The Ministry of Defence is taking a two-phase approach to delivering an improved version of the British Army’s Ajax armoured reconnaissance vehicle, restarting trials on the current platform under controlled conditions before rolling in significant changes within months, the Ministry of Defence has told Parliament.
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard, set out the plan on Monday in a written answer to the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, Ben Obese-Jecty, who had asked what progress had been made on what he called Ajax 2.
Pollard told him the department was “working on a phased approach to delivering an improved Ajax vehicle”, beginning with a first phase that would restart trials on the current version of Ajax, with a limited number of vehicles operated “under tightly controlled conditions and maintenance regimes”.
The second phase, Pollard said, would deliver “a number of significant enhancements within months”, including improvements to air filtration, crew-compartment heating and the electrical power generation system, which he described as “key themes identified and prioritised following Exercise Titan Storm”. He added that he would continue to keep the House informed of developments through written ministerial statements, as he had been doing since the exercise.
The programme has had a long and well-documented set of problems, with trials repeatedly suspended through the early 2020s after crews reported noise and vibration so severe that some suffered hearing loss and other injuries, prompting a series of reviews by the National Audit Office and the Commons Defence and Public Accounts Committees.
Improved? Scrapping it would be an improvement.
Even if it does work, drone warfare has made it obsolete.
Has it?
Should that not apply to any vehicle, especially in the FEBA then?
Without APS or other means that can combat drones it is indeed obsolete.
And one of the new issues with drones is that they can hit vulnerable points of vehicles with precision not seen before. A vent, a space in gun mantle ,a hatch, door, sights, suspension hole.
For example the Challenger 3 pictures just shown in a recent article show the turret ring completely exposed.
Yes, seen all this in UKR.
So, why is it then that ENATO continues to develop and buy Armoured vehicles? I don’t believe that every single one has APS?
I believe Russia is also happy to.
My concern is that we knee jerk as a convenient excuse to cut assets further.
In fact, lets go the whole hog and have no vehicles whatsoever? Sarcasm, but…
Also worth pointing out that Ukraine is also moving ahead with a factory to produce Lynx (if I recall) IFVs in-country with Rhienemettal.
The day of the IFV, with or without APS, is not over- in many ways it appears more relevant than tanks- especially if you can put a couple of ATGMs on it too.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,—>>> PayAtHome1.Com
Lots of protected battleships were still build despite HMS Dreadnought…later in a even bigger paradigm shift HMS Vanguard was still build…now we are entering the Age of Missile – drone is a missile too-.
Inertia, multiples resistances to paradigm shifts and if Ajax has weight margin for APS it can still be viable. Note that a supposed Ajax with a long range 50km missile is still viable.
Alex, Prior to attack drones there were other types of aerial threat – FGA jets, Attack Helicopters. Yet our vehicles, be they AFVs or soft-skinned vehicles, did not have effective anti-air weapons (perhaps just a pintle-mounted MG at best) or even any anti-air weapons. Anti-air defences were provided in a different way, a collective way.
Equally not every vehicle has/had defences/protection against Small Arms fire, artillery shell splinters, mines.
Yet now with drones, there is a clamour for every tank or also perhaps other AFVs (but seemingly not soft-skinned vehicles) to have an APS such as Trophy.
Tanks should have APS as they are very high value. Affordability will doubtless play a part in deciding if other AFVs should have or will get APS. There is no plan for Ajax to have Trophy APS yet that does not make it obsolete. Its 40mm cannon can surely take out a drone but I would accept that the drone has to be detected and acquired manually, less certain than an automated system.
The MoD anti-drone initiative is well resourced and hopefully will bear fruit very quickly.
Attack helicopter, jets had opponents starting with other attack helicopters and jets all of them limited by the large resources in their development, production, support and training. If suddenly the cost of air threat to AFV reduces 100x or 1000x, not even talking about the crew that now can be better protected, AFVs have a big problem.
One of equations of todays warfare is how much it cost for an Apache/A-10 to achieve an AFV kill vs drones. Including everything, from training, to development, structures, supporr etc.
The thing is Graham, drone and missile warfare development is now moving alarmingly quickly, systems like Trophy were developed to take on ATMs and RPGs, they will likely be utterly overwhelmed in the future when 20 or 30 networked drones or loitering munitions of various sorts will simply target high value vehicles like MBT’S and quickly overwhelm the vehicle defence system and destroy it.
