Ajax – A progress update

Thank you Steven for this very interesting reply. Such basic manufacturing mistakes indicate some serious issues with General Dynamics. Warrior will soldier on a little longer I’m sure. Just think, if we had gone along the CV90 route, there would be a nice production line on Tyneside, with vehicles in service and deployed on exercises now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

BTW your reply has taken 5 days to be published. Must be censors and the details you have provided.

Considering GD are about to compete for a huge US Army contract. Their reputation must be in tatters. Although this kind of lets MOD procurements off the hook a little. Can’t expect Whitehall desk dwellers to go crawling around Welsh factories, measuring vehicles in their expensive suits.

Its not that clear if GDUK has crafted all the fixes yet.

I am sure BAE, Rhinemetal & Hanwha will all put their hand up. All of which have models that have been well tested by highly regarded allied militaries. While BAE have runs on the board with the CV90, the other two are also quality units, both competing in current competitions in US & Australia. If you want to test a vehicle, send it to Australia. The Australian Army is guaranteed to break it (even if it takes a while).

One question that has not been raised; what is the difference between ‘Global Britain’ & ‘European Britain’ when it comes to the military (leaving aside the carriers). What works in Europe does not necessarily work elsewhere (it can, but sitting in an armoured vehicle in +50C in North Africa or -50C in Finland is not something everyone thinks about).

No way, the army should have to suffer a Nimrod style decade long capability gap, then the lesson may be learned

Well someone was only a month back claiming it was all media negative hype and most of the issues were actually sorted. Don’t think even that gobblygook could hide that not to be the case.

Ohhh No 3 rattled past me the other week on the testing ground. the main vibration and osolation is caused by lack of bracing and support in the Hull.
this would be a easy fit if the hull wasn’t packed with kit designed around the hull to fit.

cannot install sound absorbing matting as it burns well

I reckon I could…. just as easily as the MOD 😀

80% as capable as tracked- .wtf we going wheeled for then?
seems like a backward step to me, too many too easily acceptant of mediocrity based on costs ….oh it will do lets get anything …until it doesnt.

£ my friend.
I won’t go on a rant about wasted cash and getting priorities wrong in the UK but that’s what it boils down to. Cheaper to buy and cheaper to run.
But don’t worry NATO will save us. Not like we have a moral obligation to defend ourselves and be able to project power. Not like military power translates to political power or anything…
Money no object, I’d get CV90 or Lynx. Both modern, have recce versions and I’d buy enough to replace Warrior. Lynx was built from the ground up to cope with heavier armour packs & comes in 2 sizes: KF31 for recce and 41 for IFV. Even has an APC version with no turret.

Lynx Could get built where boxer is, when that’s finished with if time scales are ok. Even if Ajax works out I think some should be bought as a warrior/bulldog replacements. I the British army are sticking with tanks they need tracked vehicles also. Not loads but enough for combined operations with tanks. If they go all wheeled why not just put wheels on a challenger tank so they are the same.
Or the red back Korean would also do. Don’t know if the K9 artillery was to be built in U.K.?

Ajax is a recce vehicle – therefore not a replacement for WR/430 – Boxer is replacing those.

The British Army, like every other army in the world (except Belgium) is of course sticking with tanks. I agree that the accompanying armoured infantry should also be in tracked vehicles – upgraded WR was always my pick.

The Dutch army has also given up on tanks but I don’t think it was down to choice and the cause was budget cuts

Sorry, just checked and that isn’t correct, the Dutch still have 18 tanks . Rather oddly they also have 25 Leopard ARV as well

Thanks Simon. The Dutch had well over 100 tanks in the Cold War, then reduced to 60 then decided to cut all of them following the 2008 recession, but as you say, retained a squadron of 18 in the end, which are embedded in a German tank bn. The 25 ARVs makes no sense – usually a tank sqn has one ARV.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/11/30/the-dutch-army-eliminated-all-its-tanks-then-realized-it-had-made-a-huge-mistake/?sh=7725057e35f1

Nope, we got 18 Leo2a7. More will come budget raise with 5 billion a year.

Not sure about where to build or where k9 will be, but I agree.
Saw a proposal from a chap (forgive me, I forget who) that suggested a breakdown for the Brigades going forward. I think it was in reference to Boxer variants.
Made some good points & part of it was; if we’re having tanks (which we absolutely should) we should have tracked infantry.
Tank + tracked inf = heavy brigade.
Boxer (with mortar & 105/120mm variants) = strike brigade.
Circling back to Ajax, tell BAE & Rheimettal they have 3 months to design recce version incorporating the kit from Ajax. If they can, buy it. Then keep whatever production line going to replace Warrior.

