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
The information came in response to a Parliamentary written question.
Mark Francois, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Government has sought external legal advice on the potential merits of taking legal action against General Dynamics for delays in the delivery of the Ajax armoured vehicle programme.”
Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Ministry of Defence continues to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests as per the contract. I am withholding any information in respect of legal advice as such disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.”
MoD confirm they will ‘not accept’ Ajax until issues fixed
The Ministry of Defence say they “will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely” and that they “cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service”.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to his Department’s Government Major Projects Portfolio Data 2022, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of delivering the Armoured Cavalry 2025 Ajax programme (a) on time and (b) on budget in the context of the Independent Projects Authority’s rating of that programme as red.”
Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Ministry of Defence continues to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax while protecting the taxpayers’ interests. As acknowledged by the Infrastructure Projects Authority the project remains within its approved budget and General Dynamics are required to deliver to the terms of the £5.5 billion firm-priced contract. We will not accept a vehicle until it can be used safely for its intended purposes and until long-term solutions to the noise and vibration problems have been found, we cannot determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax into operational service.”
Compensation paid out relating to the Ajax armoured vehicle
The total amount of compensation paid out as a result of claims related to issues with the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle is currently £12,320.
A Freedom of Information request asked the following:
“1) The total amount of compensation paid out to service personnel as a result of the issues with the Ajax AFV as of 16/08/2022.
2) The total number of service personnel compensated as of 16/08/2022.”
The answer was as follows.
“In answer to question one, the total amount of compensation paid out under the Armed
Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) as a result of claims related to issues with Ajax is £12,320 as of 16 August 2022. In answer to question two, I can confirm less than five service personnel have been compensated as of 16 August 2022.
Under Section 16 Advice and Guidance, it may be helpful if I explain that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides compensation for any injury, illness or death which is caused by service on or after 6 April 2005. It replaces the War Pension Scheme (WPS), which had been in place since 1917. Where the injury is partly caused or made worse by service, compensation is payable if, on the balance of probabilities service
is the predominant cause of the injury or of the worsening of the injury.”
The Ajax programme, which began in 2010, is intended to transform the Army’s surveillance and reconnaissance capability.
However, it has gone badly wrong, with no deployable vehicle delivered to date let alone providing Initial Operating Capability or Full Operating Capability dates, say the Public Accounts Committee in a report released earlier this year.
Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said that the government “must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted”, adding “these repeated failures are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet Nato commitments”.
The report states that the Department (the Ministry of Defence) has a £5.5 billion firm-price contract with General Dynamics Land Systems UK for the design, manufacture and initial in-service support of 589 Ajax armoured vehicles.
You can read more on the report here.
The pantomime continues
Oh no it doesn’t
LOL!
😎
Mark, please explain your comment. Most of us think it is a pantomime.
I was making a joke to lighten the mood …
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.
Punch and Judy?
Geez it’s the natural reply used in pantomimes I know this despite never seeing one.
How can you know what a pantomime is and not recognise *the* iconic skit from pretty much every single one to ever be put on is?!
Look out there’s a ‘Puma’ behind yer!
Perhaps some of the training budget needs to be spent on decisive thinking😂
Perhaps GDLS (US) should send some talented designers to GDUK.
If you were a talented designer from the US how enthusiastic would you be to go on a rescue mission in the UK for a product which must have some fairly major design flaws. Would you want to be assocated in anyway? Just working for GD is not going to make you popular over here.
The Government should be decisive and ditch the whole GD offering regardless of the cost. It’s a mistake let’s move on. It’s not although the UK is devoid of any talent here.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Think they need someone from when the Abrams was built by Chrysler defence, back from retirement!
They certainly needed some help from the US parent. I think most of the staff in Wales lacked experience.
They’re a bit busy at the moment, Graham
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/abramsx-next-generation-main-battle-tank-breaks-cover
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…….
This makes me so angry when we need heavy armour more than ever in recent times.
Yes we do, but Ajax is not that. It is a light armour recce AFV.
It’s anything but light 😀
I would call a 42 ton vehicle, medium armour.
Probably a stupid question I know but Is it a viable option to just put CVRT back into production ?
Would probably take just as long to set up new tooling, upgrades and the factory itself as it will to fix Ajax.
Bringing back Warrior upgrade would probably be the better choice to cover the gap.
I think you’re an optimist to think Ajax is fixable at all. Warrior might be a good option though.
Warrior is an IFV, not a recce vehicle.
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… Read more »
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.
I don’t think the warrior upgrade was going to run smoothly. I heard that the hulls were built in small batches and also with so much fixing over the past 30 years that they are really all one off vehicles. Like nimrod all over again.
If the warrior upgrade went bad and doubled in price it’s probably the same amount of money as buying a new fleet of IFV
“Bringing back Warrior upgrade”
I saw a photo on Twitter of the WCSP prototypes being demolished!
Think one went to the tank museum !
Seems a waste to break it apart. Why don’t just park it and they can maybe use it to test other systems is beyond me
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!!!!
I hadn’t seen that!
Warrior upgrade will get you a fabulous, modernised IFV for the Infantry, but not a recce vehicle.
It can be done, BAE produced some new build Scimitars not too long ago for use in Afghanistan.
Thanks didn’t know that. Sounds like a plan. 👍
It makes no sense our army replacing old Scimitars with new ones. They would still not be fit for purpose. There is a host of reasons we are replacing Scimitar.
It would be like the RAF bringing back new-build VC-10s, Buccaneers and Phantoms.
Maybe, but if the emphasis is on Recce, something will always be better than nothing.
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!
Hmm, Buccaneers. Rubs thighs furiously…..
…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! 😳
…see also my comments further down. 🙂
They put a Scimitar turret on a Spartan, they were remanufactured.
