Noise and vibration problems still plaguing Ajax

I get the joke….

OK, thanks. I was a beat behind everyone else there!

Oh no your weren’t😂😂😂

A top draw comment it was too. Very funny!
However, some on here have no idea what a panto is never mind it’s eccentric British audience participation traditions.
“Oh yes they do!” I hear you cry.
Then there are the poor woke b******s born without a sense of humour. Pugs and Nazi salutes notwithstanding.

Ian M thinks that GD has done all the fixes and the vehicles are being re-tested – he has inside information.

Even if he is right, it is now 10 years out of date. I rather think there has been too much focus on a UK specific tracked CRV & not enough on the fact that it’s all about sensors & comms, preferably on a a reliable vehicle that stands a chance of surviving if discovered. ie start with a reliable, suitable (tracked or wheeled) vehicle that doesn’t need overly modifying. There are numerous suitable vehicles that are 100% known to work, some with CRV versions already existing. Standouts are Boxer, Lynx, CV90 & Redback, but there are others. Just like a house – start with solid foundations. An upmarket house on poor foundations won’t end well.

All new-design AFVs (particularly if cutting edge) take 10 years or so from Concept to first fielding. Ajax did have a mid-course correction of ‘Requirements’ in 2016, I understand. Even a humble passenger car takes 5 or 6 years of design, development and testing.

I have never heard anyone describe a newly fielded combat vehicle as being 10 years out of date before – that is a different way of thinking.[Not that Ajax is yet fielded].

GD would argue that they started with a proven design – ASCOD Pizarro. But what they did with it, was something else, far more than minor tweaking! So it really was a new design, in essence.

I agree that it often makes sense to go with a proven chassis and then mildly tweak, particularly if your current vehicle was first fielded in 1971. Some times though we need to build new from the ground up, but it did not make sense to do that for Scimitar replacement given its age.

From what I can find, neither Lynx or Redback took that long. The Koreans decided to design the Redback specificly for the Australian Land 400 program. They didn’t start 10 years ago. Yes they merged the existing K21 with the existing K9, added an Israeli turret with Australian electronics & RWS (from EOS). It works because they know what they are doing (S Korea has nearly 6,000 tracked vehicles). Lynx works. CV90 works & so does it’s CRV version. Boxer works.

Its 10 years out of date because it isn’t yet fielded but most of the hulls already exist. Normally you build in batches, modifying each batch as you go through the production run. Find a problem – fix it & modernise as you go. I am sure the CRV part is up to date, but the vehicle itself isn’t. I don’t see it being fielded in 2023, maybe in 2025, even if ‘fixed’ in 2022 (mind it is already October). Yes, you can upgrade it, but it has to exist first. Every day it sits in limbo, it gets another day out of date, Seriously, you could field a Boxer CRV faster starting from today.

I stand by my comment that all-new AFVs take about 10 years to design, develop and test before fielding.

Also, adaptations of existing vehicles take a long time.

The Korean K21 IFV took 14 years (development started in 1999, fielding started in 2013). A modified version was then proposed for the Australian Land400 programme (called AS21 Redback, as you say). Prototypes were produced within 2 years and now need to be tested, further developed and re-tested.
If selected it would be fielded some 6-7 years after Redback development started (2025-2026) on top of the 14 years for K21 from which it is derived…and that is just for an IFV. Ajax is far more complex, and had to be changed far more from the nominal base vehicle (ASCOD Pizzaro) than the Korean vehicle did.

I agree that you certainly good build a Boxer CRV quickly as they have already been developed, tested, approved and fielded with the Norwegian army.

Do you consider Boxer, which we have not yet even got in service, to be out of date? That project started in 1993.

Redback has just completed 12 months testing in Australia against Lynx (which was originally developed for a US competition) & I have heard the Army managed to break both repeatedly without breaking any soldiers. Both are now awaiting the Australian decision. Rumour has it Army wants Redback, MoD (Australian DoD) wants Lynx. Both have a say, but it’s the politicians that makes the final decision. Both companies have used the Australian experience to put themselves into other competitions.

