Troubled Ajax armoured vehicle project ‘in recovery’

Nothing has been as bad for so long as F-35. What has 14 (make that 15) consecutive yearly buying development batches.
So long in fact , the main processor is all new , the engine is sub par and the radar will largely be replaced.
The actual base plane is great but really

Yes, seems the government at the time had a thing against BAE systems.
We didn’t, we bought this. The army wanted it, and they must have wanted it for good reasons, despite the protracted procurement problems.

BAE had a digital fire on the move turret with 30 mm bushmaster designed for the Warrior 2000 prototype in nine months. This should have been put on the warrior vehicle instead of LM trying to bodge the CTA 40 into the existing turret and failing followed by using a modified German turret and being late and over budget !

and which target would be the first targetted by drones or most likely to run into a mine field or for that matter run into a unit with ATGMs, wouldn’t that be the recce units?

These things are big, heavy and noisy, the enemy will hear them coming from miles away and be waiting for them.

The optics and digital connectivity on Ajax are very good. Hopefully the crew willl have good situational awareness and see the enemy first.

Yup.

Thats what recce aims to do.

Is this the real question? With an abundance of small UAVs dotted above tomorrow’s battlefield, can a 40 ton, combusion-engine-driven vehicle hope to spot the enemy and not be spotted first? Whether using EO, IR, radar or the Mk-1 eyeball, a 2kg quadcopter that always has the high ground, will have a lot of advantages in not being spotted first.

Morning Jon – Ajax is years too late and warfare has moved on since it was “designed”. Obviously drones are now the key battlefield technology, however I imagine that probing for weaknesses in the enemy’s front will be what the Army will want to use Ajax for

It’s a mix of capabilities though, isn’t it. You don’t just rely on drones, just like we will not just rely on Ajax Scout.
The Rangers have been given a role as Deep Recc troops in a NATO scenario to spot targets, much like 21/23 once did at the IGB and the HAC have been doing for years. That we have them does not make Ajax redundant either.

It is the same question with Tanks and other armoured vehicles, other nations are still bringing them into service and so should we. The question is whether this one was the best choice!

AJAX more than meets the MOD requirements for detectable noise from the frontal arc.

I am always suspicious when people make statements like that, when we know that the MoD reduced the spec so the production vehicles could meet it. And not by forcing GD to make the vehicle meet the original specifications.

Lets hope the RGT do not force restrictions on the type of battlefield scenarios that Ajax could be exposed to

So, “we know”. Do we?
I know, do you?

Do you know what RGT stands for?

Where do you get your info? I have never heard that MoD reduced the spec.
RGT is not some executive body that forces restrictions. The User defines the BFM. The RGT cycles equipment through multiple BFMs.

All my information is open source. The original spec did not include ear defenders with incorporated hearing pieces for better communication, remounted seating with better cushioning or “improved” joysticks and controls.

I’m also suspicious about the speed of the recce version. Originally it was expected to be 70km/h but my understanding is that this has never been achieved, even on the flat.

Wikipedia have a good page on Ajax including a description of the engineering issues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Ajax

And the latest government report on Ajax can be found here

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9764/CBP-9764.pdf

I see how you are looking at this David. It is not that unusual for modifications to be made during development to enable an equipment to be acceptable for service. I do not think that the Requirement has been eased in any area.

However I personally am discontented that noise and vibration issues have not been resolved at root cause, but have been ameliorations to ‘symptoms’. These are ‘second best’ fixes – but fixes nonetheless.

I had not heard that 70km/h had not been achieved. If that speed is a Key User Requirement, then it really should be met.

Hi Graham – I have replied to your post but it’s held for moderation, probably because it contains links

I get you still need to do recce, but ukraine war and the nagorno-karabaskh war has shown that cold war thinking needs a rethink.

If you read the comments from the ukraine general who has stated that western equipment is not suited for intensive warfare because they are overly complex and so can only be used for short periods before needing maintance.

I think it would have been better to spend the money on something cheaper and then equiped it properly with defensive measures for the modern battlefield. Instead we have top tier base unit but without the proper defensive measures.

Its similar to the upcoming t31 frigates, without proper anti-sub capabilities it needs escorting by something that has it and therefore nulifies its use.

I don’t have the answer to what is needed in the modern battlefield but i do think something that doesn’t have apporpriate defensive aids for missiles or air/drone attacks is going to struggle badly.

Its similar to the QE, we spent major on a top end carrier but then cut corners on defensive aids for it, which wouldn’t have added significantly to the cost but would have made it far more effective in a shooting war.

With you Steve on the lack of defensive armament on the Carriers, prime assets, billions of pounds of equipment and personnel. Should be an easy fix and a priority. Someone must know better.

I don’t think it’s about knowing better, as the original designs of the carriers had missiles defence and thicker armour but both were cut for cost reasons.