Unless you are deploying litereally hundreds of vehicle mounted direct energy weapons or these new fangled microwave emitter magic source machines, that require ‘huge’ amounts of power, then your deployed armoured brigade will be diced and sliced into scrap metal, all probably done 50 plus miles behind the lines too, alongside its logistics support tail that can’t be protected.
I think we really are heading for another Dreadnought turning point in warfare, one where large deployed field armies and massed mechanised assaults, are litteraly turned to smoking junk.
By 2040, who knows what will be needed, light, predominantly air deploying forces perhaps, flying in fast tiltrotors and moving companies, deploying drones etc hundreds of miles at a time??
Who the hell knows, but in my humble opinion, lumbering armour will be obsolete in the near future.
John, you postulate that only high-tech, expensive and power hungry anti-drone systems would prevent an armoured brigade being reduced to scrap metal by drones, and that those might be unaffordable. Both Russia and Ukraine are downing drones using much less clever and expensive kit.
The MoD anti-drone programme is well resourced. Some anti-drone systems and aids have been fielded ranging from the army’s SMASH sight for SA80 A3, the RAF Regiments ORCUS and Rapid Sentry and various jammers.
I have heard the ‘armour/tank will be obsolete’ line for decades now. Why would that be if anti-drone technology comes good and if tanks get better armour and APS?
If lumbering armour is all withdrawn from service then what would the army move about in to do their various battlefield jobs?
Afternoon Graham,
You have to take into account the breathtaking advancement in drone technology over the last 20 years, particularly in the last 4 years in Ukraine, necessity is the mother of invention they say and this is being played out in real time. Russian supply lines are being badly disrupted, if Ukraine could double down on this (they are increasing numbers and attacks every week), then Russia’s war in Ukraine will begin to unwind badly over the next 12 months, as supplies to the front simply get strangled off to a trickle.
That’s potentially when mad Vlad reaches for the tactical nuke playbox, but that’s another discussion.
I believe by 2040, the long perceived notion of ground warfare (as old as war itself), where 90% of combat takes place in a geographically defined and relatively limited area, between two opposing armies, squared off against each other, is coming to an end.
Perhaps anti drone systems will advance, but can they cover an entire supply chain? When you reach a stage (we are close to it) that automated factories can 3d print AI assisted one way attack drones by the hundreds of thousands a week, its game over.
Warfare between countries will make the entire opposing countries the front line, the fighting will be in depth and sub strategic from the get go, the skies will be black with drones and missiles, heading in both directions as military and infrastructure targets are hit in depth.
Any massed field formations will be subjected to locust swarms of self guiding attack drones, probably by the thousand, anti personnel and anti vehicle types, large and small, and only 20% need to get through to cause immense damage, forget resupplying what’s left too, that’s all burning right back down the logistics trail, to the burning logistics hub and beyond.
It’s a new rather worrying dawn, a real Dreadnaught or Tank moment if you will.
Whats comes after that really is anyone’s guess…
Just my probably rather bleak predation of course!
I still get the feeling the Army is preparing itself to fight yesterday’s wars.
Hi John.
That scenario seems un defendable, for both sides.
Almost classed as a WMD, only multitudes over a wide area rather than a single huge effect.
Afternoon mate,
It will mean an increased emphasis on the RAF and Royal Navy, a purple command, consisting of huge numbers of drones and strike missiles systems.
As for the Army, its less well defined, they currently seem set on fighting yesterday’s wars ( in my opinion) , I suspect a far greater reliance on company sized airborne strike units (a large increase in airlift, next gen tiltrotors etc) and SF, its hard to see how mechanised units and armoured regiments fit into the future order of battle.
With the bulk of the army manning anti missile/ drone defence systems.
We will see how it pans out I suppose.
Hi John.
Well after all the cuts that the heavy warfighting part of the Army has had most of it isn’t armoured anyway, so just liberally spread with Drones, GBAD, OWE and missiles.
3 Regiments of Tanks.
3 Regiments of Armoured Cavalry ( currently using Warrior or nothing )
4 Armoured Infantry Battalions on Warrior, soon to be nothing if Boxer does not hurry up. The plan to retain them as AI as mentioned by ministers seems to have vanished.
