered with only retrofitted vehicles 140 ish plus delivered to the Army for 2029. And 2027 a peak delivery of around 130 vehicles. So it looks like in 3 years time the factory in Wales will not have too much to do . We would hope that something like the Ajax 2 ifv variants can start to roll out nicely in 2 to 3 tears time which will also time nicely with the Warrior vehicle retirement around 2030 I think . So let’s hope for a smooth transition to Ajax 2 IFV on the production line 🙂
If ordered they’ll have to call the IFV something different than just the “Ajax IFV”?
It would probably be Achillies or something similar.
Yeah, you’d have thought Artemis, goddess of the hunt, would get a name check at some point, and why not an IFV?
Good research. Looking back, the Ajax vibration pantomime was a turning point. There was no politically acceptable altrrnative but to put in the hard yards. fix the problem and make it work. Now we are getting the fruits of those efforts. What with Boxers in Telford and Stockport and (probably)Patrias built by Babcock and CR3 its fair to say that govt has cobbled together a UK armoured vehicle industry. Phoenix from the ashes.👏
It’s good right now but without the additional orders for an IFV variant Merthyr will be closed down by the end of the decade and those skills lost again.
I suppose the key question is how well developed is this prototype..
1) is it well developed and ready to go into serial production or does it need 10 years of development work.
2) does it come in at no more than 5 million per pop.
If both answers are yes, let’s buy 300 for the IA brigades. If the answer is no, let’s life extend warrior.
If it takes as long as it takes to build RN escorts and RFA vessels, they might have to!
I see the usual scattering of Army hanging around, will they order anything here or are they still going round in circles?
There were reports about 120mm Mortar years ago.
Life extending Warriors wouldn’t cost less than your 5 million. They need drive train replacement plus a new turret/gun and apparently some of the hulls are in poor condition.
Well they canned warrior upgrade because it was going to hit 1.5 billion for 350 vehicles..which just under 5million a pop on average.
Hi 589 Ajax on order present price £5.5 Billion, so if you do the math 300 costs @£3 billion and don’t forget that Warrior was just an update / refit / upgrade but using the original hulls, perkins engines and Transmissions.
Yep so it’s very possible for them to get an IFV version for 5 million a pop, it would be good if they did, not quite Bradley level cheap.. but the increase in tax base from the industrial stimulus would balance that out.
Jon, that’s £9.34m per Ajax on average. Not sure what the Programme costs are, but once they are taken into account unit cost will be less. I doubt you could get an ARES IFV for £5m. In contrast Boxer is £5.3m and surely a tracked, cannon-equipped IFV would be a lot more than an APC with a machine gun, particularly as ARES IFV has yet to undergo development and those costs would have to be covered by MoD.
My bad maths, that becomes a problem as the army buys more very expensive vehicles way above what every other army apart from Germany ( which has gone doolally flip) are paying. It needs to be looking at 1-2 million per vehicle for its bulk APC buy and 5 million for its IFV option.
Maths.
Never my strong point.
Its allowed as much development time as it takes for the Merthyr Tydfil plant to run out of current Ajax work 😀
SO ASCOD hull, note seven road wheels. British Army don’t want CRT’s want steel – presumably fitted with CRT to make vibration tolerable for equipment & crew. Just a rehash of the Latvian vehicle really. Nothing new here, apart from Turret.
SO Given development & qualification timescales wouldn’t be ready until 2033 at the earliest GD want how much for development £200M? £12M each?
Agreed and this was my main concern with Ares in Armd Inf Bns , too few dismounts plus lack of a decent gun. The article specifically states that this stretched variant resolves that issue allowing for a crew of three ( commander , driver , gunner?) plus eight dismounts in the back . Don’t see how by stretching the hull by 30cm however they manage to squeeze in another four bods but quiet clearly having a completely unmanned turret will help. As an Infanteer however I will have to admit I’m quite enthused by this and it clarifies some of the duty rumours we have been hearing of late , Boxer going to 7X and 12X, 20X getting Ares instead. It just didn’t make sense with baseline Ares but with this thing paints a whole different picture indeed. We retain all eight dismounts ( 2 x Fire Teams) but also get a decent gun on the top.
I think one of the issues has been trying to squeeze in the mine protected seating for the pax. As others have said, they’ve pulled some equipment racks out of the recce support version, so they can squeeze in 6 seated bods. But doesn’t meet the standard squad size, hence the vehicle stretch. Pretty certain if the Ares used bench seats as per the original 432, you could get a lot more in. But the days of using bench seats have long gone by.