Considering other defence projects and public sector builds, its a small miracle that the carriers were both built and both are still owned.

Ridiculous if it’s just down to cost cutting. Would a few basic 30/40mm and Ancilia type decoy launchers cost that much? Both would complement the Phalanx’s. There must enough “tricks” onboard to do the job.

Carriers have multi-layered defence including:
a. that provided by the escorts and any escorting submarine; b. F-35s on CAP and finally
c. defensive weapons on the carrier itself:
3 x Phalanx CIWS
4 x 30mm DS30M Mk2 guns (when fitted)
6 x Miniguns/Browning .50 calibre HMGs

Afternoon Graham, it’s what’s not on this list that is more concerning even if with escorts.
No anti torpedo defence.
No decoy launchers (that we can see). Some SEA Ancilia trainable mounts could be good and back UK industry.
Still not confirmed that any 30mm will be mounted.
No word on Dragonfire.
No SAM/CAMM (but this is deemed not necessary by many here).
I think the top two here should be a default on all large Naval assets. All RN frigates seem to have these, not sure about RFAs.

All good points.

How do you protect against torpedos? Don’t you just do ASW from your frigates?

Carriers are FFNW the 30mm – so they would be fitted if deemed operationally necessaryfor a given deployment.

The escorts have the SAMs (so why does the carrier need SAMs too?):

CAMM is Sea Ceptor replacing Sea Wolf and is on the T23 escorts.
SAMs on T45s – PAAMS – Aster 15, Aster 30. Sea Ceptor from 2026.

Morning Graham, all good points too.. Lol 😁. I won’t argue further. This has all been pointed out by many others too. We’ll have to leave the “anti torpedo” question to the experts.

Think it will need the lasers and radio frequency energy weapons to counter hyper-sonic missiles above mach 4.5 ?

I think one needs a mix.
You need an Armoured Recc vehicle, we have that.
You need Drones, we have them.
You need ISTAR detection assets, we have them, though this is a very weak area as they are far too few.
You need people in a foxhole with Mk 1 eyeball and other optics, we have them in every Battalion’s recc Platoon.
You need people who can go deep into the rear or actually remain as they are overrun, and report from a hide, we have them too.
Then you go upstairs off the battlefield to the space and strategic level, and we have that too via 5 eyes.

The issue with all that is it doesn’t work well against loitering ammo / drones. No point if you can detect them if you can’t deal with them. The world has changed and thinking about armored vehicles need to change, the US already has anti air capabilities on most of their front line equipment.

Loitering ammo/drones is not going to be targetting all of the recce and surveillance assets that Daniele outlined. Seems that you are only focussed on manned recce vehicles such as Ajax.
There has always been an air threat, so why does thinking suddenly have to change – our troops (whether recce-roled or not) know that they have to conceal themselves from aerial surveillance or aerial attack when static.
When mobile, its a whole lot more difficult, unless you have heavy tree cover.
Our recce vehicles can spend a huge amount of time being static – they conduct recce by stealth – and you often aren’t that stealthy charging around at 70kph.
I am not saying that we should not react to the proliferation of drones (ISTAR and attack types) but troops have been operating mindful of aerial threats since 1914. Granted that drones are smaller and quieter than manned aircraft.
But drones don’t have it all their own way – they can be spotted and defeated by EW and by kinetic attack.

I am interested to hear that the US has anti-air capabilities on most of their front line equipment. Do you have any details as I can’t find any.

I will bite on the T31 frigate….the reality is unless you are talking a top tier ASW ship that is at that time actively engaged in ASW work any and all single escorts are nothing more that prey for an SSN to hunt..the very purpose of a nuclear submarine or electric boat is to kill surface vessels and they are very good at it…adding a hull sonar to a type 31 would not make it any safer from an SSN if it’s on a single deployment and isolated..

The way surface vessels are protected from subs is more about how you operate them…using wider detection means and intelligence to assess the threat…as

1) electric boats are regional and you know who’s got what and if it’s deployed and if there is a risk of war…you would not have single escorts wandering around waiting to be sunk.
2) SSNs can turn up anywhere..but there are only a handful of nations that have them…we would know if we are going to war with one of those and it would not kick off by someone attacking a T31.

In any major conflict warships will always act in task groups with mixed abilities….after all the French and Japanese equivalents of the T31 have pretty good ASW..but would die to more than 1-2 anti ship missiles as they have no air defence to speak of other than basis last ditch defences….T31 will make for a pretty good short range area defence platform against air attack…not every ship can do everything..unless your building 10,000+ ton cruisers.

The RN picked what it wanted the T31 to do for a reason and that because their are a hell of a lot more air and surface threats in the maritime domain than there are ASW threats…any tinpot dictator can get some fast boats with a few missiles some drones or a small airforce..

