AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Are we purchasing "Boxer with turret" ?! . . . or did you omit a comma . . . "Boxer, with (the addition of) a turret" ?!

Even then, I would have reservations. I dare say Boxer could maintain position with tracked MBT, but for complete confidence, would be in favour of tracked WARRIOR/CV90, accompanying MBTs.

Missing the comma yes

British Army is where it is

Until there are cost overruns on the upgrade (always happens) there will be 2 armoured Regts with CR3

They will be supported by 4 Inf Bns:
- WR is already obsolete not being stabilised and the upgrade has been cancelled
- Boxer is on order with approx enough APCs for 2 Inf Bns

I agree with you, answer should have been a tracked IFV and Boxer (some with turrets) but that’s not what has been decided and the army looks like it is going to be organised around the equipment.

Realistically and for VFM does it make sense to have a tracked IFV and Boxer with just 2 infantry battalions of each…. Unless there is a off the shelf (not licence built) IFV purchased then IMHO the best bet is more Boxers (some with turrets, May even be able to fit the Ajax & WR turrets).
 
No, there are to be no IFVs, regardless of wheels or tracks. This has been stated a number of times. According to the Army, IFVs are obsolete.

Considering the uproar when casualties were sustained because of the inappropriate deployment and use of "Snatch" land-rovers (and, subsequent UOR purchase of numerous types of protected vehicles), you are now seriously suggesting that "the Army" is contemplating dismounted INF, to accompany MBTs ?!

Someone, somewhere, has lost touch with reality :( .
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Missing the comma yes

British Army is where it is

Until there are cost overruns on the upgrade (always happens) there will be 2 armoured Regts with CR3

They will be supported by 4 Inf Bns:
- WR is already obsolete not being stabilised and the upgrade has been cancelled
- Boxer is on order with approx enough APCs for 2 Inf Bns

I agree with you, answer should have been a tracked IFV and Boxer (some with turrets) but that’s not what has been decided and the army looks like it is going to be organised around the equipment.

Realistically and for VFM does it make sense to have a tracked IFV and Boxer with just 2 infantry battalions of each…. Unless there is a off the shelf (not licence built) IFV purchased then IMHO the best bet is more Boxers (some with turrets, May even be able to fit the Ajax & WR turrets).
Warrior is NOT obsolete. The CSP added stabilisation to the gun but even so if that's your sole definition of obsolescence then you are sadly, sadly wrong.

The CSP had had problems. It went way off schedule but at the point of the most recent defence review it was good to go and was actually a very good piece of kit. Ask some of the people who got to see it.

Warrior's 'obsolescence' was talked up to justify chopping it. No more, no less.

Remarkable isn't it that we're decided that the IFV is no longer needed at the point that the US, which can píss up and down our back in terms of both the scale and complexity of its cyber effort, is pursuing a Bradley replacement? That many other countries in the world are still developing and/or procuring IFVs?

Either we're incredibly far-sighted, or many other nations with significant capabilities in the electronics-o-sphere (Russia, China, South Korea and any number of other SE Asian nations, the Israelis... the list goes on...) are wrong.

It's not the former. It's about the continuing obsession of some VSOs with Light, and in particular light infantry/SF being the only form of soldiering worth the light.

It'll get people killed and our national security compromised.
 
Ajax has been conflated with digitisation - hence being 'the only platform' that can deliver the new capability.

It is not, in any way, the only platform that can do that.
No its not I totally agree and many are now having open architecture fitted so the digital bit will already be integrated into the combat systems of the platform.
 
I hadnt forgotten but Wanting to, having the option to and actually being able to are not the same thing - so i stand by my point
either
They are counting on getting more
They only intend to provide rifle platoons/ likely to face direct fire with Boxer rest get MRVP
The plan is tracked IFV for armoured brigades.

D - they are only purchasing enough section vehicles for a single brigade - they will have to share (sadly this is the most likely result
From what I recall of the issue, the stated intention is that there will be several orders for Boxer. They are looking to replace certain categories of vehicles first, which is why the selection is heavily weighted to those specialties. I don't know the state of the British vehicle fleet but quite possibly these vehicles are the oldest and most knackered hand me downs and so are the ones most in need of immediate replacement.

I believe that I've said before that if Ajax gets cancelled I would not be surprised if the replacement is some sort of Boxer derivative.
 
Warrior is NOT obsolete. The CSP added stabilisation to the gun but even so if that's your sole definition of obsolescence then you are sadly, sadly wrong.

The CSP had had problems. It went way off schedule but at the point of the most recent defence review it was good to go and was actually a very good piece of kit. Ask some of the people who got to see it.

Warrior's 'obsolescence' was talked up to justify chopping it. No more, no less.

Remarkable isn't it that we're decided that the IFV is no longer needed at the point that the US, which can píss up and down our back in terms of both the scale and complexity of its cyber effort, is pursuing a Bradley replacement? That many other countries in the world are still developing and/or procuring IFVs?

Either we're incredibly far-sighted, or many other nations with significant capabilities in the electronics-o-sphere (Russia, China, South Korea and any number of other SE Asian nations, the Israelis... the list goes on...) are wrong.

