UK's Ajax fighting vehicle arrives – years late and still sending crew to hospital The British Army just received its first new armored fighting vehicle (AFV) for nearly three decades, but it is years late, hit by rising costs, is still reportedly injuring its crew, and there are questions about whether it remains relevant in the age of drone warfare. Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD) has finally declared …
"There are also questions about whether vehicles such as Ajax are vulnerable to drone attacks, of the kind seen against tanks in Ukraine's battles against Russia's invasion. "
Nah, I don't think there are any questions. We know.that drones can destroy T-90M Russian tanks. An AFV will be a doddle. They could glue some metal spikes on it?
Pen-y-gors,
It's a bit more complicated than that. Much of the footage of FPV drones taking out tanks, is an emtpy tank with the lid open - that was already immobilised by an anti-tank missile, a mine or a mechanical failure. Ajax is pretty heavily armoured, if not as much as a tank - so it's not an easy mark. And a £500 drone dropping a grenade on it, is unlikely to take it out - if it's crewed and operational. It's also got a 40mm autocannon - so it might have something to say about any drone approaching it.
But the other point is that drones change everything - while at the same time changing nothing. I doubt that drones make any weapons system obsolete, except other less good drones (as the general level improves). In the same way that drones don't make tanks obsolete and tanks didn't make infantry obsolete and artillery doesn't make everything obsolete.
In order to operate effectively in a drone environment, you're going to need to do lots of stuff to sanitise an area - so that you can build up your forces to hold terrain or take terrain. That's going to be a combination of electronic warfare, anti-drone weapons, and suppression attacks on the enemy (to keep their drone operators busy / dead / hiding in bunkers). But this was already true with the advent of aeroplanes (which also didn't make tanks obsolete) - there's just more drones than planes, but the upside is they're easier to kill.
And what will you need to kill drones? Why complicated high-power electronics, and computer controlled guns. And how will you carry those weapons into battle? Why vehicles with big engines, to power them. And what when you're attacked by artillery? Well, you'll need to armour those vehicles, in order to make them survivable. And what does that give you? Tanks and AFVs. But with additional roles, and extra kit.
A new counter to an existing weapon doesn't make the existing weapon obsolete. A better alternative weapon to do the same job, is what makes the old weapon obsolete.
The machinegun didn't make cavalry obsolete - although it did mean you couldn't charge infantry - but then that's been true at various points in military history. But the British cavalry in WWI was still massively important in the defensive battles of movement in 1914 - kept (though mostly used as infantry) as the only force able to move quickly and exploit opportunities - until 1918 when mobile warfare returned to the Western Front - and then extremely effective again. Basically because the fastest tank available did 7mph, and would break down after a few hours of use - and armoured cars were only a bit better (and more reliable). What did for the poor horsey, was better and more reliable vehicles. Although special forces were using horses in Afghanistan ten years ago, because they were the best means of getting about and cavalry even had its uses in WWII (the several Russian cavalry corps were incredibly important for their mobility and ease of supply).
If you are using a drone that is *capable* of destroing a tank, that is, one that is capable of carrying enough explosives to actually destroy the tank, and is actually carrying that much explosive, and is capable of doing so despite the countermeasure (jamming/aaa etc.), and you use that drone to destroy an infantry transport vehicle, then you're actually losing the battle.
Is like using a missile to kill a fly. Maybe the fly die, but you're wasting your resources, and those are limited.
Ukraine would disagree with you there. They chewed through Russia's tanks using just this, exploiting armour weak points by strapping old warheads to them.
Would you like to provide a decent source to back that up? As I said in my post, many of the shots you see of that online are of stationary tanks with no crew. i.e. they were already out of combat, but to stop them being reoccupied (or towed off and repaired) local units would send a drone to finish them off.
I doubt there are publicly available figures for what weapons systems are the biggest killers in Ukraine. In WWII it was artillery, then anti-tank guns, then mines, then tanks - at least for the Western allies. Airpower destroyed a lot more German (and Soviet) tanks. The drone war in Ukraine is also changing rapidly. In the first year of the war, the drones were mostly too small to take out tanks if the hatch wasn't open. That's changed, as drones have got bigger and more sophisticated. But I'd expect artillery and mines to still be the biggest killer. Especially for Ukraine, whose army started the war lacking lots of the enablers, like mine clearing and combat engineering assets.
Also how Russia and Ukraine fight isn't how NATO would fight. Some of the things that are happening in this war, are because neither side have the resources they need to do stuff. So are having to bodge things together on-the-fly. That's always true in war. The drone thing didn't start in Ukraine, that's just where it's come to public attention. So this isn't a surprise to anybody. ISIS were getting pretty creative with drones, ten years ago - and the second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020 had extensive use of drones by Azerbaijan - which completely screwed the Armenians. Quite a few NATO armies have been talking and worrying about drones for quite a while now. Although it's one thing being prepared, it's another to have enough kit to deal with peer-level high-intensity warfare on large scale.
many of the shots you see of that online are of stationary tanks with no crew. i.e. they were already out of combat, but to stop them being reoccupied (or towed off and repaired) local units would send a drone to finish them off.
There's drone survivorship and clickbait bias here. The most 'interesting' footage we see is indeed 'hand-grenade dropped into open hatch' type you mention. But the threat to active tanks with hatches closed, and even moving, are FPV drones carrying RPGs with shaped charges. We rarely see the result of those besides a black screen indicating the drone itself was destroyed. The reason drones are a threat is the greater precision for hitting vulnerable points, even compared to advanced anti-tank missiles.