That in my opinion would be a great option. Using the stormer30 as a starting point. I was of the opinion that a recon asset should be fast, able to pop smoke and run. Have a cannon to take on enemy if really needed. Armour to defeat small arms etc. Have a telescopic sensor mast. Be easily deployable and operate for extended periods on its own. Now a separate asset should be used for this strike carry on. Ideally being an IFV. There could also be heavier recon to operate with deployed armour if really needed. Heavy and light forces… Read more »
I would prefer your choice or Warrior as a second choice. We just need something, anything and soon. Going with an existing design or vehicle is the only way we can get there.
That was Tracer, which was sadly binned.
Essentially AJAX is the heavy option. Light duties have been covered by Jackle
That would get you a vehicle that was designed in the 1960s, which has not been fit for purpose for well over a decade, so why would you do that?
The Ajax programme is the perfect example of chasing the perfect rather than going with the good enough. It is an all singing all dancing customised vehicle designed by the best and brightest in the Army. It is also the greatest disaster in military procurement since Nimrod. What would you do ?
Aren’t you excluding the disasters that not even reach procurement like FRES?
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.
The army set the Requirements but GD designed it. Ian M (with GD inside info) reports that the fixes have been done and that re-testing is underway. Funny that the article did not have that positive note. We have to see the results of the re-test and the MoD has 3 options: 1.Accept in to Service 2.Accept with Provisos 3.Do not Accept. It would be great if the first option is the one that is reported. Then the army has the vehicle, that the army wants. However, I think the army made a mistake with its requirements- setting though as… Read more »
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 – 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… Read more »
Sorry for delay but i’ve only just recieved notification. Sincerely hope you’re right.
I tried posting a link several times here but without success.
Please search “Cheeky British Armored Vehicle is Better Than You Think” on youtube for an American soldier’s analysis of the Spartan/Scimitar, it’s history and role in Ukraine. the channel is Task & Purpose.
I’ve just recieved notification so don’t know what went wrong.
Thanks for link.
How does that get you a modern replacement for a 1960s designed vehicle and with all the latest ISTAR kit, and with the improved protection the army wants.
At this rate is there a possibility it could be obsolete by the time it enters service. Seems like this has been going on for ages.
All new AFVs take 10-14 years to field from initial concept. But this one is well overdue as ISD was meant to be 2017, I believe.
Ares, Athena, Argus, Apollo, Atlas, the other variants of the order, does anyone know if they have also been found to have the same issues or is it just the turreted, and I assume heavier, Ajax variant? I know DVD at Millbrook had examples of each a few years ago. In Armoured Infantry Battalions, Armoured Regiments, Armoured Recc Regiments, Battalions of the REME, and in the regiments of the RA, RS, RE that have CVRT, Warrior is replacing Scimitar temporarily, until Ajax is available, and the rest of the CVRT family – Spartan, Sultan, are going, I think Samaritan and… Read more »
I read an article that Ajax and General Dynamics were absent from DVD 2022. The article also mentioned that it was being called ‘the Invisible Elephant. The editor’s comments from the article “The 21 AJAX family vehicles (now nicknamed the ‘Invisible Elephant’ as not only were there none at DVD 2022 last week but their manufacturer mysteriously dropped off the Exhibitor List shortly beforehand and also no mention was made of the vehicle in official ministerial speeches at the show) listed as being “in operation in the UK armed forces” have not actually reached Initial Operating Capability yet despite billions having been… Read more »
Is that right? No real surprise is it! The DVD I referred to was 2018 I recall.
Yeah. I just thought that the 2022 DVD editor account was funny to mention. lol
Ajax and Ares are recce AFVs the rest are engineering/util vehicles.
What bothers me is what will be replacing Warrior ?
The Boxers we have on order are mostly APCs with just a machine gun, but the army needs a more heavily armed IFV.
“Ajax and Ares are recce AFVs the rest are engineering/util vehicles.” Which I alluded to above, and the vehicles they replace, but you are not quite right. Ajax is a recc vehicle, it replaces Scimitar. It is the one with the ISTAR kit the army want so badly. Ares is the PMRS variant and not an “AFV” and will be used as an APC replacing Spartan and other roles. “The rest” as you call them all have defined roles, not utility, which is more the current Spartans role, like carrying Javelin teams. Athena is a C4 vehicle, replaces Sultan. Atlas… Read more »
Every armoured vehicle is an AFV, Daniele, irrespective of its role.
Thanks Graham.
It was said some time ago, I think, that Boxer would replace Warrior, but don’t know which version – hope they will all have a beefy stabilised cannon.
Boxer is replacing Warrior.
That’s it.
There are no gun for Boxer order.
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.
Read a US article recently that argued that Infantry fighting vehicles were effectively past their sell by date as by the time they could be an active fighting vehicle they would be a sitting duck for almost any infantry unit as they are armed these days. Effectively argued APCs are far more practice releasing their troops (ie an armoured taxi) at a safe distance to carry on the fight with their own weaponry. I am in no way qualified to judge that but can at least see the point of the argument with what we are seeing in Ukraine. That… Read more »
Don’t get the US article. Dismounted troops can’t operate 30-40mm cannons to have a pop at enemy vehicles. Dismounted infantry patently can’t keep up with and support tanks which will be vulnerable to Infantry operated A-tk weapons.
The Boxers we have currently ordered are mostly support variants such as Ambulance/C2 etc. Of the 650 odd on order, only about 100 or so are actually APCs or battle taxis if you will. Whether or not this current mix gets amended to more APC varienys remains unclear.
We want the Boxers replacing Warriors to be IFVs not APCs.
BOXER is replacing WR but I dont believe that order has gone in yet so we don’t know what version, hopefully one with a 40 mm stabilised gun!
I think Samaritan was going to be replaced by Boxer Ambulance but not 100%
I’m vague on the RAMC side I must say. Will the Armoured Medical Regiments use 432s or Boxer? I don’t think they used Samaritan, I thought they were based on the 432?
