The Ministry of Defence have confirmed that “all testing and training on Ajax vehicles remains paused” adding “we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose”.

Additionally, the statement below states “it is not possible to determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service”.

The following is an excerpt of statement from Jeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement.

“I wish to provide a further update to Parliament on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the Armoured Cavalry Programme. Extensive work has been undertaken on the Health and Safety aspects of the Noise and Vibration concerns raised on Ajax. The Report is being undertaken independently of the Ajax Delivery Team by the MOD’s Director of Health and Safety.

Initially 121 personnel were identified as requiring urgent hearing assessments as a result of recent noise exposure on Ajax. Subsequently, the MOD broadened the scope of those who should be tested to all those who had been exposed to noise on Ajax. To date, a further 189 individuals have been identified that should be offered an assessment, giving a total number of 310 personnel. 

At present all dynamic testing and training on MOD’s Ajax vehicles remains paused.

I have made clear that no declaration of Initial Operating Capability will be made until solutions have been determined for the long-term resolution of the noise and vibration concerns. Work continues on both with General Dynamics heavily committed to delivering a safe resolution. Over the summer, work has been conducted to examine design modifications to reduce the impact of vibration. A design modification to reduce the risk of noise through the communication system is in development and is currently being tested. These may represent part of the overall solution but considerable work needs to be undertaken before any such assurances can be given. Until a suitable suite of design modifications has been identified, tested and demonstrated, it is not possible to determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service with the Army. We will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.”

John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, said in response:

“It is three months to the day since this House last questioned the Minister on Ajax and since then things have gone from bad to worse: the Public Accounts Committee pursuing a critical inquiry; the National Audit Office agreeing to my request and that of the Defence Committee for an urgent investigation; the Government’s own Major Projects Authority again flagging Ajax red and saying that successful delivery “appears to be unachievable”. This is a programme that has cost £3.5 billion to date, delivered just 14 vehicles and is set to be completed a decade late. The Minister’s statement now puts Ajax on an end-of-life watch. He confirms that the vibration problems were well know before the Ajax trial started in 2019. Indeed, he said today there was an Army safety notice in place on that vehicle in 2018. How much did the Defence Secretary know about the flaws in Ajax when he published the Defence Command Paper in March backing Ajax, scrapping Warrior and scaling back Challenger?

The Minister now says that he has realised that what is required for Ajax is what he calls a full-time dedicated senior responsible owner. So for over a decade this Ajax programme, the most costly defence procurement, second only to the deterrent, has had nobody senior responsible who has taken full-time charge. No wonder Ajax is the biggest procurement failure since the Nimrod, and this has happened entirely on this Government’s watch. Ministers are failing British forces and failing British taxpayers.”

We recently reported that the Ministry of Defence have confirmed that “there may be a requirement for Warrior to be used in some reconnaissance roles” until the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle is brought into service.

Warrior could ‘be used in some roles’ until Ajax enters service

In the below piece, analyst Robert Clark takes an in-depth look at the latest ongoing saga regarding the British Army’s plagued Ajax armoured vehicle.

Replacing Ajax with Warrior – A short-term fix for a long-term problem

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
183 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jack
Jack
6 days ago

So if the Ajax gets cancelled, does the MOD get any of the £5.5bn back as they ordered a product that is faulty?

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

This is the public sector..I think we all know the answer..very depressing isn’t it?

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

No indication it will get cancelled. The official position is they are working on a solution. It was a backbencher that mentioned the end of life statement

BB85
BB85
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I think it’s at a high risk of getting canned unless GDUK can demonstrate the issues are down to QC in Spain and remanufacture the hulls. The leaks seem to suggest the issues are fundamental to the design so its at a high risk of being canned.

JohninMK
JohninMK
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Not a backbencher. As above it was John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who said in response:
“The Minister’s statement now puts Ajax on an end-of-life watch.”

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Mr Healey is a good man, sound as a pound. Ben Wallace and Min DP are out of his depth.

Steve
Steve
3 days ago
Reply to  JohninMK

My bad. It must have been repeated by someone as the article I read had it coming from a Tory backbencher.

John Clark
John Clark
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

In a word no Jack… I wouldn’t gamble on Joe Tax payer getting sod all back! The contractor will say the issues are all caused by UK constant meddling with the design and we will likely have to pay a cancellation fee too….. This nonsense has to stop, buy off the shelf and stop throwing bloody money away on these ridiculous overblown projects…. I’m not being funny, but it’s effectively a straight forward light combat vehicle, how can it have gone so badly wrong, with serious and bloody obvious problems allowed to go on to the 11th hour ….. Again!… Read more »

Last edited 6 days ago by John Clark
Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Totally agree just buy off the shelf for the British Army. For the Navy they have specific requirements and by-and-large do reasonably well on procuremet – same with the RAF. It’s just the Army that screws things up very badly.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

The problem is then everyone would complain that we are not buying domestic and not supporting local industries. Defence comes out of the public copper’s, so policticans like to use it as a war to say they are supporting local jobs.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

The RAF and Navy seem to get the right balance between capability and supporting industry. Don’t forget General Dynamics are a US company and haven’t delivered. The issue with the type 45 WR-21 gas turbines was a US designed and manufactured intercooler. Sometimes it isn’t the UK engineers screwing up but usually overseas engineers.Also the drumbeat of activity hasn’t been high enough to sustain capability in the UK so this denudes skills massively – I’m developing skills in niche areas and can testify that a constant drumbeat is definitely needed to sustain training and skills.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

The rumour is that the MOD wanted to punish BAe for the mess up around the ships etc and so went with GD. Whether true or not, who knows.

