The Ajax armoured vehicle has successfully completed its first firing-on-the-move exercise in the UK.
This marks a crucial step in the vehicle’s development, which has faced numerous challenges over the years.
The British Army shared footage on social media showing the Ajax vehicle navigating through training ranges and hitting targets while in motion.
The Army described the latest trials as “a resounding success,” highlighting the vehicle’s precision and mobility.
The latest Ajax trials have been a resounding success 🥳
Following the successful cold weather trials in Sweden, military crews have completed the first firing on the move exercise in the UK.
Watch below to see Ajax in action.#Ajax pic.twitter.com/77ysvUnmdL
— British Army 🇬🇧 (@BritishArmy) August 6, 2024
These recent trials follow extensive cold weather testing in Sweden, part of a rigorous series of evaluations designed to ensure the Ajax performs well under various conditions. Despite a decade-long programme plagued by setbacks and delays, the successful trials bring a renewed sense of optimism about the vehicle’s future.
A total of 446 Ajax vehicles are scheduled for delivery to the Army from 2024 to 2028, with yearly deliveries varying from 93 in 2024 to 125 in 2027, plus an extra 143 vehicles set to be retrofitted and delivered by 2029.
The table below shows the number of newly built Ajax platforms due to be delivered, with only deployable vehicles being delivered going forward.
| Year | Number |
| 2024 | 93 |
| 2025 | 89 |
| 2026 | 66 |
| 2027 | 125 |
| 2028 | 73 |
| 2029 | 0 |
| 2030 | 0 |
In addition to the numbers of newly built platforms listed above, there are 143 Ajax vehicles that will be retrofitted from earlier build standards to the final deployable build standard.
The plan for when these retrofitted vehicles will be delivered is currently still in development, however all are currently scheduled for delivery by 2029. It is anticipated that all vehicles will be delivered to the Army in the same calendar year they are delivered to the Ministry of Defence.
Ajax vehicle to reach initial capability at end of next year
In response to a question from Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, Minister of State Maria Eagle confirmed the programme’s timeline. Eagle stated, “The Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) is due to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025 as planned.”
This comes amid ongoing scrutiny of the programme’s financial and operational milestones.
Efforts to expedite the delivery of the troubled Ajax armoured vehicles have been outlined previously. In response to a Written Parliamentary Question earlier in the year, James Cartlidge, the then Minister of State for Defence under the previous Conservative government, detailed the steps taken to improve the delivery rate.
Cartlidge explained, “As a result of revised contractual terms with MOD, General Dynamics UK have introduced a number of measures designed to improve the delivery rate. These measures include extending the current shift patterns, optimising the build line, and increasing collaborative practices.”
The Ajax programme has faced significant challenges and delays. The Ministry of Defence disclosed earlier this year that it had already spent £4.096 billion on the project as of May 2024. The programme aims to deliver 446 vehicles between 2024 and 2028, with yearly deliveries varying from 93 in 2024 to 125 in 2027.
The vehicles are intended to enhance the British Army’s protection, mobility, and situational awareness. However, despite substantial investment and effort, the programme’s progress towards meeting key operational capabilities has been slow. Initial delivery numbers have paused just short of IOC delivery targets for several months.
According to the British Army website:
“The Ajax family has been designed to be at the heart of the British Army’s future armoured fleet, offering enhanced lethality, survivability, reliability, mobility and all-weather intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities through its advanced sensor suite.
Ajax is currently in the Demonstration and Manufacture phases of its lifecycle. The Army has been conducting training on early Ajax vehicles in both operational Units and Training establishments, with Reliability Growth Trials progressing well. Operationally deployable platforms will be delivered to the Field Army throughout 2024, with the Household Cavalry Regiment being the first Army unit to convert to Ajax.”
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
It had a bore sight as well👍now can it do that backwards up a slight ramp😂
George, your headline should say “first firing on the move by a military crew“, this is not the first time the AJAX has undergone this testing.
Now you’ve done it🙄you have just spoilt N amount of comments about firing on the move👍
shouldn’t that say moteley crew?
😂
I wonder if the targets it hit were barn doors.
unlikely more likely a cow in the farm over the hill.
Don’t be silly. UK barns are only FFBNEW doors.
The CTAS 40mm seems like a huge step up from the old 30mm Rarden cannon.
Wonder if anyone here knows how it compares to the Bofors 40mm which is on the CV90?
.
Better penetration and smaller ammo but lower rate of fire and range, if the gun is the same as in the naval mount.
The things they teach you at school nowadays !!!!
Only kidding, don’t get all upset, I really admire your amazing knowledge. A++
Google and exhaustive reading of the comments sections are your friends 👍
You probably need to spend less time doing that and more time studying for your exams. Just my prospective as a Grandparent !
It’s the summer after GCSEs, so I’ve got nothing to study!
When I’m in the house, it’s this or computer games and I know which I prefer.
Cyclic rate of the CT40 is c.180 rpm. This is limited by the FCS to 1,2 or 3 round bursts. Max range for APFSDS is 4000m. MV for the Fin round is c.1500m/s.
That’s probably max effective range rather than overall range.
Yup
Naval gun has longer barrel so that would extend range 5′ 2″ v 7′ 5″ .
The shorter barrel probably reduces penetration as well then.
