Ajax delay ‘national security risk’ say committee

All of which would need to be declared in any large organisation

Johan, what is your background? No-one offered me any of these very ‘bargain basement’ inducements when I was at Abbey Wood.

A bean counter might have looked at the Falklands war and concluded that surface ships had had their day!

Nothing in the battle space is invulnerable. You are right that the Russians lost tanks mainly down to poor deployment.

I am aware of this and met Carew Wilks a few time when I was serving. The MoD rules are very clear and very strict. There is a process that ensures a retiring officer cannot undertake a civilian job touching his previous field for at least 2 years. Wilks finished his army service in Oct 2013, worked for NIMR Automotive for 4 years, then was an advisor to BAE for 1 year and only went into the GDLS job in August 2018, nearly 5 years after being Director Land Equipment.
So not a conflict of interest at all.
He has not been given an easy ride by MoD or Parliament. He got an absolute grilling by the HCDC on 21 Jul 21 – and astonishingly admitted that noise and vibration has been a feature of Ajax since 2010 – he would not have won many plaudits from his GD boss for saying that – goes to show he is refreshingly honest. I would rather have him in that role than an obsequious company man.

I specialise in program turnarounds for a living and in 99% of cases failure is almost certainly due to poor sponsor behaviours and direction.

I do think we need to ease of BAES as they are not a charity and for all we know they are doing everything right. Looking at Warrior this was indeed the case.

Too much political interference and not enough support from government (its more than Money – commitment is key) also play a part.

i would say that the Uk should look at our Scandinavian cousins as we spend more per annum (even removing subs) than all of them combined (Den, Fin, Swed & Nor) yet they arguably have better kit and more of it and seem to be able to support industrial capabilities with a relatively National requirement.

we need to answer the question why they can do it and we can’t?

BAES is not the Prime for Ajax – GDUK is.

Most of our procurement programmes go very well. It is just a relatively few that do not – and it is the expensive ones that get the Press attention.

But it was for nimrod and I was replying to johan

You implied it with your reference to other nations using wheeled CRV’s & then referred to Norway with CV90 & Australia with Boxer. Most on here know it was just unintentional poor wording.

OK, thanks.
B- for me then.

Fair does Dern. I stand corrected.

No worries, I honestly do wonder where this comes from because I hear it so often, and at first I believed it when someone said it to me, until I did the actual maths and compared like for like.

Boxer is even bigger. Hull height is 2.4m

Hi Graham.

thanks for response, couple of points to clarify on my part.

1. I am definitely advocating an IFV atthe fire team level as with infantry accounting for 19k (max) of the current force I am looking at ways to maximise their lethality and having a Smaller IFV with CTA 40 (and an APS) will provide section fire and anti UAV capability.
2. I have even thought of the usefulness of the weisel 2 with a trailer for 4 that it releases upon contact so it can provide flanking or covering fire as the dismounts offload and make contact.
3. I also think the lessons of op Herrick need to be applied in that we should never send our troops out without adequate protection and firepower.
4. the armoured logistics part is an HX with armoured cab , drops capability and perhaps an unmanned turret for those that need it. All logistics should be containerised and all logistics should be drops enabled.
5. i also think a lot of capabilities can go on an armoured HX (like ceptor, 155mm, h8mars etc) and don’t necessarily need a boxer module given the price differential.
6. I am coming to the conclusion the KF41 could be the golden bullet for our high end combat vehicle that can be up armoured to tank levels at a reasonable weight.

ultimately everything I say is about getting the best equipment we can into our army’s hands n the quantity required. With such a small army smart solutions will be needed to force multiply and that means 2-4 person teams doing what 8-12 used to do (boxer RCH is a great example of this)

division size is aligned with above and the fact the army is resistant to losing capability 8 divisions of 12.6k (including 21k aligned RAF). Commanders need to be able to control every asset in their division to make this work with all the technology at their disposal.

Many thanks for the reply.
Of course relatively few of our 19,000 Infantrymen are customarily mounted in an IFV – We only have 4 Warrior Battalions (armoured infantry) – thats just 2,928 soldiers. We also have 4 Bns of Mech Inf in wheeled Protected Mobility vehicles. I have no great view on an IFV for a 4-man fire team rather than for a section except that you would have to increase manpower to allow for a non-dismounting crew (driver and gunner) of a second vehicle.
As Wiesel 2 is not an IFV, are you advocating one or more of them in a platoon as extra vehicles? Why not use the IFV cannons for supporting fire, as is usual?
I was on Herrick and you correctly point out that not all troops outside the wire were in protected vehicles, especially CSS, so happy with the armoured cab.
Not sure that all stores need to be containerised – you are not always dropping off a full load at a destination – and when you have dropped a container you have a fairly useless cargo vehicle for the return trip.
KF41 looks good. Not convinced that all AFVs have to be at tank levels of protection though.
Once infantry are dismounted, a 2-4 man team really cannot do what 10-12 used to do.
You mention your 8 divisions of 12.6k again, but only 70% of the army is in the Field Force.

