26 Ajax vehicles have been delivered to the British Army amid remarks that the Ministry of Defence will “not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purposes”.
Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, stated:
“26 Ajax vehicles have been delivered to the Army. It remains the case that until tests have been completed , it is not possible to say when Ajax will be in operational service. We will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purposes.”
MoD confirm they will ‘not accept’ Ajax until issues fixed
The Ministry of Defence say they “will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely” and that they “cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service”.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to his Department’s Government Major Projects Portfolio Data 2022, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of delivering the Armoured Cavalry 2025 Ajax programme (a) on time and (b) on budget in the context of the Independent Projects Authority’s rating of that programme as red.”
Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Ministry of Defence continues to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests. As acknowledged by the Infrastructure Projects Authority the project remains within its approved budget and General Dynamics are required to deliver to the terms of the £5.5 billion firm-priced contract. We will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purposes and until long-term solutions to the noise and vibration problems have been found, we cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service.”
Compensation paid out relating to the Ajax armoured vehicle
The total amount of compensation paid out as a result of claims related to issues with the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle is currently £12,320.
A Freedom of Information request asked the following:
“1) The total amount of compensation paid out to service personnel as a result of the issues with the Ajax AFV as of 16/08/2022.
2) The total number of service personnel compensated as of 16/08/2022.”
The answer was as follows.
“In answer to question one, the total amount of compensation paid out under the Armed
Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) as a result of claims related to issues with Ajax is £12,320 as of 16 August 2022. In answer to question two, I can confirm less than five service personnel have been compensated as of 16 August 2022.
Under Section 16 Advice and Guidance, it may be helpful if I explain that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides compensation for any injury, illness or death which is caused by service on or after 6 April 2005. It replaces the War Pension Scheme (WPS), which had been in place since 1917. Where the injury is partly caused or made worse by service, compensation is payable if, on the balance of probabilities service
is the predominant cause of the injury or of the worsening of the injury.”
The Ajax programme, which began in 2010, is intended to transform the Army’s surveillance and reconnaissance capability.
However, it has gone badly wrong, with no deployable vehicle delivered to date let alone providing Initial Operating Capability or Full Operating Capability dates, say the Public Accounts Committee in a report released earlier this year.
Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said that the government “must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted”, adding “these repeated failures are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet Nato commitments”.
The report states that the Department (the Ministry of Defence) has a £5.5 billion firm-price contract with General Dynamics Land Systems UK for the design, manufacture and initial in-service support of 589 Ajax armoured vehicles.
You can read more on the report here.
If they can’t be fixed, maybe ship them to the Russians, hey?
Their troops can be shaken to death and go deaf in the process too!!
Sell them at top price to Ukraine. They seem to be keen to take any old rubbish. Even in this poor state the Ajax is better than Saxon.
This reports nothing new. It was already known others had been delivered, though I’m unsure what variants beyond Ares and Ajax ( Scout, turreted rec variant )
Hopefully trials are continuing to have better results as previously reported.
Should have gone with the BAE Systems CV90. We would have several hundred in service by now. With at least one, maybe two indigenous manufacturing plants up and running at full pelt.
When will it end? Ajax has been discussed, cobsidered, noted to be inadequate and damaging to service personnel and yet years later HMG are still paying into the project to try to polish a turd. Sorry for coarse language. If the damn vehicle is flawed by design by dodgy construction by dodgy after market demands and equipment fit then it most definitely should be scrapped. Time to move on. Get an off the shelf functioning vehicle like CV90 or Ridgeback. They both come with reconnaissance vehicle options. Ajax is deeply flawed. No APS. 43 tons. Wtf? Its too massive, complicated… Read more »
Ian M has first-hand knowledge of the situation. He doesn’t argue for it to be abandoned.
Practically though, with Sunak in number 10 and hope of a larger defence budget seemingly gone, we can’t afford to throw Ajax away if it can be fixed. What would you cut to pay for a different option?
I agree about APS, that should be a priority.
Why fit APS to a recce vehicle, which has minimal exposure to enemy sensors and weapons if tactically well operated.
Fair enough. I was thinking more generally but didn’t make that clear.
We are getting 60 Trophy sets I believe. I would say it should be a priority for Ch3 and Boxer. We can’t afford to fit the whole fleet, nor would we need to, but 60 would seem to be far too few.
The 60 Trophy sets are for CR3. It is too few – we are getting 148 CR3s.
Because it is not going to be used just as a recce vehicle. But also, as a fire support vehicle. It will need to be put in harm’s way. Therefore, it will need APS to survive.
Exactly I think Ukraine has taught us specialist vehicles have limited utility unless they can adapt. I may be stupid but in what world does ‘Recce’ not include getting in harms way. What’s it recce-ing if we already know where all the threats are and avoid them I wonder esp when you have hundreds of them. What’s their job if they avoid that risk and why the hell would they need all that kit if they are driving around miles behind the front line using precious fuel to do what?.