Is there any chance of using the longer gun on land?
Hmm, on the CTA blurb site, it does say the telescoped rounds do have a further range than comparable rounds. Which I take they are referring to the 40mm Bofors. In theory the CTAS 40 should have more range, as the round contains more propellant.
I think it might be as someone said above, that the Naval Bofors MK4 has a much longer barrel and hence longer range than any of the vehicle-based cannon.
CTAS claims 4km range using APFSDS but Bofors claim 7km for the naval mount.
I don’t know how transferable the different barrels are, and how ridiculous one would look on an Ajax, but that is probably where the difference comes from.
Is there a Boxer turret for CTAS 40 ? … I don’t know. If there is, then it would offer some hope that the Army could acquire some new IFVs in the future.
Think Defence has a list of Boxer modules that includes a CTAS turret IFV
The French Nexter turret, which can take the CTAS 40, has been fitted to Boxer, so yes. It’d be nice to think that the Ajax turret could be fitted, but it’s quite bulky so may not be great on top of an already high vehicle.
Assuming that the Army does want to make some Boxer into IFVs, will we buy Nexter, or at least try fitting the Ajax turret on, rather than engineer our own special bespoke one? How optimistic are you feeling today…?
We’d go bespoke. Jobs for officers and a Braid… Stand down Mr Moore, sir, there’s a good gentleman.
The Gentleman has a bottle, sir…..
😉 😉
I know what you’ve been watching. Rather good film that.
Irreplaceable actors although quite dated, we’ll never see an up-dated version.
Zulu Dawn was appalling, the acting and the outcome.
Stay well, keep smiling Daniele.
If only the “sing off” actually happened! 😆
That’s a good point… 😉
Swidt? 😉
Read a book on the Zulu campaign and it never suggested it didn’t!
Source, Daniele?
Just Google searches on whether any such thing actually happened.
Might not be accurate.
I’d think it most likely they were too busy trying to survive than engage in signing contests!
🙂
Another option,pretty obvious to me, is if you wanted to put a CTA 40 Turret on Boxer how about using the now homeless LM one developed for Warrior CSP, because it should be (A) more compact – ie smaller and lighter than that used on Ajax,(B) its already designed therefore cheaper and (C) the Cannons have already been made and are currently without an obvious use.Maybe IanM can confirm it is actually smaller and lighter ?.
Fair point, I hadn’t thought of that one- how far through design on it did they get? It’d probably (in theory at least) also be closer to British Army requirements off the bat. In my book, both Ajax and the LM turret are missing something critical that Bradley and French AFVs have (if I recall correctly): a box launcher for ATGM. You can get them for Javelin, which we already have in service, and in my view fits with Ajax’ mission statement of Scout/Recce in force very well. I’m pretty sure you can also fit Javelin on the Kongsberg RWS… Read more »
The WR turret has a much smaller turret ring diameter than AJAX’s 1.7m so that suggests a smaller internal volume. The majority of the gubbins for the CT40, AHS and loading system is external to the turret.
The LM turret with 40mm CTAS has already been fitted to wheeled Boxer as a demonstrator – see the thinkdefence.co.uk article.
The Ajax turret would be problematic on any IFV, not so much because it’s tall, it is that. But because it’s turret ring is really wide. Og spec included a requirement for a 120mm DF variant, that never got ordered, but it means the turret ring is bug enough to fit that gun. Which in turn very much limits space for dismounts.
We really should get a 105mm Fire Support variant for Ajax.
With all the furore about retiring the 105 light guns having vehicles capable of replacing that would help, especially if they had fire control for indirect as well.
Do you mean that a gun of that size could be fitted without changing the turret, or that a new turret would fit on the same ring?
Personally, I’d rather get an AD version first, but I like the idea of a 105. The question will be how far they can elevate the barrel for Indirect I expect- not sure how far a breech that size will be able to drop inside the turret and chassis of Ajax…
Wouldn’t have to be far, 20 degrees or so, to give a pretty significant indirect fire range.
Do we want AD Ajax, Boxer or both?
Ukraine would suggest a longer ranged system, though with a cannon for counter-UAV.
Ajax would be a good replacement for Stormer as it worms alongside both Ch3 and Boxer, but we might prefer the commonality of Boxer itself.
There are so many extra options for Ajax that we might as well go the whole hog and add a second order including a wider variety of more niche types.
How long is the back end of a 105?! Even 20-25 degrees would be bringing the back end of the breech relatively low- not counting for recoil. Boxer or Ajax AD variant? Very good question, I don’t know. I’m tempted to say Boxer if I had to pick one, to be honest. At least that way, it’s a module that can be swapped in and out as necessary. My preference would be something that’ll launch a missile with the range of LMM/Mistral (I think they’re both about 8 km?) and an autocannon. That said, the latest Russian helicopter-launched ATGMS are… Read more »
The Cockerill 3105 turret says it can do +42 degree elevation. I can’t find any data on the turret rings of either that or Ajax, but they fitted the Cockerill to an old Leopard 1 so they are probably comparable. The quick solution could be to just use an adaptor to fit the new turret, with basket, into the existing ring. Ajax ought to be tall enough and there are the same number of turret crew. I’m not sure about Boxer/Ajax for SHORAD. We need the Stormer replacement to keep pace with MBTs and operate on the front line, so… Read more »
Extra range is always nice, but Google tells me ASRAAM is £200k per unit- that’s a great return on investment for killing a helo, but less so for killing UAVs. Perhaps we can come up with a system that you can load and launch both ASRAAM and a.n.other shorter range SAM for lower-tier targets?