Both K21 & ASCOD already exist. Their development time is of no event. It’s getting from there to now that counts.The question is has the modifications to produce AJAX been worth it. I suggest not. Hanwha realised very quickly that to meet Australian requirements ment something somewhere round the 40t mark. K21, like ASCOD isn’t designed to go that high. K9 is already 45t plus. So start there & work backwards (& do it in 2 years). You know the basics will work. It’s the basics that don’t work with AJAX.

The Boxer CRV is simply a CRV module added to a standard Boxer. Boxer is already in service elsewhere. Most IFV’s are basically an empty box with a turret on top. Take out the seats & you have almost the equivalent of a Boxer module space, except non modular. You have to build it in. AJAX is nothing special from what I can see. BAE produced a CRV version of CV90 in way less than 10 years.

Boxer is an ongoing build program in multiple countries. There aren’t 100’s of Boxers sitting in sheds undeliverable. Multiple countries are giving feedback & the company itself has been proactive, ensuring improvements & modernisation happens. Boxer has not been standing still. There are already several newer version specs from the original. CV90 has not been standing still & it’s even older. AJAX is not only standing still, it’s standing on one leg.

They certainly needed some help from the US parent. I think most of the staff in Wales lacked experience.

Interesting video. Those tank turrets just keeping getting bigger and bigger, and that’s an unmanned turret as well.

Yes, beautiful though, isn’t it? Weights less, and is hybrid, so silent (vibration free?) in stalk mode. What a contrast to Ajax saga! Abrams prototype being ‘casually’ presented like an afterthought, almost.
How do we manage to f.u. when all the auspices should be really positive (no need to answer that, we’ll leave it rhetorical).
Still thought end of this year was go /no go on our effort, as I think we’ve said before, so was surprised to get this post so quickly after the last. Trust Ian M is correct…….

Neither is Ajax.

The problem with AJAX is it is basically a modified underweight IFV that once modified was supposed to be a CRV (then someone added strike). The advantage of most (not all) IFV’s is that they have the space & weight margins to fit the CRV specific gear. ASCOD was never a suitable vehicle. Compare the K21 with Redback. Both are IFV’s from the same company, but K21 is an ASCOD type vehicle. Redback is based off both the K9 SP howitzer & K21. Redback is AJAX type weight but so is the K9. It works because the K9 works. Same engine, same transmission, same running gear. Turning a Redback into a CRV is as hard as turning a BAE CV90 into a CRV. BAE didn’t find it hard. Boxer CRV module already exists. Neither did when the AJAX started.

Point being a lot of money has been wasted on the vehicle itself, rather than the payload. It should have been other way round. The vehicle is just a means of delivery. CV90 existed be before AJAX. CV90 CRV is already in service. Boxer CRV is already in service. This is an embarrassment.

I don’t think the hull size is the biggest problem. You can choose any hull you like but if you massively overload it with every shiny object you can think of you end up where we are right now.

The posts on the Twitter feed suggested dark arts at work. Agree, why oh why, if indeed they were the prototypes, do that.
Did someone not want WCSP resurrected? Maybe it is all bull, and they were not what the caption claimed. Wouldn’t be the first time someone posts crap on Twitter!!!!

Which is why Warrior is being shoehorned into the role ATM.

The army is preparing to convert some Warriors to the recce role – that is better than using Scimitar as the WR vehicles are only 35-years old not 50 years old!

…Buccaneers! Me too (glasses steaming up). Ditto for revamped VC10s (basically supersonic if needed), and Concorde with a few hypersonics strapped on :). 😊 Where is a British aircraft industry and increased Gross Domestic Product when you need it? Ah! The nice Mr Cameron promised a revamp of the UK service-led economy post 2008 to be more manufacturing led… Fat chance! 😳

LOL. No i’m just comparing the scale of financial waste. There have been other disasters but none on this scale. Nimrod is the only thing I can recall to compare with Ajax.

