The armoured vehicle, which is already six years late, was widely and rightly criticised because it could not fire on the move during the early stages of testing. It can now.
Information on the number of rounds the vehicle has fired on the move came to light in response to a Written Parliamentary Question.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many CT40 rounds have been fired by Ajax on the move as of 8 February 2024.”
James Cartlidge, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, answered:
“2,118 CT40 rounds have been fired by Ajax on the move as of 8 February 2024.”
To fire on the move is one thing but to hit the target on the move whilst the target itself is moving is another. Maybe the question should have been how many rounds hit a moving target whilst Ajax itself was moving across rough terrain.
You are totally missing the point of the question dude
And what is the point of the question? Seems meaniless without any context on what the results of the shots were. The delay in getting them into service is the vibrations thst don’t appear to have been fixed (better ear protection and padded seats is a bandaid not a fix), so do they impact firing accuracy.
The point is that it was said that the gun could not be fired on the move. He was asking if that was still true.
Was that stated? I thought the concern was it couldn’t be used on the move due to accuracy issues.
Eh ? What is the point of shooting on the move if it can’t hit anything??? That would be a pointless exercise.
Perhaps you should ask if the second round is still on target if any barrel wobble is induced by first ?
Not only that but crew protection, survivability. Keep it quiet as we need to retain security. There is an intelligence consideration here too.
What was the accuracy though?
65.315%
Now what you gonna do with the answer?
It would be nice to know if it can actually hit stuff while on the move. Unless, it can’t hit a barn door and the MOD don’t want Ivan knowing.
It can hit a barn door but only whilst moving😀
but can it hit a cows arse wih a banjo
😂
We can assume it must be better than the 30mm Rarden cannon which was not stabilised.
Careful my mate produced the production drawings for the Rarden he may be in his eighties but is still perfectly stabilised thanks.
Perhaps it depends on how fast the Barn door is moving?
Well you have good and bad gunners! So depends who is in the seat I suppose.
Couple of queries📧
Are the barrels meeting their specified life of 10,000 rounds?
What accuracy did the rounds achieved when fired on the move against stationary targets?
What accuracy did the rounds achieved when fired on the move against moving targets? why speed were targets moving at?
What speed and terrain was Ajax travelling at the time?
CTAS 40 Round cost vs 35mm?
Ridiculous questions. Would take a book to answer and the answers wouldn’t mean shyt to anyone other than a professional.
What a interesting series of weirdly argumentative comments you’ve posted on this article.
If you don’t like people asking questions maybe you should just steer clear of the comments section?
Back at ya kiddo, if you don’t like my comments, don’t read or reply to them. Simples.
don’t worry I find them quite funny
👍
No, they’d be perfectly understandable to anyone of normal intelligence. You seem to have ruled yourself out for some reason.
“Ridiculous” does not mean “not understandable”
The barrel has never been “specified” to have a life of 10000 rounds.
The accuracy meets the CEP in MOD requirements.
MvM engagements take place on internationally derived terrain standards (Aberdeen Proving Ground type)
Speed will vary according to the test as defined by MOD.
Cost is immaterial when effects are taken into account.
I assume these represent the kind of no answer, answers that the MoD specializes in?
Yup
The MoD answered the question which was asked.
Ian: Taken from THE CT40 CANON IN PERSPECTIVE – A LONG JOURNEY BY JULIAN NETTLEFOLDJuly 26, 2022 As new information comes from the battlefields in Ukraine, BATTLESPACE is using this debate to look at the history and development of the CT-40 canon and ammunition. One of the key facts emanating from Ukraine is about ammunition numbers and logistic supply in particular. The other issue facing potential CT-40 customers is the concern of re-supply on the battlefield. One only has to remember that poignant piece in ‘Patton’ where he tours the battlefield after his tanks have been wiped out after they ran… Read more »
That said, questions have been raised as to why France which also uses the weapon hasn’t suffered as badly as the British and here is what parliament was told as the reason why: from army technology Oct 13 2020: CT40 Cannon: proven system or cause of delays? Same cannon, different subsystemsThe CT40 cased telescoped armament system is a 40mm cannon built by a Nexter-BAE Systems consortium, CTA International. The weapon system is composed of the cannon and thermal sleeve, gun mount, ammunition handling system, CTAS controller and the gun aiming system. The adoption of the full system is part of… Read more »
And they had to admit their design proposal didn’t work, and redesign the turret as BAE said in the first instance – The BAE boycott on A vehicles has really buggered our A vehicle sovereign capability and shovelled loads of cash to an incompetent US contractor
the article you posted forgot Belgium is also a customer. Furthermore the CTA 40 is also used on various naval platforms aka Rapidfire.
Still early days but i expect more sales in the future, ie. export markets potential as well as the development of other platforms. Currently KDNS is proposing a Rapidfire land version on same type of truck as Caesar to defend vs drones. Maybe a Boxer variant in the future is a possibility.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the CT40 is a fantastic weapon, but the ammo needs depth of scale regards users in which to make the ammo affordable and the fact that the UK purchased (I checked) 500 odd CT weapon systems for the Warrior upgrade (which were delivered) which was then cancelled ,shows how stupid the MOD can be regards costings) and i do believe the UK is looking at selling those systems (As reported by janes) as they had already stated they will not be fitted to the Boxer.
Idiots..who buys 500 40mm guns they don’t need.
The brain dead.