However the part that matters polictically is GD agreed to put them together in the UK, so it could be sold as a great deal for UK tax payers and job creation. Just like the boxer, all the parts made abroad and then bolted together here.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Steve we’re on the same page. Personally I would encourage JCB to get involved in some of these light armoured vehicles and tanks. They could partner with BAE systems and do a wonderful job and what’s more you would have enough civil and defence work to keep skills going.

Ron5
Ron5
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Now that’s an interesting idea. Bae & JCB.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

They would work well as a team developing next generation armoured vehicles and the private sector “can do” mindset of JCB would bring down costs as well.

Johan
Johan
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

you had me right till you mention BAEs

Johan
Johan
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

BAEs got whacked with a huge stick over the MRA4 as they wanted more money to make it work.
not even deliver it, turned into a huge pissing contest. end result BAEs withdrew various manufacturer supplier agreements, Extention of Harrier Airframe hours was one. other involved parts for Invincible class carriers. UKgovs response scrap the MRA4 immediately and destroy them so BAEs couldn’t hold them over it.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Johan

BAE was delivering MRA4 (albeit late) when the programme was cancelled. One of the 9 had been handed over and at least 3 were in an advanced stage of build. The RAF had launched their training courses.

ATH
ATH
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

They may have handed one over, but it didn’t in any way work properly. MRA4 was just as big a co*kup as Ajax.

expat
expat
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve

To be fair thats most of the motor industry, part are made all over the world and delivered for assembly.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Very true, Andrew. The last tracked AFVs to be designed and built in Britain were Trojan and Titan (prototypes built in 2003). Just 33 of each. You have to go back to CR2 when large(ish) numbers of tracked AFVs were built (1993-2002). The above were BAE products. Waning skills in BAE Systems over the last 2 decades due to lack of drumbeat. But MoD/politicians didn’t pick BAE….. GDUK was a brand new company set up in a former forklift truck factory in an area picked for political reasons. How many of those staff had ever seen a tracked vehicle before… Read more »

Positroll
Positroll
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There is demanding a domestic design and getting stuff produced locally.
The second makes sense. The first is something the UK cant afford for its army right now, having cut its army down to the bone while also having concentrated for decades on having a “service economy”.

Boxer and Lynx/Redback will be produced (mostly) locally in Australia, by foreign companies, with small variations to the turret due to local specificities.Same with Lynx in Hungary.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Positroll

The army has never demanded a domestic design for any kit, not even tanks (the ‘Queen of the battlefield’) – in fact most Cavalry officers (like our very own Stewart Crawford) wanted the Leopard not the CR2. I digress.

It is only politicians that press the ‘Made in UK’ button… and insist on creating jobs in deprived areas. Hence the GDUK plant in South Wales – a company, a factory and a workforce that had never made AFVs before. Are we surprised it all went ‘Pete Tong?’

Johan
Johan
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

agree trying to put money into poor areas, only have to look at the factory locations.

but if its a poor design your lost allready.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There is no ‘Buy British’ unbreakable mantra with army or RAF kit. Arguably GD who make Ajax is an American company and the label GD UK is window dressing. Many of our UOR vehicles were foreign.
It’s just the RN that uniquely buys British.

col
col
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I thought the first hull batches were from Spain?

Caribbean
Caribbean
5 days ago
Reply to  col

All hulls so far manufactured in Spain. Quality has been abysmal, apparently, with some hulls being as much as 15cm too long, with fixing points and holes seemingly not in the right place

Sean
Sean
5 days ago
Reply to  Steve

To be fair, it probably makes it easier for politicians to spend money on defence projects if it also supports U.K. jobs too – especially if it’s in areas with higher unemployment.

Peter S
Peter S
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Not really. Naval programmes have caused most of the MOD black hole. Carriers doubling in price to £7b, T45 engine failure, massive delays and cost overruns on submarines, Chinooks unusable because of software problems.
The army seems the worst offender for two reasons:
* It has kept changing its mind about what it wants
* Our military vehicle industry virtually disappeared along with the skill base.
Perhaps the worst thing is that it isn’t clear we needed Ajax at all.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

The submarine programme is the best value for money in the world and the Astute is a great submarine. The cost overruns arose through two issues – the use of 3D CAD and the lack of a drumbeat and denuding of skills. Read the RAND report on this as you will see what happened. BAE and Rolls-Royce have done an amazing job of the submarine programme and it is quite rightly the best performing programme in the MoD by a country mile. The T45 was purely down to the choice of WR-21 and the poor design of the US designed… Read more »

Locking Nut
Locking Nut
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Quite. And in regards to the CVF procurement ‘doubling’, a lot of that was down to political meddling – Brown’s decision to arbitrarily slow the construction was projected to add something like £1.5bn, as I recall. Also the ramifications of the original contract and design stage impacting when the Coalition re-evaluated and temporarily switched to CATOBAR – only to revert back. Similarly T45, specified, costed and designed for an acquisition of 12 hulls, then 8, and we end up with 6. Although I guess the one very weak silver lining of that is only six needing to go through the… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Locking Nut

Good points LN. Politicians meddling cause more problems than anything else, apart perhaps from Treasury meddling.