Yes but the short term fix is likely to be needed for at least 10 years. If that fix is successful does it make budgetary sense to spend even more money on another system.

David, do you really think it will take 10 more years to either fix and field Ajax or to buy a different vehicle (off the shelf). It really wouldn’t.

Warrior is being lined up as the short term fix in case Ajax is scrapped. The RAC are already doing driver training. There are 2 ways to go with WR recce role conversion –

1. Deliver broadly the same capability as Scimitar. Little time, money and effort required. WR has BGTI, a 30mm cannon in a turret and a comms fit – however a different comms fit may be required. The only advantages of doing this is to replace a 50-year-old hull with a 35-year-old one, provide some better armour protection – and give the guys a bit more room.
2. Deliver near-similar capability to Ajax. A big task to integrate Ajax ISTAR kit (sensors, data processing/fusion, displays, cabling, etc etc) onto WR. I doubt anyone would suggest trying to change the existing turret & cannon though for the LM turret with 40mm CTAS – too big and expensive a job – and this had not been fully achieved with the now-cancelled WCSP programme.

Sorry for delay but i’ve only just recieved notification. Sincerely hope you’re right.

Thanks Graham.

If you carefully read the two short sentences I wrote, you’ll see I never claimed there was.

Sorry, reply was not for you but for Graham.

I don’t think the order for Boxers to replace Warriors has yet gone in, just the initial order for about 500 for the MIV role.

Is there an expected order of Boxers to replace Warriors?

Yes.https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/
Quote:
The Defence Command Paper released today (22/3/2021), titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, states:
“We will no longer upgrade Warrior but it will remain in service until replaced by Boxer, which we expect to happen by the middle of this decade.”

Seems to be a hasty decision to buy Boxer to replace WR, back in March 2021 – I wonder how many other vehicles they carefully considered!

I think it is yet another daft AFV procurement decision – on so many levels.

Boxer order for WR replacement has not gone in yet. We don’t know what version it will be.

Riiiight, that’s filled a gap in my knowledge.

So RAC and Infantry RAPs will remain unchanged on 432s? Until maybe a MRVP variant arrives?
Are the BFAs still around in the med Sqns of the med regs ?

BFA’s have to be around, and will be for a long time. Sorry for the crudety of this illustration (from memory and describing an orbat I haven’t looked at in years so not gospel) but it gives an idea of how much of a Med Reg was mounted on them.

I suspect Boxer Reg. RAP’s will be mounted in Boxer and at least 1 Troop within an Medical Regiment supporting an Armoued Brigade will be on Boxer (maybe more). Challenger 2 Regiments yeah will probably keep RAP’s on 432, Light Role was BFA anyway. I see an argument for 4X and 7X RAP’s getting the 432’s that’ll be freed up if 12X and 20X RAP’s move to Boxer though.

Love this. Does not look crude to me. I take it the black dots indicate vehicle number?

No, standard NATO symbols use . I and X in increasing order of magnitude:

Ahhhh, ok makes sense.

Who knows mate!

The issue was the safety case.

Who was going to sign off the pile of cobbled together bits, old and new, that was MRA4?

Several people refused to sign it off.

The issue was that it was, because of the tiny origional content, effectively a new build plane.

When the NRA4 project started, before Haddon Cave, this was fine as provided it was done Triggers Broom style it was still an in service type.

Fast forward, post Haddon Cave, and you get to problem like ‘how do you justify the design of that’ – ‘been like that for years without a problem’ – not good enough. The design needs to be justified from ground up which you cannot do when the design was never done to modern standards in the first place and would never get through element analysis.

So even if the flight controls could have been fixed – which is possible then signing it off was well nigh impossible.

OK, BAE had a valiant go at the paperwork for the safety case. But it became painful in the extreme.

Sometimes best to move on.

Yes, I am because I can’t type on my phone!

There needs to be a cost/benefit assessment comparing the likely cost and time to fix Ajax Vs the extra cost and time to switch to another platform, taking account the realistic recovery of money and the results need to be public or at least the summary. Right now we have nothing to work on making a decision if dumping it is good or bad.