2 RA Regiments ( will be 3 if 4 RA gets RCH155 ) have Warrior OP vehicles and are due to get Ajax.
2, to become 3 RA Regiments of MLRS.
2 RE Regiments have Titan, Trojan, Terrier.
1 Royal Signals Regiment I think uses 432.
2 RAMS Regiments I think have armoured elements, the 432.
3 REME Battalions use armoured vehicles.
Most of these due to convert to Ajax and/or Boxer.
23 Regiments and Battalions, not many.
Rest of Army ( might have missed one or two as this is off my head ) is on PM vehicles or other Infantry roles with minimal or no heavy armoured vehicles.
As you know, I favour an Intelligence ( ISTAR ) RN and RAF first doctrine, but I still want the Army we have properly resourced and the heavier footprint it has, and the wider force, not getting even smaller.
The problem is we are talking about an enemy that can produce millions of drones a year. They are expending many thousands of drones every day. We just aren’t scaled to compete with that.
Hi Graham, whilst far from perfect, the sighting system on AJAX is capable of detecting and cueing the turret/weapon to that target. If the MOD goes ahead with the airburst round, or, even better CTAi’s Anti Aerial Airburst round they will have a modest but intrinsic anti UAV system.
cheers
Does the sighting have 360 and from the ground to the zenith in elevation permanently scanning?
a drone can be dormant just at side of the road and hit an AFV not even flying above 1m.
The Primary sight has 360 deg azimuth and full elevation capabilities as well as auto tracking (WASAD) with turret cueing. So, yes I think it could be useful in that scenario although probably it’s primary role.
GM,
Hi, thanks for your insightful post. Certainly do not claim that BA weapon systems procurement is w/in my wheelhouse of expertise/knowledge, but still wish to pose several, hopefully relevant questions. Apparently, and perhaps intuitively obviously, BA has made the decision to retain and develop/evolve/mature all variants of Ajax? There is already a proposed second phase of improved design features for Ajax, might it be logical to presume that there would be multiple additional phases over a probable 20-30 yr. lifecycle? Possible that not only noise/vibration will be addressed through multiple measures, including suspension redesign, but also that some future enlightened program exec propose an APS for crew/platform survivability? On a capital investment basis, isn’t Ajax more expensive than CR-3 (and w/ a larger crew complement in certain variants)? Bottom line:’ Hasn’t Ajax been judged to be too expensive/important a program to permit failure? Personally, have every confidence that you Brits will find a pathway to “muddle through,” whatever the technical challenges. Hell, you’ve collectively raised that process into an art form. 🤔😉👍😁🇬🇧
Exactly mate, well said Daniele.
Troops still need to be driven around in protected vehicles. But the main point is questioning if something like Ajax is the best way to do reconnaissance in the age of drone warfare, especially as it is a heavy and expensive vehicle. The vast majority of casualties on both sides of the Ukraine conflict are from drone attacks and heavy artillery.
Sure. I think, personally, from a non military experience standpoint, is a variety of assets.
I’m also hoping to save the money spent so that some use is made of the vehicle’s ISTAR fit and cannon.
Maybe the doctrine that was planned for the Strike Brigades and DRSB, which I understood involved Ajax penetrating forward, will have to change as well.
To me I agree, but I suspect it will be used as a infantry support platform rather than a traditional scout. Drones make the role harder but there is still a need for platforms that can take out reinforced defences from range and provide suppressing firepower. It’s why both Ukraine and Russia are still using tanks and ifv.
Plus you have to assume drones are a short term problem. They are slow, noisy and unarmoured. Sooner or later there will be an effective way to counter them developed and then its back to traditional armour warfare.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
I dont thnk Ajax is the best example , but because of Drones my hunch quality IFV at the pointy end able to do all jobs from assault cities and trenches to medical evacuation and logistics is the wayy to go. I would suggest Tanks in current form close to obdolete. One type tracked vehicle built on mass to cover all jobs . At current prices a quick google check can buy 3 Lynx ifv (10 million dollars each ) for same price of latest leopard 2a8 ( 30 million dollars ) . Then lots of boxers and lighter cheaper vehickes for the rear . No mans land is creeping towards 100 miles quite fast in Ukraine .