Just identify target and range, select your missile, launch.
The Russians are of the same opinion; their new edition of Pantsir (I can’t remember what it’s called but it’s easy to find articles on it online) based on Ukraine has a mixture of a few large SAMS (the usual type) and 20 very small ones specifically for counter-UAS. If we wanted to go down that route then I think a mix of ASRAAM and HVM/LMM would be the answer. Say a central turret on either Boxer or Ajax (or both) that contains a very large E/O turret on an extensible mount, the ADAD and the targeting array for the… Read more »
Hmmm, not sure I’m entirely comfortable with being in the same thought lop as Russia… 😄 That said, their concept of AD is generally solid, even if it’s not always executed well in terms of the capabilities of the equipment and/or operators. I think that would be a good idea, although personally think it’ll probably turn into boxes rather than tubes, from the point of view of ease of packing, logistics, use of space etc. That’s me being pedantic on what you’re saying though! The only concern with that is the sensors- that’s an IR-guided missile and a laser/matrix guided… Read more »
I thought that radar might not be such a good idea because in a full-scale maneuver war it becomes more of a hindrance than a help due to RWR systems.
Do you mean boxed StarStreak? I don’t think that’s really possible because the tube the missile launches from will always be circular; the most efficient pack is the triangle shape rather than a square stack.
ASRAAM would either be a very large box (same wingspan as Sea Wolf) or a folding-fin version would need to be developed.
Ah, thanks, hadn’t realised that was a requirement for Ajax. May go some way towards explaining why they had trouble with only the turreted variant and all the others, like Ares etc. were OK. If the turret ring is so wide, there’s less “meat” of metal around it to structurally hold it and manage vibration, torquing effects, vibrations, etc.
Don’t want to be trying to get that onto Boxer, then…
You are right. Nexter T40 Turret has already had some trials with Boxer, and the French VBCI 2
As we don’t have any A vehicle capability left I suppose we will buy from the French further degrading the UK supply chain and logistics support ability
Well, we’ve successfully built two turrets (the Ajax one and the Warrior CSP one) in the last few years, so all is not lost, in terms of AFV turrets at least. My concern, with relation to Boxer, is that an IFV variant with an autocannon is already not in the existing budget- it would be very much an extra. I am normally very much a supporter of domestic production where possible, and I would far rather use either the Ajax (apparently likely unsuitable) or the Warrior CSP one if we can. But designing another turret from scratch is not on… Read more »
Of course BAE have the MTIP 2 problem solved?
Possibly but not probable.
The thinkdefence Boxer article shows the LM 40mm CTAS on the wheeled drive module as a demonstrator.
Thanks for the pointer- I should check up on TD more often to see when he’s updated stuff, they’re always a good read!
I did have a quick look, but only image connected with the LM Warrior turret was apparently of a Patria AMV? Regardless, they’re of similar size and form, so can’t imagine it would be difficult to fit to a Boxer module. It doesn’t look too big or bulky. Am I seeing a box launcher on the left of the turret, or is that my optimism running away with me?!
The TD article was all about Boxer, especially the variants of Mission Module. I would be surprised therefore if they had a picture of a Patria AMV in a Boxer article. It seems that there are at least two TD articles on Boxer – we may have been looking at different articles. I am now looking at the one entitled: “Boxer Armoured Vehicle — Details and Variants. Post published:November 5, 2022: but I was looking at a different article previously. I can’t now find the picture I referred to as it is a different article. Box launcher – presumably for… Read more »
I have looked again at that TD article. A photo is captioned ‘LM CTAS, 40mm’. I am quite sure it is a Boxer, not a Patria as it looks like Boxer and it is a Boxer article. Vehicle has off-white painted towing eyes. Text near-adjacent talks of a twin retractable ATGM launcher (with Javelin, MMP or Spike ER).
As I said I have doubts about equipping infantry carriers with ATGM – what do you think?
I do wish that posting links didn’t result in immediately being sent into moderation purgatory..! You would be far more qualified to identify what is a Patria and what is a Boxer, however the image you’re describing doesn’t sound like the one I’m looking at; 2my” one is painted in desert tan, and is ~70% of the way down the article ‘Boxer and the British Army- An Illustrated History’, hence it includes a number of the other competitors to Boxer through the ages as well. I suspect we’re talking about two different pictures in two separate articles, which is good… Read more »
Strike brigades are very out of date but the term ‘Strike’ has survived in the title of 1 DSRBCT.
When we only really did recce by stealth it was anomalous to equip a recce vehicle with ATGMs, but we fitted ATGMs to recce variants – some of the Fox for example.
We fitted ATGMs to specialist Tank Destroyers (TDs) – Spartan MCT, CVR(T) Striker, FV 438 – very sensible when you are up against large tank armies. We need replacements for such systems which ent out of service a very long time ago. The Boxer Overwatch veh should get ATGMs?