Hi Graham. Will try to cover the main points here

1. A section will be 8 people spread across 2 vehicles that provide suppressing fire, logic is that the vehicles do the heavy lifting of stores, and fires in a smaller army. A platoon will have 16 dismounts + 12 drivers and a company 168, 196 or 252 personnel.
2. I do think there is some merit in looking at smaller vehicles that are connected for the road trip and then disconnect on contact to allow more options (but accept this may be a rubbish idea)
3. The division size is 4 Manoeuvre Bgdes (MEU size) and an HQ and has c.2.6k air and similar infantry.
4. this means a transfer of 20k personnel from the RAF to the army.
5. you rightly point out the need for a dedicated corps of vehicle crew and mechanics and this will be pivotal to the new construct and will be one of the larger corps.
6. What is proving really challenging is that the army cannot do everything it is being asked under its current 82k size. If the MOD is determined to cut further then it will need to cut down on what it does.
7. additionally more of the army will need to be in the field force, but if that force is rotated through a low, medium and ops cycle you can cover off the activities in the low readiness force periods (25% of the force at any given point)
8. as for KF I don’t care what vehicle we actually choose as long as it’s great, armed to the teeth and we order loads that we build in the UK.
9. possible mix for me is KF41, Boxer, JTLV/Foxhound/jaguar, Dagor, HX3/4, ineos grenadier to replace Land Rover.

Radical thinking on your part.
If the army is struggling to do its stuff with 82,000 – it will be even worse when it is 73,000.

Maybe, but it seems to me a USMC MEU is about the size of ‘big unit’ we can deploy and keep the full spectrum of capability, and maintain some form of harmonisation balance.

the UK is good at logistics and the MOD has 60k civilians now working for it.. so the boundaries between some capabilities are already blurred.

I would go further and if we go tanks put that capability into the reserves as a) lots of training can be done in local simulators, b) kinetic training can be condensed into the relevant envelopes, c) it takes an age to generate so plenty of time to get the reserve mobilised and ready. The remaining reserve would take on support activities (so no inf reserve), but definitely a cyber reserve.

the army we have needs to be far more deployable and far more ready for those deployments in terms of equipment, culture and organisation. For that we need a change of attitude and a move to equipment that releases people or creates a force multiplier.

I think that the army is very deployable, however it is alarming to hear that some HETs have been auctioned off.
People make too much of ‘the difficulty’ in deploying heavy and medium armour. We first deployed tanks overseas in 1916 – we are quite used to doing it – we are used to putting tanks onto ferries and rail flats and HETs.

Are you saying that tanks should go to the Reserve Army? That is a non-starter. We have a Reserve Army armoured regiment who provide BCRs to the 3 regular tank regiments. Thats as far as we need to go.

Or Heineken?

That would be one way to battle test them and see if they are actually combat effective in 2022

The demise of the Infantry’s Warrior fleet and its replacement by Boxer does not mean Ajax loses its raison d’etre – why would it? We still need armoured recce.

We did not specify Ajax to be a heavy tracked vehicle solely because we had Infantry riding in tracked vehicles. Recce (even an infantry battalion’s close recce, let alone medium or fomamation recce) operates far ahead (and not with) of Infantry companies and platoons.

You are right that Boxer is not as capable as a tracked IFV, which makes me wonder why WCSP was cancelled and we are now buying extra Boxers instead.

Only the French have tanks working with wheeled armoured infantry – and I don’t think they have much relevant combat experience. I don’t think Boxer mounted Infantry can operate as effetively with CR3 as WCSP-mounted Infantry for several rather obvious reasons – and I bet it is more expensive to buy Boxer than to upgrade Warrior.

We should have upgraded Warrior (WCSP) to make it probably the best IFV in the world, upgraded more CR2s to CR3 – and bought an off the shelf tracked recce vehicle (from anyone other than General Dynamics) instead of Ajax.

Hi Graham, it’s not really my area, so just really mulling the options WRT Ajax.
Was Ajax not designed to be the Recce vehicle for our Amd Inf Bde? Since we no longer have them – now Mech Inf with Boxer, do we actually need Ajax itself? Totally agree we still need Recce vehicles, but as others have argued, would it not be better to align all and go with a wheeled version as opposed to tracked? If we were to still have tracked IFV making ‘heavy Bde’ then yes see the need to keep it, don’t believe the French have tracked Recce vehicles with their particular mix either, so who knows…..

Hi Deep, Ajax was supposed to be fielded in 2017. The Ajax recce vehicle would replace Scimitars in the formation recce regiments in 3 (UK) Div – being as that comprised three AI Bdes, that should be three armoured recce regiments with Ajax. Then you have the Ajax’s in the AI Battalion’s recce platoons and finally you have the Ajax’s in the recce troop in the tank regiments.