Ajax was originally intended to replace Scimitar as an armoured recce vehicle – and would conduct recce by stealth, which is our philosophy. However the army’s Requirement staff opted for a much heavier and vehicle than Scimitar, presumably for a number of reasons (TRACER/US experience; a need to carry more ISTAR kit etc). Later the Strike role was added. Strike could mean providing fire support to Infantry who lack cannons (ie if non-cannon equipped Boxers replace WR), or identifying targets for artillery (AS90, GMLRS). In the case of the former it will be put in harms way; the latter then… Read more »
You didn’t mention the rolling abortion that was the FRES program. Following the cancellation of Tracer. FRES took over, where it took another 20 years before we saw the first trial between the ASCOD and CV90 contenders. Meanwhile Scimitar soldiered on. I am hoping there is a team in Land building up a report on lessons learned from the Ukraine war. Simply put, armoured vehicles are too easy to take out with anti-tank guided weapons or A-Team special quadcopters dropping a mortar shell on the roof, if they aren’t fully supported or have an APS with full hemispherical capabilities. So… Read more »
You are right that I didn’t mention FRES (or FLAV or FFLAV). FRES committed worse sins than swallowing a huge chunk of money and delaying a CVR(T) replacement. The programme was supposed to replace 4000 AFVs with FRES SV and FRES UV (later MIV). If we had stayed in the original Boxer programme rather than deviate into FRES UV/MIV we could have had Boxer nearly 20 years ago to replace FV430, SAXON etc. FRES was too big a programme for MoD to manage even when it was split into FRES SV and FRES UV. Was there an actual trial of… Read more »
If that’s the argument scrap the cannon as well then.
Hell, why have the extra armour either? That would save weight.
If something is going where it finds itself in harms way it should have defensive aids as well as the ability to shoot back.
We seem to have an obsession in this godforsaken country with underarming everything.
Since I joined the army in 1975, all armoured recce vehicles had a heavy MG (FSC) or 30mm cannon (Fox, Scimitar, Scorpion) – for self-protection if their position was compromised and they came under effective enemy fire – recce crew would fire a few rounds and get the hell out. I do not advocate dropping the cannon from an armoured recce vehicle. Now that technology enables us to have a stabilised cannon – let us adopt it. I am not greatly convinced that we needed to go up to 40mm – ammunition is 5 times the cost of 30mm –… Read more »
You cant tell when you are going to be exposed to the enemy Graham. That’s a fact of warfare now. UAVs, loitering munitions and smart targetable munitions mean any and all armoured vehicles now need APS- otherwise their are simply magnets for destruction.
It doesn’t matter how you operate the vehicle there simply is no way to guarantee not being targeted.
Geez only last month a Russian General got caught trying to escape in a stolen car. I presume he didn’t expect to get caught in harms way one presumes while doing a ‘recce’ far nearer the front line than he expected. I rather think these vehicles will be expected to operate far closer to it and beyond than a General would be expected to do.
I agree that you can’t tell if you are going to be exposed to the enemy – and that applies to everyone and anything in Theatre, not just armoured vehicles. That has been a fact of warfare for a very long time – surveillance drones have been around since the 1960s, as have recce helicopters. However troops operating covertly, as recce troops do, are less likely to be spotted. You advocate APS for all armoured vehicles – the reality is that: a. we have only funded for 60 of 148 CR3s to get APS – there is a budget reality… Read more »
Frankly that is a ridiculous assertion.Ajax might have a radar that emits, an EO mast that can be detected. They will be in frontline. will also have more comms.
There is a well know saying of “reconnaissance by death” it happen because of job nature.
Alex, I never heard of the phrase “reconnaissance by death” during my 34 years service. Where do you get that from? If tactically well operated a vehicle or weapon system will reduce its signature – that is not ridiculous, that is a fact. Not to say that it could never be spotted but it does ensure risk reduction. The Russians operate their armour ineptly tactically – and pay the price. We are altogether more skilful. I’ve not heard that Ajax will have a radar – I don’t believe it will have. All electronic emitters would be operated for an absolute… Read more »
One wonders why it needs a turret and 40mm then.
In the recce role, to provide a high level of self-protection, by returning any incoming effective enemy fire before bugging out.
In the Screen role – with a Weapons-free order – to engage light/medium enemy armour.
In the Strike role – as per Screen role wording above.
I suggest going and watching some of the Stugna-P videos from the Ukraine war and then deeply reassessing your logic.
OK, I watched the videos. Stugna-P looks to be very effective at killing Russian armour, has a top-attack capability, is roughly equivalent to Kornet and TOW and can penetrate 800mm RHA behind Reactive Armour. Is that what I was supposed to learn?
Great. Ukraine has an effective homegrown ATGM to add to the donated weapon systems.
I have posted much on this topic. Which of my posts has faulty logic, in your opinion?
A couple of years ago Ian was saying there was nothing wrong with the vehicle and it was all exaggerated by the press !
He might have a point that. Everything is hyped here, from mass cuts, which don’t always arrive, cuts to LPDs, which never happened, and on and on and on, the national psyche of moaning and putting ourselves down. Does Ajax have a good Cannon? Does Ajax have a good engine? Does Ajax have good armour? Does Ajax have good ISTAR fit? Do the military experts who know what they want on the battlefield to conduct recc know a bit more than most of us? Yes to all for me. Procurement is a fiasco yes, issues with the vehicle, yes. Running… Read more »
To be fair a lot of the cuts didn’t happen because people complained about it. It’s a common tactic of governments worldwide to leak news of various cuts and see how the media reacts /judge public reaction. Who knows if people in the media read sites like this, but maybe.