Who seriously has been guilty of Cold War thinking since 1991?
I have not seen the comments from the Ukrainian general but it is at odds with Ukraine clamouring for western kit and being complimentary about its performance. Sure it is more complex and needs more maintenance – that is a given. Ukraine is happy to have M1 Abrams even though it needs a lot of maintenance and fuel.
All armies need a mix of highly capable kit (accepting the downside of cost, complexity, maintenance burden) and larger numbers of simpler equipment. Our Infantry is a case in point – they are carried variously in Warrior, PM vehicles such as Mastiff or unarmoured TCVs (MAN SV trucks). Ukraine has low tech kit in bulk (the Soviet era stuff) – they are now seeking small numbers of cutting edge stuff.

Back to recce – I am not an Ajax fan – too big, too heavy, too noisy, too expensive and built by an inexperienced company in sub-optimal premises. [Almost any other option would have been better]. Reliability might currently be an issue but RGT should address and sort out. But ‘we are where we are’ and I have faith in RGT to deliver an effective vehicle.

We do recce by stealth – an enemy should not see Ajax for most of the time. If Ajax encounters enemy tanks at close quarters something has gone horribly wrong! I don’t see that Ajax needs ATGMs. Their role is not to engage tanks.
There is an argument for APS for Ajax but if funds are tight then the primary combat equipment in the ABCTs should get it first (tanks and infantry carriers (be they the Warriors of today or the Boxers of the future)).

The five Type 31s – if a T31 is in a CSG then they it will be mutually protected against subs by other assets. If it is on singleton duty, will an enemy sub target it?

Ajax has a gun for the reason that it needs to be able to defend itself, same reason it has heavy armor. Being noisy means detection is more likely detection by sound is way easier than visual. If they think it needs a gun and heavy armor, to defend itself then it also needs to be able to counter missiles and drones which are the most likely counter to them.

I agree the reason for the gun. It is primarily for self-defence.

Many consider the Ajax armour to be too heavy as the vehicle is up to 5 times the weight of its predecessor. Recce vehicles are traditionally small, fast and agile, are not fazed by complex terrain and can easily be self- or buddy- recovered.

Noisy – maybe & sometimes. A lot will depend on the hardness of the surface being trafficked and the engine revs at a given time. If observing covertly from cover, or moving stealthily from one piece of cover to another, then it will not be noisy.

This vehicle is not willingly going into a firefight – that is not its primary role. It is to gather information on enemy forces in as covert a way as possible. If Ajax habitually exposes itself to enemy drones or missiles then it is not doing its job properly.

Sadly Ajax will not just be a recce vehicle. Especially as the Army have decreed that is going to replace the all the roles undertaken by CVR(t). Which includes flank protection. As the protection element, it should in this case have the optional fit of a coup[le of ATGW.

But let’s get it into service first and worry about its upgrade path later.

Use of the term ‘recce vehicle’ could be considered convenient shorthand, much as we say ‘aircraft carrier’ when our carriers have three other roles.
However recce is the primary role. No surprise that the army deemed that Ajax should be capable of doing all the tasks that Scimitar did, including flank protection. It is better equipped than its predecessor to do flank protection as it has a larger and stabilised cannon, not to mention greater protection.

The great merit of the CVR(T) range was that it had a full suite of variants including STRIKER which carried 5 Swingfire on the roof (4000m range) in launch bins and 5 more reloads inside. It staggers me that this vehicle was withdrawn in 2005 without replacement – surely the US-origin Javelin ATGW could have been integrated onto the Striker chassis. Even more staggering is that there is no A/Tk variant of Ajax, perhaps equipped with Brimstone. That is what we need, rather than to strap a mere two A/Tk missiles onto a recce vehicle.

Yeah agreed. However if you look back at previous wars and the one key thing that always reoccurs is the military bases their strategy and gear on the previous war and that doesn’t work and it results in a lot of early deaths that were unnecessary. It will be the same again if our military rocks up in vehicles with no defences against drones and missiles. In my opinion Ajax as its designed is focuses on fighting the cold War and not the modern battle field.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be fixed, I’m sure there is scope to add defensive aids to them, but unless that happens they will be seriously vulnerable should we hit a peer or near peer opponent. Lessons need to be learnt and hard decisions made.

Also don’t forget that cheap drones and mines are cutting through MBT armor, so ajax armour will be pretty ineffective.

Western politicians and future strategists have so much to be grateful to Ukraine for, without that country’s present cost in blood and infrastructure. Interestingly, as an example of flexibility, Ukraine is already locating buried mines by their i/r signature. So, if you locate one, you’ve located the multiple stack that Russia had been using, by inference. On the MTB front, it’s apparently M1A1 time.