With Warrior ‘withering on the vine’ then being replaced by an additional purchase of Boxer, things have changed. Such Boxers might not have a cannon so a Boxer Inf platoon may have to be augmented by 2 Ajax vehicles to provide firepower, ie. you would need 18 Ajax vehicles to provide cannon support to the 9 Boxer platoons in a single Boxer Inf bn. The battalion’s recce platoon could make do with Boxer CRV (Combat Recce Vehicle) or stick to Ajax as per the original plan

Ajax would still be required in the recce troops of the tank regiments.

It is a moot point whether the formation recce regiments (one per bde) should stay equipped with Ajax or switch to Boxer CRV.

Not much clarity on this – but Ajax (or similar tracked vehicle) is still required in 3 Div.

Hi Graham, thx for the reply. The army have certainly got themselves into a mighty mess!!
Personally, if we aren’t going with tracked AI, then don’t think we need Ajax and it’s variants, they are looking out of place/out on a limb with Boxer. Believe we should go with a wheeled Recce variant instead, along with all the tracked versions.
I never really understood why we were going to upgrade a 35 yo IFV as opposed to buying a new one, especially as Warrior had served us well and put in some hard miles? Seems barking to me.
Have to say that I’m not entirely convinced that Boxer is the right choice for us either. At its base level, it’s v big, expensive and heavy. None of the 630 odd Boxers we have ordered are of they ‘fighty’ variants, in fact they are really all support versions including the battle taxi. There are cheaper vehicles available (Patria et al’) which have the majority of versions we haven’t yet ordered already in use. Why do we need to buy such an expensive vehicle when something cheaper means we can have more! Obviously it’s rocket science in some quarters…..

Hi Deep, you seem to think that we specified Ajax as a tracked vehicle purely because the Armoured Infantry had a tracked IFV. Not so. An armoured recce vehicle is either Close Recce (ie at the vanguard of a manouevre unit such as an AI Bn or armoured regt) or it is Medium Recce (also called Formation Recce).

Leaving aside the 344 non-turreted Ajax variants we have ordered 245 turreted ‘Ajax’ variants:
198 Reconnaissance and Strike (Ajax)
23 Joint Fire Control (Ajax)
24 Ground Based Surveillance (Ajax)

Of those 198 Recce/Strike, only 32 are with the four AI Bns in their Close Recce Platoon – when those battalions become Boxer than it makes sense for us to buy 32 fewer Ajax and buy 32 Boxer CRVs. I have seen an argument that if we buy non-turreted Boxer then a Boxer Inf Pl would get 2 Ajax for intimate fire support.

I think there is a lot more Structures work to be done, but we might just cut the order for turreted Ajax by a relatively small amount as – unless the programme is canned obviously.

As an engineer, I had no problem with re-lifing 35 y.o. Warrior with the WCSP programme – the army is running FV430s that are 60 years old and there are many M113s around the world of similar vintage! Given that the army has shrunk since the mid-80s we would have selected the least used WRs for the programme. It is a very poor decision to can WCSP and buy Boxer instead of upgrading WR- I can think of no advantages and numerous disadvantages. If the armoured/mech infantry don’t have 4 well armoured vehicles each with a stabilised cannon per platoon and the ability to keep up with CR3 (which will be very fast cross-country), we have lost capability – and possibly the next war! We gave up wheeled armoured battlefield taxis when we scrapped the Saracen!

Hi Graham, apologies for late reply, spent last night watching the football, rather wish I hadn’t bothered now, as that’s an evening of my life I won’t get back!!!
Sorry, it’s probably my bad wording WRT Ajax. I know we didn’t specify Ajax as tracked just because we have tracked IFVs with our AI, but as a replacement for Scimitar predominantly within our AI BDS. But then of course the whole ‘Strike’ saga raised its head and things really went astray. Still not overly convinced Ajax is what’s needed if we are ditching tracked AI, but as you say, we need something.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having a strong well equipped army (despite being dark blue). Now that we have committed to upgrading C2 we should surely be looking at a mix of capability from heavy – light and equipping them accordingly, especially as most of the kit is reaching its sell by date. The army budget for the next few years is relatively large, let’s hope they get it right.

Hi Deep, Most Ajax are in formation recce regiments that operate way forward of the Infantry – so there is no linkage between what vehicles the infantry need and what the RAC need. The army has always had a mix of capability from heavy to light ie a range of vehicle types to deal with different terrain and different threat types – Infantry currently has the choice of Warrior or a variety of wheeled armoured vehicles or soft-skinned vehicles – for troop carriage. Recce can be done with Scimitar (armoured, tracked) or Foxhound (armoured, wheeled) or LandRover (soft-skinned).

Ajax is Scimitar replacement so is armoured, tracked and cannon-equipped. Irrelevant what the Infantry miles and miles away has. If we ditch tracked AI it does not follow in any way that we ditch the Scimitar replacement. That would be like saying if we put nuclear propulsion in a future aircraft carrier, we should put it in a future frigate.