However we're usually talking older Russian tanks which have more catastrophic weak points. The practice of hardening a tank against a precision missile should help with drones also. Indeed, we see reports of modern Western tanks taking numerous 'attempted precision' FPV drone hits, and also crews surviving even when ammunition does cook off. Hard to know how statistically significant those are of course.
Either way your main point is absolutely valid. Not every asset on the battlefield can protect itself from every threat, nor does it get consigned to the history books if it doesn't. I think we can see a trajectory favouring dedicated anti-drone weapons because the drone density seen in Ukraine necessitates minimising cost per drone-counter. Expensive single-use interceptor pods on armour should be a last line of defence.
Meanwhile air-burst rounds even from the very capable Ajax auto-cannon - which apparently has a maximum elevation of 85 degrees specifically to counter air threats - may well be too ineffective to be worth the displacement of other ammunition. Those things are downright scary on the battlefield. If I were a soldier on the other side nothing would make me happier than to see it pointing at shadows in the sky while I ran away from it.
There's drone survivorship and clickbait bias here. The most 'interesting' footage we see is indeed 'hand-grenade dropped into open hatch' type you mention. But the threat to active tanks with hatches closed, and even moving, are FPV drones carrying RPGs with shaped charges. We rarely see the result of those besides a black screen indicating the drone itself was destroyed. The reason drones are a threat is the greater precision for hitting vulnerable points, even compared to advanced anti-tank missiles.
There can also be creative editing. So video of FPV drone hitting a vehicle and then claim that hit=destroyed. So as an example, this one-
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/51129
A video published on Telegram Sunday reportedly shows a Ukrainian drone destroying a Russian T-80BVM tank.
Which doesn't show a destroyed tank, but does show an FPV drone flying through a building to try and destroy it. Or-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UstsGR1XPtg
Which shows Ukrainian drones hitting a Russian armored column, including a 'turtle tank'. It took a lot of drones, but eventually destroyed it. Or-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id48aVBj9Ak
With Russian drones destroying a Leopard tank.
Anyone who thinks this isn't happening hasn't been keeping up with the conflict. But another change is the way attacks are being co-ordinated, so often there are ISR drones monitoring the attacks and showing one or more FPV or Lancet-style drones. And like you say, FPV drones are commonly shown hunting for weak spots.
However we're usually talking older Russian tanks which have more catastrophic weak points. The practice of hardening a tank against a precision missile should help with drones also. Indeed, we see reports of modern Western tanks taking numerous 'attempted precision' FPV drone hits, and also crews surviving even when ammunition does cook off. Hard to know how statistically significant those are of course.
Pretty much all the modern Western tanks have also been destroyed by drones.. Eventually. Sometimes via a mobility kill and the crew manages to bail, then a grenade dropping drone might complete the destruction. Or hunt the crew. Or people will probably argue that Western tanks stronk! and that Ukraine hasn't been given the latest models, which might be true, or will just mean more drones or drones with bigger payloads. But IFVs aren't as well armored as MBTs..
Meanwhile air-burst rounds even from the very capable Ajax auto-cannon - which apparently has a maximum elevation of 85 degrees specifically to counter air threats - may well be too ineffective to be worth the displacement of other ammunition.
Also where tactics pose a threat. So great, elevation of +85. Snag is FPV drone videos often show them coming in very low, or loitering beside roads ready to pop up and attack. So then whether main guns or active protection systems like Israel's Trophy can depress low enough to hit them. Then also if it'll be like ERA and have enough 'shots' to deal with multiple drones.
at the moment. BUT THAT IS CHANGING
There are Ukranian Officers in the UK helping them re-write their attack plans when Putin invades Poland. That is common knowledge. I'm sure that there are other advisers in Germany, Poland and other nations. I regularly see Ukrainian registered cars going into Sandhurst Military Academy.
The war in Ukraine will re-write the war plans of Nato (if it hasn't done so already).
Electronic Counter Measures against Drones are in service right now. Some of the engineers working in Ukraine are very reminiscent of those in the UK during WW2. Work with what you have and make something new and better than before. The Sherman-Firefly tank was one of those.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Much of the footage of FPV drones taking out tanks, is an emtpy tank with the lid open - that was already immobilised by an anti-tank missile, a mine or a mechanical failure. Ajax is pretty heavily armoured, if not as much as a tank - so it's not an easy mark. And a £500 drone dropping a grenade on it, is unlikely to take it out - if it's crewed and operational.
Much of the footage is of drones taking out tanks and AFVs. Those might be purpose built anti-tank drones like Lancets with <5kg warheads, or drones armed with RPG warheads, other shaped charges, or even dropping anti-tank mines. Then if a vehicle is disabled and the crew manage to bail out, cheap grenade dropping drones can get used to destroy the vehicle & prevent recovery.
It's also got a 40mm autocannon - so it might have something to say about any drone approaching it.
Except for the lack of airburst ammunition.. Or perhaps more suprisingly, the lack of the Protector RWS (Remote Weapon Station) in the image used in this article. Having that with the XM307 25mm grenade launcher, or even just an automatic shotgun would seem to give it better protection against drones. But then having an RWS or even just a turret makes adding 'cope cages' a whole lot harder. Plus providing sensor coverage, and allowing fast crew egress, if the vehicle is hit.
That's going to be a combination of electronic warfare, anti-drone weapons, and suppression attacks on the enemy (to keep their drone operators busy / dead / hiding in bunkers).
