The Ajax Programme is “making positive progress” towards the delivery of a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles, say the Ministry of Defence.
Key points from the update are as follows:
- Ajax vehicles have driven more than 20,000km in trials so far.
- Field Army units continue to train and experiment with Ajax vehicles.
- Cold Weather Trials scheduled for the New Year.
“The Ajax Programme has turned a corner and is progressing towards the delivery of a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles that meets the Army’s needs, against a revised delivery schedule that sets realistic and achievable milestones. The MOD continues to work closely with General Dynamics to deliver the 589 vehicles, of which there are six variants, all based upon a common base platform.”
Reliability and Growth Trials (RGT) are well underway.
“AJAX, APOLLO, ATLAS and ARES variants have now driven more than 20,000 kilometres through different terrains, completing a variety of representative battlefield missions. RGT allows significantly more activity to be completed compared to regular unit training.
Since June, units of the Field Army have been training on the current Ajax variant (Capability Drop 1), focusing on individual and crew training. This training is enabling troops to learn how to operate the armoured vehicles and use the systems integrated into them. The training will also enable the crew to develop skills, experience and competence ahead of the delivery of the Capability Drop 3 vehicles, the upgraded fully deployable variant.”
Capability Drop 3 vehicle production continues at Merthyr Tydfil with all production lines operating and all six variants in progress, with delivery to the Field army starting in 2024.
Senior Responsible Owner for the Armoured Cavalry Programme, Chris Bowbrick said:
“I’m thrilled with the progress made across the programme over the last six months. We must maintain momentum to deliver this new generation of armoured fighting vehicles for the British Army.”
The New Year starts with Ajax Live Crew Clearance Cold Climate Trials taking place in Sweden. This is the first time Ajax will be firing with Field Army Crews outside of the UK.
Hmm…I’m skeptical the true test is what the average soldier experiences and how is demonstrates itself in the battlefield. Maybe we can send some over to Ukraine and see how they fair within that theatre of war?
Andrew, that would be a very unwise move. The Ajax recce variant is chock full of highly sensitive digital and optical equipment. The Russians would likely mount an SF operation to snatch one
Highly doubt its that sensitive. Russian problem isn’t knowing what the west tech is, its being able to build it without a proper chip manufacturer. Not investing in that was a massive mistake for them during soviet era.
They did, several Soviet and Western states tried to develop chip manufacturing. There are specific economic and manufacturing reasons that the industry concentrated in almost one place. It was an inevitability.
Beat me to it it’s actually quite surprising just how focused it has become. Some of the specific machinery for FinFet is manufactured in Belgium, pretty much every mobile chip is licensed to some degree or other from Arm and 90 plus percent manufactured by Taiwanese or South Korean companies. The company that Apple bought to start its chip business was a major supplier to the US most capable missiles at the time. Indeed it’s the wholesale move to RISC microprocessors that has created this scenario, made Arm the go to chip designer and Taiwan the chip producing capital. Yes… Read more »
The Russians would be looking for physical weaknesses to exploit on the battlefield. They would love to get their hands on the digital comms equipment regardless.
The Russians are engaged in a high-tech electronic warfare battle with UkR Army techies in the battlespace. I would not underestimate their ECM abilities
True, but they are friends with the Chinese and they steal anything. Also a working model would allow them to access capabilities and vulnerabilities.
I think the Russian chip crisis has been overplayed in the West. They have just swapped to buying them from third countries Turkey, China, India etc. Also as time goes on they will up their own capabilities.
How? The only company in the world that can build the machines to make modern chips is in the netherlands, meaning no other country in the world including US or China are capable of making them if the Netherlands stated no. Europe and the US are investing heavily in chip manufacturing because they understand the issue of dependency, but it will be decades before they can be self reliant (something the UK isn’t even trying to do). Russia is getting hold of them through the gray/black market but based on what we are seeing on the front line, they aren’t… Read more »
There are serious barriers to entry. Making semiconductors is akin to brain surgery – needs lots of cash (Taiwan Semiconductor invested $25 billion to build five factories), expertise (i.e. a lot of ‘brain surgeons’), and the returns are slow (can take over 12 months to build each the necessary nano-scale machine tools and each sheets of semiconductors can take several months to engrave), need a legal regime that can overcome numerous intellectual property challenges around chip design, need specialist materials and input suppliers – all in all akin to developing a nuclear industry from scratch. Even the USA relies on… Read more »
Yep and why the EU, US and China are all investing big time in it as they see it as a major security issue and future growth limiter to their economies. In the meantime our government cut the funding in our own factory, go figure.
