Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[SD67]

Seriously this is a no brainier decision. How supportable is a Spanish/French/British/German hybrid vehicle going to be, Assembled in a former forklift factory in Wales by a workforce that’s never built anything military before.

Hah, but Ajax is actually Spanish/Austrian/British/American; not sure where German and French came from!

The amount of work going on in Wales versus Spain is unclear to me. I think the idea is that the hull comes from Spain and the turret and electronics are added in Wales, although I could be wrong. There is little export potential here.

Some people say that £3 billion has already been spent on Ajax, which is a huge amount of sunk cost if true.

As for the future force, I just want something coherent. A medium brigade of wheeled Boxers with added firepower make sense and a tracked brigade of Ajax, upgraded Challengers and maybe Warrior CSP makes sense. The weird mix of wheels and tracks that is Strike doesn't make much sense.

I don't think any of these formations are going to last long in combat against Russians, given how much firepower and protection Russian vehicles have, not to mention the firepower of Russian artillery. Rapid deployment of Boxers without anti-vehicle weapons to a conflict with Russia makes even less sense unless the Boxers are just securing the flanks or rear.

Artillery might be the king of the future battlefield and it is unclear how much this is influencing Nick Carter and what he recommends to the politicians. The Royal Artillery needs upgrading and expansion as much or more than armoured vehicles like Ajax.

I was thinking CTA gun made by Nexter plus the german powerpack.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Since when did our Government have its own arms factory to raise revenue to pay for defence?

Many a time; the last being Royal Ordnance plc was formed on 2 January 1985 as a public corporation, which manufactured explosives, ammunition, small arms, guns and military vehicles such as tanks (some 16 factories employing about 19,000 staff at its peak).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Just those few paragraphs from the Times article show how poor the Governments understanding of Defence really is. Yes they are consulting but are compressing the process into such short a timespan such consultations are basically worthless.

Whilst drones are useful

... and even more mobile if they launch from a carrier

Yes agree with you. The army - in the process of setting up a manoeuvre warfare capable division - is static etc etc
- mind you, I faced the paywall and the main text may have made more sense, and only this pick from it or the speech/ comments 'extreme'

[J. Tattersall]

Lord Jim wrote:
Just those few paragraphs from the Times article show how poor the Governments understanding of Defence really is.

Given that prior to publishing this article it will have been staffed via the senior military on the defence staff I think what Lord Jim has, inadvertently but effectively, said is

Just those few paragraphs from the Times article show how poor the Royal Navy's, Royal Marines ', Army's and Royal Air Force's understanding of Defence really is.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given that prior to publishing this article it will have been staffed via the senior military on the defence staff

Interesting; are you in the know about the editorial process? Or just guessing

[military]

There is little export potential here.

The GD project mngr talked about 2 bn in export interest already having surfaced, but it seemed to be for the turret, not for the vehicle as a whole

The Ajax turret is subcontracted by General Dynamics to Lockheed Martin and I believe then subcontracted to Rheinmetall in Germany. I haven't heard of either the Warrior CSP or Ajax turrets being part of international offers by these companies.

The problem is that the headline feature of the Ajax turret is a 40mm CTA gun from a joint venture of BAE Systems and Nexter. This gun was originally designed in the 90s and is being fielded 20 years late. The market leaders in medium calibre guns in the west are Northrop Grumman with the Bushmaster series and Rheinmetall with its 30mm and 35mm guns. Northrop Grumman has a new 50mm gun co-developed with the US Army. The Rheinmetall WOTAN 35mm might become a new standard for Europe. It will be hard to get export customers to buy into a niche ammunition supply used on at most three existing vehicles: Jaguar, Ajax and Warrior 2, especially when we are debating cancelling two of these three programs.

Here are some links

https://www.northropgrumman.com/land/ar ... mmunition/

https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rhei ... /index.php

https://www.cta-international.com

[military]

Here is the full Ben Wallace Sunday Times article on the MoD website with no subscription required. The accompanying article in The Sunday Times mentioning the Ajax, which I haven't read, is not available for free. Does anyone want to quote the sentences or paragraphs most related to Ajax?