That's already happening and evolving rapidly over the last few years. EW has been countered by fibre optic drones, anti-drone weapons have been developed. Suppression might get more politcally sensitive given drone operators haven't been hiding in bunkers, they've often been hiding in residential buildings. War crimes, or claims of war crimes and all that.
A new counter to an existing weapon doesn't make the existing weapon obsolete. A better alternative weapon to do the same job, is what makes the old weapon obsolete.
I think it's starting to, or at least challenging existing mechanised warfare doctrine. AFVs just aren't surviving very long on the battlefield, so aren't being used as much. There was an attempt by Russia around the Pokvrosk cauldron using 4 or 5 APCs, and all were destroyed. It wasn't clear if that was before or after unloading troops, and other examples of wrecked vehicles from Ukraine's attempts to reinforce/resupply/evacuate.
I was just going to point out that the Ukranians have found the Bradley to be the absolute dog's bollocks on a modern battlefield, despite it being theoretically obsolescent.
It also has an additional trick up its sleeve. The computer guided, 25mm, Bushmaster AP cannon is so accurate and rapid that it can easily hit the same point on another vehicle multiple times in succession. The first couple of hits knock out any reactive armour and then......! It helps here that large vehicles clad in reactive armour and plating (tanks) are to a Bradley as a spavined hippo is to a cheetah. As a result it's proven highly effective at knocking out vehicles that are, in theory, suicidal to attack.
The army doesn't joke about kitchen equipment. A vehicle project I worked on had gone so much overweight because of MoD additons that we came to a point where the army were seriously discussing whether the Bowman radio or the boiling vessel (a big kettle for making tea) should be ditched. In the end they paid for uprated suspension and dropped the top speed, but if it had come to it I suspect they'd have ditched the radio.
You can't operate a military unit without tea! What are you??? Some kind of barbarian!!!
On a serious note, a large number of the casualties in armoured units during WWII, happened when the crews dismounted to make a brew or have some food. Or less important stuff, like doing maintenance or having meetings to plan the next attack. Hence you can make your tea and your dinner inside a British IFV. I believe you can also do the track tensioning without having to get out as well, for exactly the same reasons.
Most casualties (and most vehicle losses) were due to artillery, not due to the other sides' tanks.
Big Joe: We've got enough troubles of our own. To the right General Patton, to the left the British Army, to the rear our own goddamn artillery, and besides all that it's raining. And the only good thing to say about the weather: it keeps our air corps from blowing us all to Hell because its too lousy to fly, versteh!
But not historically informative. The English traditionally drank beer. They only really moved to tea during the hungry years when the English population grew faster than the English food supply, and people couldn't afford beer.. The upper classes were irritated of course: tea was a rich woman's drink, these poor people were aping their betters.
There's nothing new about this. Partly it's to do with pork barrel politics e.g. we want at least x% UK content in the vehicle, but mostly it's because MOD insist on the unit being 100% in line with existing MOD standards despite them often being obsolete or not applicable to the new installation.
Posting anonymously because I have more than a little skin in this game.
The original batch of AJAX were virtually unusable. In some cases one side of the vehicle was 25mm longer than the other side. Bolt holes were in different places on individual vehicles and standard components didn't fit how they were supposed to. The noise and vibration were so bad that the crew suffered hearing damage and the vibration was so bad that the gun couldn't be aimed properly and the gun aimer was suffering blurred vision.
Some of the 1,200 changes are fairly trivial but a goodly number have required extensive re-design of components and / or integration of non-standard components into the vehicle.
The dodgy chassis were re-worked back into specification at considerable cost and the latest ones are at least straight and square, but there are still numerous noise and vibration issues.
The people who maintain these things are one of my customers. There are also numerous maintenance issues.
They appear to have solved the noise problem by equipping the crew with noise cancelling headphones and earplugs.
It's yet another piece of Murrikan built shit design specs by committee and procurement processes that were out of date before they were signed off.
That's because there never was a real noise problem, and the MoD quietly stopped complaining when after much testing at Millbrook all the other in-service vehicles were found to be worse!
Army vehicles have always been loud places. As the first new vehicle in service in decades, it probably seemed like a great idea to insist it met the most modern Elf & Safety requirements. But this was never realistic, and if the Army had accepted that earlier rather than - aha - sticking to their guns, then we wouldn't be constantly flooded with people insisting it's a death trap rather than listening to the people using it. Who are, modulo the traditional soldierly whinging, happy.
AC for knowing more than the press releases hint at.
mass production of heavy vehicles (I'm not talking about their systems or weapons) is something that was pretty well ironed out 50-100 years ago.
This isn't mass production. It's a specialist factory, building 600 units (of 6 different models) over a 4 year period. You'd hope it's better than hand built, but one of the problems of defence economics is that if you've not got a steady pipeline of orders, there's no point in investing in the machinery to make stuff cheaper. And then because it's so expensive, you don't get any more orders...
This is one of those areas where to be successful governments either need a long-term industrial strategy, or to bite the bullet and buy all their weapons abroad - and take the best/cheapest/quickest off-the-shelf option, as needed.
As an exmple, Type 26. We promised the voters in Scotland that we were buying 13 ships. To replace the 13 Type 23. Decided to keep the (general purpose)GP/ASW split at 5/8 - so ended up building 5 Type 31 and 8 Type 26. Ordered all 5 Type 31 on a fixed-price contract. All good. Babcock are making a small loss, but they've managed to build a working shipyard with the money, and got export orders, with hopes of more sales to Denmark and/or Sweden. Plus we need more ships, and are short of yard capacity - they're sorted.