Dude really? What makes you think they don’t already know what’s in them?
You’re not being serious? Ajax is essentially still in development as it is undergoing RGT and then may have to be modified to improve reliability before series production and general issue. The vehicles are available in small numbers and they are being employed on RGT and with cav and REME to gain field experience for them and to provide feedback comments to MoD and manufacturer. As David has said, our best sensors, optics, digitised features are on this vehicle, and some of that will be sensitive/classified. It would take a long time to train Ukrainian users and maintainers. We could… Read more »
I saw Ukraine had already received 23 Scimitars. Are there any plans for them to get any more?
I have no knowlege of UKR getting more CVR(T)s whether Scimitars or other types. We should give them maximum numbers.
BAE’s CV90 based solution would have been in service 7 years ago……
Cv90 is a ifv, Ajax is a recon vehicle. Like comparing chalk and cheese.
Ajax replacing cvrt
The warriors replacement is where the cv90 should be
I can’t believe people still come out with this kind of nonsense. The base vehicle can be used for all sorts of variants. There’s ASCOD IFV’s and there’s ASCOD recce variants like Ajax. CV90 has a scout variant and on paper it’s much better than Ajax, plus has the benefit of proven service.
Worth remembering we weren’t considering an off the shelf CV90.
The CV90 MkIIIb recce variant as supplied to the Norwegian Army would have been fine, rather than anything different.
But the only option we were looking at was BAE’S FRES SV with many major modifications including hull shortening.
If we’re talking about when “BAE’s CV90 based solution” would have entered service then talking about other CV90 based vehicles is just confusing the matter.
BAE’s proposal for the FRES SV (Scout variant) competition back in 2009 was based on the CV90 hull.
MoD did not buy it but it went on to become an in-service vehicle….with the Norwegian army – CV90 MkIIIb. That is in service – GDUK’s Ajax has had many problems and is not properly in service as it is still on RGT.
https://www.defencetalk.com/bae-systems-unveils-contender-for-british-army-recce-vehicle-21763/
There’s nothing in that link that supports your claim.
Just compare pictures of the two and you will see the hull and the turret are both different.
Common sense and much relevant military experience at work here. Of course the hull and turret of the CV90-based TD shown by BAE to MoD some 14 years ago for the FRES SV (Scout vehicle) project and the CV-90 based vehicle delivered to the Norwegian Army well over a decade later are different. Development of the concept has happened. If MoD had opted for the BAE proposal back in the day, the end result would look a lot different to essentially a mock-up shown a decade before, probably a lot like, if not exactly like, the recce CV they built… Read more »
BAE’s proposal for the FRES SV (Scout variant) competition back in 2009 was based on the CV90 hull.
MoD did not buy it but it went on to become an in-service vehicle….with the Norwegian army – CV90 MkIIIb. That is in service – GDUK’s Ajax has had many problems and is not properly in service as it is still on RGT.
CV90 MkIIIb has a different hull and turret to BAE’s FRES submission.
BAE submitted a Technology Demonstrator (TD) way back 15 years ago – it was not the finished product, not even a prototype. My point was that BAE then went on to develop an apparently excellent recce variant which is now in service with another army, and with no reprted major issues along the way. Often a concept study or TD changes into something quite different. Thats what development is all about.
What does the CV90 recce variant do that AJAX cannot? how is it better?
Better situational awareness, the Dutch upgrades have an extendable electro-optical mast while the Mk.IV has an integrated micro-UAS. Better firepower, Dutch version has Spike missiles while the Mk.IV has the latest gen Akeron anti-tank missile that can be used in lock-on-after-launch mode, with the drone finding the target. Both new CV90 versions have rubber tracks, so less noise and vibration amongst a load of other benefits. Less noise and vibration is good for a stealthy scout vehicle, bearing in mind that Ajax has a reputation for shaking like a shitting dog and hurting peoples eardrums (apparently fixed thankfully). Both versions… Read more »
Doesn’t the cv90 also have a telescopic mount for optical sensors?
Please ignore my post about the telescopic optical sensor. I didn’t see that part because of my phone.
Is it in service yet…
Spot on, the Ajax core vehicle came in both variants for Austria and Spain. One option doesn’t necessarily preclude the other being developed from it and as you say Britain would have much modified it for good or bad. However I suspect the decision was more political than for any other reason and certainly Bae were not their favourite buddies at the time.
