The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it has sought legal advice from the Government Legal Department on the troubled Ajax armoured vehicle programme, following a direct question from Mark Francois MP.
In a written parliamentary answer, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said simply: “I can confirm that legal advice has been sought from the Government Legal Department on Ajax.”
The response came after Francois, the Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, asked whether ministers had ever turned to the Treasury Solicitor’s Department for legal guidance on the programme.
While brief, the confirmation is notable given the renewed scrutiny surrounding Ajax in recent weeks. The programme has again been paused for Army training after around 30 soldiers reported noise and vibration symptoms during a November exercise, triggering a fresh safety investigation and a new ministerial-led review. Pollard has previously confirmed that all Ajax use for training and exercising has been halted pending the outcome of those investigations, and that an independent review, including external experts such as Malcolm Chalmers, is assessing how effectively earlier recommendations were implemented and whether further action is required on safety.
Alongside safety concerns, MPs have raised questions about workmanship, quality control at General Dynamics’ Merthyr Tydfil facility, medical impacts on crews, and the evidential basis on which Initial Operating Capability was declared earlier this year. Ministers have repeatedly stressed that safety assurances were sought in writing from senior officials before IOC was announced, and that no symptoms reported to date required hospitalisation.
The admission that legal advice has been taken adds another layer to the picture, suggesting that the department is formally examining its position as it navigates the programme’s next steps. However, Pollard’s answer did not set out when advice was sought, what issues it covered, or whether it relates to contractual, safety, or liability matters. With Ajax already subject to multiple reviews, parliamentary pressure continuing from across parties, and further decisions pending on training, acceptance and rollout, the programme remains one of the most closely watched and politically sensitive elements of the Army’s modernisation effort.
Well that sounds expensive, I wonder how many meetings and how much this will cost the Tax Payer ?
So, I am advised that allegedly GD’s ‘solution’ is to fit Soucy tracks, this would of course mean new Road wheels and armour. It is also of course a mitigation not a solution whilst it is a proven fact that Soucy track attenuate noise and vibration to an extent. The core issue with Ajax is the design and quality failings of sub standard quality hulls and crap suspension?
Various reports have already identified that hull builders quality has huge variations between hulls, non parallel sides, sides different lengths, bores on wrong centers, bores not square etc. This affects the first 150 hulls allegedly.
The problem here is no two hulls will have the same vibration & noise, emc characteristics. They need to be scrapped but haven’t been. You cannot ‘rework’ a hull with non parallel sides! Quality of welding is another issue. So bad that GD had to employ outside companies to resolve.
Then there is the suspension! Where to begin? Carew Wilkes has already admitted in parliamentary questioning that noise & vibration were a “feature” of the ASCOD design in 2010! This of course was when ASCOD was a 26 T platform! Ajax is weighing in at 40T plus. GD have tried fiddling around in the margins so to speak with the suspension changing dampers etc this approach has failed. Either GD move to M10 Booker style suspension which is a proven fix for these issues or Ajax will continue to have major issues. Soucy tracks whilst a good proven track solution are not a panacea for poor suspension and damper design. You only have to review the amount of issues experienced to date with the drive train. Drives shearing off, inability to reverse over obstacles, noise, vibration, ride quality etc.
Sadly, it appears as if GD’s employment strategy is to poach figures from General Staff, ATDU, REME, DE&S etc who then, instead of being ‘gamekeepers’ become ‘poachers’. Perhaps this aspect of the contract should be subject to a full investigation to discover the exact synchronicity & alignment of actions, timelines and decisions?
Do you know, did the hull quality issues improve after hull 150?
I can only say allegedly! Of course if GD have nothing to hide they would release Hull serial no’s compliance, FAI and any concessions against drawn requirements & specifications Also detailing any design revisions to dimensions tolerances etc
So which rotary dampers are on Ajax? I know Ascod variants had AR01 & AR02. Piedrafita lists heavy duty versions as AR29T & AR35. Have they been tried?
There are so many errors in this diatribe.