What dodgy after-market demands and equipment fit do you mean? IanM reports that fixes have been developed and Government Validation trials have resumed. Why would you therfore scrap it? The fixes may all be acceptable. Your last comment is surprising – there have been anti-armour weapons fielded since 1917. Nothing new conceptually. Smart AT weapons fielded since the late 1950s. Plenty of AFVs have survived enemy action. Recce vehicles are less vulnerable as they are used (by the UK, if not by Russia) covertly. [BTW, MANPADs shoot down aircraft].The only non-MBT fittetd with APS is the Israeli Namer APC. No-one… Read more »
These articles set off the masses though, with the same old comments how useless Ajax is without probably ever having set foot in one or knowing people who are actually working on it to resolve the issues.
I’m interested in how it is operationally deployed and its ISTAR fit once/if it enters service, being the main ground manoeuvre sensor for the Deep Strike Bde linked to the GMLRS and AS90 Regiments.
I seem to remember the same people getting upset over Typhoon, F35 and countless other projects. Imagine the spitfire being developed today.
And the F2 with Blue Circle cement in the nose cone until the radar was sorted.
I would defend the Lincolnshire land shark to the hilt! 😄 Great aircraft the F3, just took 20 years to long to get it truly capable.
As a teen first getting into this stuff it was my fav RAF jet, loved it. People moaned it wasn’t capable of dog fighting, but didn’t get it wasn’t meant to be, but to intercept at long range In the UKADR.
I still remember 7 of them flew over my grandparents farm in north Devon, one following after the other, close, while making banking turns, at low level. They were Tornados and I took them to be F3s as they had the light grey that the GR1s only got later in RAF service and this was mid to late 80s.
Same for me. My dad took me to airshows at Coningsby in the 80’s, and watched 16 of them take off. I was hooked. And I thought it was the best looking aircraft ever 😃.A misunderstood aircraft that is still debated today. In its final 8 years of service, it was a truly world class capability. You couldn’t beat the site of a F3 in 67 wing, and full reheat pulling into the vertical. Great stuff.
One correction, eventually pulls into the vertical! That was its main downfall. It was a very aerodynamically clean aircraft, let down by meager performing engines. Don’t get me wrong the RB199 engine was outstanding for the GR1/4. Very reliable and relatively frugal. Just not an engine for an interceptor. People will say, well it did alright in the EAP test aircraft. Which is true, as the EAP never flew with weapons or drop tanks fitted. The RB199 didn’t have the mass airflow of say a F100 (F15 engine). This meant during high g turning maneuvers, the F3 bled off energy… Read more »
Hi Davey. Yes, spot on. The RB199 was perfect for thundering around at 250 feet. It’s high bypass ratio gave good thrust and low fuel consumption down low, but above 5000 feet, the thrust started to drop off. The F3 wasn’t thrust limited in terms of straight line speed. But once you added the weapons load out, big tanks and defensive adds kit, it struggled above 25;000 feet in dry power. But with AMRAAM, ASRAAM, stage 3 Foxhunter, link16 and a cunning crew, it was a match for all comers. And bloody good looking. 👍
Once it had AMRAAM and ASRAAM it pretty much ruled the roost for BVR. Better even than the F15. Just had to make sure nobody got close.
That will be very interesting to see how much of difference it makes to recon, planning etc. The upgrade from scimitar should be impressive kit wise. What’s scimitar got in the back? A radio, map, Pencil?? I’m jesting I hope as Actually don’t have a clue.
Beyond 3 men I have no real idea what’s inside Scimitar. I keep reading that Ajax ISTAR tech wise is pretty good and the army want it.
You are not far wrong. It has fairly basic target locating equipment with the ability to send that info to a digital battlefield. Compared to Ajax that’s pen and paper.
Very hard to find out the ISTAR fit for Ajax. I found this: The Scout SV is also equipped with a state of the art ISTAR package with advanced sensors and space for further future growth. This advanced ISTAR package allows for automated search, tracking and detection, more than doubling stand-off range at which targets can be identified and tracked. The Ajax has a 20 Gbit/s Ethernet intelligent open architecture, which enables it to capture, process and store six TBs of information gathered by the sensors. It can then share this data, be it images or other information, via a real-time integrated BOWMAN communication… Read more »
Thanks Graham. Yes I’d seen that and that’s my limit of understanding. A capable beast if the noise and vibration issues can be dealt with.
Don’t forget the MOD Razor blade and paper clip supplies are running low.
“The only non-MBT fittetd (sic) with APS is the Israeli Namer APC.”
~ Don’t forget it was only reported on this site on the 17th of this month that the upgraded Netherlands CV9035s include APS.
Yes, those have Ironfist APS.
Thanks Davy, I must have missed that post.
So the only non-MBTs fitted with APS in the entire world are the Israeli Namer APC and the upgraded Netherlands CV9035. Does that really count as a trend?
Looks like it could be the start of a trend for those nations able & willing to spend the money given that Janes reported last year that serial production of a hybrid version of Rheinmetall’s StrikeShield APS for Hungary’s Lynx IFV was scheduled to start in the first quarter of this year.
See my comment above, UAVs, loitering munitions and smart munitions mean that any and all armoured vehicles now need to have APS otherwise they are likely to prove to be the coffins of their crew from the latest top attack weaponry. There are literally dozens of variants of just this type of weaponry entering service worldwide now- including in the arsenals of our potential peer opponents- China, Iran, Russia to name just a few.