Peter S
Peter S
5 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Exactly. Denuding of skills impacted the submarine programme just as it has our military vehicle programmes. I wanted to point out that difficulties from a lack of continuous production are not confined to army equipment though the issue is even worse because the manufacturing capacity had all but disappeared. BAE was paid to keep shipyards ticking over but we didn’t do the same for land equipment.
How you avoid this if you can’t win regular export orders is a real challenge. Other countries manage it, often but not always, via state ownership.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
5 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

I would agree with state sponsorship to keep core skills and capabilities. As an example I think we should fund four shipyards in my opinion and give them base funding so we have an internal market for large contracts. This is not as expensive as people think to do this and would largely pay for itself. I would do similar for land vehicles and get JCB and other manufacturers on board to create a competitive internal market even if this required some base level subsidies.

Peter S
Peter S
4 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

I agree that this seems the only long term solution. Buying off the shelf from commercial companies sounds sensible but it has failed. Our reliance on foreign suppliers for so many components- engines, transmissions, guns for vehicles and ships- amounts to a real economic loss to the UK, which has been running trade deficits for years. We used to export a wide range of defence equipment but in the last few years our nominally large exports have consisted mainly of aircraft and their missiles. Not only is Ajax a military failure but it isn’t much of an economic benefit either.… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Did the army really change its mind much on the Ajax Requirement? I would like some info on that, as I can find no information on this aspect.

We definitely neeeded a replacement for 50 year old Scimitars to conduct armoured recce and ‘Strike’. Just that the wrong vehicle in every sense was Ajax.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Try the National Audit Office Report, June 2021.
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Improving-the-performance-of-major-equipment-contracts.pdf

Bottom of page 10
On occasions – such as on the Ajax armoured vehicle programme – the Department has changed its requirements after the contract was let, making it more difficult for suppliers to achieve cost and schedule milestones.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Figure 6. Ajax.
‘The Department decided to run the design and manufacture phases concurrently in pursuit of substantial savings and to ensure timely delivery of the capability.’

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I like the phrase “in pursuit of”. It implies things were getting away, were out of control. Starting manufacture before getting control was, I think, a recipe for disaster. Then changing the recipe, the requirements, when the programme was already half-baked was going to produce a stinking mess – and here we are.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

As you say, as the saying goes, we are where we are. The first thing to find out is whether the vibration is fixable at an acceptable cost and delivery. If it can and if the Army still feels its the right vehicle they could still have their fleet of these vehicles. The question would then be how much money is left in the kitty for the IFV and artillery upgrades. The recent comments by ministers are cleverly leaving the door open to a ‘miracle’ ….hey presto the vibrations are fixed, Ajax is winner, GD have accepted responsibility and are… Read more »

Steve
Steve
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

To a point, but only to a point, I can understand why it happened. Progressive governments want to focus on different threats, for non military reasons. We have gone from Russia the big threat, then it moved to UN peace keeping roles, then counter insurgency and now focus on China, who knows what next. It’s got to be hard to gear a underfunded army for significantly different missions.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

This didn’t used to be the case. Very good families of vehicles were procured up to the 1970s and the Challengers were also good together with their variants. Different times, different companies, different procurement methodology. I think we procured UOR vehicles (in the main Protected Mobility vehicles that were generally MOTS) for Afghan and Iraq quite well – I would say that as I was involved in that! Then it all went horribly wrong. Its not just the army that has screwed things up – you also need to blame Industry, politicians and the Treasury, and some of the civil… Read more »

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Fully agree with you Graham. It’s often a combination of politiicans, the treasury and civil servants. There is some indications the MoD is learning lessons as they have a lot more SQEP people these days with foresight as well – the younger generation of graduates ironically (counter-intuitive I know but alsolutely true). Some of the ones currently retiring caused some of the issues but the new ones coming through I’m very optimistic!

andy a
andy a
6 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

because with respect thats not what it is, its been spent on making an F35 for land forces to give sensopr fusion and link the battle space together. The real question is now 10 years later do we even need it?
How about 400 Boxers with brimstone and 30mm guns, could even have 155mm varient.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  andy a

We need a recce vehicle to replace 50 year old Scimitars, not lumbering, huge, multi-wheeled vehicles – with mediocre ability to cross very wet muddy terrain and snow – and packing a 155mm gun. A recce vehicle must have the best sensors, data fusion and data transmission capabilities going. Most ‘A’ Vehicle programmes (and other complex air and sea platform programmes) are 10 or more years long. It doesn’t mean you don’t need that aircraft carrier, Typhoon or recce vehicle 10 years on from Project initiation. I would argue that it should be tracked, highly agile, with an ability to… Read more »

Andy a
Andy a
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Really so why have no other nato members spent 10 years ruining a good platform ramming it full of kit? The usa use a Bradley scout unit with missles, why do we always do this while all our allies by an off the shelf unit and tweak it, we ruined the damn thing. Why not puma? Or unruined ascod? Not one other nation would do this, would even have been better designing from scratch. The US marines are now designing same thing, well unless MOD learns to “manage” a project we may just as well go in with them. ARV… Read more »

Last edited 5 days ago by Andy a
AlexS
AlexS
5 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

You mean ACV?

Andy a
Andy a
5 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

No as well as that the marines are wanting to build “advanced reconn vehicle” described as f35 on land, not sure how it fits in with the ACV lav replacement

AlexS
AlexS
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

I think ACV is also part of recon vehicle project for the Marines

AlexS
AlexS
3 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Found it:Textron, General Dynamics, BAE in Hunt to Build New Marine Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

John,

MoD might change the Requirement during a long gestation project (but did they in this case?).