Heard of modularity? Mirkarva is an MBT. Also used as a APC. Ajax is overweight and so far? A useless lump of junk. And an expensive one.
Cvrt replacement at 42tonnes, really?
BAE offered a recce variant of CV90 some years ago pitched against GDUK’s offering. [Norway has 21 recce variants – CV90 Mk IIIb – one of the most advanced CV90 variants currently in service anywhere in Europe.
MoD selected the GDUK proposal. I would love to know why, but I suspect it has something to do with ‘jobs for Wales’ and a silly spat with BAE.
Warrior should have been replaced by upgraded (WCSP) Warrior or CV90 IFV.
Yes, hindsight is a fine thing.
Ajax was chosen, and it will do what the RAC want it to do. We cannot keep lamenting what we could/should/might have got.
The army want it, and our SME’s here like Ian M believe in the vehicle and its capabilities based on their own experience and contacts.
That is enough for me.
The RAC Armoured Cavalry is either on foot or in Warrior if this fails.
Which it won’t.
Remember reading, perhaps on this site, speculation that selection of Ajax by MoD was dictated, at least in part, by a mandate to avoid monopolization of weapon system procurement by BAES. Even if true, that does not preclude the possibility that Ajax will mature into a fully capable and competent family of vehicles. Ongoing trials will provide an answer, simply requires the passage of additional time for completion. 🤔🤞
At the time of selection the MOD had very badly fallen out with BAE. It seemed they wanted to select anything that was not associated with BAE.
After 10 years of working with LM and GD the MOD seems to have gone the other way.
👌🖖
Hi Daniele, Drop 3 platforms are the full capability and will form the regiments. Yes, I do believe they can do what it says in the tin, despite the negativity still shown by some posters.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.
And to you mate.
Well it has ..so far. I’m not advocating getting rid BTW I’m just saying at the very least the project has failed to deliver at anywhere near the timescales requested or indeed required.
Agreed.
Agree, why the MOD went with Boxer and Ajax rather than CV90 I have no idea…
BAE was in the bad books over nimrod, harrier support and some other projects. Along comes some other company that says we can do it all and has no bad projects as it’s a new company.
Interesting, did nobody think that with CV90 it was already done and so difficult to f#£k it up, rather than a whole new vehicle to get wrong?
Don’t forget that even though a Recce variant of the CV90 existed at the time, if the BA wanted the same specialist equipment put in it that has gone into Ajax there might still have been issues with integration and performance etc.
Totally agree with you
I know it’s late but I was about when CVRT and Warrior was fielded,CVRT was plagued by cracks in the armour and dismissed as useless, Warrior didn’t do well on Ex Lionheart I remember seeing the four on that Ex with two broke down but look how things are now both vehicles have more than proven their worth and I have no doubt Ajax will be the same.
OMO it isn’t…I’ll get me coat.
The public shouldn’t let the MoD off the hook simply because the Ajax has finally turned a corner after billions were overspent
Nope Ajax is a fixed contract! So no billions over spent🙄
Yeah as far as I’m aware, fixes for Ajax came out of General Dynamic’s own pocket
No overspend. Why do you think that?
Legal fees relating to the problems so far have been £1m. Small fry in defence terms, but could have been put to better use.
The total contract value was estimated at £5.4bn at the start of this year. £100m less than the contract price. Bet that shifts though.
The soy latte crew calling for the programme to be axed must be weeping right now…..😂
great news hopefully soon the British Army will have a first rate world beating platform
🏴🇬🇧
👍🏻
The Korean Redback AS21 is a more advanced vehicle, the ISTAR package could be fitted to other vehicles . Without spike anti tank missile pod and modern suspension its not world beating !
I accept I am no expert on this subject but my thoughts, esp on historical evidence is that whereas the CV-90 (and others) are a constantly updated platform that is then available to be bought (even somewhat modified to suit) Ajax is so totally a rebuilt and re purposed platform that the only way it gets updated is a specifically uk expensive and likely much delayed upgrade programme like C3 or Warrior et al. I would be interested to hear from those far closer to the sharp end and the relative the ramifications of these two approaches as to whether… Read more »
Hi Spy, AJAX has an open architecture and an element of plug and play built in. Modularity is the byword. UAV’s will be accommodated, as is data transmission. The ISTAR fit is top grade now and is largely being built into C3.