Agree 100%. If there was no chance of incoming fire these vehicles wouldn’t be armoured in the first bloody place!!! They’d be light and fast and cheap and unarmoured!
And these days armour is of limited value with armored vehicles being the most targeted of all military assets on the battlefield. Nothing has so many different systems devoted to destroying it.
So what do we do if armouring a vehicle is pointless? Disband the army?
It’s probably not a delivery requirement. But if its needed then I’m sure it can be bolted on and integrated quickly
APS weight a bit and have significant energy requirements due to the radar.
We have thousands of armoured vehicles, yet funding has only been provided for 60 of them to get APS (CR3s).
Perhaps you are reading too much into the Ukraine war – we would not handle our armour as tactically ineptly as the Russians.
You are assuming your getting money back from GD if it’s canceled but the reality is you will get close to nothing even if GD can’t complete the contract. Those close to it seem to think it can’t be fixed and realistically it should not be that big of a problem to fix.
Can’t be fixed? Is that what you meant to say
Ridgeback? We keep being told an IFV isn’t useful for this task so not sure how an large armoured taxi come truck is going to do the job. Boxer would be far more appropriate if we were getting that desperate to have to use wheeled vehicles.
Old news, again.
Ian, if Ajax et al do get the go ahead, any ideas if we are staying with the original mix of variants, or, can we expect some changes as the 589 vehicles were originally supposed to support 3 Tank regiments and Warrior. Obviously that’s all changed to what we are now getting WRT BCTs. Just wondered if anything has fallen out of the ‘rumour’ tree?
Hi Mr Deep, I’m afraid that is down to HQ Land but I am aware that Deep Recce Strike is still a ‘thing’.
Cheers
No worries thanks.
Correct. 1st for the Armoured Brigades, then Strike Bdes, now 2 Regs with DSBCT but others will possibly be with remaining armoured units apart from the 2 other regiments planned.
I think alteration of the Boxer order is the more pressing.
I was just wondering, considering how many C2/ambulance variants there are under the original contracts, if anything has changed. I’m sure it will, eventually. Probably be released the closer we get to acceptance for both vehicles, if Ajax gets the go ahead that is.
Im sure it could as there are 5 different Hull types. C2 and PM can be modified for any purpose. Recovery, Repair and turreted are cannot.
cheers.
Ambulance is no longer on contract
Armoured recce vehicles are deployed to and in armoured formations – that would be to the two armoured BCTs and the Deep Strike BCT. It makes no difference that we field one less tank regiment in the near future or that the Infantry ride in Boxers rather than Warriors. Ajax supports those three brigades.
It might be however that the 8 Ajax assigned to the deleted tank regiment’s recce troop are themselves deleted. I doubt the contract will be altered – those extra 8 will doubtless be held in war reserve stocks.
Thanks Graham, a different perspective is always welcome.
It strikes me as a non army type, that the current mix of variants across both Ajax and Boxer is wrong, not enough ‘fighty’ variants if you will.
I know we are far from IOC for both and that things will most likely change, just strange that all appears to be v silent. Perhaps this is the army way!
Hi Deep, The CVR(T) family (1,863 vehicles at delivery) had 647 Reconnnaissance, 691 APC, 291 Command & Control, 95 Recovery, 50 armoured ambulance and 89 anti-tank vehicles. This family is to be replaced by the Ajax family. The Ajax family was supposed to comprise 1,010 vehcles but was reduced to 589. The variants ordered comprise: 245 turreted ‘Ajax’ variants 198 Reconnaissance and Strike (Ajax) 23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax) 24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax) 256 Protected Mobility Recce Support (PMRS) variants 93 Armoured Personnel Carrier (APC) (Ares) 112 Command and Control (Athena)[10] 34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch (Ares) 51 Engineer Reconnaissance… Read more »
Extract from Mr Shelbrooke’s statement.
“User Validation Trials aim to establish the effectiveness of the modifications to address the noise and vibration problems so that troops could work safely under the next stage of testing.
The aim of the next stage of testing under Reliability Growth Trials is to test the vehicles over an extended period to ensure the Ajax meets the Army’s contractual requirements.”
Since GD seems confident enough to post YouTube videos of Ajax user testing, it would seem likely that RGT will start soon. Anyone any idea how long these take?
RGT for CR2 took 3 years!
Source – Wiki: “The Challenger 2 failed its acceptance trials in 1994, and it was forced into the Progressive Reliability Growth Trial in 1995. Three vehicles were tested for 285 simulated battlefield days.
The tank was then accepted into service in 1998”.
So much for the decision by the end of the year then ?
The decision is likely to be a statement as to whether Ajax is canned or has/is likely to pass User Valdation Trials and be accepted into service. It will hopefully also state a revised ISD.
Thx. So passing UVT will enable an implementation plan and budget to be put together; onwards and upwards …replacement plan for Warrior next: or is Boxer a done deal?
Ajax – the budget was put in place years ago at Contract Award – £5.552bn – firm price. I hope that the statement expected by Year-End will give some idea of timetable ‘going forward’ including the ISD.