Thanks makes more sense. 👍 I’m also told that this thin thing is basically an ASCOD 2 but reworked by General Dynamics and in essence it’s the XM30 variant which the US Army is looking at as it’s Bradley replacement.
Drum roll please? Ta da!
Just announced.
UK and Norway joining Patria CAVS program.
OK mate, just looked this up to remind myself what this is. A 6×6 wheeled APV. So how does this fit with Boxer? I am guessing that they both fit into the mech brigades rather than armoured brigades or should do if we buy the above Ajax IFV, which actually doesn’t look too bad to my uneducated eye.
Cheers CR
Hi mate.
My eye is no more educated than yours regards vehicle specs. I agree, it looks the part.
Depends, as there are conflicting stories circulating. I’d not be surprised to see Patria in both 1 and 3 Divisions Brigades, rather than clinging to Boxer. And you have the FV432 issue….
A bit of timeline –
Historically, Warrior was supplemented by FV432 in Mechanized, then AI Battalions, and those Battalions also had Recc Platoon of Scimitar CVRT, which is now Ajax territory.
So you’d assume Patria would replace FV432, which is in 3 Division in 12 and 20 AI Brigades, and was also other 3 Division CS formations. ( Unless Mastiff has already replaced it in those roles.)
When it was revealed that the Army was now looking at ARES to do the IFV bit, the Boxers were mentioned as being relegated to “support roles” though unsure where.
With all these rumours flying, who knows which is current and correct.
The latest has Boxer moving from the all tracked AI Brigades, where FV432, the Ajax, Warrior, and eventually IFV will be, to 1 Divisions “Mechanized” wheeled Brigades. Of those Brigades, currently, 7 is only “Light Mech” as its Battalions are in Foxhound Protected Mobility vehicles, hardly “mechanized”, and 4 Brigade’s Battalions have nothing.
So Boxer moves to 1 Division into 7 Brigade, making it a true Mechanized formation. Great too, if its supporting RA Regiment, 4 RA, gets Boxer RCH155. Whether Patria goes with it I am uncertain, as those 432s in 3 Division need replacing, and a state funeral, the way they have served for so long. I assume Patria will be the MPM part of LMP, which is also needed to replace other wheeled armoured vehicle types in other CS and CSS formations, like Mastiff.
So yes, you would likely see Patria in 1 Divisions 7 Brigade alongside Boxer, as it may end up in that Brigades CS and CSS Regiments too.
Foxhound could then move to 4 Brigade, giving that an uplift, to be replaced in time by the a newer LPM type under the LMP program.
I have liked the look of Patria for a long time, as a cost effective supplementary purchase as “good enough” and a cheap enough unit price compared to the ruinously expensive, but better armoured, Boxer.
Army types may well correct some of this.
Cheers.
Just a thought…if, in order to make the Ajax IFV, they stretched the ARES chassis and fitted the CTA 40mm turret intended for Warrior CSP, then it ought to be possible to make a stretched ARES APC; fit the RS4 instead of the CTA turret. If you did that, then the 432s in the tracked regiments / brigades could be given a tracked APC replacement, if that made sense.
No need to fit a RS4 for a rear echelon APC, and Ares is probably more than a bit overspec for the job.
Understood. Thx. Bit of education for myself.
So we are now buying an Armoured vehicle design half owned by a Norwegian company… a little bit of that required MIC spend back to Norway due to the T26 orders may have given the army a nice APC order.. really getting a modest 1-2million APC will be a life saver for the armies armoured vehicle fleet and a nice 20 ton STANAG 2 +4 ( with theatre entry kits) armoured vehicle is just what the army needs.. hopefully they will equip 4th brigade with it to make it a proper Mec brigade as well as the standard for CS, CSS..foxhound can then be used for 11 brigade, rangers and 16 airmobile.. which is really what it should be for… because a light protected mobility vehicle does not a MEC brigade…it’s just the minimum standard of transport all battalions should have access to.
Agreed.
I’d be surprised if it was used by 16AA though beyond 1 RIR and the RGR Bns.
A Patria order wpuld be the biggest result for me so far.
Yes the RIR and Gurkhas was my thoughts.. they could really do with easy access to protected mobility as one of their roles is air mobile…which includes strategic air lift, not just rotor.
Yes, airlanding is a part of what 16 AA do.