I thought the Samaritan was limited to formations with a sizeable CVRT content, so RAC formations, and likewise the Infantry Bns medics used 432?
Nope. Med Reg used to have Samaritan. Typically an Armoured Sqn had a 432 troop, a BFA troop and a Samaritan Troop.
Armoured always used 432s for the RAPs, as did Armoured Infantry.
Boxer was supposed to go to the Med Reg’s supporting Strike, but since that’s not a thing anymore I can only imagine they’ll be going to 1, 2 and 3 Med evenly now.
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… Read more »
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.
432s are 60 years old. Our involvement in the original Boxer programme was meant to replace them (and Saxon) – the one we were in from 1996-July 2003!
Surely the current Boxer programme (Tranche 1) still intends to replace FV432 Ambulance?
Who knows mate!
Hi Daniele, a bit belated, but just wanted to say what an excellent question to ask, if the other variants had the same issue as Ajax which is attracting all the bad press. Hope we can get a comprehensive answer to that from someone in the know.
Hi Mr D63,
As the entire family of vehicles are based in a common hull design I think it can be inferred that the N&V issues could be across the fleet. Any enhancements designed by the prime contractor will be applied to all platforms I’m told.
Appalling! Surely the time has come to do a Nimrod, take the hit and bin it!
The program has been rumbling on for years and at this rate will be obsolete by the time it’s fully in service whilst the British Army has naff all in the way of armoured vehicles.
The plan to spend equally vast amounts completely refurbishing the 40 year old Warrior was almost as bad! What was wrong with opting for something like CV90 10-15 years ago?
Pencil dicked, sweaty palmed civil servants and politicians will have a lot to do with it.
Top Brass at the Army needs a royal f*cking over it as well. Adding and adding to the program increasing weight etc, causing further problems.
General Dynamics need a massive law suit against them as well for just nodding and nodding saying ‘yes minister’ with both eyes on the pound sign.
Army is in complete shit state.
So true, mate. The army I served in (1975-2009) is unrecognisable and sadly that is meant in a bad way. If we have to engage in armoured warfare against a peer or near-peer foe, we may not succeed – and certainly more lives will be lost than if they had all been in modern vehicles and supported by modern artillery. Why did we contract with GDUK for the Ajax family, a company that was brand-new, inexperienced and incompetent? The only reason seems to be that the government wanted to contract with anyone but BAE. We have wasted £3.2bn and the… Read more »
“What was wrong with opting for something like CV90 10-15 years ago?”
It was BAE?
BAE was being made an example of after bribes in the middle east. They also wouldn’t let the MOD put anything on the MOD owned platforms as BAE retained Licences.
No common sense I am afraid.
There is a lot to debate on whether cancelling Nimrod was a good move or not in hindsight. A lot of people argue that if they had kept at it we would have had it in service long before the p8s arrived and had a more capable platform, but there is no way to know for sure either way.
More capable for AEW – no, about the same.
More capable bomb bay – yes, it was much bigger.
More endurance – yes, with the new engines.
Cost to run – probably much higher as it was a small type with no commonality to anything else in service. With a P8 pilots can be trained on civil versions initially and then converted.
Being able to stay on station longer and carry more ordance surely makes it a better AEW platform, as these are key requirements.
I have no idea if it would have been better or not, but as it’s debatable even with benefit of hindsight, means that the decision was probably not right at the time.
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… Read more »
Aren’t mixing Nimrod AEW that failed because of AEW radar and processing with Nimrod ASW?
Yes, I am because I can’t type on my phone!
Sorry that should have said MRA *not* AEW….
At the time of cancellation Nimrod MR4 still had hundreds of defects (some small but more than a couple major), largely due to the insane decision of trying to gut and refurbish bespoke air-frames from the 1950’s! So yes I’m sure with enough sackfuls of cash it could have entered service and would have fielded some top notch sensors and other bits of kit…….but it would have continued to be a money pit to maintain with it’s lack of commonality and sheer age of the basic components! Only reason P8 took so long was we didn’t get around to ordering… Read more »
…and I recall that de Havilland on Comet airframes used shed loads of magnesium alloys. Looking at a Comet fuselage structure at the de Havilland Heritage Centre, looks like something from a Welsh slate mine the metal is so layered in its corrosion. Anything using that would never last.
Aren’t Rivet Joints effectively originated from the 707 family. How old are these airframes anyone know? Certainly have a long heritage back to the 50s/60s in military form, even if not as structurally fragile as the Comet. De-Havilland loved their weight saving methods.
It was expensive to restore corroded old ex-Saudi air frames of varying dimensions , someone thought it was a good idea ? . Even the interiors did not fit !
For sure the initial concept was fundamental flawed. It was because we wanted to keep it domestic at any cost. However it wasn’t cancelled at concept stage, it was cancelled way way later when a lot of those issues had been overcome.
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… Read more »
You ask for Nimrod, but what you get is an enigma variation.
Groan….!
Groan agree Crabfat(go to your room Jon)😃, but Nimrod is a stirring piece of music
Is it time to bring in some of those Ukrainian blokes that work a tractor factory?
That new Bullpup rifle the Ukrainians are producing looks rather tasty I have to say, Rey impressed by what they produce on limited budgets and unhelpful conditions to say the least.
Scrap it…
No better day to do it than today..!
DOH!
CR
Perhaps the question should be: for how many years will the Ministry of Defence continue to work with General Dynamics to resolve the noise and vibration problems on Ajax? When will they start considering alternatives?
The amount of time and money spent on this Ajax saga you’d think by now they could have rebuilt a modified prototype with improved suspension and anything else! Unbelievable. Bin it by Christmas, find something else and bloody well get on with it sharpish!! And order some IFVs to replace Warrior too! It can’t be that difficult! Why is there no sense of urgency over this?!