Industry meddles with their own design – they are the Design Authority.

Ajax is not a light vehicle (that’s half the problem) – it weighs about as much asa Leopard 1 tank – and it is anything but simple – it is probably the most complex combat land vehicle ever built in Britain.

I totally agree that this has been a disaster – I think I listed about 15 errors in another post.

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

It’s not great, but it would be even worse to push ahead with the full program, if the program is as flawed as it appears

andy a
andy a
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

its £3billion spent so far on development, MOD would keep the development info, £5billion is the outstanding cash for forking units. I would assume the £3billion is gone.

Paul42
Paul42
6 days ago
Reply to  andy a

And herein lies the problem – development costs……everytime we get involved with something like this we pay out god knows how much in ‘development costs that we simply cannot afford. Just buy a proven design off the shelf, get far better value and numbers for your money instead of pissing it down the drain and ending up with financial disasters and lack of adequate kit.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

MOD should prove the case that the poorly fabricated hulls are the cause of the vibration problem, then go to court with the evidience.

Johan
Johan
6 days ago

not a hull issue, its the fact the design has put on so much weight and now the running gear, and track chatter as everything is over loaded.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Johan

It is many issues. The hull build is one of the problems and the most fundamental at that. It is what will probably kill the project.

Andy a
Andy a
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Pretty serious when left and right aren’t parallel

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
5 days ago
Reply to  Johan

No, read the RUSI report on this, The poorly fabricated hulls are the root of the vibration problems.

Last edited 5 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago

Does this mean that the hull design is fine and that if they were properly fabricated then the vibration issues would be solved?

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Possibly, The RUSI report did not say as much but pointed to the poor quality work as a major factor in the vibration, they said nothing about design, but it may be a case that the hull needs to be made more rigid in places, that would mean returning all hull to be reworked.

expat
expat
3 days ago

That’s astounding modern plasma cutters will cut to mm accuracy, if your manufacturing engineer is any good you clamp you’re parts up on a fool proof jig and weld.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
11 minutes ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The hulls were fabricated in Spain AFAIK Merthyr Tydfil is just an assembly plant.

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 minutes ago

Yeh. Thx. I picked that up on another thread. I understand that the Spanish plant was acquired by GD. I would want to know how that affected the morale and skill levels in the plant.

Johan
Johan
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

that £5.5bn is for development and design costs including the 14 prototypes. so its spent development costs. could of been worse another payment was stopped.

i understand frustrations but asking a Minister why a development vehicle is not ready and fit for purpose and late, when it was not ordered on his watch. perhaps we should just accept. as BMW proved with Rover get them the best parts and tools, the workforce still produces shite.

Peter S
Peter S
5 days ago
Reply to  Johan

No. The contract was a fixed price for development and production.( Over£9m per unit!). GDUK paid @$1b to LMUK for the turrets. They have already built over 200 vehicle platforms.

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

No, they haven’t.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Jack

It depends if the MoD sue GD UK for Liquidated Damages. I know of no case where this has been successfully achieved.

SD67
SD67
2 days ago
Reply to  Jack

3.5 has been physically spent. There is no way GD can get the other 2 billion, even if they were 100% in the right and the MOD 100% in the wrong, a court ordering specific performance of a contract is very rare.

Of that 3.5 some has been spent on the turret, some on the electronics, this IP would presumably be retained by the MOD.

Andy P
Andy P
6 days ago

Pretty damning stuff, I think this ongoing saga has been drip fed to us for so long we just shrug at it now. I can’t remember it making the news so when it does there will be a new uproar, you kind of hope that the opposition and the media are keeping their powder dry on this one, I suspect its more a lack of interest for now though.

Mark Forsyth
Mark Forsyth
6 days ago

Just one more in a long line of massive disasters in regards to replacement of Armoured vehicles. The most recent roll-outs on “non-UOR” vehicles were CR2 from 98-02, AS90 in 92-95 and Warrior from 1984, all of which were overseen from Chertsay, before the advent of DE&S at Abbeywood, post 2000.
All of which started out as private ventures. The CDS, RAC and DE&S should hold their heads in shame at this continued failure to deliver.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark Forsyth

It’s amusing that the conservative backbenchers are calling out a mess in the MOD and total lack of accountability and control, and yet they have been in government for over a decade and appear not to have done anything to fix it.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

You are talking about blue labour (Tories). I like to call them Tories in Name Only (TINO). They seem to defecate cash these days on public sector works. Are we returning to the 1970s of fiscal incontinence and poor quality engineering products?

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

The current government is very much Torries. The conservative party has always been about reducing reliance on the state and supporting big business. This government has been all about that. To be fair labour under blair wasn’t a lot different but at least did increasing expenditure on the NHS etc.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Steve we spend more now through the public sector than at anyime since just after WW2. Look at the recent NI hike for instance. More money isn’t just the only solution it is making things efficient and managed correctly. My biggest beef in both the private, public and defence sectors is that we spend way too much on managers. The pay differentials between doers and managers is massive…time to bring this down as management salaries have gone up but the quality of management has gone down.

Peter wait
Peter wait
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Percentage pay rises are part of the problem as it increases the pay gap between top and bottom paid each year, perhaps the same monetary amount should go to all workers?