Absolutely, recognise that Strike isn’t really applicable these days. Although I’m less clear on whether Ajax would still be expected to provide direct fire “heavy” support to Boxer MIV in the field in whatever ORBAT replaces it. If it does, then I’m inclined to think that ATGM would be a wise addition.
I didn’t realise that ATGMs were so widely fitted to be honest, but agree they need replacement. What’s the brief on Boxer Overwatch at present? I’ll admit I’m not familiar- is it the one with a bunch of Brimstone?
As the Germans have already designed a mission module with 30 mm cannon would be waste of money to design and manufacturer a small number with a different cannon.
Yes but then you end up having to deal with the logistics for 2 different calibers of ammo
Just found out the Nexter T40 turret has been trialled on Boxer.
Could have gone with Bofors 40 mm as same round used on CV90 and Navy ships with that logic ?
There are several Boxer IFV mission modules for the wheeled drive unit. The thinkdefence.co.uk article included one demonstartor configured for LM 40mm CTAS.
Work on the CTA cannon design started in 1954 in the US Airforce Lab’s , Rarden Cannon was a 1960’s cold war weapon . Long time to get it completed.
Good news! Perhaps the article might have stressed that the Army is not getting 589 Ajax as shown.
They are getting 589 vehicles of the Ajax family:
245 turreted ‘Ajax’ variants: (198 Recce and Strike (Ajax), 23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax), 24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax)
256 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants: (93 APC (Ares), 112 Command and Control (Athena); 34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch (Ares); 51 Engr Recce (Argus)
88 Engineering variants for REME based on the PMRS: (38 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (Atlas); 50 Repair vehicles (Apollo).
This actually seems like good news lately.
They’re edging towards IOC and the feedback from the crews seems universally positive.
Feel this will also facilitate more Bulldogs and even Warriors being sent to Ukraine.
Your last sentence – I don’t see the link. Ajax is a recce vehicle (which replaces CVR(T) Scimitar), and is not an infantry carrier whether you are talking about an APC (Bulldog) or an IFV (Warrior).
Ajax edging closer to IOC might facilitate Scimitars going to Ukraine, if we have any left in storage.
Warrior is also in use as a stop gap in the RAC, equipping some of the Sqns that previously were on Scimitar and other CVRT variants in the Armoured Cavalry Regiments.
So that is one option for Warriors to UKR.
Personally, as we discussed before, I’d keep Warrior in a better than nothing scenario, not withstanding all the issues that might entail which you detailed to me at length when we discussed the possible implications of that scenario, spares and maintenance wise.
“Better than Nothing”…a sad indictment of the position we find ourselves in regards armoured vehicles.
Yes, stop gap in the RAC – Warriors have never been more useful! Probably accounts for the reason why we have sent no Warriors to UKR (I think).
Keeping Warrior in service as is, in the AI Battalions gives them a better vehicle than Boxer would be, but its shelf life would be limited without any of the upgrades once mooted under WCSP. I think you said you would put the Boxers already ordered into 7 Lt Mech Bde?
Yes. And give the Foxhounds to 4.
Sounds like a plan.
OT. Alarm bell ringing – Rachel Reeves has ordered spending Departments (including MoD) to find savings within a very short timeframe – article on page 10 of todays ‘i’ newspaper according to BBC website.
Why am I not surprised?
Reeves is actually launching an austerity era, not a growth programme.
Kept their Unions backers happy though, 1st priority sorted.
Ajax FOC not until the end of the decade. And, don’t believe all the propaganda 👍
Appreciate that FOC is then, but it is edging towards IOC. I am generally cynical so can usually spot the propaganda! However, I did not spot any falsehoods in this article.
stuff Ukraine we’ve given them enough and they are no better for getting it.
I beg to differ, It looks like the situation on the front lines has changed again since the US gave UKR a weapons boost. ATM it appears the effect is that Russia has lost a lot of the initiative it had during its “Winter Offensive”.
Arguably, the weapons donated to the UKR are doing the job they were intended to do; destroying Russian troops and hardware.
The question is: can we keep up the support for another 2 years? , this being the projected time for when Russia will start to feel the attrition of its current rate of losses
I’d like to see the Kerch bridge comprehensively demolished. The US has the 30,000lb GBU-57A/B Massive Ordinance Penetrator that could target several supports, making rebuilding a huge, long job, limiting resupply, isolating Russian forces in Crimea.
Your right on the bridge it would take a massive effort to do the job properly but hopefully they are not clearing air defences in Crimea for nothing🤞
I’d also like to see it demolished but Ukraine is a bit limited into how it can do it. By sea has worked but Russia has pretty well blocked Sea Drones. Storm Shadow / SCALP can do it but you’d need a lot of them, same can be said for ATACMS. Yep the US does have a couple of bombs that could it, but how do they get there to be dropped ? I can’t see the US handing over a B2 to Ukraine and the US doing it themselves is a really bad idea. Russia is most definitely on… Read more »
Have read several articles since 2022 which indicated Orcs have established an alternative rail network to resupply Orc infested areas w/in UKR. Not certain re validity of reports. Anyone? 🤔
Wouldn’t those rail lines then be within range of GMLRS/HIMARS/ATACMS/SS?