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... 2cad153d3f

[Ron5]

We must sacrifice tanks and sell more arms to fund hi‑tech warfare, warns defence secretary
Tim Shipman and Tim Ripley
Sunday September 06 2020, 12.01am BST, The Sunday Times

Serious faults have been found with the Ajax light tank
RICHARD WATT/MOD

The armed forces will have to give up assets such as tanks if they are to have drones and other modern equipment, the defence secretary has said, setting out plans to transform the military.

In a warning shot at service chiefs, Ben Wallace today signals a shift away from static ground forces towards aerospace equipment such as drones.

In an article for The Sunday Times website, Wallace also says the government needs to build products that can be sold to other countries to generate cash to help pay for Britain’s troops.

He writes: “We desperately need to reform and modernise our armed forces if we are to be able to meet emerging threats. For too long we have had a sentimental attachment to a static, armoured-centric force structure anchored in Europe, while our competition has nimbly spread out across the globe.”

Wallace, who is this week visiting Oman and Qatar, also reveals that he will publish a “defence industrial strategy” alongside the security, defence and foreign policy review this autumn.

“Our aerospace industry isn’t just a domestic concern — its exports amount to £34bn. Their exports enable us to afford the best for the men and women of the services. No country that wants to keep ahead of our enemies can afford to not export.”

Seventeen years ago, at the height of the war in Iraq, the UK had 102,000 regular army troops. The 2010 defence review cut the number to 82,000, but recruitment difficulties mean it has fallen even lower, to about 75,000.

Despite the shift away from tanks, data released under freedom of information laws reveal the Ministry of Defence has paid £580m over the past year to an American company that makes light tanks branded “unsafe” for soldiers.

Deliveries of Ajax vehicles were supposed to begin with Prince Harry’s old regiment, the Household Cavalry, last year, but serious faults have been found in the vehicles being assembled at the Welsh factory of the US defence group, General Dynamics.

In July, auditors from the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority revealed that a “safety issue” with the vehicle’s turrets was delaying deliveries and “remedial engineering work” was needed.

General Dynamics has been unable to provide the necessary safety case documents to allow soldiers to start using the vehicles.

The ministry wants to buy 589 Ajax vehicles at a cost of £5.32bn. So far the army has only received six for driver training that are not fitted with turrets and weapons.

The latest spending takes the running cost of buying Ajax to £2.75bn since the project was formally launched in 2010.

The vehicles are intended to form the core of the army’s two new strike brigades that are designed to reinforce Nato troops in eastern Europe quickly in case of a crisis with Russia.

The vehicles are made by General Dynamics in several sites, with its Spanish subsidiary making the hulls. These are shipped to Merthyr Tydfil, where turrets and other specialist equipment are installed.

According to MoD data, 44 Ajax vehicles have been assembled in Wales and a further 147 hulls are at the site waiting to go through the assembly process.

Kevan Jones, a former Labour defence minister, called the project an “appalling failure” that should be urgently reviewed.

“They have spent more than £500m of taxpayers’ money this year and not a single vehicle has been delivered,” he said.

Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the Commons defence committee and a former army officer, said the MoD had “failed to build in meaningful financial and fiscal conditions into the contract to ensure the company shared the pain [if something went wrong]”.

The MoD said the technical problems affecting the Ajax had been resolved. General Dynamics said “it was continuing to deliver further vehicles to the Ministry of Defence on a rolling basis”.

[military]

Thanks Ron5 for posting the article.

The latest news about safety issues with the turret seem par for the course for any new vehicle project. The more serious concern with underperformance is that General Dynamics was selected as the winner for what became Ajax back in 2010. That's ten years ago. Lockheed Martin was selected as the winner for Warrior CSP only a little later, back in March 2011. Ajax has delivered six vehicles to the Household Cavalry, while the Warrior CSP final contract has not been signed yet.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Despite the shift away from tanks, data released under freedom of information laws reveal the Ministry of Defence has paid £580m over the past year to an American company that makes light tanks branded “unsafe” for soldiers.

Strong language, surely the top brass were editing the piece?

Ajax has delivered six vehicles to the Household Cavalry, while the Warrior CSP final contract has not been signed yet.

As we know, a bigger number of (Warrior) vehicles are undergoing a test prgrm
- if you want to test the old hulls 'to destruction' it will take longer than a couple of days
- though the info has not been released, educated guesses have a 30% difference in the lowest and highest estimates for (rest of the) life time costs. It will all have to be covered from fixed budgets... so taking care is well advised (taking this long from beginning to end - which must be nigh - is still perplexing).

