The Ministry of Defence say they “will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely” and that they “cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service”.

John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to his Department’s Government Major Projects Portfolio Data 2022, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of delivering the Armoured Cavalry 2025 Ajax programme (a) on time and (b) on budget in the context of the Independent Projects Authority’s rating of that programme as red.”

Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“The Ministry of Defence continues to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests. As acknowledged by the Infrastructure Projects Authority the project remains within its approved budget and General Dynamics are required to deliver to the terms of the £5.5 billion firm-priced contract.

We will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purposes and until long-term solutions to the noise and vibration problems have been found, we cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service.”

The Ajax programme, which began in 2010, is intended to transform the Army’s surveillance and reconnaissance capability.

However, it has gone badly wrong, with no deployable vehicle delivered to date let alone providing Initial Operating Capability or Full Operating Capability dates, say the Public Accounts Committee in a report released earlier this year.

Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said that the government “must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted”, adding “these repeated failures are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet Nato commitments”.

Ajax delay ‘national security risk’ say committee

The report states that the Department (the Ministry of Defence) has a £5.5 billion firm-price contract with General Dynamics Land Systems UK for the design, manufacture and initial in-service support of 589 Ajax armoured vehicles.

You can read more on the report here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

331 COMMENTS

  1. If ever proof were needed as to the incompetence of British procurement procedures it is this. When off the shelf alternatives were already there? We insisted on blowing public money ( again ). Too many staffers falling for the hype produced by “defence” companies. Too many greedy defence companies who just assume they will win a contract because of who they are. Ike warned of the complex, he was ignored. Major structural reform needed instead of kicking that can down the road. The bottom line is producers are just too big and hold far too much influence. We also have politicians and senior staff who lack a pair. It really is that simple.

    • “When off the shelf alternatives were already there”
      There’s no such thing, an IFV is not a reconnaissance vehicle and it certainly wouldn’t fit the requirements.

      • CV90 was not there? In particular that, but also now exists the Puma IFV. They are both in the same weight class as Ajax, actually lighter. What certainly doesn’t fit the requirements, above all else, is a vehicle that doesn’t work. We should’ve understood that then – that widening, lengthening, and otherwise altering a design was already a suspicious affair and then subsequently not properly ensuring that the hulls were in good order before beginning work on systems was a bad idea – and we should for Christ’s sake see it now. Either we essentially restart the entire Ajax programme, causing a dubious position, or we go for CV90/Puma. I doubt a wheeled Boxer would be seen as a credible alternative.

        • CV90 would have to be modified to fit requirements just like ASCOD was.
          We’re better off seeing the project through rather then going back to square one.

          • I think a lot of people forget just how old the CV90 is. Would be better with something like the newer Lynx, which already has a recce variant

          • The CV90 has digital turret ( 4 th generation ), modern optics and advanced semi active hydro-gas suspension, 1000 hp engine and heavy duty gearbox in its mk4 form. The Ajax boneshaker has torsion bars more at home on a 432 !

          • The CV90 recce variant is not as ancient as all that (developed within the last 7-9 years). BAE may be able to build it in the UK (after all, they can build CR3 in the UK), but so what if it wasn’t?
            I bow to your judgement as to whether it is less advanced than Ajax but maybe clever Ajax sensors, optics & comms could be fitted to the CV90 recce variant.

          • CV90 Mk IV is basically a new vehicle, kind of like the Hornet and the super Hornet, they look alike but are totally different aircraft. Also, the Czech republic just ordered and they will build it mostly themselves with about 40% of the parts being Czech.

          • It’s the requirements that are the problem though, 2000 of them to be exact crafted by a bunch of numpties eager to make it look like they are doing something.

          • Agreed it makes sense to re-evaluate the requirements; but keeping them and simply switching to a different platform won’t do us any good.
            What’s worse than a mistake? Repeating it.

          • They seem to have repeated enough mistakes with this project- and your assertion they should just bliindly continue with this procurment without a proper evaluation and comparision to modern alternatives is another one.
            This farce has gone on long enough and needs decisive action to resolve it- I wont be holding my breath.

          • The problem being that We have no clue as to where this project sits, Tomartyr, after well over a decade. What we glean, is that effectively starting the engine can cause h&s issues to operators, combined with problems operating the cannon if driven. Pretty basic issues for mobile military equipment in the view of your average layman; a group not to be disparaged as that simple title includes bill payer.
            The same issues remain perennial, and we’re not even at a shakedown phase when ‘normal’ technicalities can the expected.
            Can anyone point to some progress on fixing the basics? Because if they can, surely they would’ve.
            Rgs

          • What concerns me is that some of the sort of problems they describe would tend to get worse as a vehicle ages surely, esp such things as noise and vibration. If these can’t be met when brand new then even if/when meeting minimum required levels to allow it to enter service, potentially it will at best result in much increased maintenance, reliability issues and perhaps it’s service life. Who knows what issues updates and mods along the line will do, which at this rate will be due early in any service.

          • Operation Mobilise is Sanders’ Talk the Talk. Now he needs to Walk. Theory gives way to Ukraine Practice. We should be grateful.

          • The basics are the hardest to fix – may be impossible to fix.
            GD may manufacture a new batch from scratch using better techniques and scrap or adapt the first batch later at their own expense.

          • Taking the end of this year, and the MoD/GS at their word, regarding (D)ecision Day, would that not indicate that GD already have some of the ‘new and improved’ versions on the assembly line, though? If not, then they’d be cutting it mighty fine for no appreciable gain regarding the initial batches, no?😕

          • It has taken us years to achieve nothing. Another fiasco. How much longer do we wait. The CV90 has been configured into various versions and turning it into a reconnaissance vehicle had to have been easier than this. It has also been bought by most of the J.E.F. members so would have fitted in well.

          • But they guys above are correct- how they’ve been specified is key. We required such a change to the base ASCOD design that they had to lower the roof height and a couple of other structural changes, and then added a load of armour from what I understand. That’s even before we start talking about turret and electronics fit- which should admittedly be less of a problem from the point of view of the issues that have been reported.
            If the Swedes just asked for the latest Mk CV-90 with a bunch of electro-optical sensors and a better radio set for recce, then of course they’re going to come in a lot quicker, cheaper, and with better odds of success.
            We should remember that Warrior was the stripped down offering of what the army asked for, not the full fat one. There’s a lesson there that it would seem has been ignored more recently in favour of lots of changes and a promise that it’ll all be OK from the contractor.

          • Do say more about the army getting a stripped down WR back in the day – I am not familiar with that story. I was certainly aware that we got fewer WRs than we needed so 432 was retained in many roles.

          • My info only comes from the Bovington Tank Museum’s YouTube channel, so I probably don’t have all the ins and outs.
            But the gist I got was that the army specified a vehicle with Chobham armour, 10 dismounts, capable of keeping up with the current and upcoming MBTs at the time. GKN-S won the initial development contract with what would become Warrior, without the Chobham armour, only 8 dismounts, but still capable of keeping up with the MBTs and meeting a revised protection spec for rounds up to ~14.5 mm and shell fragments (which is a pretty standard rating for an APC/IFV without additional armour I believe). The gun wasn’t stabilised either, although the video wasn’t clear whether that was cost saving or just the army thinking it wasn’t necessary in the first place for some reason.
            It’s an example of the military and industry working together to deliver something from a “gold-plated” standard that met budget and 80% of requirements, and would still be considered a decent enough vehicle today if produced as fresh hulls.

          • Thanks Joe. Strange that with the spec pared back and money duly saved, that the MoD did not buy anywhere near enough Warriors which lead to retention of the slow, ageing 432 in many roles including ambulance and mortar carrier in the infantry battalions. Army would not have favoured a non-stabilised 30mm cannon over a stabilised one – cost-cutting at work, methinks.
            Proves that the army’s real enemy has always been the Treasury.
            Warrio has been a good vehicle nonetheless.
            Ajax definitely seemed to be a gold-plated recce vehicle.

          • The latest spec CV90 with new turret with 50mm canon offering improved crew ergonomics, Spike anti tank missiles and active Iron fist defence system looks pretty compelling I have to say, it’s indeed the second update in 4 years while Ajax has simply been trying, and so far falling to get it into a form to enter any sort of initial service. That however as you say is events before any spec changes required by the MoD so who knows eh.

          • Norway ordered 21 CV90 recce variants in 2012 which were delivered from 2015. This design may meet the British Army’s requirement or might need little adaptation.

          • isnt that a good thing, an IFV should be able to do recon and fight back, I believe the latest CV90 has most of not all the things we would need, sometimes we do gold plate things.

            the French jaguar seems to be a great recon vehicle, is in keeping with Frances overall wheels strategy and is pretty cheap in comparison, and has the CTAS40 gun.

            surely if the issue is with the suspension then there are known solutions out there that must be fitted at GDs expense.

          • IFV and recon are two separate roles. Ajax is not an IFV and the APC variant can only carry four passengers. Ajax was designed to have lots of specialist equipment an IFV wouldn’t need.

          • I guess that’s my point, I don’t subscribe to the need for a specialist reconnaissance vehicle, every IFV and Tank should be able to do this role.

            don’t believe there is much that special about them outside of their optics which I’ll be surpassed by cheap drones soon enough.

            happy to be proved wrong, but don’t think I will be. Ajax is outdated before it has gone live imo.

          • It’s a completely seperate job. Tanks and IFV’s can do recce but only by advancing to contact. Actual Recce vehicles are designed to advance, and use it’s own electronics and sensors to detect enemies without being detected themselves, and then withdraw.

          • IFVs don’t do recce – that is a totally different job.
            Recce should not do much, if any, fighting, except in self-defence when bugging out. (Belatedly designating Ajax as also a Strike vehicle seriously muddied the waters, by giving it a role that majored on staying/advancing and participating in serious firefights).