Possibly, not certain re latest iteration of Sleepy Joe’s UKR’s ROEs for this conflict. Certainly intuitively sensible. Reality? Dunno…🤔🤞
Because we’ve often given insufficient, often late & failed to bite the bullet to deploy NATO troops alongside UKR to give the edge to tip the balance, driving Russia out of UKR & bringing the ar to an earlier end.
You must know why NATO can’t deploy troops into UKR to fight alongside their troops? A NATO/UKR vs Russia war is WW3. NATO is meant to prevent WW3.
God you’re kind make me laugh, otherwise id cry. You seem to think war is just some game that you take bets on like a sports team. Ukraine is fighting for its very survival against a major military power, and the fact it controls more territory then it did at the start of the invasion over 2 years ago. Is bloody impressive and Ukraine deserves every penny of support they can get.
Tell that to Kursk.
Or Kyiv that didn’t fall in part due to British NLAWs.
Or Kherson that was taken thanks to NAtO MLRS systems…
Question: how is Ukraine doing in the Kursk region, have they captured any more land yet??
They’ve been advancing relatively quickly according to Russian Milbloggers, about 30km in the last few days, but the Ukranians themselves are being understandably quiet.
Thank you
We are helping Ukraine to dramatically degrade Russian military capability.
Russia has been considered by most, if not all, experts to be the country most threatening to us in Europe for many years.
I think Ukraine without the massive military support from the West that they have had might have been defeated by Russia some time ago. Then Putin would have planned his next move against us in the West.
Personally I would like to see warrior retained…as we don’t actually have a replacement IFV….
Even I know that and I’m just a Civvy Walt. (apparently)
Yep, it is important to know that not all variants procured will have turrets, and none of the Ajax variants are replacements for Warrior.
It is a shame that none of the Boxers on order will have the CTAS 40mm, but as I said in an earlier post I have no idea if a suitable turret exists.
Someone said that Think Defence reports that a Boxer turret exists that could take CTA40.
If we do sufer a major war in the next 5 years at least production facilities should be there if we need to order more.
I think we will have more than enough Ajax. The bigger issue is that only some of the CR3s and Boxers will have been built and possibly none of the RCH-155 artillery pieces.
Pity the Infantry in the ABCTs won’t get the benefit of this cannon on their ‘battle taxis’.
Huge reduction in capability
Yes, you can tell I am not Boxer’s biggest fan for use in the armoured brigades. Very disappointed at the prospect of Boxer replacing Warrior. Huge reduction in firepower in the armoured brigades.
Just as CGS talks of being more lethal.
It’s like Carter and his video message to the army selling the Strike plan.
I was wishing I could’ve questioned it when I watched. They make these grandiose announcements, with no comeback.
There’s no cross examination with the nitty gritty details of the consequences.
Hi M8 As you know “Green is just so not my colour”, but could you enlighten me about something please ? I’ve looked at all the numbers of Ajax and Boxer, what they all do and how many of each version we are buying
I see we are buying around 1200 Vehicles in total, but only 156 ICV and 93 APC ! So what do the rest of the infantry use to get into combat and fight from ?
It is a good question. Bare with me as I go off on one and try and give some background. Myself, Dern, and Graham have crunched the numbers before on the number of Warriors per AI Bn currently, and how few infantry carriers are in the Boxer order. I don’t recall Graham reached a definitive conclusion. I recalled there were around 40 Warrior in a AI Battalion. And I may well be wrong I’m basing that on some very old bookd I have from BAOR days. One needs to understand the structure of the infantry ORBAT for a start. We… Read more »
Great answer! I am trying to remember the details of that earlier convo. Number of Warrior IFVs (FV510) in a battalion – must be 14 per AI Rifle Coy, so 44 per bn (ie three rifle coys plus 2 for BHQ, unless they have the Command Vehicle, FV511). Then there are WR variants such as the REME wagons (FV512, 513) (and Bulldogs of course for Amb and mortars). Not sure if the Battalion’s A/Tk Pl has FV510s? Need Dern on the case! Boxer order – Tr 1 is for 523 vehs of which a mere 85 (as we discussed) are… Read more »
And another great answer.
I’d forgotten the Boxer Recc/FS vehicles.
That makes me think they will go to the Recc Platoon and not Ajax Scout.
14 per Coy? 3x section vehicles per Platoon, 3 Platoons a Coy, so 9, plus?
Platoon HQ and 2 Coy HQ vehicles to get 14?
Yes, that solves an earlier query about which recce vehicle for a Boxer battalion.
Platoon – 1 Boxer ICV (ie APC) per section plus 1 for Pl HQ – total 4
Company – 3 Platoons of 4 vehs each plus 2 for Coy HQ. Total 14.
Just my estimation, not seen a document as such.
Plus, the Coy’s REME fitter section from the LAD will have ES Boxer variants.
Not bad mate👍just one thing. An RE section won’t fit in a Ares they are a similar size to an infantry sect. I believe Ares will be used for engr recce and probably TP CPs. So that puts the sections either in boxer or 4 ton trucks! Or dare I say it keep the 432s.
Thank you for that correction mate.
Could you clarify TP CPs, because it has a different meaning to me. Now, I’m in sarf London, hope to visit 253 Provost and understand EVERYTHING that has changed.
Troop command posts👍😉
You total, absolute tw@t! I was just getting my sock ready thinking about RMP TP CPs!
Go away!
