The Ministry of Defence say that “positive progress” has been made with Ajax as new in-service dates are confirmed and payments resume to General Dynamics.
UPDATE/CORRECTION 16/03/2023 – Thise headline originally claimed that a new payment was being given to General Dynamics UK, but that was wrong. What’s happening is that payments are resuming, the headline has been amended.
The Ajax is a group of armoured fighting vehicles being developed by General Dynamics UK for the British Army. It has suffered serious development and production difficulties.
According to a Government statement:
“Positive progress has continued on the next phase of Ajax trials, with the Ministry of Defence today confirming the revised in-service dates and resuming payments to General Dynamics for delivery of the programme.
With an initial payment of £480 million, withheld since December 2020 due to challenges with noise and vibration, the MOD will resume payments to General Dynamics as the vehicles are scheduled to enter initial operating capability between July and December 2025.”
Alex Chalk, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, said in an update eon the programme:
“The Ministry of Defence have openly acknowledged the problems previously faced by the Ajax programme. Alongside General Dynamics, the Ministry of Defence has successfully completed User Validations Trials to validate the design modifications which have addressed the noise and vibration concerns, allowing the commencement of programmed Reliability Growth Trials on 31 January.
Reliability Growth Trials are a standard part of the acquisition process for military equipment of this nature. These trials stress test the durability of the vehicle’s platform and components through a series of battlefield missions that represent years of activity on the platform. Since starting, the AJAX, APOLLO, ATLAS and ARES variants have driven over 2,260 kilometres through different terrains, completing a variety of representative battlefield tasks such as operating across a range of speeds and terrains, firing weapon systems, using the vehicles systems and communications and completing specialist tasks such as vehicle recoveries and repairs using the integrated crane. Reliability Growth Trials are progressing well. No fundamental design issues have arisen to date. These trials are part of a broader trials programme aimed at validating that contracted vehicle requirements are met.
The MOD have developed with General Dynamics a revised schedule for the delivery of vehicles that is, subject to contract amendment, robust, realistic, and achievable. Revised key delivery milestones set a meaningful Initial Operating Capability of a trained and deployable squadron. This is scheduled to be achieved between July and December 2025. Full Operating Capability will be met when the Army has trained and converted forces to the Ajax platform to deliver Armoured Cavalry capability to the Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade and its two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams. This is scheduled to be achieved between October 2028 and September 2029.”
The money is set to resume, too.
“The Ministry of Defence remains clear it will only accept vehicles that comply with General Dynamics’ contractual obligations. The department has withheld payments for work completed and had not made a payment since December 2020. Given the satisfactory progress against the programme, the department will resume payments this month, starting with a payment of £480 million. This is approximately half of what has been held back since December 2020. Restarting payments to General Dynamics reflects the fact that the programme continues to return to a firm footing and supports the delivery of the schedule to deliver operational capability.”
Responding to the government’s Written Ministerial Statement on the Ajax armoured vehicle project, Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey said:
“The Conservatives are shelling out billions more of taxpayers’ money on a project which is already six years late and won’t fully deliver until the end of this decade. The Defence Secretary has made Ajax central to the future of the Army and the UK’s ability to fulfil our NATO obligations, yet after 13 years and £4bn investment the Army has still not got a single deployable vehicle.
It is clear the government can’t deliver value for public money or the equipment our forces need to fight. Ministers are failing British taxpayers and British troops.”
At last some good news. But what an absurd timescale for a new AFV based on an existing platform. The schedule for Boxer also appears to be slipping, not because of technical problems, but supply chain constraints. Ch3 reported as ahead of schedule, but the planned FOC is 2030.
I agree, good news however it’s already massively late and hugely expensive. One would hope the army would learn lessons but I seriously doubt they ever will. I suspect the announcement around CH3 is just a PR gimmick. How can’t it be on time and budget when you have not delivered anything.
You just have to look at the kind of army a little place like Finland builds with a budget 10 times smaller than ours to see what can be done in a country with higher wages than the UK and a much smaller industrial base.
Perhaps a better analagie would be France, broadly speaking similar size budget and similar defence requirements. You only have to look at what the French have achieved via Project Scorpion, to see how poorly we have performed in relation to upgrading/introducing new equipment into the army. Although like you say, Finland and Im sure plenty of others can and do perform far better. The only good news one might argue, is that Ajax et al is back on track for delivery, albeit even later then envisaged.
OK but places like Finland have zero expeditionary capability.
They also rely on reserves which is a much cheaper way of doing things when it comes to generating mass. There is a general culture of shooting and active snow sports which helps with general levels of acclimatisation and fitness. It also helps that the Fins and Swedes (who I have personal knowledge of) try and make the service exercises interesting and fulfilling. I won’t say fun.
A lot of French kit is good enough but not the best – there is a rational argument that a lot of UK kit is too highly specified.
Yes true but expeditionary costs are primarily paid by the navy and the Airforce.
Actually I can’t think of a single expeditionary enabling platform or capability the army actually provides.
Our basic Army budget is far in excess of the entire Finish defence budget.
The Points are on Army budget?
36 Eng Reg, 39 Eng Reg, 17 PM Reg RLC, 29 PCM Reg RLC!
😉
Otherwise Jim, I agree. The other services are imperitive to project the army.
Jim you completely misunderstand what makes the Army expeditionary – it isn’t platforms – that’s a very Airforce /Navy way of viewing the world.
Army expeditionary ability is based around people first, logistics next and finally equipment. I’m not sure exactly where it is now, but when I left in 2017 the entire Army was on 10 days notice to move. When I returned from HERRICK in 2009 we almost immediately went on Spearhead which meant our lead element was on 24 hours notice – 48 hours to effect. That meant people, with Bergans packed, specialist equipment issued not allowed more than 3 hours from camp. The unit was trained to perform a number of functions from high end intervention to riot control, non-combatant evacuation globally or disaster relief.
How much do those packed Bergen’s cost in comparison to a C17 or an Amphibious dock?
Expeditionary capability is all about logistics and logistics for our of area operations is based on platforms or friendly basing.
Ok Jim, so without the capability to have an affect on the ground, what capability to a C17 or Amphibious dock have? My point is that Army expeditionary capability is people on the ground causing effect.
You’re right to point out that the RN and RAF enable that capability. But I think you were off in saying that the Army doesn’t provide any enabling capability. Even the movers for airlift are RLC.
Finland has conscription, which would seem to mean from what I could find the wage bill is a fraction of the UK army wage bill
Hi mate, that’s not really what I was getting at, probably my bad reply to @Jim’s post. The Finns have the kit to do the job, granted their forces are somewhat more land centric then us, but still agree with @Jim. Our army procurement has been absolutely shambolic over the last decade or so, and yes its not just the army’s fault, but there are always choices to be made, and they have made some bad ones. Yes hindsight and all that notwithstanding.
Wrt the French kit, no idea as to how good it is/isn’t, but Project Scorpion has delivered. Jaguar/Griffin et al are being/have been supplied to French forces and they can be deployed now, unlike UK PLC. CH3, Boxer, Ajax, not one example supplied to a unit, It actually pains me to say it,but, its not difficult to see who has the B team onside!
So long as the french kit has full reverse gears and a white flag packed they are good to go😜😂😂😂
Only joking the french had been doing a lot work around the world. Hopefully this has given them experience of what works well and what doesn’t.
We could do more to encourage the young to get out and taking healthy exercise.
I agree we have done very badly since Warrior and CH2. We need to form a core of equipment that uses unified parts and maintenance. Presently its a shambles IMHO.
All goes back to the ’80s and the peace dividend. Why has the Navy got its act together and not the Army?
It can be done.
Devils advocate here, take £5bn pa off uk def budget for nuclear and then benchmark we get really poor VFM
you could probably add all the Scandi countries + Israel together & their combined budgets would be similar to ours.
We do seem to spend our money really ineffectively by comparison.
Off the top of my head these are things that some of the others you list don’t do?
Pensions from to 1950’s -> present – much larger cohort
Nuclear submarines
Heavy airlift
Historic defence estate
Foreign bases
Foreign commitment
Foreign NATO rotations
Indeed, but my point still stands, the nordics & IDF are able to deliver industrial capability and produce some excellent pieces of equipment with far smaller budget.
they have different outputs, but they are getting more bang for their buck..
we should look at every country, what they spend and what they get for their money and benchmark.
In fairness for nuclear subs, I think UK is probably the benchmark & will improve further as we are still rebuilding capability
The CR3 programme is on time and on budget – both design reviews (Initial and Critical) met the timeline. The end point is equipment delivery but the timeline covers everything.
Interestingly all the new kit appears to be streaming for a 2030 ISD. How the introduction dates for Ajax have suddenly been extended by 6/7 years is baffling with around 130 already assembled. All I can think it’s a budget / political issue and not a physical reason. One good aspect of all this is 2030 will probably coincide with the rebuilding of the Russian land armour?
Presumably in the meantime we just have to hope that no potential adversaries would be so impolite as to start something, like a war in Europe…
In truth, watching recent manoeuvres in Germany the veteran FV432s, Warriors and CH2s all appeared to be working well but will be about knackered in 6 or so years from now! Yes, it’s a good job that there are no tank battles taking place in Europe right now. It’s obvious that the MOD is not too concerned by the Ajax ISD slipping until the late 2020s. All I can think is the treasury and the MOD believe the Russian Army is in tatters so why panic?
In truth CH2 would take out any Russian tanks long before they got a look in.
I do think we need to update to maintain our overmatch but I do t think we need to panic about it right now.
The bigger issue is how difficult ancient stuff is to maintain.
The AS90 will contain PCB parts that are NLA for sure. Getting catalogue transistors that were common in the 90’s is close to impossible as discreet transistor production has all but ceased.
If we look at the time scale of seven years there will be some raggedness in both Warrior and Bulldog, that’s if Boxer can’t start replacing this pair in real volume before 2030. AS90 augmented by Archer may keep the RA reasonably happy, but the flaky words about AS90 replacement doesn’t fill me with confidence. What further evidence do we need that artillery is key having seen just how vital it’s been in Ukraine? The UK Army will be far happier by 2030 and the fighting vehicle strategy should by then begin to pay dividends.
I find the date of 2030 depressingly distant.
Given that an AFV might have a life of around 25 years, then we should have replaced Warrior, AS90, CVR(T), residual FV430s a very long time ago – and should be fielding CR3 this year.
Everything is so much later than it should have been.
The truth is very worrying as both Ajax and Boxer programmes have slipped and automotive hick-ups on Boxer don’t help matters. The Army is facing a crisis due to these delays and fielding the existing fleets will become the key issue going forward towards 2030. I can see a reduction in availability as the life expectancy of each vehicle becomes critical. The workshops can only help to a degree but knackered vehicles are death traps waiting to happen as seen with some Russian vintage armour. This could result in a form of rationing with regiments babysitting their charges until replaced. Training may be squeezed too as wear and tear is reduced to ensure our war reserve is in a fit state in times of critical need. Any thoughts of leasing more contemporary armour are unlikely unless the Army has to deploy, then it may be the only option available? What a bloody balls up this IDS slippage is for two most needed vehicles. What worries me most is asking our troops to rely on granddad’s armour adding unnecessary risk to their lives.