The hull tolerances have to be accurate to fit hydro-gas suspension or each mount would have to machined for alignment, think they would need BAE’s experience which would not be forthcoming lol
Why haven’t they done a complete rebuild, of everything, of at least one Ajax unit in the UK by now? Test it, see if it still squeaks, rattles and rolls and if no good, own it, then chuck it out! Simples!? Not? Unbelievable carrying on with all this. It can’t be rocket science.
Perhaps the Government think we are many, many years away from armoured warfare with a peer or near-peer or even rag-tag & bobtail opponent? They must have an excellent crystal ball then. We have deployed armour operationally many times in the last 30 years, however.
Once a new government comes in and it is their problem?
I though these things were all noisy and shock a bit.
They are. But there is a limit to how much the human frame can take.
It seems that the Plan B is to convert some of our 35-year-old Warrior IFVs into recce vehicles. RAC crews have been doing driver training.
That’s something at least: replace Scimitar with Warrior, and Warrior with Boxer. They may have to up the Boxer production rate again.
Yes. The use of Warrior to replace Scimitar is only a short-term fix, if Ajax is scrapped or massively delayed.
A modern replacement for Scimitar would still be needed down-stream.
You know, I diss the South African government for incompetence but really this is unbelievable.
Consider-this programme was initiated TWELVE YEARS ago and the Army has not received a single useable vehicle!!! In addition the UK government cannot give any guess as to when the delivery of ANY of these vehicles might happen!!
Astonishing. They would not last five minutes in the private sector.
But remember it’s the private sector actually building and supplying this vehicle. Easy to blame the public servants. Personally I think it’s really difficult, once you get a contractor that fails so catastrophically you have to balance the risk between, trying to work with them to get back on track, with the risk they never will or do you pull the plug, lose a load of taxpayers money and start the whole thing again with a new provider. Essentially your buggered if you do and buggered if you don’t. All you have to protect yourself is the thin shield of… Read more »
Hence trying to get GD to perform.
No more money is being spent at this stage. So it isn’t like an open plug hole.
It is the sensible way and have a plan B up your sleeve.
Indeed, work with what you have, until you know there is no way out, but start to planning for what your exit will look like if you have to. Unfortunately just cancelling a contract for a really complex programme/service with huge sums of money and a complex contract structure is just not something you can do without real risk(I’ve been there with contracts worth hundreds of millions and with a company that was failing to deliver as the provider of healthcare for a million + people and these things are far more difficult and nuanced around risk that the “just… Read more »
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.
But that’s the worry. Is there really a plan B. Will the MoD have to go cap in hand back to BAe to have the Warrior upgrade program restarted or even look at the CV90 Mk4. But then certain German and perhaps other companies will question the legality without a new competition. Thereby further delaying the replacement of the CVR(T) family.
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… Read more »
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: Swap over the… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
May be difficult to get GD to perform if they are not receiving any money. Not that they deserve any more, for now.
Plan B is seemingly to convert some 35-year old Warriors to the recce role! RAC has started driver training. Hopefully as a short term fix!
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.
Also to be considered is that GD uk vehicle division only exists due to this order.so cancel it and you lose most or all the investment in the production facilities and jobs as it would no longer be economic. Wouldn’t be a good look for this Govt considering it’s quest for growth and investment. It will probably prefer to pay out more to simply cover up that irony.
Liz Truss is well used to sacking anything or anyone that doesn’t work well!
Let hope she has a mirror in No. 10 then…
Morning Jonathan. Again an analogy from South Africa where we tend to think our problems are unique to us. Litigation as a solution to commercial or indeed any conflict situation has virtually ceased to be in this country due to the deterioration to the point of collapse of the structures and people involved-constant postponments, barely literate judges etc etc.. And so you have the same situation to a lesser degree in the First World-notwithstanding the remedies written into the contract the UK government has no recourse other than to wait-perhaps another ten years giving a total wait of 22 years,… Read more »
I read an article about AJAX being dubbed ‘the Invisible Elephant’ in its absence on DVD 2022. The article mentions that General Dynamics dropped off the exhibitor list a week before the event.
It does seem to me it’s time the Government was put under pressure to come to a decision and at least come up with a time limit. As an ex military man Mr Wallace needs to be placing his loyalty with his ex- colleagues not some desk jockeys in the MOD. The former may have to put their lives at risk one day the latter won’t.
I think before people get their proverbial KIAT, they should remember that we have 3 programs CH3, at the high end which appears to be on target and going well. Boxer at the low end, that also seems to be going well and on budget. AJAX is obviously a Clu@ter F##k, but from the guarded comments at MOD, they have obviously taken legal advice and been told that they have to give GD time to meet the performance criteria before they can exit the contract. It’s just a fact of life that legal matters are never quick. As the Elon/Twitter… Read more »
They don’t need to exit the contract to tee up the replacement.
And this is you considered opinion because? Have you any experience of negotiations or risk management at major contracts level (multinational/Group Functions). Or is this you opinion because everyone should have an opinion? Presumably you are aware of “bad faith” negotiations?
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… Read more »
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.
Nail on head.
This saga is becoming so depressing.
MoD needs to set a date by which a solution must be demonstrated or an alternative vehicle will be procured and compensation sought.
If the issues related to “State of the art recce kit” then some leeway might have been acceptable, but noise and vibration!
I thought Christmas was going to be the decision time…. Expect delays mind.
Interesting that it is a “firm-priced” contract.
That’s far tighter than “fixed price”, and leaves much less wriggle room.
CV90. Get every penny back from the incompetent maker, bring the Warrior refurb back asap and never, ever order anything that is not already tried and tested at someone else’s expense.