What's not-so-good is how we only ordered the first 3 of Type 26. We ordered the final 5 a few years back - so there was absolutely no point in not giving that order. We needed the ships, we were going to buy teh ships, we bought the ships. But by not ordering them all together we didn't give BAE the reason to build their "frigate factory" - all indooor shipbuilding and ship-fitting. An investment they would probably otherwise have made. HMS Glasgow had to be delayed for months while they rectified bad welds that had been damaged by being done outdoors. It's probably added a few tens of millions of quid to the cost of each of the first 3 ships, delayed their building (so we had to expensively life-extend some Type 23s) and now means that we're going to have to give up a much-needed ship to Norway in order to fulfill a lovely export order to them in a timely manner. Even without spending a penny extra, we could have had HMS Glasgow at least on trials by now, and the second ship pretty much ready to join the fleet simultaneously with the first-in-class trials finishing. And both would have been a few quid cheaper. And that would have saved us at least one £50-£100m Life-Ex of a Type 23. Plus Norway and us would both have top-drawer ASW ships in the water years earlier, to defend our underwater infrastructure from Russian tomfoolery.
Also we've got to replace our amphibious warships (Bay class, Argus etc.), stores replenishment ships (only finally ordered last year with the old ships falling apart), Batch 1 River OPVs all within the next 5 years (ideally should have all been ordered a few years ago), and then in the next ten years we've got to replace Type 45 with something new, build/buy some mine/undersea warfare drone-boat motherships plus finishing the 5 Type 31, 8 Type 26, 5 Norwegian Type 26 and watever Denmark and Sweden buy. Oh, and the handful of autonomous ASW boats, that have to be big enough to sail the North Atlantic and whatever arsenal ship we build to partner the new air defence destroyer. To be fair the last government started building up yard capacity a little ten years ago, but it takes ages - and now we're at a crunch where I suspect we'd like to expand the Navy a bit, but don't have the yard capacity to do so.
Having not ordered a large AFV for 3 decades, we had to build capacity. Hence Challenger 3 is a re-furb of Chally 2 with a new turret (partnering with Germany), Boxer is another partnership with Germany for heavy wheeled infantry vehicles and some specialist stuff (mortars, self-propelled artillery, air defence etc) and Ajax was a US partnership to avoid BAE, who're involved in the other two.
There's nothing new about this. Partly it's to do with pork barrel politics e.g. we want at least x% UK content in the vehicle, but mostly it's because MOD insist on the unit being 100% in line with existing MOD standards despite them often being obsolete or not applicable to the new installation.
Does anybody with relevant experience have any ideas how to break the MoD Shit Project Cycle? Every single f***ing time they order something new, MSPC kicks in and it turns out late, over-budget, and all too often a very poor outcome, and all too often makes us wholly reliant on the US yet without any "off the shelf" benefits. Lessons are never learned in the MoD organisation, and there's just shy of 60,000 civilians achieving these repeatedly and spectacularly wasteful fiascos.
My uninformed view would be to dismiss all MoD civil servants, provide the Chief of Staffs committee with the entire defence budget and have them make all the decisions, and have military personnel do all of the essential planning, spec, design and project oversight. That way, at least if the kit is late, dysfunctional, unreliable or otherwise of poor quality they'll only have themselves to blame, and in the event of war we'd be able to reassign a fair few military personnel from the planning and procurement functions to proper duties. As things are, in the event of war, I can't see any MoD civil servants being suitable for the front line other than processed into field rations.
Speaking as someone who hasn't a clue..... What if you said to your potential suppliers - Guys you are the experts...we want a thingie that has these broad capabilities, that has a mtbf of x hours, is easy to maintain in the field etc. We wish to pay £ Z,000 per unit and we want #y units by (choose a date). What can you provide?
By the way the contract will be at a fixed price. You write the spec with our oversight.
The man with the spanner,
Then the various different bits of the army won't get the stuff they want. And will be sad. And then add that stuff to the spec anyway. Although it would be a better idea to do it that way, at least some of the time.
That's how they ordered the Type 31 frigate. It's a bit behind schedule, and it looks like Babcock expect to lose £60-£90m on a billion pound contract, for 5. That's a brilliaint piece of purchasing though. They were really on-the-ball. They wanted lots of short range guns to deal with the drone threat (ordered in 2019 - so specc'ed over a decade ago) - and it's going into trials this year, so a bit over a year late from a new shipyard.
It's also a con. It's deeply under-armed. But what the Treasury didn't know, couldn't hurt them. And it was built with space, and controls / wiring, for the needed extra weapons to be fitted later. So they could decide nearer the time what they'd want, and as soon as it's done trials it's off for capability insertion, where they add the missing Mk41 VLS cells. The software is already done from other ships. Which meant the Navy got a well-built ship for well under £200m each - and now they've got a bit more budget, they can put the shiny toys on it they want. Sneaky!
"...the situational awareness granted to a driver..." is bound to be highly dependent on those many glass bits all over the top. While fpv drones might well be ineffective against the Ajax' armour, how many of them can it keep away from its sensors simultaneously?
Once blinded it's as useless as an oil drum, surely?
In theory, yes.
But how many drones does it take to achieve this?
Images from Ukraine show that drone strikes can be very precise, but also show that a lot are not.