I think Ajax is the wrong vehicle for recce – it has too big a signature, is too expensive, is too heavy to cross fragile built terrain (bridges & culverts), is late to service, is unsafe for crew, has poor transportability, ammunition is too expensive – and allegedly cannot reliaby fire the cannon or reverse properly.
I think it is poor for strike – if that means you want to destroy or immobilise high value enemy assets at very long range.

We do have a mix of vehicle types already. That is not the problem. It is complete chaos in the AFV procurements of the last 20 years.

Cheers Graham, always good to get a different perspective.
Will be v interesting to see how the Army extricated from this mess! Just hope they get something that can do the job required, and enough of them.

Thanks Deep, I served in REME as an officer 1975-2009, then worked in Defence procurement followed by Defence Industry.

I have never known the army in such a mess, equipment-wise, especially AFVs. It cannot be sorted quickly. I despair that CGS is not gripping this as a senior influencer (he does not make procurment decisions) – I knew General Mark when he was a brigadier commanding 16 AA Bde – in fact he wrote my annual report at Part 2 one year. With his light-role Infantry and SAS background, and minimal and distant time with armour (he did Gulf War 1 in 91 and was COS 19 Mech Bde in 99) he is not particularly armour-minded – that’s the problem.

I think that Ajax will either be cancelled or accepted into service in the next 12-18 months with provisos, or only fully accepted into service after several years (if and when) it is fixed. CVR(T) will have to stagger on unless it is true that a Warrior recce version is being cobbled together from some redundant WR IFVs.

We will buy at least 500 Boxers and the politicos will try to claim some credit for ‘modernising’ the army. If the infantry carriers do not each come with a 30-40mm stabilised cannon, it will be a waste of a huge amount of money. The army will not get as many Boxers as it needs – the army never gets all the equipment it needs! The reason we have so many FV430s in service (after 60 years) was that MoD did not buy enough Warriors in the mid-80s, thanks to penny-pinching Treasury.

In the past we have had vehs with some measure of amphibiosity – HMLC Stalwart, FV430 & Ferret Scout Car (it required quite a bit of prep with erecting a flotation screen).

But I struggle to think of a modern recce vehicle with amphib capability.

It would have an occasional use, I suppose. But erecting a flotation screen is time-consuming and you usually cannot fire any weapons with it up.

Thanks Geoff. I can understand the ire that causes some to say that GDUK must pay back £3.2bn to MoD, but they have done work in stages that has been signed off by PM and Commercial staff at DE&S – the best lawyer that MoD could hire would not get back money that MoD agreed to pay for work done to an agreed standard.
Different story for any vehicles rejected by MoD as unsatisfactory.

It’s not as patronising as your opinion of the MoD. Try sticking to facts rather than doom and gloom and you might have a more pleasant experience of life.

Why don’t you try sticking to the discussion instead of trying to troll my posts ? Do get a kick out of being judgemental and condescending?

Why don’t you try sticking to the facts of the debate rather than impersonating Victor Meldrew? 🤷🏻‍♂️

There’s a few news sources mentioning it, first saw it on CNN but this is the best report I’ve yet seen
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/06/01/u-k-seeks-u-s-approval-to-send-rocket-system-to-ukraine-00036328

Thxs Sean.

Not easily I think. The Lithuanians and Aussies have gone down the 30mm route. To the best of my knowledge no one else has ordered a 40mm for Boxer. For simplicities sake I think we’d be better off going with a 30mm gun.

CTA has already been put on a boxer and I am also sure the RT60 turret also accomadates (mr Drummond will be able to confirm)

i would think we would be better off with the RT60 as it’s an industry standard

So you expect 40mm to be used on Boxer or whatever replaces Warrior and Ajax ?

Not a chance. Australia have big problems with Boxer due to the gun.

What problems?

“The ABC can reveal the automatic cannon turrets for Australia’s new “Boxer” combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRV) are too heavy, and various other headaches with the massive program are emerging.
Other concerns about the Australian Army’s largest project to date include the CRV fleet only being able to fire German-made ammunition and requiring bespoke European-produced tyres.”

Alex, that’s a bit of a vague criticism to base your comment “not a chance” on. I also wonder what the critique about the Australian turret being too heavy means, when we’re seeing calibres up to 155mm mounted on the Boxer chassis. For an in service example we have Lithuania that seems to be operating its Wolf IFV variant with stabilised 30mm cannon and Spike-LR ATGM without issues.

Not sure what only having German made ammunition and European tyres for the Australian Boxers has to do with whether CT 40 is a good fit for Boxer?

Boxer is already an heavy vehicle with big hull height 2.40m.
So there is need to be careful. I doubt something setup for Ajax could work in Boxer.
I agree there is a need for a gun at least for anti drone work.