Surprising that Boxer is slipping as it is a mature product. What are the automotive hiccups?
If the army had to fight a peer opponent now or before 2030, it would have a very difficult job.
Although to be fair, the only real peers of the British army are other western forces. Russia has proven itself to be a paper tiger and gutted its professional army and china is so far away as to not likely to really be a practicable peer enemy from a combined arms point of view. Lucky we probably have time before the British army is likely to be in a high intensity conflict…as for the lighter easily deployed units they are still as good as they have always been.
Although you never do know when we will be in a general war situation…but probably on balance and through more luck than judgment we should not be in a position of sending a Uk combined arms force somewhere it’s going to be out matched. It’s no excuse though all of the out of date vehicles and fires should have been changes at the correct time…
I have never seen a definition of peer or near-peer army so it is unclear if it is determined by quantity, quality or structure.
Anyway armies that are currently less effective than you would expect have a habit of learning lessons and refreshing themselves in future. It was often said that the US Army was poor quality in the Vietnam war (ended in 1975) but was first class by the time of Desert Shield (1990), if not before. I would never write off a future Russian army.
I agree that I can’t see the British Army fighting the Chinese army anytime soon, even if China invades Taiwan (NATO would never get involved in a ground war there, and the US may not lead a coalition of the willing in ground combat).
Maybe we will be lucky and have this 2020’s decade for the British Army to get its act together, firm up future structure (and not change it repeatedly), recapitalise equipment – and get funding to increase numbers above 73,000 regulars.
Yes fingers crossed and I do think Russia will be be coming back, nations with a grudge only tend to get a worse grudge in defeat. Especially as at best Russia will only be kicked out of Ukraine. No one will take the stupid risk of going into Russia and making a regime change…that will mean our best outcome is nation with an even bigger grudge so it’s likely to be more of a 1918 situation than a 1945 situation…Russia will likely lick its wound and plan its comeback..but luckily for use it’s gutted it’s army so in all likelihood even with the help of Chinese money and resources it’s going to take a decade to build back up..but I don’t think we will have much longer than that before Russia is again nipping at the heals of its near abroad..hopefully the idiots will not squander the time and ensure we have an army that is able to provide a really high quality armoured division as well as some lighter brigades ( air mobile etc).
It’s rumoured that there are automotive supply issues due to the post-wobbles from COVID-19 and the Ukrainian war. Most likely to be chips and other electronic shortages and not an inherent mechanical problem.
Project managers use CPI to determine how their project fairing against budget. Its an internationally recognised project measurement technique use throughout a project life cycle.
CPI is management accounting bs. The idea comes from continuous production scenarios where earned value is easily measurable and therefore CPI = earned value / spend is also objectively measureable.
In other scenarios it gets changed to “budgeted cost of worked performed” / spend. It measures how good your original forecasts were against reality, not the other way around, and we all know that Defence projects are underestimated by design.
Unless one project manager is held accountable soup to nuts, it’s subject to fudging. To win the plaudits, the project manager can move onto the next phase with hidden technical debt and it seems as though all is well, at least long enough for him to get another job with his stellar review. Then the next poor shlubb takes over. Realizing she’s been left in the doodoo, she hurries through the next stage and tries to get out early as she fears it’s all going to be blamed on her. At this stage nobody questions the fact that reality is reality and the original estimates were deliberately low to win the bid; the work is deliberately shoddy to hit CPI targets.
Four years on when the music stops and a third underpaid project manager finally gets caught out, the blame starts working it’s way upward. For the previous four years, the mounting technical debt has kept CPI on target, but reality has been very different. You end up with a lemon that needs considerable remedial work. An Ajax
There is no substitute for proper estimation, sufficient contingency, and the continual presence of someone who knows what they are doing.
CPI works if you use it correctly, the scenarios you described are just incompetent project managers and poor project practices which are rife tbh.
Actions follow incentives. If your system is set up to incentivise bad practice, that’s what is likely to happen.
The worry I have is that the changes made don’t sound particularly convincing or otherwise if the do solve these problems efficiently only raise the question why such measures took so long to figure out?
So far from different reports the three reported measure are:
1) driver controls isolated from hull.
2) thicker cushioning of seats.
3) doubling up on ear plugs for crews.
Of these the first seems sensible and likely quite a significant change though more a mechanical remedy for reducing the effects than eradicating the origin of the noise and vibration itself at all, the second seems to back that up and hardly a technical break through. The last to me is the most concerning and damning as it just means cutting out damaging noise by potentially at least compromising the operators effectiveness in various scenarios. But maybe those more expert than me can re-assure us on such matters just seems a better solution in tests and peacetime than during active service where moments and instant communication matter.
I believe there has been a reworking of the turret attachment too to help isolate it from the vibrations so it can fire on the move though exactly how successful that will be is not detailed, so anything from ‘acceptable’ I guess to a fully effective solution though again as no expert I can’t determine how easy it is to effectively dampen the existing problem in such circumstances and as such how comparable it makes it’s weaponry against a competitor that doesn’t suffer from those instead problems to anything like the same degree.
What worries me is if the inherent problems remain but in ameliorated form how does that develop over the vehicle’s lifespan. Surely through water and tear that innate base noise and vibration is likely to grow. So can these measures continue to work effectively will maintenance be considerably increased to prevent that deterioration including one presumes high cost items.
Now I may have missed other measures to be taken that were not in the reports I read or maybe there are others still being studied but as things stand I still see concerns over the future of this program with the quest to keep the program active and over the line the priority over the true solving of the innate problems themselves that will I fear re emerge later … though perhaps when it’s seen as someone else’s problem by those deeply integrated into it presently. But will it still end up being a paper asset demonstrated in similar fashion to Armata tanks in Red Square, more than a truly usable one other than in very limited fashion for show, or en masse only in a very serious conflict where the basic health of the users is a rather low priority. Hoping not.
Wonder why they have not tried Soucy rubber tracks , they can reduce vibration by up to 70% , the latest CV 90 uses them successfully , would seem to be the logical starting point !
Or the Net Zero E model with trailer for the spare battery pack and solar charger!
As an engineer and former REME officer I share your concerns that just mitigations have been put in place rather than fixes to solve the problems at source following a Root Cause Analysis using an 8D or otherwise approach.
However it enabled the vehicle to complete User Validation Trials in late 2022 and to go onto RGT, whilst dealing with the health and saefty of occupants, which MoD has stated is a very high (not low) priority and has involved the Surgeon-General.
RGT will reveal if reliability is or is not acceptable – and will determine if more substantial fixes are required – these will be done – we will not end up with an Armata-like paper tiger. RGT is slated to take 15-16 months, I believe.
All the information given has been about noise levels and vibration. I believe time limits on crew time in Warrior and CVRT were imposed in 2019 because of noise issues, possibly caused by amplification by Bowman headsets. The mitigation of noise seems to have been fixed and vibration addressed. But what about the inability to reverse over quite a low barrier? What about the poorly constructed Spanish built hulls that were also said to be adding to vibration problems?
Maybe the extended period to FOC is because many of the existing hulls will have to be re-worked or scrapped. I can’t see any other reason for the further delay. It can’t be funding, most of the fixed price has already been handed over.
It’s the management and leaders that need to learn some lessons and these should have been well and truly been learnt by now. Foot to the peddle now.
“supply chain constraints,”I wonder what they are?
Australia begins local production of Boxer CRVs
20 MARCH 2023
“Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence (MILVEHCOE) has begun full-scale production of the locally made Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) in Redbank, Ipswich.
In a joint press release on 20 March, the Queensland government and Rheinmetall Defence Australia said that with the completion of technology and skills transfer to Rheinmetall’s workforce, the full-scale local production of the Boxer CRVs at the MILVEHCOE can commence.
With the support of the Queensland government, Rheinmetall secured the USD5.2 billion Land 400 Phase 2 project to deliver 211 Boxer CRVs to the Australian Defence Force.”
LINK
Well the Boxer production lines in the U.K. and Australia will be required to use local suppliers where possible.
So presumably an issue with something being sourced in the U.K.
Nigel, I was only remarking on this today. When I left the Army in 2001, my last job was at Chertsey working on the MRAV Project (Boxer), that MOD withdrew from in about 2004. Whilst working for MAN Trucks, I went to Australia in 2012 to work on their truck Programme and there was talk about Land 400 Phase 2 (Boxer). I returned from Oz in Mar 2015, and RMMVA where looking at building a facility in Brisbane to do the vehicle hand-overs. In Mar 2018, Rheinmettal signed the contract and the first one came out of the MILVEHCOE this month.
Don’t know the detail of Boxer production problems in Europe. But Germany has just ordered 100+ Boxers from Australia which I assume wouldn’t happen if they could be sourced closer to home. I think orders have been outstripping supply across European sites including UK and Netherlands.
Thank you for the update PeterS.
So, payments have resumed, with no obvious fines being issued, and as you say, a new timescale. Makes one wonder who was actually at fault for causing this disaster in the first place? Design problems, poor build standards, or, us tinkering with the initial requirements and forcing many many changes on the developers! We will probably never know, but….
Who specified what to cause the weight growth?
Isn’t that the real story?
Yes, that probably encompasses all of it.
MOD, protection, survivabilty. Bosh——weight
Quite a long wait as well…..
😁
i see what you did there.
I am not aware of manufacturers ever being fined for delivering defence equipment late – do you have examples?
Only if there’s penalty clauses in the contract, this is normally managed by withholding payment rather than a fine. I doubt their an enforceable penalty clause in the contract
Hi Graham, thats not where I was going with my original badly written post.
It just strikes me as somewhat odd, that a major flaw in this procurement process has added a further 6-7 year delay to it, yet nobody seems responsible!! Payments resumed everything back on track barring the extra delay.
While GDUK might be a new concern here in the UK, cant believe that they tendered a bid on the back of a fag packet so to speak, without actually convincing the MOD that they knew what they were doing.
Things can go wrong, which you can expect, but delay after delay and we eventually get a Recon vehicle a decade late. So, not sure how current and super all the gadgets are going to be when we can actually field said vehicle. Or, will we now also have to pay for an upgrade to all the kit to make it current? Either way and given the total lack of transparency over this issue, its not a good look.
The army have bet the farm on Ajax, so they need to make it work, no matter the cost/delay. Its probably one embarrassment to many were it to fail.
Deep, thanks for that. I think ISD for Ajax was originally to have been 2017, now IOC is 2027, FOC is 2030. So many reasons for delay with many to blame, I suspect. I could list the reasons for delay and failure, as we perhaps all could.
GDUK may well have got GDLS USA staff to write or help write the bid, probably, and it would have been well written.
But I really wish we had bought CV90 Recce from BAE, or any other vehicle that was proven – there really wasn’t time to develop a new vehicle given that Scimitar was well over 40 years old when the Ajax project started.
Perhaps we shouldn’t now be talking about failure – the vehicle has now been through User Validation Trials following fixes (not that I am yet convinced that the fixes dealt with the root cause of the problems!).