The biggest is Baddlesmere’s obsessive claim that the vibration and noise issues are all due to the suspension. And that once the suspension is replaced all will be rosy “as proved by the M10 Booker”.
They are not, and the Booker design replaced a lot more than the suspension. Basically it was a ground up new design with no connection or heritage from ASCOD. The same engine was used but that’s it.
I didn’t understand from Lord B ‘s post that all the noise and vibration issues are caused purely by the suspension, rather that the complexity and of the vibration problems- that they manifest differently in different vehicles, results from the interaction of the drive train, the suspension and the variation in hull quality. So one ‘fix’ is not guaranteed to work for every affected vehicle: also that in may prove impossible to rectify some vehicles, built with hulls that have had significant rework, if the manufacturing batch control records are not available.
Excess track tension energy from overload is released when the track link drops on to the sprocket, this can be observed at marshalling speed and the track seen to jerk producing noise and vibration Poor dampening makes wheels skip, the fact that they fitted anti drumming panels also suggests power pulses from engine is also problem. variations in poor hull jigging and welding would produce variations in resonating frequencies compounding the problem. Isolation mounts for seats, driver controls, thick seat cushions and noise cancelling headsets was a laughable ostrich head in the sand fix. This option was likely tried because the extended timescale had created a cash flow crisis. Soucy’s tracks typically reduce noise by up to 13 dB and noise up to 70 %, the expense of the contract for T40 Cook steel track creates the problem of what do you use these for now?
Great comment which clearly links itemised defects to root causes. Soucy tracks look like a continuation of mitigation measures. As the Americans say GD are ‘in denial’ and need a visit from Jesus. Happy Christmas.
Thank you Paul & Pete for the clarification which is what I should have written in the first place…. However, it being the festive season, my morning was blighted by an overabundance of Glenlivet 12 with friends! Merry Christmas!
An excellent tipple. Complements of the season:-)
should have done this eight years ago
It might have been, no date is specified.
As pointed out in the article.
‘Pollard’s answer did not set out when advice was sought’. Indeed, though it strikes me that it would be beyond belief that after all the shocking years long under performance, delays and overspend on this project, that after the last ‘extensive’ remedial determinations were made that independent experts weren’t examining and determining their effectiveness of those measures at every turn since. As I have repeated many a time the noise and vibrations issues are as good as it is likely to get when the vehicle is new, unless further substantial upgrades are made as it ages, to suppress them or even keep them in check. Maintenance could go through the roof I fear.
Can’t help but wonder if generating and then keeping jobs in a deprived area has as much to do with decisions over this project, certainly making an actual effective military vehicle. For Labour this is especially so considering they are being anialated in Wales. Bad enough in peace time, but these days shocking if so.
TBH – I would imagine the Government’s Legal Dept should be sick to death of the MoD turning up asking about the Ajax contract. If not, they haven’t been querying the contract as much as they should have been!!
I think you’re partly right. It’s a question of providing jobs and the age-old “sunk cost” fallacy. So much has been spent that they believe they can’t cancel but have to muddle through even if it means more money.
As for issues. I was shocked to recently see a video in which the hydraulic door failed to stop closing despite a dummy being trapped in the opening. To me that’s basic, and can only hope it’s an old video…
It’s a staged question to allow the to give a “No details” answer, one Labour MP asking another a simple “Closed” question which will always be answered with the matching “Closed” answer. It’s usually done so HMG can get a very limited bit of info out into the public domain without anyone getting to ask further questions.
In this case it’s :-
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has ever sought legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor’s Department on Ajax ?”.
His answer was basically “Yes I can”.
Or in plain English we want GDLS to know we are getting Lawyered up, so get the damned thing fixed PDA or else !
The other 2 ways to do it is to make a statement in the house (which will result in other questions) or the good old fashioned “Leak” from an informed source (MOD doesn’t like doing that one).
There were rumours of something dodgy in the sale of the factory to GD.
It’s a non statement. If your having procurement issues you ask legal what your options are. Doesn’t mean they plan to do anything, just that they want to understand options.