Johan
Johan
4 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Simple Answer is WHAT DOES BORIS know about a Tank. they will employ Ex-service commanders as consultants. Parliament is now full of Ex Servicemen playing MPs worried about Afghan Fighters they were trying to kill 15 years ago. or getting scruffy dogs home.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark Forsyth

Dominic Cummings was 100% correct on defence procurement…especially the British Army.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

He might have been right about the issues, but all his solutions for other departments turned out to be a total mess and huge amount of public money going to his mates. For example the bankrupted satilite company that didn’t even make the right type of satillites.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Oneweb I think that’s the one you mean is actually doing very well indeed.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

No idea how well the deal is going or otherwise, but I don’t think anyone can argue investing in a firm that is liquid and actual builds platforms similiar to what is required, has to be better use of cash than having to settle the debts invovled in a company filing for bankruptcy and then having to pay for them to buy in the expertise and design a new satillite. It was a complete waste of government cash

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Saying that sticking with Galileo that we had paid billions into and left out of stupid brexit principles would have been a more sensible option.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Galileo was a white elephant as they left us out of the part dedicated to military applications – typical EU cuts off their nose to spit their face. Glad we left the EU horrible set of total sc*m bags they are.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

From what I read it wasn’t the full story. The papers reported that they had done that, as this was the opening option of the negotiations, but in reality the EU offered for us to remain a core partner, with full access, but we refused, as we did with all the offers to remain in EU agencies.

Pmichael
Pmichael
5 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Brexit means Brexit

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
5 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I never read they offered us full capability. Can you send me the link as in the press it was always without the most important bits for the military as we were a third country.

Steve
Steve
5 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

You would have to Google it. It was part of the trade negotiations. The EU were keen to keep us involved in a number of the agencies, because we would then need to help fund them. There is a lot of fake reporting going on around what was and wasn’t offered, it’s hard to get to the truth as there was just too many vested interests going around. For example I read every day that we have got a great new trade deal with x country and then when you look at the details it is worse than what we… Read more »

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
5 days ago
Reply to  Steve

You can’t send me a link and asked me to google it? You then mention fake news about the EU deal. If you can send me the link about us being given access to the sensitive parts of the Galileo system then I will definitely believe but personally I have googled it as you say and found nothing at all.

Martyn Palmer
Martyn Palmer
5 days ago
Reply to  Steve

And with what caveats did this offer come with, the EU are a bunch of disingenuous arseholes

Peter wait
Peter wait
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

We should not let them use St Helena and Falklands for uplinks to ruin their accuracy !

Johan
Johan
6 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

i wouldn’t trust that twat as far as i could kick him.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark Forsyth

I was a Chertsey man, in the era when they had the Design Authority, and could control what the factory did, aided by an army of people from DGDQA, who placed QA experts in the factories.

Brian Clarke
Brian Clarke
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark Forsyth

Chertsey would trial and test vehicles as requested by MoD/Army usually with industry participation in some way, it was a very successful method using scientific and engineering skills honed over a long period, when a vehicle had problems this would be highlighted and rectified for the vehicle to continue on a trials programme which would test the vehicle to a life cycle in a set time period and if the vehicle was not fit to pass onto ATDU for troop trials then the company involved would take their vehicle back. There were exceptions to this usually when a political decision… Read more »

Dennis REEVES
Dennis REEVES
6 days ago

Give it to Heckler and Koch…..

They turned a PoS SA80 into a damned fine weapon ( if your right handed)

…I’m sure they could do the same with the Ajax😁😁😁😁

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Dennis REEVES

Well I can’t argue with you there…

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
6 days ago

So what’s the back up plan? Warrior is not sustainable and boxer is to big. Will CVRT be retired with no replacement? Very concerning.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Someoneneedsto designa modern version of the cvrt. Fast, air transportable andable to perform the armed reconaisance/ light combat duty role.
Should be able to develop a vehicle with modern armour/ materials science that weighs less than 7 or 8 tons but is immune to small arms and canon fire upto 35/40mm.

BB85
BB85
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

The French Jaguar looks like a good fit for the role. I think it’s still in trials though. No idea why we cancelled boxer and then phirranah 5 only to order this mess. I dont get the impression the army even want it now.

Andy a
Andy a
5 days ago
Reply to  BB85

I heard the Jaguar isn’t up to the standards of things like the puma, much more budget option

BB85
BB85
1 day ago
Reply to  Andy a

It’s much lighter than both Ajax and Puma. It is an actual scout vehicle that is easily air transportable and should not be engaging heavy armour. But it is much more suitable for deployments in North Africa, Afghanistan, Syria etc. Ajax is far to heavy to be a scout recce vehicle its basically a miniature tank than doesn’t carry a lot of infantry or anti tank missiles.

Andy a
Andy a
1 day ago
Reply to  BB85

But seeing as we are loosing warrior do we invest in say 100 boxers with brimstone or 30mm? Or do we get heavier IFV? We have to multitask with lack of cash

John Clark
John Clark
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Absolutely, this is what’s needed now, not an overblown, obese fat body, that can only be shipped to a distant war zone……

Just the ticket for out of area operations, we can only hope potential enemies give us three months warning!

All equipment (within reason) needs to be air transportable today, sod all use if our rapid reaction forces rock up, but their transport and Recce assets are weeks behind!

Positroll
Positroll
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Well, maybe there will be a recce version of the LuWa some day … But Im sure RM could cobble together some Digital Wiesel at short notice, if paid well enough.
And a Centauro I, while heavier, I would well fit into a A400M, at least.