Do hope that politicians’ temptation to short-termism doesn’t lead them to conclude that the public will be fooled into believing cheap drones are the answer to all. Without equivalent sophistication, however many drones you can purchase in the bargain basement will be overmatched* by an enemy with greater financial muscle; an axiom. And thus we start the inevitable move back to the time-proven rules of war, the insurmountable one being it’s costly on all fronts.

* had to find an alternative word to trumped as I’ve developed an aversion….(apart perhaps from the ‘fart’ inference, that is).

It is coming into service and full operating capability will be declared 2029. Units will start receiving the different variants to get training on them, work out best ways to use them etc.
it’s happening at £5.5b for all vehicles. Got to make the best of it rightly or wrongly

Where is it coming into service?
Last i heard it was still on reliability growth trials?
Agree will have to make the best of it but as stated before, the procurement disaster that is Ajax will be moaned about for a long time by many.

😏

Hi Mick.

Nobody, I keep abreast of all things military in this country.
The Household Cavalry Regiment was using them on SPTA the other day, this is the first Regiment that will be equipped.

So they are entering service, even if it’s just a Troop so far.

Shall I give you a link to see the footage?

No need thanks, i watched four Ajax cabs myself on SPTA the other week, HCR doing reliability trials i was told, racking up the mileage, glad to be corrected but if true that’s not quite what i’d call ‘entering service’

Hi Mick.

I’ll link the article when I’m home anyway, as that was my source. I’m not sure how to do it on my mobile.
Yes, article stated the HCR were using Ajax and Ares as part of a DRSB exercise.

It didn’t mention RGT, and as they’re the 1st to get the vehicles beyond ATDU that’s why I said they’re entering service.

They’re being used, by a regiment, on exercise, is that not entering service?
What would you define as entering service?

Interesting you were there, are you serving? If so, interesting that someone serving has such a low opinion of the vehicle? Unless you mean it’s protracted procurement and development?

I’m just an interested civvie, and yes, i mean it’s painful, sorry, protracted procurement and development.
Interested in your stance on Ajax, i recently had an online debate with someone who put up an almost rabid and at times disjointed defence of Ajax, think he may have been GD 😁

So am I, more of a “researcher” civvy so I immerse myself in all things UK military and MoD.
Whereabouts did you see the 4 Ajax, while on the A360? Assume they were not all Scout variants but included Ares?

My stance on Ajax…If we look at the whole sorry debacle of trying to replace the CVRT family that goes way back to the early 2000s through TRACER and then FRES, and the billion wasted on that, and the politics surrounding Ajax, build the first hulls in Spain, badly it seems, and open a site in an old forklift factory ( or whatever it was ) in Southern Wales in a low employment area, rather than just buying an available BAE product in CV90 recc then yes it is all a mess.

That background does not alone make the vehicle bad, the army chose it for a reason, unless we are saying the entire MoD and Army Land procurement arm don’t know what they are doing and know sod all about armoured vehicles? I know I’m not saying or ever thinking that.

Ajax is not alone in having issues, many military programs do. They have been addressed. Now some here will call bullshit on that, again where is their proof? It is pure conspiracy nonsense. There is none either way beyond the good faith that yes the vehicle has defects and they have or are being dealt with. So I am happy to accept that issues can and are ironed out.

Additionally, I also listen to real SMEs, Subject Matter Experts on here, not just the wall of noise and negativity from the countless armchair generals ( of which I am one, but not for negativity ) that lets face it has surrounded all things UK military since the 90s when the cuts started to bite. SMEs that don’t just read internet forums, but work with and know the people actually using the vehicle at Bovington at ATDU.

So first hand info, a little of which they can divulge.

Through that negativity we never hear about the gun, or its armour protection, or the ISTAR fit, which by reports is world class, or what the engine can do, or whether Ajax Scout can actually do the job DRSB need it for. ISTAR, by the way, is an area the British Army is rightly prioritising. Knowledge is power. We hear it is loud. Funnily enough all armoured vehicles are if one goes stand by one. We also hear it is too big. The French Jaguar looks huge too, no moans there. Recc comes in many sizes, though yes Ajax is huge compared to the CVRT it replaces.

Through the negativity and noise I also clearly see its role, and that of the other variants, and how it fits in to the army ORBAT and set up and how badly the capability is needed. I’m well read in this area. Reading through this forum on any Ajax or Army vehicle article so many posters repeat the same thing, and have little to no idea between an IFV and another armoured vehicle, what the several variants, and most army vehicle types, actually do and most importantly how they align with other procurements that were or are ongoing.

Finally, as I have gone on too long and probably off on a tangent from your question, I generally try to stay positive about our forces and their capabilities. Whatever the mess with its development, it is here, and it is coming into service, although as we know you take issue with what defines “into service” !!

