AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

gafkiwi

War Hero
On a semi related topic, the US Army have signed off on their "Mobile Protected Firepower" AFV's with BAE. Designed to provide fire support to Infantry Bde Combat teams. Images look to be a CV90 hull and the article mentions the turret mounting a 105mm gun with auto loader. Will be interesting to see what the hull will be though
and if this has any influence on the CV90 Mk IV option as the Bradley replacement.
BAE Systems receives $375M contract for Mobile Protected Firepower
 
On a semi related topic, the US Army have signed off on their "Mobile Protected Firepower" AFV's with BAE. Designed to provide fire support to Infantry Bde Combat teams. Images look to be a CV90 hull and the article mentions the turret mounting a 105mm gun with auto loader. Will be interesting to see what the hull will be though
and if this has any influence on the CV90 Mk IV option as the Bradley replacement.
BAE Systems receives $375M contract for Mobile Protected Firepower
“Under the contract, one of two awarded ahead of the Government’s down-select to a final contractor, BAE Systems will produce 12 prototype vehicles during the EMD phase”.

So who is the other short listed contractor? General Dynamics with the Ajax platform? They’ve already put a 120mm gun on it so sure it’ll take 105.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
“Under the contract, one of two awarded ahead of the Government’s down-select to a final contractor, BAE Systems will produce 12 prototype vehicles during the EMD phase”.

So who is the other short listed contractor? General Dynamics with the Ajax platform? They’ve already put a 120mm gun on it so sure it’ll take 105.
They mention the GD option in the below article but no detail given. Its been mentioned in a few releases it being the "Griffin" being based off a heavily modified Ajax/ASCOD hull. They are also after the Bradley replacement/NGCV program with the same hull and a 50mm gun. I wonder if Rheinmetall didn't bid for the MPF or didn't make the cut.

New large-caliber MPF combat vehicles will be built at Lima
 
They mention the GD option in the below article but no detail given. Its been mentioned in a few releases it being the "Griffin" being based off a heavily modified Ajax/ASCOD hull. They are also after the Bradley replacement/NGCV program with the same hull and a 50mm gun. I wonder if Rheinmetall didn't bid for the MPF or didn't make the cut.

New large-caliber MPF combat vehicles will be built at Lima
That article uses the word "tank" !!

Will other journalists - and us - be shouted at, if we refer to them as tanks?! ;) .
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
That article uses the word "tank" !!

Will other journalists - and us - be shouted at, if we refer to them as tanks?! ;) .
Could be a sneaky tactic. Call it a tank to try and get "Tank" level funding. Or maybe so politicians don't mistake it for an RPK.
 
Recce by stealth, Normandy 1944:

View attachment 356669
Smart move. Give the longest-range weapon of war* a clear field of view at the front. Either that, or us pipers are so untrustworthy that noone wants us behind them. On the bright side, it's signature equipment, and a wonderfully effective IFF for own forces...

* As I explained on my MoI course: "Highland Pipes - effective individual range 300m, really effective range 5m"
 

NemoIII

Old-Salt
The army hasnt really released any further information on strike since it has been placed as an aspiration.

I wonder if the budget constraint will mean we continue to have a mixed fleet of wheeled and tracked, or if these experimental group realise it's probably not practical.

The two main ways I can see strike being utilised is;
• A Brigade action similar to the French, which requires shipping and driving large distances.
• A Coy/Sqn group flown into a area to provide security to vital areas/protect citizens from a fast moving lightly armed group.

Both of these could be managed with MIV, with AJAX actually being a hiderence. In a scenario were a AJAX would/could be used why not just use CR2, or Warrior?

•Have we bought too many AJAX and trying to justify the number?

•Would a large Brigade of 6 Sqns (Boxer CT40) and 9 Coys (Boxer HMG, GMG and Javelin) supplement the the 3 Armoured Brigades keeping our Heavy armour presence while maintaining a quick mobile force?

•Could it be cost effective in only having 1 Brigade of strike, looking at short interventions. If it looked like in needed a rotation, dual role the Armoured units. Is it feasible to move from Warrior to Boxer in 6 months for enduring operations?
 
The army hasnt really released any further information on strike since it has been placed as an aspiration.

I wonder if the budget constraint will mean we continue to have a mixed fleet of wheeled and tracked, or if these experimental group realise it's probably not practical.
Isn’t Strike supposed to be equipped with (wheeled) MIV?

What vehicle are they going to use for Experimentation (before MIV is ordered)?