Agree, but it could signal a deeper question leading to some recompense. Some observers believe Ajax will be accepted into service; however, I wonder if the MOD will be looking at CV90 for further orders, resulting in more vehicle types, just what their future plans were attempting to avoid.
It’s a staged question to allow them to give a “No details” answer, one Labour MP asking another a simple “Closed” question which will always be answered with the matching “Closed” answer. It’s usually done so HMG can get a very limited bit of info out into the public domain without anyone getting to ask further questions.
In this case it’s :-
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has ever sought legal advice from the Treasury Solicitor’s Department on Ajax ?”.
His answer was basically “Yes I can”.
Or in plain English we want GDLS to know we are getting Lawyered up, so get the damned thing fixed PDA or else !
The other 2 ways to do it is to make a statement in the house (which will result in other questions) or the good old fashioned “Leak” from an informed source (MOD doesn’t like doing that one).
Fair, although doesn’t really give any info, unless they are building to something.
Throw it in bin, sue GD for building a piece of **** and oder CV90.
GD UK was set up as a limited company and made 6k and 10 k loss last two years, their only asset is factory. BAE could take over the factory and fit hydro gas to AJAX and CV90 with Bofors 40 mm could be build their to replace Warrior so they get a product that works.
The way things are I hope an alternative solution of this nature is being studied in terms of viability, it’s that desperate. I fear only serious work on the suspension in whatever form will have a chance of resolving this and GD clearly aren’t capable or willing to do it I fear. As you say order CV90 to at least resolve the Fighting Vehicle black hole and at least they can in part cover for these dumpsters while it is then determined if there is a solution at all and if not sort a true alternative while at least having some tracked platform coming on line. This simply cannot go on. I fear however due to IP even if they were interested bringing in another company to sort it, it is highly problematical particularly as this is part of a family of vehicles for GD so can’t see that part of the suggestion happening. Someone has to bite the bullet, it’s already a scary timeline for the forces.
Would take years to get any CV90s
If the comment about the first 150 hulls was even gakf right GD need sacking ans shut the factory down hulls with different sides different len0p⁹ths ard no good to man nor beast.
UK trading standards law states that a product should be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, perhaps the Government should have listened to the whistle blower in 2019 that said rubber tracks should be tested and the suspension replaced with hydro-gas. There seems to be no sign of “Lord haw haw” who goes by the name Ian, he often stated there was nothing wrong with AJAX, he said the problems were overstated and the vibration would not damage radios and other electronics. His contacts in General Dynamics knew best and everyone else was wrong, hope he enjoys eating his hat and holding his head in brown envelope shame!
Incompetent procurement. Duff product. A reconnaissance vehicle almost the weight of a main battle tank. Nothing about this vehicle makes any sense. Cancel it. And, I hope anyone injured during the trials receives compensation.
Well,the below are all similar dimension to Ajax,
CV90=38t (with rubber tracks so with steelys a good bit heavier)
Puma=43t
Redback=43t
There is no such thing as a ‘light’ or ‘small’ AFV with the armour etc required to survive the battlefield!
Well Ajax has gone well above its viable weight limits for its suspension. That was called by some experts and that advice ignored, it seems they were right to warn, sounds like the T45 and similar warnings about under estimating such issues. Beyond that I have no engineering knowledge to offer surrounding it just that those who determined adding the weight have to answer for the decisions made, which I suspect are many tentacled. CV-90 and Redback seem to be reliable whatever their history, I know Puma had development issues of some nature but seems solved and in demand now, so some seem to be able to handle this weight category and the development of such vehicles better than others, but a deeper insight into that might be quite revealing I suspect.
Yep no problem,just making the point when people call for CV90 etc because Ajax is to heavy there is really nothing between them👍the only quickest option really is fitting Boxer with a recce module.
I was just speaking to my brother who’s in the Army, and he knows one of the DEAS leads – he was muttering Boxer out the corner of his mouth when we spoke, so perhaps you’re right.
I wonder if Boxer will just be a mid term solution though – limited mobility over certain terrains without tracks. Perhaps a chassis redesign plus upgraded suspension could be done to allow the extra weight of all the requirements AJAX had, and be delivered in mid 2030s. No tracked armour (apart from the token no. of tanks) will be a big problem for NATO commitments.