I don’t defend how it has been procured, I’d prefer a type to have its issues ironed out before we commit to it, there you go. I don’t know why that was not done in this case, though I believe in the capabilities of the vehicle.

The exercise on Salisbury Plain is “Scorpion Cyclone”, just put that and Ajax into Google as if I link the article I fear this post will be placed in moderation.

Cheers Mick! 😃

A360? What/where is that?
Seen them a few times on SPTA..and yes, the moaning and slagging comes from, as you say, ‘a sorry debacle’ from the beginning, nothing will change that i’m afraid to say.

Good post Daniele 👍

https://www.joint-forces.com/uk-news/67586-ex-scorpion-cyclone-ares-and-ajax-break-cover

Ok, if driving around lots in the same area as a major exercise counts as in service so be it lol

Morning mate. Long reply above. I did actually link to article too but as predicted it is in purgatory.
I’d hope the Ajax were doing more than just “driving round lots” as there is a DRSB exercise on where various components and the Brigades concept of operations is being run through, from Bde HQ downwards to all the varied units, small as it may be as this is only a minor exercise.

RGT involves driving around lots. They conduct a huge number of Battlefield Missions. Maybe it was the guys doing RGT?

Would RGT be conducted by ATDU or a front line unit? These were being used by the HCR as part of a DRSB exercise. Same thing?

Hi mate. ATDU’s entire raison d’etre is to trial new-to-service AFVs (with the Prime contractor in support) and other new bits of ‘armoured kit’ such as for example a new mine plough or dozer blade or tank-mounted RWS etc. So why would that be overlooked and the army use a front line unit instead?

HCR would have been doing some sort of CONOPs evaluation stuff perhaps? In parallel and totally seperate with ATDU doing RGT.

ATDU with RGT will be doing plenty of Battle Field Days, repeatedly. Can be boring but needs to be done. [RGT was superbly successful for CR2. Upgraded WR (WCSP) went through 95 Battle Field Days before the plug was pulled, and was doing quite well.]

Concurrent activity – needs to be done to avoid any more delays to ISD. [I am sure also that if HCR spot a problem with the wagon, they will let ATDU know].

Hi mate. Thanks, thought I’d check, though I thought as such regards ATDU. So HCR exercising with early examples is indeed a step beyond RGT, and thus, by my original comment that Mick doubted, entering service. Or at least the next step on that long road.

ATDU is an interesting unit. Here is an oldish article:
https://www.defencetalk.com/testing-the-latest-armoured-vehicles-for-afghanistan-21487/

https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/ajax/ says:

“Ajax is currently in the Demonstration and Manufacture phases of its lifecycle. Following successful Noise and Vibration trials conducted in the autumn of 2022, the platforms will now undertake further battlefield specific trials at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU) in Bovington, Dorset.
Platforms will continue to be delivered to the Field Army in 2023, with the Household Cavalry Regiment and 6th Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) being the first Army units to convert to Ajax”.

Good info mate. I knew of HCR, I didn’t know that 6 REME would be next. 6 REME also a DRSB formation.

I was 2IC 6 Bn REME in 1993-95 – when they were a super-big battalion, the only second line REME unit supporting 3 Div.

Impressive stuff Graham. Respect.
How big was “super big” in your day? From memory Bns seem about 300 to 400 strong these days?

6 REME until recently comprised Bn HQ, HQ Coy, 3 and 14 Armoured Support Companies.
It is seemingly being transformed under the new DRSB set up into a Strike, a Strike CS, and an Echelon Company.

I think it is the only regular CSS formation in the Bde, which lays bare again our shortage in the CS CSS area.

I have read that a DRS CSS Group will form for operations drawing on the reserves again, comprising 3 Logistics Sqns ( from which RLC AR Reg I forget ) and 1 Medical Sqn.

6 REME is also “paired” with 101 REME.

Super-big 6 Bn REME was well over 600 in the early-mid 90s…but it was the only reg REME battalion in 3 Div, whereas 1 Div in Germany had the luxury of three REME bns.

REME adopted the battalion and company terminology and structure in 1993 – previously the REME field force had armoured workshops large, armoured workshops small, in Germany and field workshops in the UK. The non-REME types were very confused!

Restructuring post Cold War saw many workshops in Germany fold, amalgamate, move.

In Germany there were three REME Bns supporting 1xx from the 1993 restructuring (help from Wiki):

1 Bn REME formed In September 1993, through the grouping of the following independent units: 12 Armoured Workshop HQ, 4 Close Support Company, and 12 General Support Company. The battalion was based at Mercer Barracks, Osnabrück Garrison. The new battalion’s role was to provide second line GS equipment support to the 1st Armoured Division, in addition to providing CS support to 4th Armoured Brigade, based in Osnabrück.