Cheers
Are you sure there is a recce variant of Redback?
Why do recce vehicles operating by stealth have to kill tanks?
It might be possible. “The AS21 Redback development is based on the K21 tracked armored IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) which is in service the South Korean Army. It has a larger internal volume to accommodate 8 dismounted troops and a crew of three soldiers (driver, commander and gunner). According to our first analysis, the general layout of the Korean AS 21 Redback seems very similar to the German-made KF41 that was unveiled during the International Defense Exhibition Eurosatory in June 2018. Like the original K21 IFV, the AS21 Redback is armed with a 40mm automatic cannon, a 7.62mm coaxial machine… Read more »
Hi Nigel,
I have not found any info on a recce variant of the AS21 Redback. Your quote was all about the IFV, which is of course designed for a completely different role.
Come on Graham, you know as well as I do that recce by stealth isn’t the only thing these vehicles are required to do. Even when the doctrine of formation recce was in place, screening was still a task – and now we have moved to more of a Cavalry tasking, I’d rather the screening force had some punch.
There is also a doctrinal shift into recce by force, where the recce force itself is used to FIX whilst the commander manoeuvres a STRIKE element elsewhere. That’s why so much more firepower was added to the requirement.
True that recce vehicles don’t just do recce by stealth, but it is the RAC’s ‘stock in trade’. Provision of a screen and flank protection was also done in the Scimitar era as tasks additional to covert recce – and still is today in the Ajax era. Certainly 40mm stabilised cannon is more firepower than 30mm unstabilised – is that evolutionary change or revolutionary? But we have not gone the whole hog and bolted some ATGWs on Ajax – or even created an Ajax ATGW variant [to replace CVR(T) STRIKER] – with perhaps Brimstone. We are perhaps being hesitant on… Read more »
GDUK has demo’d a Brimstone ARES to the MOD.
Yes, I heard that. The BA needs that ASAP – the FV102 Striker was withdrawn from service in mid-2005!
Hi Bob, excuse my second reply! Had some extra thoughts.
When I served we had the core functions of FIND, FIX and STRIKE, and later EXPLOIT was added to be the 4th word/action. Recce did FIND, lead elements of the advancing troops following on behind recce did the FIX and other troops following a tactical bound back did the STRIKE.
That has changed uniquely for 1 DSRBCT. As you say Ajax in that bde does both FIND and FIX – and arty (or ‘fires’ as we must now say!) does the STRIKE.
Any platform taken in isolation is not the entire picture.I believe it’s about the whole package as in all the other platforms that operate alongside. Just because the AS21 has a death star laser and invisibility cloak does not mean it can control the Battlespace on its own.
So I guess what I’m trying to convey is in my Artistic opinion Ajax will be a more than capable platform and great improvement on what went before thus enhancing the British army which is a bloody good thing👍🏻We are world beaters regardless been that way since 1707😉
🏴🇬🇧
👍
AS21 Redback is an IFV. Cannot be compared to Ajax, a recce vehicle.
Despite its issues I do think it will be the most capable platform of its type in the world.
The cost is insane however.
The Czech,s are spending $2.2b on 250 CV90, work that out to 600 vehicles that comes to around $5.1b. That’s just over £4b. Take into account that that is for 7 versions which will include IFV which we wouldn’t want so that cost would rise because we want mainly recce versions which of course are more expensive. As far as I can tell all CV 90 are made in Sweden so take into account the jobs and tax’s generated in the UK by Ajax. IF we went to BAE and said we want X amount of CV 90 they would… Read more »
The article is about recce, but we do also want a highly capable IFV!
Where did I say it wasn’t? As for IFV we do but it looks like we will be stuck with a version of Boxer if any!
I hopeful we will see something come together. Warrior will be extended to 2030. Fv432, bulldog need replaced at similar times. Getting Ajax variants, challenger 3, boxer costs out the way should free up money for a replacement. In simple Terms IFV, remove cannon makes bulldog etc.
What that vehicle will be or look like will be anyone’s guess.
Apologies for misunderstanding. We certainly are stuck with Boxer as a Warrior replacement. Assuming it has just a MG and not a cannon, that is the end of the IFV era.
No bother 👍 HNY
Am I right in thinking these are 40 tons or something and they can’t be carried it the Alas ? Do they only fit the C17 ? …. as an aside, when you see both up high, It’s tricky to spot the difference in profile but the Atlas prop noise makes it instantly recognisable. We get both flying over with Atlas virtually every day.