You have to laugh or cry, a platform that is ten years late still far from serious service and they are talking about an Ajax 2 which I assumed was an attempt to cure its ills once and for all but instead it seems is intent upon improving ills we (they) have only just realised actually existed. I guess this is the problem with a platform designed nearly 15 years ago, things change and improve substantially by the time it ever gets into service so it’s already having to get continuing upgrades/updates. But usually one might expect it to be actually in service before that happens to this degree.
The whole thing is a joke. We don’t need enough to justify developing our own systems and there are other suitable systems on the market already,
So scrap it and wait another 10 years to procure a replacement?
What is odd is they talk about tightly controlled conditions for testing and limited numbers, indicating that the issues aren’t resolved and then the upgrades don’t include the rubber track that would likely help significantly with noise and vibrations. Scrapping does feel like it would have been the right move, but I guess it’s too far down the program now to do so economically
If the total sum of It’s parts work then just work on the few bad bits.
It’s how things develop.
Problem is a lot of the issues aren’t consistent across the fleet, and there are many issues.
A bit like “British Leyland” then 😁
GD resemble that comment.
British Leyland engineers had to go in every morning before the shift to re-align the ancient machinery they were using to produce the cars. Maybe they sold them to GD, or the latter found them dumped on a street corner.
From my understanding the Ajax’x actual systems used for recce are really good. But then when compared to the legacy Scimitar, anything will be a significant improvement.
Correct
I trust Pollard, decent type, truthful and totally trustworthy. Just like the rest of HM Government, “nation first”.
👍
Though on this one I agree with keeping the asset and working on fixes. As the alternative to me is worse, writes off billions and throws away the parts that work, the all important ISTAR and Digital side.
Yup it’s a bit like NASA having little choice but to persist with Starship, if you f—k up f—k up big, they can’t afford to drop you. Promising everything is fine year after year tends to achieve that.
How is any of the ‘improvements’ listed going to remedy vibration issues etc? Those problems should have been identified yonks ago by the trails team but hay ho waffle on as usual! ( I do want this vehicle to succeed)
I read that the warnings from ATDU were ignored higher up?
There’s the epicentre that should be named, shamed and held to account, somehow?
I think they were. But project management, politics and budgets being what they are…
Have they fitted rubber tracks & uprated rotary dampers? If not, I fail to see how it is fixed.
Ajax 2… “which features composite rubber tracks and automatic track tensioners.”
From a Parliamentary statement.
Already fitted on Blackjax and GDs IFV demonstrator.
Blackjax was the demonstrator for upgrades for Ajax 2
It’s appeared at multiple export shows on the GD stand along with the IFV variant,sooo if they are confident enough to market them they must have sorted the problem? If so why are they not shouting from the rooftops they have the solution to AJax🤔
Curiouser and curiouser!
Well by displaying it at various shows they might just be putting on bravado that it now works, or they might genuinely believe it (though they could be wrong in that assessment).
I suppose they may be reluctant to announce this is the fixed version, in case the MoD won’t pay for all the fixes/upgrades. I’d imagine the MoD will refuse to pay for “fixes” to defects, and GD will want to charge extra for “upgrades”. So the question is which is which, and that might then affect what is defined as ‘Ajax 2’.
I’m wondering if they’ll adopt the Blackjax name to try and differentiate it from the Ajax reputation (think of the Windscale rename to Sellafield).
👍
Exactly ten years (5 years intense if somewhat interrupted) to only sus such things now. Doesn’t indicate a development team off the ball at all does it. Or maybe they are using the wasted time to do something useful if one is being optimistic I guess.
Hopefully MoD will also schedule a suite of courses to teach RAC crewmen how to operate the vehicle safely and ‘within carefully prescribed limits’ and to do Level 1 maintenance properly with no screw-ups this time! …and teach REME tradesmen how to undertake Level 2 and 3 maintenance on Ajax. Those previous courses they all did obviously were useless as so many got ill!
Given that outsourcing is so popular these days maybe the courses could be delivered by the experts from GDUK? Should only cost another £1million or two!
RAC ?
Probably better off waiting for “Green Flag”.
You get free recovery with them.