Stu, I fully agree that tracked, cannon-equipped IFVs should operate with tanks, not just in a BG but in a brigade. (My pick would be upgraded (WCSP) Warriors). Other arms are required too, of course. We used to call it an armoured brigade, but heavy brigade is OK.

My view is that a Strike brigade should engage the enemy (2nd echelons) at greater distance than the heavy brigade, and be equipped with suitable long-range (LR) sensors and LR ATGW, heavy mortars and artillery (tube and rocket).

Ajax – where to start? I agree that a timeline for rectification needs to be stated – and it should be sharp as the vehicle is already 5 years late. Your last line is puzzling – what do you see as WR replacement?

No expert but I think Warrior (as excellent as it was) is getting on a bit long in the tooth. Weight limits, protection, electrical power limitations etc.
For replacement, I speak above about CV90 or Lynx. Both modern, in use by other nations, manufacturers still paying for further development, both better protection. For recce, CV90 has a version already & Lynx KF31 has similar size, range, speed to Ajax – just needs a different turret.
If we went CV90 or Lynx, we could (this is all a pipe dream as the bean counters have already made their decision) have our recce, APC, IFV, C&C, recovery etc etc all built off the same base platform, all bought ‘off the shelf’.

Stu, good AFVs are upgradeable in every area – adding protection and more electrical power, beefing up powerpack, running gear, armament etc. A pity that we have done little to no upgrading of our AFVs. Warrior had an add-on armour pack for kinetic operations, was fitted with Bowman and BGTI – but not much more. We really should upgrade AFVs about every 7 years at Base Overhaul, if not more frequently if technology changes dictate.
I am used to an army which still has 430s some 60 years after first fielding and CVR(T)s that have clocked up their half-century! But of course, that is not a good thing.
Warrior with its already designed upgrade kit (WCSP) would have been a good option at reasonable cost.
Now the politicos have decided against that we are saddled with Boxer as a replacement (doubt that will be cheaper thanWR upgrade) and it remains to be seen if they will all carry a powerful stablilised cannon or just be an APC (battle field taxi).
No problem with CV90 or Lynx. I very much like families of vehicles but this benefit is not new to the army – Saracen, CVR(T), 430 and warrior were all families of vehicles.

The Warriors were struggling with the upgrade particularly the hulls which had developed cracking issues

Thank Jack for that info, which I had not heard before. Much depends where the cracking was – if it was in the original welds that is not much of an issue to sort. Different if it was in the plate.

Thinking of strike brigades here, note the second link which I assume could be added to boxer as well? high-performance ADS

“Following the infantry combat and combat support vehicle, Rheinmetall has introduced a mechanised fire support variant of the LYNX IFV.

The variant is called LYNX 120, with the 120mm smoothbore gun derived from the LEOPARD 2 MBT as the main armament.”

https://euro-sd.com/2022/02/articles/exclusive/25391/lynx-120/

“In today’s world, adequate protection of soldiers and their vehicles is no longer achieved simply by covering them with armour. A principle of multiple, coordinated layers of protective measures enables the highest possible level of safety in each case.

“Our innovative, high-performance ADS is clearly one of our greatest technical achievements,” comments Dr Stefan Nehlsen, Head of Protection Systems at Rheinmetall. “ADS is the only protection system in the world that can defend against attacks even from the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.”

Lynx KF41

Boxer

Lynx 120

Second Link, I forgot to add it after posting!

high-performance ADS

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/themen_im_fokus/active_defence_system_ads/index.php

I think you’ve illustrated here an important factor that we haven’t touched upon yet; both CV90 and Lynx are in production and continued development. Their manufacturers and other users are the ones paying for these design studies to add variants and capabilities. We can only dream.

A lot of bang off the shelf for your buck.

“Hungary has become the first NATO and EU member state to order the Rheinmetall Lynx Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) in a deal worth €2bn (£1.82bn) for 218 vehicles.

The vehicles will be built in Germany and Hungary, with all of the first 46 to be built in Germany and delivered by the start of 2023.”