Would seem to be pefect for them.
I’m fascinated by 11 Bde and how they end up being kitted out. If HMG ever reveal, as it seems to be increasingly secret judging by the responses to some quite basic FOIA asks of late.
Rangers use another type as well as Civilian Armoured Vehicles as they’re lower profile.
Probably not Royal Irish, their job is Brigade Recce, so they’ll likely stay on Jackal, RWIMIK and other light vehicles and whatever eventually replaces them.
That’s true, they effectively already have protected mobility.
Will the 8 dismounts require spring mounted seats and ear defenders just like the crew? Don’t want them exiting with minor injuries from Ajax.
Behave, have you ever actually been in an AFV? Everybody, always wears ear defence, whether it’s a headset or other types. The “Spring mounted seats” are actually blast mitigating seats to stop the crew and pax from being turned into mush in the event of a mine blast.
👍
Mate, your thoughts on this IFV type?
Hi Daniele, I’ve been aware of this vehicle for a while. The unmanned turret + 40mm CT cannon is the best bit I reckon. Stretching the platform is a no brainer too, allowing the two extra blast mitigating seats to fit. It makes sense on several levels to me:
Uses available GFE weapons
Common electronic architecture to AJAX
Common hull (nearly)
Common running gear
Would slide into the production facility seamlessly
If it’s produced with a non gold plated sighting/surveillance system costs should be manageable.
My twopenneth
Cheers
That does not surprise me mate.
Which is why I asked, as your views on all things armoured vehicles carry weight with me here.
Cheers.
Likewise Daniele, I’m not even sure what an Orbat is! Some kind of airborne mammal?🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good one!
Maybe a new Army Drone shaped like a flying Squirrel, that loiters at night.
Having the AI battalions and armoured cav regiments all equipped with a 40mm CT cannon, that really would be a significant lethality increase, as long as the price is reasonable.
That’s right, CTAi state that the CT40 projectile carries 50% more energy than an equivalent 30mm.
Rubber tracks. Not hybrid engines – yet.
So at the end of all this….Mastiff gets replaced by Boxer APC, Bulldog gets replaced by Patria 6×6 and Warrior gets replaced by this new stretched Ajax IFV; all of which will probably be built in the UK. Have I got that right?
Boxer might replace Foxhound in the Battalions of 7 Brigade, with Foxhound used by 4 Brigade, in time replaced by a newer LPM type.
But yes, overall. I’d see supporting vehicles in CS CSS formations ( FV432, Mastiff, Ridgeback, Wolfhound, Husky types ) being replaced by Patria with Boxer in Infantry Battalions in 1 Division and Ajax IFV in Infantry Battalions in 3 Division.
Can the RE have some too please😀🤞
I wonder if 22 and 26 RE will get some Patria, being Armoured Engineer Regiments supporting 12 and 20 Brigades.
There is also a Boxer RE variant I recall.
Those Regiments have Terrier, Trojan, Titan, unsure what other armoured vehicles they have?
They did have 432s for the field troop in each SQN so they will need replacing! Also the other Regts will need a protective vehicle for its sections unless they are going to send them about in the back of trucks! I believe at the moment they have Mastiff’s etc for transport unless someone still serving knows better?
Found a FOIA request re Boxer units that I’d filed away and forgotten about.
Both 22 and 26 RE are scheduled to get Boxer.
👍😀
Let wait and see, this could be ideal, but knowing the MOD they F it up, A chance have a decent IFV over Boxer and a machine gun.
Great, order 300.
Right. So it’s already designed. All it needs is an APS added and possible Brimstone ATGW mount and cannisters. How much for 400 such vehicles to equip all the British army’s IFV needs?
Now, off the shelf, no gold plating, no opportunity for the MOD or mandarins in the defence chiefs or army top brass to ruin it. How much per vehicle?
Mr Bell, I have seen plenty of things at Arms Fairs that are made of painted plywood and fibreglass. Given the short gestaton time I doubt ‘ARES IFV’ has been fully designed, let alone developed.
We have not traditionally equipped IFVs with ATGWs. ATGWs in the past have gone on ‘Tank Destroyers’ such as STRIKER, SPARTAN/MILAN, FV438 etc.
The cost per vehicle will make the Treasury mandarins eyes pop, I am sure. Bound to be ‘well north’ of £10m per vehicle plus Programme costs.