[military]

As we know, a bigger number of (Warrior) vehicles are undergoing a test prgrm
- if you want to test the old hulls 'to destruction' it will take longer than a couple of days
- though the info has not been released, educated guesses have a 30% difference in the lowest and highest estimates for (rest of the) life time costs. It will all have to be covered from fixed budgets... so taking care is well advised (taking this long from beginning to end - which must be nigh - is still perplexing).

I am definitely not against testing. You make a good point that the MoD needs to budget for long term costs of running an aging Warrior fleet until 2050, even if the vehicles have been substantially upgraded. In 2050, the vehicles would be 70 years old, or more!

[SD67]

Is there any other Army in the world which is trying to put a new turret on a hard worked 30 year old platform?
It is now 9 years since Lockheed Martin won the design competition, that’s plenty of time for testing.
Also interested in how the old Perkins engine is going to cope - 550 hp vs 800 hp in a Boxer

[ArmChairCivvy]

In 2050, the vehicles would be 70 years old

We have FV430s from the '60s poodling about in the Bulldog form.

[military]

In 2050, the vehicles would be 70 years old

We have FV430s from the '60s poodling about in the Bulldog form.

Indeed! I am confused about whether current (or very soon for RBSL) orders for Boxer and Ajax include variants for replacing Bulldogs in the two armoured infantry brigades, assuming those brigades are kept around, which seems unlikely now.

The antique US M113s in similar roles have just started to be replaced by AMPVs.

What do France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US Marines use for non-front-line-combat tracked vehicles in mechanized battalions and brigades? Also M113s? Have they been upgraded in ages?

[Zero Gravitas]

As for the future force, I just want something coherent. A medium brigade of wheeled Boxers with added firepower make sense and a tracked brigade of Ajax, upgraded Challengers and maybe Warrior CSP makes sense. The weird mix of wheels and tracks that is Strike doesn't make much sense.

I don't think any of these formations are going to last long in combat against Russians, given how much firepower and protection Russian vehicles have, not to mention the firepower of Russian artillery. Rapid deployment of Boxers without anti-vehicle weapons to a conflict with Russia makes even less sense unless the Boxers are just securing the flanks or rear.

Artillery might be the king of the future battlefield and it is unclear how much this is influencing Nick Carter and what he recommends to the politicians. The Royal Artillery needs upgrading and expansion as much or more than armoured vehicles like Ajax.

A few truth bombs here, no?

[Ron5]

Not really ..

A medium brigade of Boxer with additional firepower is the current planned beginning: Boxers plus Ajax. Over time that will undoubtedly change and Boxers will get additional variants, but the UK has to start somewhere. Can't buy everything at once.

Nothing weird about mixing tracks and wheels. Everybody has done it forever. WW2 Germans mixed tracks and wheels with horses!

If Challengers, Ajax & Warrior took on the Russians on their own, indeed they would not last long. But in reality they will be supported by MLRS, AS90, Apache & the RAF. And that's excluding assistance from the rest of NATO.

Everyone and their dog knows the artillery needs an upgrade but everything can't be bought at once. That's the problem with mass obsolescence. And that's a problem caused by decades of shitty governments. Be proud, you elected them.

[CMOR]

Not really ..

A medium brigade of Boxer with additional firepower is the current planned beginning: Boxers plus Ajax. Over time that will undoubtedly change and Boxers will get additional variants, but the UK has to start somewhere. Can't buy everything at once.

Nothing weird about mixing tracks and wheels. Everybody has done it forever. WW2 Germans mixed tracks and wheels with horses!

If Challengers, Ajax & Warrior took on the Russians on their own, indeed they would not last long. But in reality they will be supported by MLRS, AS90, Apache & the RAF. And that's excluding assistance from the rest of NATO.

Everyone and their dog knows the artillery needs an upgrade but everything can't be bought at once. That's the problem with mass obsolescence. And that's a problem caused by decades of shitty governments. Be proud, you elected them.

Ok, but why is Ajax the vehicle providing "additional firepower", a role to which it is singularly ill-suited? If you wanted direct fire support for Strike, why not buy something like the Italian Centauro 2? Something both much more mobile, and with a bigger gun?