Evening Graham, mate it just pains me to see the army in such a sorry state wrt procurement, and that’s the Navy sticking up for you!! (Obviously will need to take myself off into a dark corner and have a good chat with myself after!!!)
It does seem odd that we wanted a Recce vehicle to replace Scimitar (7-11 tonnes) and essentially ended up with a 40 ton tank! Indeed we needed to replace the entire CVRT series of vehicles, all in the sub 11 ton weight range, and have managed to effectively produce a somewhat porkier replacement, which could only really be airlifted in a C17. Not sure what to really make of that.
I doubt we will ever really know why we didn’t go with a proven in service design, be it CV 90 or something else, but totally agree with you, we should have and it would probably be in service now if we had. Hindsight, such a wonderful gift…
The army have rolled the dice and made their choice, so, you are probably right and we now need to back it, despite all the frustration we are feeling. Just let us hope that we don’t have to deploy for a serious situation any time soon, well the next 5/6 years perhaps.
I guess they took a page out of the American hand book- recon/cav forces in the US Army utilise Bradleys if I’m not mistaken. Small and speedy is out, beefy and tough is in.
In that context, I guess Ajax makes sense- although it still baffles me how few seats it has in the back.
That said, Think Defence did an intereseting piece recently about the importance of having something tracked that was light enough to go in a C130/ sling under a Chinook, which the way it’s going we’ll have none of. A reasonable proportion of our wheeled kit won’t, either, for that matter…
Yes mate, a modern version of Scimitar – fast and light! No chance of that happening any time this decade I would think.
It pains me to compare the vehicles, but said Monsewers across the ditch have a 25 tonne 6×6 that does the same job as Ajax (Recce only), and has a better weapons fit. Not sure if its Recce bling is on the same level, but, they have it in service as we speak! Envy, such a bad trait I know, where did we go wrong…..
Yeah, the French have done medium weight pretty nicely as far as I can tell- certainly did well in north Africa these last few years. They’ve got the CT40s on their Recce models but with ATGMs, don’t they?
I heard that we’d actually taken a look at some of their wheeled medium weight stuff, but decided to go another route (Boxer and Ajax)- which half makes sense and half doesn’t in my mind. But hey, I’ve never served in any of the servics, so what do I know?!
Actually I think you’ll find that the French have made a pigs ear of their expeditions in Africa.
I’d agree and disagree; like the coalition forces Afghanistan and Iraq, the French combat forces have performed well from the accounts I read. They stopped the attempted takeover of Mali dead and were conducting pretty effective COIN operations with the number of troops they had available.
The largest problems to the mission as a whole though, and the reason they’ve failed as you say, is to do with the governments and militaries of the countries they’ve been operating in. They’re corrupt, ineffective, there’ve been multiple coups and takeovers that have fuelled instability inside the countries affected. You can’t win a COIN conflict if the government you’re trying to support is incapable of doing its job, because instability and ethnic/religious tensions are fuel for radicalism and just make the problem worse. Add on to that the similar broader issues across the region, growth of ISIS-inspired groups, and porous borders and you end up with the situation you have in the Sahel.
Those “governments” are now turning to Wagner, because the only way they see of making up for their own lack of capability is via the kind of violence that western nations would not allow in their ROE. None of that can really be called a criticism of the combat performance of France’s medium weight units.
Joe I have no problem with your comments. However, what pisses me off is inane and I’ll informed comments that frequent this site that everyone in the MOD is stupid and they know better, we can’t afford anything and every decision is governed by money and all our kit is useless and everyone else does it better!
As someone interested in the field I read not just U.K. sites but those of other nations, so that my comments, when made are as informed as they can be. There are sites which take quite a strong view on childish I’ll include comments via moderators.
A recce vehicle does not of course need a lot of seats in the back. The so-called APC variant ARES has seats for 4 dismounts – this carries a specialist team – it is not of course an infantry carrier.
I understand it carries a lot of kit internally stowed.
I would have preferred a much lighter, smaller recce vehicle, as we always used to have. They are meant to be covert, not big, bold and brassy and ready for a fight.
Something along the lines of the Scimitar Mk2 CVR(T) perhaps with the CT40mm cannon?
Scimitar Mk2 is ageing and would probably lack the protection now deemed necessary. Hull is very old. Possibly too small to carry the latest role equipment. Others will be more expert than myself on the fine details of the contemporary RAC requirement.
Lockheed were fined for late delivery of the C130Js off the top of my head. Really depends on the contract.
FOC for CR3 has always been 2030 (IOC in 2027) – I have always thought this was a very unadventurous timeline. [I worked on the project back in 2016].
What dates have you heard for Boxer?
It does seem to lack urgency which matters more because of the change of gun, leaving UK with in effect 2 different tanks.
I’m trying to remember where I read about Boxer timescales. I think one was a report on German manufacturing, the other an answer by a British minister. Again, the project was always rather leisurely with production at @60 per year, so slippage wouldn’t make much difference. Everything ready about 2030?
Why? I would think that with only two tank regiments due to be equipped with CR3 the change over will take place on the day as it where!
Doubt it. IOC is in 2027 and FOC in 2030 – so there is a 3 year period of issuing CR3s to the army.
👍
There will no doubt be a period when CR2 and CR3 are in service together. We have been here before – we operated a mixed Chieftain/CR1 fleet from about 1983-1998 (ish).
This seems to refute some of the silly comments on this blog;
https://www.army-technology.com/news/uk-inservice-dates-ajax-programme/
Trouble is yes it was based on a existing Platform that won the procurement criteria set out. and no sooner had it done that. Army top brass took that design which was say a Land rover Defender and switched it to Range Rover. Issue is with Ajax the top brass and senior chiefs. who wanted there case of whisky from LM
Supply Chains are strained due to the shortage of Steal, Ukraine supplies non existent, and due to the energy firms not making steel on priced orders as it not profitable
It’s been a complete disaster and should have been canceled
We are now stuck waiting until 2028/29…
Other choices were available 🙄
I understand that only CV90 (Recce) was seriously looked at – and rejected for unknown reasons (speculation being that MoD/politicians ‘had a downer’ on BAE at the time). If true, that is crazy.
When I worked on Future BRV, we evaluated 7 or 8 bids from industry.
Our Politicians aren’t interested in British or UK bids, more about how much they get in kickbacks from European countries, and BAe is seen has the bad guy?
If the CV90 had been chosen it would now be in service, but the usual throw money at a an already over budget and late in service vehicle puts our troops at further risk in an increasingly unstable world.
I have not seen evidence of our politicians taking bribes from European countries. I think the days of BAE being the bad guy are over.
I think any option other than GDUK and their Ajax would have been a vast improvement whether it be BAE CV90 recce variant or anything else.
Don’t think Ajax is over budget? why do you say that? It is a firm price contract – GDUK will have paid for the technical fixes.
Headline makes it sound like additional money (beyond contract price) has been agreed to. Clearly that’s not the case. Assume there must be some form of remedial work to be performed on existing units already delivered and hence the timescales now quoted. Good news it’s progressing but those timecales…I’m assuming MOD is slowing cash flow!
I hear not many units were delivered before the debacle – less than 20 ARES?
Doesn’t sound like the remedial work is complex – little more than fitting new seat cushions and headsets.
26
After pissing yet more £billlions on this failed project – primarily to protect the careers of the senior army incompetents and MoD civil servants responsible for this slow-motion train wreck of a cock-up – it will be left to the incoming Labour government to cancel
This is a bad day for the lads and lasses who will have to work in this thing, sitting on specialist double-sprung seats and wearing hugely expensive headphones that will at best mitigate the vibration/noise problem, not cure it
Many commentators seem to be on MOD bashing autopilot. I presume GD will make a substantial loss from this contract. It is fixed price, so they won’t get a penny more for full delivery. I presume they have already paid for long lead items and have to bear running costs of factory etc whilst not delivering and will also have to bear the costs of mechanical fixes.
Yes they are delayed, but were not involved in any land wars at present and are unlikely to be so in the near future. So yes, it would have been nice to have them earlier, to play around with and practice, but they are not at present essential no matter how hysterical we get.
A sensible reply.
GDUK is a very new company that makes very modest profits – I agree that they are unlikely to make much, if anything, from this project – and may well make a loss.
Perhaps they follow the tactics of Hamworthy Engineering , they sold pumps at cost and made the profits from marking up spare part prices, due to weight expect track, wheel and torsion bar life won’t be that long !
I think the main question will be once added to the front line forces how usable and effective they will be in a land war. Too much equipment has been acquired over the years aimed more at passing a Beauty contest in peace time over their utility and effectiveness in a shooting war (our frigates having been a good example in the past). I hope this will be truly solved in this case as the previous expectation that we won’t be going into a shooting war with a serious enemy is no longer a dependable presumption. Still questions to answered on this project based on present available information.
So Spy’ where does this nonsense originate? Do you have any proof? Evidence of British “kit” suggests that in most categories it compares favourably with everybody else’s “kit”. I mean are we talking about the German light tank “kit” where a whole squadron failed to start! Or the US destroyer “kit” which had to be cancelled at 3 ships and had guns that had to be scrapped, costing billions? Or the French “kit” the Cdg which has spent more time being serviced than on missions?
Give us a break!
I am no massive fan of Ajax but I have to accept that the armour protection spec looks very good, the 40mm stabilised cannon is a huge improvement on the RARDEN and it will carry a great sensor package with digital conectivity. I don’t doubt their effectiveness in a land war.
Major gaffe to not provide a telescopic mast to elevate sensors though.
Sadly the Rarden was capable of a dual feed and stabilisation when Warrior was being spec’d. These were written out as part of the cost savings “strategy”. I am still surprised that it wasn’t revisited as a mod in later life though.
good job nothings really kicked off in Europe then init….
Yeah good news Ukrainians don’t need our soldiers just our spare kit!
Double sprung? No springs involved. The previous headsets and ear protection are also hugely expensive, so no change there. On what basis do you make the statement: “failed project”?
cheers
Don’t know the details but the seats are indeed receiving extra cushioning whatever means that involves as one of the remedy solutions, the extra ear protection with conformable ear plugs or similar raises questions too which impinge on other compromises we simply do not know and it won’t be advertised if their are other implications. The dampening of the controls and turret seems in principle like something we can immediately comprehend the advantages of however, one presumes without innate related downsides though expense and complexity could be a result.
Have you inhaled a thesaurus?
Will troops being transported by Ares be given ear protection upon embarkation?
All crew and pax wear hearing protection to the same standard.
If the project was cancelled, it would be a failed project. Ajax is a recovering project.
You attribute no blame to Industry or politicians – why not?
Why would Labour cancel this project in or around May 2025? It will be through Reliability Growth Trials (and hopefully it will have done well).
I agree that GDUK seems to have fixed the symptoms not the causes of all problems – in my day we did a Root Cause Analysis – and then fixed root causes.
Why would Labour cancel it, just because it was a tory project? Politicians have a habit of doing illogical things based on their politics and to have swipe at the other party.