Hi Farouk, an interesting, if flawed article. I have highlighted one or two inaccuracies: Rate of Fire 200 Shots per minute (This is a theoretical, cyclic rate and not the controlled rate of fire). “Limitations of power input”: The AJAX CT40 employs a Curtiss Wright stabilisation system that reduces out of balance forces and hence power required by the elevation drive to a minimum. “*Obturation”: The AJAX CT 40 is contained in a sealed compartment with an extraction fan, separating the weapon from the crew and other systems. “corroding the germanium of the sights”: Any germanium in a sight is… Read more »
Can the gun fire above 45 deg? If not its not much use against drones is it?
As an interesting aside…. The UK returns to 40mm for A vehicles after a long break. The QF2ldr was originally fitted to FV601 and a range of tanks…..
I can answer the last question. If you are talking about the Bushmaster 3 35mm, as used by the CV90. The CTAS 40 generates a much higher muzzle velocity that the Bushmaster 35. The published figures are 1500m/s for an APFSDS rounds vs 1180m/s retrospectively. The higher muzzle velocity is due to the larger diameter of the telescoping cartridge case of the CTAS 40, which means it contains much more propellant. The CTAS case even contains more propellant than the Bofors 40mm case. This means that a standard HE shell will have a longer effective range. Similarly, an armour piercing… Read more »
Apart from the last, and maybe the first question as well, wouldn’t the answers to all of the other questions be classified? For those responsible for evaluating the performance, no doubt all having a high level of security clearance, I would hope that such data are available and are being analysed and acted upon as appropriate, but for the rest of us we might wonder about those things but I would think that we’ll never know the answers.
Before the telescoped round seals in the barrel blow-by strips away barrel material, the 10,000 refers to the gun itself not the barrel which went from 200 rounds to 750 rounds with cartridge development . Doubtful if it would get to 10,000 rounds.
Thanks Pete, Any idea what barrel life is like on similar calibres? 35mm 40mm 50mm The bushmaster barrels I’ve seen have hard chrome plating to extend barrel life, but I have CV no figures
Boeing did tests in 2002 with different barrels for MK44 25/30 mm the nitride bore 5,500 rounds , chrome bore was tested to 21,000 rounds and projected wear out at 25,000 plus. All barrels are prone to whip due to forces have to go somewhere. As long as the whip is uniform and predictable computers can compensate, barrel length, thickness and heat generation are all factors . With the CTA 40’s short recoil springs and heat generated by blow-by it may be harder to predict . Video footage of multiple fire on the move would resolve doubts , has any… Read more »
Thanks Pete, that is great data, be interesting to compare with CTAS 40mm if any data is available
I would ask for each of them for a comparison against the current in service guns. After this much cost, getting a significant improvement has to be the aim.
Ajax will be the best in world when its enters service, The Army will by about 2028/30 have great new kit C3/Ajax, Boxer etc but until then its got to make do with worn out every thing. Just hope no war in 2027 or large deployment like the Gulf or we will be up S**t creek.
Even then I’m not convinced!!
i am, but will we have such small amounts of this all new kit that we might scrap a Battle Group together. The rest will still be in trials,
Yes I think ajax will come good . Its just a shame so badly managed . Gd make some good kit so no reason why issues cannot be resolved
Its better than both the entire CVR (T) and Warrior series. Just a lot less of them. For a much smaller Army
Agree , would much rather be in an ajax vehicle that has better crew protection . We have that manufacturing plant in Wales now so may as well make use of it . Its possible in future their maybe an ajax2 upgrade similar to challenger 2 and 3 , for some big upgrades to hull and stuff , maybe even get hulls built in uk . There is a decent chance that GD will win the usa IFV contract , which I think will benefit ajax project , may already benefit ajax as GD you would think will want to… Read more »
IVF contract for who, the UK, I thought we MOD decided wheel Boxer and a few converted transit vans. Ajax as an IVF be it slightly longer body would work well.
As far as I know the uk still requires a warrior replacement . May well end up with transit vans . I think there’s is a small chance the ajax Ares maybe used as a stop gap or something similar while GD competes for the usa IFV contract, if that goes well for GDynamics then the uk may choose a GD ifv to replace warrior , Spain GD Ascod also procuring a new ifv . . Though that maybe several years down the line , until then its Ford transits:)
Similar to the A-team…or the Sweeny when they got tooled up ?
The MoD declared in March 2021 that Boxer would replace Warrior. Its a bad decision, but it is THE decision.
ARES has its own role, to transport small specialist teams of up to 4. It has no cannon and does not take a rifle section, so it could not ever be in the IFV role.
The MoD has decided to come out of the iFV ‘business’.
Decisions can be reversed though , fed 24 2022 changed a lot, as does 2 years of mud. Drones, artillery attrition and a harsh realisation.
Since the. We have seen VLS on Type 31 ” at some point”. NSM as an urgent buy and considerable investment in drones.
Boxer could get capped, the price if boxer isn’t that different to an OTS IFV or an ajax derivative.
Procurement decisions are only rarely reversed. What is ‘fed 24 2022’? Interesting your reference to the Ukraine war – IR23 Refresh and DCP23 were done specifically to learn lessons from this war – it concluded no increase in CR3 numbers beyond 148 and no change to the plan to scrap the upgraded Warrior project or field Boxer to the armoured brigades in its place. Boxer could get capped? Buy fewer than planned? To save money and so also buy an IFV fleet? What do you then do with all those Boxers, even if it was a reduced number. Pointless adapting… Read more »
Wheeled vehicles DO NOT replace tracked vehicles…period.