It boggles the mind that the government gets away with making decisions with public money without a full justification behind it. Truss found that out with the mini budget but should apply to all major public expenditure.

Quite.

Hence, MOD are right to give GD the rope to gang themselves by allowing them lots of time to try and fix it.

In the end it will come down to GD wanting another UK contract and a deal will be thrashed out.

I suspect a project with ‘some overlap of capabilities’ will be announced shortly!

I feel that GD has had long enough – they knew about these problems in 2017 apparently. However MoD will give them more time, but why is there not a detailed rectification programme with a timeline out yet?

I hope we never give GDUK another contract but GDLS US (the parent company), maybe.

GDUK is an incompetent, new and inexperienced company – and has little money in the bank. We should place multi-£bn contracts with bigger, more experienced companies.

Doesn’t stop MOD asking for expressions of interest?

Doesn’t stop R&D work?

Does stop a production contract as that would be a repudiatory breach of contract.

This article le is about Ajax recce vehicle not the IFV. Totally different role.

Yeah Duh! CV90 lost out to the ASCOD. The IFV hulls of both vehicles were used for the trials. The Defence Secretary has said that Warrior will be used in the interim to replace CVR(T). How will it fulfill this role, where it it will not be upgraded? It will be no better than a CVR(T). If the Warrior upgrade had gone ahead it would have been getting both a new commander’s and gunner’s sight that incorporated better thermal imaging. Let alone a stabilized gun. Which would have made it slightly better for the recce role. The CVR(T) can still get to places that neither the Ajax or Warrior could reach, due its lower ground pressure.

The CV90 Mk4 has a dedicated reconnaissance variant. Built on lessons learned from the failed MoD bid. It also has its own UAS, which Ajax currently does not have. Both the Puma and Lynx IFVs have a limited recce version.

So the question still stands. Does the MoD have a plan B, if Ajax gets canned?

Hi Davey, I wish I knew why CV90 recce lost out to ASCOD – most just say it was political as BAE was out of favour.

If Ajax is canned (although Validation raials are back on following devlopment of some fixes) the Plan B is to replace Scimitar with Warrior – why do you ask the question again?

RAC crews are doing driver training. Clearly the WR IFV has to be converted to the recce role in some way and I have seen no details, however it is obvious that there would be 2 main ‘simple’ options:

1. Swap over the CVR(T) ISTAR kit to the WR
2. or Swap over the Ajax ISTAR kit to the WR.

Setting aside WR with WCSP as a replacement for CVR(T), as that has definitely been binned…

You say that use of an adapted WR would be no better than a CVR(T). Clearly Option 2 would be better as more modern role equipment would be in place. Both Options offer an advantage in that WR has a hull that is 15-20 years newer than Scimitar, there would be more armour protection from 24t vehicle rather than a 8t vehicle, and its newer status should mean greater reliability.

I have not mentioned fitting a WR recce variant with the LM turret with 40mm CTAS – a possibility but would add time, cost and complexity to a WR recce conversion project.

I fully agree that the 8t Scimitar was very good at terrain access with its small size and low ground pressure. I don’t really follow why there is this trend towards very large, expensive, super-heavy, noisy recce vehicles. It will be harder to conduct recce by stealth which is even more important now than ever before.

It’s sad to admit CRV(T) has had its day. It is simply too small to add significant kit to, if it’s to have a similar capability to Ajax. I’m not sure if the larger Stormer is though? Could the Stormer chassis handle the additional ISTAR kit, that is fitted to Ajax? Not to mention armour, turret etc. Yet still embody the light, stealthy abilities of CVR(T)?

From speaking with my old next-door neighbour, who was on the FRES program. The Army should not have cancelled Tracer. It would have formed the basis for a recce vehicle in a similar vein as CVR(T), but have a better offense and defence.