It's not the former. It's about the continuing obsession of some VSOs with Light, and in particular light infantry/SF being the only form of soldiering worth the light.

It'll get people killed and our national security compromised.

WR CSP would have been a game changer but it’s cancelled!

Maybe not obsolete but out classed
 
Happened to me. SULTAN is very noisy if you're sitting over the idler and have your headset compromised by need to listen to BID250 on handset.
Mind you, I was also a gunnery officer (no ear defenders in turret) and got blown of the top a CVR one day when CR from ATDU let rip with APFSDS fro right of Firing point (at hard targets towards left of arc). 1300m Arish Mel gap IIRC.

I find deafness is often a blessing - I don't hear what morons are saying...
Partial deafness was quite common amongst Spartan crews.

It was common practice / SOP on road moves for RE troop commanders and SNCOs to put their signaller in command of the vehicle and attempt to sleep above the tracks. Apparently many of us have a distinctive gap in the higher frequencies on our audiograms.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Ajax has been conflated with digitisation - hence being 'the only platform' that can deliver the new capability.

It is not, in any way, the only platform that can do that.

I put this in one of the Ukraine threads, it makes an arch point regarding "digitisation"


This is a limited conflict, but between two near peer powers (our peers) and despite the obsession with digitisation and the febrile fantasies of commentators on the Armenia/Azerbaizan Conflict, drones and digitisation are not radical reinvention of war, they are an evolution that come with their own unique issues yet do not lay to rest the lessons of industrial war so painfully learned over the last 150 odd years. They are the what the heliographor radio was to the runner, extends range and capability but doesn't replace him.

It was interesting to note, and sadly I can't find the article I read it in, but (and they have their own massive problems) there was a German General who made the comment that the German Army were not embracing digitisation in the "all or nothing" manner that the US & UK are, because is has its own set of vulnerabilties.

I wonder how much our obsession with digitisation stems from the atrophication of EW experience, skills, built up in the decades after WW2. The recent exercise at Yuma in which the RM took on the USMC saw the RM go retro utilising comms and techniques our grandfathers would have been intimate with and did so with great success.

Change the the uniform and a a sepia filter to the photo above and you could be on the Western Front of a century ago.
 
Last edited:

gafkiwi

War Hero
Looks like Rheinmetall have realized the way to an Aussie's heart They have made Ute version of the Lynx, domestically apparently.
 
I put this in one of the Ukraine threads, it makes an arch point regarding "digitisation"


This is a limited conflict, but between two near peer powers (our peers) and despite the obsession with digitisation and the febrile fantasies of commentators on the Armenia/Azerbaizan Conflict, drones and digitisation are not radical reinvention of war, they are an evolution that come with their own unique issues yet do not lay to rest the lessons of industrial war so painfully learned over the last 150 odd years. They are the what the heliographor radio was to the runner, extends range and capability but doesn't replace him.

It was interesting to note, and sadly I can't find the article I read it in, but (and they have their own massive problems) there was a German General who made the comment that the German Army were not embracing digitisation in the "all or nothing" manner that the US & UK are, because is has its own set of vulnerabilties.

I wonder how much our obsession with digitisation stems from the atrophication of EW experience, skills, built up in the decades after WW2. The recent exercise at Yuma in which the RM took on the USMC saw the RM go retro utilising comms and techniques our grandfathers would have been intimate with and did so with great success.

Change the the uniform and a a sepia filter to the photo above and you could be on the Western Front of a century ago.
In Syria, practical tactical digitisation seems to be focused on commanders using mapping apps on COTS tablets; on the use of small COTS UAV for seeing what is ahead of your troops; and on the near ubiquitous use of walkie talkies.
In terms of armour, most combatants are using 1970s technology. There is a certain sense to that (even though it is used because in most cases it is all that's available) as the success of the current generation of ATGM results in a high rate of damage/loss of the vehicles (if not the crews), and using the less expensive vehicles which are available in greater numbers makes that loss rate more sustainable in terms of numbers.
Even with fewer, better protected and more capable IFV, an ATGM hit likely results in a period out of use (at best). In terms of raw numbers, we're vulnerable (see the point made by Listy above re. the use of Matilda II in May 1940) and digitisation won't be a panacea.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
But have extended the life of Warrior in a hope that it will gap the procurement disasters and the greater hope that we never have to use it
No, we extended the life of the Warrior because right up until someone had to make some hard budgetary decisions it was fully realised that we needed an MICV.

Trust me: if the Russians had carried on being lively in the Baltics that £2bn would have been found.

We still need an MICV to be credible on the battlefield. We had a workable one that had been upgraded into a very good one and now we don't have one.

Answer me this: the all-arms battle... mutually supporting units... tanks need infantry and vice versa... what are we doing about that? The answer isn't Boxer.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Looks like Rheinmetall have realized the way to an Aussie's heart They have made Ute version of the Lynx, domestically apparently.
Will it have a Dingo in the back?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Will it have a Dingo in the back?
...?
Screenshot 2021-10-21 at 08.55.38.png
...???
Screenshot 2021-10-21 at 08.55.04.png
 

Latest Threads

Top