Well as the Labour bloke has accused Wallace of shelling out billions more on a failed project shows he has no knowledge on the actual state of affairs! So if he cancels it that is £5b wasted on a project now showing progress! Then he will spunk billions on another selection process to select another wagon that will take ages to come into service! So who would waste the money?
👍 bob on
Doubtful as the factory is in a part of Wales with limited job opportunities !
Not a problem Labour has promised 400k new green jobs.
Not a problem then as Boxer and Ajax are painted…Green!
Isn’t that green washing 😀
The real scandal is they have been hiding the problems for years and going on with the propaganda of the vehicle being a “step change ” in AFV development !
So what was the fix?
I posted this in another thread, is it a fix or a bodge to save faces?
One for the experts on here if this is in fact the case.
Ben Wallace is quoted as saying that Ajax has turned a corner, so I guess that’s a positive sign!
“The latest version of Ajax includes heavier density foam in the front seats and control joysticks – used to aim Ajax’s 40mm cannon – which are no longer fixed to the hull.
The addition of rubber seals between the joysticks and Ajax’s metal frame has drastically reduced the vibrations.
For the first time, troops are also issued two pairs of ear defenders, a standard ‘Crew guard’ defender over their ears and a tiny inner-ear protector made of rubber.
The latter is rolled between finger and thumb by the user, to produce a custom fit, then pushed down inside the ear’s external auditory canal.
Army sources told the Mail they expect Ajax vehicles to be rolled out to armoured regiments later this year.
.
The vehicle will also undergo a further 18 months of testing so that any additional changes can be made.
Eventually, 589 Ajax will enter service, hopefully ending years of controversy.
Six variants of the vehicles are being assembled by General Dynamics UK at their factory in Merthyr Tydfil.”
LINK
I’m no expert but it doesn’t look to me like they have fixed anything.
What’s been provided is a bunch of mitigations to make the excessive noise and vibration tolerable to the crew. I suspect the platform is still a dud but the contract has been so badly drafted/managed that it’s not possible to hold GD liable.
This is what happens when you write contracts to ‘outputs’ instead of defining specifications, manufacturer can (legitimately) argue that outputs are met, with mitigations, even if the underlying platform is clearly a POS.
The Army doesn’t have the option to just take the hit and walk away, because they will have no budget for needed vehicles.
It is as you suspect. It was reported the excessive vibrations hampered much of the sensors and even led to the vehicle being unable to fire on the move, so if all the current mitigations only focus in crew, what of the vehicle’s systems?
Hell this whole debacle by the army has not only wasted billions but led to potential billions that could’ve helped replace the aging Warrior fleet, potentially with the upgrade that was scrapped or a new replacement such as CV90 since boxer is not a single solution that fits all, tracked ifvs still have a place in the battlefield landscape.
No sensors were hampered in the making of this motion picture, sorry AJAX. It fires on the move, moving at moving, it reverses up steps, it can hear and see, it can store data, it can transmit data. Get your FACTS right.
Cheers
“It fires on the move, moving at moving, it reverses up steps, it can hear and see, it can store data, it can transmit data”
I’ve been following the Ajax saga for months. I have not seen anything anywhere confirming the 40mm gun can fire repeatedly and accurately on the move. Neither have i seen anything about the gear train etc being re-engineered so it can actually reverse, let alone up steps. Where is your source of info, I would like to have a look at it
Ian has long claimed to be the sole gatekeeper to the truth about Ajax, afaik they’ve never provided any evidence and usually gets a bit insulting when questioned.
Nah, you’ve got the wrong bloke!😳
I have never claimed to be the sole gatekeeper to anything, especially AJAX, what I like to do, when I’m able is debunk misinformation or half truths with facts. I have my sources, which are not in the public domain as explained to David Lloyd above.
Cheers
No insults, see👍😁
Hi Tomartyr.
I don’t think Ian has never “claimed” anything. People ask questions, he replies with what he can say as one of the SME’s on here with regards to armoured vehicles.
Which is fine by me.
Insults? Who? When? I must be reading the wrong Ian’s posts these last several years.
Hi David, my source of information is a contractor employee associated with trials activities so I have no links to post. I have seen evidence presented to the MOD that shows all of the above. Don’t forget, when all of these tests and trials take place, there is ALWAYS an MOD witness (or ten) in attendance.
Cheers
Why bother mate some idiot makes up some reason or other that has NO basis in fact and all of a sudden that’s the reason for the delays🙄 People ask for someone with a bit of insider knowledge and then proceed with their own agenda and knock said person back!
I mean I did hear from a sailor in the NAAFI queue in Pompey that a Chinese sub fired a Russian hypersonic torpedo at the POW😉it missed but the massive wake caused all the problems with the shaft etc👍 Proper gen that.
😂
😂
I try my best to keep the guys and girls on here informed. If I get knocked, then at least they’re leaving some other poor sod alone.
cheers
Ian
OK, so you are posting uncorroborated third party information in an attempt to sound important and knowlegeable. No change there then
How about giving us your sources then? I’m sure they are impeccable!
Don’t be silly Jacko m8 I’m subject to the OSA like most who post here!
The Forces News YouTube channel is a good source of into on Ajax. This link was up-to-date a couple of months back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yelfweglWbM
And this one is three months old however it does show the (clamped) gun firing and if you watch carefully you can actually see it shaking when on the move and the music is good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC3ILjJDmro
Enjoy 🙂
No problem but Ian M source is also looking after his job by not wanting to be named etc. there are recent videos on you tube of Ares and Ajax going around Bovington test track filmed by civilians who clearly show the time and date.
Turret wobble on the Warrior upgrade required the development of the muzzle break for CTA 40 lol, if BAE had fitted the warrior 2000turret and 30 mm cannon the project would have worked !
Hi David, what’s uncorroborated about time stamped video and verbal evidence from multiple sources, most not connected to the contractor? I have no interest in ‘sounding important’, however, compared to a lot of posters on here, I am relatively knowledgeable on this topic.
Cheers
Bravo mate, stick to your guns.
Cheers👍
You did the same for me once when dealing with unwarranted comments from posters. No worries mate.
👍
Ian, being mostly in the know, can you clarify the number of dismounts that Ares can carry, as I’ve seen it vary from 3, 4 to 7?
Hi Davey, ARES carries 4 dismounts;
1x Tactical Commander
3x soldiers
=4
👍
Cheers Ian. If the comms and recce kit was removed from the cabin, would that allow for another 3 pax? You can see where I’m going with this train of thought.
I can and I don’t like to derail it. With the Tac Cmdr position sacrificed I think 6 pax is doable. But not the seven that Wr carries.
Ian’s post from December 15 2021 to Blue fuzz “the noise issue is not mechanically vehicle related as stated in the report when the vehicle is driving by its actually quite quiet “. This is still on this website, we think he works for GD sales and marketing lol
You are right that the root causes of the faults do not seem to have been fixed, just the symptoms.
If the vehicle does what is required it will pass muster and money will be paid.
I did read on a comment on here at one point that the problem is confined to the Ajax variant, as opposed to Ares etc. Don’t know if that’s true, but if so I’m guessing the problems are to do with how the turret fits and interfaces with the hull. A big, heavy, spinning thing, with the associated motors etc. could easily cause issues making the hull (and especially the turret controls such as the gun joysticks) to vibrate and do so loudly. If that’s the case, then a number of these “mitigations” sound more like revising and upgrading a damping specification that was under-specced first time around. That said, comments about extra padding on the seats and double hearing protection should be unnecessary if the interface between turret and hull has been well damped, so maybe I’m well out.
Either way, hopefully the longer lead in time for IOC gives them opportunity to better deal with the issue on a more fundamental level, but maybe I’m being overly optimistic on that one…
Thanks Joe, I had not heard that noise and vibration had been rstricted to the turreted Ajax variant. I have never known a rotating turret to throw up N&V problems. It would account for why the army had accepted 26 ARES vehicles though.
I doubt that GDUK will consider fixes to resolve the problem at source (rather than mitigating effects), if MoD has deemed the vehicle passed the User Validation Trials in late 2022.
Vehicles are now on RGT – remains to be seen what the MoD makes of the vehicle in these quite different trials.
Mitigation I wish that word had come to mind in my previous replies because so far that is what it is, not a cure for the innate problems unfortunately. Only time will tell if it’s enough though having given up on deformable ear plugs when going to bed because they are a pain in the ass I wouldn’t want to rely on them while entering and fighting in a military vehicle in a war zone.
And your evidence for this nonsense is?
Not a “bodge” Nigel, an engineering solution to a perceived problem. The hearing protection mods are going to be across the tracked fleet. The crewguard also supplies the connectivity to vehicle comms, these too have been enhanced. AV mounts are now used to hold the control handles (not joysticks) onto the various crew stations.
cheers
Hi Ian, any news of replacing the steel tracks with the Soucy band tracks? If it works really well on CV90s, why not Ajax?
Benefits would be less generated noise and vibration, easier maintenance, higher road speed and better fuel economy. Plus they save a ton and half in weight.
There are downsides to band type tracks; short tracking to expedite getting the fcuk outa Dodge after damage is a no go. I’ve seen and heard WR with Soucy tracks, V quiet. As the AJAX programme evolves don’t be surprised to see them at least trialled.
Cheers
I spoke to the Norwegians whilst in Afghan, who were trialling the band tracks on a pair of their CV90s. They said they were very impressed, not just because of the much lower noise, but on the durability of the track. This came as quite a surprise, as they thought the sharp rocks that littered Afghan would soon wear them down being made of rubber.
We asked the question about loosing a track. One of the guys said it happened a few weeks ago, when they were attacked by a manually triggered IED. They showed us a splicing kit, that is used as a temporary repair, so they can short track what’s left. But said they didn’t use it, instead as they were carrying a spare track rolled up, fitted that instead in less than a hour. It had lost two road wheels (front two behind the drive wheel) and damaged one of the axles, so they could only replace one wheel in situ. Drove back, then their fitters replaced the whole suspension arm. Looking at the CV90 that was targeted, there was very little damage that was noticeable, most of the blast damage was covered by dust anyway.
The weirdest thing about them though was the noise. You knew a big vehicle was coming by the exhaust noise. But there was next to no track noise, almost like a Stryker driving up to you.
Hi Davey, not heard of a splicing kit (didn’t even know CV90 had a mainbrace! Sorry).
Cheers
As I’m now a civvy, I have to use cordiality, respecting other peoples feelings and am not supposed to use the base language that I used in the past – apparently 😉!
Have a look at the Soucy website. They had a video of a track repair using the kit.
Will do, ta.
It has all the hallmarks of a bodge to me Ian M in order to save face and leave someone else to sort out the mess further down the line.
FOC by 2030, if no other faults are found during the 18-month trial period and a partial solution at best as the core issues to the problem have not been addressed.
If AV mounts are now used to hold the control handles for example, what’s causing the excessive vibration for them to have to be installed in the first place?
Secondly, why two sets of ear defenders if the noise has been reduced??
I wonder what new technologies and vehicles will emerge by the time FOC arrives.
Hope all’s well!
All’s good with me ta.
👍
Thanks Nigel. These fixes as you report do not seem robust to my way of thinking. Many on this forum have experience of using such vehicles. What do they think?