Boxer is used by a significant number of countries, so upgrades will come. A reworked Ajax will be put into operation and then ignored until it falls to pieces. The British Army hates paying for regular upgrades.
I think we should be trialling tracked Boxer.
The boxer option is only quick if they are prepared to take someone else’s already in production module with minimal changes (eg compatible comms).
I would also note that tracked boxer is being developed & can take standard boxer modules. If it works as advertised, then the module can go on whatever is the best for the situation at hand. You can design & build a whole new module without effecting existing vehicle fleets.
Original vehicle was 26 tonnes – it’s now grown as AJAX 42 tonnes in its underpants.
Fair enough, but this was supposed to be a light reconnaissance vehicle. It was originally called ‘Scout’ before Ajax. It replaces Scimitar, which is 7.8 tonnes. Just seems to me like the whole concept is fundamentally flawed.
AJAX is as heavy, a quite a bit bigger than a T72 MBT, the vehicle the Russians use to go fight for information.
T72 will laugh off the 40CTA gun, but AJX will be killed at any range by the T72’s 125mm APFSDS round
That’s right. The T72 would be the ‘tip of the spear’ and expected to engage the enemy, to probe the strength of the enemy forces. The Ajax is supposed to be stealthy, agile and move around unnoticed. Not to engage the enemy directly. But, I’m doubtful that such a big, complex vehicle like Ajax can perform off road, be agile, and ‘stealthy’, especially on a modern battlefield with drones flying overhead.
Just Me, its not our usual doctrine to hunt tanks with a recce vehicle!
Also, if an enemy tank spots an Ajax, the Ajax isn’t doing its job properly.
Yes, there were a quite few of them telling us how wonderful it was!
Pete this sales will follow the contract rather than consumer legislation because this piece of kit was not designed for individual buyers.
Contracts can include and exclude all sorts of stuff and it can also shift the risk.
Whilst the law will obviously play a part I suspect that this is simply a case of the MOD getting advice of where they stand legally and who is liable for making thing right (if indeed they are not right).
Impossible for us to judge bearing in mind we don’t know the details of product or contract.
I was going to ask who the lacky was on here who propagated what we now know as GD (and beyond) BS and as you say patronised the mere mortal members who offered understandable doubts based on that somewhat unconvincing list of proposed remedial actions. Thanks for the update.
Pete, the problem is we didn’t return them within the 30-day period, and the MoD have lost the receipts.
MoD should’ve bought Ajax using a credit card, that way they could request a refund from the card issuer 😉
Issue will be if mod insisted on functionality or design changes against the advice of the design authority/ manufacturer. Reasonable endeavours to mitigate impacts is the likely contractual provision in that case which would leave liability with the MOD. ….real incite would only follow a series of much more direct questions
Pete, do you know what Requirements changes the MoD made in 2016?
Hey Graham. 2016…nope..not aware but issue isn’t the design changes themselves ( while always problematic later in a program). Issue is warranty / latent defects liability changes and performance impacts that may result from those late changes.
Pete, Yes, but Contract Amendment which MoD pay big money to do, should not mean that warranty become invalid. I am surprised that there was only one Requirements changein a project this lengthy. Some might consider there should have been at least one more, to specify an anti-drone protection weapon or suite.
Agree. Amendments to contract specs wouldnt normally invalidate warranty or latent defects provisions….and i don’t know if they did or not. However I have seen such invalidations occur in engineered solutions when the customer thinks it knows best and forces an issue either into base version or any subsequent amended versions. Also seen some fatal consequences of such attitudes.
If no such forcing took place then mod will be in a strong position to claim losses and damages.
Everytime I hear or see statements froms MPs the circus theme tune goes off in my head.
The Laurel and Hardy theme enters mine, though Benny Hill might be reflective of the headless chicken aspects.
I understand everything was a mess when they took over and the military especially and I didn’t expect them to fix it over night, but holy fudge there seems to be zero progress apart from the Frigates SEEM to be on track, housing situation MIGHT finally be getting sorted and about 1400 joined the Army which is the first time in years its grown.