Positroll
Positroll
6 days ago
Reply to  Positroll

Centauro II, not I. Might need a new keyboard …

AlexS
AlexS
5 days ago
Reply to  Positroll

The recon vehicle of Italian Army is the Centauro variant IFV know as Freccia, The recon version it has land radar, fires drones etc.

Positroll
Positroll
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Yeah, but given UK strike doctrine, Centauro II might better fit their requirements …

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Cvrt is to small to fit all the need sensor and other electronic equipment.

Positroll
Positroll
2 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Digital Wiesel disagrees with you …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeRgT_OFH7I

andy a
andy a
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

u mean what the ajax was before we spent £3billion dicking with the design

Finney
Finney
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

No way are you going to get an 8 ton vehicle that can carry all the modern recon kit and resist 35/40mm rounds.
This is exactly the problem with AJAX, its an IFV that is designed to go toe to toe with other IFVs not a dedicated recon/utility platform.
Modern 30/40mm rounds will go through a lot of armour.
CVRT was only armoured against 12.7 Dshk as I remember.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Maybe the Meerkat from Ovik!
http://www.ovik-crossway.com/ovik-vehicle7.php

or the Mpodt – The multi-role POD (tracked) (mPODt) – http://www.mpodt.com/the-concept-2/

Steve
Steve
6 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Warrior is sustainable with the final design ageeed, but the program was cancelled. Ok we don’t know if it also had issues which caused the cancellation.

Peter S
Peter S
6 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Warrior is sustainable. The reason the upgrade was cancelled was because there was no contractual commitment to LMUK. They had been ( over) paid for the development phase but had no guarantee of a full manufacturing contract. The Ajax contract covered design and manufacture for the full £ 5.5b of which >£3b had been paid over to GDUK. Even though the CTA40 appears to have been fitted successfully on to the French Jaguar, it has caused major problems and delays by LMUK for both Ajax and Warrior turrets. The other aspects of the Warrior upgrade do not seem to have… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

1st the upgrade has been cancelled so it is not sustainable as we would have to re start the upgrade at great expense, 2nd the physical build of the vehicle is old and worn.

Peter S
Peter S
5 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

I don’t think so. It was only in March that the MOD. cancelled the intended manufacturing programme. A large number of CTA turrets had been completed.
Because new funds were committed to Challenger, something had to be abandoned and because of the contract, Ajax couldn’t be.
If Ajax is now cancelled, the only affordable alternative is Warrior.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry,
MoD thinks Warrior can be used in some recce roles in the short term – you heard it from the Minister!
Retiring a capability without replacement for a decade or so is something MoD and politicians has a track record in (excuse the pun) – Nimrod MPA and Invincible class carriers. Perhaps it is the army’s turn to take a 10 year capability gap in armoured recce/strike.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Unfortunately that’s not an appropriate answer. The army must maintain its armoured recce capability if it wants to maintain any relevance in the ground domain.

Johan
Johan
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

BAEs nailed MRA4 and Harrier and i think they hand a hand in the Invincible Class gearboxes, over a funding pissing contest over making MRA4 work.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago

This saga just runs and runs. It’s becoming a distraction now for the army. I think it is best to cancel the programme. The future is Unmanned vehicles anyway so maybe best to focus on that. The costs are sunk and lost in my opinon.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago

Another marvellous example of MOD procurement. So we cant afford social care for our elderly, the NHS is on its knees, the RN is woefully short of warships and yet we waste £5.5 billion on an armoured vehicle that isnt fit to be used as a chicken coup.
You really couldnt make it up. Any chance some the people responsible will be sacked?
If I wasted/squandered 5.5 billion of taxpayers money I’m sure I’d end up in prison.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Never going to happen…the gravy train continues apace. The people getting fleeced are the UK taxpayer. I would suggest you join the taxpayers alliance – I’m a member and believe in their aims.

Jon
Jon
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

No. You wouldn’t end up in prison. Because the identity of whoever gave you the authority to waste that much money would come out during a trial: a senior politician/civil servant who must never be held accountable. Everyone involved would huddle under the cloak of invisibility, just as they do now.

Meirion x
Meirion x
6 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

“If I wasted/squandered 5.5 billion of taxpayers money I’m sure I’d end up in prison.”

Yes, take a look at the Postmasters saga, as an example, lives ruined just for accounting errors!
Errors of a large company’s(RM) systems.

Last edited 6 days ago by Meirion x
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Makes the Nimrod fiasco look ‘small beer’.

Johan
Johan
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

So you have to understand the problem, £3.3b covers the 14 delivered units and their development. which is based on a 90s design and was a fast recon unit. that development is overall types. The main issues are the track chatter and with the armour fitted it cannot reverse over a 0.4m obstacle. ordered in 2010 and has had 3 commanders in chiefs add and make changes money is only wasted if GD cannot fix the problems, BUT finding someone accountable for wasting money, is usually caused by being forced into a procurement contract because the contractor has completed the… Read more »

Rob
Rob
6 days ago

Ajax (38 to 42 tons) based on the ASCOD family of vehicles (26 tons) was purchased as the replacement for the CVRT (8 tons). Clearly the specifications of the vehicle have morphed and morphed again during it’s procurement to such an extent that the original vehicle is no longer able to support the platform.

RobW
RobW
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob

But surely this would have been raised as an issue during the process? That’s what I don’t understand. I find it hard to believe that all the engineers involved didn’t understand that adding more and more weight would cause such problems. They must have said something, so management within GD or the MOD ignored it. Speculation yes, but I don’t believe no one knew of these issues before the trials.