2 Bn REME was formed in 1993, through the re-designation of 7 Armoured Workshop, at St Barbara Barracks, Fallingbostel. The new battalion’s role was to provide second line GS equipment support to the 1st Armoured Division, in addition to providing CS support to 7th Armoured Brigade, just like its predecessor unit did.

3 Bn REME was formed in 1993, from 4 Armoured Workshop, at Hobart Barracks in Detmold. The new battalion’s role was to provide second line GS equipment support (ES) to the 1st Armoured Division, in addition to providing CS support to 20th Armoured Brigade. 

6 Bn REME was formed in 1993, at Bordon. Its role was to provide second line ES to 3 UK Div. GS support was provided by a very large 9 Fd Wksp company (which had moved from Germany) which was based in Bordon as was Bn HQ and HQ Coy.
CS support to 1 Mech Bde was provided by 3 Field Wksp Company (Tidworth), and CS support to the Catterick-based brigade was provided by 15 Field Wksp Company (Catterick).

[When I was 2IC 6 Bn in 1993-95) we restructured super-large 9 Fd Wksp Coy into two GS coys – 9 and 14] This set the way a short time later for super-large 6 Bn as a whole to be split info ‘new’ 6 Bn (Tidworth-based) and 5 Bn (I think) – Clearly both Bns continued to support 3 Div by delivering second line ES with both CS (forward support to a bde) and GS wksp coys.

101 Bn REME was TA and supported 1 Div; 103 Bn was TA and supported 3 Div. 102 and 104 Bn were I think ‘Force Troops’ or ‘LofC troops’, but memory is hazy on that now.

Interesting to hear your points about what 6 Bn is up to nowadays.

Modern AFVs will also make use of electronics containing many CPUs, the specs will be higher than that of your average mobile phone.

Algeria has made Fuchs 2 under licence and is building an anti tank vehicle based on the French AML-60. Not sure that is at all like designing, developing and manufacturing a complex recce vehicle.

Not any more 😉

As a MoD contractor, I enjoyed working with BAE on AVST in Abbey Wood in 2009-10!

From a cost POV we should have stuck with WCSP for the two ABCTs – far cheaper than Boxer for those brigades.

Paul,
We haven’t thus far ordered the IFV version of Boxer. We have ordered the wheeled APC version (called the Infantry Carrier) with Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 RWS. This particular RSW cannot take a cannon so we will have a MG and/or GMG – hence its a mere APC and not an IFV.
HMG binned the prospect of having a tracked IFV when they cancelled WCSP in March 2021. In fact they declared Boxer to be the Warrior replacement in the Mar 22021 DCP.
The Army has supposedly been studying (for about 6 months!) ways to increase the lethality of the Boxers we have ordered – goodness knows what they will come up with (an option is to cancel the RS4 order (and pay the penalty clause) and to order the RS6 which can take a cannon, hopefully the 40mm CTAS cannons that were intended for Warrior CSP).

Thx Graham, good summary. Must admit I was never clear about whether the Boxer numbers we have ordered included Warrior replacements; and that it was just a case of ‘increasing the lethality’ – of some of them, the one’s destined to morph from APC to IFV. From what you have written it does seem as though we are likely going down the route of unmanned weapon station / turret rather than manned.

Morning Graham, that is a long time back and pre Ukraine and maybe needs to change. The powers that be need to think of survivability as well as mobility and effectiveness. Can’t outrun a drone, shell or missile but, and I no experience in this, wouldn’t a tracked vehicle have greater protection at the front of front line vehicle on vehicle? Can the Boxer run on 6 wheels? Why are the US, European and Australia still selecting tracked IFVs? Do they have more sense? Why not a sensible mix of both types? Horses for courses. Hope the Army gets the best outcome. Counter air and drone needed pretty quickly too.

France has no tracked IFV. They got rid of them.
Saxon had run flat tyres I understand.
We had a mix of both types, Warrior and Boxer, until the money ran out, as Boxer was bought forward a decade or so and there wasn’t the cash to pay for Boxer, Ajax, WCSP, and CH3 LEP at the same time.

So it is Boxer.

Hi Quentin. Perhaps Mar 2021 is a long time ago – and IR Refresh 2023 and DCP refresh 2023 was supposed to update things as a consequence of the Ukraine war. However the army still takes its 10k reduction from Establishment numbers and will still field a small 148-strong tank fleet (was 227) . So was thet Refresh work credible?

The British Army has always thought of survivability which is why our tanks and IFVs have been well protected in base form and with TES kits.

Wheeled Boxer has good armour but I could not say how good it is in relation to the upgraded Warrior (WCSP) that we are no longer getting.
Can Boxer run on 6 wheels – not sure. I guess it would not be good if the 2 defective/missing wheels were in line with each other ie if they were front left and front right. Not got the info on this one. Back in the day with 6-wheel Saracen – they could lose 1 wheel and keep going.