So you need to hit most or all of the sensors, possibly multiple times if replacement vision blocks, cameras or whatever are held on board.
And you need to do this in the face of whatever defence the vehicle has, both in its own right ('cope cages' have already been mentioned, on board jammers, smoke dischargers blinding the drone at the last minute so that it doesn't have the precision it needs) and from surrounding units: Infantry with combat shotguns, other jammers, potentially land-based DragonFire or similar direct energy weapons, anti-drone missiles and anti-drone drones, etc.
On top of that, you have to locate the vehicle in the first place - you might find and attack it with one drone, but by the time the follow up swarm arrives, the vehicle has moved and been camouflaged.
Plus, while their is currently no plan to purchase the air-burst ammo, that doesn't mean that it won't be procured. I suspect the decision on the types of ammo to be obtained was made years back, before the emergence of the drone threat. If the vehicle were to be deployed to a drone-infested battlefield, I would not be surprised if the air-burst ammo was obtained through an urgent operational requirement (which is the one bit of UK defence procurement that does seem to work effectively).
So yes, it could happen occasionally, but in practice, probably not an issue to worry excessively over..
Infantry with combat shotguns, other jammers, potentially land-based DragonFire or similar direct energy weapons, anti-drone missiles and anti-drone drones, etc.
That's kind of a known problem, ie tanks trying to operate without infantry screens are very vulnerable. Except the infantry might be inside the APCs, which are also vulnerable. So then do we need infantry jogging alongside tanks and APCs, shotguns at the ready? Or as seen in Ukraine, modern cavalry/hussars on motorbikes.
On top of that, you have to locate the vehicle in the first place - you might find and attack it with one drone, but by the time the follow up swarm arrives, the vehicle has moved and been camouflaged.
Finding vehicles can be easy. So Ukraine again, especially as it's mud season. If your ISR drones can't see a large vehicle moving, perhaps it can just see the tracks left in the mud. The larger/heavier the vehicle, the more obvious the sign.
Also an interesting bit of drone-related news-
https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/11/10/nabu-energoatom-corruption-raids-mindich/
The investigation, dubbed Operation Midas, targeted businessman Timur Mindich, co-owner of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's former comedy studio Kvartal 95, along with Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, who previously served as energy minister, and several Energoatom executives, according to Ukrainian outlet NV.
MP Yaroslav Zhelezniak said Mindich left Ukraine hours before NABU officers arrived and "will be hiding in Israel and Austria," Interfax Ukraine reported.
Mindich also owns (or soon to be owned?) Fire Point, who were bunged $1bn+ to produce drones, including a new factory in the UK, which we probably paid for and can now maybe seize.. Wonder who tipped off Zelensky's mate so he could flee?
That's kind of a known problem, ie tanks trying to operate without infantry screens are very vulnerable. Except the infantry might be inside the APCs, which are also vulnerable. So then do we need infantry jogging alongside tanks and APCs, shotguns at the ready?
Or they'll operate inside a defensive drone swarm. Which protects them on the move. Or they'll have drone defence vehicles, such as Stormer (or the new version that's being built based on Boxer), or something with a Skyranger turret on it. I don't know if laser weapons are low power enough for anything other than fixed emplacements, aircraft or ships yet?
The British army have already deployed an anti-drone sight on at least some infantry weapons. It calculates the necessary lead for whatever speed the drone is doing, to allow you to shoot it down. Which is going to be effective at much longer ranges than a shotgun.
Drones are relatively cheap, and evolving fast. But lots of the tech to deal with them also already exists. It's just been implemented in much more expensive kit, to deal with aircraft and missiles. So "all" that needs to happen is to scale some of that tech down a bit, and get it deployed. Or in the case of things like radar controlled guns, bring the tech back that we'd stopped using, because we had better stuff for dealing with planes, or had cut the budgets. The Germans had the Gepard back in the Cold War, and look to be replacing it with Skyranger on Boxer.
Also tanks are starting to get Trophy. An Israeli anti-missile system for defending tanks from ATGMs. Clearly, when ordering that, it should also have been ordered for things like Ajax - I'm sure it'll get retro-fitted eventually. Once you've given your tank a mini surface to air missile, how long can it be until you've increased the ammo supply and made it anti-drone?
Or they'll operate inside a defensive drone swarm. Which protects them on the move. Or they'll have drone defence vehicles, such as Stormer (or the new version that's being built based on Boxer), or something with a Skyranger turret on it. I don't know if laser weapons are low power enough for anything other than fixed emplacements, aircraft or ships yet?
That might be the incredible shrinking battlespace. So previously it was gaining air superiority so CAS aircraft could operate without being shot down & help screen AFVs. Now that might be shrinking to trying to gain drone superiority before vehicles can move. And kind of the split between offence and defence, and naming confusion. So Ajax is supposed to be a recce vehicle, which used to mean sneaky. Which the size comparison between Ajax and Scimitar shows a potential issue.. Or Ajax v Wiesel, which was an evil German recce vehicle that used to embarrass other NATO armies. Teeny scout with TOW, Spike or just 20mm cannnon that proved painful when it popped up in your rear.
But recce vehicles aren't really intended for defence, but offence. So they'd be operating inside the enemies defensive drone swarm. Who might then notice incoming drones signalling incoming scouts, which would get even easier if the scout had to have its own escorts like Stormer. Some of those were donated to Ukraine and promptly eliminated by Lancets. But also why it seems a bit odd, if Ajax has had its RWS removed, but then Ajax was reportedly overweight and RWS are heavy.. Which also means DEW is probably off the table.