The same arguments for why it was pursued for WCSP and Ajax still seem to hold. Namely that it over-matches in range and firepower IFVs that are typically armed with 30mm. Its air defence air burst has a greater spread effect than smaller calibres too.

The cased telescoped design means that more rounds can be carried in the same space as a conventional 40mm. So CT40 doesn’t give up number of carried rounds to achieve that firepower, especially as the greater firepower is likely to require lower use of rounds to achieve similar effects.

The French don’t seem to have had issues integrating CT40 into Jaguar, so if there were/are any issues in the WCSP or Ajax turrets with CT40 then that would seem to be down to how the UK integrated the weapon.

Turret wobble, round cost and short barrel life are issues, would super 40 bushmaster not have been better as proven system ?

Turret wobble on which turret?

Round cost is often brought up but we don’t know volume manufacturing cost for mass production. It will be more expensive than conventional rounds in mass production, but that’s the trade off for the benefits, which hinge around competition for space in modern armoured vehicles.

The 40mm Bofors round is 535mm long versus CT40 at 255mm. That’s the penalty paid with a conventional 40mm round which affects how many can be stored. Then there is also the intrusion of the gun system into the turret, where CT40 is less than the 30mm and significantly less than the 40mm gun. One result is potential for a higher gun elevation for use in anti-air and built up areas. IIRC CT 40 in at least one of the UK turrets was capable of >+60 degrees elevation.

Then that’s the one to go for. Thanks.

They will already have been promoted several times since they signed off on this farce.

the main one, has constantly been promoted, Gen nick carters fingerprints are all over FRES and Ajax.

Johan,

Thanks ofr the info about the re-design. Scary stuff!

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/ajax-firm-75m-profit.html?firefox=1

GDLUK made a measly £75m profit – that is beer money!

So when you add the extra mass of the C4ISTAR boxes and the turret you hit resonant frequencies?

That offer of Merkava to Colombia was a decade ago, the Polish buy for Abrams was this April. There’s a decade of military inflation to add to that Merkerva price, although it would certainly be less expensive than Abrams.

Ascod would probably been fine, if we had left it around the 28 ton range & only done minor off the shelf upgrades. Turning into a 42 ton monster with every new shiny digital bit of unproved hype, was & is, a recipe for disaster.

So are you are saying the additional weight is a function of the ambitious C4ISTAR (which is the unique advantage of the vehicle), rather than the CTA turret?

They took an OK vehicle & shoved everything they could think of into it. I think HM Treasury telling the Army it could have only one new toy, meant the Army (or certain individuals in it) said if we can only have one, then lets gold plate it with extra diamonds.

That sounds like a plausible account of how it went down. I have experienced similar in the world of education; ongoing spend is less than required and there are periodic big spend projects. When these happen people throw their every wish in knowing they will not see any more money for a long time.
As other posters have pointed out there is a contrast with the way the T31 procurement was handled. It does look as though the RN and the MOD enjoy a better working relationship than do the Army and the MOD.

Ajax was a brand new vehicle so NRE was high. For vehicles that are already designed, built and in service with other armies, only the much, much smaller cost of modifying them for British use would be a factor.

Wheeled and tracked version? Not possible. Tracked = sprocket drive & steer through differential track speed. Wheeled = 8 wheel drive & steer by turning wheels.

Thanks Stu. I know nothing about mechanics so my next question may seem strange.

starting with wheels can we not lock them them into place and change the tyres for something that acts like a cog for the tracks or alternatively can we not just add in a whole track side panel onto drives assuming electric drives for each tyre axle going forward as per HMT demo.

understand this is not easy but is it doable if we are looking at having a power pack produce energy for electric wheel motors?

I suppose it’s ‘possible’ but not practical.
Can’t simply replace wheel with drive sprocket as the teeth would wear too quickly. Even moving to electric power has issues. We also need a mechanism to tension the track when the wheels are moving up/down over terrain.
It would require such a complicated addition to do it either mechanically or electrically, you lose all benefit gained from 1 vehicle type.
That complexity increases cost, increases maintenance, increases weight, reduces reliability, we’re moving complex components outside of armour making it vulnerable. If individually armoured, adding yet more weight.
We want to aim for it cross compatibility between platforms where practical (same gun, comms systems, engines, whole turrets (where possible), optics etc.) and as few platforms as poss. Afraid I think the hurdles between wheeled and tracked are too great though.

Thanks again, so last one, as I am determined to try and square the circle. Can we create a version of the KF41 with wheels perhaps taking everything learned from boxer

what I really would like is the ability to have a single hull and configure for wheels or tracks.

this would be really useful for us in so many ways, and offer so many benefits in scale, production, training, parts inventory etc…

i would do away with boxer, challenger, Ajax, warrior, all other tracks and just build this platform and have a factory churning out 160 per year in the UK for at least the next 10 years.