            Base CV90 is not a recce vehicle, but there is a recce variant – Norway has bought some – that wil be a recce vehicle, not an IFV. Different beast.

            IFVs carry an infantry section of 8 men (and a crew of 2-3) and sport a cannon – their role is to keep up with and support tanks (and be supported by them), to fight into an objective, dismount troops as required, provide fire support for them and be a home/base to 10-11 people, etc etc.
            Traditionally we recce by stealth using small, agile, vehicles (with a crew of 3), which have sophisticated optics, sensors and comms, which are far superior to that found in an IFV.

            There is seemingly far more wrong with Ajax than having iffy suspension.

          • You are correct Graham, traditionally these have been separate vehicles, but I think that does not have to be the case going forward.

            I would like to see an IFV have 4 dismounts and for us to have far more of them. Part of this is that can we really afford 589 really expensive recce/support vehicles when we seemingly can’t afford IFV’s.

            as I have said technology is moving on and every vehicle needs to pull its weight, a 3 man crew with a virtual assistant (AI / machine learning) and 4 dismounts is as good as anything.

            I just don’t really see the need for the Ajax fleet but I do see a merging of tasking that will see the recce role conducted by an IFV.

            the latest cv or lynx are very capable, not sure what else is needed over and above what we can get from these platforms. But that’s my 10 pennies worth.

          • Hi, disadvantages with an IFV that can only carry 4 dismounts is that you lose Section integrity, more difficult for Sect Comdr to brief his men, and that it would cost twice as much to buy twice as many vehicles, more vehicles to maintain (would need a bigger LAD), more fuel consumed need more logistics. You would need more manpower to crew the extra vehicles and manpower is expensive – in fact so expensive that manpower continues to be cut. What are the advantages?

            Why do you think we can’t afford ‘full size’ IFVs – we are about to buy a whole load of Boxers to replace Warrior. That is agreed.

            If the army continues to insist on a larger recce vehicle than Scimitar (as the Americans have thought since M3 Bradley CFV days and is evidenced by size of Ajax) then the IFV and the recce veh can be the same chassis. I prefer a smaller recce vehicle though so we can conduct recce by stealth.

            There is a clear need to replace the CVR(T) fleet and I am sure you understand that – it is over 50 years old. I have never been convinced that the Ajax family is the right type of vehicle – too big, too large a signature, over-heavy for complex terrain, too expensive, too unreliable, and now unsafe for the crew.

          • The reason for 4 to a vehicle is based upon how do you make a smaller army punch above its mass allied to lessons learned by the IDF which is looking at smaller vehicles

            Ultimately I believe have more vehicles with loads of fires stuck on them and in them is a good thing and means a fires platoon is not necessary.

            If we had a larger army I would be ok to have larger APCs but we don’t and I think a squad across 2 vehicles is a great way of getting weight of fire onto an enemy.

            4 man yea a will become the norm and aggregate up as we do now. It’s no big thing really

          • BMD has 5 dismounts and recent events have shown us that more is needed.
            And pretty certain thinkdefence had an article (that I now can’t find) stating that Ajax was full of shiny kit that you wouldn’t find on an off the shelf IFV.

            Also people should remember that it wasn’t a base CV90 that was competing, it was a custom job with a shortened hull to make it more suitable for recce.

          • hi Tomartyr

            the British Army has c.16k infantry perhaps a lot less in reality. I personally do not want these in 2k vehicles and would rather have them in 4k vehicles that are armed to the teeth. (to be clear that would be 4k vehicles multiplied by 3 types probably Heavy Armour, Armoured, Light) – so 15k vehicles including the combat support for each (1k per type)

            I accept what everyone is saying about the different platforms but actually I do think a CV90 or K41 can do everything Ajax can with minimal additions and have some dismounts.

            I prefer our forces to be dispersed and protected across the vehicle fleet, coming together in mass as needed.

            We have ordered c600 Ajax at £8.5m each when that money could have been better spent and given us more. Its better to have the capability to have 4 dismounts and use it for stores than not have it at all.

            Ajax when designed was ahead of the game, but now tech has moved on and the latest products can do far more.

            ultimately I don’t think the BA has the scale to have such a large recon requirement and in my opinion every IFV should be able to conduct this activity, dismount infantry and provide effective fire and targeting.

            we have spent an awful lot of money on a specific item whilst neglecting the core armoured fleets. Perhaps we should reconsider those requirements if Ajax is cancelled, if it is not and is brought into service I expect it will be a great addition to the force, but limited in how we deploy.

            Drones have taken over much of the ISTAR requirement and what remains can be done by an appropriately upgraded IFV.

          • But the less dismounts a vehicle has, to provide security, the more it has to rely on other vehicles and their dismounts for mutual support.
            Then your vehicles either cannot disperse and you lose mobility, or they become blind sitting ducks.

            Russia’s experience in the early war has proven once again that if your force has too much metal and not enough meat you will suffer for it.

          • thats fine – but I see 4 vehicles and 16 dismounts operating as a platoon (28 people inc drivers).

            Can the BA really afford to have 11 people in each vehicle when it has so few dismounts.

            I don’t mind the vehicle being able to carry 8 and scaling up in a major conflict, but do see value in having more vehicles with less dismounts in them.

            that is my preference given the reductions in the BA – how do we provide the punch with less manpower – my response is more heavily armed vehicles and room in those vehicles for infantry stores so they use the vehicle as fire support and storage (home from home if you like).

            I accept other peoples views and opinions on this – but that is mine

          • The base CV90 is an IFV. There are many, many variants including a recce variant, of which Norway ordered 21 back in 2012.

        • Ok can you name the recon tracked vehicles that were available in 2010? None were available to meet the requirements. That is why the companies that bid for the contract all had custom vehicles.
          Now we can discuss the requirements and subsequent changes to the requirements that ask for some kind of hybrid strike/recon/command/recovery and so on vehicles.
          Facts are a new vehicle loosely related to ASCOD was picked to be made by general dynamics UK (a new company in a new factory with no record of previously building tracked vehicles for the uk).
          We will see when later this year(hopefully) what the decision is and if the fixes work.
          Personally I think the wrong choice was made and there should of been a proper CVRT replacement under 15tons and a separate heavier IFV replacement.

          • I agree that we should have replaced CVR(T) with a small (but slightly bigger than Scimitar), fast, agile tracked vehicle with excellent optics/sensors/comms, with low-ish Nominal Ground Pressure ie in the 15-20t range – the cannon perhaps need not have been a 40mm – if the vehicle is just required to defend itself if its position is compromised and beeds to bug out. A 30mm stabilised cannon would have been OK.

            Strike vehicle should have been a successor to CVR(T) STRIKER with LR ATGW; cannon not required. Role being to take out light/medium armour and strongpoints at Long Range (c4-5k) – a variant of the above.

            IFV should have been WR with WCSP.

          • Yep we should have bought Stormer, in all its forms. 13 tons instead of a bloated, undeployable 42 tons. The Ukrainians are striking deep behind Russian lines with the Scorpion family vehicles we have donated to them. They can nip through tight, muddy forest tracks, where larger armoured vehicles would get bogged down.

          • I am sure you recall that CVR(T)’s width was determined by a perceived need to drive between rubber trees in the Far East (Malaya etc).
            Its low ground pressure enabled Scimitar, Scorpion and Samson to drive through peat soil in the Falklands Conflict with ease – Ajax would definitely have sunk very quickly!

      • John did not mention IFV.
        There are many off the shelf armoured recce vehicles out there – the CV90 recce variant seems to have been the only alternative considered by MoD though. That surprised me and reflects a poor down-select process.

        • Part of the problem seems to me to be over specification & under testing. If you spell out every requirement to the n’th degree, there is no room for companies to innovate. There are some very innovative companies out there & like it or not, BAE is one of them.

          Compare the original US & Australian IFV competitions. Like AJAX, the US had pages of requirements Australia – 1/2 a page (less actually). US had to do a restart. The Koreans designed a whole new vehicle just for the Australian competition just as the Germans had designed one for the US competition (& reused for Australia). Australian competition – we will pay you to produce 3. Then we will drive them in terrain the likes the producing nations have never seen, till we break them (repeatedly) & see how fast & how often you need to fix them. Then we will blow one up to destruction & give you the other 2 back. Then we will decide which one to buy.

          Why were so many dud AJAX built? Even if they are cancelled – what do you do with so many? Test out the new CH3 gun? Best option may be to give them to Ukraine & hope they don’t last long enough to get sued.

          • Good post, thanks. Many of us have heard that there were 2,000 or so requirements in the Requirements documents. If true, that is ridiculous. When I was in DE&S there was a trend towards output based statements of requirement and Cardinal Points Specs. That seems to have been binned.

            I hear that User Trials were quite thorough but that the Trials & Development Unit’s reports were ignored or watered down somehow. Their CO was furious and vocal.

            Interesting stuff about how other armies do procurement. Many thanks.

    • As I understand it full reimbursement from General Dynamics will happen if the vehicle cannot enter service because of them. So while it’s a mess at least we get our money back. Unlike previous bog ups where our money just went down the pan.

      • Question is how long do they have to prove that they can make it fit for purpose?

        Will this still be a stagnant situation in 2030?!

      • Where do you gain that understanding from? GD will say that MoD signed off on every Work Package before a Milestone before making payment, so is not duty bound to return anything already paid. MoD could sue for Liquidated Damages/Breach of Contract but has a poor track record there, and GD can claim MoD made changes, did PM badly and communicated badly. I would be surprised if much money, if any, came back to MoD.
        GDUK is not a wealthy company – they cannot afford much compo.