The British army have already deployed an anti-drone sight on at least some infantry weapons. It calculates the necessary lead for whatever speed the drone is doing, to allow you to shoot it down. Which is going to be effective at much longer ranges than a shotgun.
That might be technofetishism. Sure, infantry optics are getting smarter, but infantry needs to be able to detect the drone before they can enage it, which is challenging in urban environments, or even wooded areas. Plenty of videos showing drones weaving through buildings and trees. So engagements often at close range, and a good'ol Benelli M4 loaded with #4 buckshot might be more effective. 25x5.56(ish) per shell is pretty much the equivalent of a soldier mag dumping on a drone with a rifle. Especially when a fancy sight could be fitted to the shotgun. Or we just teach infantry clay or skeet shooting. But also one of those current event things, ie both Russia and Ukraine typically using shotguns because they work, and training is cheap.
Also tanks are starting to get Trophy. An Israeli anti-missile system for defending tanks from ATGMs. Clearly, when ordering that, it should also have been ordered for things like Ajax - I'm sure it'll get retro-fitted eventually. Once you've given your tank a mini surface to air missile, how long can it be until you've increased the ammo supply and made it anti-drone?
Trophy would probably work against drones now. Problem is AFAIK that isn't a mini-missile, just detonates a shaped charge to make an EFP in the general direction of the incoming object. Which means close range, and a limited number of uses. Plus integrating that, so whether Ajax has existing AESA for its own systems, and again how that would work if 'cope cages' are fitted.. And then similar problems to defending ships. Like they have say, 48 anti-air missiles, so just launch 50 missiles or drones.. And if you look at videos coming from Ukraine, there doesn't seem to be much of a shortage of drones.
"Some of those were donated to Ukraine and promptly eliminated by Lancets."
Nope. 6 reportedly donated, with the announcement in April 2022. Unlike some other allies, UK donations tend to be prompt after the delivery - the vehicles were reported in the field by July 2022.
Confirmed damage to three Stormer systems in March 23, May 23 and July 23, so half the systems were damaged or destroyed over a year after being supplied (with the confirmed strikes spread over a four month period), therefore not 'promptly eliminated'.
Also, I'm pretty sure I saw time stamped (and datable from weather and anti-drone measures) video of a Stormer still active with Ukraine this summer, suggesting at least one is still doing its job.
Also, DEW are most likely on the table - the US has field deployed trials versions of laser weapons for a few years (for example DE M-SHORAD). The US are using Stryker, so the first British vehicles to get something similar will likely be Boxer, but the technology is now viable, and if there is the demand to get it into the field, that will push it along the path of maturity, making smaller/lighter/cheaper.
Confirmed damage to three Stormer systems in March 23, May 23 and July 23, so half the systems were damaged or destroyed over a year after being supplied (with the confirmed strikes spread over a four month period), therefore not 'promptly eliminated'.
So that's 'some', right? Also promptly given lag between delivery, training and deployment is pretty prompt. But they're vulnerable, actively hunted and like any missile-based anti-drone solution, vulnerable to drone swarms.
Also, I'm pretty sure I saw time stamped (and datable from weather and anti-drone measures) video of a Stormer still active with Ukraine this summer, suggesting at least one is still doing its job.
Define 'job'. If that's to provide a screen to frontline AFVs, then they may not be due to their vulnerability. I think the surviving ones are deployed in defending cities
the US has field deployed trials versions of laser weapons for a few years (for example DE M-SHORAD). The US are using Stryker, so the first British vehicles to get something similar will likely be Boxer, but the technology is now viable,
Let's wait and see. There's no getting around the physics problem of generating & storing the 'E' in a DEW. Plus other practical challenges. Like today in Ukraine started foggy, so drones weren't as effective and both sides have used the weather to move troops around. Technology might mean drones can better deal with bad weather, but DEW like laser or microwave would still be heavily attenuated by fog.
You posted that "some of those were donated to Ukraine and promptly eliminated by Lancets", not that some were supplied and some of those that were supplied were eliminated, so in this case, no, that's not the same 'some' as you originally used.
Delivery into the field in July 2022, after training was undertaken outside of Ukraine (because that's how it's been done) means that at least half of the supplied vehicles were operationally for well in excess of 300 days during the 3-day SMO.
But then, since we are now on day 1,356 of the 3 day SMO, taking more than a year to damage 3 out of 6 systems probably does seem 'prompt' to the Russians and their supporters.
But then, since we are now on day 1,356 of the 3 day SMO, taking more than a year to damage 3 out of 6 systems probably does seem 'prompt' to the Russians and their supporters.
The '3 day SMO' meme came mostly from General Milley, not Russia. But that's been normal for propaganda in this conflict. Invent a claim, then claim Russia has failed to meet it. Or just our own claims, like Ursula and her washing machines, shovels, shclock and awe sanctions leaving Russia's economy in tatters, being out of missiles & ammunition etc. Oh, and pointing out corrupion was 'baseless Russian propaganda', except now NABU's confirmed it. Along with perhaps some context behind Zelenskys attempt to reign in NABU's investigatory power, and surveillance recordings made at the birthday party last year that Mindich hosted for the WLB. But now that's out in open, it makes it just that much trickier for the EU to hand over the 140bn.. and by 'tricky', I mean outright illegal under our own anti-corruption laws.