That would then leave us to decide on light, trucks (HX probably) and super light. Which should also be built in the same factory to keep everything get.

rheinmetal are already a partner in most of these contracts it shouldn’t be too difficult to sort. And if it is then boxer for wheels and KF for tracks but wouldn’t it be great if we could just have 1 that we can manufacture here to scale.

Not sure what you mean by ‘learned from boxer’. If you’re referring to modularity, Lynx already has this by effectively replacing the roof & internal config.
Tracked requires a certain ratio (more square) of length to width to create stable, manoeuvrable platform that won’t chew up its tracks. Likely cause a wobbly wheeled vehicle at speed (thereby losing the main benefit). Look how squared off a CV90, Warrior, Bradley etc is compared to Boxer, LAV, Patria etc.
I think you’re overestimating the benefits of having one platform and benefits of scale. The platform you have in mind would be horrifically over engineered & complicated it wouldn’t surprise me if the cost per unit was 4 or 5 times that of boxer or Lynx. Then maintenance on such a bit of kit would be twice Boxer & Lynx. I can’t see how the army would EVER recoup these costs from an ‘economy or scale’, training costs, spares etc.

I’m a big fan of the Swedish Hagglunds SEP, have been for years, though I’ve never seen it brought up on here. If the future is electric (or more precisely, hybrid diesel-electric), then this looks like a cracking piece of automotive engineering to me. Lower running costs, quieter, greater crew comfort, etc. That comes in tracked or 8 x 8 wheeled versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitterskyddad_EnhetsPlattform

After years of testing both types with funding from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, it was cancelled in 2008 by the Swedish Gov’t ‘through lack of an international partner’. That must mean the UK, as it was dropped from even consideration for FRES in 2007.

What do you think, Stu? With a bit of forward planning and if our Gov’t took over the development tab from Sweden, we could have a new indiginous CVR(T) series, replacing Bulldog, Warrior, Ajax and plans for more Boxer over the 600 ordered.

I don’t understand this love affair with Rheinmetall. Going with them for everything is no more healthy for our economy (and R&D etc) than letting Lockheed control all our warplane production. I just figure some of the Army top brass are over-impressed by the way the doors shut on their Mercs, Beemers and Black Audis. German engineering? They are not exempt: Boxer’s in big trouble in Aus now.

Thanks for that – I hadn’t come across SEP before. Interesting concept.
Dual engine & gen set adds redundancy & electric drive motors have their advantages. I couldn’t see an 8×8 picture, only a 6×6 but they appear to have different hulls (i.e. not quite as interchangeable as Pacman27 proposed) but you’re right the commonality in drive train would allow for some economies of scale. I would worry about the track on that version slipping though as we’re reliant purely on friction between road wheel and belt but maybe that’s a non-issue, IDK.

The US are looking at Hybrid for their Bradley replacement as (in addition to efficiency) it’ll allow short range quiet movement, plus the increasing requirement for power in the future means more attention needs to be paid to power generation. As I understand it though, they’re still intending a sprocket to drive the tracks. BAE & Rheinmettal are bidding.

I agree that with forward planning 16 years ago, SEP (or an evolution thereof) could have been a contender. Perhaps if BAE had continued SEP on their own dime, they might have found some customers or been able to leverage the tech into other products. As you rightly say, hybrid drive is the future & increasing power demands from future systems would have paired perfectly with the tech.

Re Rheinmettal – I’m not in love with them & I don’t think that many people are (though some may be!). They do have good marketing though 😄. For myself, it’s a reflection of the situation we find ourselves in. Had the UK begun a programme, developed a platform & deployed it, we wouldn’t have these forums lamenting the failures of Ajax.

I could happily debate all day about how we got to a point where we don’t have a UK product to field – IMO as with most things in life, there is no “one answer” & it’s a combination of a hundred things; nationalising BAE (had cultural impact we still see in the organisation today), encouraging mergers of UK Defence contractors into one behemoth (reduces competition), ineffective project management, a bloated Civil Service, end of the Cold War, ineffective politicians, reductions in defence spending, public apathy toward defence, no consequences for failing etc. etc.

As it is, CVR(T) is rolling on for 50(?) years old & we have to replace it. The only way to do that in the timescales we have now, with minimal risk of failing (again!) and with the ability to upgrade it in the future, is to buy a relatively new design off the shelf & adapt it quickly for our needs. I suppose this was the original idea behind ASCOD but it wasn’t designed with the protection they wanted (like others may be) so they figured they could add 12 tonnes of armour(!) without issue. When we look around the products on the market today, the only company that has a modern product that appears to fit the requirements (including heavy armour packs) & have a track record of being able to quickly and effectively integrate kit, seems to be… Rheinmettal. They developed the Lynx on their own dime, leveraging the knowledge gained from Puma programme. Maybe BAE should take note.

Boxer in Aus – I’ve read some stuff & it’s a little bit about the weight to Lance 2 adding APS, and mostly about can’t fire spike (only an issue in the first ones delivered as a stop-gap), and having to buy ammo & tyres from European sources… APS is not several tonnes so I’m going to call BS on it “being too heavy”. The Aussie Army are saying APS is not required now anyway so my guess is it’s a tweak to the requirements to save some cash.

