What is it that Ajax is good at? Who has said so? Shiny, fast and technically cool gun for sure. Question is whether it is a useful reconnaissance platform, which we won't know until it's been on proper instrumented exercise or to war.
I doubt that Boxer can replace Warrior - size, protection and XC mobility for a start (tracks beat wheels, end of) and it would be even bigger with a turret.
40mm CTA on WR is folly - and an expensive one. Any stabilized sub 30 mm cannon would do - and there's an argument for just a chain gun. IFVs have no business getting into AFV on AFV combat (outside of an encounter battle - and even then they should be protected by MBT).
More RA firepower - well yes, but remember that it's less useful in operations other than full on war. Smart / autonomous MLRS sub munitions are vital. Logistics of RA are significnant, which means that when you send a shiny strike brigade off to war on it's wheels (presumably with Ajax on transporters) it's going to be there some time without arty. Military history is not kind to scenarios like that.
Which is why it will need AH. But of course AH also comes with a huge logistic burden.
Which is why strike is a flawed concept. Or rather, logistic light strike (which is the cheap version with all the shiny toys but no depth) is bollocks. And we've been here before, when we were looking at the French FAR (Force d'Action Rapide - or, as the French Army called it Faire Avec Rien).
Well, it seems at least someone in the States knows what we want from the Integrated Review.
'The most contentious decision is on the size of the army, which is widely expected to be cut from a notional force of around 82,000 to something closer to 72,000. Even though the Ministry of Defence secured an unexpected £16.5bn spending boost from the Treasury in the autumn, the department is still seeking savings to reduce a £17bn budget black hole and fund better cyber defences and new military capabilities in space.
'US military officials say privately that while they value UK special forces and are impressed by Britain's growing cyber expertise, troop numbers still matter. Washington has traditionally relied on the UK to field a heavy division, which means an army of roughly 100,000 personnel. Michael Shurkin, a security expert at the Rand Corporation, insisted that the US’s historical default to military co-operation with the British is based on a recognition of its quality, rather than troop strength. “It’s not just that we expect the British to show up when we call — we really want the British to show up when we call, because they're good,” he said. However, he made clear that “it becomes a real problem” if suddenly a trusted ally can no longer provide the troop numbers it once could.
'The challenge for ministers is how to present cuts to the army without causing alarm in Washington and NATO Headquarters. “How well it goes down with our allies depends very much on how honest we are about what we’re doing,” said Jack Watling, a land warfare specialist at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank. He argued that if the UK offers to provide attack helicopters, long-range precision rocket artillery and reconnaissance troops to assist other nations, this could help compensate for a reduction in overall personnel. “If we set out a credible roadmap that admits it’s going to be rough for the next decade but by 2030 we will deliver something that is clearly defined, then the US will probably respond positively,” Watling said.'
Subscribe to read | Financial Times