AV
AV
6 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Spot on!…easy to blame the MOD for successive design changes…but GD obviously went along with it and continued their flow of ‘gravy’.

Pmichael
Pmichael
5 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Engineers aren’t the people who are selling stuff.

Meirion x
Meirion x
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Was there a max weight limit set, on Ajax?

Rob
Rob
6 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

I’d love to know. Other questions could follow too. Was there a max price? What is Ajax for? It clearly isn’t a light recce vehicle so it’s not a straight replacement for CVRT.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Rob

It was never touted as a light recce vehicle – it was an armoured recce vehicle to replace CVR(T) – AFVs generally increase in weight over their predecessor, so it was never going to be 7 or 8 tonnes. The Strike role (ill defined) was added later.

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Correct

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Yes

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Amazing when you think a T-90 MBT is 45 tons …what makes ajax so heavy? ..surely the amour is not as thick as an MBT?

Peter S
Peter S
5 days ago

Apparently the sensor pack weighs 6/7 tons but as the problems extend to the Ares( 14 delivered) version which doesn’t have this, the automotive platform itself must be seriously flawed.

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

So ill informed, so wrong.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Rob

I would be interested to hear if the army changed the Requirement over that 10 years – I can find no info on this.
Or if GD just started with the wrong base vehicle.

Richard Morgan
Richard Morgan
6 days ago

I wonder if those awfully nice Russian chappies would sell us some BMP3s to tide us over?

Billythefish
Billythefish
6 days ago

So for 3,500,000,000 GBP, we get a very basic looking APC with a turret…and then just 14 demonstrator vehicles?

Are you kidding me? Are these people on drugs or just completely incompetent?

For that investment in what I assume is mostly design and set up – I would expect something groundbreaking and novel and decisively war winning.

It’s just a very, very basic looking APC/light tank.

I am beginning to think this is intentional sabotage.

Mike O
Mike O
6 days ago

I remember reading a think defence article that mentioned a version of Stormer that was intended to carry a scatterable mine system. In a matter of months it was designed, built from scratch, tested and delivered in time for GW2. The point I want to make is that when the pressure is on industry can achieve incredible things. If Ajax is not salvageable then perhaps industry will create something which in the long term is a superior solution. Perhaps even GDUK will pull this off and create a good vehicle in the end. 🤣 Perhaps I should stop drinking! Either… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
6 days ago
Reply to  Mike O

Is there any talk of strengthening the hull, stronger suspension, thicker tracks and a more powerful engine as part of any remedial action? What about John Cooper Works job on this…1/2 joking…

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
6 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I do hope they can try and salvage something with some good British re-engineering and to make it closer to the required final British spec.

Mike O
Mike O
6 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I am sure Ajax could be fixed. Every problem has a solution but is the solution worth the time and resources to achieve. It is interesting times.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Mike O

You forgot to mention the ££££s in achieving the solution.
The solution is a monster one – I don’t know if GD could afford it or if MoD could cope with the time delay.

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Strengthening the hull – not the problem
Stronger suspension – not needed
Thicker track ?? Don’t understand the engineering behind that
More powerful engine – 805 bhp not enough for you?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Mike O

That variant was SHIELDER.

I have read up on TITAN which is the AVLB and whlist based on the CR2 was absolutely not adapted from the MBT – TITAN was a totally new vehicle with a somewhat different hull to the MBT – selcted by MoD in 2001, prototypes built in 2003, entered service in 2006. That’s the way to do it – and built by BAE Systems!

Jacko
Jacko
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Trojan the AVRE was speced by the RE and then built to order again as above that’s the way to do it.

maurice10
maurice10
6 days ago

It’s an Austin Allegro!

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
6 days ago

They need to stop dragging this out and just cancel the bloody thing already.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
6 days ago

Yes, if it’s absolutely unsalvageable.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago

We would then see photos of a salvage company cutting up the vehicles in construction and waiting 10 years for a replacement (as per Nimrod MRA4).

John N
John N
6 days ago

A very recent YouTube video regarding the Australian Army Land 400 Phase 3 competitors.

KF41 Lynx IFV vs AS21 Redback IFV

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IAvWa0-mFU

Cheers,

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
6 days ago

What happened to the tried and tested practice of building prototype equipment testing it, fixing flaws, incremental improvements, retesting, all before committing to mass production?

Meirion x
Meirion x
5 days ago

If you read the article, you will find it says 14 test vehicles have been delivered for testing, before main production begins.

Last edited 5 days ago by Meirion x
Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
5 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

My understanding is the 14 vehicles delivered are not test vehicles but first off the production line:

https://www.pesmedia.com/general-dynamics-merthyr-tydfil-04082020/

BB85
BB85
4 days ago

Correct they are first off the production line. The testing should have been completed years ago. I think 199 vehicles have already been completed just not delivered

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
3 days ago
Reply to  BB85

That is 199 vehicles with faults then.

Last edited 3 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Johan
Johan
6 days ago

OK LETS TRY SOMETHING.

Ajax is at risk, and we need to order a new fit for the purpose TFV.

WHAT DO YOU SELECT AS A REPLACEMENT TFV.

Must be an existing design and fit for the purpose required.