I can see why the Army went down the Ajax route, but the execution has been terrible. They wanted a vehicle that could survive a number of hits from 30mm Fin rounds. As this would be the expected gun size used by opposition recce units. Something that CVR(T) could not achieve. The problem is that this requires either a lot of dense armour, widely spaced armour or expensive ceramic composite armour.

Going down the traditional dense armour route is a non-starter; else you end up with a vehicle in the 50t class. Similarly, with composite armour, it comes in at a hefty price, but will keep the vehicle’s silhouette small. Which leaves the spaced armour, which I believe is what Ajax uses. Hence its much bigger size than the ASCOD base vehicle, which is still around 45t.

Looking at the interim recce use for WR. System wise it won’t be any better than CVR(T). Even with the ISTAR kit from CVR(T), it doesn’t bring anything new to the party. We may find it carrying an additional couple of bods, for debussed recce, or even as small UAV operators. The additional volume that WR offers does open up some new possibilities. If the Army is willing to invest in it.

This is why I am hoping that there is a fully thought-out plan B option, in case Ajax does get binned. Will the Army have any cash available to buy a vehicle off the shelf like the recce version of the CV90 Mk4? Or will it have to find funds from cancelling/delaying something else? I would like to think that someone has done a feasibility study on converting a WR into a proper recce variant, using the kit from Ajax. Plus, the cost of replacing the turret with the CTAS40 one. But I’d expect it be last minute.com as usual!

I like your reply. Totally agree that a 50-year-old recce veh has had its day – should have been pensioned off in the 90s. Stormer is only a bit bigger – one more suspension unit in length – it is quite old too and armour protection would be same as Scimitar.
I too think Tracer was pulled too early – to leverage US money and IP was fantastic. Interesting that the logic for Ajax protection was to survive multiple 30mm rounds – why not just bug out.
I bet the WR conversion will look at both options: strapping on the Scimitar ISAR kit or alternatively strapping on the Ajax ISTAR kit – the latter should be chosen to gain material advantage over CVR(T). Adding the CTAS40 w/turret will add quite a few pennies, which the nation seems to lack.
If Ajax is canned I doubt we will get much money back from GD, so will only have £2.2bn to buy something else, if WR conversion is not proceeded with. That will not buy 589 new vehicles.

They are not due any more money until the acceptance of the first units?

That is the next milestone.

Wallace was clear on that in public.

Yes, I realise that. My point is that the company has got very little in their bank account and may struggle to spend a lot on rectification & testing.

The contract includes a parent company guarantee.

Let hope she has a mirror in No. 10 then…

Having plan B is not negotiation in bad faith, which is anyway unenforceable in English law: House of Lords Walford v Miles (1992). So not my opnion, but the abiding opinion in English contract law.

No more can the UK government claim that GD are not dealing in good faith in failing to attempt to fix the problems, that too would not hold.

And while I have some experience in contract negotiation, nothing at this level. You?

We shall see…….

Exactly, you can’t stop a Govt or anyone else examining alternatives it’s the moment you initiate contractually any replacement or breach any specific aspect of the existing contract in doing so that the lawyers enter the fray.

Replacement is fine too, as long as the original contract is met.

So if GM fail to deliver a safe vehicle, the contract can be cancelled. We’d take a huge loss from what has already been spent, but have something and GM’s reputation would be in shreds.

If GM do succeed, we’d have to honour the contract and buy vehicles, bur cpuld buy the minimum outlined in the contract. We’d end up with an overpriced mixed fleet, but at least we’d have the equipment. Then the succesors could not be a fuck up (and GM still wouldn’t get a look in).

Another option is go wheeled with Boxer. CRV modules exist elsewhere. It avoids the CRV(T) contract altogether. It would be CRV(W). If CRV(T) eventually delivers, then the Boxers can be reverted if required. It’s a module. Takes an hour to swap it out & fit another.

Contracted number of vehicles is 589. There is no lower minimum figure.

By the way, the real risk here isn’t that we lose £5bn. It’s that being percieved as being unable or unwilling to defend the realm and its interests may cause wars that cost hundreds of billions of pounds and untold human lives and suffering.