😂😂
ARES is also to be used for moving other small specialised teams under protection – dismountable ATGW teams etc.
ARGOS is the RE recce veh, fitted with a dozer blade and gap measuring software in the SDW.
Really should have looked that up shouldn’t I👍🙄😀
😎
Hi mate, Daniele got there first, as always (…and I am retired with time on my hands wheras he has a busy job keeping the railways running!).
Your question is an excellent one and one fully answered by Daniele.
The very short answer is that only a percentage of the Infantry are in ‘A’ vehicles (armoured vehicles) such as Warrior and Bulldog (and Boxer in future) of course. Some Infantry units are in the less well armoured, Protected Mobility (PM) vehicles and some are in soft-skinned (unarmoured) vehicles or are on foot.
😕 True. When I served it was considered to be career suicide to criticise or critique a senior officers ‘vision’, plan or whatever (it was why I didn’t get promoted above Major!).
Fear of criticising a senior officer probably was the case even at Army Board level.
22 SAS has the right idea with their ‘Chinese Parliament’.
Do the RN and RAF have these problems?
And you challenge me for my Braid comments.. 🤔
Hi DB, I seem to recall that your Braid comments have often been sweeping generalisations about an entire group (all senior officers) rather than a specific senior officer and without evidence, references, or links following some ‘Defence cock-up’…and without recognition that other factors or other groups of persons (politicians, MoD civil servants, Industry leaders, Treasury officials) may have played any part in the issue.
I think it is fair to call out certain past CGSs by name for frequent or catastrophic changes to the structure of the army’s Field Force (ie Orbat) or a doctrinal shift without considering equipment ramifications.
I have no idea.
Thanks. It feels like it is just an army thing to frequently change doctrine and Orbats, almost with every new CGS.
Disappointing, unless uparmed versions are ordered in future tranches.
Well, the MOD do still have c.250 CT40’s in storage. Sling them into a Cockerell style remote turret?
Even the remote turret developed for Warrior would be enough and has already been displayed on a Boxer.
The Think Defence website has a great article on the various possible modules and options for Boxer.
👍
Personally I would like to see the warrior update programme reset and those CT40s put where they were always planned to be put..on warrior for a really effectively IFV for the armoured infantry battalions.
It’s a great thought but then where do you field the 623 Boxers that have been ordered? Who is going to ask the Treasury for the money to resume the WCSP programme?
Well thinking back to 3 years ago the plan was to always order around 536 boxers as well as upgrade 380 warriors upgrade (250 having the lethality upgraded as well, 140 just the life extension upgrade) this 900 ish vehicle fleet was to equip at total of 8 armoured infantry and mechanised infantry battalions..with 4 protected infantry battalions..( heavy and light mix) if they just return to that reasonable plan that was being implemented it will use most of the boxers ordered. The MOD only ordered a hundred extra boxers when they cancelled the warrior upgrade ( 380 vehicles)…( basically… Read more »
I hope I did not suggest that the MoD ordered 523 Boxers (Tranche 1) with the intention they replace Warrior. That clearly was never the case – they were to meet the MIV requirement. I do know that upgraded Warrior was to replace in-service Warrior in the AI Bns of 3 Div, and that Boxer MIV was principally to enable the Mech Inf in the two Strike brigades of 1 Div to have a new APC for that role. Then Strike brigades were cancelled etc etc. The 100 Boxers of Tranche 2 ordered in April 2022, followed on from the… Read more »
Our, on top of their game, Labour front Bench.
Troops need firepower, B52s are Septo/Octo, genarian, so WCSP is a clear winner that delivers lethality to the British Army and allows us to exploit networked firepower to deliver force multiplier effects on future enemy formations.
How did I do?
Great use of ‘management speak’! Just the sort of thing a politician might say about the Warrior upgrade programme, but only when it was in favour!
I’m a simple AO in a government department, thank you.
Thanks DB. I worked alongside plenty of AOs in HQ QMG and DLO Andover and DE&S.
Speak with Danielle, should you fancy a cup of tea.
😎 Only 1 L please David, I’m not a woman.
Auto correct is not my friend.
Sorry Daniele
Ok mate.
Develop one for the Boxer with RheinMetals’ help …turn some of those APCs into IFVs
Fully agree!👍
It’s odd how MoD still has not declared what it is doing with the c.250 x CT40s some 3.5 years from the announcement of WCSP cancellation. Presumably many, if not all, of the upgraded turrets built by LM still exist? Army staff were supposed to be conducting a study into improving the lethality of Boxer in 2021, but what did they conclude? So, silence on both issues! One snag of course is that orders were placed a while back for several hundred Kongsberg RS4 RWS (which can’t take cannons) for Boxer. Some, if not all, may have been delivered. Kongsberg… Read more »
Very tidily summed up Graham.
Many thanks Ian!
Or maybe there are some sane and brave individuals who are holding onto the fact we still have warrior and the fat lady has not sung until the fleet is out of service and gone 😀
Ok, that may well be true.
Some Warriors have already been taken out of service – 789 built for BA in the mid-80s. 770 held in the 2016-2021 period; down to 721 in 2022, 625 in 2023.
Don’t have the 2024 figure but I bet it is less than 625. The post-Integrated Review 21 had a funded position for 540 platforms.
