UK Defence Forum

Saw an interesting comment on another forum suggesting sending some of the Ajaxes to Ukraine as a real-world trial see how they perform to iron any kinks out of them.

R686 wrote: ↑15 Jan 2023, 06:51 Saw an interesting comment on another forum suggesting sending some of the Ajaxes to Ukraine as a real-world trial see how they perform to iron any kinks out of them.

What makes you think they would take them?

I have read suggestions that we should help Ukraine's war effort by giving Ajax to the Russians....

Surprised we haven't donated warriors to them yet tbh if we supposed to be getting rid of them

inch wrote: ↑15 Jan 2023, 16:28 Surprised we haven't donated warriors to them yet tbh if we supposed to be getting rid of them

Because majority is still in use in the British Army. Currently 7 units is equipped with Warrior, 4 infantry battalions and 3 cavalry regiments. First Boxer will be delivered in 2023 and first infantry battalion should be fully equipped by it in 2025, and full Boxer force should be ready by 2032. Cavalry regiments are still waiting for Ajax which would probably not be fully delivered by 2025. The MoD already stated that Warriors will be used instead well beyond that date. So retiring of Warrior will be lengthy process and will last for years, as they will have to cover till their replacements arrive.

Just because something is retiring it does not mean that is it immediately available for transfer to Ukraine, it will take years before some vehicles, like Warrior, AS-90 and CR2 are fully replaced and retired.

https://defence-blog.com/bae-systems-su ... into-cv90/

*Cries in Ajax*

That is fitted to a side pannier on the turret. In reality, it is not all that dissimilar to the Javelin mount on the Warrior test bed trialled 4 years ago. I imagine it would be that hard to fit to Ajax (Javelin ER) if there was an appetite from MoD.

I'm not sure Ajax or Warrior could carry an integrated ATGM in its turret as it stores it's CTA ammo on that side. Best bet would be javelin on the protector mount and then Ares and Boxer with box launched Brimstone.

jimthelad wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 18:45 That is fitted to a side pannier on the turret. In reality, it is not all that dissimilar to the Javelin mount on the Warrior test bed trialled 4 years ago. I imagine it would be that hard to fit to Ajax (Javelin ER) if there was an appetite from MoD.

The Kongsberg Protector already gives FFBNW Javelin capability on AJAX family vehicles. Not ideal being a single missile with above-armour reload.

Latvia quite quickly installed SPIKE onto CVR(T) and ground-launched Brimstone has been seen fired from a Tesco delivery truck.

BB85 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 19:33 I'm not sure Ajax or Warrior could carry an integrated ATGM in its turret as it stores it's CTA ammo on that side. Best bet would be javelin on the protector mount and then Ares and Boxer with box launched Brimstone.

Maybe, just maybe, they could fit ATGMs on the other side to the CT40 ammunition?

UKD wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 18:00 https://defence-blog.com/bae-systems-su ... into-cv90/

*Cries in Ajax*

Even if BAE won, and CV90 was selected, it would still not have ATGMs, as it turret was different from one used of CV90 IFVs. This does have nothing to do with Ajax, but with requirement. If there was requirement for Ajax to have ATGM, it would have it.

Requirement as dictated by the Treasury though!

sol wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 09:08

UKD wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 18:00 https://defence-blog.com/bae-systems-su ... into-cv90/

*Cries in Ajax*

Even if BAE won, and CV90 was selected, it would still not have ATGMs, as it turret was different from one used of CV90 IFVs. This does have nothing to do with Ajax, but with requirement. If there was requirement for Ajax to have ATGM, it would have it.

In another 10 years? They seemed not to be able to handle the original spec let alone an improved one.

GarethDavies1 wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 09:47 Requirement as dictated by the Treasury though!

I’m not convinced. While ATGW fit is going to up the cost, the Army seems dead-set against ATGW on vehicles.

mr.fred wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 13:50

GarethDavies1 wrote: ↑30 Jan 2023, 09:47 Requirement as dictated by the Treasury though!

I’m not convinced. While ATGW fit is going to up the cost, the Army seems dead-set against ATGW on vehicles.

Yeah the old "Tanks are for killing tanks" argument, just like the "Astutes are for killing ships, we don't need missiles" argument. Unless you have an ungodly number of tanks or SSN's, these arguments are obvious money saving bulls%it.

With 1,000s of tanks and ifvs destroyed in Ukraine it would be interesting to see the breakdown of how many of those where taken out by other tanks/ifvs versus man launched atgms in an ambush and from what range. With networked drones equipped with thermal imaging, all armoured vehicles are extremely vulnerable especially if they can be engaged by mobile teams at extended ranges.

Helium filled transparent clear condoms with grenades attached, thousands of them , they'll never see em coming,it's the future you'll see

BB85 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 21:58 With 1,000s of tanks and ifvs destroyed in Ukraine it would be interesting to see the breakdown of how many of those where taken out by other tanks/ifvs versus man launched atgms in an ambush and from what range. With networked drones equipped with thermal imaging, all armoured vehicles are extremely vulnerable especially if they can be engaged by mobile teams at extended ranges.

But this is not the full storey. What we have seen is that ATGW's are very good in defence where you can set up ambush sites but then you need armour to push back and retake ground

Will MOD make payment?

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/indu ... esume-soon

I agree on it not being the full story, the Ukrainians could well see similar losses of tanks if they try to retake their lost territory.
It shows the importance of air superiority, if the US was fully involved with no risk of nuclear war once air superiority was guaranteed it would be a different ball game. That would require thousands upon thousands of air strikes which I'm not sure European nations could sustain without the US.

BB85 wrote: ↑17 Feb 2023, 18:51 I agree on it not being the full story, the Ukrainians could well see similar losses of tanks if they try to retake their lost territory.
It shows the importance of air superiority, if the US was fully involved with no risk of nuclear war once air superiority was guaranteed it would be a different ball game. That would require thousands upon thousands of air strikes which I'm not sure European nations could sustain without the US.

I think it shows the importance of combined arms.
Use any one arm in isolation and you’ll see a lot of casualties and little effect.

Yes the Russian lack of capability in combined arms maneuver has led to in my opinion overly high losses of men an kit

According to Ben Wallace the reliability growth trials should be completed in around 16 months.
They have 100 completed hulls which they expect to be delivered to their units shortly after.
So I'm guessing they are expecting an in service date of early 2025

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... k-on-track

Reads a lot like mitigations have been put in place rather than fixes to causes.

Sounds like total incompetence all round , what a joke the MOD really are,MOD yes we've fixed it we've ordered 580 odd whoopy cushions , bet the army top brass and MOD would be great at writing 70s comedy sketches ,lol what can I say , you've really got to ask yourselfs is it wise giving extra money to the army top brass and MOD in the next budget,what's the next dumb ass scheme they can waist all the cash they get and get nowt for it ,we just need someone who can actually achieve sensible equipment purchases, obviously the army top brass decision makers and MOD aren't qualified and capable in my view ,but hey I'm just another numpty I guess ,mmh maybe I should try get a top decision making job in the MOD lol