Mike
Mike
6 days ago
Reply to  Johan

With the loss of warrior, before we can decide what vehicle, what actually is its purpose? Simply recce or recce and tracked ifv as well (even if different fit out depending upon purpose)

Last edited 6 days ago by Mike
Johan
Johan
5 days ago
Reply to  Mike

yes agree, But who will decide what is required, this is where the Army procurement falls over.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Tracked IFV was going to be met by Warrior with WCSP – now it will be met by purchase of additional Boxer, hopefully with a turret and cannon.

The purpose of the vehicle in question has always been to replace 50 year old Scimitar ie an armoured recce vehicle. But they have grafted on the Strike role as well.

Marius
Marius
5 days ago
Reply to  Johan

And also into the equation must go WHERE is this vehicle to be used. Horses for courses comes to mind.

Nick C
Nick C
5 days ago

If anyone wants a bit of history, go onto Wikipedia and look up the DIVAD programme for the US army in the 1970’s. A fine example of a horse designed by a committee. At least the US Army then cancelled it, it still cost billions.

Johan
Johan
5 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

USA procurement is as bad as the UKs from Wiki was looking for a unit cost.

The U.S. Army first intended to replace the Bradley as part of the Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehiclesprogram, which started in 1999 and was cancelled in 2009. In 2010, the Army started the Ground Combat Vehicle program to replace the Bradley with the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but the GCV was cancelled in 2014. Informal discussions for the next follow-up effort have been dubbed as the Future Fighting Vehicle (FFV)

Johan
Johan
5 days ago

Found this which just makes it worse,

76 units in M2A2 ODS variant costing $757 million

so if we add up the Warrior programme @ £500m
Ajax programme @£5.5Bn
we could of purchased 450 Bradleys. and made do with it

OUCH

Jason
Jason
5 days ago

Every time we hear anything about this it seems to be getting worse. Hard to believe so many mistakes have been made during this entire process. Perhaps all the way back to the original concept to replace a nimble 12 tonne reconnaissance vehicle with a 38+ tonne under armed and under armoured light MBT. Shocking really.

Ian M
Ian M
3 days ago
Reply to  Jason

A “light MBT”? Really? An MBT is by definition and acronym a “Main Battle Tank”. Under armed? Well, yes for the MBT role but not for an ISTAR asset. Under armoured? Definitely not, that is one of the reasons why the AJAX family come in at 38 tonnes plus. It’s shocking really!

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
3 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

That is heavier than a T-55 tank ….where is all this weight coming from ? surely the armor is not a thick as an MBT?

Jason
Jason
2 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Yeah a light MBT, really. A Chinese Type 96 MBT weighs in at between 41 and 43 tonnes. Ajax weighs in at 38 tonnes with potential growth to go up to 42-43 tonnes.That makes Ajax a heavy vehicle for the role it’s supposed to be taking over from the 15 tonne Scimitar, light reconnaissance. I appreciate Ajax can do infinitely more than what it’s replacing and does it have a place in smaller numbers in British armoured formations, absolutely, but not in the light reconnaissance role. It may be a super duper ISTAR system platform but that won’t do it… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Jason

A good 40mm cannon will take out enemy recce, in fact any light to medium AFV. Don’t need to go to 57mm for a recce vehicle cannon

Jason
Jason
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Agree completely. The 40mm in general and the CT40 in particular is a great weapon system and would be effective against anything short of a MBT I suspect. With future advances in the 40mm caseless round who knows it may even be effective to some extent against even those.

Marius
Marius
5 days ago

Has any thought been given to where this vehicle is to be used? Rainy, muddy, snowy terrain needs tracks. From the Baltic states to the Carpathians in the east and the Caucuses in the south. That’s the battlefield for British armour.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Marius

Yep. That’s why Ajax is tracked.

Jacko
Jacko
5 days ago

All this chatter really doesn’t matter does it?
IF the bloody hull is bent due to shoddy workmanship then we can all scream at the moon because nothing will alter that other than scraping the original hull for properly made ones!

Paul bowers
Paul bowers
5 days ago

So how many back hander were given to get this pile of crap that far in the system when there is far better else where at better value

WillDbeest
WillDbeest
3 days ago

How is it possible to screw this up?

Paul.P
Paul.P
2 days ago
Reply to  WillDbeest

We have to rebuild key skills. Boxer assembly has started at the new plant in Stockport. WFEL sent British workers to Germany to learn the required welding skills.
https://defence.nridigital.com/global_defence_technology_jun21/wfel_boxer_miv_facility
Ajax is being assembled by General Dynamic Land Systems ((UK) at a renovated plant in Merthyr Tydvil. I would want to know how GD managed the skills training of the Ajax welders.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Hull welding and fabrication was done at the Spanish factory – it was Santa Bárbara Sistemas before being bought by GD.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Cheers for that. I think this (process) is still where I would focus attention in the first instance.

AJH
AJH
3 days ago

They chose the wrong vehicle it’s as simple as that. Compared to CV90 it carries less troops, smaller caliber gun and overpriced. Now it’s an over budget failure. £5.5bn wasted and the sensible thing is to cancel it, sack a few suits for incompetence and buy the CV90 as they should have originally

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  AJH

Standard CV90 carries more troops because it is an IFV, whereas Ajax is a recce vehicle, so it does not carry an Infantry section. CV90 and Ajax both have 40mm cannon. Price difference – I am sure you are right.

I totally agree we should have bought the proven CV90 (recce/strike fit) and made it at a BAE British factory – cheaper, relaible, no NVH issues and into service much quicker.

I doubt there is any money to buy CV90, unless GDUK repay much of what MoD has paid them.