Warrior Replacement – Boxer was announced in May 2021 (I think) in an article by George in UKDJ as replacement for Warrior/WCSP. MoD is deciding which Boxer to opt for – I truly hope it will have a stabilised 30-40mm cannon ie it is a (wheeled) IFV and not a mere APC. No Contract Award yet.
Ah, yes. I found it, March 2021: government defence paper.
Digital Concepts Engineering could give Warrior a stabilised Rarden very cheaply. They included it in the trials of autonomous Warrior.
https://dconcepts.co.uk/case-study/fv510-warrior
This comes as a result of a written question by the Shadow Defence Secretary, John Healy, who said:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if the 21 Ajax platforms in operation in the Armed Forces have been formally accepted into service.”
I think the correction on numbers and operational status were meant as “nothing new yet”. Healy’s other question on targets was from the middle of last month.
You can’t polish a turd. If this was a commercial product it would have been shelved years ago. These sorts of projects expose the defence budget as the target for more cuts and it is inexcusable. The procurement executive or whatever they call themselves nowadays need a severe rocket up thier backsides.
They need sacking end of. Moons ago I took part in SA80 trials. We gave “feedback”. To a man we said it was crap, the round was too light, the strip down and clean in the field was not as simple as it should be. Ok, we were wedded to 7.62 and a true rifle 😉 However other units we found out gave the same “feedback”. See, my feeling is all these shiny arses and bean counters do not know the proverbial arse from elbow. Nothing changes, it goes from farce to farce. And look at the trouble SA80 had… Read more »
Absolutely the SA80 was a case in point, one of many. I was loathed to give up the SLR, it had its drawbacks but was and still is head over shoulders with the official name the rifle. What are we on now I left just as the A2 came in? The velocity of the 5.56 round was crap and so was the spring in the magazine and produced more stoppages than we have had priministers just lately.
Mark, I think the conclusion I reached ages ago is that “the complex” knows it is on a sure-fire winner. From ships, aircraft and compo rations, they will waste taxpayers’ money happily time and time again. This Ajax fiasco is just another episode in a long history. In 82 when stuff was needed urgently, and in The Gan when specialist vehicles were needed? Rabbits were pulled out of hats and you saw results. That needs to apply to everything, all the time. No goods up to scratch? No money, they are too used to getting money upfront. Like Scottish shipyards,… Read more »
Like replacing the snatch Land Rover with a protected mobility vehicle with a flat bottomed Hull instead of a v shaped Hull to protect from ieds. Urgent operational requirements are all well and good if the requirement is properly written.
👍
For the £5.5 billion I could of started a company, designed and tested a vehicle and built a factory and the required number of vehicles faster than this!
Of course you could.
But for the dead hand of the ‘good idea club’
I was joking but the more I think about £5.5 billion! It’s soooo much money.
So take an already designed hull, add bits on.
I presume the cannon development was paid out another budget so that’s that sorted.
Engine/gearbox ready to go,
Equipment in the back, mostly used already.
What was actually newly developed for Ajax?
I would love to see a proper cost breakdown of the total budget.
What should of been included from the start was affordable, reach for the stars and take a step back and build that.
I understand that the ASCOD Pizarro hull was a basis for Ajax ( a departure point for the design), but I would imagine that it was fundamentally altered as it weighs so much more.
Certainly the turret, cannon, ammunition and ISTAR kit are all new, surely.
The ASCOD /Pizzaro is motorised metal box for carrying troops. I’ve had a look in several. Survivability is questionable at best. AJAX’s weight gain is partly down to the armour fit, partly down to the large number of sensors and the weapons and partly down to the amount of CES and CSups it has to carry.
cheers
Can the platform also take the extra weight of an APS system if it was fitted later, or there’s no room for weight increases from this point?
Also, given that there’s only 150 C3 planned, but an order for over 500 Ajax family vehicles, could the order be modified to use Ajax as an IFV and replace Warrior? Or that’s entirely unrealistic?
Sorry for all the questions by the way! It’s fascinating to have to someone clued up on the systems on here.
AJAX couldn’t be an IFV, no room in t’ back. I’m told there is scope for more bolt on goodies if needed.
Cheers
How can it not have room in the back though? That’s what I’m lost on, it’s not like it’s shorter than ASCOD.
You have to be clear about which variant you’re referring to. ARES, if you took out all the CSups racking could squeeze a section in, just. AJAX has a large turret basket protruding down into the hull space, no room there for warm bodies.
Cheers
Alan Sugar would do it for less than half that 😂
Your fired…👉
Fired! Already. Story of my life. 😂😂😂
Whatever 😂
Sunak gave the MoD it’s biggest settlement in recent memory, amid Johnson’s savage defence cuts that masqueraded as an SDSR. Now that he has apparently become our next PM it is highly unlikely that he will honour Truss’ promise to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. (unless GDP fallls next year during the coming recession) Ajax must be scrapped to draw a line under the whole sorry saga. Regardless of Ian M’s assertions, the vehicle is unrepairable and is clearly a danger to any of our chaps/chapeses who may be ordered to deploy in it. Whoever now becomes SoS… Read more »
That is way above my pay grade to decide.
But if it was to be cancelled without sticking to the terms of the contract I would expect nothing to be returned and general dynamics U.K. to sue for the full contract award or whatever the contract says.
I think a fix will be possible. As with so many projects at some points many have looked like an absolute disaster, no chance of working and then it all comes together and works great.