GDUK has been paid in tranches for delivered work packages (that is different to a number of vehicles). All their work up to a milestone payment point was signed off by MoD. How then do you think MoD can get back billions of pounds for work done against approved work packages? MoD could sue for Liquidated Damages but has a poor track record. I don’t believe MoD got a penny back from BAE when Nimrod MRA4 was terminated due to residual faults and delays. CV90 – I presume you mean the recce variant? Warrior refurb – I agree 100% Never… Read more »
–deleted for double post—
Present them to Ukraina? Regardless of noise, it will be very useful for them?
At least it would give the Russians plenty time to run away when they hear it coming from 10 miles away😂😂😂😂
George et al,
This is a non article, telling us nothing new at all. The contractor has designed and installed appropriate modifications to the platforms in order to overcome any perceived issues with noise and vibration. MOD is aware of these enhancements and is actively working with the contractor to collect data and measurements in real world situations. The apparent lack of knowledge on the part of some contributors on this site is galling especially when the knee jerk reaction brigade join in. Warrior and AJAX are NOT interchangeable, CVRT cannot be built again.
cheers
Have a beer mate. These sort of articles will always set everyone off!
Now you’re here, can you maybe offer light on my question up thread regards the other variants, whether they have the same issues and if not can they be prioritised so CVRT gets a replacement sooner?
Hi Daniele, All of the variants are of a similar weight and as you know based on a common platform. The enhancements will be applied to all of the variants so that user training and trials can recommence. The priority is AJAX and ARES currently. My information is that the issues have been addressed satisfactorily, so far.
Beer in hand.😉
Cheers, I was kind of hoping the lack of a turret might help weight wise. But in these engineering matters I’m as green as they come, so ignore me!
Lets hope that info is true, small steps and all. 👍
😁
That’s great if it’s been sorted out. That would be the best Christmas present the army could get. Thanks for the info.
Why does the article say that noise and vibration issues are still plaguing the project? Why not say that fixes have been done and present a truly positive story?
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.
Yeah this is pretty much a non-story come from a cookie cutter response.
🤔🤐
Good points, Ian. Many people do not know the difference between an IFV and a recce vehicle. To me, that is like not knowing the difference between a frigate and a destroyer.
Why are we not being given any details of what the fixes have been and what the time line is for testing and ISD? Suspicious?
Ian, I’ve been told that Tracked Vehicles vibrate and are a bit noisy. Is that right?
Hi Dave, I detect the pinch of salt there!😁
We are not alone in having such problems. The US army has spent over $22b since 2003.on developing a successor to Bradley ifv, with nothing yet ordered. So both the USA and UK have managed to acquire a single tracked ifv each in 40 years. I never understood the original Ajax order or its eye watering unit cost of @£9m. Did we need to spend that much on an ambulance or engineering support vehicle, or even an Ares apc variant? Does an armoured reconnaissance vehicle weighing 42 tons make sense? There appears to have been little or no progress in… Read more »
I’m still hopeful for a fix for Ajax. I do wonder if they took the extra armour off and made the vehicle as originally designed would it work ok? If it doesn’t work the only fix maybe a complete redesign and rebuild.
If that is the case is Ajax still what is needed for a recon asset in 2022? Does it have a future? Will we be seeing Ajax derivatives being built in 20 years time for a variety of roles and it being adopted by allies?
Roll on the decision.
I’m hopeful too. As for recon I’ve not heard anyone criticise its ISTAR fit?
So in that regard I go with the view the experts in the army wanted it for a reason?
Fingers crossed they know what they are doing with the kit fitted. If it works as intended it should be fantastic asset. Only criticism I’ve heard from one recon person of Ajax is it’s too heavy, shouldn’t be doing strike and should have a telescopic sensor pole. Next big purchase will need to be a load more trucks and trailers to move the heavy newer vehicles. I’m still not to sure how boxer fits in with CH3 and Ajax etc. I do like boxer just not sure wheeled infantry carrying vehicle will work well with tracked Ajax and challenger. I… Read more »
TBF the Soviets mixed wheels with tracks with their BMPs/BTRs I recall? The issue Strike wise as it stood was that all Strikes firepower was on tracked Ajax and the Boxer wheeled infantry were in basic Boxers with MG, separating the two. Deployment is also an issue as HETs in short supply. I think Boxer “fits in” with CH3 because it has to, the army have F***** priorities up so badly there is nothing realistic left! Remember – 2010s A2020 was 3 HEAVY Armoured Brigades on Challenger, Ajax, Warrior. Wheels no where in sight til 2027 when the 3 Mastiff… Read more »
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… Read more »
Perhaps along these lines:
Update: Eurosatory 2022 – KMW presents tracked version of Boxer
With typical thoroughness, it’s not ‘just’ a wheeled version with a track added, but a completely new drive train.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/update-eurosatory-2022-kmw-presents-tracked-version-of-boxer
Try again!
Good points. Other armies have had telescopic sensor poles for years (Canada’s Coyote did and was fielded from the mid-90s).
The vibration would kill the ISTAR electronics despite isolation mounts !
No it doesn’t.
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?
The recon variant are not fit for propose even if fixed.
They are recon vehicles that do not even have an APS so they will do reconnaissance by death…
APS is very expensive and can be justified on a scarce and very expensive MBT, which is exposed when advancing to contact and fighting through objectives.
Recce in the British Army is done by stealth – enemy should not see our recce, so difficult to justify APS. Who is currently fitting APS to recce vehicles? Anyone?
You expect to be able to recce by stealth with an AFV in XXI century?
That is impossible, you will have civilians or disgised as civilians with targeting capabilities in a smarthphone app plus sat and UAV recon.
The Ajax order composition and size do not make sense.
It only makes sense high mast and EO sensor and long range missile launcher a la “Swingfire XXI century” and a small number to transport human, robot patrols.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
worth a look
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/what-ukraine-is-teaching-u-s-army-generals-about-future-combat
Precisely what i was saying above.