Hi Graham, the actual base platform/Chassis IFV appears to be the same or very similar to the Ascod 2 bought by Latvia which is supposed to have its initial order of 42 vehicles placed in 2023 and delivered by the end of 2026 (there was also demonstrators) so this would indicate that a reasonable amount of development has taken place and it would be more the U.K. specific requirements/systems that would need to be added if they haven’t looked at integration already, would you expect this to be overly extensive time frame wise as for Latvia this would be order to delivery of 3 years.
Also the average cost for Latvia was just under €9m with 42 units for €373m with in country assembly like Ajax here.
Hi ATJ, thanks. I have not followed Latvia’s equipment programme! The ASCOD 2 was unveiled by the manufacturers (GDELS) in 2004 – fair to say that it is now well developed with any bugs ironed out!
Latvia has bought those 42-off for EURO 373m ie EURO 8.88m (£7.68m) a copy with Programme costs ammortised.
The difference is that GDUK used ASCOD2 as its starting point for the AJAX which is much modified and cannot be said to be a proven design. Now the ARES variant of AJAX might be modified to become an IFV. That will not immediately be a proven design. We are not talking about creating an IFV from standard ASCOD2, but modifying something that itself was modifed from ASCOD2.
The vehicle at DSEI is possibly just a ‘Arms Fair mock-up’ but it may be a reasonably well worked up Technology Demonstrator. Either way it will need development, not just bolting on the British bits.
In former times it might have taken 5-10 years to get from the DSEI stand and into unit hands. MoD now claims to have (or soon be introducing) a speeded up procurement system…if true then perhaps it would be in unit hands in 3-5 years? Just a guess.
Hi Graham, thanks for the explanation, I should have known it was too promising that there might have be a tangible somewhat developed option available in the short term for an IFV, especially with a realistic prospect of meeting the end of the current Ajax production run to allow for continuous production at Merthyr.
It does make me wonder though why the turret was put on Ascod 2 if it has no relation to the U.K. now, if the turret was the focus and specifically developed for the U.K. why not put it on a stripped back Ares (even for just 6 dismounts as an IFV concept with the stretched version to come later, a bit like Lynx which went from KF31 3+6 to KF41 3+8) or even Ajax to show an unmanned turret option, the IFV aspect seemingly would matter less to showcase the new turret compared to its compatibility with the actual British Ajax family it would be put on, currently the only likely customer for the turret.
Studies.
Requirements.
Initial gates.
Main gates.
I’m sure DE&S have done none of that with this, so it’ll be some time, if at all.
Somehow Cavs didn’t deserve its own article on UKDJ despite being the most noticeable step made for the Army recently and isn’t a rumour or potential product on a list of many.
In a somewhat surprising move Cavs (I was expecting Boxer follow on order if anything was getting ordered) was selected without any real competition but even as a proven product already developed and in use by others, it’s hard to believe that the Govt could skip all of the items you’ve listed and not make major changes, puts into perspective how much may need to be done to an undeveloped, unproven Ares IFV.
Given the cost of Boxer, I’d be quite happy if they spent any money allocated for futute Boxer modules on cheaper, but intact, real vehicles, with appropriate stanag upgrades if needed.
The Army clearly stated their intent to order more modules than chassis in any future tranches.
Apart from RCH155 I’d not be surprised to see no more Boxer ordered at all, given its ruinous cost.
Is Patria Cavs good enough? If yes, buy it. This Gold plating cannot be universal.
I thought the army is going for 2 divisions?? 3rd UK division is going all tracked with Challenger 3 and Ajax and 1st UK division is going to be all wheeled with Boxer variants, is this still the case??
The Army already has 2 Divisions.
Small ones, but Divisions.
Pretty much, yes, as far as is known publicly.
3 Division, with 12,20 Brigades, plus 3 DRSB, plus 101 Log Bde. Mostly tracked.
1 Division, with 4, 7 Brigades, plus, reportedly, 1 DRSB, plus 102 Log Bde. Wheeled. Boxer said to go into 7 Brigade, LPM or Foxhound into 4.
16 Air Assault was moved into 1 Division but might be back out into FAT.
In addition, the forward force includes ASOB, 11 Bde, and 77 Bde.
I’m a bit confused over the two DRSB brigades, from what I have read so far most of artillery regiments that are going to make up 3rd DRSB are presently the core of 1st DRSB so 3rd, 5th, 19 and 26 regiments.. so essentially they seem to renaming the present 1st brigade to 3rd brigade.. what I cannot find is any information on the future make up of 1st brigade DRSB.. because for 1st DRSB to be a DRSB it will need long range fires and at present the British army only has long range fires ( 155mm and MRLS ) for one division DRSB not 2.