The Truss promise was to increase Defence Spending to 3% of GDP by 2030 – that is 8 years away. Sunak may agree to it if he thinks the economy can repair and grown within 8 years. Why do you doubt IanM’s input? – he clearly has inside knowledge and I trust his opinion that fixes have been done by GDUK and are being evaluated by MoD Validation Trials. You could not buy 589 vehicles to replace the Ajax family with just £2.3bn BAE does not need to devlop a CV90 recce variant – this was already done for the… Read more »
Lots of us have inside knowledge. I have crossed swords ith IanM’s content before and my view is that he is too close to the wood to see the trees. There are numerous reasons why Ajax is unrepairable but the worst is the recoil from the gun, which is so bad that after firing a round, it is impossible to bring the gun back to target whilst on the move. The gun was upgraded to 40mm during this fiasco, but the purpose of a recce vehicle is not to engage armour but to obtain intel of the enemy’s dispositions See… Read more »
Hi David, I would like to see your empirical proof of your assertions re. recoil forces. It is a stabilised system so if there were any variations in lay, those errors would be removed by the servo system. If the weapon is fired static v static the recoil system, at run out returns the weapon to its point of aim. On a M v M shoot the stabilisation does its job as well as the recoil system maintaining the lay. One of the reasons for the move to 40mm is to give greater range with a heavier punch at which… Read more »
Thanks David. I will give IanM the benefit of the doubt for now. I had certainly heard of the recoil issue – but Ian says that all fixes have been done and the vehicle is back on validation trials – I assume these fixes included resolving the recoil issue. Also didn’t the gun jam periodically?
Wasn’t the cannon on Ajax always going to be 40mm CTAS – I seem to remember that MoD mandated this from Day 1 of the Project.
The CT40 is mandated by MOD.
Yep, I recall that – to ensure commonality with WCSP.
No country talks up its problems better then Blighty.
Haha. The troops are never happier if they have something to moan about.
Yeah, it’s amazing that people are swimming the channel to get here but if you listen to the blue rinse brigade or BBC you would think we were a failed state. Actually inflation in the UK is way lower that the Netherlands, economic growth is highest in G7 and debt is second lowest in G7. Armed forces are second most capable on the planet. Even our trains are rated in global top 10.
Ah, Bravo Jim. We are somebody despite what the self loathers think.
I think you’re on the wrong website with that positive view of life 😉😆
What seems really worrying about this whole affair is that there does not seem a plan of record on what will fix these problems.
perhaps the next question in Parliament needs to be: Does the vendor know how to fix this product within a 6 month timeframe? If the answer is no then cancel. If the answer is yes then proceed but with high penalties if they are just gaming for time.
it would seem that the mod didn’t like what BAES was telling it and went with other vendors resulting in the disasters of Ajax and wCSP
They could have just done the warrior upgrade by now and we would have at least had a relatively up to date IFV in service. Instead- warrior trundles on- which is likely fine against the Russians and their piss poor army but wont cut the mustard if god forbid there was ever a shooting war against China and its allies. I agree with you though Pacman- the MOD should set a timeframe for vehicles to be delivered fixed and ready for service- if LM cant deliver that then the impact should be programme cut and funds returned- likely leading to… Read more »
Was there not a problem with having enough usable Hulls? Unfortunately life extention for warrior was to late, aluminium dosent last.
Instead of trying upgrade old vehicles in my view it would be better buying new vehicles to replace warrior over a set time scale. Say 10 years or whatever scale provides good use of money and keeps a vehicle builder in business.
+1. Issues happen with almost all development projects, but baffling that there is 0 concrete action plan on how to fix this.
From the peanut gallery it seems that this has not progressed. I am sure there are lots of smart and competent people that could resolve the issues. Could it be that the supplier is hoping that MoD caves and pays extra costs for a fix, and in the meantime not looking to resolve issues?
GD should also be barred from any further uk defence work for a period of 10years unless they fix or refund the value of this fiasco.
Seems there are rumours delays with Bowman Morpheus replacement anyone know status ?
“Does the vendor know how to fix this product within a 6 month timeframe? If the answer is no then cancel.” That would depend who you asked. The issue is that the MOD is not a sufficiently intelligent customer and relies too much on bought-in expertise. So ask the vendor (or Ian M) and they’ll say, what do you mean six months? It works now! Hiring smart people into procurement is going to be tough when your procurement procedures are slow and arcane with no easy route to change them, and when a government clean sweep could see you fired,… Read more »
Whilst I accept what you are saying this programme I already 3+ years late and has not met the acceptance criteria based upon health and safety grounds. I am sure the MOD is complicit in all of this but we can’t just give up
perhaps a way forward is that when senior officers leave the military instead of going to industry they should go to DSTL and be paid industry standard pay
When I worked at Abbey Wood, I did not consider my colleagues to be insufficiently intelligent. I am not sure what bought-in expertise has been bought by MoD to support them for the Ajax project – do you have details, Jon?
Certainly some poor decisions were made by MoD (by politicians, serving officers and civil servants) and I sense insufficient grip and sense of urgency. Let us not forget that the wrong company got the contract, seemibgly for political reasons.