Mm. Apology for this very succinct acknowledgement, Alex. Just awaiting what our current economic S-Show has in store for all UK Departmental Budgets.
With regard to Defence specifically to date. We’ve exhausted the Peace Divi Reduction, then the Capability Holiday Saving, followed closely by the FFBNW Contingency (let alone the Spent For but Not Delivered Option!). It’ll be of great interest to see how we spin a potencial Imminent War Cut. From first to last of these, we’d at least have covered the whole Excuse Spectrum, which is something.
Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised? I need Supportive’s optimism!
The words Ajax and dustbin come immediately to mind but as I thought of going out in one of these the word coffin was added. We have to get rid of this and look at what Bae can do with the CV90.
Bullshit
It must be nice to have such a command of the English language, particularly as you have contributed precisely zero.
🤣🤣
Try reading some of my posts, in this thread and others.
😎
You may well be right but to go with CV will take a good few years for any to come into service as we will be at the back of the production queue!
Fair comment but this has all become very worrying. I would rather wait than get a dead duck, particularly if it’s going to take years to sort Ajax, assuming they can. The last twenty years has seen a catalogue of blunders when it comes to aqciuring new hardware.
Perhaps the leftover money should be used to buy a few CV90’s ?
If down to me Peter I would get rid of it and go for the CV90 and have done with it.
Scrap the damn thing and buy an off the shelf vehicle that bloody works like every other damn competent army does!
This country has become a laughing stock!
If you scrap it – and don’t get any money back (as was the case for Nimrod MRA4), you have no money to buy another vehicle….at least until the dust settles.
Ah, your here. You were peddling $$$$ ala Nigel earlier on, thought you’d been had! 😂
😆
I think it inevitable I may be next….!
Given that the need is for a recce vehicle that can protect the crew against basic small arms, be fast & stealthy, and can operate in both desert and Ukrainian mud, I propose the following: Sack & sue GD for £5biliion; use the expertise of JCB and any surviving British knowledge (Alvis, Army bods etc.) to quickly come up with a Scimitar-like design for the 21st Century. i.e. lightweight, ram full of sensors, telescopic mast, quiet electric/hybrid drive, a couple of .50 cals and a 30 or 40mm with enough auto-fed rounds to scoot out of trouble. Oh and a… Read more »
“..ram full of sensors, telescopic mast, quiet electric/hybrid drive, a couple of .50 cals and a 30 or 40mm with enough auto-fed rounds to scoot out of trouble. Oh and a couple of Javlins on top…”
All that and lightweight and no APS ?
…and add to that a small lightweight UAS drone for wide area recce (possibly tethered). All this stuff does not have to weigh very much with modern systems and miniturisation. OK, may have to ditch one of the.50 cals though. Pay me £5billion and I’ll quickly design it and come up with a UK manufacturing facility. 🙂😉
Not sure that APS is justified if we truly still conduct recce by stealth. The enemy should not be able to spot our recce vehicles, so could not engage them.
How do you make them invisible to radars, IR, ground detectors, simple civilians, sentry robots, satellite recon etc etc…?
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… Read more »
I sometimes wonder if program disasters like this & incompetent government is what Russian billionaire contributions to the Tories buys.
No that all goes into promoting politicians massively beyond their natural abilities and competence.
In an age of computer aided design and precision guided machine tools I find this inexcusable, Its time to bin the AJAX and go with the CV90.
Ian M says that the fixes have all been done and the MoD is re-testing Ajax.
I’ve got a suggestion: send an Ajax to an automotive engineering specialist (Prodrive, Ricardo, Lotus…). See if they can diagnose the problem. Can’t hurt.,
Great idea. I fully support that.
Not Lucas?
For God’s sake called it a day
Maybe all the engineers are WFH, and each knock up some bits on their kitchen table, and then post it via DPD to Merther? Then, it all gets stuck together, with high tolerances of Plus/minus 12”.
They may get Ajax to work after a fashion,. For sure, the MOD will be under considerable pressure to deliver a result because tjre financial and political costs of scrapping the project iare just too high for HMG to contemplate. My doubts about the whole Ajax concept are deeper – why are we planning to equip arm recon regts with an sll-singing, all-dancing £5m iSTAR super scooper? Does every 3-man vehicle really have to be network enabled and the recipient of volumes of data over the airwaves? Surely it would be sufficient for ctroop and squadron commanders and SSMs to… Read more »
Affordability is not the issue. The project is funded – £5.552bn was ring-fenced, and £3.2bn has been spent. I do not understand why you advocate that only a limited number of vehicles should carry the full ISTAR package – what is the point of having many less capable vehicles?
Strike came in later – it was not in the initial brief for Ajax. Anyway, it is a very poor idea for our armoured recce vehicle to also have to do Strike – different job and needs different role equipment in my eyes.
Exactly. Ajax was originally to support the 3 armoured brigades in the traditional brigade recc regiment role before Strike existed.
It was shunted over to Strike in 2015 leaving the armoured brigades bereft of armoured recc save the regs own recc troops and into Strike where it was the firepower divorced from the infantry it was to support when ideally all should be in Boxer.
Just what we want with the spectre of Poootin and his Euro ambitions !
We could have had a whole fleet of CV90 by now!