My take.
So far, it’s another Army shell game. Lets create another Brigade which looks good on paper, by nicking other Brigades assets.
By halving the current DRSB.
As where are the units otherwise? They don’t exist.
1 DRSB to 3 DRSB name change makes sense as that’s the number of the Division it supports.
So it’s “neat and tidy” in an Orbat chart at Andover to have an equivalent set up for 1 Division.
I hear 1 DRSB might take 3 RHA, as its MLRS Regiment. Leaving 3 DRSB with only 26 RA.
I’d have wanted each Armoured Brigade to have both a gun and MLRS Regiment in support.
But that will then halve it’s assets there.
Will they go and split 5RA in two? As the ISTAR outfit?
1 DRSB is a bit rich if its only assets are 4 RA with Light Gun ( 7 Bdes Art Reg ) and some Reserve Regiments.
32 and 47 RA, the UAV outfits, seem to have moved off into their own group, maybe they’ll be moved again.
Smoke and mirrors for me till new assets are bought and the RA expanded.
It will be a bit ridiculous if each DRSB ends up with only one MRLS regiment and 1st has only a 105mm light gun regiment as its tube fires.
To my mind if they are making 1st division an actual deployable division with a a couple of mec brigades and an air mobile brigades it’s DRSB will need 2 MRLS regiments, 2 155 regiments and a separate 105 regiment for 16 brigade.
As you say every heavy brigade should have a MRLS regiment and a 155 regiment available.
If they do it properly you would also see 4RA move over to 11 brigade in its new role as tactical reconnaissance strike as light guns would seem to work there.
That would give the army fires wise, 4 MRLS, 4 155mm and 2 105mm regular regiments..which seems the minimum number to my simple mind.
It would.
But, UK defence is like that at times it seems. Especially the Army., when one looks below the orbat charts they create and sees what Brigades comprise.
Healey has already stated no personnel increases so unless they reduce unit sizes to create more smaller Regiments I don’t see where these formations are coming from.
CS CSS was cut repeatedly since 2007.
29 RA I’ve discussed with Dern often the possibility of moving that to 4 Brigade.
But, despite the raiding doctrine and destruction of 3 Cdo Bde, it remains needed by the UKCF it seems.
I also understand that the way they are going to say 1st and 3rd division are preserved as the NATO reserve is to swap around the British armies forward deployed forces and essentially give the forwarded deployed role in the Baltics to 11 brigade…but then they are also saying 11 brigade will become a tactical reconnaissance and strike role.. so does that mean they are planning in the end for the British army to only have lighter forces forward deployed in the Baltics as part of 11 brigade and preserve 1st and 3rd with 2 deployable brigades + DRSB ( as well as 16 brigade as the quick responders )
If that is the case it sort of makes sense..
My understanding too.
Forward force:
77, AOB, 11 Bdes.
Fast response:
A Mech Bde from 1 Div, 16 AA, 1 CAB.
Longer, heavy response:
Bulk of 1 and 3 Division and the other enabling Brigades and Groups now aligned with the ARRC.
1 Sig, 104 Log, 8 Engr, 7 ADG, 23EG, 7SG, 2MG.
Overall a better set up for sure mate.
400 Modini Dart one way Drones now support Cabrit.
Maybe they will be part of the Light Recc Strike for 11 Bde?
I quite like the idea.
Mixed with intell assets, ASOB, 77, as a forward screen.
Sadly ARES is another bespoke program. The last thing Army really needed. Sad. Complete omnishambles.
So is this a Bradley for the British, on a bespoke platform not compatible with other AJAX vehicle variants, owing to the lengthened chassis.
The cannon sounds nice, the missiles sound nice, BUT, the Boxer exists and is much further along in the pipeline of British procurement, something we all here know is a mess.
Agree in full . Whilst a great fan of Warrior for the type of tasks we’re asking of our few remaining Armd Inf Bns in the current strategic environment there is much to say for a heavy eight wheeled IFV that could be Boxer so we might be better taking the turret off Ajax IFV and stick it on Boxer instead. There were plenty of turreted Boxer variants on display at DSEI but all manufactured by our competitors whereas this is Brit designed and built throughout, also according to Chris Foss we have 515 40mm CTA already in store at Donnington that were intended to go on Warrior CSP.