The two main ways I can see strike being utilised is;
• A Brigade action similar to the French, which requires shipping and driving large distances.
• A Coy/Sqn group flown into a area to provide security to vital areas/protect citizens from a fast moving lightly armed group.

Both of these could be managed with MIV, with AJAX actually being a hiderence. In a scenario were a AJAX would/could be used why not just use CR2, or Warrior?

•Have we bought too many AJAX and trying to justify the number?
Absolutely agree that Ajax will be a hinderance to Strike

And it’s the same reason why CR2/Warrior can’t do the job.

•Would a large Brigade of 6 Sqns (Boxer CT40) and 9 Coys (Boxer HMG, GMG and Javelin) supplement the the 3 Armoured Brigades keeping our Heavy armour presence while maintaining a quick mobile force?
Problem is both the Armd Inf Bdes and Strike Bdes will be critically short of Inf (only 2 Bns in each).

I would agree that Strike should be completely based on MIV. Some with 40CTA, it will need wheeled SP 155mm and a lot of MRATGWs.

I would favour 2 Bdes.

•Could it be cost effective in only having 1 Brigade of strike, looking at short interventions. If it looked like in needed a rotation, dual role the Armoured units. Is it feasible to move from Warrior to Boxer in 6 months for enduring operations?
Which means you lose the ability to deploy a full Bde at short NTM (as you can’t rotate)
 

NemoIII

Old-Salt
Isn’t Strike supposed to be equipped with (wheeled) MIV?

What vehicle are they going to use for Experimentation (before MIV is ordered)?
Yeah wheeled MIV, I'm not sure but from what I heard they've been using Warrior/CVRT/Mastiff.

I'm no longer Cavarly so not in the know.

I would agree that Strike should be completely based on MIV. Some with 40CTA, it will need wheeled SP 155mm and a lot of MRATGWs.
Feels like we have bought too many AJAX and it's being used like this too justify it.

I wonder how much it would cost to Scrap Warrior Upgrade and use the money for a AJAX IFV. Pull out all the sensors and other equipment not needed and more seats in, the thing is massive I'm sure we can get enough seats in it.

Left over hulls from warrior to replace 432 in Armoured Brigades.
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Had to come back a day early so couldn't make DSEI but I'll tell you this...

**** digging that monster in!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Had to come back a day early so couldn't make DSEI but I'll tell you this...

**** digging that monster in!
...another part of reconnaissance by stealth that probably received scant consideration.

Still, I'm sure the Sapper's Terrier will be readily at hand.

*rolls eyes
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Feels like we have bought too many AJAX and it's being used like this to justify it.
AJAX was a ‘just get something ordered so we can show results’ purchase having buggered about with FRES for so long.

There’s a wheeled solution already in the pipeline if 40mm CTA is desired - the French EBRC Jaguar. The question is whether running another fleet besides Boxer would be more costly then integrating with Boxer. Both the Lithuanians and Australians have gone with a 30mm solution. Sense says to me to take the 40mm CTA across into our Boxer and not hamper STRIKE with a slower tracked element. But...£££s.

Ultimately, if we’d not kept chopping and changing we wouldn’t be in the bugger’s muddle we are now and having to justify or re-use knee-jerk or UOR/theatre-specific purchases.
 
Had to come back a day early so couldn't make DSEI but I'll tell you this...

**** digging that monster in!
you do that by hand? i always though you just did doughnuts until it buried itself. you're missing a trick there
 

MrBane

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Reviews Editor
...another part of reconnaissance by stealth that probably received scant consideration.

Still, I'm sure the Sapper's Terrier will be readily at hand.

*rolls eyes
Even though it was (if not time consuming) one of the most effective tactics ever. The Recce role and specifically CVR(T) doctrine was to dig in thus negating thermal, etc, then wait, watch and report up. Doesn't matter if you were spotted, as long as you got the message back that the 3rd Shock were moving on the NAAFI.

I don't recall ever digging in properly during my.time because they couldn't be fucked with the hassle, it was already going out of fashion.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Even though it was (if not time consuming) one of the most effective tactics ever. The Recce role and specifically CVR(T) doctrine was to dig in thus negating thermal, etc, then wait, watch and report up. Doesn't matter if you were spotted, as long as you got the message back that the 3rd Shock were moving on the NAAFI.

I don't recall ever digging in properly during my.time because they couldn't be fucked with the hassle, it was already going out of fashion.
The question there being what was achieved by having the sensor elements mounted on a vehicle? If being in-position and dying a glorious, if communicative and informative, death was the plan, why not just two-three guys in a hide?
 

Latest Threads

Top