Tell that to the French and Americans…
When he uses the phrase do not I assume he meant cannot (or maybe even should not) and ultimately he is- of course – correct.
I assume that many factors were considered in the choice of wheeled vehicles over tracked- cost of course would be on. ..but ultimately they are constraned by the terrain they can traverse…which must surely impact on the use of the tracked vehicles they are to be used alongside.
but then again you knew that 😉
Modern 6×6 and 8×8 vehicles are not as constrained as you might think, and frankly I’d give off road mobility to a Boxer for example over a 432 hands down.
BTW He’s not correct since the French Army has had wheeled IFV’s supporting tracked MBT’s for a while.
Tell that to the MoD! Tracked Rapier was phased out to leave just the wheeled type; replacement being wheeled Sky Sabre. Some tracked AS90s being replaced by some wheeled Archers. Boxer replacing Warrior.
Perhaps we can get a Ford Transit production line back in the UK then. Geez we originally created the damn thing.
IF Ajax has turn a corner let’s just Get it into service for the job it was intended to do rather than mess about with it .Has enough been spent .For IFV I think we would of been better off with CV90 rather than Boxer ,but let’s hope all ends well. 👍
All has not ended well for Warrior replacement – the upgrade got canned and the Inf in the ABCTs will have Boxer. That was declared nearly 3 years ago.
Do you sense a change of the MoD plan?
Ajax would be better if it could be an IFV spares etc, but yes lets not f about with it when its nearly working
Were you suggesting converting Ajax into an IFV? or for the army to buy a new IFV and have some of them converted to the recce role instead of having Ajax?
Ajax as an IVF would be better but just not sure it can carry an infantry section. And as an IFV it would have to have active protection.
Ajax is a recce vehicle and carries just a 3-man crew.
There is no IFV (with cannon) variant but there is an APC (with MG) variant, ARES which can carry 4 dismounts in addition to its 2-man crew.
The current Infantry section is 8 men.
CV90MKIV is great – Also the Australian Redback looks interesting – The Koreans are far easier to work with than US companies as well
And it’s so call a special Relationship 👍
The only special bit industrially, is, we give them everything and get nothing in return – As an Admiral of my acquaintance is fond of saying “People misunderstand the Americans, they think & believe because they are our allies that they are our friends. The Americans are only interested in us as a vassell nation”
A minor vassal that no longer can bring that much to the fight.
GDUK is a British company with a US parent.
Which is of course where the hard earned British tax’s end up! Where is all the R&D? Future export business? 10,800 jobs promised? Vehicle that was British from its boot straps? We’ve been royally shafted by GD. The vehicle is a sub standard Spanish hull riven with manufacturing quality defects with multiple reliability issues – of course we invested our taxes in upgrading GD’s Spanish plant. There is not even confirmation that the major defects found will ever be resolved. Only 5 of 27 ‘critical issues’ preventing the Ajax armoured vehicle from entering service had been resolved in 2022. The… Read more »
I’m still astounded that the official line is that the new seat cushions have resolved all of the faults, including not being able to fire on the move (this article), reversing over a 20cm step, not locking wheels when driving down steep slopes, noise and vibration levels injuring personnel and poor manufacturing tolerances on hulls. If these are resolved, it has the potential to be a great platform, but in my opinion due primarily to its weight, very limited to where and when it can be deployed. And to no fault of the project, except for the excessive delay, obsolete… Read more »
A very informative post. Many thanks. The selection of a fledgling company (set up just for the project) with non-optimised premises which had to sub-contract so much and had little or no experience in the field was a puzzle.
I had not heard about the additional contract for GD to transfer Spanish ‘know how’ to Wales – that is bizarre and seems unconvincing.
I really can’t make sense of the service/maint contract as you describe – I have not seen this reported in the media.
rst2001 did say the USA IFV contract.
it did, my mistake i’m old
Yes the upcoming usa ifv contract , which GD will be tendering for
Wiki: “The XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, formerly known as the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, is a U.S. Army programme to replace M2 Bradley IFV. In June 2023, the Army downselected American Rheinmetall and GDLS to go forward in the competition. These two teams will now move on to the next phase of the program and split a $1.6 billion development fund to develop a total of eleven prototypes each, seven being for a contract award with an option for four more”. American Rheinmetall may offer the KF41 Lynx or soemthing similar. GDLS is unlikely to offer the Griffin III… Read more »
https://www.army.mil/article/273518/soldier_touchpoint_guides_xm30_design So it looks like the new Usa Ifv is still on track for test production in 2027 , then full production in 2029. Maybe 6 soldiers in the back instead of 8. Mod say Warrior to be retired by 2030 at the latest, and as you have mentioned the Mod have mentioned Boxer as the short term replacement as Warrior starts to get phased out from 2025 ? So many dates ! 🙂 Looks to me if uk does get a new tracked ifv it will very likely be Gdls or Rheinmetall Which makes sense because of Ajax Boxer… Read more »
Boxer is not the ‘short term replacement’ for Boxer and then MoD buys a new tracked IFV in a few years time.
Boxer is the replacement for Warrior IFV. UK will not get another tracked IFV and then wonder what to do with £billions of Boxers.