        • Kevan Jones, MP North Durham, asked:

          “To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the scope of the parent company guarantee from General Dynamics for the delivery of AJAX includes reimbursement in the event that the vehicle is unable to reach IOC.”

          Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, answered:

          “Yes, provided liability for breach is established.”

          From a UKDJ article.

          • Thanks. It would be quite hard for MoD to prove breach of contract if they (MoD) have agreed (signed off) all work packages submitted by GD to trigger payment, agreed to any delays, etc etc.
            What would be reimbursed? Not all payments to date, that’s for sure. MoD would just seek to walk away from GD if they wanted to contract with A.N. Other, but I doubt with a huge bag of cash as well. Lawyers fees for MoD will be collosal.
            It’s a whole world of pain.

          • Oh for goodness sake we need to grow a pair. It’s not a whole world of pain You hand the file over to the lawyers and move on. From point of cancellation the MOD and Army have zero involvement apart from maybe being called as a witness. “Agreeing” to a delay does not absolve the other party of responsibility, that is not how contract law works.
            The MOD are not the Attorney General’s Department.

            Total legal costs in the wind up / investigation of MG Rover were of the order of 15 million GBP.

    • What makes you think that it didn’t go like this.

      – industry offers something doable
      – army project desk officers get talked into a range of upgrades by various ‘clever’ people
      – industry / technical / Abbey Wood guys sit in meetings with their head in their hand trying to work out how to make the square circles the customer has demanded
      – customer is always right……
      – hulls are then badly fabricated out of alignment
      – the entire assembly overweight from all the ‘clever’ ideas then causes resonance in the suspension as it is well over design parameters so doesn’t damp properly.

      This is all idle speculation but I used to sit in those meetings and every project that went wrong followed the same script with Abbey Woods and industry usually trying to talk sense into very senior officers who basically said ‘ I want it and I want it now’…..OK sometimes it was industry but less than you might think.

      The good ideas club has derailed many fine projects.

    • I think the incompetence lays firmly with General Dynamics , they have had plenty of time to find the cause of these problems and offer a fix or redesign of the root cause.

    • The problem does not lie with industry. All the problems you highlighted are poor procurement. Look at other large and expensive asset purchases done in the commercial sector by airlines or oil companies with equality large companies. Very few issues arise.

    • Said this a few times before: we should be parallel running two procurement worth 10pct of the overall program until you have IOC or actual capability. Then whichever has produced a better product wins the rest of the order. Yes you may have 5pct of items that you need to sell on to a 3rd party or you have some which form a smaller group/capability but you do not risk the whole programme until you have something tangible.

      In this case Ajax vs Other items. Prove it works then we get you to build more. Then we would have put ~250/500 million at risk rather than 5bn. Competition will keep companies on track. And we have a backup if one doesn’t work out. If both mess up then you are doomed anyway but at least you have better options than now.

      Same applies to other purchases eg build a ship each before we buy 5/10. Build some planes each, uavs etc. etc.

      • There are examples of this having been done before – Hawker and Supermarine building single seat, monoplane fighters, Avro and Vickers and Handley Page building strategic jet bombers, and BAE and Rheinmetall building elements of CR2 LEP prototypes.

        Definitely the way to go.

    • A Composite Rubber Track would solve the noise and vibration issues. This has been proven on several platforms from 15 to 55 tons.😉

    • Total agreement with this comment. I do get the “need” for “local” employment and staying in the game, but this is yet another example (feel free to choose from many) of pen and paper pushers, desk jockey’s and others “employed” without accountability, in “jobs for life”, of spending errors amounting to GBP – Billions!

  2. Sue General Dynamics, take the money, buy something that works……

    But the their corporate overlords will then lobby the American government who will then bully our government into accepting what they want us to.

    • It all depends what is really wrong, who is responsible for it and how that interacts with the contract. I would guess either it was caused by MOD meddling with the design or the contract is poorly drafted. Either way it seems the MOD is unwilling or unable to cancel the contract.

        • You left out the most fallable part of the chain: the customer (army) desk officer.

          Usually a non technical specialist who in my experience of interviewing them afterwards for other jobs simply wants to brag about how they were responsible for an £XBn project.

          No clue about basic engineering or project management. Or about managing the very complex dynamics between the parties who usually want to deliver the project.

          What people forget is that the cream and jam on these projects is in delivering them on time. When they go over the industry costs blow out too. So GD will be doing this through gritted teeth to avoid the reputational damage if they folded a UK MOD contract.

          Given the success of UK systems in Ukraine not falling out with the MOD is pretty essential commercially.

          • For a brief moment back in the late 90’s there was a moment when everyone talked about the ‘capability’. The idea being that the services would state what it is they wanted to do or achieve and the techies would offer the best technical solution. They even spoke of freezing the requirements and absolutely key moment in the development of any engineering programme.

            When they started talking about ‘chilling’ the requirement I realised that the grown ups did not like being told they could not have their own way and were throwing their teddy bears around.

            It gone down hill ever since…

            Cheers CR

          • Quite.

            It is better to bin off the program and start again.

            The men with lots of gold and teddy bears to throw don’t like this as they risk loosing the budget line.

            So blundering on becomes the new normal.

          • Yeh, what happened to the remembering that they service the people, you know those who pay for it all.

            How many billions have the army wasted on armoured vehicles over the last 20 years to deliver precisely zero vehicles to the frontline..? There is no shame as far as I can see. They’ve let the people down and the service men and women they are supposed to lead and care for.

            As for the budget line… I think there should be some sort of ‘special measures’. A well trained, experienced and critically a disciplined team capable of properly bridging the gap between those who need the capability and those who design and build the equipment. A team that would have real power to ensure that a robust process is stuck to and that the agreed requirements are deliverable and then get on with delivering the kit.

            Never happen, sadly.

            Cheer CR

          • His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Defence Procurement if you will. With the right to turn up at any project meeting unannounced and ask question of all participants.

        • Who knows. Can’t say either way until there is an independent report on what happened, but considering the statements coming out of the gov/mod are a bit tame on blame, I would guess there is plenty to go around

        • Can’t blame them. If we did scrap the project, it would take time to get the money back, go back to tender and order an alternative, causing problems as warrior, as a stop gap, can only be kept in service for so long without being upgraded.

          • From my research, when MoD cancelled Nimrod MRA4 they did not get back a penny piece from BAE – they lost all of their £3.8m expended.
            For WR to be a stop gap it would have to be converted from the IFV role to the recce role – need money and time for that.

          • They are already using warrior as a stop gap. It was confirmed by the mod that the warrior would be maintained until the Ajax problems were fixed. Not saying direct replacement but guess they reasoned better than nothing.

        • I know this is the way, I have worked for US companies and my spouse is American, we both agree on this.

          You have to balance those 2 failing projects against a lot of US equipment that is world-beating. most of the time they deliver the right system.
          .

          • Ajax is assembled in the UK, unfortunately the hulls are fabricated in a Spanish factory where there appears to be no quality assurance, it has been speculated that the poorly made hulls contributed to the vibration problems.

          • Zumwalt, LCS, manned ground vehicle, ground combat vehicle, CG(x), expeditionary fighting vehicle, next generation bomber to name just a handful. All countries have mistakes.

    • I doubt any of that will happen, unless you know more than I do about MoD, politics and ABW.
      MoD is not good at sueing companies. I doubt we will get our £3.2bn expended back. The US government can’t force us to buy a particular piece of kit ie an American vehicle?

      • Can’t really sue until it’s time to pull the plug, until then the focus has to be on maintaining the relationship, so that there is a hope of getting something useful at the end of the pain. The moment the lawyers get involved, any hope is gone.

  3. we should have maybe stuck to warrior upgrade at this rate.or bought of the shelf..or is this going to be another boxer issue, being part of something scrapping the idea only to revisit it years later, and at what expense to the taxpayer, or mod budget….

      • Nothing whatsoever, as you know. I think many posters get confused at the myriad types the army operate, their roles, and where WCSP, Boxer, and Ajax fit in.

      • The difference between Warrior and Ajax is that Warrior is currently being used in the recce role whereas Ajax will never be used in any role. Warrior could have been modified into a recce variant in the same way ASCOD was modified into recce variant. CV90, which is similar to ASCOD and Warrior, has both IFV and Recce variants. In fact both variants seem excellent and are based on the same vehicle.

        • Difference being that ASCOD at least was in production, imagine all the issued with Ajax except with a vehicle that hasn’t been build since the 90’s.

          • CV90 though is still in production & still winning orders. Even Harpoon is still winning orders. The version you see today is not the version they started with. After a while they start to resemble Grandfathers axe.

        • Isn’t Warrior being used as a trial to see if it can be used as a stop gap? It will not have the sensors and comms gear needed for modern day recce requirements.

          Personally I think we need to have another look at the CV90 recce variant but that doesn’t resolve all the other requirements that the Ajax project was meant to fulfill.

        • How and where is WR being used in the recce role? It is an IFV and has no recce package. It is being talked about as a future option if Ajax has to be scrapped, and would have to be adapted.
          Scimitar is (still) beng used in the recce role.

      • well since these ajax vehicles being built have a crew of 3 plus 7 in the rear and it weighs approx 38 ton it,s sounds more like a warrior to me.. And giving the fact i served with warrior again a crew of 3 and 7 in the rear and weighing 36 ton, See the difference…….Ajax are supposedly a recon and strike vehicle,at least 198 of them from what i was last told..But it is turning out to be a big expensive turd yet funding could have been spent better elsewhere, but that’s our mod for you how much more money will be spent on compensation claims that are sitting waiting to be finalized at present it,s around 12k in the press

        • No they most certainly don’t have 7 in the rear. Ajax cannot carry any passengers. There is an APC variant with no turret that can carry four passengers.

