AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Majorpain

War Hero
Ultimately, 'X' level of protection for 'X' individuals, 'X' level of electrickery/connectivity, covered personal kit (rather than festooning the outside of the vehicle), a big enough powertrain to drag the whole lot around with appropriate sprightliness, climate control, range/external tanks and so on are going to dictate a certain size no matter what.

How that squares up with 'Can you drive it down this country lane/forestry track, or across this bridge/marginal terrain?' I guess has to be seen.

Typical vehicles are definitely over armed these days, one of the Boxers that was being shown off had 2 ATGM, 30mm main, 7.62 Coax, .50 RWS and that doesn't include the 5.56 Rifles, 40mm UGL, 7.62 MG and misc handheld AT weapons that the troops have. Stress test of logistics for that would be interesting.

There is also a interesting trend of fitting an RWS on top of an RWS turret, is that really necessary??!!
 
But 9m long is pretty much half as much again as an M2/3. How the hell do you use that tactically?

The size of modern military vehicles is getting out of hand.
It's probably linked to the desire of the US Army to get the whole of their 9 man Infantry squad into a single vehicle. Unlike the M3 which can only carry 6 small men...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It's probably linked to the desire of the US Army to get the whole of their 9 man Infantry squad into a single vehicle. Unlike the M3 which can only carry 6 small men...
To which the answer was the M113... which was less long than this behemoth is wide (11-15 passengers, incidentally).

The M3 cavalry version only had two blokes in the back. The M2, with six, needed a whole reordering of the ORBAT.

Still just sitting shaking my head. This thing's got a footprint not far off that of a decent-sized semi-detached house.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Eh?

There was a lot of 'Drive up this road until you get killed, then we've found the enemy'.

You've also made the point in posts previous about tanks being used for recce.

Plus, see M3s, whether turreted or not.

Well yes, that’s the whole point, either send something cheap, light and expendable, or send a real tank.

AJAX is neither cheap, light or expendable, or a real tank.
 
Bring back the Ferret , the Saladin and the Sarican .
But wheels provide a taller vehicle, which is something several commentators on here have been slating Ajax for, and using it to show unsuitable it is for recce.
These three were the back bone for our Reconnaissance units well into the 70s even after CVRT/W was on full issue to Regts.
Modern versions of Saladin and Saracen would be a good fit, just as long as they didn’t grow about three times the size!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
More and more, I'm thinking recce needs a rethink.

The air forces of the world are looking at loyal wingmen as solutions for the really horrible stuff.

We're still looking at sending people in harm's way.
 
More and more, I'm thinking recce needs a rethink.

The air forces of the world are looking at loyal wingmen as solutions for the really horrible stuff.

We're still looking at sending people in harm's way.
Perhaps we could use a combination of more capable sensors and ability to host/control UAV/UGVs. That would necessitate a larger vehicle and crew though…
 
More and more, I'm thinking recce needs a rethink.

The air forces of the world are looking at loyal wingmen as solutions for the really horrible stuff.

We're still looking at sending people in harm's way.
Until we can teach a UAV to read ground and understand which way the enemy could come and react to something a human doesn't even know they're reacting to but do because millions of years of evolution and years of training make them go 'WTF is there ?"...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Perhaps we could use a combination of more capable sensors and ability to host/control UAV/UGVs. That would necessitate a larger vehicle and crew though…
Until we can teach a UAV to read ground and understand which way the enemy could come and react to something a human doesn't even know they're reacting to but do because millions of years of evolution and years of training make them go 'WTF is there ?"...
No.

You can't mind-read. We never have been able to and - until something radical changes - nor will we.

Recce, including all the snurgling involved in CTRs, is about getting close enough to see and hear.

We are at the technological stage where the visual and aural capabilities of a human can be provided by something far physically smaller*, and more agile. Others besides - non-visual spectrum, both signature and comms.

If you need persistence, land your drone near somewhere. It can listen, and pick up conversation. It can watch. All the things that CTRs involve.