Agreed.
In my dreams I imagine a world where the MoD is the same justification they did for Boxer; ‘the Aussies just did a thorough test so we’re buying it’ (assuming Lynx wins L400).
Lot of value there, Rheinmettal know what they’re doing and it has huge future potential. Use KF31 to replace Ajax (size, range, speed, protection, weight all comparable) and the 41 to replace Warrior. Plus maybe a few with the 120mm to augment C3.
It’s modular (IFV, APC, C&C just swap the roof basically) & they’ve already shown the ability to integrate multiple turret configs on it; lance, lance 2, 120mm, mortar etc. promise an initial £4b initial order (500ish based on Hungary pricing) and I’d bet my house they’ll have a design/prototype for the Cta40 + bowman + whatever other wizardry we’ve got working in Ajax within 3 months.
Meanwhile the Ajax team will still be scratching their behinds trying to figure out how they can go 10mph without everyone’s ears bleeding.
We can only dream my friend.

As you quite rightly say, applying common sense would see us using all of the above and cancelling Ajax asap while adding high-performance ADS across the entire fleet would give us a very useful solution to the current problems we’re potentially facing.

And the possibility of 2x Brimstone on the KF31?

https://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/lynx_rheinmetall_kf31_ifv_tracked_infantry_fighting_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_12906165.html

Slovenia signs Boxer contract19 MAY 2022

“Slovenia, represented by the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR), signed a contract with Rheinmetall-Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) consortium Artec to purchase 45 Boxer armoured vehicles in four variants”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/slovenia-signs-boxer-contract

Hanwha have tested a 105 version. Everyone it seems, has a big gun light tank version (or should that be medium tank version).

Every which way you look at it, Ajax just doesn’t cut it, even if they make it work (eventually). ASCOD ‘works’ just like the similar weighted K21 ‘works’. If you want to add 15t or thereabouts to a 28t vehicle, you can’t expect to use the same chassis & running gear without creating ongoing problems. Rheinmetall basically started over for the Lynx (not comfortable with the choice of engine though) & Hanwha merged the K21 & K9 for the Redback.

I just don’t get what they are thinking with an Ajax CRV. A CRV doesn’t need an over expensive 40mm that you almost cannot afford to fire. You need speed, ATGM & AA. AA uses a lot of ammo. If you meet a MBT or heavy IFV, you fire a ATGM & bug out. AA, you are talking drones & attack helicopters (so 30-40mm air burst – but lots of). Some drones, a laser may be better. More than that you need a SAM. Ajax has taken so long, it’s already obsolete & hasn’t been fielded yet. CV90 is older, but BAE have not been sitting on their hands.

Oh and it doesn’t have massive hips overhanging the tracks

👍

Because according to senior armour officers it’s 80 of capabilities at 40 percent of cost

But surely even if they get twice as many of them – where one cant go – neither can two?

When you are in combat your life is on the line – you don’t want to be in a vehicle with 80% capability when you could have had 100%.

I fear there’s more than a couple of decision makers, our overlords, that don’t share our concern sir.

Yes, but at 40% of the cost, you can afford two or maybe three. How well can a mbt handle three, all with at least two ATGM? If you are not in a comparable mbt, any hit is game over, but first you have to be hit. The situation awareness of three over one? The ATGM that kills you may not even be from the vehicle you can see, even if it was the one that spotted you. The idea of CEC is not just a navy thing. Three times 80% is 240%. Adjust you tactics to the new reality.

You are right that cost comes into play – I realise that. It is the main reason we are only upgrading 148 tanks to the CR3 standard not 227 or more.
However I don’t ever see fleet sizes of any platform increasing even if the unit cost of a particular type is much lower – are we buying a lot of the cheaper Type 31 frigates for example – or just 5.

I heard that too – a phrase was in common parlance by ministers (not by the army) – award the contract to ‘anyone but BAE’.

If it was true that the BAE submission of CV90 recce was rejected because BAE as a company had upset HMG on pther programmes, that was entirely wrong. It would be interesting to see what the military/technical assessment of the BAE bid said!

OK Daniele. Surprised me but I did try to work it out and your figures do make sense once I added in the required elements. I still don’t like tracks and wheels but mostly I do not understand how it can be said that testing is over, we have decided it may never work, but we’ll order it anyway Bonkers!

Geoff, original requirement was for over 1,000 Ajax (and variants), but Tresury cut back the numbers by nearly 50%.
Wikipedia: “Initially, the Ajax was to be procured in a number of blocks totalling 1,010 vehicles. The first order of Block 1 vehicles encompassed Scout Reconnaissance, PMRS APC, and Repair and Recovery variants, with a following order of Block 2 to consist of Reconnaissance, C2, and Ambulance variants. There was a possibility for a third Block of vehicles encompassing a “Direct Fire” vehicle with a 120mm main gun, “Manoeuvre Support”, and a “Joint Fires” variant equipped to succeed the FV102 Striker in the anti-tank role. However, in September 2014, Block 3 vehicles were dropped and the Ministry of Defence had “no plans” to order any Block 2 vehicles”

HI Graham. I was talking about the combined purchase of Ajax and Boxer to date. Check out Daniele’s post and my reply. My difficulty is that with almost every budget head stretched is it worth spending billions on armoured columns to be used where and when exactly? Even worse is that if the “guide” vehicle ie the recce Ajax doesn’t work what does that say for the safety and security of the rest of the column, particularly if Boxer can’t keep up with the tracked armour over rough ground. They will be a sitting duck for artillery.