I think the MOD has a cunning plan to wait and see what the US orders for its Bradley replacement before deciding on the IFV to replace Warrior.
Paul, I have said many times that the MoD has decided to replace Warrior, not by upgraded Warrior (WCSP) which they canned as a project, but by Boxer. Decision was made and announced in March 2021. Boxer will go to the five Inf Bns spread across the two armoured brigades. [I personally think it is an appalling decision; Boxer is useful in a medium-weight brigade but not in an armoured brigade] but my voice doesn’t count]. So why do you think otherwise? There is now no money for an IFV. Why would there be a need to see what the… Read more »
Morning Graham, thought that would get your attention 🙂
More of a feel than a think. We seem to be waiting a long time for either an order of a turreted / cannon version of Boxer or a convincing alternative.
I note that the KF41 Lynx is European.
We are waiting a long time. Tr1 Boxer will have the RS4 RWS which only takes a MG and /or GMG. Tr2 Boxer ordered c 8/4/22 could have more firepower such as an external cannon or a turreted cannon. There should be a Tr3 order too.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/
https://www.army-technology.com/features/british-army-outlines-how-boxer-will-fill-warrior-capability-gap/
Graham, thanks for pulling these links together. The last one contains some interesting thoughts. I take the points about ‘effect’ and ‘design ways of fighting’ and look forward to seeing how these ideas convert into vehicle types, numbers and organisation.
GD have demonstrated a couple more variants of the ARES; a Brimstone overwatch version as well as a bridge-layer. An order for some of those for the RE to complement the ARGUSes (ARGI?) would be useful. An ARES without the Tac Commander and all of the internal racking removed / redesigned would able to squeeze in a section maybe?
yes i think crew protection trumps having a 40 or 30mm on top. The Gduk 2016 Powerpoint PDF says crew of 2 plus 4 passengers (engineers) for Ares. So yes surely at least 6 infantry in the back with an internal redesign . a section of 5 or 6 seems to be a more common size for newer Ifv designs . Bish bash bosh sorted 🙂
An Inf section is 8 men. An IFV must have a cannon in a turret.
An IFV should have firepower, mobility, protection and capacity.
An APC will major on all the above less firepower – it will have a piddly little machine gun.
An IFV trumps an APC in armoured warfare every time.
Ian, surely you are not endorsing the ‘ARES for IFV’ proposal?
Problems:
Hi Graham, I think an ARES, minus internal racking and the Tac Cmdr could squeeze a section in. Or, possibly, add another road wheel and stretch it by a foot or so. As for the cannon, aren’t there plenty of 20mm/30mm unmanned turrets out there? Cockerill springs to mind.
cheers
Those extra bods have kit too to store, so squeezing in does not sound good. Add another road wheel – that might add 5 or more years to the development and cost a fortune – not an act of war. Then lash on an after-market cannon! More development time and cost.
Heath-Robinson springs to mind.
This cannot be the best solution to creating an IFV. Just order a fully developed European IFV, a MOTS purchase.
Absolutely agree, MOTS all the way. Just “chewin’ the fat” re solutions.
👍😎
I am usually a cynical/glass half empty chap.
I cannot see MoD buying another proper tracked IFV. The best we can hope for is that the Tr2 section carrier Boxers will have either an external cannon (perhaps in a Kongsberg RS6 RWS) or a turreted cannon. Doubt it would be a stabilised 40mm type though!
We live in hope Graham. RS 6 with a 30mm and Javelin anyone?👍
In fairness you probably could make a turreted Ares with a section in the rear (note it doesn’t HAVE to have 8 dismounts to be an IFV, Bradley and Puma both carry 6 dismounts), after all ASCOD Ulan/Pizarro is baisically Ares with a turret and a section in the back.
But the question is, as you indicated, how much will that set us back.
If the Infantry are happy to have a rifle section of 6, then we can proceed!
Cancel the Boxer order or at least the section carriers, paying the hefty cancellation fee. Order a load more Ares.
Just need to reorg things in the back of the Ares to get 2 more soldiers and their kit in the back, slap a turret on top.
Happy days!
The whole squad size thing was a big gripe in the Pentagon Wars, Col Burton with his personal beef with the army kind of refused to grasp the change from a M113 with 2 crew and 10 passengers to a M2 Bradley with a crew of 3 and six was a good thing. Remember that in a IFV the IFV’s crew is part of the Section. A Warrior had a 10 man section including the crew of the Warrior (so 7 dismounts), Bradley is 9 man squads. I think if you gave the Armoured Infantry a choice between 1 private… Read more »
Yes, I agree with you. The infantry section could come down from 8 men to 7 (6 dismounts plus sect comdr) if the offset was a 30mm cannon that they would not otherwise have.
Have not GD proved they lack the competence for a program of this nature? They’ve done a good job of employing senior staff officers but failed in every other area… other than contract management and risk, exposure limitation where they excel. Although project MORPHEUS has just been canceled – Similar cost over run and delay issues to Ajax
Yes its been a dodgy fiasco all the way to the top . I cannot see GD Wales manufacturing plant being closed now unless a takeover of somekind , I think we are stuck with them .After reading somewhere about a 20k per month per Ajax vehicle maintenence contract ( needs confirming ) i reckons the GD Contract will have somewhere in smallprint that UK must use GD for eternity or until the end of civilisation , which ever comes first
Though 20k a month x 589 vehicles can’t be right surely not , I must have misread it 🙂
Where did you read about maint contract for Ajax? I presume that is for Level 3 maint as done by Babcocks at Bovington?