        • Andy,

          Ajax is not an IFV – it is a recce vehicle. It cannot take 7 dismounts- it has a 3-man crew.
          A variant, ARES, can take 4 dismounts – ie a specialist recce team not an Inf Fire Team.

    • Warrior upgrade was an IFV project for the Infantry – which perhaps should have been allowed to proceed, notwithstanding that it was over-budget and late. Ajax is a recce vehicle. Different beast entirely.

  4. No surprise then. I’m not going to have a go at the powers that be. We have had twenty years to get this right.
    I am not a great fan of our spending on armour but in the time we have wasted we could have easily put together four Armored Brigades of Challengers and CV90 in it’s variants backed up by new artillery and air power.

  5. And as a counterpoint to the last RN article, we have the above……
    New CGS, Sir Patrick Sanders, has pronounced that the Army is now in full Operation Mobilise mode ‘not at some vague future date, but now’. Leaving aside the debate over whether the sums directed at Land Forces since the start of this century could have achieved that noble objective already for the most part, I do question how the latest, and same, statement on Ajax fits with this.
    I will emphasise that I am of course, all for the Army coming good on the major equipment front. Hence the ”anguish’.

    • You make an excellent point Gavin, but the problem with the sums sent to land over the last 20 years has been to plug the gaps as our current gear is not good enough and we went for something cheap and quick rather than something with longevity

      some of the stuff is good gear no doubt, but it is all too haphazard and the army has totally cocked up. Whilst it’s former head was constantly promoted and feted as a some sort of genius….

      • Hinges on Sanders, now. Taken at his word, by new year we either get an honest thumbs update, or he says, “Stuff That.”
        I always understand that the Gov grants funding, the CGS allocates, broadly. At the time, we could have got in on Boxer, of course. OK, it’s wheeled, but an excellent concept with all those modules. Then you thought; well, it cannot be impossible to track it. Ah, stone me, there is now a tracked proposal in prototype.
        And we are buying Boxer. The debate continues….

      • There have been several CGSs over that 20 years – they weren’t all bad. Anyway CGS has little real influence over procurement projects.

          • GDLS was selected to develop the ASCOD platform in 2010 to meet the FRES SV Scout requirement.
            General Nick could have had some input to the Ajax programme as DG Land Warfare in 2011 and may have been asked his views as Comd Fd Army (Nov 11 – Sep 12) or as Comd LF Nov13 – Sep 14 or as CGS Sep 14 – Jun 18).
            What that input might have been is anyone’s guess.

          • Everyone thought the Boxer performed best in the Fres trials at Bovington followed by the Renault offering. The Army was just ashamed that UK’s involvement with Boxer as was cancelled twice. Don’t really see how you can choose a tracked vehicle from testing wheeled ones !

          • Thanks Peter. UK joined the ARTEC Boxer programme in 1996 and left in July 2003 supposedly once it was apparent that airtransportability was going to be a real issue.

            However despite the above, Boxer was trialled by MoD in 2007 for FRES (Utility Vehicle) set against Mowag Piranha V and the French VBCI. Piranha was deemed best but did not proceed to an order as there was no cash!

            Ajax came out of the FRES (Specialist Vehicle) Scout programme – a totally different part of the FRES project. AFAIK a ‘paper version’ of GD’s Ajax was compared to CV90 Recce. Not a great competition!

    • I think General Patrick wants to make the point that the army should be prepared and able to mobilise now for operations in Europe, not that he is claiming success on the Ajax project.
      I share the anguish – mostly the army’s AFV fleet and arty systems are in a mess.

      • Good Morning, Graham. Had a look back at your input on this 3 months ago and appreciate same from someone who was at least inside the procurement system itself. In fact, I noted that one reply to P27 seemed not entirely dismissive of Boxer vs Ajax, if I may phrase it so?
        Did not mean to imply that Sanders was at all claiming success on Ajax, of course (I wish), more the not vague future reference.
        Maybe over critical of his speech,, attended by manufactures, but to my mind his determined dynamism approach lost a little forcefulness at the end with his one shy reference to some equipment issues. Consternation with a direct stare would have looked better than a rueful smile, to my mind. Less polite gentleman and more CGS. Still.

        • Thanks Gavin. Great answer. Patrick is being diplomatic, early in his tenure. There is steel there – in my opinion he excelled commanding his bn in Basra – pity the Yanks could not understand how cerebally he operated.

  6. Answer cancel this flawed platform and buy CV90…

    It is time to admit this project is doing more harm then good and those in charge should develop a spine and cancel it.

    CV90 can do the job, it is successfully in service with other countries who love it and its users can still hear!

        • Reconnaissance variants will have less people and more sensors and radios typically. Will also tend to have larger caliber of weapon than a lure IFV. In the last IFV we’re larger often but now they all tend to use a common hull. CV90 comes in both IFV and Recon just like AJAX.

          • Sensor fusion and role fusion should mean an IFV and a recon vehicle is the same thing… surely we are better having this capability in every vehicle we can

          • Thank you I thought I was going mad here trying to work out why one has to be so completely different to the other at least to the extent it has become, as things stand totally unusable. Especially confusing as there were variants of the base vehicle Ajax is based on to suit both Austrian and Spanish needs which from my reading were rather different only some being IFV. Indeed as so much you read about ASCOD varies and conflicts in its descriptions of its role, and indeed reflected in confusion on here as to the differences perhaps similar confusion reigned in those who dictated what sort of vehicle they wanted/ needed in the first play. All sounds like a committee designing a horse tome. I can’t help wondering if as someone stated no such vehicle existed back in 2010 there might have been a reason for that. Does such an alternative vehicle in essence actually exist today then, if those stated CV90 and PUMA aren’t in their present form? If not why not if these characteristics that resulted in Ajax are so necessary. Or do we think differently to other comparable forces.

          • I believe the very latest CV90 surpasses Ajax by a fair bit. There may of course be specialist comms equipment required, but the fact is compute power and network backbone are getting better and smaller.

            the 3 key areas are optics or targeting acquisition (identifying something) compute (working out what it is) and comms (sharing your intel securely), encryption is software based (there may be a hardware key but unlikeLy) CV 90 seems to have all the above covered.

            happy for someone to correct me

          • Are you saying CV90 recce variant surpasses Ajax from a recce suite POV? I would be very surprised if that was true.

          • IFV and recce vehicles are totally different. Different role, different personnel count, different role fit.
            You don’t want to fit every Section IFV with a full suite of recce kit – very costly.

          • Jim,

            Recce vehicles do not have larger armament than an IFV. Why do you think that? Scimitar has same armament as WR – 30mm RARDEN.

            Ajax is not an IFV, in the true sense of carrying a rifle section. There is a variant that can carry small specialist recce teams (dismounts) of about 4 people – ARES

      • Not technically correct. It is a family of AFVs and in that sense absolutely no different from Ajax. CV90 operates in roles such as light tank, mortar carrier, forward observation and Recce. CV90 was the ‘other’ vehicle in running for the Ajax contract off the same IFV basic chassis as the Ajax that would later be built on.

      • I keep hearing this, I’m confused, why would we need 500+ reconnaissance vehicles for an army that plans to have just about 140 mbt’s (and only 60 of which with sufficient protection to take to a battlefield where top attack munitions may dominate).
        Assuming we’ve get all these reconnaissance vehicles what do we do about what ever it is they see? This is a genuine question, I really don’t understand it.

          • Apparently there’s also another 47 fire control and ground based surveillance to add to the 198 recce.

            Then another 256 protected mobility recce support variants (APC, command and control etc.)

            Then another 88 engineering variants.

            542 in total…

          • But therefore there aren’t 500+ recon vehicles if 88 are for the REME, 51 for RE, 23 for RA and 112 C2. CRARRV, trojan and titan don’t count towards challenger 2 numbers.
            What I am uncertain about is to why there are so many C2 vehicles, because in addition to the 112 Athena, there are also 123 Boxer C2 vehicles on order.

          • Thanks Louis. So its not perhaps such a specialist recce vehicle after all then? more of a jack of all trades including APC/IFV?
            Perhaps that lends weight to the argument that we should have bought off the shelf?
            Something tried and tested. Something with a big enough share of the global market to ensure that facilities/development/tooling will be there into the future to ensure upgradability.
            I don’t know much about the vehicle specifics etc. but I do know that if it’s too bespoke the likely hood of regular future upgrades is greatly reduced.
            It all sounded really good 5 years ago!

          • All of these are replacing the CVRT vehicles though. Ares is an APC to carry small specialist recon sections and replaces Spartan. Athena will replace Sultan and Atlas and Apollo will replace Samson.

          • “why there are so many C2 vehicles, because in addition to the 112 Athena, there are also 123 Boxer C2 vehicles on order.”

            Exactly.

          • But as I have already said, 23 Ajax are OP for RA, 51 Argus for RE, 88 Atlas and Apollo for REME. CRARRV, trojan and titan aren’t counted towards Challenger 2 numbers.

          • Ian, have you seen the Twitter footage yesterday on UKAFC? Shows ARES at the AC on the test track? There are comments regards the racket it is making compared to Warrior?
            What is your view?

          • Hi Daniele, I don’t use Twatter so not seen. Having driven Warrior and been close to AJAX whilst at speed I personally don’t think there’s anything in it. A concrete test track is never conducive to quiet running for any tracked vehicle, check out a CR2 on the tank park! Cross country is a different ball game and very hard to quantify but I can say that the MTU V8 in the AJAX meets very tough MOD requirements.
            Cheers

        • The various variants of the Ajax family will equip Regiments from the RAC to the RE to the RA to battalions of Infantry, They are not all recc vehicles.
          Look on Wiki for the current CVRT family to see how widely spread these vehicles are in the army.