Agreed.
I left the army in 2009 but I don’t recall any need for hearing protection by AFV crews. Sure they were noisy, but not that noisy. Just standard headsets were worn.
Hi Graham, all tracked AFV’s are fcuking noisy. The reason that ‘back in the day’ there was no problem is because no one was looking for one. I drove and commanded 432 for years and have slightly reduced hearing on my left side, from the fans. Nowadays, H&S are all over noise like a rash so mitigation is the name of the game. AJAX’s noise reduction applies right across the tracked fleet.
Hi Ian, your greater experience at working in tracked AFVs is ‘on point’. Thanks.
Mitigation doesn’t fix an issue. The issue always remains.
Example.
In the RN the twin 30 and single 30 exceeded the H&S exposure limits by a considerable amount. So the hearing protection became not just over ear gun duffs as it was at the time but also in ears ( yellow foamies). That helped to mitigate it.
Further studies and there was still an issue with exposure limits being exceeded. Gun duffs changed to active protection ( V Good!) and in ear foamies. Exposure mitigated further but still an issue.
Now the guns are remote operated with no one in the cab.
Issue fixed.
Except all us deaf WE Maintainers and Gunners who are around because mitigation is not the same as fixing an issue to remove it as a hazard.
I fully agree. Someone was too scared to tackle the root causes of the noise and vibration because of the resulting time and cost issues.
Hi Graham, the root cause of the problem is trying to force between 40 -65 tonnes of steel to travel on steel tracks with steel wheels. As I’ve explained, this is not a new phenomena! Today, I commented on the CRAARV, beating up the road where I’m currently working. The rejoinder from the crowd was; “fuck me that’s loud!”
Cheers
Ian
Still quieter than a Leopard 2 though!
CRARRV – I was Equipment Support Manager for CRARRV in 2002-3 (and many other vehicles of course).
Of course, as you know, the road wheels and return rollers are rubber-edged and the tracks have rubber track pads, but I know what you mean.
Great piece of kit – sort of CR1.5 in technology terms. Don’t think it was ever upgraded? Anyway, replacement is long overdue (ISD was 1988) – I believe we should retire ie replace AFVs after about 25 years or so.
I do agree Graham, poor old things should be put out to pasture😁
Not sure I went that far! CSS always gets the next bit of shiny kit years late. I just about recall the HARRV project which was to provide AS90 Regt Wksps with a CRARRV-like vehicle but with newer (CR2?) technology – it could have been the blue-print to replace CRARRVs across the board – project was scrapped of course.
So basically sit on a pillow and stick your fingers in your ears? Does not sound like a fix, just a lame workaround.
At some point better to just bite the bullet and get CV90. It works and I get the feeling Ajax story is just going to get worse with maintenance etc… just like the Puma has proven to be problematic for Germany.
If a chain gun is axially mounted on its side due to turret space constraints it will suffer ejection port jams as was designed with gravity assistance in mind !
Where do you get this tosh from?
You remind me of Don Quixote , first you say it does not need fixing , then you think its wonderful its fixed with mitigation solutions. A guess at your profile would be ex lower league public school , a spell as officer in Logistics Corp’s and now something like GD supply chain manager, white and divorced ! Ajax will be accepted into the Army in its bit rubbish state and when the fuss has died down they will spend another billion on rubber tracks and suspension upgrades when they think the fuss has died down !
I is white, correct!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ajax will be accepted if it sails through RGT (and other end of programme hurdles).
There wasn’t one. The MoD says “its turned the corner” and shelled out £450 millions of their new defence settlement to GD.
Well unless you have concrete proof no fixes have been made you look a bit silly spouting off on it! They haven’t wasted any money of the new settlement it’s just renewing payments now it’s going ahead as you would see if you bothered to read the article properly🙄
This would not come out of the new settlement. The money was budgeted for years ago.
I smell shite 😎
Check your shoes!
Or your pants.
😂
Trouble is Nigel it’s a scam. The vibration and noise problems are still there, they’ve just done a work around. If the vibration is not sorted they will have mechanical problems all the time, reliability will be a nightmare 😎
The next 18 months will tell us more no doubt.
“The defence committee are so frustrated now with all of these endless procurement problems and cost overruns and delays.
“We’ve established a special subcommittee to conduct an inquiry into what’s wrong with our procurement, specifically to look at (DE&S),” Mark Francois said.
“But I think it’s probably not giving away, you know, the Trident codes here to say that we are likely to look very closely at the Ajax Problem program as an example of something that went horribly wrong,” the Conservative MP added.
The MOD project to build 589 state-of-the-art Ajax vehicles has been severely criticised after running for nearly 13 years without yet providing a single deployable vehicle.”
LINK
🖕
I am a bit confussed with the timescale. From my understanding 143 vehicles are almost complete, 416 hulls are ready and 120 40mm turrets are complete. I am starting to wonder if the issue of the schedule of 2028-29 is to do with the Morpheus communication system being problamatic and a change in concept from Bowman replacement to Bowman Evolve to Open.
Having to rework all completed vehicles perhaps?
Ajax washes whiter.
Off-Topic, but some more positive news! Unsure what the FOC will be.Update – DSEI Japan 2023: Aeralis, ShinMaywa sign contract to collaborate on digital engineering
21 MARCH 2023
“The UK-based Aeralis signed a contract with Japanese company ShinMaywa to collaborate on the implementation of digital engineering processes for military aircraft design and manufacturing in Japan.
Using digital engineering, the UK firm has developed the Aeralis modular aircraft system that can perform a range of training and operational tasks, the company’s business development director Richard Eastment told Janes at DSEI Japan 2023, held in Chiba from 15 to 17 March.”
Have Aeralis actually manufactured anything that actually flies yet ?
Does “digital engineering” mean they have done some really fancy modern versions of 3D CAD and have some nice looking CGI representations. They’ve digitally made the aircraft – not physically, yet.
Didn’t even need models in wind tunnels or prototypes – they did that digitally too.
And the answer to the problem is?
😄
Very misleading headline.
Instead of “Ajax gets more money”, it should read “some withheld payments for Ajax now being made”.
In other words, when issues were identified with Ajax, the MoD rightly withheld making further payments to GD. Now that fixes appear to be working the MoD has begun to make some of these payments. Both the withholding and resumption of payments would have been covered by the contract.
Yep, spot on. But you’ll never make a politician pointing out the obvious 🙂
Oh I’d fail on the being ‘dull and boring’ requirement too…
👍
Hi folks hope all is well.
As you may gather I’m not as expert on military matters as most of you on this site.
However, we have the recent news on POW aircraft carrier and the cost of repairs.
Now the issue with Ajax’s issues, the MOD have quite rightly withheld payment until the concerns are resolved. Nonetheless, there must be a level of compensation rather than handing over more tax payers cash.
I think we can all appreciate the development of a new brand of military vehicle is complex keeping pace of technology, nonetheless issues about noise; a very basic issue must have been an earlier indication when the very first version was considered?
Cheers,
George
Well if you make the contact too tough you pay more for it. It is that simple. Or at the worst case nobody will touch it.
The issue here is The Good Ideas Club and upping the specs
There is a rule of thumb in construction about potential compensation payments:basically the price increases to cover them off.
Compensation? For delaying the programme? I don’t know where & when that has happened before.
If we get one fully re-equipped armoured brigade this side of 2030 I will be amazed. Twenty years to replace Challenger with Challenger; Ajax eight years late and counting and where is Boxer exactly.
‘ … yet after 13 years and £4bn investment the Army has still not got a single deployable vehicle.’
No fan of Labour but that’s the issue in nutshell. This project should have been cancelled and monies recovered from G.D.
Barry, If we cancelled every cutting edge defence project that had technical or other issues in development and was delayed, we would not have much kit in the inventory. We certainly would not have two aircraft carriers.
how much kit do we have in the inventory …tbh atm we dont even have 2 carriers we have 1 – and ironically thats also due to technical design/acceptance issues as well from what I can see.
All a bit of a joke really….
Graham, I am old and we have. The Supermarine Swift I recall quite well. These issues with Ajax are in a class of their own.
Beyond all the predictable snipes and moans, good news.
This capability is needed, quickly, the RAC is already retiring the CVRTs, and vehicles like Sultan are already gone.
And that mate is the real crux of the matter this extra delay will cause. It does look as though we will have a capability gap depending on when Ajax/variants are delivered and CVRT series are finally retired! We really don’t help ourselves do we?
They are using Warrior apparently as a stopgap, and I’d read one of the Regs has had its ORBAT changed considerably as there are not enough vehicles for the Recc Sqna.
Is the RAC retiring the CVR(T) family too quickly?
I know some Warriors are being prepared (and crews trained) to replace Scimitar as a stop-gap recce vehicle until Ajax is fielded – but what is replacing Sultan and all the other CVR(T)s until Ajax variants are fielded? If we go to war tomorrow, what do we go with?
Retirement, so I read, is 2023 for the CVRT family.
Re Sultan, no idea. It is not great is it? The RAC Regs will be going round on foot or in MAN trucks at this rate.
We also sold 123 vehicles to Latvia 2014
That was OK – we built over 5,000 CVR(T)s for the British Army which was then cut several times since 1970, so we had quite a few to spare!
I can’t see why Labour are acting all high and mighty, the Ajax project is a hangover from the old FRES project 0f the 2000’s and it was the Labour administration in March 2010 that decided to go with GD and ASCOD as opposed to BAe and CV90.
Now now you are not supposed to remember stuff like that🙄😂😂
Ssshhhh !
First Tracer. Then MRAV – Boxer. Then FRES. Then FRES UV. All cancelled by Labour with over 1 billion spent.
Oh how I’d love to be on TV having a nice chat with the Shadow DS.
UK defence spending as share of GDP drops despite Ukraine war
By Deborah Haynes, security and defence editor
“UK defence spending as a share of national income fell last year compared with 2021 despite Russia’s war in Ukraine, new figures released by NATO have revealed.
In total, only seven countries – including Britain – met the minimum threshold of allocating at least 2% of GDP to their armed forces in 2022, down by one nation from the previous year.
Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general, said: “The pace we have when it comes to increased defence spending is not high enough.
“So, my message to allies is that I welcome what they’ve done, but they need to speed up, they need to deliver more. In a more dangerous world, we need to invest more in defence.”
He was speaking at a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels to mark the release of an annual report, which included the latest defence expenditure numbers.
For the UK, they showed that defence spending in 2022 was estimated to have been 2.16% of GDP compared with an estimated 2.25% the previous year.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak last week said defence spending would hit 2.25% by 2025 as he announced an additional £ 5 billion for the armed forces over the next two years.
He also set an aspiration to increase the level to 2.5% but without committing to a timeframe.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt was similarly non-committal in his spring budget, saying it would happen “as soon as fiscal and economic circumstances allow”.
Despite the drop in the GDP share, the UK remains one of a minority of nations within the 30-strong alliance that is meeting the NATO minimum spending pledge.
Mr Stoltenberg said the alliance had hoped for two more allies to cross that 2% threshold but said their failure to do so was because GDP had grown faster than expected.