Some may already read this article from RUSI. I do recommend reading it. https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/emerging-insights/lessons-ajax-programme Download the pdf. “Lessons from the Ajax Programme” by Trevor Taylor who is Professorial Research Fellow in Defence Management at RUSI, where he heads a research programme in Defence, Industries and Society. In addition, he is Professor Emeritus at Cranfield University, where he was head of the Department of Defence Management and Security Analysis from 1997 to 2009. Typing in “Ajax” on their search bar brings up various articles, but the above article was very informative. Some articles are members only, but the basic subscription fee… Read more »
It is indeed a very good article. However, as soon as I read this paragraph I realised that as far as the MoD is concerned, it will be filed in the bin “The paper recommends that the planned inquiry focuses on holding to account individuals who were involved not only in recent years but also from the start of the programme, requiring them to identify the decisions they took. There is a need to understand the pressures that directed them to behave as they did so future acquisition programmes can be managed differently” In the private sector, the individuals concerned… Read more »
Why is a dedicated recce vehicle now the size of a light tank, I recall our recce platoon with scimitar, small fast and quiet, I’m sure a comprehensive upgrade on this chassis could provide a first class series of vehicles I note the in ukraine Poroshenko asked front line soldiers what vehicles he should buy the said anything on CVRT , also re warrior inote that all apc/ifv in ukraine have had a hard time bmp3 and bmd4 no better that bmp2 , in my opinion boxer would fare no better that Ukraines BTR 4 which has evidently on occasion… Read more »
Hi Mr 700,
CVRT had E-SPIRE / M-SPIRE and TNTLS (often left in the SQMS stores), not cutting edge stuff. I agree they were small, fast and quiet however not very survivable. AJAX has a fat arse because of the levels of protection demanded by the MOD. It does 42mph, no slouch and is very good x country. The ISTAR suite is second to none and is much desired by the troops.
Cheers
Ian do you think it Ajax would survive any better on a modern battlefield, if you can’t see it you can’t kill it. I appreciate cvrt was techie wise obsolete but could it have been modernised to a modern level
Not realistically, the weight penalty to acquire the levels of protection demanded are too great. AJAX does at least have modern, complex armour solutions as well as Laser warning systems integrated into the defensive suite.
Cheers
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.
The platform won’t, but it gives the troops a chance. With current AT the chances of anything surviving the first hit is slim.
CVR(T)’s survival was primarily because it was small (easy to conceal, hard to hit) and agile and conducted recce by steath. Not sure we ever lost any to enemy action?
Graham I Just seen a size comparison of cvrt against Ajax on oryxspioenkop Web page, I am astounded anybody thinks this vehicle could carry out an y covert surveillance the thing is bloody huge no wonder it vibrates it looks about the size of a chieftain mbt
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.
They have been hit in Iraq, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan. They open up pretty easily. Jackle is far better suited.
Jackal looks like it has already been opened up, in places. Certainly not got all round protection with Jackal.
Light tank? Funny you should mention that. I think the General Dynamics Griffin is based on the ASCOD chassis 🙂
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/general-dynamics-just-unveiled-light-tank-could-change-land-warfare-32941
If we can get Ajax working well a great prize may be in prospect.
You may be right but is it a good recce vehicle at that size
Everyone has their fave alternative to Ajax. I think the UK should look to Singapore & try out the ST Hunter IFV. 29.5 tons means you can put it in an A400M & fly it to an emergency. There is a Hunter variant with the Cockerill 3105 turret (105mm gun), that at 32.5 tons would make a great light/medium tank, in the spirit of the WW2 Grant/Sherman/Cromwell, etc. I never liked the 42 ton undeployable monster that Ajax had become.
Too few people have mentioned the poor airtransportability of Ajax. We could get 2 Scimitars in a C130.
One of the conditions I recall of FRES was that it was air transportable!
Major ops overseas will see bulk vehicle movement using the Points, as you know well. Europe, they train it or drive ( the whole obsession with Boxer ) though I think Ajax needs the HETs, of course in short supply.
I do recall that FRES was meant to be airtransportable. Arguably poor airtransportability was a reason that UK left the Boxer programme originally.
Sadly we have only got 4 Points now rather than the original 6.
In the real world just about all the armour, whether heavy, medium or light goes by sea – and we haven’t missed the war by being late yet!
HETs – world of pain – so few of them, I understand. Nearly everything (heavy/medium) needs a HET lift some time or other. Used to have two Tk Tptr Regts of course.
I didn’t realise we had 2 entire regs. Today I think we have just two Sqns, will have to check.
DM. Don’t forget the former Yugoslavia scenario, where you could send armour by ship to the nearest friendly port, but then you had to fly it the last couple of hundred miles over hostile territory. Similar situation with Pakistan/Afghanistan a few years ago.
It is readily apparent that the issues at hand cannot be resolved….., but neither the MOD or General Dynamics want to openly admit the project needs to be binned because of the repercussions that will bring about…..so the can just keeps being kicked further down the road and the Army can only dream of getting some sort of vehicle at an unknown time….
Hi Paul, I am curious as to why it is apparent (to you) that the issues cannot be resolved. Do you have documentary evidence?
Cheers
This is a very high stakes game for the MOD & GD with a lot of very highly trained and experienced engineers trying to make this happen, and so far they haven’t been able too……what does that tell you? The root sources of the problems are so deeply embedded in the current design and build that successful resolution is highly unlikely.
Again Paul, you’re stating that the issues haven’t been resolved. On what basis are you making this claim?
Cheers
What if the root cause was that its a tracked vehicle? And that all tracked vehicles have Noise and Vibration? I wonder if the current in service vehicles will be tested in the same way as Ajax before every soldier that has served on them puts in a claim?
Ajax has gone beyond a joke and has completely ruined Britain’s armoured force for the next 30 years at least. No IVF, absolutely minimalistic tank force, a recce vehicle that is too big for its role, and the only afv with any promise hasn’t got anything more then a 50cal hmg. As much as it hurts me to say at this point we should start looking at going to a all light force.
Hi Harry, please explain how AJAX has “ruined Britains armoured force”?
Well primary it has taken up so much time and money that it has directly impacted upon other projects, primary the warrior modernization system. This intern has left Britian with no IFV in the future meaning boxer will be forced into a role it is not suited for instead of the role it was intended for, which has also forced a change in force structure. Going from two armoured and two strike brigades to two unbalanced brigades that are neither heavy armour or strike. Leaving us with only two manoeuvre brigades for high intensity conflict. Furthermore Ajax was supposed to… Read more »
Hi Harry, I still don’t don’t see how a fully costed programme like AJAX has anything to do with the failure of WCSP? As I and others have repeatedly pointed out, AJAX is not an IFV and was never proposed to fulfil that role. The deployment of different Brigade structures is decided by Land, again nowt to do with AJAX.