          • Im still confused – so AJAX is the recce variant vehicle …and thats causing the problem .. and the RECCE aspect is the the one thats taking all the time?. Are the other variants working or not? if not why if there are other off the shelf alternatives to the non recce variants are we not either rolling ahead with the non recce vehicles .or replacing them with a family of vehicles one that works….Are we holding up the whole rollout of the family of vehicles due to issues with AJAX or oare they all impacted by the same issues ?..please no one say compatibilty.

        • At the time they probably hoped to keep 200+ MBT’s so have an equal number of scout vehicles might have made some (very poorly thought through) sense. I think the actual number of scout vehicles is around 200 and the rest are support vehicles. We’re getting rid of most of the MBT’s though so now the size of the order is insane. Instead of recognising that and applying some sanity to proceedings the Army has decided to just fudge Ajax into everything else. Mixing wheels and tracks? No problem! Brigade Combat Team with Ajax but no infantry or tanks, no problem!

          • You mean the wheeled BCT’s that will be a couple of hundred miles up the road while they wait for Ajax to catch a lift? Interesting combo that.

          • I did say a ‘relevant’ BCT.

            Recce of course operate ahead of (not behind!) the formation or unit they are assigned to, as I am sure you must know.

            Ajax will be in the armoured recce regts of the RAC which deploy forward and sometimes to the flanks of relevant BCTs ie 12th Armd (KRH), 20th Armd (RDG), 1st Deep Reece/Strike (HCR, RL).

            Ajax will also be in the Recce Troops of the two armoured regts, and in the Recce Platoons of armoured infantry battalions (equipped with Warrior today and Boxer in future).

            The most interesting wheeled/tracked combo will be AI Bns in Boxer working with CR2/CR3s. I am not hugely optimistic that is going to work well when the ground is glutinous mud or covered by ice/snow.

        • We were meant to have over 1,000 Ajax, but bean counters cut it back to 589. Not all are recce vehicles. They replace the entire family of CVR(T) vehicles ie many roles.

          They don’t just recce for the benefit of the MBTs (which is a small chunk of the field force) – why do so many people think that? They recce for the benefit of the entire deployed force be it a BCT or a Div.

          They have the added role of Strike, so they don’t just do recce. Theyhave been given an attack role too.

          • Yes with a resulting cut of the block 3 vehicles, including direct fire, ambulance, manoeuvre support and joint fires. All very important vehicles, and had direct fire and manoeuvre support been ordered, strike brigades would have been less likely to be cut.

          • This always happens to the army, Louis. Going back a generation, not enough Warriors were bought to replace all FV430s – resulting in running 432 ambulances, mortar carriers etc alongside WR (or rather many kms behind!).

          • Yes, Bulldogs were of course those residual 432s with an armour upgrade. That programme would not have been required if we had bought enough Warriors.

        • If your saying that only 60 chally 3s can be used because of lack of active defense systems to go around, that means 0 of the Ajax /boxers can be used, as they too will be attacked by top attack weapons.

          • Every vehicle in the army without a DAS could be attacked by a top attack weapon, or a side attack weapon. So what?
            War is dangerous.

        • Quite, we would be better off buying Bayrakter TB2 drones to scout ahead & then having more MBT, SPG & HIMARS to destroy the enemy the drones have found.

        • Plans may have changed and although I’ve read about it I can’t claim to be an authority. but as I understand it stems from America’s ‘Multi Domain Warfare’ the general idea is to stealthily detect things and then destroy them with something indirect/stealthy/standoffish like artillery/drones/missiles.

          Basically directly shooting at things you can actually see is being treated the same as bayoneting someone: quite risky, more likely to stress the troops, and frankly ‘old fashioned’ but sometimes it is necessary and therefore must be kept, but it is not the main source of fighting power.

    • If the UK gets the CV90 or Lynx they could potentially sort both Warrior and Ajax with the one chassis. Happy to be wrong on this but I think the US Light tank has an Ascod chassis. With all the time and money wasted on Ajax so far you wonder why they didn’t completely have rebuilt or even tweaked the design of the Ajax chassis by now?! Or, even use the US Ascod chassis as a basis forAjax. Problem solve or get rid of the problem!

      • Mmm, Ajax is derived from ASCOD. Not only that according to Wikipedia “The GDLS light tank incorporates components and systems from the British Ajax tank” & that is what the US is acquiring for Mobile Protected Firepower.

        • Thanks for the confirmation. Questions. I wonder then if the US light tank has had any such issues like Ajax and can the US side help fix the Ajax issues?And will the UK ever get any sort of light tank itself?

          • The Ajax family included a direct fire variant, long since cancelled. The Ajax Scout was to be used in both recc and direct fire roles.

          • I feel like the US Light Tank battle almost puts AJAX to shame, they’ve been trying to replace the M551 for most of my life and nothing has come of it.

          • Ajax is made by GDUK, a British subsidiary of the US giant General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). GDLS make the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle (Light Tank for the US Army). I am sure GDUK has talked to its parent about developing Ajax over the last decade, but GDLS experience on MPF is recent and based on a different development trajectory of the ASCOD hull.
            I can see little rationale for the British Army to have a light tank.

        • The GDLS demonstration vehicle used some Ajax systems. The production vehicle does not. They no longer have anything in common: hull, suspension, drive etc is all different.

          • Thought they were using same torsion bars and rotary hydraulic dampers as AJAX, if not that raises questions about when they knew they were duff?

    • Are you talking about the CV90 IFV? We are talking here about a recce vehicle. However it turns out there is a CV90 recce variant – Norway bought 21 of them.

  7. I really want to say something positive. David Marsh took up the role of the Ajax dedicated SRO on the 1st October last year. And… and… I’m sure very important things are going on in the background. Tremendously important.

  8. The whole equipment procurement system needs a radical overhaul, appoint a independent auditor to oversee the existing projects to find value for money, timescales, if it supports UK industry and is actually what’s needed in regard to need and budget. Only then can we stop making the same past mistakes and order what’s needed. The army wants what it wants but it’s up to MOD to actually deliver it on budget and within time that ticks all the boxes of what the project needs, not half fit but can be fixed with updates later.
    The CV90 could be the answer to our problems but we picked ASCOD for the Ajax program and that was also a proven design so don’t expect that to run smoothly, by the time industry prep up and it goes through all the evaluation stages even that could be another 10years away we just don’t know yet.
    I think the best way forward now would be to completely scrap that plan and have a capability gap and go with the same vehicle the US army are developing also Bae systems and hopefully get that made in UK and that in the meantime should free up cash to allow the challenger and boxer plans to be sped up a bit and completed earlier than scheduled, with maybe larger numbers.

    • We simply can’t afford any more capability gaps. We also can’t afford to rely on the US for increasing proportions of our armed forces. The answer is to go with CV90, and not to tinker around with it. Fit it with lasers, parachutes and ghost-detection equipment – whatever they want – as long as it doesn’t alter the shape of the hull or significantly increase its weight.

      • I think the only way out is to take some very hard decisions, at the end of the day they should of stuck with warrior bit we are where we are.

        • Warrior is not related to Ajax and serves a different purpose in the army.
          They should indeed have stuck with Warrior. But for the IFV role, not as a CVRT replacement which the Ajax family of vehicles are.

      • I would not avoid US purchases if the equipment is good, available quickly and affordable (and we won’t be stung by a worsening currency exchange rate and ITAR problems).

        You must mean the CV90 recce variant as bought by Norway rather than the more commonplace (and very inappropriate) CV90 IFV. That may well be better than Ajax, however I have not seen the spec.

    • It’s alright saying “have a capability gap” if it’s not you in the firing line. I never worked with armour, I can tell you how bloody welcome a chalky was when it rocked up with a solution to a problem my troop had in Basra. The here and now become very important when you are deployed. Gaps equal losses and deaths.

      The MOD needs to sort the problem or get rid of it if not possible, and quick. The world is becoming more skitty and we might need as much kit as possible soon. If people cannot see that, they need only to look at history. The wheel is coming off soon, and big time!

    • I think that the “does it support UK industry” test is part of the problem. Too often it leads to us using the defence budget for job creation purposes whilst pursuing poor value for money, high technical risk projects with capability compromises (MR4A anybody)?

      We need to specialise in making and exporting the things we do well whilst buying off the shelf (and making under licence where sensible) the things that we don’t buy enough of to have design expertise and low unit costs through economies of scale

      • Just looking what the Poles are doing since this war, new orders, joint developments, technology sharing and production agreements shows what you can do if you fully recognise a real threat and need to pull your finger out. Not saying we should jump that quick but geez the comparison really doesn’t look good. Perfection is on paper a good thing, but having explored historically how that has worked out I am aware how misjudged that concept can be. The Spitfire was deemed by many in the MoD in 38 as already near obsolete, at best a stop gap, the Mosquito similarly unwanted and only produced as a private venture. Meanwhile the de facto ‘perfect’ designs like the Typhoon/Tornado and Whirlwind deemed the future ended up unsuitable for task, or so greatly delayed the war would have been lost had they been relied upon as originally planned. Sometimes the best solutions come from not over thinking the requirements or even developing the known. Even if you always keep your mind on the future to incorporate as soon as they become viable. A balancing act true but one we presently too often get very wrong.

      • We should be able to build recce vehicles, but we produced the wrong spec and gave the job to the wrong company. Should have gone with BAE’s CV90 recce variant.

    • The key is accountability, make scew up’s like this in any company and simply you wont have a job in the morning.

      For some reason using public funds seems to come with zero accountability and if you do totally screw up the people above you have a habit of burying the issue which somehow seems to benefit the person in the wrong.