No way would it be a mere £20k per month. MoD likes to spend gazillions on doing what we used to do in-house.
Ajax has not had cost over run.
👍
A squillion times more survivable for the crew. A leap in ISTAR capabilities too.
Not sure why you mention Warrior in an Ajax article? Anyway, CVR(T) and Warrior were great pieces of kit ‘in their day’.
Because Warrior is doing the CVR (T) job at the moment,
Yes, well….OK.
Which Ajax was by now meant to be doing.
Yes, very true. Ajax has been a very troubled project – just about every box was ‘not ticked’ as to how to run a project well.
That’s sadly state normal for vehicles less, so Artillery or Engineer types. Bad management is to blame by the Army and Mod in the case of Ajax.
Some blame generally also to be attached to the Company, Civil Servants, politicians and the Treasury
And The Army, its not all civies fault. We get what we ask for rather than what is recommended and we won’t pay for extras most of the time. Thats why on the whole are vehicle were basic but good
Martin, you already mentioned the Army. I was just adding to your list. We don’t always get what we we asked for – we asked for 12 Type 45, 5 x Wedgetails, upgraded Warrior. We got six, three and zero respectively. As far as Ajax is concerned the Army asked for a vehicle that met all its requirements and would be in service by 2017 – we didn’t get that. I have never thought our vehicles were basic [many seem to moan that they are gold-plated]. Ajax is state-of-the-art, as was CR2, AS90, WR, Trojan, Titan, Terrier etc when first… Read more »
Fair comment, be get good vehicles etc but they could be better but there is never any money or will to do it, AS90 could have a 52Cal barrel and be better but no we are scrapping it. Its examples of money saving in the sort term to cost much more later. We will likely have buy more than 3 Awacs aircraft but later at higher cost and with a long wait. The MOD etc do this all the time.
The project to upgrade 96 of the 179 AS90s which included provision of a 52 cal barrel dates back over 20 years, the upgraded vehs should have been in service in 2003.
MoD has a bad history of doing few, if any, major upgrades to AFVs and artillery systems in the last 20-25 years. There have been some, but not many.
or ticked for how NOT to run a project well or otherewise 🙂
Having extensive Bowman experience, Some Ajax and peripheral MORPHEUS …. Which GD kit are you referring too? Not Foxhound as that is a Force Protection & Ricardo (both good companies) product. Since GD bought in the vehicle price is ridiculous – GD’s policy of buying up companies and employing senior service personnel has been proven not to work, in the UK & USA – They should be blacklisted from any future contracts. Morpheus has already been cancelled due to massive budget overruns both in time and money and no deliverables. In Ajax they have a license to print money –… Read more »
Where on earth do you get £20,000 per vehicle per month from?
MOD Acquisition pipeline 23/10/2023 Issue 1 – While it states single source the MoD are obviously trying to compete it
A visit to the Tank Museum 🤗
They have one of the Warrior 2 prototypes in the “extras” shed.
Well mate like I’ve put on another post ,News today saying no extra money in next weeks budget on Defence so could be time to dust it off ready for duty 🤗 🇬🇧
unbelievable decision – but then again what do you expect from Hunt …he didn’t get his nickname for nothing you know… I could smack him as soon as look at him tbh.
True wasn’t expecting anything 😕
That’s interesting. I saw a Tweet from a while back saying they had all been destroyed. Glad that isn’t the case.
Hi mate, it is one of the early ones, as it has the prototype turret. My colleague confirmed it after showing him a picture. He was a trials engineer working on the program for LM.
So. With that vehicle, could the program be resurrected, if the will was there?
If the will and funding was available yes. Bearing mind the later prototypes had a diff ent shape and build turret. Restarting the program won’t be quick. As you will have to decide if want LM to be running it again? After all they hold all the IP for the upgrade. It is likely that LM kept all the drawings and documentation. But the manufacturing, trials team etc have all moved on. So you’d be starting from scratch personnel wise.
Davey, I heard LM was very close on getting the CTA40 integrated with the turret bedore WCSP was canned. Is that so? …and did they move from a small prototype turret to a larger one in the end?
Sadly true. I have two colleagues that were on the program. Both have said that given another 6 to 9 months. All the bugs would have been ironed out. From what they have said, the biggest issue was the inflexibility of the program managers. Who tried to stick rigidly to the schedule and wouldn’t accept arrising issues. Or allow trial extensions past the planned dates, even though the trials team and Army were willing to keep going. This led to a lot of infighting and the program missing key milestones. The MoD was getting fed up with the delays. Which… Read more »
LM did not even supply cleaning rag for trials team lol
Thanks Davey. Did you read the LM submission to Parliament on the programme issues? – many points were justified criticism of MoD not providing GFE on time as agreed, causing slippage. Two sides to every coin. Such a mistake to engage LM who had zero land equipment design, devlopment & testing skills. MoD must take some blame for that. BAE should have been the choice. Warrior should have received periodic major upgrades during its service life, either during a Base Overhaul (preferred) or at other times…..as we always used to do! No idea why this practice was abandoned for this… Read more »
Ajax is yesterday’s technology tomorrow, it shows all the signs of being a troublesome and expensive platform. In this day and ago of CAD/CAM, Laser cutting and alignment, GD can’t even get the hull sides the same length… Really? Is this supposed to give confidence in their future promises? It already is costed at £20,000 per vehicle / per month maintenance. I suspect this will only rise. The propaganda from DE&S, Army becomes more strident about how brilliant it is, Whilst no one will address the fundamental problem resolutions detailed as major shortcomings. Any platform that has the slew of… Read more »
did C2 have quality issues? wrong bolts, wrong spec, air fillers that clogged in the sand? Ajax is not prefect but it what the people at the top asked for, blame them. CV90 would have been much better
All vehicles have problems with the fine flour like sand from some deserts. The filter would be better if the cyclone section was removable and could be blown out or washed to get rid of twigs and leaves etc . A new type design uses a different method to eject dust. Don’t think they asked for hulls with substandard jig alignment or weld quality, you have to ask how GD Spain has not had ISO 9001 accreditation suspended or quality department fired ?