The MoD will surely hold onto the CT40 cannons until the outcome of the Defence Review, which will either scrap them, put some or all of them on Warriors or put some or all of them on Boxers. Is the best that can happen that they go on (additional) Boxers, that we resurrect WSCP or that we scrap them and buy another ( cheap) turret / cannon solution, possibly for both?
You feel like they won’t reverse the WCSP decision at this point, so hopefully we’ll get to see them on a future tranche of Boxer.
There must surely be more Boxers confirmed ordered soon, due to the sheer number and kind of vehicles being retired by 2030
I’m far from expert but tend to agree. So if we want a tracked IFV another option might be an IFV version of Ajax, which was after all developed from Ascod, an IFV design. How quickly could that be developed? The UK production line for Ajax looks to be in a higher gear compared to Boxer. Horses for courses?
Thanks for your thoughts. I think I was only joking that MoD might scrap perfectly good state-of-the art WCSP cannon. They would surely keep them as spares for Ajax, if nothing else. Why would they put them (and surely the LMUK WCSP turrets too) on Warriors when Warrior is being withdrawn from service from the middle of this decade, as Boxer comes in? I don’t see WCSP being resurrected, as that would mean a reversal of the already-declared Warrior out of service decision, and poses a problem as to where to then put the Boxers – presumably 7 Lt Mech… Read more »
Agree the Boxer direction is set, that more are needed and that Warrior’s days are numbered. Also agree that RS4 looks not to be sufficient lethality if Boxer is used as an IFV. The defence review will provide a welcome pause for thought so that the army and the MoD can get their ducks in a row; and it will result in an approved budget.
Boxer is not of course an IFV if it lacks a cannon; that is the key defining feature of an IFV. If it just has a MG, then it is an APC.
Defence Review to create a welcome pause…interesting comment. Many think it defers possible increase of the defence budget by a year – great news for Ms Reeves. It may lead to certain procurement projects slowing down in the next 12 months.
Morning Graham, I’m clear on the the APC – IFV distinction I think. Just don’t confuse me with MIV. I see several reasons to pause, and several functions who will benefit from a short pause. The first as you hint, is the Treasury. Reeves needs to get current spending in control; hence her call for ‘in year savings’. Once that is done she can plan for the consequences of the defence review, which might well be more than the election headline 2.5%. Thirdly I think we need more time to digest what we are learning from the fighting in Ukraine,… Read more »
Thanks. MIV (Mechanised Infantry Vehicle) was the generic MoD programme name for a vehicle that was originally going to replace: Saxon APC, the remaining FV430 series and non-turreted CVR(T)s. It became FRES(Utility) and under that title, contract was awarded for procurement of Boxer, by which time many years had elapsed and SAXON had long since gone and it was decided that non-turreted CVR(T)s woudl be replaced instead by Ajax variants. The Mechanised Infantry would operate Boxer in the two Strike brigades, medium weight brigades. Then the Strike brigades were cancelled….. I have intentionally missed out some details in the above… Read more »
Indeed, I’m going to say it again, the ABCTs are not going to be well served by a wheeled APC ( no matter how heavy and well protected)…they ( as in HMG) should seriously relook at a possible future for warrior, at least for a few armoured infantry battalions.
I was always a fan of the plan from a coupe of years ago which would see a mix of armoured infantry battalions in an updated warrior and mechanised infantry in boxer.
I would have been too. except that Strike Bde plan, as I have outlined many times, was in itself a mask for cuts. Now, keeping the 3 AI Brigades as is and using either or both of the 2 Infantry Bdes in 1 UK Div at that time and making them “interim Strike” Bdes and eventually adding Boxer would have given us 5 Armoured or Mech Bdes. Back to the pre 2010 set up before the SDSR cuts. Instead, they fiddled with one of our 3 precious AI Bdes, pushed Boxer procurementm, which as the MIV program was originally from… Read more »
I fully agree, although the French employ a wheeled APC alongside tanks.
If I was armoured infantry about to lose Warrior and receive Boxer, then I would miss having my own organic cannon fire, especially if it were upgraded to a 40mm stablised type, and the extra mobility given by tracks.
Too late for a re-look. The WCSP money has been pulled and Boxer has been ordered.
The French are always interesting and let’s be honest a bit obsessed with deploying to Africa. The VBCI is an interesting little fighting vehicle and the French did lend the British army around 20 of them in the middle of the last decade to test for the mechanised infantry vehicle program..but the army went with boxer.. I suspect it was because boxer has a lot more protection as it’s 10 tons heavier…boxer is armoured against 30mm antitank kinetic rounds VBCI is only protected up to 14.5mm AP. But VBCI is a proper infantry fighting vehicle not an APC, it’s got… Read more »
I should have referred to VBCI as a wheeled IFV, not APC, due to the cannon.
Interesting thought you have. Not sure how difficult it would be to resurrect the WCSP programme. It would certainly cost, but the offset should be a smaller overall Boxer order (623 ordered so far, and there should be more tranches to follow).