Sorry to tell you, but the frigates are running late and getting later.
Too long the MIC has treated government’s like piggybanks always getting more money the more they screw up. They should be held to account .
But the government feed the MIC, it’s their priority, not actual military capability.
12 billion to develop GCAP?
Not buy it, develop it.
Someone tell me why when I go out to a restaurant for a meal why I’ve not paid to have the building constructed first?
The MIC has it made, I wish we still had in house capabilities like the RREs.
I wish Ajax wasn’t a bugger up. And they went ahead with that Blackjax variant looked so cool.
I also wish the military, heck the country wasnt a mess.
Not wrong, but if we did that where would we find the boards and ‘consultancies’ for all the retired politicians to go to? 😃
That’s the crux isn’t it, all flows under the radar till conflict actually becomes a reality.
Still got DSTL. The other point is, these organisation were not free.
I for one hope the issues can be fixed and not all the fleet is affected. Many are still to be built and not all the 50 plus Ajax were affected.
We all hope it’s production issues rather than a design flaw. The latter is too grim to contemplate.
Agreed.
Sadly I suspect it’s a design flaw.. a 40+ ton weight on a vehicle designed to be in the 20-30 ton region.
Well 20-30 was the original Ascod not the Ascod 2. But it’s interesting that while the Ajax has a torsion bar suspension whereas the Booker M10 uses hydropneumatic suspension: both developed from the Ascod 2. I’ve not heard of vibration or similar issues with the Booker M10 before it was cancelled.
Yes I believe it runs fine. It was just too heavy for the original purpose.
Hi M8. Seasons Greetings !
I just have a gut feeling that this is the biggest mother of all screw ups since Nimrod MR4 and AEW version.
A US MIC running it.
GDLS running 2 projects that both involve maximum development of an aging and not very successful IFV that was built and designed by Spain and Austria. And the specs for both projects are “challenging”.
Using a manufacturer for the hulls with a track record of messing up Big style (Spains attempt to manufacture Leopard 2’s).
Using a completely inexperienced UK workforce to assemble the components, so no imbedded “retained memory” no experienced supervisors and promising tight delivery schedules.
A customer who is Gold plating everything and just keeps on adding weight to the base design (US did exactly the same).
Folks in the Army and MOD who just cannot let it fail as a failed project is detrimental to their career prospects.
Given all that little lot, what could possibly go wrong ?
Oh and if I were a MOD Minister I’d be quietly speaking to the US Secretary of War and comparing notes re the Booker M10 with a view to taking US legal advice on behalf of both customers as a class action.
One thing about Trump and co they just love suing folks !
Hi mate!
If we don’t speak, a Merry Christmas to you and family.
Booker wasn’t cancelled because it doesn’t work. It works fine but the requirement disappeared.
Booker got to heavy for what they wanted, it became pointless as it approached the weight of many MBTs and suffered the same mobility issues..
Pretty much the same issue with the Constellation class frigate. They can’t specify something with a suitable capability for a specific task, they have to pile everything onto it to make it the best at everything.
So the Constellation ended up trying to be an Arleigh Burke and the Booker M10 ended up trying to be an Abrams MBT 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Yes we have to hope something can be rescued from this debacle as the question is what does the army do next if it can’t be fixed! From what I have read the 40mm cannon is an impressive gun on Ajax can enough hulls be salvaged to use the 250 or so they are supposed to get can they reduce the weight or strengthen the chassis as this seems to be the problem it’s simply too heavy now! I’m no expert and bow to more knowledgeable people on here but this seems the overriding problem surely this can be solved?
With endless time and money very possibly but is that actually feasible, I’m having my doubts now that it can be, I left it to the more knowledgable last time even though I couldn’t see how that remedial list would do so bar at best for new vehicles mechanically at their best. Now my ‘uninformed’ doubts appear founded which suggests it was more wishful thinking and head in sand rather than sound assessments. Let’s say things that work in the lab more often than not don’t work as expected in real life experience. I fear there was too much determination from perfect circumstances being accepted in the expectation the poor s-ds being used as guinea pigs would accept the concerns had been truly addressed because their superiors told them ignore their own senses. I guess thankfully it’s not quite as bad as those poor so an so’s who were used so disgracefully in the atomic weapon tests by those suit’s forbears but for some it seems the attitude persists.