Well all this poor workmanship standard etc on Ajax is news to me, not questioning it. i was awear of its issues , vibrations and noise and lack of main gun stabilization.
Also if we want a light tracked vehicle with Ajax clocking in at 42 T !
i think its too big for recce, but thats just my view, very good vehicle though best in its class at the moment.
Agreed Martin, although I’ve seen some trials I think a drive off/trials of truth with CV9040 MLU would be enlightening- Ajax is too big & heavy for Recce, and isn’t air transportable- I’m not sure what its role is anymore? No APS leaves it very vulnerable anywhere near FEBA.
It is medium weight, not light.
In today’s world the lack of an APS hardly makes Ajax the best in the world. It makes a £13m vehicle vulnerable to cheap FPC drones any where near FEBA. Also at 42T and not air transportable its role as forward recce is questionable. It is unlikely that a vehicle with the poor quality build of Ajax will ever be dependable or reliable
name westen AFV/IFV with active protection,
Hanwha Redback has Iron Fist APS
yes thats it, it could be fitted but the MOD will not pay for it just like they never fitted ATGM to any British AFV/IFV, easy to do but no money for it and old farts in the tankies/infantry etc would not like it.
Lots of good things were planed for Warrior but lrft out when first came in to service due to coat,
Desert Warrior showed what could be done years ago
MCT on Spartan then Warrior in MI Bns. Swingfire in the longer ranged role on Striker.😉
Not may granted, but some.
If the GSFG had come across the border doesn’t it make more sense to oppose them with the 24 Milan FPs Battalions had dispersed and hidden on foot rather than exposing the vehicle?
or 24 milan and their vehicles, why to the Mod like less and live in the past
I think only 24 Inf Bde (in my day, mid-80s) had 24 Milan FPs per battalion. The standard number was much less, maybe even 6?
Morning Graham. I’d read different. The author may well be wrong
, “The Modern British Army”, Paul Beever, 1988 but I recall he lists MI Bns in BAOR had 24 FPs, the LI Bns elsewhere had the 6.
24 AM Bde Bns had their Milan FP doubled from the 24 due to its air mobile, stop the armoured breakthrough in its tracks role.
Test. Someone reply to this?
Hello, mate.
Still not getting emails…
I got that problem a few years back. George will look into it if you email him direct.
I’m sure Paul Beever has it right. I thought we were unique in 24 Inf Bde in having 24 FPs per battalion – that was what people in our bde thought at the time.
24 Inf Bde had exactly that same role as the later 24 AM Bde had, except that our bns trucked from UK to Germany and then from A to B in Saxons.
Both CVR(T) STRIKER and FV438 had Swingfire – and SPARTAN MCT had Milan – for long range and medium range ATGM engagements respectively. All the old farts loved these bits of kit, and bemoaned the lack of replacements.
Why were they never replaced? tactics or money reasons?
Javelin is the replacement.
I thought Javelin lacked the range of swing fire, good system but we are bit short on numbers just now
Effective range is quoted as 4000m, ground launched to 4750m when vehicle mounted. So slightly longer range than Swingfire (4000m).
Cheers
thank you, all we need to do now is replace the ones we gave away that will take a few year, by then some thing like Spike ER may be in as well
Certainly not tactics. There has always been a need to kill heavy and medium armour on the battle field and these ‘tank destroyers’ were very useful and effective, especially the Swingfire equipped FV438 and STRIKER, as the missile had double the rank of the tank cannon.
The phasing out of the Swingfire and Milan missiles was the immediate reason (both replaced by Javelin in 2005).
Why not mount Javelin on a tracked tank destroyer chassis? It can only be lack of money.
CV90, Bradley, Lynx, Namer, Aussies have Redback
So its not Ajax’s fault it our for not adding it, cost cutting again until it has to be got as in a rush to fill the gap.
AJAX are air transportable.
Was it true or is it true that the Warrior up grade was scrapped partly due to issues with the vehicles hull armour de laminating/degrading?
I have never heard that. I believe it was scrapped so that we could employ Boxer, once the 2 x Strike brigades had been axed.
boxer makes sense for spares etc but being wheeled it has it cross country limits and very is high
Not the best reason to buy the wrong vehicle for the role – that spares will be readily available!
It is hugely expensive, lacks a cannon and (as you say) is less likely to have as good cross-country mobility as a proper tracked IFV.
Agreed its a bad choice but it is what the grown ups picked, why i am not sure. I see advantage of getting it aside spares, its rubbish as an IFV.