Hi Graham, I’ve the understanding that you’ve got more familiarity with the programme and issues than most- so a question for you:
The training that you mention here- the different Levels of maintenance, how achievable are they by the units you mention? I appreciate that it may say that ‘x’ or ‘y’ may need to be done every day, and then ‘z’ needs to be done by the guys with the bigger crane every 5k miles in the manual (a very rough example, but hopefully conveys the point). But, on deployment, how achievable is that?
I don’t know the answer, because I don’t know what exactly x, y, and z are- genuinely curious as to whether we’ve found ourselves in a situation where the maintenance requirements are too exquisite for practical operations.
This isn’t a pop at yourself by any means, just asking as an engineer!
Hi Joe, I was a REME officer for 34 years (1975-2009). I first drove a tracked vehicle (FV434) in 1976 during my initial unit posting to the REME Light Aid Detachment supporting a FV432 mechanised infantry battalion in Germany, and later did a course and obtained my Gp H tracked vehicle driving licence. My 4 postings in Germany gave me a good awareness of tracked vehicle operation and maintenance. Having left the army 17 years ago, I have no close association with the Ajax programme and all my knowledge has been acquired from Open Source media.
What we termed ‘the User’ was of course the operator of a vehicle meant as an individual asssigned to a vehicle, a vehicle crew collectively or a whole unit. The User has certain responsibilities for looking after the vehicle. Taking a tracked vehicle…a driver (who has been on a Driving and Maintenance course) checks his vehicle before first daily use (First Parade) whether in barracks or in the field and that will include but is not limited to: checking fuel, oil and water levels; that kit is stowed; track tension is correct; certain items are present and correct (fire extinguishers, certain tools etc) etc etc. Certain checks are done at the end of a days use (Halt Parade). Certain checks are done during a Halt (Halt Parade). Additionally other crew members will be conducting checks specific to their role/workstation.
The driver conducts Level 1 maintenance according to a schedule or as required. This includes replacing damaged or missing driver-fitted items such as wing mirrors or wiper blades, do the servicing (very definitely not a REME task!) and report faults beyond his skill-set to REME. Similarly the vehicle commander will conduct Commanders Functional Tests at prescribed intervals.
As for the REME side, tradesman training is long and comprehensive and is initially Class 3. The REME Class 3 Vehicle Mechanic course lasts 34 weeks at the Defence School of Electronic and Mechanical Engineering, including a 5-week foundation course, 20 weeks of technical training, and 9 weeks of driver training. (then later in their career he/she will do upgrader course to Class 2 and Class 1 level – I recall that the Class 1 upgrader course was 6 months long).
They will train on representative equipment on such courses but clearly not on every equipment the army has. The REME tradesman serving with a User unit such as my Mech Inf LAD example will carry out Level 2 maintenance, which used to be defined as repair (following diagnosis) by replacement of items less Engines and Major Assemblies within 4 hours (some definitions had it as 2 hours). Other REME soldiers in a REME Battalion will conduct deeper Level 3 maintenance.
When a new equipment is fielded there is invariably a special-to-equipment initial course both User and REME courses but I do not have details of any pertaining to Ajax.
I have no details of the specifics of the maintenance regime for Ajax, but remarks by Lt Gen Anna-Lee Reilly, Director General Core Delivery for DE&S, have shocked me. Her evidence lacked surety or details but gave the message that the User and REME working with Ajax have not understood the vehicle parameters and have failed to properly conduct checks and prescribed maintanance on the vehicle. She suggested that significant checks and work was required whenever the vehicle halted, which some took that literally and to mean even in a firefight! Maybe she has been misunderstood. In my day a Halt parade was conducted after each long approach march and not every single time the vehicle briefly halted.
It is hard to be specific and to answer your question without knowledge of the fine detail of the Ajax operating parameters or the checks and maintenance regime set in the Army Equipment Support Publication but the impression given by the General (who is late REME!) and others is that the Ajax vehicle is more maintenance intensive than other tracked vehicles and might have more limited operating parameters.
Hi Graham,
Your reply, from experience, is spot on. AJAX does have a more intense maintenance regime than a 432 or even Wr due to the step up in technology. As for crews not carrying out first parades and halt maintenance, I would think that any issues would lay with CMC? REME tradesmen are trained at DSEME and at unit level and I’m told that the T3 training at DSEME has been delivered by GD. It (AJAX) is a different beast and the Army will have to up it’s game to keep it on the road but I think it will be worth it in the end. As Daniele has pointed out, the ISTAR suite and CT40 cannon are game changers to the user.