For all our sakes, scrap the damn thing!! No more hand wringing, rethinking, reworking and discussing is going to fix it. Just letting the Welsh build it is enough to screw it up. CV90 is proven and would be available long before any Ajax is likely to be fixed.
“Just letting the Welsh build it”
😆 For all you know a lot of of that work force might be English?
We’re all Brits, I don’t think nationality is an issue!
CV90 would not be available anytime soon, we would be at the back of the queue
Yeh and according to Google AI there are about 400 on order at the moment with the potential for 100’s more next year with a multi nation group in negotiations at the moment. BAE Systems are ramping up production to about 250 by 2026..?
If I remember rightly BAE are developing a CV-90 recce version and also offered to build the CV-90 in the UK to replace the Warrior. Should have have gone down the CV-90 route years ago. Especially as it countries buying it are allies we closely cooperate with.
Cheers CR
So the key phrase seems to be, “an independent review, including external experts such as Malcolm Chalmers, is assessing how effectively earlier recommendations were implemented and whether further action is required on safety.”
It sounds like the earlier tranche of mods were to do with production; component and manufacturing quality and assembly errors. First job is to eliminate the possibility that these changes have not been consistently implemented – only 1/3 of vehicles were affected. Which batches? Which operators? Maybe there are issues with factory operator training. If the previous recommendations have been implemented and similar issues still happening then are the crews being more assertive and driving the vehicle beyond its recommended limits? Are there issues with driver training? Once you have eliminated all these possibilities you are left with design weaknesses. Knowledgable posters are pointing to the tracks and the suspension damping. Given some money and time these are fixable.
So apart from the Vibration and noise problems, Is It any good In all other respects ? Is It actually good at anything ?
Only asking here as I can tell there are a lot of people who seem to know all about this range of vehicles.
Or looking at It from another angle, The Pin-up car of the 70/80’s was the Countach but In reality It was terrible to drive yet great at the Job It was designed for.
Well it’s got a very good gun… and very good armour and it’s ISTAR kit is probably the best in class.. essentially all it really suffers from is an un realistic shopping list.. imagine the poor assistant of the rich woman with no filter in a large department store.. they end up carrying the best of everything.. but the amount makes them fall down the stairs.. essentially the ASCOD vehicle under that gold plated shopping list has fallen down the stairs… so yes it’s essentially very good at everything…apart from moving.
Jonathan, the ‘gold plating’ allegation gets made time and time again but what unnecessary kit do you think was put on the army’s shopping list?
Well did the army need a 40mm gun on its armour vehicle for reconnaissance? Or STANAG 4569 Level 6 protection… for a vehicle who’s very purpose is to avoid contact a 25mm cannon and STANAG level 4 would have been a good fit.. I did one have a chat with a recce guy who gave a pretty convincing argument why anything other than smoke mortars and a GPMG was wasted and got people in trouble… all he wanted was small speed and the protect from light direct fire…
Great reply. I too think the MoD insistence on the 40mm CTAS was puzzling. The rounds are supposedly 12 times the price of conventional 25 or 30mm rounds. Certainly a replacement for RARDEN was required and one that was stabilised, but did it have to be the CTAS?
If you hold to conducting ‘recce by stealth’ then more modest protection levels are justifiable.
Other nations conduct ‘recce by fighting’ and we seem to have belatedly joined the tribe. I think our collaboration with the US on TRACER (used to M3 Bradley CFV) may have led RAC officers down that path, and thus to a Level 6 protection (and the 40mm cannon).
The omission of a telescopic mast to carry at least some of the sensors is baffling – the Canadians have had this on their Coyote LAV recce vehicle for decades. Others criticise the lack of anti-drone protection, but I am not so sure about that, as there are other ways to mitigate the drone threat rather than insisting that every one of certain types of vehicle (and not others) have their own on-board system.