But the Ajax stuff is pretty easy to test. Send 10 to Ukraine, see how they perform. They've already demanded we do this.
@Jellied Eel said: So Ajax is supposed to be a recce vehicle, which used to mean sneaky.
No, there's two types of recce. One is "sneaky", but a lot of that work will be done by drones now.
The other is medium forces which are supposed to operate in a dispersed manner ahead of and around the main heavy forces to seize strategic points which the main forces rapidly follow up on. In British army terminology this comes under "recce", while in the US they are calling it "cavalry". It's the same basic concept however.
The point is to avoid excessive concentration of forces which can be readily found and attacked by smart weapons such as missiles, and now drones. The need for this was foreseen years ago, and is one of the reasons that Ajax was developed.
One of the things needed for the idea to work is some sort of direct fire weapon without having to take along a full sized tank. This is the reason that the 40mm CTA gun used in Ajax was jointly developed with the French (who, along with the Belgians, are also using this gun).
The Americans were involved in the early days of this gun as well, and so it was designed to drop into the same space as the 25mm gun in the Bradley vehicle to give it an equivalent upgrade. This was tested, and it fit as planned. However, the Americans had their usual fit of "NIH" plus "make bigger" and decided they wanted a 50mm gun based on an upscaled version of their 25mm gun. This ended up being so huge that it had no hope of fitting in the Bradley so now they are developing a whole new and bigger vehicle to carry it. The American experience with this has made the British Ajax look like a model of respectability.
So, there's a reason for all this. The Ajax project could have been better managed, but part of the problem had to do with a political desire to make sure the project didn't go to BAE due to a perception that the company was taking UK business too much for granted.
Instead the contract went to GD, who built the hulls in their Spanish factory where quality control was appallingly poor.
The vague "vibration and injury" stories that you read are mainly down to the noise cancelling headsets which aren't working. The ones that GD recommend and provided apparently work fine. The ones that the UK MoD provide though are apparently not suitable for the application, and a lot of the ones issued for the testing program are apparently simply broken when issued and so don't work at all. The latter is down to army internal procedures. These sorts of headsets are standard practice for armoured vehicles.
No, there's two types of recce. One is "sneaky", but a lot of that work will be done by drones now.The other is medium forces which are supposed to operate in a dispersed manner ahead of and around the main heavy forces to seize strategic points which the main forces rapidly follow up on. In British army terminology this comes under "recce", while in the US they are calling it "cavalry". It's the same basic concept however.
Yeh, I know, hence why I used the word. It's still much the same concept, ie the scout/recce vehicle probes or advances to contact, then APCs can move up to support or exploit, or hits reverse and waits for heavy armor. Then the TOE building on previous platoon or company-style structures with added mobility from FRES, so APCs hauling basic infantry plus vehicles like Ajax adding heavy weapons. All of which still leaves the problem of survivability against a drone threat.
But that's also where adding drones to AFVs might help. No idea if Ajax can do this, but China showed off their new AFVs in their last parade, which had drone launchers integrated. Probably for ISR, but could equally be to lauch attack/defence drones. Plus much theorycrafting about whether their new MBTs are really MBTs, or their version of Ajax. Which is one of those lengthy defence procurement issues because their kit hasn't been in development for as long, so might have been modified to deal with modern threats.
(Also where the Alvis Shielder vehicle or similar could get useful. Rather than being festooned with mine dispensers, it's packed with tube-launched drones instead. Especially if that could lauch 40 drones and they could act autonomously, or semi-autonomously.)
> Once you've given your tank a mini surface to air missile, how long can it be until you've increased the ammo supply and made it anti-drone?
I'm wondering how long it'll be before someone invents a mini-HARM style missile designed to detect and ride the drone C&C link back to the operator. Granted this will last exactly as long as it takes to develop mostly autonomous drones that can identify and prosecute targets without active control from an operator, but if you can take out the pilot, a drone suddenly loses effectiveness.
Meph,
One reason the Russians (and now Ukrainians) are using drones with fiberoptic cables for control is that this was already happening. Use radio direction finding gear to pinpoint the source of the drone control signal, and then visit it with a drone-of-your-own, or drop a quick artillery barrage. Or jam it, so the drone goes out of control. All of these are happening all of the time.
There are drone surface-to-air missile analogues now, it's not rocket powered, it's just a fast drone with a fragmentation warhead that you send after the enemy drone.
It's drones all the way down. Some countries are now researching small air-to-air missiles, designed to shoot down large air-to-air missiles on the way to shoot down your aircraft. So you'd launch your long range AAM's at them, then while you wait for them to die, shoot down their AAMs aimed back at you - and hope they don't shoot down yours. All while trying to jam each other's radars or missiles or avaoid each other's loyal wingmen - some of which maybe charging towards you while others are staying behind with more defensive missiles - or you're both defending them while they're doing a bombing attack on something of the enemy's.
Plus there are drones, like Predator, which launch other drones (missiles like Hellfire).
"and there are questions about whether it remains relevant in the age of drone warfare."
If this was the case, the Tank would have been obsolete since the invention of the shaped charge and infantry obsolete since the invention of ranged weapons.
The system is not irrelevant, until you have made a system that can do all of its jobs better, in every case, or more rarely, other systems that completely overlaps it.
Infantry still needs to be moved around, sometimes over ground where you need tracks. It is not irrelevant.
Anyone, including millitary personell, who claim the drone is the solution to everything, should not be listened to.