Morning Graham, thanks for the run through from someone who knows what they’re talking about! Helps a civvie understand the day-to-day of operating armour.
Just as a follow-up question: the Level 2 and 3 maintenance, would that normally be carried out in the field (in prep areas before moving forward), or is that split between 2 and Level 3 which is even further back?
Ref your last paragraph, I’d be concerned if a newer vehicle had more limited operating parameters than older ones. I could potentially accept more maintenance intensive, if that maintenance is easier (more plug and play ‘modular’ bits, rather than lots of components). I’d be interested to know how the other newer IFVs such as Lynx and CV90 stack up in this area too, but doubt it’s an easy one to evaluate.
Hi Joe, sorry for delayed response. REME work in the field! Level 2 maint is done by a units organic REME LAD or Regimental Wksp REME. So, a tank squadron has a REME Fitter Section (from the LAD) with repair and recovery capability aboard armoured vehicles and travelling with them a tactical bound behind the tanks – that could be 100 – 200m behind the tanks but depends on the terrain. They report to the Squadron OC. A smidge further back at Regimental A2 Echelon the remainder of the LAD is located.
Level 3 maint comes from the Brigade’s REME Battalion. Some of that resource moves very far forward to do forward repair – that being the replacement of PowerPacks and other Major Assemblies such as Final Drives by FRTs from Forward Repair Group from the REME Battalions CS Company. That work will be done either where the casualty has broken down or very close to it.
The rest of the Level 3 maint delivered by the REME Bn will be done by the GS Company slightly further back in the Brigades rear area – that will be work of generally 6 hrs duration but it could be longer.
Two phases. The £2 biilion extra wasted money (just guessing) followed by the £1biilion wastage. Then we’ll have a handful of vehicles we can use part of the time. 🫣
…until they become too noisy and rattly as they wear… in about 5 years no doubt and need replacing. Maybe this is GD’s tactic a never ending production line. Fiendish Bstards.
Lets hope its like the Manchester and Lancaster.
More like turning the Tornado into the Typhoon me fears. Mind you they got it right the third time in the Tempest (ironically Typhoon 2 originally) even if the war was nearly over by then. Sounds like that might be the case with Ajax at this rate.
Its SA80 2.0. They were never going to cancel it given the billions spent, it is a matter of trying to work in fixes. The only thing to be done is to keep their noses to the grindstone over these and get the thing delivered and operational. Still a need for armoured recon, but it’s verging dangerously close to obsolescence given time elapsed.
Oliver, the details of the ISTAR role equipment for Ajax are very hard to track down, suffice to say that I consider it likely to be cutting edge. Similarly with its networked capability, advanced cannon and strong armour…those set it apart. I don’t see how it could possibly be decscribed as obsolescent as its capability probably sets it head and shoulders above its contemporaries. As for its lateness into service, lack of build quality/durability, and NVH issues (which have probably been masked rather than fixed) those are significant issues but do not point to obsolescence.
Yes, I see there is inherent capability of a high order, if these other issues can be resolved. Thanks for the reply!
The Ukrainian forces have effectively networked their entire recce & kill chain without Ajax?
Given recce and 80+% of casualties are caused by drones in the Ukraine conflict – Ajax’s relevance, safety & survivability has to be questioned.
The British Army in their inertia and Cold War dogma refuse to learn the lessons of the Ukrainian battlefield. The Army insist we would fight differently! We would have total air superiority (rubbish) we will be fighting will America (dubious). Also, Unfortunately this is not Bourne out by any exercises that have been carried out by the British, Swedish or other NATO forces. In every single exercise conducted British & NATO forces have been slaughtered to a man within a couple of hours by a handful of Ukrainian drone operators.
Ajax reason for being, is advanced reconnaissance in advance of the zero line. Oh! And being air deployable. It is clearly a) obsolete in this role b) extremely vulnerable. Apart from disabling its users it has no APS or remote drone launch capability of its own. To fit MIPS, New CRT’s, road wheels, suspension, automatic track tensioners etc would cost what £3,000,000,000 more? Is that effective use of our limited budget? Or would we be better investing that money in mass drone training, deployment & production?