He did not specify which countries he was referring to.
Allies have increased overall defence spending for the eighth consecutive year but the NATO chief added: “It is obvious that we need to do more and we need to do it faster.”
“And we need to do it faster”
Agreed.
LINK
Well it’s good news Ajax is performing better with CH3 ,Boxer, and Archer platform coming into service it’s time we look after our Army been forgotten about far to long 🇬🇧
The 2030 are looking pretty good.
Ch3, ajax, boxer, type 26, type 31, type 45 sorted out, both carriers thoroughly shaken down, f35 fully into service, dreadnought coming online, all astute up and running etc!
Surely the future is looking good?
Yes, hopefully, but that will be a long 7 year wait.
Don’t say positive stuff, the suicide squad will hate you. We all know the country is in decline and nothing done by MOD is successful and we have the smallest military budget on the planet!
Don’t forget Tempest, E3, FC/ASW, FSS ships, all manner of drones, more M270 with long range fires, MFP (more Archer perhaps), Dragonfire, etc etc
There is also investment at Barrow which could enable SSN(R) to be built in greater numbers than Astute.
There is lots going on. Could do with a little more cash though to bring it all together and spend on enablers.
So imagine that this does play out on time from now, what are we going to do with 500+ tracked scout vehicles given that we’ll only have 150 tanks and no tracked IFV? Isn’t the ratio of tracked scout/recce to tank meant to be around 1:1?
Secondly, will recce even be done by manned vehicles in the 2030’s? Ajax has no integrated drone or ATGM unlike the new CV90’s. It’s going to be born out of date.
245 of the Ajax family being procured are the turreted Ajax, of which 198 are in the Recce/Strike role. I have never heard of a magic ratio as you describe – where does that come from?
I fully agree that we may well mourn the loss of a tracked IFV – all Boxers replacing Warrior must have a beefy stabilised cannon (ideally 40mm) and we will have to trust (hope) that they will have the ability to keep up with CR3 in all terrain and weather conditions (especially in deep, thick glutinous mud, isce and snow) – otherwise it wil be a waste of time – and lives will be lost.
Big mistake that Ajax lacks a telescopic mast to elevate key sensors. Not sure we need a recce vehicle to pack ATGMs, that should be the role of a specialised A-Tk vehicle ie the modern equivalent of CVR(T) STRIKER which was stupidly scrapped without replacement.
Don’t see a burning need for recce from 2030 to have to be done only by unmanned assets. It is very risky to replace the Mk1 eyeball for the recce task – unmanned asets (UGVs, aerial drones) should be one of many supporting tools.
There is no magic ratio, there’s just common sense. When you have a shortage of money and assets, devoting the vast majority of your force to scouting rather than fighting units is a problem. There’s no point in finding the enemy if all you can then do is wave at them. Ideally the British Army’s HBCT’s will have a balance of options.
The Ajax order was placed when the British Army intended to field a full heavy fighting division and had significantly more tanks than it will possess in 2030. We do not need 500 Ajax family vehicles for the HBCT scout/recce roles.
Strike is dead, the spare Ajax are not going into Strike. They’re going into the carpark of the so called Deep Reconnaissance Brigade Combat Team which is not a Brigade Combat Team but a divisional artillery asset. They’re there because the British Army doesn’t know what else to do with them and needs to pretend that it has more deployable brigades than the pitiful amount it’s really achieved.
Yes the missing mast is a shame. I’m also not advocating that MK1 eyeball is totally replaced by drones. I’m pointing out that Ajax doesn’t have the option of a drone, unlike the new CV90 vehicles and probably anything else getting an upgrade in the next five years.
That brings me to the lessons from Ukraine. Recce is dominated by drones. A lumbering 40+ ton Ajax shaking the shit out of a every building within earshot is liable to get spotted by drones well before it gets a look over the nearest hedge.
Another lesson is that tanks run into tanks sometimes, but more often they run into infantry, IFV’s, APC’s, 4×4’s etc. There’s plenty of videos from Ukraine of tanks getting whacked by things other than tanks. ATGM kills savagely outweigh tank on tank kills. The argument that we don’t need ATGM’s on IFV’s and Recce vehicles is the same argument as “We don’t need AShM’s on warships because sinking ships is a job for Astute’s”. The response to that is how likely is it that you will have an Astute or tank available when you need one in the asset starved British Army and the chaos of peer-warfare.
Ajax has to be expected to run into other recce vehicles, fortifications at ranges exceeding 2km, IFV’s and tanks. At times it will run into these things blind and at close range, like American Bradley tanks ran into T-72’s in the Iraq War.
Ajax has no drone to scout the ground ahead and ensure that it doesn’t run into trouble. It’s big and noisy and heavy and has no mast for checking over terrain concealing features. It has no APS to protect itself from the prolific ATGM’s that every man and his dog now has. It has no ATGM to take out an enemy vehicle before they can open fire.
No one else would buy it.
What I’d advocate is changing the ratio’s so that there’s more Ares and to procure a common remote CTA-40 + Akeron turret with APS for both Ares IFV and Boxer IFV versions. Accept having a very small but well equipped Heavy Division. Put CS/CSS on something cheaper than the Ajax family and perhaps look to eventually fill them in with tracked Boxer down the line.
I speak as a layman. I think you have proposed some promising lines of thought. I note that GD Griffen is based on ASCOD – given Akeron, Ajax might have as much of a future as a light tank than a discrete recce vehicle. Ares only carries 4 men I think so is not an IFV but I wonder if it might be feasible to make an IFV version. Would the army prefer such a tracked option to a turreted wheeled Boxer?
The Ares version has room for 6 if you remove some of the stowage. I think the army has already entirely ditched any hope of a tracked IFV in the foreseeable future so it’s all irrelevant anyway. It’s not based on what they want, they’ve fucked their equipment plan so badly that they have to make the best of their bad choices. Remarkably they’re still even then making bad choices on top of the old bad choices but they’re committed to Boxer and Ajax.
Well, as the saying goes, ‘we are where we are’ and the finances mean we will have to think carefully where to spend next. The received wisdom is that Boxer is very expensive. A CTA40mm module IFV would be nice …but at what cost? Would you have a workable / cheaper / sooner ( and tracked) IFV solution if you put a Kongsberg RS60 or RT40 on Ares? I’ve no idea…just asking the question. I notice the US have chosen the RT40 for the next version of Stryker ( a vehicle which is reportedly more popular among US troops than the Bradley). Warrior will be valid asset for a while yet. I think it makes sense to take our time over the IFV decision. Put Javelin on anything and you can hold your own against the odd tank…if you see him first.
MoD declared that Warrior would be replaced by Boxer in May 2021 – it would not have been my call! But that is what they want to do. It must at least have a decent stabilised cannon.
Too late to consider stretching ARES to make an IFV – anyway it has no cannon. The MoD has decided (in May 2021) to replace Warrior with some type of Boxer – many think it will just have a MG – hope not – it needs a 40mm stabilised cannon as that was the army’s requirement as stated for the cancelled WCSP programme.
Sadly you are probably right about the chance of creating an IFV from Ares. If the Boxer IFV is a done deal then the discussion reduces to a) rs4 0.50 cal plus Javelins b) rs6 with a 30mm (same as US Stryker) c) a remote turret with a 30mm ( lots to choose from) d) a new project….fit the CTA 40mm turret; I doubt we have the money in the near term.
I think it will enter service with option a) …we have ordered the rs4 and the kits which take a brace of Javelins + a mortar carrying version of Boxer perhaps?
Paul, the CT40 cannon and it’s associated ammunition handling system is, in my view ideal for integrating into an unmanned turret. This would remove the need for a large volume turret on top of ARES. Add in an extra roadwheel, hence length and TADA an IFV. Just my ponderings.
cheers
Hi Ian, so far, most folks seem to dismiss the possibility of modifying Ares from a 4 man engineering support role to either an APC or even an IFV. It’s fundamental engineering looks good; impressive speed, tracks, armour, Startrek comms…it seems a pity not to evaluate the possibility, though I appreciate it might be regarded politically as a high risk expensive ( unaffordable?) project. As regards dismounting, the door at the rear seems very small compared to Warrior …I think that’s a basic issue.
Agreed Paul, whilst powered, it is a tad tight for 6 guys to bail out rapido style.
The Defence Command Paper of March 2021 is very clear – Boxer will replace the upgraded Warrior (WCSP).
If those Boxers specifically to replace Warrior (not the other ones) does not have a cannon (just a MG), then it is not an IFV – it is a mere APC – and this will be a huge retrograde step – mission failure is highly likely and lives will be lost.
We have ordered 28 Boxer mortar carriers which replace FV 432 mortar carriers.
I didn’t know we had ordered the 28 mortar carriers. So what it looks like is that we are waiting for the funds to put the CTA cannon on Boxer.
MoD announced the main order on 5 Nov 2019.
From Wikipedia:
‘In terms of numbers, 285 personnel-carrying variants are on order, divided into 85 infantry carriers, 60 engineer section vehicles, 62 recce/fire support vehicles, and 28 mortar carriers. Another 50 of the APC variants are to be configured for equipment support as repair vehicles (MIV-REP) and these are dependent on source presented as the fourth variant. A total of 177 Boxer are ordered in the C4I configurations, again divided into 123 command-and-control (C2) and C2 utility vehicles, 19 observation post vehicles, 24 beyond-line-of-sight observation platforms, and 11 EW and SIGINT platforms. The remaining 61 are to be ambulances. A further 100 with no variant breakdown were announced in April 2022, bringing overall totals to 623.
I don’t know of any firm plans to put the 40mm CTA cannon on Boxer – but here is hoping they do so that ‘armoured infantry’ in the two armoured BCTs actually have IFVs and can support the tanks.
I’m still curious how there are more C2 vehicles than infantry carriers, and how just 85 infantry carriers will be enough spread between 5 Battalions.
Yes, I wonder if the army has screwed up! If a Platoon commander has an infantry carrier rather than a C4I wagon, that is 4 per Platoon ie 36 per battalion – so enough for just two battalions.
Of course that breakdown in Wiki was for the main Tranche 1 order and did not include the 100-vehicles follow on order, so don’t know what type they are.
Maybe the C2 and support variants situation vs personnel carriers is compounded due to Strikes demise.
When there were to be 4 deployable Bdes,
2 AI Bdes and 2 Strike, the CS CSS elements of each, REME, RA, RE, RS, were going to split tracked to the AI with Ajax versions and wheeled Boxers with the Strike Bdes. They’ve now reduced to 2 and the remains in 7 LMBCT and 4 LBCT have no real use for either Ajax or Boxer being too light for either.
Hopefully someone in MoD has recut the order to reflect the change to Structure. REME wagons (Ajax and Boxer) will of course be at both First Line (with Combat Arms units) and at Second Line.
Thanks for that detail; and for confirmation of the design capabilities of Rarden – appropriate for that era. Now I agree, time has moved on and we need to upgrade to fight the same way and win. I’ll bet Ukrainian forces would give their eye teeth for Warrior with the 40mm.