Ermm pardon me, who exactly are we at war with and how does 500 rec vehicles lose us that war in the age of drones.

😁

To be honest Graham, the article has a very misleading headline. The news within is old. I’m told that the fixes are working so far but that any announcements are at the mercy of the MOD.

The minister’s parliamentary answer:
The Ministry of Defence continues to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests

The Article’s headline:
The Ministry of Defence say that they are continuing work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests
You say the headline is very misleading although it quotes the minister almost exactly. By implication, you are saying the minister was misleading parliament.

Within the article the answer is quoted exactly. The date of the answer is 13 October 2022.

The headline reads:”Noise and vibration problem still plaguing AJAX”, the subsequent text quotes the Minister. My point is that the article itself states that the problem is being resolved between the customer and contractor and progress has been made. I don’t believe there’s much “plaguing” going on.
Cheers

Yes, what I quoted could strictly be called a subhead, still prominent at the top of the story. In the headline changing “continuing” to “still plaguing” is provocative but that’s what editors do to get a story read. I don’t find it misleading.

I can’t find anything in the article saying progress has been made, only that work continues and “we cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service”,

Yeh, exactly what spooked everyone who are really trying their best to be positive otherwise.

Hi Daniele, as we know, the wheels/tracks debate is solely about whether the infantry gain advantage by being tracked in fighting alongside tanks. Once tracked APCs had been fielded they seemed to be a natural fit when working with tanks, as they could keep up across complex terrain and in adverse weather conditions.

So the Soviets teamed BTR-50 (ISD 1954, their first tracked APC) with tanks. We teamed FV432 (ISD – 1962) with tanks, it having replaced wheeled Saracen.

Who now (since the mid 50s/early 60s) operates wheeled APCs/wheeled IFVs with tanks – I think only the French. I have no idea what the lessons are – but hope it works well as the Infantry is required to ditch Warrior for Boxer.

You have hit the nail on the head in querying how Strike would actually work in a Strike Brigade as originally conceived with Ajax advancing (whilst trying to be stealthy so as not to be taken out!!) delivering the firepower (and calling in arty) whilst the Infantry would try to keep up in Boxer MIVs but could do nothing practical (no cannon) until they dismounted, however the advancing Ajax guys would not benefit from their supporting Infantry being dug in several kms to the rear.

Good point about HETs, required for moving armour from the Point of Disembarkation into Theatre out to the operational area and from one operational areas to another very distant one. Seems crazy that several were being sold off a year or two back.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/update-eurosatory-2022-kmw-presents-tracked-version-of-boxer
Try again!

Small vibration resonances over time cause fractures in circuit boards, failure of leads and soldered connections Doubtful if they used cushioning, bumpers and spacers in unit construction as they did not see the vehicle as a problem with rose coloured specs!

I don’t think you understand how modern construction methods work for electronics especially when built to NATO DefStans.

T2 camera video processer unit lol

T2 is over 30 years old…….

Perhaps you should eat your hat, a few years ago you were saying there was nothing wrong with Ajax and all problems were exaggerated and you new people involved with the project and here we are today in a similar situation?

Let’s throw it out to all our colleagues, Alex. Can or should we we still conduct recce by stealth with an AFV?

I would suggest something with some armour but faster & smaller. JLTV or Hawkei comes to mind. The bigger & heavier you are the harder to hide & the slower you move & the noisier you are. It’s hard to sneak if you are 40t+. There are even rural bridges that can’t handle that sort of weight. Ukraine has changed the rules somewhat. It’s the quick or the dead.

Hmmmmm. Those are light PM vehicles intended to replace Hummer and Land Rover. 4×4 so mobility will be down even on Scimitar. Most they can carry is a 12.7mm MG so firepower is worse than Scimitar. Why buy vehicles inferior to 50 year old Scimitars?