Boxer as supplied to the British Army is not an IFV, not even a rubbish IFV. It is an APC.
Um the Army top brass want it to replace Warrior, thats going to a farce
Rheinmetal are pushing Boxer hugely- obviously- but it doesn’t replace a tracked vehicle
I doubt it was a decision made by Army Top Brass.
Well if not what is the point in the top brass, its never their fault, they run the Army but are never to blame, strange that.
Martin, you perhaps don’t fully appreciate that certain politicians, senior civil servants and the Treasury have a far bigger role and influence than Top Brass. No doubt the army top brass wanted upgraded Warrior to replace in-service Warrior to maintain an IFV in the armoured brigades (they raised the Staff Requirement, SR) – yet WCSP was canned – political decision with Treasury approval? No doubt the Brass wanted a new European IFV (CV90, Lynx?) what with WCSP being canned – they did not get that. Political decision with Treasury approval (?) not to buy such a fleet but to instead… Read more »
When you are at the top it all ends with you, like it or not. Yes money men rule as always but top brass are not as clean as some think
Money men and politicians rule and set the resources within MoD. The army top Brass operate within (generally taut or insufficient) resource parameters. They have to make the best of a bad job. Pity some make some bad organisational (Orbat) decisions and/or or give bad advice to their political masters ie Carter’s advice to rush forward Boxer procurement, thus killing off WCSP.
but boxer is being made as such a low rate it will take years to get enough
Very true, sadly. Could well take 10 or more years.
Buuuuut…. there are canon Boxer variants available.. look nobody wants to say it but the Véhicule Blindé de Combat d’Infanterie the French IFV is a wheeled 8×8 with a 25mm autocannon that works in support of tracked Leclercs. Given that turreted Boxers exist in the form of the CRV and Vilkas, I think if the MoD procures a similar module we’ll be okay.
Agreed, I’m OK with a Boxer IFV- as long as they get the proper turreted modules rather than try and pass off an RWS with a 40 mm GMG as a gun vehicle.
They haven’t bought any turreted modules so far.
Yes, I’m aware of that unfortunate fact- they haven’t even upgraded any of the RWS to the bigger version that can take cannons…
All I really meant was that, if they wanted to they could use Boxer as an IFV, but that they’d need to equip it suitably.
Sure there are Boxer cannon modules but MoD ordered (on 22/12/20) an unspecified number of Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 RWS for the first Tranche (523 vehs, which includes just 85 section carriers). The RS4 cannot take a cannon of any calibre, just MG, GMG.
The Army staff supposedly were going to examine ways to increase the lethality of Boxer from Mar/Apr last year – no idea what they concluded but hopefully they will recommend that the section carriers in the small Tr2 order (100 mixed variants) should have a cannon equipped module. There should also be at least one more order.
I’m not saying that we bought it, I’m saying it’s an option that’s out there, and if people are pining for an IFV, a Boxer with a 25/30/40mm cannon mounted on it is a more likely option than buying a whole new IFV.
And also that Wheels and Tracks mixed isn’t the end of the world like a lot of commentators say it is.
Thanks. We certainly need some good options.
I would guess that the armoured infantry currently in Warrior are pining for an ugraded IFV or a new IFV. Could they really be happy with the reduced firepower of the Tranche 1 Boxers? It will only be the newbies who don’t know any different that will be amazed by Boxer (in peacetime exercises).
I agree that wheels and tracks mix in the ABCTs could work if the wheeled infantry vehicle has virtually the same mobility as the tanks it is supporting, in all weather and going conditions (ice, snow, deep mud).
The reality is that no IFV has the same mobility as the tanks they are supporting in all weather and all going conditions though. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t worked with armour. A different vehicle, be it tracked or wheeled, will always have a different performance characteristics.
Guarantee there have been places that Challenger couldn’t go where Warrior could and vice versa.
I’m sure the Army has fully examined the options and drawn up a wish list. Sadly I don’t see it bearing fruit, unless some additional new funding become available. Or they cancel something else to pay for it.
The army is stuck with the political decisions that Boxer will replace Warrior, that the army reduces to 73,000 and that it will only get 148 CR3 tanks. No point drawing up a pointless wish list in these areas.
No additional funding this year and the army has nothing they could cancel in order to pay for something they really do want.
We actually withdrew from the Boxer program to!.
I suspect it was the total failure of WCSP (after parliament had recommended after Op Granby that Warrior receive a stabilised gun as a matter of URGENCY over thirty years ago) and aging vehicle fleet meant they HAD to buy something or run out of effective vehicles
Boxer Warrior were to serve together from post 2015 plans, when 3 Armoured Infantry Brigades became 2 Armoured Infantry and 2 Strike. This meant Boxer procurement, once the MIV program and originally meant to be from 2027 ONLY, and equipping just 3 Battalions in HPM role on Mastiff, was brought forward as priority while WCSP, CH3, Ajax all under way. No money for all so they chose to cancel WCSP which was months from fixing it’s issues. CH3, Warrior, Ajax should all have been dealt with first before throwing a 5 billion plus program on top and wondering why there… Read more »
Thank you for your informed response. I agree. Of course the boxer prototype into which Alvis/Vickers had (pushed by mod) sunk all their know how and decades of A vehicle knowledge & experience was delivered by Alvis in 2002. Then of course MoD pulled out of the program, as the vehicle didn’t meet their requirements – You have to question if it didn’t meet their requirements then, why it does now? The vehicle hasn’t changed. Could it be that Army/MoD are just not competent? Mod refused to give any contracts to BAE regardless of the clear fact CV90 was the… Read more »
Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land is a joint venture between BAE and Rheinmetall of which Rheinmetall own 55% for which they paid £28.6 million. BAE and Babcock are the MOD two biggest supplies
Yes Rheinmetall bought Telford, Newcastle, Bristol and Dorset bargain
No, they have brought half ( or 55% to be correct) of BAE Systems Land UK (excluding munitions and technology interests, or the CTA International) so they own 55% of the sites.