Re ‘HMG is **itself etc’. I wouldn’t put it quite that way, but I agree there a possible outcome of the defence review which sees WCSP re-instated; and urgency would be a driver of that decision. The other driver would be that the labour govt will ditch ideology in favour of pragmatism if they see a Pareto solution: 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost and time. Conventionally, once the MoD takes a decision then it burns its bridges, no going back e,g, scrapping TSR2 tools. But Warrior is still in service. We have given protected patrol vehicles… Read more »
Indeed, but when they binned the warrior upgrade, they in reality did not replace it they simply planned to cut the armoured infantry battalions completely..essentially at the point warrior was cut they went from a plan of 4 armoured infantry battalions, 4 mechanised battalions and 4 protected mobility to simply having 4 mechanised battalions and 7-8 protected mobility….so in reality the warrior upgrade programme was not replaced by boxer..it was simply cut and they spun it as a being replaced boxer..what it was really replaced with was an increase in the foxhound equipped protected mobility bastions..after all before 2021 the… Read more »
Boxer was actually originally meant to replace Mastiff, in 3 HPM Battalions.
Not 432, not Warrior.
Starting in 2027 once other programs were complete.
It was brought forward and No1 priority as part of Strike, a cuts exercise typically dressed up, where 6 Warrior Bns and 3 Mastiff Bns would become 4 Warrior and 4 Boxer, and the army moving to a more heavy medium light mix rather than heavy light.
Yes, I think you called it right Danielle; the orbat was driven by the requirement for cuts. However, the climate for defence is changed. I think its more likely than not that the defence review will recommend an increase in army numbers.
Great this long saga is finally producing the AFV we need.
Tested it wading in sea water too…. didn’t go too well, as expected really.
Why on earth did they do that? Marinisation can’t have been in the Staff Requirement.
I am still confused as to why we needed Boxer in the first place. Just build more of the IFV variant of Ajax to replace Warrior?
There is no IFV variant of Ajax.
Well, if you put a cannon RWS or non penetrating turret on an Ares…
It’s not big enough to take an infantry section mate,it’s for specialist recce tasks etc.
Better than nothing, would just need a mental shift to 2 vehicles a section rather than one.
Could also be used for ATGM teams as a heavy armoured role.
ARES is a small-capacity APC which takes 4 dismounts (plus 2 crew).
And would produce a small-capacity IFV
So, it could carry half a rifle section – ie a Fire Team. We would need twice as many.
Much easier just to buy ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro IFVs which of course take a full rifle section if we wanted to go down that route. There would be probably fair commonality with Ajax family… or possibly not…haven’t got the details.
I think we are out of the IFV business for a (long) generation ie until Boxer is out of service.
Same reason we procured Spartan, for carrying small teams of specialists who do not require a full section carrying vehicle. E.g Javelin ATGM teams, or Recce Engineers
Because we were impressed with the French medium brigades in Mali and wanted a medium weight force that could race to the east quickly from the UK.
I think, that is how Dern described it.
A mix of light, medium, and heavy forces.
Tracked vehicles like Challanger, Warrior, Ajax cannot deploy like that and require HETS and a big logistic footprint.
Race to the east! Immediately my mind went back to 24 Inf Bde in the mid-80s, with all three of our mech inf battalions in Saxon – thats just what we did – but ending up in West Germany at pace to provide a Reserve for the Corps Commander.
We always did have a medium weight force back in the day.
I think, the army, MoD, do like to reinvent the wheel and are very liberal in the word “new” when, as you say, we have always had medium weight forces.
3 Div, way before the 2010 SDSR and the 19 Bde cut to Light, had 3 Mech Bdes each with a Challenger Regiment, Warrior Bn, AS90 Reg, then the 2 Saxon Battalions. So a heavy medium mix.
I heard that phrase a lot ‘reinvent the wheel’. Yes, the army often does that.
We needed Boxer to equip the Mechanised Infantry (Mech Inf) in the two Strike brigades, medium-weight, wheeled brigades of 1 (UK) Div.
We needed upgraded Warrior (WCSP) to equip the Armoured Infantry (AI) in the heavy, tracked, armoured brigades of 3 (UK) Div).
As Jacko says, there is no IFV variant of Ajax.
https://en.defence-ua.com/analysis/uk_transitioned_to_kit_wise_supplies_to_ukraine_why_the_new_military_aid_package_is_more_than_just_challenger_2_as_90_and_bulldog-5462.html
Thought this was a decent read, regarding what’s being sent to Ukraine any why.
Sam, that article is 18 months old. We have sent far more kit since then.
The most important question is does it have a couple of bv’s
An HEAT grenade dropped from a civilian drone and puff!
Which is why the British Army has a counter-drone programme.
The propaganda campaign continues ……. Have the Army decided what they are actually going to do with it?
??What?? How is this report propaganda?
What to do with Ajax?…….
Ajax is the army’s new recce vehicle replacing Scimitar. So it does recce/surveillance, passing that info back to HQ (unit HQ or formation HQ) on secure comms links.
It can also take out enemy recce and other lt/med armour with its advanced cannon, if so tasked.
(Using the example of Bradley in Ukraine, Ajax could probably disable T-series tanks with its cannon)
It can cue artillery strikes.
It can also do flank protection for our armoured forces on the move.
Why has there ever been doubt on its role?
Firing on the move. Wow, that new concept!!
Yes, but accurately this time as the cannon is stabilised, unlike the old RARDEN 30mm.
Well, Warrior couldn’t do it right?
So this is a step up in capability.