They are faster (100km/h), smaller (harder to find), look externally similar to reasonably common civilian vehicles rather than to a tank (so even if found, harder to identify). RWS systems being fitted include versions that are capable of going to 30mm cannon plus 7.62mg plus ATGM in the one unit if you want (weight goes up though) eg EOS R400S-Mk2

Ukraine will cause quite a few changes to the way things are done. Do you up armour to take a hit & survive or try & avoid being hit in the first place? Or some of both? (ie a heavy & a light, depending on circumstances)

DJ, thats pretty much like saying you could replace your Rolls Royce with a Mini.
Recce & surveillance is conducted in so many ways ranging from covert OPs to conducting recce patrols with dismounted troops to conducting recce by light unarmoured vehicles, to using PM (Protected Mobility) vehicles to fully armoured recce vehicles (AFVs). Then of course there are other methods (drones etc). It is horses for courses. In a high threat environment in which you are going to be using heavy and medium armour, it behoves you to use an AFV for recce, operating well forward of your offensive assets and/or to the flanks.
Many say that the war in Ukraine must change everything we do. Well lessons about the TTPs, equipment and leadership of the Russians are invaluable to learn. But there is nothing new about armour being a target and being taken out, whether it is by attack drones or ground assets.
The philosophy behind Ajax has been to uparmour (massively) and to increase the firepower (very significantly) whilst equipping it with cutting edge sensors, data processing and comms. Not sure I agree with the massive weight gain and find it hard to justify going to 40mm although stabilisation of cannon is advantageous.
We have always conducted recce by stealth (avoid being detected, identified and hit by enemy) and past vehicles have been small, light, agile (and relatively inexpensive). We seem to be prepared to conduct recce by fighting as the US does. Ajax will be far more exposed therefore, hence the heavy suit of armour. Its really not a clever way to go. I guess it means to some that it could take on a Strike role additionally, but I would argue that needs a different vehicle, not one with just a cannon.
Ajax – too big, heavy, noisy and expensive to be a good recce vehicle. Too under-armed to be a good Strike vehicle.

Enemy should not be able to spot our recce vehicles – if our guys are doing their job exceptionally well and vehicles are well designed. However some will get spotted – we do not live in a perfect world.

Nothing is totally invisible (even Stealth aircraft have been spotted before now and one was even shot down), but you seek to minimise vehicle signatures to the lowest possible levels (visual, accoustic, IR, thermal, radar etc) by good vehicle design, concealment using natural cover and special cam, careful route selection – and by minimising movement when in surveillance mode. This is recce by stealth – and is something we have always had as a mantra.
The Americans do things differently – they conduct recce by fighting.

A key test of past success is whether we have lost any/many armoured recce vehicles in combat before – I do not have the stats but I bet our track record is good.

Ian I appreciate the need for quality electronic fit systems etc but re armour protection it would de interesting to see how many afv/ifv are destroyed by COTS drones dropping modified grenades T90 tanks have a decent level of laser warning defence systems but are knocked out by AT4 variants etc

Yup, I agree, no system or vehicle is completely proof against such an attack.

Yes. Scimitar is 7.8 tons and Ajax is 38 to 42 tons. Its like my next civvy car would weigh 9 tons. I don’t see how it could conduct covert recce. No mast mounted sensors either to conduct surveillance from cover. Not well thought through, at all. Bad idea to belatedly add the Strike role and not to give it any firepower above that for the original recce role.

I think the Idea of Strike Recce came from the use of Bradley in both Gulf Conflicts. It might be called Cannon Ball Runs but dont quote me.

Anyway size is important for survivability and believe it or not human factors. Legislation will not allow for vehicles like Warrior or CVR(T) to be built again.

Jackal looks like it has already been opened up, in places. Certainly not got all round protection with Jackal.

I didn’t realise we had 2 entire regs. Today I think we have just two Sqns, will have to check.