Yes agree for me the obvious would be cut the weight, by reducing direct fire lethality ( after all the lethality of the recce vehicle comes from other platforms) and reducing the armoured protection to STANAG 4.. this would improve tactical speed and deployability ( essentially the number one requirement for recce) and add support for the sensors ( like a mast)..
I think you may be correct in that they developed essentially a recce by fighting platform.. as per US armoured cavalry doctrine. The problem is as far as I am aware the British army has not actually changed it recce doctrine and it’s still recce by stealth and concealment over fighting… so a 40 ton vehicle that can essentially go toe to toe with anything always seemed a bit bizarre ( not quite on the level of trump and his battleship, but still a bit odd).
There are several videos out there of Bradley’s getting the better of Russian MBTs with their 25 mm autocannons by targeting optics etc. Also reports of shell shocked Russian crews as their vehicles rang like bells, effectively taking the vehicle out of the fight.
As long as its accurate the 40 mm can do a number on MBTs too, without having to take them out.
A 40mm APFSDS would pretty much go through the side of anything and would very likely go through the front of many things at close range.. it will go through more that 14cm of armoured plate at 1500meters.. when you consider the side armour of your average Russian built tank it
A about 8-10cm plenty to protect from 20-25mm rounds.. but a close 30mm could penetrate.. the new 40mm on the Ajax would penetrate at all battlefield ranges.
Steve, Recce vehicles should not routinely be taking on MBTs! Its not their job.
It can be fixed, but really its down to who pays for it. Ajax is a good vehicle i agree to big for recce but other wise a good vehicle. It has be fixed nothing else will be built in time as the back log of orders prevents this. Crews know Ajax the spares system is up and running, Reme know it. To start again with a new vehicle type would take years. Better to pay to fix it then to scrap it, as its the cost of fixing it or the cost buying new kit. My not expert guess is fixing properly is cheaper and faster.
It should really be a communications vehicle that sits behind the front line. In that role it might be possible to remove the turret and add-on armour to make it lighter. Then use a different, lighter, more suitable vehicle for the front line reconnaissance work, maybe something like a six-wheeler Patria.
Reec vehicles are not meant fight they are meant to be not seen, yes they have to be able to to defend its self but 42 tons, whos great idea was that? its heaver than up armerd Warrior.
TM, what is a communications vehicle? RSIGNALS have the role and equipment for that. Ajax is an RAC recce vehicle – its a badly designed and built one, so it needs fixing (properly this time) or replacing by something that is not injurious to the crew. Those proper fixes should not include removing much of the armour (by binning the turet) or the potent weapon system, that the army has specified, presumably for good reasons, for their recce vehicle.
It would be interesting to see if the Ares vehicles have the same issue as the Ajax turreted vehicles.. from what I have read the Ares is around 30 tons and the turret and 40mm cannot takes Ajax up to almost 40 tons.. if the Ares does not suffer the vibration and noise issue then it’s a weight problem if the Ares vehicles are suffering the same issue then it’s not a weight problem, but something a bit more fundamental..
It may be that if its purely a weight issue, they go down a pragmatic route and just build all the hulls as Ares APCs.. and use them for the Mec infantry attached to the 3rd division.. at least then they put the mec infantry battalions with the armoured regiments on tracked vehicles and get something back for the 5.5 billion… all that armour would be very very useful for the heavy mec infantry, it has a weapon station that can fit a 40mm belt feed grenade launcher which is actually a pretty reasonable direct fire option for the heavy mech infantries taxis… then they find a more suitable recce vehicle that actually fits British army recce doctrine and not US armoured cavalry doctrine… pop all the boxers where they should be in 1st division so you and have the 7th brigade as a heavy wheeled Mec brigade and give all the protected mobility vehicles from 7th brigade to 4th brigade so it can form a light mec brigade.. because the only light infantry we have should be in the airmobile brigade and marines… it’s not a great way to have spent 5.5 billion but at least it gets 500 Tracked armoured vehicles in a place the army really should have them.
