AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

45x45

On ROPS
On ROPs
Which begs the next question - how does Boxer fare protection wise if the UK were to consider going wheeled IFV aka following the French model
IED threat or Armour threat? Can't imagine much will be left inside after any AFV after a hit from a T-14 Armatas 120mm smoothbore APFSDS round.

 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Which begs the next question - how does Boxer fare protection wise if the UK were to consider going wheeled IFV aka following the French model

Discussed this with @Cold_Collation in either the CtA or Boxer threads, but from what I gather internal OAs have assessed that using Boxer as an IFV in the Armoured Role would devasting for the user, we still need a heavy tracked IFV
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Discussed this with @Cold_Collation in either the CtA or Boxer threads, but from what I gather internal OAs have assessed that using Boxer as an IFV in the Armoured Role would devasting for the user, we still need a heavy tracked IFV
It does seem that the commander on the ground needs to be able to choose (op by op) from a range of vehicles from pickup through jackal/boxer to Mastiff, Warrior, and ultimately whatever monster replaces Warrior. However I expect units will continue to be formed around platforms and therefore seriously constrained in their tactical functionality.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
It does seem that the commander on the ground needs to be able to choose (op by op) from a range of vehicles from pickup through jackal/boxer to Mastiff, Warrior, and ultimately whatever monster replaces Warrior.
Erm - no.
The commander on the ground needs to quit faffing and get on with it.
His lords and masters need to appreciate there there will never be a perfect solution, and use their best endeavors to avoid purchasing a clusterfuck.
Unsurprisingly the lords and masters have failed miserably.
Commander on the ground needs to PVR sharpish (lest someone decide he's a ranger now). Oh look, (sh)he has.
Army needs to get a grip and go for a reworked CVR(T) Stormer with an elevating mast / tethered drone.
Many moons ago, when it was new, I (we?) looked at CV90 in some depth. It's a better recce option than Warrior (which was the context) and AJAX (it works and, like anything that isn't an AVLB, is smaller). But that's about it.
 

45x45

On ROPS
On ROPs
I would say yes . To take on other AFV's when required . Or when you can't avoid them .
“Coax on Apc in open” would suffice I would say. I have always found with vehicles, by the time we have got them into service the requirements have diminished somewhat. That's why COTS works so well. Use them, when they get knackered, sell them on, then buy something new again.
 
Discussed this with @Cold_Collation in either the CtA or Boxer threads, but from what I gather internal OAs have assessed that using Boxer as an IFV in the Armoured Role would devasting for the user, we still need a heavy tracked IFV

Interesting you say HIFV (which is something I've been banging on about for a while). When you say HIFV, do you envision a Warrior style IFV, with an armoured petticoat to make it a HIFV, or a full fat, MBT sized IFV?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Interesting you say HIFV (which is something I've been banging on about for a while). When you say HIFV, do you envision a Warrior style IFV, with an armoured petticoat to make it a HIFV, or a full fat, MBT sized IFV?

A Warrior that's been hittting the gym and the protein shakes rather than an IFV jacking steroids with the MBT boys
 
A Warrior that's been hittting the gym and the protein shakes rather than an IFV jacking steroids with the MBT boys

See I'd argue that if you're deploying armoured Inf, it'll be with the MBT's, so the same logistic restrictions will apply. And you can do so much more in IFV design if it's one integrated package.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
See I'd argue that if you're deploying armoured Inf, it'll be with the MBT's, so the same logistic restrictions will apply. And you can do so much more in IFV design if it's one integrated package.

I'd argue against the one integrated package, but dictate certain a wide range common sub-assemblies and components that would be used in both platforms
 

Londo

LE
“Coax on Apc in open” would suffice I would say. I have always found with vehicles, by the time we have got them into service the requirements have diminished somewhat. That's why COTS works so well. Use them, when they get knackered, sell them on, then buy something new again.
I would be more than happy for us to keep going with Warrior and 30mm Rarden. For the time being .
Give the turret crew a Javelin launcher and three or four missiles to play with if in a sticky situation .
I've noticed recently that a fair few Scimitars are trundling about on exercise with an NLAW launcher (600Mtr range) strapped to the back of the turret .
If they can have an A/T missile why not the Warrior ?
 
OK so one warrior with the new set up? Or was the whole fleet upgraded?
Only one of the one pictured, which dates back to when they were still modifying the Warrior turret (the sight shrouds are distinctive).
Eight, I think, of this version:
WCSP1.jpg

Nice Boxer pictures but will the new cannon fit and have we ordered any with turrets?
Both images show turrets with the CT40, but we haven’t ordered any. Last I looked we’d only ordered 80 troop carrier versions of the Boxer anyway, the rest are supporting versions like C4I, engineer, ambulance etc.
Ok for the pedants I conceede it doesnt have to be unmanned we could have a crewed turret and 4 dismounts - but Im thinking thats not a compromise anyone really fancies
Boxer CRV (Land 400) carries 6 dismounts with a manned turret, so not dissimilar to Warrior, although it’s that much bigger.
 

Latest Threads

Top