Thanks. I bet our own Infantry also would give their eye teeth for a fully modernised Warrior complete with 40mm cannon – rather than a wheeled Boxer which might only have a MG.
Reflecting on your summary of the firepower available to a platoon today, I find it difficult to believe a way will not be found to replace what Warrior brings. I’d go so far as to say it is necessary to the very definition of armoured infantry. I think that’s why it continues in service …while they figure out what to do / what we can afford now that WCSP is cancelled.
That said I’m sure Boxer with MG will enter service as an APC.
Scholarship question; having made a new turret for CTA 40mm is it cheaper or more expensive to put it on Boxer or Warrior? 😉
Warrior was a very fine vehicle when it was first fielded from 1987 – our first IFV, replacing ‘old school’ APCs.
It later got Bowman and thermal Imaging (BGTI) but did not get the major upgrade it required ie WCSP. It continues in service because its successor has not yet been delivered – that successor is Boxer. If Boxer enters service with the armoured infantry (those who work with tanks) with just a MG, it will be a mere APC and we will have been thrown back to the ‘old days’ notwithstanding that it will be a new vehicle and have a modular role section. To go forward with a mere APC will be very detrimental.
The armoured infantry must have Boxer with a 40mm stabilised cannon as that is what the army requirment states.
I am not close enough to the engineering side of Boxer to know if the WCSP turrets (already made by Lockheed Martin) could fit on Boxer. Hopefully they can fit, but we would need to buy Boxers with the appropriate turret ring etc.
So all we need is an oversized camera adapter 😉
The problem is DFJ, you assume that everybody but you is stupid, everyone in the MOD, that is. So you are either a technical wizard of the highest order….or?
I’m just another layman and my thoughts are formed from reading in depth what the people who are very clued up are saying, like on pretty much any topic. The Army is a total clusterfuck however and I’m not going to give the MOD the benefit of the doubt. The Ajax program is a complete and utter clusterfuck, that’s just a fact.
I’m very very very happy for someone more informed to go through my post and explain why I’m wrong.
Well Mr. Layman, the trouble is you keep repeating the nonsense of the popular press headlines. If you bothered to pay attention to some of the knowledgeable posters on this site who actually work and have worked within the defence industry and have served, you would know that everything looks easy to a “genius” that never has to do the job. You would also know that many of your comments are nonsense,if you read what those with Experience know. But hey why bother to look intelligent…..
Very interesting post – many thanks. Armoured recce vehicles are of course found as close recce assets in armd inf bns and armoured regts – plus medium or formation recce deployed in the FEBA and sometimes on the flanks. So are not uniquely ratiod to the number of tanks in the deployed force.
Interesting that we bought over 5,000 CVR(Ts) and now 589 replacements draws criticism – albeit the army has shrunk since the 1970s.
Not all the 589 vehicles are deployed in scouting, but I understand your point about imbalance. Our armoured BCTs (ABCT) of course can do more than wave at the enemy with their armored regiments (albeit 2 rather than 3 for 3xx under Future Soldier), infantry battalions and artillery regiments. 1st DSR BCT also has punch, but I agree that its structure would be better if it were a third ABCT as it cannot seize and hold ground, lacking infantry as it does.
I think some trials need to be done to see if Ajax would benefit from operating a drone – I see pros and cons. I always thought that recce vehicles need to be low signature, to have high terrain-crossing capability and be agile (other factos abound) – and a 38-42t Ajax sows some seeds of doubt, so a drone may help to check an intended route as well as to look over the next hill if the enemy threat there is exceptionally high.
If Ajax runs into tanks, the Ajax crew has mucked up badly (or is unbleivably unlucky) – it does not exist to duel with tanks, so I hesitate to advocate ATGMs on recce vehicles. Recce should be done by stealth, not by fighting. Significant numbers of ATGMs belong on a tank destroyer ie the modern version of CVR(T) STRIKER – and perhaps in a less numerous way (say 2 missiles) on an IFV.
You want to put CS/CSS on a cheaper vehicle than Ajax. I have no problem with: CS – 23 Ajax for Joint Fire Control, 51 Argus for Engr Recce. CSS – no RLC operating Ajax family, REME operating Atlas and Apollo.
GM, for telescopic mast read “drone”. There is no future in telescopic masts outside of subs!
No future in telescopic masts! They are everywhere. I think in my first fieldcraft lesson in conducting recces in the army cadets it was stressed the importance of gaining height for an uninterrupted and longer range view – and better radio comms.
When I worked with the Canadian Forces I was always impressed by their Coyote recce vehicle with a telescopic mast (ISD 1996). There are several other countries which elevate surveillance sensors (and radio transceivers) by means of a telescopic mast, too numerous to mention.
Vehicle can be under or in cover whilst using mast mounted sensors.
So you prefer a drone instead to get elevation? There are downsides – the drone and ancillaries in its storage box and its fuel takes up space. It can be jammed or shot down – expensive sensor is then lost – and vehicle can not do much more. Drone must be recovered before the vehicle can move off. Launch and recovery of drone can give away the vehicles position. Preparing, launching, flying and recovering a drone adds to crew workload.
I am not opposed to drones as an aid to recce, but the drone fanboys see no downsides.
GM comments appreciated and noted. However, my comments emphasised “future”, whilst telescopic masts may have been great in the past, they are the past. With drones, you ain’t seen nothing yet. They will, over the coming years get exponentially better. AI in drones is at a nascent stage. Future drones will be set a task, do it and return autonomously. And I’m talking 2/3 years not 5/10 years.
Thanks mate. I still think my list of negatives is valid, no matter how much more clever drones get…and are we talking only one drone per vehicle? If that drone goes u/s or is shot down or jammed, then the expensive Ajax will be useless.
Why have Ajax if drones will be so good. Why not just launch multiple drones from a flatbed truck many, many km back from the FEBA?
Infantry are beginning to carry drones anyway. They usually come in batches of 2/3/4 and there is a trade off between size endurance etc
Still seems like appalling time wastage with these delays here. Can’t they really improve on these timetables? Even saving a whole single year would be something! Any time management experts here?
This bloody useless tory government has a lot to answer to ie the British people, conned into buying crap that doesn’t do its job ,work or anything else ,like the said tories, general dynamics got chased by the us army pile of shit ,quote an American general ,so could please some let the British people know when they come into service ,
I’m sure someone will be along soon to give you Labours record on defence procurement!(it isn’t good) As stated above this saga actually started with them👍
Exactly jacko,Labour are just as guilty and what they will come up with?our boys need the stuff now not years from now ,start praying all of us ,personally if Labour do nothing shit creek here we come but I forget we all ready are
I’ve lost “track”, pardon the pun, but can someone here confirm that the Warrier upgrade is dead in water and there’s not even a smidgeon of a partial upgrade happening? It seems it’ll also be ages before the Army sees a new tracked APC/IFV.
Correct, not even a smidgeon
What I am wondering is whether serious consideration might actually be being given to the notion that you can construct an effective armoured infantry battalion without a Warrior replacement i.e. with currently known Ajax assets, additional Boxer variants ( e.g. mortar, overwatch) but not a turreted IFV.
Or are we just finding it difficult financially to fund a 40mm CTA Boxer project or even buy one of the available 30mm cannon turrets?
Hi Paul, without any real depth of knowledge on the subject I can only offer an opinion. My thoughts are that everything Army wise, at the moment is driven by a financial imperative, rather than an operational one. So, will the MOD spring for a 40mm CTAi turret? Only because they have c. 250 cannons lurking in Donnington.
Cheers
I suppose that’s what I was I was driving at in a tangential way. As far as I understand the IFV came into being for a reason. If that reason has not gone away it’s still needed. And you can just imagine what the press would make of a fire sale of 40mm cannons.
Totally agree Paul.
Cheers
An IFV (by definition is equipped with a cannon) is central to the structure and role of an armoured infantry battalion.
We have had a cannon since 1987 (ISD of Warrior) to provide fire support to infantry whether they are advancing to contact, debussing or in a defensive position. Why do you want to lose four cannons per platoon? Are you a bean counter? The troops need this firepower to seize objectives or defend positions. With a very small army, organic firepower is even more vital hence the army requirement to boost that capability to a stablised and larger calibre cannon which would have been provided by the Warrior upgrade programme (WCSP).
Without organic cannons the Armoured Infantry may fail to achieve their mission and lives will be lost.
Well, not a bean counter..a tax payer of course 🙂
I agree the cannon is at the centre of the discussion. If you don’t have one then you end up using a (very expensive) Javelin or similar.
In some of my reading I have formed the impression that in many situations 30mm is not enough so I can appreciate the desire to move to 40mm and not just any 40mm; the CTA cannon shells appear to be a quantum level above other 40mm.
Paul, the CT40 round is a very effective beast in all of it’s variations. APFSDS will penetrate 140mm of RHA at 1500m, the airburst round (to be introduced) is very good against troops in cover or behind cover, the HE round carries a lot of bang in it’s 40mm.
cheers
The RARDEN 30mm cannon’s primary targets are enemy APCs/IFVs at ranges of 1000-1500m but can also penetrate side armour of most Russian tanks. It also provides general suppressive fire in the general direction of the enemy whether the enemy are dismounted, in strong points, buildings etc
A Platoon with 4 Warriors will have 800 rounds of 30mm cannon ammo that it could put down against a variety of target types, before resupply. It is not remotely comparable to loosing off 1 or 2 Javelins at a MBT.
The reason that the Warrior upgrade included a 40mm cannon is of course for the reasons you mention. If our armoured infantry (those accompanying tanks) have less than a stabilised 40mm cannon per section, then they will have been poorly served.
Excellent! Many thanks. So now we get to core of the matter…the Warrior – Rarden combo is actually pretty good except that the cannon is not stabilised.
Yes. The 30mm RARDEN cannon was designed by RARDE in 1966 and has given very good service over a long time both on Scimitar and Warrior; it was designed to defeat an APC at a range of 1000 – 1500m and to penetrate the side armour of a MBT – but it also delivers general supporting fire, essential for the success of the armoured infantry in seizing and holding ground.
But the army now requires a stabilised 40mm cannon on their IFV.
Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was cancelled in Mar 2021 and announced in the Defence Commmand Paper – and will be replaced by some type of Boxer – such a crap decision.
https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/03/23/warrior-capability-sustainment-program-axed-in-favor-of-boxer/
Clearly the army (or some unnamed politician or bean counter!) apparently no longer wants a tracked IFV (forget APC to carry a rifle section – we moved on from that type when Warrior (IFV) was fielded in from 1987).
What a canned reply from Labour. Clearly they had nothing concrete to respond with.
Unless the latest technology and capabilities are utilised and not the specifications demanded ten plus years ago, it may still be a viable replacement.
Just a thought. Since the army plans on a tank force of 148 Challenger 3, does it make sense to have 580 Ajax/Ares?
From my understanding these are supposed to support tanks, so why so many for such a limited number of tanks.
May have been more sensible to purchase 300 CV90 and with the rest of the money more boxers (40 CTA, Shorad, 120mm mortar, 12.7mm APC, command, ambulance versions), archers, and himars, much better suited for air transport and quick expeditionary force
My 2 cents
Daniele M will explain the proposed Orbat I’m sure.