For most of the world – tracked IFVs replaced tracked APCs which replaced wheeled (armoured) APCs. We did this too – but are going back to wheeled after Warrior is withdrawn. Why? Good question – and I am not sure we have had a totally straight answer from MoD.
Tracked IFVs in the ABCTs would keep up with the tanks and their cannon would provide suppressive anti-infantry firepower in the assault and when in defence. Wheeled APCs have their place outside the ABCTs.

The army has a suite of counter air equipment – SkySabre is replacing Rapier for area defence and Javelin provides point defence. It is impractical for every AFV to mount a counter-air weapon system.

Evening Graham, thanks for your reply and others here too. With the drones getting everywhere hasn’t there now got to be a counter drone need, maybe a base level one as a default for all vehicles? Not sure what’s involved but I imagine improved optics and a decent calibre with a good engagement range to be a sort of sniper of the sky.
With the Boxer and Ajax, at least there’s new equipment coming onboard for the Army, which must be a real morale lifter as well as a capability enhancement. We hope the Army doesn’t get short changed on quantity and quality of armaments in light of what clearly works or doesn’t from what we’re seeing in Ukraine.

There is certainly a counter-drone need. Drones are not new (the British Army fielded the Canadair CL-89 ‘Midge’ in c.1970) but they are more prevalent and more capable, the attack drones being a relatively recent addition.

Drones have been a problem at certain civilian airports including Gatwick which has a non-kinetic counter-drone system. In the military world, many c-drone systems are in development and some are in production. The RAF Regiment has had ORCUS since autumn 2020 – https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/orcus-counter-unmanned-aerial-system-united-kingdom/

but the whole system, although mobile rather than static, weighs 3 tonnes.

The Australians have an anti drone gun, SLINGER, that they are supplying to Ukraine -https://uk.style.yahoo.com/australian-drone-killer-air-defense-130525026.html

Other ani-drone systems exist.

I don’t see that every vehicle needs an anti-drone system anymore than every vehicle would need an anti-tank weapon. Not every vehicle would be a credible drone target ie bog standard ‘B’ vehs. There would be a cost and space issue with fitting counter-drone systems to all AFVs, truck-mounted & towed artillery, and PM vehs. There is a bit too much drone panic – not every AFV will be hit – drones have limitations which the drone fan-boys gloss over.
But we do need effective counters – I think a good solution might be EW rather than kinetic – already the technology exists to either jam the enemy’s command signal up to the drone and also to take over the command system.

I hope the army can enthuse over Ajax and Boxer – a new AFV is a distinct rarity – the last AFVs fielded were the very niche and small production run of 33 Trojan and 33 Titan for the armoured engineers, some 20 years ago.
[I am not the biggest fan of Ajax and Boxer but hopefully the army will like them].

Why wheels are replacing tracks, I believe comes down to one simple answer, available funds! Boxer is replacing Warrior, only because it was paid for and therefore available. When Boxer deploys with Chally 3 and Ajax (there said it). They will quickly find that if the ground gets broken up, claggy etc, the Boxer won’t be able to keep up. The Army will try to launch a bid for a tracked IFV, by stating they wanted a tracked IFV all along. Which will probably get delayed, as there’s unlikely to be any funds available. Which means the mechanized infantry will have to make do, until funds do become available.

It is odd that the money for Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was put in place first and much was spent in the design, development and testing phase – it went over budget and over-time but that is par for the course with many complex procurement projects – however Treasury accepted that the budget required resetting, and funds still existed for series production.
CR2 LEP (later renamed CR3) was next in line for funding, and Boxer.
Then along comes General Carter who fast-tracked the Boxer programme as Strike was his pet project and he wanted a legacy. Funds had to be raided from somewhere so they clearly pinched the funds allocated for WCSP series production, fielding and Initial Spares Pack.

So you are surely right. Bizarre that Boxer was to be the army’s MIV in the two strike brigades and was never intended to be in the armoured BCTs as a IFV replacement, but now it is.
The army ends up with no Strike Brigades, Boxer delivered too early and it having crashed the overall AFV funding (maybe one reason there is only enough money for 148 CR3s), and an expensive APC trying to do a tracked cannon-equipped IFV job.

I agree that Boxer may not keep up with fast CR3s especially in glutinous mud, snow and ice. If they only have a MG, not a 40mm stabilised cannon, they will deliver only feeble fire support to their infantry whether they are mounted and in the advance or dismounted and in the defence. Lives will surely be lost, objectives may not be taken and held.

Everyone knows that the army always wanted a better IFV to replace standard, existing Warrior. But it will be pointless for them to lobby for this – the AFV money tree will have been chopped down.

Ajax has sucked a disproportionate amount of funding from the Army’s budget. Which is being felt in other programs. Warrior being the primary victim.