Given its multiple well publicized failings would you choose to conduct advanced recce in it or operate a drone?
What would a Ukrainian commander chose to spend £7,000,000,000 on? 589 Ajax or MILLIONS of drones? What would the troops choose to operate Ajax or drone? What is the relative value of each system?
Ajax ride issues will only be fixed by a total redesign of tracks, road wheels, suspension. this will not happen for obvious cost reasons. (Basically a total new hull production) Anything less will be a further attempt at mitigation of preventing more service person being disabled by their vehicle.
Also, remember the first 150ish hulls are so variable due to poor quality, lack of any effective process or quality control, jigging, etc that every hull is effectively a different build standard do a systematic process wouldn’t guarantee performance.
And so it carries on to big to scrap, to poorly built to do it job, year after year month after month the samre old story, who pays for all this? meanwhile the Army scraped all the CVRTs with out a working replacement, that was smart.
Ajax will not be scrapped it will be a case just get on with it while money is chucked at it and crews find work arounds to keep some at the top happy.
I’m led to believe that one of the quickest and simplest ways to improve the Ajax would be to fit it with these continuous rubber tracks. Is that true and feasible.
Yes & yes. Admitted as such by army general.
Doesn’t stop there though Paul! To fit CRT’s you have to also change the road wheels and armour and fit automatic track tensioners. Also the Spanish dampers fitted have been a major problem. In fact the whole suspension set up is not good which is why the Austrian army and American M10 changed out the entire dodgy Spanish setup to CRT’s with quality Horstman units.
It is true this combination does not experience the Ajax problems BUT let’s remember two things, Firstly GD committed they could provide a vehicle that was safe with steel tracks to the agreed specifications. (GD also stated that the vehicle was verified to 42 T and was Low risk) Secondly, a half way house solution (which is what is proposed) is unlikely to resolve the issues with Ajax and would require billions more invest.
GD are owned by VC cash they don’t care because they have our money and we aren’t getting it back. But Ajax as a concept was obsolete two years ago. It is time to get out
Silly questiona from a non-tank person, but how will full rubber tracks go in wet slippery ice muddy conditions? Will they grip well enough to hold a 40tn vehicle? Won’t a hybrid steel rubber track be better? Could hydro-suspension fix the Ajax weight squeaky ride problem and if so why don’t they try it out on a reworked Ajax?
All those are apparently on the GD demo Blackjax version so they should have an idea if it works or not,if so just bloody get on with the mods and stop buggering around!
Ajax has cheapo Spanish suspension.
Best tank suspension in the world comes from Horstmann group. Used to be a British company based in Bath. Now sold to German Renk. Too good for Ajax.
What do you think your car’s tyres are made from????
Didn’t German Lynx afvs suffer from similar problems of excessive vibrations, with original tracks replaced by rubber? And Puma ifv had major issues with all early vehicles becoming unusable after operational testing.
The top weight of all 3 vehicles is in excess of 40 tons, which has put massive strain on track and suspension components.
Lynx is now winning export orders but Puma has had significant delays in reaching FOC with major upgrades ordered for earlier versions
One thing is to have teething problems as a child, another is to continue with them until adulthood.
Very well put!
The problem is deeper than that. It’s the issue of the hulls themselves. They were out of tolerance and that means essentially each Ajax is almost bespoke.. it’s not a precision engineered product, that is where the noise and vibration comes from.
Have they fired everyone involved yet?
You are going to be waiting a loooooooooooooooooong time
Whell I think it’s frankly weird that people would hate on the AJAX but love the Challenger 3.
… The way I see it they are both useful assets.
I guess AJAX requires a lot of maintenance which might be why it gets a bad rep but I don’t view it as a liability unlike some.
I think it’s good the government are going ahead with the upgrades.
It’s not hate on Ajax.. it’s a great 21c concept.. a highly networked vehicle with huge ability to develop the awareness of the battlefield. The issue is the build quality of the product provided by the manufacturer.. shite hulls that were not within tolerance has lead to each vehicle essentially being bespoke and many simply don’t work properly…
Well said, also the fact that advanced forward recce with a 42T vehicle that you can literally hear from miles away is a thing of the past.