But still not cheap or fast
we have too many light weight wheeled vehicles that are fast, quite cheap us them, 42 tons of ratteling metal is hardly sneaky
I agree.
It’s lucky that which ever PM commissioned these, didn’t do a trump and name these after themselves. Would have been very embarrassing 😉
🤣🤣🤣
The simple fact we forget in all our bitching about this is that it’s not a mistake or bad management….it’s actually possibly catastrophic. The British army has spent over 30 years and a good 6 billion pounds to develop vehicles for its armoured cavalry regiments.. and we at the end a vehicle that has the crew vomiting in a ditch after driving it… essentially the army has burnt 50% of its armoured fighting vehicle budget and 30 years and got nothing for it, at a point it may have to fight a land war with a peer within 5 years.. that by any measure is catastrophic.
I would think a fair chunk of the value of Ajax is in the turret, which then for me leaves two viable options:
Option 1 – get someone capable and experienced, such as Hagglunds, to build a new set of Ajax hulls, and refit everything into the new vehicles.
Option 2 – buy or build new vehicles and fit the Ajax turrets on to these. The obvious choice is CV90, but a UK option might be to dig out the Warrior2000 upgrade option, retaining the Warrior name and heritage.
The MoD should have monitored and inspected the hulls before accepting them. The early problems should have put up red flags that the product needed a rethink. However tge MoD just ploughed on regardless, and GM were happy to make reassuring noises. Had it not been for the inconvenient fact that troops were getting injured they would have put this heap of junk into service no questions asked as they in fact did. It should have been cancelled and it still should be. The MoD should cut their losses and buy CV90. The AJAX is a money pit and the platform WILL ALWAYS be a lemon. There is so much fundamentally wrong with it that tinkering and mitigation WILL NOT solve. The current approach only tries to put a plaster on the problems when a new platform is needed.
Also I am unconvinced that a large 40T platform without APS makes for a survivable covert recon asset. We should have saved the money and moved to drones land and airborne to meet the beed. Ukraine is showing us the short comings of vehicles near the front without APS. Even if Ajax does come into service it will be obsolescent. I do not think the army/MoD has grasped the shift in warfare and is persisting with plans from the past.
Rob,
GDUK in Wales should have inspected the hulls from GD Madrid before accepting them. The army used to put personnel in the premises of the Prime to oversee things but that possibly is a thing of the past. They certainly never also put REME personnel into sub-contractors sites.
AJAX is a money pit, you say – I think the vast majority of the £5.5bn budget has been spent; the chances of getting much, if anything, back from GD is slim. Past approaches at fixes have been mere mitigations which addressed symptoms (and clearly not effectively) and did not cure root causes. This time the root causes needs to be fully identified (although surely at least GD know what they are…most of us do!) in this multiplicity of reviews.
You say buy CV90 recce version and all the variants, 589 wagons…where is the money coming from? There is none set aside. Don’t forget about Rachel’s black hole.
When the Ajax project was mooted…(Contract Award was March 2010), it was not commonplace for recce to be conducted by drones. It still isn’t, and I know of no army today that has abandoned manned recce vehicles and which conducts recce solely by drones. There will always be a need for the manned recce vehicle, with recce drones as an additional tool. [You’ll be telling me that MBTs are obsolete next!]
I do not beleive all armoured vehicles should be cancelled bur tgey must be srtvivable. Ajax has NO APS, is large and not covert. That makes it very Vunerable. I think Ajax is no longer a good fit for tge type of wae we have seen in Ukraine ie modern war.
You say there is no money for CV90 but we continue to send good money after bad on Ajax…that apparantly is ok. Both GD and MoD have messed up. Mod for adding vast numbers of extras to tge standard model. Not monitoring the programe propperly and nor quality checking the work. GD have to provided a quality controled product and have failed to correct the underlying issues with the vehicle instead trying to mitigate the problems rather then fixing tgem. The MoD of course will push on with tge flawed platform despite the cost as tgey cannot be seen to fail. Meanwhile British service personnel are put at risk.