It's weatherproof. It's as persistent as its power source. It's concealable. It you lose it... sod it, send another. Network several. Accept you'll lose some and saturate.

@incendiarycutlery - bigger vehicle, so what? It's nowhere near harm's way. It rocks up in a locale and spews out a bunch of small drones, terrestrial and airborne. I'd suggest more than one type of big(ger) vehicle, though: those to carry the big, really persistent UAVs, and those to carry the minions.

If - if - we're going to do this cyber thing, then let's do it properly. Let's really challenge what this all can mean, and what we can do with it.

The answer isn't light infantry/Rangers, or Ajax.


*Consider how much smaller an aircraft can be without crew. Consider how much smaller than a human a sensor package can be.
 
Last edited:
There is also a interesting trend of fitting an RWS on top of an RWS turret, is that really necessary??!!

Norway did that when it upgraded its CV90s. I suppose it has its interest in COIN situation, to apply just the right amount of accurate firepower. And those RWS are norwegian made.
Norwegian_army_adding_20_BAE_Systems_CV90s_to_its_fleet.jpg
 
More and more, I'm thinking recce needs a rethink.

The air forces of the world are looking at loyal wingmen as solutions for the really horrible stuff.

We're still looking at sending people in harm's way.

I am with you for high intensity conflicts.

Luckily, they rarely happen to us Westerners and for all the other tactical situations in which recce is necessary, l believe humans cannot be replaced yet.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I am with you for high intensity conflicts.

Luckily, they rarely happen to us Westerners and for all the other tactical situations in which recce is necessary, l believe humans cannot be replaced yet.
I can see where you're coming from. But I'd also counter that what works in high-intensity works lower down the scale.

There's a dilemma, here. The temptation is to let soldiering skills atrophy and for technology to take over. I'm not advocating that. I am though challenging whether something the size of Ajax is the solution for going and taking a look (it isn't - or it shouldn't be).
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
Norway did that when it upgraded its CV90s. I suppose it has its interest in COIN situation, to apply just the right amount of accurate firepower. And those RWS are norwegian made.
And look what the Septics are doing with their Strykers...

1. Add a RWS on top of an already tall vehicle
2. Add a great big f-off turret on top "for recce"
Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg
Stryker-A1-MCWS.jpg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
These are essentially wheeled APCs with a turret on top. The internal volumes for 'systems' must be huge.

Question: how much lower could those vehicles be if you weren't starting with an APC?

If commonality is an issue, how many of the mechanicals of the big-box-on-wheels could you use to make a smaller vehicle and have less of an effect on the logistics train?

The answers are 'quite a bit' and 'quite a few'.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
These are essentially wheeled APCs with a turret on top. The internal volumes for 'systems' must be huge.

Question: how much lower could those vehicles be if you weren't starting with an APC?

If commonality is an issue, how many of the mechanicals of the big-box-on-wheels could you use to make a smaller vehicle and have less of an effect on the logistics train?

The answers are 'quite a bit' and 'quite a few'.

Ground up?

nice and low

E41B053D-2914-4266-BECF-4CE63C1FBA43.jpeg
 
I can see where you're coming from. But I'd also counter that what works in high-intensity works lower down the scale.

There's a dilemma, here. The temptation is to let soldiering skills atrophy and for technology to take over. I'm not advocating that. I am though challenging whether something the size of Ajax is the solution for going and taking a look (it isn't - or it shouldn't be).

The trend towards bigger, heavier, more complicated (thus more prone to breakdowns of one or several expensive component leading to the u/s of the vehicle) is dangerous, especially for AFVs destined to have a short life span in a shooting wars.

When looking at the Syrian army's MBT and AFV losses, l get the feeling expensive recce vehicles in small number is the exact opposite of what is needed.

 
More and more, I'm thinking recce needs a rethink.

I have on other threads suggested that we have something akin to an Ajax as half your troop, the other half is a small, barely armed recce vehicle akin to a Universal carrier or a Wiesel. The big unit provides overwatch, supplies and stand off capabilities. The smaller unit does all the sneaky stuff.
 
Top