Efforts to speed up the delivery of the troubled Ajax armoured vehicles have been outlined by the Ministry of Defence.

The information came to light via the response to a Written Parliamentary Question.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative – Romford) asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he has taken to improve the delivery rate of the Ajax armoured vehicle programme.”

James Cartlidge, Minister of State (Ministry of Defence), responded:

“As a result of revised contractual terms with MOD, General Dynamics UK have introduced a number of measures designed to improve the delivery rate. These measures include:

– Extending the current shift patterns and building contingency throughout the production schedule;

– Optimising the build line to balance activity and recruitment of additional resource to anticipate potential pinch points in the schedule; and

– An increase in collaborative practices, such as the introduction of joint acceptance, to reduce overall timelines.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

63 COMMENTS

  4. Bit of a non-answer really. I wonder what “building contingency” actually means and what are the “pinch points”?

    • I wonder if they could shoehorn in an engine from one of those amazing racing trucks they enjoy in Germany?
      Those things really shift.

      • Hi Peter, from TG:
        “The official FIA European Truck Racing Championship may look agricultural, but in 2021 the series switched to using a 100 per cent sustainable fuel (HVO). This reduces net CO2 emissions by around 90 per cent. The engines are capped at 13 litres in capacity and power the rear wheels with 1,100bhp and 4,794lb ft of torque. They come from standard production, but teams change the internals to make these proper racing power units.”

        The downside would be coupling it to the 6 speed auto transmission of the AJAX platform I think. The MTU V8 199TE21 produces 805bhp and 2212 ft/lbs or torques, so in theory, a truck racing engine is an improvement!👍

  8. If there’s one area that shouldn’t be trimmed back it’s checking and testing every vehicle thoroughly.
    Is there any plans what to do with the factory and skilled staff when the order gets near finishing?

    • You got that right. We should have bought a version of 1000BHP CV90, with plans to standardise all our AFVs on it’s variants and future derivatives. I’d pick BAE over GM every time, especially with that engine. Take a look at the CV90 Mjölner. The fact BAE were going to reopen the Vickers Elswick Works for a production line, has something to do with my admitted local bias. I used to drive past the Elswick Works on a regular basis and marvel at the history of Vickers Armstrong. The location where tanks were produced since almost day one. The actual building where Challenger was produced and Pearson Engineering are currently making the Challenger 3 turrets. I’m told it’s based on the Vickers universal turret design (see Vickers Mk 7 tank) and likely fits on CV90 too, with a little tweaking here and tucking there. 🙂

      I expect the factory in Wales will be utilised to build the IFV version ARES or a stretched ARES based on that flawed AJAX design. A replacement of sorts for Warrior, taking another decade of trails and tribulations before placing orders. A CV90 production line would have already provided hundreds in service today and off the shelf Warrior replacement tomorrow with many other ready to go goodies. 105mm/120mm direct fire and tank destroyers. A superb Like I said, I’m biased.

      • Unfortunately BAES had no intention of building their AJAX proposal in UK. It would be based on Terrier chassis and manufactured in Hagglunds. It was only after they lost contract they tried to change proposal to build in UK. By then it was too late.

        • BAE’s AJAX proposal was based on Terrier? Surely you mean it was based on CV90 suitably modified for the recce role.
          Terriers were surely built at BAE Newcastle, but you suggest they were built at the BAE’s Hagglunds factory in Sweden?

          • Terrier was designed by BAES before they bought out Alvis Vickers. Most of the design work being done at Leicester. They had an eye on FRES at the time and Terrier Chassis was the required weight class, especially with the new hydrogas suspension and all the reliability growth trials that Terrier went through. After the BAES buy out the FRES SV bid was also led from Leicester, but the plan was to build the vehicles in Hagglunds if they had won. For the life of me I cannot remember what platform we put into the “Trials of Truth”

          • Thanks mate. I had not followed the Terrier story that closely. Seems like another good piece of kit for the RE. [Probably not been upgraded over the years though!]. Its predecessor, the CET, was a RO plc Leicester product as I recall.

      • George, ARES has no cannon, so is not an IFV…it is an APC and carries a specialist team of up to 4 men, not an Infantry section.

        • Yes Graham I know. It’s a replacement for the small Spartan APC and the others in that family, Samson, Sultan etc. I’m sure you know better than I do. Having mended them after Toms bent them.