Off topic I see that the new PM has not committed to the previous assurances of 3% of GDP by 2030. Instead he sees the current 2% as the floor. Which is what it was supposed to have been seen as anyway. Ben Wallace, assuming he keeps his job (he is the best defence SoS for as long as I can remember) is going to have his work cut out. Jeremy Hunt and others, I understand, have been persuaded that the 3% promise was essential given the state of the world. Maybe the new PM doesn’t want to be seen… Read more »
Let’s wait and see what happens with the spending review, but no I don’t think defence will get special treatment. The Tories have 2 years to win voters back or they are toast. Increasing defence spending while cutting pensions and services will not help them.
Even if they did it those decisions could be reversed by the next government before the money had been spent.
I’m fine with the current budget. We don’t need to spend more guarding Europes eastern boarder now Poland and Germany are putting there hands in their pockets and Russia is proved a joke. 2-2.5% of GDP is plenty. Just keep the army small and navy big. We need to get debt under control and maintain our infrastructure investment. Putting 0.7% of GDP in to defence makes a big difference to our economy over time.
A greater focus on where and how the existing money is spent would be good too.
The key is efficient spending, the MOD is horrific at spending billions with nothing to show for it. To be fair they aren’t alone, it seems to be the accepted norm for all government departments sadly.
In fairness the navy are pretty good and build all their assets in the UK. Maybe the answer is just more navy. 😀
How much warfighting does the Navy actually do? So what justifies a great increase?
The army does an awful lot of warfighting, so should not be cut any more.
What advantages does having a small army bring? The army has been cut once or twice every decade since the end of the Korean War – and it is hard to see how it could be smaller than 73,000 and to achieve anything.
Basically, we are now at a point where it’s either tax increase over what we have now or cutting to far into already collapsing services. The big problem is the austerity of the 10s has left a hole in spending that has lead to issues. 1) defence was cut to the bone and now needs recapitalisation that’s cannot be put off with a European war and China just about to go off the boil. 2) social care cuts have crippled the NHS and without significant spending in social care our health system will collapse this winter ( it’s really already… Read more »
Brown cut income tax from 22 to 20%. In thatchers day it was 25% and corporation tax was 32%. This was the apparently Low tax 80’s that Truss was striving for. The UK just needs to dry it’s eyes realise their is no magic money tree and that government services are relatively efficient and pay a bit more tax.
Simple’s 😀
I agree, Tax has dropped since the 1960s by a vast amount (there was actually a 95% tax rate in the 1960s) the problem is we actually expect more and are getting older and in need of more pensions, more healthcare and more social care but expect to get it for less and less money.
Pretty much what Mervyn King was saying the other day, European social security levels with US tax rates are not going to happen
Uk public expenditure as % of GDP
2009/10 46.1% ( MoD 2.6% Debt interest 3.0%)
2022/23 44.6% ( MoD 2.2% Debt interest 3.7%)
It isn’t as black and white as that.
what you have not shown there is the years from 2010-2018/19. In which there was no growth in expenditure and a massive black hole in spending. 2020-2022 has been profoundly warped by covid and the extra expenditure for the covid response. If you remove that spending levels have been crippled for a decade and we are going to have to either accept we will not have things like a working health system or we pay more tax. You can only fix the health system by funding a social care system to the point it can actually pay a working wage… Read more »
If Rishi is the unifier claimed then there will be none of the Long Knives at #10 we’ve seen of late. Wallace would remain secure in his preferred cabinet role.
Morning Gavin. Read the Runes. The spiritual heart of England is Leicester; home of the De Montford parliament and the resting place of Richard III, the last true Plantagenet king of England; it is also the cultural home of the Indian Asian community. Other large Indian communities are to be found in Lancashire and Yorkshire, who fought the wars of the Roses. The Empire link is textiles, the industrial revolution and the trade in cotton. The key nadir events date from 2012: the end of the Mayan calendar – the turning point; the finding of Richard III and the year… Read more »
Hi. Lost me somewhere, Paul, but’ll take it in the right spirit!
as it is meant. England is back! Sunak attended Winchester college, the oldest public school in the country, founded in Plantagenet times. Sunak’s appointment, as an Englishman, is the sign that Britain has left behind Empire and can move forwards. We have a new king in Charles III, another sign that we are moving on. The reality is that the country been suffering a kind of national PTSD since the reformation and civil war. We are coming out of it now; coming to our senses. And today there is even a solar eclipse 🙂
Off topic, but just for interest… FlightRadar24 now (16.15 UK time) showing RAF Rivet RRR7224 near Black Sea. Also RAF Voyager tanker KAYAK31 in the vicinity. Now two Typhoons in the area.
…Typhoons PSYCHO61 and PSYCHO62
Now we have new PM we may get nothing,kiss good bye to 3% on defence budget 🙄
That was by 2030, spin, and never happening anyway. The previous uplift is to 2024 lets see what happens.
So,it does 20mph on trails, can’t reverse on to a pavement because it’s too high and crew are limited to an hour or two because of sickness. Also if we are being generous and count the development period as just being twelve years to date to supply 26 that can’t be used I really would like to know why we are buying this junk. The first person to say that actually every thing is fine and it can take 100 years to develop a poor vehicle goes to the back of the class 😟
You really haven’t been keeping up have? Why trot out stuff that’s years old?