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… Read more »
Warrior modified to the recce role may prove to be an OK Plan B (interim measure, not permanant solution) if Ajax is canned. At least it is 15/16 years newer and better armoured.
Hi Ian,
Is it possible that you know I bit more than your letting on in this ongoing saga?
Did I also see a video of Ares hurtling about the testing grounds?
I believe it was on this site somewhere but I can’t find it now!
It may be possible. My contacts are impeccable. You’re right, there was a vid further up the thread. ARES has been tear arsing around Bovvy, to be joined by AJAX soon, I believe.
👍
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-… Read more »
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 posted it top of this thread because to me, a layman, I looked at this vehicle and thought….what is wrong with it?
Sorry, I posted it top of the “NATO ships game changing NATO Ex”
IVF? I take your point – there are no baby recce vehicles arriving anytime soon to replace the middle aged 50-year-olds. We should not opt for an all-light force just because heavy and medium armour procurement/upgrade programmes have gone wrong. We would lose badly (in hours, rather than days or weeks) if we went toe to toe against a foe equipped with heavy and medium armour. Totally agree that armour is in total chaos – fully agree with all your points and a lot more besides. Boxer with a MG is only marginally better than a 1950s Saracen. We could… Read more »
How much has this ‘project’ cost the taxpayer thus far?
£3.2bn out of the £5.552bn allotted.
All those calling for Ajax to be cancelled should listen to the Chancellor’s words today. Defence isn’t getting the promised uplift, in fact it seems it will be cut along with all government departments.
We need Ajax to work as there won’t be money for something else.
Ben Wallace will undoubtedly be very unhappy.
Chancellor did not say any of that, surely. He said that all spending departments should find more efficiencies – this is said every year by every Chancellor. Defence was not singled out.
Would it not be possible and cheaper to simply redesign the suspension and lower half of the hull than continue up a dead end.
Ian M says all the fixes have been done. Worry not.
More flogging the dead horse…. just scrap it and dous all a favour.
Are you sure ? 😀👍
Defence Cuts/Savings inbound…
Strength 5.5 Bil….
Ajax is the HVU and everything is going to hit it.
Having spent a good few years at GDLS, I can confirm there is absolutely no chance of those vehicle leaving Merthyr, they’ve no idea what’s being built, quality is non existent and the Spanish hulls are being left to rot outside! anyone with half a clue has long since departed and only management left is merely a puppet of the US overlords.
It’s just pathetic. By the time they get them fixed they will be a generation behind the kit the Germans, Americans, French and Chinese have.
The German Genesis can do 100kmh is silent, fully automatic unmanned turret and has AI fitted for its Computer Vision system. Meanwhile, more good money after bad is being poured down the drain. Of course, GD will ensure it gets paid by lobbying the US Government to put pressure on the British to pay the bill.
Mmm Genesis looks like a different version of Boxer doesn’t it? I am sure if we didn’t want a tracked recce vehicle Boxer could have been the answer.
You are quite right we should buy something off the shelf. The fact they have not solved the problem after so long speaks of a flawed vehicle that should not be put into service.
Its a TDP. Its not in service. Our OEMs will have similar on the drawing board.
I can’t believe anyone thinks a recon vehicle should weight up to 42 ton , its almost as heavy as ww2 panther tank maybe we should go the whole hog and look at building the ww2 MAUS 240t should be a cracker 2 large caliber guns electric drive what’s not to like
I think the whole idea of a recon vehicle is wrong. Ukraine has shown us that drones can do the job much better then a lumbering land vehicle. Ajax is already out of date as a vehicle and a concept.
Rob
Drones are definitely an asset but there is no substitute for the mk1 eyeball the ground,
Rob, Can you see any problem with drones replacing the manned recce vehicle? I can see several.
Point is that military tasks are always capable of being undertaken by a variety of means. I once counted there were 14 ways to kill a tank.
You need a mix of abilities. Dern made a great point other day about OPs they can stay eyes on for days even weeks. A drone cannot.
All complement the other.
I fully agree with a mix of capabilities. No one system is perfect.
Mate, I laughed out loud at your comment! You are so right.
Alex is being canned, General Dynamics UK and the MOD are in the legal process of cancelling the project. Looks like the old Warrior upgrade I’d back on the cards.
Poor Alex. What about Ajax though?
Back to basics – Ajax is a recce vehicle. Warrior upgrade is an updated IFV. Totally different vehicles – totally different roles.
Facts and proof please.
Likely to be warrior with stabilised Rarden, think there was some turret fitting and wobble issues with CTA 40 !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_Griffin Made by the same company based on the failures of… Ajax. Why don’t we just COTS buy these for a bargain price?
Griffin is a Light tank, not a recce vehicle. Totally different.
But the MOD have ended up with a vehicle that started kut at 28 tons and has now ballooned to 40 tons.
Can you back up your statement from above please?
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
Yes, I realise that. I don’t think a recce vehicle needs to be anything like 40 tons.
Ajax is not a light tank, that has a different role.
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… Read more »
Meanwhile Rheinmetall have started handing over the first of 203 Lynx IFV’s to Hungary, only 2 YEARS after signing the contract. Just shows what can be achieved. And what a complete disaster Ajax has been.
We should have settled for the CV90 in all variants for British forces. It is still an option as it’s ongoing development indicates. CV90 MkIV would be a good fit, although I’m sure we could tweak them even further.
The future of soldiers serving on Armoured Platforms will be never ending hearing tests and being banned from working anywhere near them if their hearing degrades for whatever reason.