The world has turned recce is conducted by AI enable remote devices and drones.
80+% of casualties in Ukraine are caused by drones. Fibre optic guidance is now virtually required as the the entire RF spectrum is awash with jamming, EW etc.
In every single war game/exercise NATO UK Swedish German forces have conducted with Ukraine drone operators in the red team role ….. The entire NATO, British, Swedish , German force is slaughtered to a man within a couple of hours by a handful of drone operators.
British General staff maintains that we will fight Ajax differently???? Ie not in the role it was defined for?? We will have total air superiority- doubtful ! We will be fighting with the Americans…. Questionable
Personally I would use the extra £’s billions on mass training and deploy FI drone systems and establish a drone school post haste!
That’s a problem With Design….!
How we landed up after Spending So much Money on What Was Supposedly the
Rolls Royce of its Type to being a Vauxhall Viva is Deply Concerning..!
Senior Military Officers Shying Away from Such Projects Maybe Worth a look..!
“The second phase, Pollard said, would deliver “a number of significant enhancements within months”, including improvements to air filtration, crew-compartment heating and the electrical power generation system”
Forgive my potential ignorance, but I’m struggling to see how any of these items would fix the core problems that currently plague Ajax- which I believe are vibration related?
I’ve variously heard that this is due to:
-Poor fabrication of Spanish-produced lots of the vehicles
-Fundamental issues specifically with the turreted version related to weight
-wholly or partly caused by soldiers not maintaining the vehicles according to the manual
-headphones/ internal comms systems piping engine/mechanical noise directly into the soldiers’ ears
I’m not sure how many of those are true, or if the actual reasons are different entirely. None of the above seem un-fixable, but none of them seem to be the items that Pollard says are being sorted in Ajax 2.0, which is a bit of a concern…!
It all seems that the management, design and construction was done by civil servants and committees.
They’ve either been over thinking everything or just too much Peacock strutting.
The long and the short of it.
YOU CANNOT POLISH A TURD BUT YOU CAN DIP IT IN SPARKLES.
Springs to mind
If you can read the Daily Telegraph article, “Army’s troubled Ajax may never reach battlefield”
What a pity Brown Labour rejected BAE’s proposal to build 600 CV-90’s in the now closed Newcastle and Leeds tank manufacturing plants.
What was the cost for the 600?
You have to laugh at all these people writing off the tank.
It`s still the fastest and most secure way of taking territory
in a contested area.
Drones and anti-tank missiles can be repelled as the
Israelis have shown.
They’ll Eventually find Some Way of Countering Drones …! WAR does tend to Speed up Development in Technologies …!
UKRAINE!….Should be Noted Provides the Perfect Enviroment for Drones of All kinds….!!!
Big Manned Platforms such as Destroyers/Frigates, Helicopters/Planes, Tanks/ Personnel….Can and are Still Required to ‘HOLD’ Sea/Air/land, Areas…!
Only a gas axe will fix AJAX
Give me a curry and I will give you a gas axe….
Transfer development and production to a different supply, or simply join the CV90 family for a standard or UK specific version… … Then do some forensic accounting to find out why its been failing so miserably… Was it intentionally bad?
Edit: *to different supplier, not “a different supply”
So this programme has been going for a decade and a half, and they are trying to solve a cabin filtration problem, crew heating and power generation??????? What the actual fuck is going on? Complete and utter dogshit for 6bn!!!!
The -AJAX Mark 2 Rumoured to Be Renamed 5he ELVIS!…
SHAKE ,ROCKs ‘n’ ROLLs.!..Probably has the Same sort of Money Behind it as the KING of ROCK…!!
If it’s crap – say it’s crap! Buy from another manufacturer!
I read that the underlying issue is that the sides of the vehicle are of unequal length & not parallel. That aiui is what causes the noise & vibration, plus the vehicle weighing far more than the ASCOD it was based on doesn’t help by any means.
Does this issue apply to EVERY vehicle in the Ajax family of vehicles or just the Ajax vehicles with the CT40 cannon? Whatever the answer to that, surely it means that the vehicles that DO suffer from these shoddy manufacturing problems are inherently unfixable? And if that’s the case, throwing more money at the problem won’t fix this underlying core issue.