Two slightly stripped down Ajax fit in a C17. I read somewhere that you’d need 6 Atlas to carry 4 Ajax. 4 to carry 1 stripped vehicle each, then another 2 to transport the parts. Source was Jeremy Quin, then defence minister.
You contradict yourself.
Can 1 C17 carry 1 stripped Ajax or 2?
I’m not sure I did, but the answer is 1 if it’s still turreted, 2 if they are stripped.
Ah, I didn’t see the C17/ Atlas switch, sorry
The turret stays on. The armour is stripped.
Interesting. I got that straight from a government paper. Should have known!
Yup.
😁
Excellent! Now is not the time for laments and regrets for what might have been ( with CV90). We are where we are; Ajax is top drawer and funded. Let’s crack on, build them and get it in service. It’ll be interesting to see the new doctrine for fighting with Boxer and Ajax but no IFV 🙂
I agree. I now back Ajax as that is being realistic. RGT will lead to great reliability. Need to get them into service asap. The on-board kit is presumably all good but there should have been a telescopic sensor mast.
I too would be interested to see that new doctrine – just hope Boxer can prove to be an adequate alternative to a tracked IFV equipped with a 40mm stabilised cannon.
I’m not qualified to say. I will leave things to the professional soldiers. Got to say though that I think the solution will be determined by the funds made available. If I’m right that would likely rule out re-instating WCSP and buying a brand new tracked IFV. Interesting to see the USMC have selected the Kongsberg RT20 remote turret and that Kongsberg have done test firings of the related RT60 on a Boxer.
Have a good Christmas Graham.
There is no doubt about the solution as it stands today. MoD announced in March 2021 that WCSP is scrapped, that Warrior would stay in service for a while without further modification, and would then be replaced by Boxer. In Dec 2020 it was announced that Kongsberg would supply their RWS PROTECTOR RS4 for the UK programme. RS4 is for MGs and GMGs, not cannons. However the army is supposedly looking at ways to increase the lethality of Boxer. [The RT-60 unmanned turret with a 30mm automatic cannon and two anti-tank missiles, was trialled in Norway in July 2023 for a… Read more »
Agreed. General Carter had it all worked out apparently!
That’s good to know 🙂
Have a good Christmas Daniele.
Ha! Good to know he’s gone, having made an almighty mess of things.
Thank you. Happy Christmas, Paul.
But but we are getting loads of boxers.
I saw a video and it’s massive. Like an armoured double decker bus.
Budget in place for over a thousand, apparently.
One of the world’s most expensive APCs. With a MG on the roof.
I’m sure it is a very capable vehicle but it needs weapons and it has sort of fallen into the army’s lap as the solution to Warrior by default.
It needs a defensive system as well, as do all front line vehicles. We have so few, and so few infantry to carry in them, that they need protected as if they are priceless.
I agree. APS should be standard. It would be worth the outlay even if other stuff doesn’t get a budget as a result.
When numbers are so low, everything so expensive, it just makes no sense to leave them vulnerable. We can’t afford losses, it’s that simple.
Oh right… so they’ve got a couple working now? Just a question… whats so wrong with the Warrior Vehicles?
Ok I’ll bite🙄Ajax Recce,Warrior knackered and is anIFV.
Warrior is not knackered at all! It’s older yes, but its still a fast armoured vehicle.
By old you mean, what is it now 35 yrs plus? Anyway it is STILL an IFV and NOT a recce vehicle
Warrior went through regular rebuild programs at Donnington so not as knackered at age would suggest , 432 bulldog is older . To extend life rebuild program would have to start again as was cancelled to save money .
Warrior, as with all AFVs, should have had a Base Overhaul roughly every 7 years (but dependent on mileage, condition, usage) at a ‘Base Workshop’.
Glad to hear that still happened in the Babcocks (money saving) era. But worried you say BOH has now been cancelled to save money. When I was in TSS IPT a colleague and me came up with BIR to replace BOH – that saved money.
It seems many people think all old AFVs are knackered or stripped for parts.
Hi Tom. Warrior is being used in some Armoured Cavalry Regiments, as it has to, due to the delays with the Ajax program and the fact that the CVRT family that equipped those units have been discarded. Other wise, as Jacko says, it is an IFV that has not been a part of the RAC previously, only equipping Armoured Infantry Battalions and some with REME units. As you know, Ajax family replace the CVRT capability. Warrior was cancelled due to budget cuts and with too many programs happening simultaneously. Hence Boxer for all rather than Boxer with Strike and Warror… Read more »
Unstabilised cannon would be warriors biggest flaw on the modern battlefield. Currently Warrior is doing the tasks of the retired CVRT fleet, which th Ajax fleet was meant to replace.