      Bringing in outside auditors is just a further waste of money and with the current way the press view everything they will just accuse whoever appoints whoever of being mates and being a further waste of funds.

    • CV90 recce variant was ordered by Norway in 2012 and delivered c. 2015. Assuming it needs little adaptation for the British Army, then it could be sourced quite quickly.
      We cannot have any sort of capability gap for armoured recce. Which US vehicle are you talking about? M3A4 is being issued from 2020 and the OMFV programme is not replacing M3 CFV and anyway is a decade behind the Ajax programme.

  9. Those fools in their nice warm offices really need to get out on the front line and see what rubbish they purchase for our lads and lassies. Soon they are expecting a major uplift in funds so more to waste with nothing to show for it. You can only go to a table if you have the strength to back you up and presently we do not. Give us the kit needed NOW, Fast jects for the Carriers, Tanks for the Army that are younger than their drivers, Ships to be the bobby on the beat to deter those that would take away the freedoms so heavily won for us all.

  11. Move along, nothing to see here.

    Debacle, shambles & embarrassment. The platform will be out of date by the time they’ve fixed it. Sue the manufacturer & get a replacement that works!

  12. Yes I think it’s fair to say that modern armoured vehicles are equipped with very complex and sophisticated systems that significantly enhance their capabilities over the vehicles that have gone before them.

    But ….. I’m left scratching my head.

    Beneath those many complex systems is a mechanical machine, tracked or wheeled, these ‘basic mechanical‘ systems should be a very well known entity after 100+ years of armoured vehicle operations.

    I can understand how modern vehicles (or ships or aircraft), can have issues when it comes to integrating, and making operational, the very sophisticated electronic systems, it happens.

    But not being able to solve mechanical noise and vibration issues? I’m left shaking and scratching my head.

      • Mate,

        I’m sure I’m not alone.

        Take all the ‘bling’ off and it’s a mechanical machine, yes an armoured mechanical machine, but still a machine.

        Surely it’s not rocket science??

        (PS, it’s just after 9.00pm Sydney time, I’m sitting here watching the Queens funeral, RIP. It’s being shown on all five free to air TV channels here in Oz).

        • The issue was the vehicle got very heavy based on the good ideas club.

          This took the weight over the design limit of the suspension.

          The hulls were, seemingly, fabricated with alignment issues in Spain.

          Unsurprisingly if you overload an out of square suspension system it judders at certain resonant frequencies.

          The out of square hulls are GD’s problem but the weight bloat may well not be as that might well be customer driven.

          • Yes I’m aware of how armoured vehicles can become overweight.

            Here in Australia, 50+ years ago during the Vietnam War, the Army operated M113 APC and Centurion MBT in the battlefields of South Vietnam.

            There was a plan to produce, and operate, a ‘Fire Support Vehicle’ based on the M113.

            The first attempt at a FSV was to install a Saladin 76mm turret, it was too heavy and caused the suspension to sag.

            Plan B was to install a Scorpion turret, also with a 76mm main gun, that upgrade was a far more successful modification.

            So today, with digital modelling, etc, etc, overweight issues should be able to be picked up, and addressed, very early in the design and prototype stages.

            As for out of align hulls, surely that issue should have easily been identified and rectified right at the beginning, reject or fix prior to assembly.

            It will be interesting to watch the finger pointing that will surely come.

          • Agreed, clearly inadequacy of minds led to inadequacies in development all no doubt working off of and promoting the other.

          • Agreed but now they have created a dog’s dinner they should see it for what it is and cancel the flawed programme.

        • They have super computers that I thought could pretty much predict, let alone correct all these various interacting if complex factors. I think much of this has been ignored along the line in the name of speed and cost in the hope rules would simply be adapted to cover the engineering/design faults… just like with French nuclear carriers lol. Clearly underestimated the role of H&S in modern Britain.

    • My bet is that there is something wrong with the set-up at General Dynamics: as an engineer, I have experienced the damage and chaos which can result from a bad apple in a position of influence. Successful companies have ways of dealing with this.

      • GDUK was a very new company with zero experience in designing and building AFVs – and subbed out the building of the hulls to GD Spain and seemingly did not oversee their work.

    • I have the exact same thought. The electronic are the important part for being able to achieve the Recce task. Getting to the location in a vehicle that was able to carry the equipment should have been the easy part.

      The rate they are going the Army will end up doing recce with all the electronics piled into a trailer being pulled behind an FV 430 series Bulldog with over watch being done by another FV430 Series but with Brimstone instead of Swingfire, and all the RE, REME and C&C jobs staying in the same vehicles as they have since the 1960s.

      • Don’t worry about carting the electronics around, because GD are doing a significant part of that too: the Bowman coms update, EvO, which will form the basis of the new Morpheus system. An NAO report in the Spring this year says that’s running at least three years late, with no end in sight.

        So only the other half of the LE TacCIS system, Trinity, will need to be carted around, and a far smaller trailer can be used.

    • GDUK is a new company that has never before designed and built an AFV and subbed out the key work of building the hulls to GD Spain and did not oversee that work – thats the problem.

  14. No doubt we have already paid most of the £5 billion to them and won’t see any back.

    F**king Army procurement will be the death of the MOD.

    • We’ve paid £3.2bn. Most unlikely to see much of that back if MoD cancel the contract – GDUK is a minnow company with very little in the bank (unlike the rich US parent, of course). It’s not just the army that has had its procurement fiascos…but I digress.

      • Thanks for the figures. I had a feeling it would be that much. Never to be seen again. Like you say GDUK will just fold at the first sign of trouble with no recourse for the parent company.

      • Easy to syphon money to parent company by charging excessive licence fees for logo, design work, office rental, consultants etc, expect their factory in Wales is all their asset , worth perhaps 10 million ?

  15. “Will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely.” OK but then “Cannot determine a realistic time scale…for in service!”
    😮
    Astonishing! So, some what ifs- what if it cannot be fixed? What if it takes ten more years to fix? We are all surely missing something here. Granted, it is a huge project but the statement as above in the text is unbelievable and I would think to most of us, unacceptable,
    Simple contract law is offer, terms and acceptance= binding contract. The ‘sine qua non’ is fit for purpose” so the remedy is put the contractor on notice and if he fails to remedy then enforce your rights in terms of the breach of contract clauses.

  16. Don’t think Ajax is ever going to be a win ,gone on far to long sort it or drop it .Please MOD don’t wast more money ,put it on something what works 🤑

    • I’ve said this elsewhere, but I’m going to make a confident prediction here….

      I think the army will end up with refurbished (again) Scimitars, towing a trailer full of ripped out Ajax equipment, powered by dasiy chained car batteries!

      It quite reminds me of another torturous procurement, that started with TSR2 in 1958 and eventually ended with Tornado three decades later.

      That succession of failed projects, dragged on for so long, the eventual MRCA programme that led to Tornado, was immediately christened ‘Must Refurbish Canberra Again’ by the RAF 😂😂😂.

      I fear the same of Ajax and I’ll take bets on how much money comes back to the tax payer….. I’m thinking a nice round number, as usual and absolutely no one taking responsibility, or indeed getting the sack.

      • TSR2 was definitely a world beater sad the RAF loss out years ahead of anything USA or USSR had ,did read many years ago that the USA were some what a little jealous.🤔

        • Now you mention it, lets hope the Tempest has more success than the TSR2!! If it’s bloody fantastic maybe BAE could offer a license agreement or partnership with a US manufacturer. They took the Harrier. Time for some more success!

        • why would they be jealous – they managed to replace it…ultimately with Phantoms (I think?) ..so they had naught to be jealous of ….

    • I know it’s simplistic but the old adage if it looks good it … coincidentally or otherwise fits here. The thing with those side bustles sure looks inelegant to say the least.

  17. There is something fundamentally wrong with G.D.s engineering skills/competence if they still have not found the cause for these problems.

      • Yes, but is that really the cause of the problems ? if so you would have thought GD would have solved the issue by now.

        • Perhaps the hull sides are not strong enough to weld the mounts onto, also unlike BAE they do not have the experience with these systems.

    • GD have admitted in various press articles that the learning curve for designing and building AFVs is steep. Technical requirements aside, it should be necessary that the selected company has at least *some* prior experience (and success) in building the project we want before signing up to a single supplier and paying big. I personally don’t think they have the required skills, and definitely not experience, to fix the current issues.

  18. Excuse after Excuse this is so annoying! We need Armour and quickly. The war in Ukraine has proved how important Armour really is especially for offensive operations.

  19. “No realistic time scale ….” Are we to wait for hover tanks to be invented before we finally ditch this disaster of a programme?

    • Well boxer would be the next logical step as we have already ordered 623 and there will almost certainly be follow on orders. It also helps that any new boxer orders will be built in the UK.

    • Tracked Boxer is as heavy or heavier than Ajax,plus you will need a new module to fit to Boxer so until that is developed we will still have no answer to the Ajax problem

      • Wheeled Boxer can go a little heavier than Ajax too. Of course it’ll need new modules (plural). There isn’t going to be a completely off the shelf replacement no matter what you pick.

        The MOD needs to be working on a plan B right now (oh, how generous I am calling it plan B). Pumas, tracked Boxers and CV90s should be all over Millbrook right now, and the backup decision being made. DVD is next week, and BAE, Rheinmetall and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann will all be exhibiting. A good opportunity to ask them to send some samples.

        • Jon, I hope we don’t end up with a Boxer recce variant that is heavier than Ajax (reported to be 38 – 42 tonnes)! Boxer has a recce module – veh is called Boxer CRV. Probably needs adapting to British radios etc.

          I would hope MoD has been working on a Plan B for some time now, but it will probably be a paper exercise rather than a physical activity. I was never sure why seemingy only GD’s ASCOD-derived veh and BAE’s CV90 recce variant were looked at ‘back in the day’ – there were many other options that could have been considered.