We withdrew from the Boxer programme to focus on a FRES solution, no doubt feeling that we would make faster progress and not have to compromise in a national rather than international programme. There was also the possibility that a national solution might deliver a MIV vehicle that was C-130 transportable, whereas the Boxer was clearly not. ‘Total failure of WCSP’ – a bit harsh. Many of those ‘in the know’ consider that the CTA 40 integration into the new turret was only a few months from being achieved when the programme was cancelled. I don’t recall the point that… Read more »
You have to question why the contract was given to LM – I know Hunting well & respect them. But, they had no A vehicle design experience, (although some installation experience) Mod ignored the DA who said a new turret would be required and gave the contract to a company with no relevant platform experience at all. What did people expect? LM struggled from the off leading to £227m cost overruns and years delay. Had MoD adopted the GVA advanced hull power pack transmission from BAE – with the advanced hull and new turret I suspect they would be in… Read more »
I agree. It is usually unwise to give an upgrade contract to a company other than the OEM who is also the Dsign Authority. Was it ‘anyone but BAE syndrome at work’ again? But to give it to a company well versed in aviation and air applications, but inexperienced in the very special art of AFV turret design, was madness. I agree that if BAE had got the upgrade contract it would have gone more smoothly and ISD might have been met, if MoD had been a bit more on the ball and provided GFE on time. Then we would… Read more »
I’ve heard that there where issues, but I’d not heard it linked to the the upgrade, just that some hulls where in a very bad condition.
Some 1,043 Warriors (of all types) were procured originally. Of which, 489 of the main version were produced – FV510 IFV section carrier – which included Qty 105 carrying ATGW teams using the MILAN and Javelin. Just 245 wagons were getting the upgraded turret/cannon (plus the other stuff) in the WCSP programme. Hard to believe that 245 hulls could not be found that were in fair condition from a quite large fleet. Of course Warriors were traditionally subject to a Base Overhaul by the MoD Defence Support Group every 7 or so years in service which returned them to ‘good… Read more »
I never said that the upgrade was cancelled because the hulls where in bad condition though? It was cancelled because of funding issues.
Apologies for my misinterpretation.
It was the variations in dimensions of serial fitted turret rings and wear , warrior went through rebuild program at DSG Donnington. They were stripped to bare hulls , inspected for wear, cracks and de-lamination before being repaired or scrapped depending on cost . Aluminium is prone to age hardening and you have to decide if it is better to buy new or mod old vehicles , LM delays through being inexperienced and trying to fit the gun in old small turret lost confidence in project. GKN ( now part of BAE) came up with Warrior 2000 prototype with fire… Read more »
Pete,
The rebuild programme that you mention at Donnington – was this routine BOH or BIR or prep of specially selected vehs for WCSP?
I am quite baffled that new WR turret rings could be of varying dimensions as human error is pretty much taken out of manufacturing these days – how could that happen?
Like Nimrod where variations caused problems fitting wings and interiors !
Nimrod from Comet built in an era before CAD/CAM, so I can understand that identical modern wings did not fit 1950s era fuselages!
I distinctly remember that BAE advised the absolute necessity of a new airframe (fuselage etc) for the MRA.4, but Treasury did not agree.
The MoD wishes it to be known no personnel were harmed by vibration, gunfire noise or flashes of light during this fully automated “test” 😅
Did any of them get shot though….
Well I heard its “hit rate” is about 60% so doubtful….
If you’re referring to Grinch’s reply up top, that was a joke , albeit not a particularly funny one
Bigger question is can it hit a banana on the move and how many baked beans can fit inside it?
Tennis ball at Mach 2
I’ll raise you to golf ball at Mach 3, or 100 footballs at 750 mph.
Follow up question: how much does a round cost
Approximately ten times as much as a conventional round
Totally made up answer. Go to the back of the class.
Perhaps they will produce a low cost round for training , could sleeve the barrel and send 50 caliber down barrel !
Well if everything is now tickety-boo at last, lets get them manufactured fast & keep the AFVs ovedue retirement in storage in case of a coming war.
The scout motto is, “Be prapared”, the HMG/MOD motto seems to be, “Be as unprepared as possible”.
Keep what in storage? Old AFVs? AFVs that have been declared ‘Obsolete’? We don’t do that. Don’t have the money or the extra storage that would be required.
A bit off topic but Defense News is reporting Germany is ordering up to 49 Boxer based Skyranger 30mm systems. Just after Austria did the same. Wonder if the UK will follow suit here? At least the chassis will then have a turret on it!
like to see them order some but we know they will not plus Boxer does now have a variant with a 30mm gun.
If I was moving and it was moving could the crew move quickly enougth to move the gun before I moved out of the way of the gun moving?😎