IMHO the army now needs a tracked IFV to replace Warrior.
I assume CVRT cannons were not stabilised? I thought scimitar 2 could have carried on until Ajax came online. Much younger than warrior. I think they were made for Afghanistan./Iraq.
Hopefully they all go to Ukraine quickly
30mm RARDEN isn’t stabilised.
Scimitar came into service about 1971 – don’t think any recce cannons of that era anywhere in the world were stabilised. Fair point about Scimitar 2, although there weren’t that many, about 50. They were converted Scimitar 1s and prototyped about 2010 and were fielded around 2012 – I do not believe this was done as a UOR uniquely for service in Iraq or Afghan – they were I am sure a core programme.
Digital concepts Engineering developed a low cost digital solution for the Rarden cannon .
Unstab cannon was one of several things that meant WR needed an upgrade – should have happened years ago. That was why MoD had WCSP.
WR is still in service as the IFV (until Boxer is fielded) but as you say some are also filling in as a Scimitar replacement until Ajax is fully fielded.
I agree the army should have a modern/modernised tracked IFV – pity the MoD disagrees and cancelled WCSP.
For those of you who want to see Ajax etc tearing around the plain go to
War Machine TV on YouTube he has couple of good vids on there!
Merry Crimble👍
Good stuff!
Need to go for export orders now
We might have more on order at some point. Shapps openly saying the Sunday Times that the UK Defence budget MUST be over 3% GDP. “Britain must spend more of its money on the military, the Defence Secretary has warned – setting up a funding clash with the Treasury. Grant Shapps called for the defence budget to rise by as much as 50 per cent in the light of global crises including the invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza. In a highly unusual intervention, he insisted that he stands by previous calls for the UK to spend at… Read more »
Shapps won’t deliver 3% before the General Election, probably not even 2.5%
Could someone explain to me why we need so many manned rekonaisence vehicles? Why can we not just drones or unmanned vehicles.
I suppose if we have to build them it is good we are building them in the UK… when they built them in Spain a lot of the vehicles did not fit together properly.
Is Ajax a Warrior replacement?
Yes and no. The Ajax family replaces the CVRT family of vehicles which were found primarily in the RAC’s Armoured and Armoured Cavalry Regiments ( recc regs ) and other formations.
Warrior has always served with the Infantry, in the Armoured Infantry Battalions, but lately is being used as an emergency stopgap measure in the RAC recc regs as the CVRT vehicles ( Scimitar and the supporting Spartan, Sultan, Samson, Samaritan ) have been withdrawn.
Of the CVRT family, Stormer remains.
No, Ajax is not a replacement for Warrior.
Going by the headline it appears that the Ajax is able to turn corners, surely a very essential ability to have at last.
Wow! It can turn corners now. That is an impressive IOC
I watched a Youtube video of the “fixed” vehicle undergoing testing, it still seemed very gruff, excessively loud and not particularly stealthy considering it is intended for a reconnaissance and scouting role.
Not sure it is particularly fixed. Lets see, get it into service and see if the servicemen living and fighting with the machine actually think it is OK or not.
” Fixed”? ….as in fixed price? What footage did you watch? – there is footage of an Ajax driving at speed on a concrete road at the perimeter of the RAC Centre – obvs the road noise is very loud, but that is not representative of real use. We don’t have to wait to get it into service to find out what the servicement think. MoD and the manufacturer is getting feedback from the Reliability Growth Trials and also from the experiences of HCR and 6 Bn REME who are using the vehicle before mainstream Introduction to service. There are… Read more »
mmmm – Have they a vested interest in saying they like it…If they didn’t they would probabably be waiting a lot longer for a suitable vehicle.
I always find it a little contrived when they ‘ask’ serving personal what they think…has any one ever said “it’s a bag of crap”?…somehow I doubt it.
Not saying it is or isn’t , I’m just saying always seems a somewhat forced conversation.
Ajax is still undergoing RGT – and will be modified if necessary to achieve required levels of Reliability. On that basis it is still in development. It is part and parcel to gain feedback from the troops during User Validation Trials, Troop Trials, RGT etc etc.
I have never viewed that as a forced conversation.