Sad thing is, two of my colleagues were on the Warrior program working for Lockheed Martin (LM). Both have said, given another 6 months all the issues would have been sorted.

At Bovvi, they have a Warrior in the Museum with an early prototype LM turret fitted. My colleague said, they had about 8 modified Warriors when the program was cancelled. They have no idea what happened to them?

Noticed that there is a UK company, that has said they can modify the Warrior’s Rarden with a stabilizer. But also fit an Ethernet for a new battle management system. Perhaps there’s still life in the old dog yet?

I don’t see that funding Ajax has caused the demise of Warrior/upgraded Warrior. It is more likely to be the purchase of Boxer (and in particular its early purchase, forced by General Carter) whilst the two Strike brigades have been ‘disestablished’ – whooops how embarrassing.
Solution to embarrassment – put Boxers into the two armoured brigades (ABCTs) – and can the Warrior.

I heard that upgraded Warrior had been though 95 Battlefield Days without significant issues. It seems that LM solved the most crucial issue ie ammunition handling issues with the CT40 cannon – https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/12158/html/

I too heard about the stabilisation option for the 30mm RARDEN, but MoD does not want the Warrior to soldier on, in any way, as an IFV – they want Boxer to replace it. They like the PR of saying that the army is getting new kit.

There is life in Warrior – WCSP was intended to extend its service life out to 2040.

Disagree, the French EBRC Jaguar has a two manned CTAS40 turret. Plus Nexter have developed an unmanned CTAS40 turret that can be fitted to other vehicles.

A happy contradiction :-). Good news, I wasn’t aware of that. It would of course be good if the CTA cannons we bought were used. It is a more powerful weapon. The Jaguar is a reconnaissance vehicle rather than an IFV. A thought of course is that Pearson could be designing a Boxer module to take one of the Nexter offerings.

Looking at the unmanned Nexter turret, it is no bigger than those fitted to the Puma IFV. Plus I suspect Nexter have made it easily adaptable to any large military combat vehicle.

Yes, some spec details on the knds.fr web site. I’m not expert enough to know how it stacks up to its competitors, but its got to be in the running.

The Nexter T40 has been fitted to the French VBCI, which is a similar 8×8 vehicle to Boxer. It mounts the CTAS40, a 7.62mm MG and has the option for two ATGWs. The turret is non-penentating which has its pros and cons. The pro, is that you can carry more passengers, as there’s no turret basket intrusion into the cabin. From memory the two man turret fitted to the Australian Boxer reduces the passengers from 8 to 4.

The con is it will have a smaller magazine along with a smaller elevation angle. Unless you significantly raise the gun’s mounting trunnions, thereby allowing the breech more small for full recoil. With the T40 it’s +45 degrees.

Another con is you’ll need to reload the magazine from outside of the vehicle. Though there are some systems that uses a small loading hatch through the cabin roof. With a penetrating turret you’ll have a bigger magazine and the gun will have a wider elevation angle, as per Ajax, which has over +70 degrees. Plus importantly you’ll be protected when reloading ammo.

Informative. Thx. Given than Kongsberg have the Boxer RWS business I would think their RT60 is in the running.

The Ammunition Handling System (AHS) on AJAX and WCSP is external to the turret so doesn’t impinge on crew space at all. Rounds are loaded via a small hatch in the turret wall so it would be feasable for an unmanned turret to be reloaded from under armour. As the CT40 elevates about the point of ammunition introduction and has very small turret intrusion coupled with a measly 42mm recoil I would say it’s ideally suited to an unmanned turret.
Cheers

I always knew Pearson for making mine ploughs for the army. They have branched out now! Hope they have the expertise for their new ‘products’.

So far….I’m confident that will not last.

What about the rest of the Ajax family any CV90 with the same specs?

That’s right pete ,CV 90 it’s easily adapted it to a Reconnaissance role think of all the money what could of been saved with CV 90 ,we could of had a Replacement for Warrior which would of been a better fit than Boxer and a Rec AFV 🤔 🇬🇧

True. It would be interesting to hear how well they have been received.

?

Apparently you can make them fly though……

Mice are closer to the human DNA !

I have just looked at general dynamics description of the Ajax and it says it can carry 3 crew and 7 troops bud.

Recce vehicles do not carry 10 men.

Are you looking at the description for ARES, the APC variant of AJAX?

I have seen text that states ARES carries 3 crew and 7 dismounts – but I believe that to be wrong and that it is 3 crew and 4 dismounts (total of 7).

No it doesn’t carry 7 troops. ARES, the recce support variant carries a driver, a Commander, a Tactical Commander and 3 pax. The tactical Commander and the 3 pax form a dismount team who can exit the vehicle via the hydraulic rear door to perform tasks. This does not make it an IFV however.