Hi Geoff,
In the last 30 years, we have used massed armour in two Gulf Wars [1st (UK) Armd Div on each operation] and fairly considerable amounts of armour of many types in Bosnia (UN then NATO missions), Kosovo and Afghanistan. We now have a fair amount of armour forward-based in Poland and Estonia as a deterrent to Russia.

Our armour actually gets used on deployed operations, a lot, including on kinetic operations. More so, than much of the other expensive military platforms.

Where will it be used in the next 30 years – I need to give my crystal ball a polish! No-one could say where and when exactly. But I would eat my hat if armour were not deployed on operations (including kinetic) in the next 30 years – perhaps in eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Balkans again – or somewhere entirely different, such is the nature of war.

Very worrying if Ajax fails to be taken into service. Bean counters might try to force MoD to accept a few more years life out of CVR(T) or we might:
– buy or lease the cheapest (western) armoured recce vehicle available on the market and in small numbers, perhaps second hand vehicles
– or we might get the manufacturer to supply some of the first 500 Boxers in Tranche 1 in the Combat Recce Vehicle version.
Many ways to skin a cat – not all of them (or any of them) really good ways. A lot depends on how much of our £3.5bn spent we would get back from GDUK (and whether or not the £2bn unspent is snaffled by another defence project) – not much I would expect, hence my ‘affordable options’ above.

Graham. I seem to giving the impression that I want to do away with armour. I don’t. I just want the army budget to be spent wisely. Can I suggest that you google “The British Army towards 2030” which was a paper I wrote back in 2021. As you will see it is already out of date in part but I think it’s still an interesting read but then I’m biased!

Thanks Geoff. I will look for your paper. But in your comment above you did wonder what we needed ‘armour columns’ for, which rather threw me.

I totally agree that British AFV upgrades and replacements projects have in the main, over 20 or more years, been poor to disastrous.

You have to stop and pick out the better ones to avoid being too depressed – Trojan, Titan and Leopard BARV have perhaps been the only good AFV replacement projects in the last 20 years and collectively they amount to 70 vehicles only. There aren’t many upgrade projects of note except perhaps the CVR(T) upgrade of many years back which replaced the engine and much more, and the BGTI programme for CVR(T) and WR.

I do believe that most heavy armour for European ground conflict (warfighting, deterrence, peace support ops) should come from the Continental countries (plus USA), but we should be aiming to field a division of two, or preferably three, armour-equipped brigades.

Geoff, I read your paper. Very interesting. We have T56 armd regts now but there was a time we had T44. Never heard of only having 30+ tanks in a regiment though. That’s only two squadrons.

At the time I was throwing out the idea of smaller ,more mobile brigades with less infantry and more firepower. Today I would add inn drones as well.

Thanks for this. I was a PM at ABW after I left the army and PM’d a very small (but successful) £60m project, but previously worked as Dep Programme Manager for all UOR vehicles projects and prior to that was a Solutions Manager for an innovative engineering/logistic support project for MBTs.

All your points are right and there are more – including lack of DGDQA staff, difficulty in ‘booking’ busy specialists like modellers, safety case writers, Industry failings (multiple types) etc.

Joe Public only hears about the really big cock ups and does not see the projects that work out well.

Thanks for your reply, don’t get me started on the juvenile reporting and silly “all mod are stupid”, “all politicians are evil”, “we have no money” commentators.

Truth is we waste money trying to protect the public purse.
Procurement is a box ticking exercise and meeting a demand set by someone that will never use.

So the fact I believe that untowards goings on in the higher tiers of politics happens means I am morally bankrupt?..So what about all of the ‘directorships’ MP’s accept, and the monies paid into political funds…what about all the Russian & Chinese money and influence in Westminster…is all that up front and above board with no ‘reciprocal favour expected….because I question that I must be on the take myself ?OK if you say so.

It’s pretty normal for those that assume the entire world is corrupt to be simply projecting their values into everyone else; specifically that they’re morally bankrupt and so assume this to be the norm.
As it it is, you’ve still not offered any evidence to support your conspiracy theories.