Thanks for all the add-ons, Stu (wow!). Just to pick up on a couple of points… SEP is not a ‘concept’ but a built and tested product – the US had a couple to trial at one point.

For 8 x 8 info, you have to go to Google Images. Here’s one:

http://www.military-today.com/apc/sep_8x8.htm

As you point out, the 6 x 6 is a quite different beast (no hybrid and a modified hull), more down-market then.

I don’t understand your point about the lack of sprockets to the tracks as I’m no engineer. But are you sure? I don’t read that in the info available.Surely the slippage would be unbearable?

What BAE has done from its own resources is to develop hybrid-electric drive for the CV-90, presumably built on this technology. I don’t know what stage it’s at though.Ditto the CTA 40. That makes it even more compelling as an Ajax replacement: short-term straight off the shelf, longer term new drivetrain version.
.

“Add-ons”? Apologies, I don’t know what you mean.

“Concept” – fair point. Should have said working demonstrators.

Sprocket – My sincere apologies. I read it late last night & in my haste, I misread the article. The tracked version does in fact use a sprocket – neither of us are engineers but looks like we both figured it wouldn’t work without.

‘BAE from it’s own resources’ – I don’t know what they did with the tech since SEP but Wiki says “It was originally contracted by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration.” (This would be their version of DE&S) and “Swedish Armed Forces announced the cancellation of the SEP programme” – This sounds like they were doing the development work with Swedish Gov money.

I have heard BAE sketched out a CV-90 hybrid but have no idea if they did create one. As you rightly say, common sense says for the sketch (and if they make one) they probably used some of the SEP tech for this. For the OMFV programme, they’ve been given a contract for dev work (and should utilise the SEP tech here) but all the sketches I’ve seen don’t appear to be SEP or CV-90 based.

CV-90 to replace Ajax – agreed. IMO It’s certainly an option that should be explored. As above, my suggestion would be to: ‘Take the working elements off Ajax (gun, cameras etc) & tell BAE (CV90) & Rheinmettal (KF31) they have 3 months to work up design. Pick a winner & get moving.’

My preference for Lynx is not a love for Rheinmettal (or hatred of BAE), it’s because it seems (from what we in the public are allowed to know) given the higher base weight, to offer the protection the MoD want out of the box whereas CV-90 would likely need a little extra (albeit not the 12T ASCOD needed) added.

For adding hybrid drive to Ajax replacement – I’d probably say “NO!”. Given the time crunch, let’s keep it simple. CV90/KF31 please & we can worry about adding hybrid etc to next gen/refit.

‘Add-ons’ – badly written phrase by me. Apologies. I meant the additional insights you provided to my original post.

Funding – I agree with you and understand that the Swedish DMA coughed up for the dev’t costs on the SEP. Which probably means they own the IP. So for BAE to take it anywhere else, they would need consent, and no doubt to pay up for a licence.

I believe BAE’s OMFV bid is loosely based on the Bradley chassis.

Ajax replacment – bit of a misunderstaning there too. Again my fault through lack of clarity. I wasn’t suggesting SEP for this, rather as a long-term Ajax replacement replacement. I totally agree with you on the need for a speedy solution now. I wouldn’t even ask the Army what they want – just add Bowman of course and as you suggest transfer across useable items from Ajax, to be determined by minimal interference and expense.
.

Add-ons – thanks. That’s one thing I like about these forums, sharing knowledge.

Thanks again for introducing SEP. I never knew of it before. The more I read and ponder, the more I like it. Can see why you liked the concept. Just the power train alone is really quite smart; smaller engines, cheaper & easier to maintain, cheaper to replace & upgrade, redundancy (lose an engine & not immobilised). Very cool.

‘IP’ – I think more often than not, the contractor would keep this.

‘BAE OMFV on Bradley’ – really!? Interesting. I’d say that’s not a great idea unless they’re making it bigger. The US Army have squads of 9 & it only seats 6 so it’s been a complaint for a while.

Agree with you; long term, SEP technology could/should be applied, maybe they could figure a way to add to whatever replaces Ajax, when it gets cancelled, as an upgrade (probably much harder than I make it sound but I’m thinking of the Type 45 PIP) in future.

Looks like we’re tiptoeing towards a broad agreement here, Stu. Which is nice and a good justification for sensible discussion. So thanks for your feedback. Only – as you’ve already gathered – I wouldn’t even include Lynx. Just give a single supplier contract to BAE Hagglunds.

The other thing no-one has mentioned on here is the one group of stakeholders that is blameless in this fiasco – the several hundred strong workforce. As a UK company, BAE is the only one HMG could do business with to re-instate those 2 GD factories, for the assembly of 500 or so Ajax replacements.