I never said Ajax was supposed to be an IFV that was what the WCSP was for? However, Ajax has over ran not only in financial terms but also in time, personal and other resource commitments. As such the Warrior upgrade had to be scrapped as more and more of the army’s limited budget is being allocated to the Ajax program and for the increased sustaiainment of Warrior and CVRT to fill the gap until the issue can be resolved. And although Land is responsible for the force structure their decisions are very much influenced by the types and number of equipment that is in service. There’s no point going ahead with the strike brigades if the boxers that where supposed to be fielded by them are required to replace Warrior, which itself is no longer receiving a direct replacement as the army could not afford both Ajax and WCSP at the same time.

I’m going to love the comments when it its cleared for service.

You’ve been busy I see since I last logged on!

Hi Daniele, yeah busy busy busy! I do relish a well informed, lively, fact based debate.👍😁

The thing is Ian -& its something I hope you can appreciate- if you have ‘impeccable contacts’ as you have suggested , then its puts all others who do not have those contacts at a disadvantage.
As you cannot provide all the facts you have at your disposal,others can only comment on what is publicly available.,therefore the debate can appear one side or others’ comments appear trite.
Just to clarify I’m not- for one second- suggesting I , or others, dont appreciate the details you have provided to date btw but they have to just trust you or …they don’t- I’m sure you can see that?
The facts out there are this procurement process has gone on for several years, has not delivered anything in anger to date and is still experiencing problems that seemingly require work before it can be accepted.
Hopefully all works out , your contacts are correct, and AJAX becomes the system we all hope for…but even if that does happen it should not , nay cannot, detract from the debacle of a process we have witnessed to date.

Hi Mr Grizzler, succinctly put and appreciated comment. I never state anything other than facts. The whole programme is a SNAFU I agree, but real guys and girls are trying to make it happen. Thanks for a sensible post, cheers

Ian appears to be well informed, the problem with all of the Ajax media is that the ‘insider sources’ are not well informed.

Good keep the positives coming👍

Ian, you really need to tell us more! When are revised Ajax and Ares going to be formally tested by MoD, rather than just being driven around?

I fully agree with a mix of capabilities. No one system is perfect.

Inside Inside Britain’s £5.5 billion military disaster £5.5 billion military disaster Daily Telegraph.

Right a ‘defence’ expert writing for a newspaper!
I think I will stick with Ian M who has contacts actually working on/ with the vehicle.If it was getting binned there would be no reason whatsoever to show Ares tearing round Bovington getting ‘tested’ In a recent video!

Both Ian and that article are valid Jacko. I agree with you that many a defence article in the papers is shite, but that one, compared to many, has a lot of detail that is truth regards the way the program has been run and its history.

For me, despite the debacles, there is plenty of good in Ajax and Ian knows what he is talking about. I hope they can fix the issues.

Sods law, they will fix it then it gets cut anyway.

All being well you might be right, but you can’t make statements of programs being cut if the it can’t be proven!
hopefully Ian is right because to cut and run will still leave the Army with a capability gap that will take many more years to fill even buying something off the shelf’!

Yes, it would. The cutting part, like all journos is speculation. Like Hunts current stance that everything is being looked at and suddenly defence is bring cut. Journos get hold of it and suddenly Ajax is being binned. No one has said that.
Ajax might well be an “easy” cut if it comes to that, like WCSP, as GB suggests elsewhere. We wait and see.

Reminds me of the LPDs. They’ve been condemned here too many times to remember due to some rumour, annnnd they’re still here.

Well said

What happens when you take an existing Hull design and start chucking loads of kit on that is wasn’t designed to take in the first place. You run the design phase parallel to the production phase and hope it all goes well. The answer is a mess and that is putting it mildly.

Hi Mark. GDUK has always claimed that the ASCOD Pizarro was ‘a departure point’ for the Ajax design work, and that their design was quite different and did take into account the weight of armour that the hull would bear. Can’t see if this true as i do not have sight of this work, of course.
A key problem seems to have been build quality as much as or instead of flawed design work.
Also, in my world you do the design work before the production phase!
It certainly is a mess – and I have previously written a very long answer into the wider programme failings following reading of open source material.