Directorships have to be declared in the list of members interests and MPs are supposed to excuse themselves from situations where there could be a conflict of interest. Additionally ministers have to declare potential conflicts of interests to civil servants with regards to all decisions they make. Personally I’d ban all outside work as it just gives fuel to conspiracy theorists such as yourself, but then we’d either have to increase MOs salaries even further or settle for lot getting the dregs whose best option of a decent salary is Parliament.

If the Russians have spent lots of money buying influence in Westminster then I think they will be demanding their money back as it clearly isn’t working!!! 😆
As for the Chinese. Well their approach is more insidious, obviously offering jobs in Chinese companies to MPs after they lose their seats, or to civil-servants and senior military after they retire. These people have no real power except knowing the people to contact in Whitehall and Parliament who do actually have power. If you think GCHQ isn’t all-over this, then you’re as naive as you are paranoid.

I’m non of the above – most definatley not a conspiracy theorist.
Interesting you mention GCHQ btw – Look into their previous statement on Russian money awash in London and what their position was on trying to ‘extract’ that money and the effect that would have on the economy- I’ll save you the bother they couldn’t/wouldn’t do it.
Johnson himself has oft ‘suggested’ that would be looked at …funnily enough it never has been- until now.
It only took a war to bring peoples focus onto this but hey better late than never I suppose .
What about the recent discussions around chinese ‘spies’ with influence on Labour MP’s , or the Chinese money/influence in Universities, impacting on their teaching content.
I suppose you believe Stonehouse wasn’t a spy for the Russians during the Wilson years either.
You can laugh as much as you like mate – doesn’t make you right.
I’m going to leave it there.

Agreed, incompetence is way more common then corruption, and far easier to achieve too!

Another case of buying the solution that kept British jobs I suspect, specifically at BAE Land Systems in Newcastle. Remember Blair represented a NE constituency.

As a result of AJAX investigation of MOD, it was concluded that a redesign is necessary.

A fatal error that is hard to believe that GD made it.

There were also comments about unreasonable requirements, but it seems that the design flaw of GD is bigger than that.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/long-reads/how-tony-blairs-labour-built-the-new-corruption/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58780559

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58780465

So ignoring Socialist Worker which is a comic full of works of fiction written by those that pine for the good old days of the USSR… 😂

None of the other stories are about bribery. In fact, none of the stories are about anything criminal. Or did I miss any example of convictions being achieved in a court of law? Tax avoidance, which the Blairs indulged in, is not illegal. Tax evasion is illegal.
If you don’t understand the difference then you’re not competent to be commenting here.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/14/tony-cherie-blair-property-empire-worth-estimated-27m-pounds

It is an obvious insider trading act or a betrayal of public service ethics for policy implementers to speculate and obtain prior information about real estate.
Or, speculation and real estate growth during the term of office is a problem in itself.

At the very least, if the source of the funds used in the real estate transaction is a significant amount of political consultation fees, it is clearly using connections to former and current public officials.

In other words, it is equivalent to a bribe.

The 0.03 million fortune became 260 million.

If this isn’t corruption, I’m surprised you have very generous standards.

The source of Tony Blair’s wealth growth is public office, and Putin uses it to increase his fortune, but Russia is corrupt and Tony Blair isn’t?

Do you think that common sense is not included in the qualification to comment?

In my common sense, of course, I don’t claim that people are not qualified to write comments just because they lack common sense.

My bribe comment on MOD was inappropriate. The old and new known fact is that the MOD was incompetent.

It will undergo new improvements, but it will still cause the incompetence of the MOD. I found that the MOD needs further refinements to the currently required improvements.

Alex,
I recall that CVR(T) could do 50mph on the road/good track and some achieved 70mph when the engine governor was tinkered with.

So when you say recce is a luxury, I really don’t understand that comment. Recce is essential before you conduct absolutely any type of military activity. You need to have situational awareness of the ground and also enemy dispositions before venturing forward – and to cue artillery fires, air strikes etc. You cannot do anything without recce.

Then you say use a 6×6 Boxer, preferably with less height. So you now accept the neeed for recce, but not that Ajax shoudl be the recce vehicle?? So use 6×6 Boxer for recce instead of Ajax?

Do they even make a 6×6 and does it have a lower profile and can you fit the recce kit in it? Why not order the Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle as supplied to Norway (sure it is an 8×8, as is standard for Boxer).

I think Stormer was essentially an updated CVR(T) with an extra riad wheel added.