I already did mate, elsewhere! 👍😆
Knew it!
Those with more knowledge than me (which isn’t hard) will no doubt correct me, but I agree the intention for Ajax is to support CR3 and infantry, not just recce. It is what Radakin and Wallace said to the Defence Select Committee at some point last year. I remember watching it and wondering how that was going to work with Boxer too. I’ll try and find it.
Mind you, Wallace also said that the army needs to decide how it wants to fight a war. He didn’t seem to have much confidence in their decision making.
Rob.
Armoured Regiments have integral Recc Troops with Scimitar and operated various types of CVRT alongside the Tanks, so assume same with Ajax.
Armoured Infantry Battalions likewise also have Recc Platoons on Scimitar. Whether they will get Ajax or go all wheeled with Boxer variants I’m unsure.
So Ajax variants could well operate alongside these units as well as furnishing the “stand alone” Armoured Cavalry regiments, which are currently planned to number 4. 2 of these have been placed into DSRB after Strike collapsed, and 2 will be with the AI Bdes, as originally intended.
You must remember, Ajax was originally ordered at a time when there were to be 3 heavy tracked Armoured Infantry Brigades.
The 2015 review created the Strike concept ( which neatly disguised cuts ) with 2 mixed Boxer/Ajax Brigades ( meaning the reduction or “merger” of 1 AI Bde ) and 2 Armoured Infantry Brigades using the Tanks and Warrior. The current ORBAT is very much the army picking up the pieces trying to sort out a mess it is partially, maybe largely responsible for.
Introducing Boxer, Ajax, WCSP and getting CH3 going was always going to go badly unless funded. Too much in one go.
The original plan was to sort the AI Bdes out 1st ( CH3/WCSP/Ajax ) and Boxer was simply the MRAV programme which was to be after in 2029 and for just 3 battalions.
2015 review/General Carter prioritised Boxer instead while leaving the rest hanging on the branch in the wind.
Wallace is correct. Army – make your bloody mind up!!
Ajax provides the eyes and ears for the CR3s as it is a recce vehicle, but they don’t operate in very close proximity – Ajax are well forward of the tanks (but can also protect the flanks).
I don’t see that Ajax now supports infantry – that was ‘a thing’ when Ajax units were alongside mech infantry units (Boxer) in Strike brigades, but the two Strike Brigades were binned – yet another change by the army.
Just to complicate things, Ajax are also found in 1st Deep Strike Recce BCT, where they will work with artillery regiments.
Daniele has done his best to explain ORBAT to me, but honestly I have no idea.
I watched a Defence Select Committee hearing last year where Radakin and Wallace were answering questions on how CR3, Boxer, and Ajax will work together, especially if Warrior is withdrawn without direct replacement. They said that the army is working that out.
With the abolition of the Strike Brigades concept, I understand that Ajax does not have a support role for infantry, but Wallace/Radakin made it sound as though this was still to be settled. After all, if Warrior isn’t replaced what is going to support infantry?
All will become clear I guess. Hopefully with additional Boxer orders to make sense of it all. I would imagine that if the army had the budget this would have happened already.
I would have thought the requirements identified to fulfill their doctrine would have dictated the solution design- not the other way round.
This is what we need – this is the kit to do it …not this is the kit we have – how best shall we use it…seems like the cart driving the horse to me.
still I suppose if The Army are working it out then I’m sure we have nothing to worry about.
Warrior cannot be withdrawn without direct replacement by something – the ‘armoured infantry’ battalions accompanying tanks would not have a vehicle if that was the case.
The Defence Command Paper of March 2021 stated very clearly that the Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was cancelled, that (unmodified) Warrior would stay in service until the middle of the decade and would be replaced by Boxer (but it was not stated as to what type of Boxer).
The above is an exceptionally poor decision if Boxer proves unable to keep up with CR3 in deep, thick glutinous mud, snow and ice. It will be a terrible decision if the Boxer type selected does not have a beefy stabilised cannon – in fact missions will fail and lives will be lost.
It will be at least 2025 before there is any new money available, given the uplifts in 2023 and 2024 are for specific purposes. How long can Warrior go on?
Any IFV replacement, Boxer or or not, will be 2030 or further away it seems. Lets hope it is a priority in the June Command Paper.
Rob, you make it sound as if Warrior is fit only for the knackers yard! Its predecessor (FV430) is still in service some 60 years on from ISD! Warrior is a mere 35 years old!
Warrior should have had its WCSP upgrade (improving armour, cannon, turret and electronic architecture) several years ago but it soldiers on without upgrade for a few more years. It would I am sure give a good account of itself if ever pitched against current Russian forces.
As it is, a number are being prepared for the recce role as an interim ‘solution’ between Scimitar and Ajax, so there is still life left in the old dog.
I didn’t mean that. It was a genuine question, how long can it go on? If it’s ok to continue until a proper IFV can be afforded then great.
Rob, didn’t I say that Warrior is to be replaced by Boxer, this being announced in the March 2021 Defence Command Paper. End of Story!
Just hope that the Boxers (which are massively expensive) are equipped with beefy stabilised cannons so can be considered to be IFVs. If, not (ie if they only have MGs) then we have regressed to APCs – and that is a very bad thing.
I don’t know the date for the delivery of the armoured infantry’s Boxers, but I hear that the factory is only going to be making 50 per year – requirement has currently been set for 623 vehicles.
Warrior will soldier on for as long as it takes – the army is very used to running on old kit, not that that is a good thing.
And we think we are having problems! Can’t wait for JIMK explains this away😂
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/signs-point-to-russia-sending-ancient-t-54-series-of-tanks-to-ukraine
Just asking… I take it that UK Defence procurement agreements, do not come with the following get out of jail free clauses?
‘You wasted our money with fucked up equipment, so under clause 99, of said agreement, you can fuck off, if you think we are going to give you another brass razoo’.
Looking at Ajax and its low ground clearance and weight I do worry about its performance in Mud. The Russian Tanks are getting stuck grounding on the mud and the Ajax weighs in at almost the same amount. I think its a crap design. Not what I would have done at all.
Please tell me, on what basis do you measure AJAX ground clearance and state it’s crap?
Cheers
It had a issue with reversing over a obstacle due to added armour. that has been resolved. the added weight needed the upgrade of the running gear that was resolved. they are and where early problems
Had they chosen CV90, the full order would have been completed and be inservice by now. We would be developing the many additional variants of the hull for future acquisitions. With the bonus of the Vickers manufacturing plant on Tyneside staffed and ready to do the Challie 3 upgrades too. The loss of that British tank manufacturing capability will haunt the MOD for decades to come, even longer than the AJAX debacle.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Totally agree with George.
Hindsight or forward planning
Lack of forward planning. Unless you think the ChiComs and Putin have agents embedded within MOD acquisitions. Ensuring the demise of GB and NATO.
Issue is with that CV90 lost in the procurement contract. ???? BAEs had lost trust with the UKgovs and wasnt trusted.
BAE Systems has not lost trust in HM.Gov or vice versa. If they had, the company would not be building ships, submarines and aircraft for the MoD. With any luck, they will be opening new factories in England. To build new main battle tanks and many other pieces of equipment for our armed forces desperately need.
It’s the general public and veterans communities that have lost all trust in the MoD and HM.Gov, because they have failed over many decades to fulfil their primary duty. Defence of the realm. Conservative, Labour or coalition it makes no difference. They have all let the nation down. Using taxpayers money to buy votes with fruitless social schemes. They give away billions to, virtue signalling. Much of it goes to enemy groups and states who sponsor terrorism. Our armed forces should be at least double of what it is today. Preferably the same size they were in the late sixties and early seventies. Bigger in some critical areas, now we are no longer chained to the doomed EU. The Royal Navy for example and a global strike capability for the RAF. – Soap box time again.
BAEs were removed from the Lead Contractor on any UKgov Procurement. why they had to piggy back others to get its arse in the door.
All stems from the MRA4 scrappage and the Pissing contest that Grounded the entire Harrier Fleet, scrapped early the Invincible Class due to Gearbox availability.
BAEs in its current format is about as British as Curry or Tea. its a multi-national and the old boys were retired after there failures
Jon, that is interesting.
FFS here we go again another ‘ expert’ gobbling off! Perhaps he would like them for his Scottish army!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1750299/ajax-armoured-vehicle-ben-wallace-tanks
See old Mouthpiece Crawford is on the Free Whisky trail again, the very Kind who sat there and did as they were told Suddenly become experts when they are being paid. Shame he kept his mouth shut when he had the chance, HIC HIC
Stuart not only reads these pages but contributes periodically too. He doesn’t help his credibility by calling Ajax a tank, even with the use of inverted commas. His rant might have been relevant 6 months or so ago, but the vehicle has completed (and hopefully passed!) User Validation Trials following factory fixes and is now 3 months into RGT. Time to move on and to attempt optimism.
He served as a Lt Col in the RTR – that rank would not have made him a ‘mover and shaker’ in the army procurement world.
Yes he does and every time he writes anything, the say of Andrex drops, all he does is moan, as its a clickbait hit, has no knowledge of what is actually going on in the real world. BUT as he suggest he is a adviser to the UK Gov. and you cannot help laugh a fella who suggested we did a deal with Germany to buy Lep 2 on sale and return basis. he loses any credibility every time that hole under his nose opens. Very good at being told what to do, not so good at thinking for himself.
A massive procurement failure from a fundamentally broken system. This has damaged the defense budget and no-one has been held to account. This highlights the massive reforms that are required within defense, yet there is little effort to do this.
Procurement failure to this point – yes.
Not sure though it has damaged the defence budget – it is a firm price contract – fixes were at GDUK’s expense.
The current Army Air Corps Gazelle helicopter was set to be replaced by the Airbus H135 in March next year.
However, the MoD decided, a month after receiving the five H135 helicopters it selected to take over from the Gazelle, that they were no longer required for their procured purpose.
The five helicopters, worth a total of £35.28million, have been put on ice while the MoD decide what they’re going to do with them.
They have never been in service and haven’t left the ground once.
I read that the other day. Quite unbelievable. Did we hear the reasons why they are no longer required?
The Rumour is that sending a un-armed Helicopter into the role like the Gazelle is to high Risk for survivability. Wildcat had taken over that role and its layer of protection. much like the Ground Units fast paced nimble is being replaced with slower/strong survivable platforms.
Interesting. If it was necessary to arm a light recce/liasion helo to meet its role, then I wonder why this was not stated in the Requirement.
Many years ago I was flown in both a Sioux and a Gazelle – it was never intended that they would venture into airspace where they were under threat of being shot down – clearly something changed over the years.
Yes i think that was the change due to the Pilot is no longer classed as expendable. and to be able to take some damage. but also the New Medium Lift Heli is also listed to Replace the Gazelle. You would of thought they transferred these H135s to the training Flight, but again that’s a different contract
For the price of £4 billion that the MOD has already spent on the Ajax the Army could have bought 448 CV90’s from BAE Systems which would have been in service now.