I’m sorry Jacko. Do you mean the reports three days ago, the ones last week or the almost quarterly reports of how bad things are with this project?
Have you been reading the posts from Ian m? By all accounts from people actually working with the vehicle who he knows personally things are hopefully on the turn! Believe him or not your choice.
I have now found a couple of posts from Ian M. What he says is that he has sources and insider information. Why would I believe this against particularly? Without verification it is meaningless. Decent bloke no doubt but an expert?
As I said up to you,however there are very recent videos showing Ajax and Ares humping around Bovington with ADTU and they are most definitely doing more than 20 mph.
Well, if your right Jacko, that’s good but at the moment I can only go with what I read in the reports that come through and they’re not good.
Hi Geoffrey. My take, for what its worth. Considering he has worked with armoured vehicles throughout his career, I think in REME, and knows people at ATDU ( Armoured Trials Development Unit ) at Armour Centre at Bovington, home of the RAC, who are working with Ajax on trials, I’d say he is more qualified to comment on UKDJ on this subject than all of us and yes as far as this area is concerned I consider him the SME. I have no reason to doubt or suspect him or anyone else is a “Walt” pretending to be what they’re… Read more »
Now I know something of Ian I will watch out for him. In the end though we are all only responding to the reports we see. Either way I still question why as a country we have to follow a route which has taken us nowhere (so far) in twelve years when we could have gone with CV90 in 2010, probably at half the price. Onwards and upwards!🙄
That answer lies with the army. Have a read of the great article on Think Defence about the long saga of TRACER, FRES and now this where billions have been spent before even reaching ASCOD. Politics? Incompetence? Corruption? MIC filling their boots with tax payers money aided by ex brass moving on to consultancy roles? A mix of all these? Take your pick. Procurement has plenty of problems like we all know. Will it take a revolution to stop it? The MIC make lots of money. Would it have been better to keep RARDE and develop in house rather than… Read more »
I’ll see if I can find it. As you say though it’s all so easy for some to take advantage. A bottomless pit of opportunity.
Out of context I’ve just found your reply to my bit of nonsense about acronyms in the spam file. A long, long time ago I worked in advertising on features. There were some absolutely great ads. Perhaps we should start a “identify your favourite booze ad”👀
Thanks for the support Daniele.👍
All of it is old news with 10% truth. All Armoured platforms in the Army currently have exposure limits.
Everything that needs to be said about this pile of trash, has been said already. I believe the new prime minister will used the Army especially, as part of his slash and hack policies, to make up financial shortfalls elsewhere.
I believe this will result in no more investment in the Army, leaving them to ‘bodge up’ and use these flawed vehicles, as nothing else will be in the offing.
Should imagine this will be yet another reason why not to join the Army.
Main reason is the number of homeless veterans !
Does anybody know the number of hulls manufactured in Spain and the Uk?
Never mind, I have found the numbers from an old article. 296 hulls from Spain.
I think all the hulls for the Ajax family are made in Spain.
Another Ajax article. Cue the acrimony….
It seems the replacement helicopter program has now been delayed assumed due to lack of funds, procurement is going well it seems.
Really? Not yet seen. While the cuts, albeit small, continue. The Bell helicopters of the AAC in Brunei have been replaced by an RAF Flight with Puma, which is itself due to be replaced by the new medium helicopter.
There is an article in Flightglobal about it mate. Looks like a potential 2 year delay if the report is correct. It also mentions the possibility of needing to extend said Brunei based units until 2027! Not sure how that will work given Pumas OSD is 2025?
And? 26 is small beer. Sorry, but it is – especially when one considers that there are multiple variants built on the same platform. I wouldn’t write off Ajax just yet, despite the obvious glee with which some view potential failure. It’s not dead until it’s officially dead and some of the videos now on YouTube show a vehicle which is running smoothly and a lot more quietly than in initial videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPgK2i-qBOc Lots of reputations rest on this. The British Army’s/the UK MOD’s and GDUK’s. Those are big stakes. There are also, contrary to some uninformed public opinions, some… Read more »
I think lots of progress has been made with Ajax but not been publicly released. Here are 2 videos from Bovington a few weeks apart begin October. Watch with sound on Max.
1st video you can tell it has serious vibration issues especially the Aries at slow speed.
https://youtu.be/KlKvv8yydCM
The second video a few weeks later it sounds like the issues have been rectified. Moving a speed rough terrain with no metallic chartering/clunking noise and looking the part.
https://youtu.be/1gU_dbOkGxg
Let’s hope the end is in sight.
Taken from UKAFC today, sure Gabs won’t mind… “143 vehicles have been completed. 135 accepted by MOD; 26 already delivered to Army. 43 vehicles at final Drop 3 design standard have been manufactured for trials 46 of 103 training systems delivered to Army 102 of 245 turrets and 324 of 589 hulls have been manufactured” “Latest testing of the firing on the move against moving targets was cleared in April at Lulworth, again according to General Dynamics. AJAX and ARES both reportedly did better than expected of them at reliability qualification tests in July.” “AJAX variant demonstrated crew survivability in… Read more »
That’s excellent news thank you for the update.
Daniele can you give me a link to UKAFC please can’t find the website anywhere.
Look at RAF Grob training article on this site, I posted Ajax stuff there too, including a link.
Or, put UK Armed Forces Commentary into Google.
Cheers Daniele