      • Tracked boxer certainly isn’t a perfect fit, but for an emergency ‘Plan B’ its modular nature is attractive.
        With no option to mess with the vehicle all we’d have to worry about is the module containing everything they got right with Ajax.

          • And if they claim they can, would you believe them? What happens next July when the deadlines start to slip again and they say, don’t worry, hang on little longer? Another year has gone by with no plan B decided. Lots of recriminations later they finally cancel it at the end of 2023. Then they’ll have a competition, and yet another year passes. It’s January 2025 and we eagerly await a decision, and we wait and we wait.

            Holding a no-promises competition for a replacement while the fate of Ajax is in the balance doesn’t prejudice salvaging the Ajax fiasco. It just shortens the decision making process if Ajax can’t be fixed.

          • Jon, I share your pessimism as I am a natural cynic. Plan B should be well crafted by MoD by now – just that they don’t want it in the public domain. If I were in MoD I would have reviewed all alternative options by now. I could believe that an interim step might be Warrior command vehicles quickly converted to the recce role, until a major purchase of a proper, modern Ajax replacement could be delivered.

      • It can’t be fixed in 6 months. GD built the hulls in Spain using cheap Chinese steel that failed the weldability spec – the hulls are warped with the sides not parallel – the MoD signed all this off – there is a lot online about the disastrous Ajax problems if you google. It should be scrapped and a replacement bought off-the-shelf with what’s left of the budget.

        • We’d have to find a lot more budget to replace all the variants the Ajax project was meant to. It isn’t just about recce.

          Problem is where does the additional billions come from? As others have said GDUK is a tin pot little company setup for this purpose, so there is little use suing them. Good luck suing the US parent, I bet that is protected through the contract.

          They are trying to salvage the project for this reason.

        • By fixed – I don’t mean that there will be 589 good vehs being delivered to the army. I mean that (Phase 1) a suite of good, proven engineering solutions have been agreed by MoD and manufacture of hulls has been started with fresh metal in Spain (using high quality steel) and proper jigs etc. The poor vehicles that have already been manufactured will have to be dealt with in some way of course, but that could be done under a Phase 2.

          Through these pages and also google I am aware of the litany of problems with the past build.

          What’s left of the budget (£2.3bn) is insufficient to buy 589 of any type of recce vehicles.

          I say we should wait until the key announcement in December this year.

  24. Far too weak a response for Ajax. I would suggest buying CV90 and have General Dynamics pay for it until Ajax is fit for service. As this may be Never, GDLS may pay for the whole 589 vehicles as the CV90.
    There is an urgent requirement for this capability Now; lives may depend on it.

  25. The Govt must fix or fail this programme. It’s likely to be to the former as an Elastoplast to save face. Ridiculous.

    Programme should’ve been ditched years ago.

    This country used to be the envy of the world and produced the best equipment be it land or air up and til the 70/80s. And there were exports all over the world.

    Since then, show me where Politics/Treasury hasn’t interfered to result in over budget/overun, inferior products or having to buy elsewhere?

        • GD have properly fcuked the Ajax project up – compounded by habitual MoD incompetence and the usual army donkeys at the end of their careers. We should sue GD

          • David, you should probably stop speculating. All the army requirements managers are young, dynamic, high-achieving Majors (maybe 1 or 2 Lt Cols as well, possibly). For sure more senior officers are involved in the Ajax programme too but ‘donkeys at the end of their careers’?
            You need to give examples or prove this assertion.

          • I have named names and given examples of unbelievable senior officer incompetence in previous posts, but I get moderated.

            You should look into who was involved in the decision to up-armour Ajax to turn it into a ‘heavy’ recce vehicle. British Army doctrine is for ‘light’ recce. Making this vehicle far heavier than originally specified is one of the main causes of the vibration issue, the inability of the gun to fire on the move and the drive-train failures.

            The only reason Ajax has not already been scrapped is to save the careers of senior MoD and Army officers involved.

          • The other contender, CV90 Mk4 is 37t with stretch to 39t. MoD seemingly always wanted a recce vehicle with that level of protection and therefore that weight – and to break from previous doctrine which espoused a lighter vehgicle. I don’t agree with that thinking but I am not a recce expert.
            Who was behind that thinking – no idea, but there was a US influence at work (M3 CFV an earlier US vehicle was 28t and TRACER was for a heavier vehicle).

            It was a bad idea for GD to evolve their design from the much lighter ASCOD2 hull, but that was in the GD stable so it may heave been understandable.

            The inexperienced GDUK staff clearly needed to start with something tangible.

            Senior Army officers who you charge with incompetence during the design and development period will all have moved on as a posting is 2 years long.

      • Politicians can be blamed. They’ve had enquiry after enquiry over that twenty years and more, and never sent in a Procurement Minister with a brief to sort it out. There are plenty of Lords with an industry background that could do the job. The best attempt was appointing Gray to head up DE&S, but it turned out he was another jobs for the boys merchant. At least he tried doing something. Quin seems to have done nothing.

        However they are having another enquiry, headed by Clive Sheldon KC to learn the lessons of Ajax. What was that definition of insanity the meme talks about?

  26. The British Army, the men and women that go into combat do not need to know what they might get in ten years time. They need to know what equipment they will have tomorrow to fight if need be.

    Many have said that the fault is with the MoD for changing designs etc, but in my opinion the fault is with the designers. I will back this up with experiance from my own proffesion communications. If the kit was not up to the job either I would not buy it or give time to redesgn it, at the suppliers cost. If a supplier tried selling me a lemon not only would I sue them for penalties but ban them from the country for 5-10 years just ask IAI as I ripped up one of their contracts in front of them.

    We ask of our young men and women to put their life on the line for us, should we not expect the companies that supply the equipment to give the best craftmanship available rather than a box with an engine and tracks that does not work.

    I am as an engineer all be it a diffrent skill set but still an engineer am still trying to understand the problem. A metal box with an engine plus tracks, carry eight people can not be to difficult, good suspention, good anti vibration systems and some sound proofing God a good custom car company could do that.

    Possibly it is time to say good you have 12 months to fix the problem at your cost plus penalties. Put BAE on standby for CV90 build in the UK, possibly using the plant in Wales to build them. Also make GDLS responsable for any retooling/retraining..

    Rant over, now I have a serious question, why was there no demonstration models tested before contract?

    • Ron, Most complex AFVs take 10 years or so from Concept to being In-service. During that time the Requirement will change. MoD only changed the Requirement (not the design, MoD don’t design, Industry does) once and contract was renegotiated (in 2019).
      Are you talking about finished products when you ripped up the IAI contract? A developmental project is of course totally different.
      It is not trivial to design a cutting-edge, tracked AFV, although you suggest that it is.
      I think it is generous to give GD as long as 12 months to fix, when they have been aware of the problems since c.2017. I would give them 6 months to produce new good vehicles (Phase 1) and to deal with the built, poor vehicles as a Phase 2.
      There are other options apart from CV90 (I am sure you mean the recce not IFV version!).
      With regard to your final para I offer this from Wiki: “ A “Mobile Test Rig”, the precursor to a prototype, which had been undergoing rigorous testing including cold weather and Operational and Tactical (O&T) mobility trials, as well as Accelerated Life Testing (ALT), completed system de-risking. At the DVD exhibition in 2014, the first pre-production prototype of the PMRS variant was unveiled, built at General Dynamics’ facilities in Spain”

  27. So…
    A. Why exactly, is it not possible to cancel this failed garbage??
    B. The Russia v Ukraine war has clearly demonstrated that heavy lumbering armoured vehicles, are coming to the end of their ‘sell by’ date.
    C. Isn’t ‘Boxer’ an IFV?
    D. Why do we need both?
    E. Will we have enough Infantry to use them?

    • A/ It may be, but lets see if it is fixable.
      B/ Only if they are operated by cretins.
      C/ Boxer has nothing to do with this.
      D/ Study the organisation, kit, and role of the RAC and its Recc Regiments and CVRT family in particular for your answer compared to roles of Warrior/Ajax.
      E/ Yes, as Ajax will only be issued to the Armoured Infantry formations in the recc platoons, which currently use Scimitar, not as an APC or an IFV in the companies.

    • A. It is possible to cancel anything – think CVA-01, P1154, Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, Warrior CSP (WCSP).
      B. It shows the Russians can’t properly operate and support their AFVs and that the Ukrainians have anti-tank weapons that they use well. Doesn’t mean every army under the sun will have the same issues.
      C. Boxer is only an IFV if it has a beefy cannon.
      D. We need recce vehicles and infantry carriers. Two totally different jobs.
      E. Mostly RAC operate Ajax, but some Infantry operate them too ie in a Inf Bn’s Recce Platoon.

    • C. The variants of Boxer the UK is buying are not IFVs, they are mostly APCs, command vehicles, and ambulances, they will be armed with a light machine gun, nothing else.

  28. Honest question. So 12 years from the start of the program is this kit still relevant? Firstly because most of the equipment specd in the contract will be old by now, in tech terms we’retalking iphone 4 vs iphone 14. And secondly we’re seeing an evolution in land warfare unravel in Ukraine.

    • Excellent debate. Major projects, say over £100 million, need what FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) now call DAAB’s (dispute avoidance and adjudication boards), as widely mandated by the World Bank and the other MDB’s or Multilateral Development Banks. The UK Government would be wise to pilot these on a couple of projects, to see whether project delivery improves.

    • Most combat vehicles take 10 years to get into service. Not relevant to compare to an iPhone. Why would we suddenly not require recce vehicles?
      Land warfare always evolves. So what?