I believe we (almost) have an agreed solution. Buy off the shelf, use what we can from Ajax, hybrid later. Now, how do we go about getting the MoD to do our bidding? 😆

I’m curious – why so down on the Lynx? They could be made in the UK, they could take over the GD factory. If you need a UK contractor, RBSL already exist or they could partner with someone else. Is it a Rheinmettal thing with you or is there something in the design you don’t like?

Where possible I’d like to see UK owned Co’s get the jobs too. Not BAE if we can avoid it though. The issue I have with UK owned at present is the MoD never seem to see a viable option for the big stuff in the UK, other than BAE. All public sector procurement looks at “risk” & the MoD always see BAE as “safe” because of their size. That means if you want a UK owned Co, you’re dealing with a monopoly. This not only means BAE don’t have any pressure to be efficient/cost-effective, it encourages/causes apathy, inertia and timidity. Ask yourself this: why didn’t BAE include the SEP power tech in the MK4 CV90 already? They already proved the tech. We can both see it’s advantages. A lot of customers would want hybrid. It’s been 20 years & still they haven’t…

You seem very pro-BAE. Do you work for them perchance? BAE is not & IMO should not be the only Co HMG can do business with. JCB (build armoured engineering kit for the US), Qinetiq, Supacat (SC Group), heck even INEOS created the Grenadier in 4 years from scratch. There are several options with the engineering & PM prowess to make it happen.
I appreciate the desire to build everything in the UK & support this 100%. The US insist upon it for security reasons, I see no reason we shouldn’t take such things as seriously. In fact, I’d like to see several industies flagged as important to security & prevent their sale to foreign buyers.

SEP reigns! I wonder how many others here were unaware of its existence?

i am a big fan of the RMC and believe it should be enlarged and given the task of having a brigade in the high north permanently.

I also think the army need to learn lessons from the RMC and USMC who seem able to adapt to modern tactics and have a plan and set their organisation to deliver that plan. Whether those plans are perfect is another thing, but as Others have pointed out the Army is a paper organisation that seems to think it is double its current size and has not really addressed the fact it is t anymore.

Totally agree, I would like to see the Royal Marines expanded to a strength of 10,000, with renewed amphibious shipping as appropriate.

Add an additional Commando, allowing deployment of a Brigade and a single Commando as the “Marine Raider” Second tier SF element.

I’ve nothing against the Marine Raider as a concept, it will be needed for the on going war on terror and it will be an excellent ‘ go to’ tool for many world wide tasks.

But it should be a bolt on addition, not breaking the Brigade role…

Well it never made sense for me to buy so many Ajax(which should be split in various recon systems not just a tracked one) without a big increase in artillery and attack drone expense.

Originally 1,010 Ajax and variants were required – cut to 589 by HM Treasury.
Certainly agree we need more arty and attack drones.

“The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” ― Oscar Wilde

Love it….

careful! Imagine what the nation would look like if everyone took responsibility for themselves & didn’t rely on the Gov. to look after them. 🙄

Wait….the government is looking after people? (Apologies for the flippancy, couldn’t resist…)

😆
Well, I didn’t say the Gov. was any good at it. Makes me wonder why anyone relies on them.

Is that a fact. We must be ordering 3 tranches of Boxer – the first to replace FV430/Bulldog and Saxon (very belatedly); the second for the Strike Brigade(s) and the 3rd to replace Warrior.
Surely at least the last tranche will sepcify a stabilised cannon of 30-40mm on each wagon?

At the moment no news on any Boxer gun turret.

The whole Boxer order seems so wrong. Only 85 are Infantry.

“Of its 523 Boxer MIVs, the UK will receive 85 infantry carrying vehicles, 60 engineer section vehicles, 62 recce and fire support vehicles, 28 mortar carriers, and 50 equipment support and repair platforms.
The British Army will also acquire a mix of 123 command and control vehicles and C2-utility vehicles, 19 observation post vehicles, 24 beyond-line-of-sight platforms, 11 electronic warfare & SIGINT (signals intelligence) vehicles and 61 ambulances.
The UK vehicles Remote Weapon Stations will be equipped with a mix of Heavy Machine Guns (HMG), Grenade Machine Guns (GMG) and General Purpose Machine Guns (GPMG).
Some Boxer variants are also expected to be equipped with Javelin anti-tank missiles that will be capable of being fired from under armour.”

Those 85 APCs would equip 3 battalions. Not sure how many battalions are getting Boxer but it will be more than that. This order is just one tranche and I expect there should be 2 more tranches.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1536378529415315458

Very cool! There are lots of UGV coming along & will no doubt find a place. The only difference of opinion we have (as I see it) is that I see such things as an addition, not replacement. I can see a time where they will replace, but not quite yet.
For now, Ajax (or whatever we buy instead of Ajax) & in the near future, I can imagine Ajax will have kit in the back for 2-4 guys controlling UGV’s & UAV’s to augment its abilities.

😂