          Any IFV replacing Warrior would need to accommodate a full sized infantry section plus kit. It goes without saying. Hence my suggestion of a stretched version of ARES. I’ll explain where I think that will come from and why. But first, Austria and Spain already have fully fledged IFV versions of the original ASCOD, one is called the Ulan. General Dynamics Land Systems again. With its 2 crew plus 9 dismounts or 3 crew and 8 dismounts depending on internal layout. The section commander sits in the 30 mm armed two manned turret with the vehicle commander before dismounting. That said, I’m still expecting yet an even bigger and better ASCOD clone.

          Go to YouTube Title: Austria – Spain Infantry Fighting Vehicle ASCOD 2. The main points about Ulan are covered. While there, look for the Cockerill 1030 unmanned turret. JCD have their own channel and my money is on that for the future IFV.

          For better or worse, we have bought into the base ASCOD 2 platform. So it’s variants and derivatives suddenly become firm favourites for future procurements. It makes logistical sense if everything shares the same platform. Especially if the US Army have gone full-in with GDLS ASCOD systems.

          The US has just adopted it’s own huge fleet of ASCOD 2 derivatives. The GDLS AMPV series of vehicles. Even the GDLS M10 Booker, mobile protected firepower assault gun is heralded as coming from the upgraded elongated ASCOD 2 family. By now you will have noticed a pattern developing. GDLS are sweeping the board with ASCOD/ASCOD2 derived AFVs. Everywhere that matters to the UK.

          This clinched it for me. Guess which submission for the XM30 Bradley 2 replacement is the firm favourite to win?
          The informed grapevine across the pond says yet another General Dynamics Land Systems ASCOD 2 stretched IFV vehicle, is clear favourite. Deliveries by 2029. An off the shelf Warrior replacement, ready to go. Commonality with the largest military in NATO and our special allies. Who just happen to have a nice new factory in Welsh Wales.

          • Thanks George. You seem to be thinking that the MoD having cancelled WCSP and declared (bizarrely) that the Boxer MIV is to replace our IFV in the two armoured brigades…. that they would then fork out £billions to buy some other IFV. I really don’t see that happening.

          • I think MoD have lost the plot and are running scared, trying to play catchup. The fact remains, if the army still intend to field MBTs, they need mechanised infantry to keep pace. Meaning tracked IFVs. Along with tracked self propelled artillery and air defence assets etc. I do not accept that tracked fighting vehicles can be replaced by wheeled 4×4, 6×6 or 8×8. They are complimentary assets rather than interchangeable. In my humble opinion, an army without MBT divisions is not worthy of the name. It’s a police force!

            The manufacturer of Boxer, now market a tracked hull. So the modules produced for wheeled Boxer can be mounted directly on high mobility tracks. Search tracked Boxer. I know nothing about them other than they are available now.

          • I agree mostly George. The army has many roles and only one (but the most important one) is warfighting. For that, we need one warfighting armoured division as a minimum. It should have three identical armoured brigades each with tanks, IFVs, tracked SPGs, AD etc – just as you say.

            Sure there is tracked Boxer (a KMW product) which has been demonstrated at arms fairs since June 2022 but not yet ordered by anyone.

      • I too have a soft spot for the Newcastle site. I did my 3 months REME Industrial attachment with Vickers in the Elswick works (old tank factory) in 1980. We built the last CHARRV when I was there, as I recall. That’s CHARRV, not CRARRV.

        • Was that a Chieftain based armoured recovery and repair vehicle by any chance. The one with the crane on top, not to be confused with the equally impressive Chieftain AVRE.

          • Yes, CH is short for Chieftain. CR is short for Challenger. Although plenty get that wrong on UKDJ posts.

            It would be hard to confuse CHAVRE with CHARRV, the former being RE kit and having a mineplough at the front and fascines on the engine decks…and the latter being a REME equipment with winch and crane.

    • The GDUK factory in Wales could go back to making fork lift trucks!….and spare parts for the Ajax family.

  9. George (author), why is the main picture at the top, captioned (bottom right corner) “The troubled AJAX”? More accurately, it could be labelled “The very clean AJAX” or something similar.

  11. Or in plain bloody English, working longer hours, hiring more people, and getting people to work more closely together

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here