      • Chassis yes. But processors, optics etc have moved on considerably we can see this in our every day lives hence tge iphone reference.

        Is a recce vehicle still required, don’t know. Is it now vulnerable to drones armed with grenades as we’ve seen in Ukraine? Well any sensors could be damaged so yes. Loan infantry person with an antitank weapon could at least disable it. Could some thind smaller using a drone be a solution? I don’t have answers.

        • Military equipment will never be as up to date as an iPhone, given development times for military kit – we just need to be ahead of the opposition, let us say the Russian Army – I think we should be ok there, but still need to do upgrades when required and when a grateful government stumps up the cash.

          Is a recce vehicle still required?! I guess you are of the Dominic Cummings school of military thought that everything can be done by drones and cyber gadgets, which was code for ‘lets cut the number of soldiers and armoured kit yet again’.

          I once counted that there were over a dozen ways/equipments to disable or kill a tank. The army needs multiple methods and equipment to achieve a task for all sorts of reasons. The Mk1 eyeball directly looking at the ground and enemy dispositions can be aided by technology but not replaced.

          Drones have their drawbacks – limited loiter time for small drones, can be shot down or jammed, can be very expensive (include controllers and their kit, maintainers etc).

          If you conduct recce by stealth (with low signature vehicles, moving tactically using cover well) as we have always done, then recce vehicles should not be seen by the enemy when static whether enemy use drones or not. Of course not all cover is good and can be seen through by TI, radar etc. so we will lose some recce assets but hopefully not a lot. Please don’t assume that we would operate as badly as the Russians and will lose huge numbers of armoured vehicles, whether they are recce or otherwise.
          Our recce should be operating well out of range of enemy Infantry- held anti tank weapons (ie short and medium range weapons.

          • I don’t subscribe to anyone’s school of thought just asking logical questions. I certainly don’t support reducing capability. But we should be constantly asking how can the capability be delivered or enhanced, . If the platform is still valid then all good

  30. “What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it”. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1832.

  31. Yet another lamentable and debacle of an Army procurement project needs to be terminated. Of course we aren’t necessarily privy to whatever detailed resolutions are potentially being made but we should seriously be thinking about thinning out the procurement process. Apparently the Navy seems notably more competent (generally) at doing this.
    Separately, I think the Army should be looking to buy more things ‘off the shelf’, perhaps with more customisation, rather than these one-off type programmes where we simply don’t order the volume needed to make things cost effective (for the record, I believe the Army needs to be considerably larger and thus have more equipment).

      • Given all the comment about the size of Ajax and its competitors, might it not have been better to go with a bespoke recon package (ala CVRT) and keep it separate from the strike requirement ?

      • But when does the level of customisation effectively make it a new vehicle. Others claim it now bears little commonality with the original donor design. I’m not qualified to judge mind.

  33. The whole thing is a mess, and perhaps is now just killing a bit of time till it can be cancelled. But – imagine if before the end of the year they get it sorted. Would that not then make continuing with the programme the quickest route to get this requirement met? Any new order will take ages to negotiate then years to build. For Ajax, whilst some mods will be needed, the production line and possibly much of the equipment to go in them, is already set up and waiting to go.

    If – if – it meets the specifications and doesnt send the crew deaf

    • If it fails because it’s badly built and they “fix it” with sticking plasters and chewing gum, imagine the long term maintenance overheads and the odds of them breaking down in action. Imagine if they don’t really fix it, but say they have.

      • Agreed – the customer needs to be able to very thoroughly test the fixes and be able to speak up and be heard if they are not acceptable. Which sounds exactly like the way this process will not work…

        • We don’t agree. The brass tests and speaks up, is heard and sends it back, and tests and speaks up, is heard and sends it back. Meanwhile at the sharp end, troops remain with aging, substandard equipment.

          How many more years would you suggest that be allowed to continue? I think they’ve had far too long already. It isn’t fixed. Right now, today, it isn’t fixed. Move on.

      • Yes I said something similar above somewhere a few days back. Even if they do finally meet the requirements it will be by such a narrow margin I fear that it will take very little to push it into the red warning zone again, especially as they age. I can see user compensation claims being an ongoing problem in service with lawyers, in knowing it’s historical failings, will give them a serious leg up when making their case. This will never go away and no chance of exports, reflecting previous failings in uk land warfare platforms.

        • The requirements have been set so high even if it does make it over the line it will be a substantial upgrade on what we and any adversaries are fielding today.
          It’s frustrating they have really screwed up the basics on this one, but it is probably down to the huge blow out in weight for additional protection.

    • Yep that carrot dangling from a stick before your nose persisting in Pershing it in the hope you just might be able to grab it.

    • I appreciate the optimism, the problem is every official source or source close to the project has been painting a bleak outlook all year. GDUK has known about these issues for at least 5 years and never managed address them which likely means they are a lot more serious than changing the hearing protection.
      Previously I was thinking upgrade the hearing protection and add rubber tracks would get it over the line but I don’t even think they are looking at rubber tracks.

  34. If the acquisition of a new armoured vehicle takes the MOD 20 years then it will obviously be obsolete by the time it is delivered.

  35. The New Swedish CV90 MLU seems like a good off the shelf model, comes with its own telescopic mast for over cover recce, APS, spike missiles for some hard hitting capabilities, maybe spike could be swapped with brimstone. Further tech could be fitted on it which the AJAX was originally slated to have. Atleast it woldn’t be as ginormous as AJAX, work as intended and probably be cheaper even if it is BAE.

    We’ve already wasted £3 Bn, with that the Navy managed to get the goliath such as the Queen Elizabeth Class built while the Army is bumbling around. Maybe we should just scrap Ajax since its clear General Dynamics and the MOD can’t be trusted to design, build or give specs for a recce vehicle and instead go with what the swedes have gone with as it’s clear they don’t think from their backsides. Also sue GDUK while we’re at it to get as much money back as possible.

    • You have to sue GD USA. They have the money. Isn’t the UK branch just a tin pot operation, even having the Ajax built in Spain with Chinese steel. This was never thought through from word go.
      Maybe we need to start afresh with TankCo UK and reliable partners all thinking ahead 10 years. Like ship building if you stop production its 2X harder to start it up again.
      Use the bits in the Boxer box!

      • Yeah nearly all its income from MoD projects, the overwhelming amount related to Ajax and 7m grant from Wales to set up their factory. Not promising is it. If Ajax goes then good chance the company goes with it… unless the Govt bails them out anyway 😱.

    • I see the Mail is saying that the current 3 billion is lost, it was paid after the vehicle was ‘accepted’ as meeting the production quality, or some such level of acceptance. Hope that’s not the case but as the known problems have been known by some at least and to a degree ignored who knows where the culpability lies esp with at least three MoD big wigs, one closely tied to the programme moving to GD over the years and no one who might be answering questions to the Defence Committee.

      • MoD got nothing back from BAE after Nimrod MRA4 was binned, then had to pay a contractor £500k to destroy the airframes – but did recover £1m in selling off parts.

  36. Sick of hearing about this joke of a multi billion pound program, 12 years on and to be left in this position is an absolute disgrace, that looks to have no end in sight. Yet the media seem much more outraged and willing to give much more attention to two late and over priced Scottish ferries, also a disgrace, than this.

  37. Well the one good thing about this ongoing project regarding the Ajax family of vehicles, I love the choice of Greek Mythology names! Aside from that, pretty piss poor all around.

  38. Somebody needs to tear up 1000 of those 1200 requirement specifications, and add another two. Mustn’t threaten to shake itself apart. Mustn’t injure the crew.

  39. I fail to see why the Government doesn’t simply take over GD for 1 GDP and set up a new company to fix this. Vickers 2022 Ltd.
    I’m not even sure we need this vehicle now we see recon being done by Drones. In my opinion its already obsolete and a lighter ‘half tracked’ variant of ‘Boxer’ is the way to go having as many common parts as possible.
    You can laugh but why not?

    • Drones is one way of conducting recce – you need several ways and a man with a Mk 1 eyeball forward on the ground is the best.
      No-one thinks of drones limitations – they can be jammed or shot down, most have limited loiter times, they can cost a lot when you factor in the controllers and maintainers.

  40. This whole discussion is kind of superfluous. Bottom line is Ajax has a budget of 5.5£ billion of which almost 4 billion has already been spent. Any SOS seeking more money for Ajax would be crucified by Cabinet, the PAC, the Defence Select Committee and maybe even the army given you’d need to rob another program.

    So unless GD a way to deliver to contract for the relatively small amount of money remaining, work will stop at some point likely at GDs request. Hence likely why they’ve not appeared at DVD2022. Bigger fish to fry.

    • Project is firm price so no more money would ever be forthcoming from MoD. What might happen is MoD might agree to reduce the number of vehicles to help the budget along. The army is well used to seeing equipment numbers being cut – after all the Ajax programme was supposed to be 1010 vehicles and is now 589 – and insufficient Warriors were delivered back in the 80s such that many 432s had to soldier on into their 7th decade.

  41. The MOD have said publicly that no payments have been made to GDLS in 2021 or 2022 and no payments will be made until the vehicle is accepted. So talk of cancellation is kind of a moot point – it’s effectively already cancelled. GD must have been carrying the project cost themselves for well over a year and there’s a limit to that, they’re already standing down staff. I’m betting there’ll be an out of court settlement by xmas the only question is the price.

  42. Given the catastrophic failure of GD to deliver a compliant product it’s time there was an enquiry into how they won this contract when BAE had all of the expertise and knowledge in vehicle design AND a base vehicle with a proven pedigree.

  43. Well, didn’t they just show a fully tracked version of the Boxer recently? Or is that too new? It would reduce the logistics tail for the British Army by using a similar vehicle…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here