Anti-tank weapons were developed and deployed in WWI, as soon as the Germans encountered tanks. They developed and deployed the 13mm anti-tank rifle, which would punch through the thin armour of any tank of that era. They also developed the first heavy calibre machine guns using that same 13mm round, which was also intended as an anti-aircraft weapon ("tank und flieger").
The Germans also changed tactics, moving lighter field guns up close to the front lines where they could operate in direct fire mode. They were capable of utterly destroying any tank of that era with one hit.
In the period immediately following WWI, pundits declared that the tank was obsolete now that weapons had been developed to counter it.
None the less tank development continued, and here we are more than a century later and tanks are still with us.
tony72,
Journalists often prefer sensation to truth. So if a project over-runs, then its cost gets spread over a longer period. and inflation means that the final few years of costs are now raised by inflation. Cheap headline, project over budget. Of course it might also be over budget because the client keeps adding stuff to the spec. And when I say might, I mean will be, because this is the Army, who are even worse than the Navy and the RAF at doing this.
Although, to be fair, there's a certain inevitability to this. If you launch a 10-15 year program to design a new vehicle, it's actually impossible that the specs at the beginning will be the same as the specs you deploy it with. New weapons and communications systems will have come in, there may be new doctrine and tractics. You're going to have to alter the program to fit this in, or you'll have a weapon that's obsolete before it's delivered.
That's why the RN ordered Type 31 frigates with half the weapons missing. The idea was to get them built cheap, and as quickly as possible. Though with a new supplier, there were bound to be some delays. But not to keep changing the design, and so putting up costs. Also, they ordered them not quite being sure what they were going to want. Because they were built large enough to have space for new kit to be added, and because they left space for Mk41 vertical launchers - and they already use the Navy's standard combat mangement system - any weapon that's been put on any other ship, can automatically be added to this one. So long as it fits. Harder to do that with an IFV, admittedly.
Also, like (Babcock's) Type 31, Ajax was part of the MoD's "anyone but BAE" strategy from twenty years ago. They felt that BAE had been taking the piss, and wanted to attract other suppliers. Which is at least some of the reason the latest, excellent, CVRT stuff wasn't selected and we went for Ajax. In ship-building, that's kept BAE honest, and investing, and has paid off with both BAE and Babcock getting export orders for frigates. In the world of military vehicles, the jury's still out. But then, from what I can see, the Army have not done as well at procurement as the Navy in recent years.
This post has been deleted by its author
I've read that the vibration problems were fixed a couple of years ago. From several sources, not just the MoD. Including from ex army people, who still know people that are in. I've also seen rumours that this isn't true. But it's hard to tell. Once a system has become controversial, there's always someone willing to slag it off, whether fair or otherwise. And of course the MoD have every reason to say everything is hunky-dory. Although it should be pointed out that the contractor had to pay to fix the vibration issues, not the MoD - so their only incentive to accept the fix was that they really wanted the kit - not that they were paying for it.
Anon because even though my normal handle gives you the answer, I want to be very explicit.
I worked for General Dynamics -- specifically GDLS: GD Land Systems, the US owner of GDLS UK -- around the time they announced the Ajax prototypes were accepted and they had entered Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). It was given loads of fanfare that it was great for the company.
The same company that, at the same time, was giving US engineers a buyout -- paying them to leave -- partly because we couldn't win any US contracts. (I hung around a little more due to many reasons.)
When I started there, I started on Future Combat Systems (FCS) Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) -- cancelled after about 6 to 12 prototypes right as we tried to start up a small assembly line.
Since I left, they won Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), which became type-classified as the M10 Booker... and recently (also) canceled.
Yeah, there were some things that have made it to soldiers, but mostly improvements on existing platforms, not the all-new vehicles.
GD as a whole is doing well, based on the stock price -- which hurts because I don't have GD stock anymore -- but GDLS is still not winning and I'm glad I left.
Since I left, they won Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), which became type-classified as the M10 Booker... and recently (also) canceled.
I wonder if that decision will get reversed. One feature of NATO v Russia is the way it echoes WW1 & WW2's trench warfare, along with old Soviet doctrine that created 'citadels'. Ukraine was the Soviet 'borderlands' and expected to act as a buffer if the Cold War went hot. So a lot of infrastructure like the 'commie blocks' and other civil buildings overbuilt to act as future bunkers. Sweden & other Scandinavian buildings were also constructed with future civil defence in mind.
So then I think vehicles like the M10 make sense, ie an assault gun to deal with fortifications. With WW2, the Tiger got much of the glory, but assault guns like the Stug did a lot of work. Then the Soviets built their Su-100 & 152 to do much the same job, and both sides discovered they were also effective as tank destroyers. So whether we should be buildinng assault guns again. Cheaper than MBTs or SPGs and can add a decent punch.
But it's mostly a different world to WW2 and we don't have tank production lines churning out hulls that can be diverted to assault gun production. I suspect inter-servive rivalry also plays a part, ie Army might want assault guns but Air Force goes 'got bunker? call air strike!', which assumes air superiority so CAS can work. But then where would they be needed in future conflicts? Which might just mean export sales to places like S.Korea or Taiwan that might have an invasion threat.
Can we stop with the sensational "£x spent and y vehicles delivered" bit already?
It's a fixed price contract! If it's not accepted by the MoD, then GD have to sort it out *at their expense*.
The only real reason for the price going up is the Army guys in charge repeatedly changing their minds and asking for more/different stuff - which isn't free. That's a procurement problem, not an engineering one.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