Of course, we know the reason: because Ajax is what the Army already had on order, a recce vehicle planned to fulfil a quite different role in the Armoured Brigades. It decided, after signing that order, that it was going to pursue the Strike concept, and it didn't have the money to upgun part of the Ajax order, so now we have a recce vehicle, entirely unadapted, being partially forced into the fire support role.

Re the tracks and wheels mix, the problem is not mixing tracks and wheels per se. The problem is doing so in this particular way. Other countries (such as France) mix tanks with wheeled IFVs (VBCI), accepting the limitations of wheels on rough terrain in exchange for a lower sustainment burden and more all-round flexibility. Other countries, such as Italy, use more mobile wheeled vehicles (like the Centauro) as scouts to perform recce for their armoured formations.

But in Strike, the recce component (Ajax), the thing you want to be ahead of everyone else, is the slowest part of the outfit! Moreover, in the Army's thinking, the Strike Brigade is supposed to be this thing that deploys super-rapidly, over 2000km, in the first days of a conflict. While Boxer, with its excellent range and high top speed, makes total sense for this, Ajax does not. And the British Army is desperately short of HETs.

Moreover, in the Army's thinking (and here at least I think they're being realistic) the RAF/Apache will not be available for Strike, because of Russia's highly sophisticated integrated air defence system. In the opening act of any Russia conflict, the Army will be very much on its own. In fact, part of the point in Strike is to degrade parts of that IADS to make openings for the RAF. Strike won't have air cover and it won't have the support of the UK's Armoured Brigades either, because of the time it will take to deploy them.

And while higher defence spending would be nice, the Army absolutely deserves to take a lot of the flack for the current state of its equipment. No one forced it to abandon MRAV to pursue FRES, only to catastrophically screw that up at a cost of billions, and wind up purchasing Boxer anyway, years later than it could have done, at a vastly inflated price tag. No one forced it buy Ajax, only to suddenly shift it to a completely new role which it is ill-suited for. No one forced the Army to waste years on Lockheed Martin's unviable plan to upgrade Warrior's turret, only for them to eventually realize in 2014 that BAE had been right after all and it need a new one. The mass obsolescence problem is the result of this comedy of errors, where bad decisions just keep compounding on each other as the effects ripple down through the decades. Other European Armies, with less money, have done a vastly better job of modernization. The British clown show is embarrassing and if we were a serious country, plenty of former Army top brass would be stripped of their honours, titles, & medals.

[Ron5]

Ok, but why is Ajax the vehicle providing "additional firepower", a role to which it is singularly ill-suited? If you wanted direct fire support for Strike, why not buy something like the Italian Centauro 2? Something both much more mobile, and with a bigger gun?

Can't buy everything at once.

Of course, we know the reason: because Ajax is what the Army already had on order, a recce vehicle planned to fulfil a quite different role in the Armoured Brigades. It decided, after signing that order, that it was going to pursue the Strike concept, and it didn't have the money to upgun part of the Ajax order, so now we have a recce vehicle, entirely unadapted, being partially forced into the fire support role.

Ajax was acquired to fill two roles: reconnaissance and medium armor. It will perform role 1 with the heavy armor and role 2 with Strike.

Re the tracks and wheels mix, the problem is not mixing tracks and wheels per se. The problem is doing so in this particular way. Other countries (such as France) mix tanks with wheeled IFVs (VBCI), accepting the limitations of wheels on rough terrain in exchange for a lower sustainment burden and more all-round flexibility. Other countries, such as Italy, use more mobile wheeled vehicles (like the Centauro) as scouts to perform recce for their armoured formations.

You are assuming a "particular way" and then condemning it. We have to wait to see how Ajax will operate with Boxer.

But in Strike, the recce component (Ajax), the thing you want to be ahead of everyone else, is the slowest part of the outfit! Moreover, in the Army's thinking, the Strike Brigade is supposed to be this thing that deploys super-rapidly, over 2000km, in the first days of a conflict. While Boxer, with its excellent range and high top speed, makes total sense for this, Ajax does not. And the British Army is desperately short of HETs.

You are assuming that Ajax is to perform a recce role for Strike and then condemning it. Yes, the Boxer has better strategic mobility than Ajax. But on the other hand, Ajax as medium armor is better protected and has a bigger gun.

Moreover, in the Army's thinking (and here at least I think they're being realistic) the RAF/Apache will not be available for Strike, because of Russia's highly sophisticated integrated air defence system. In the opening act of any Russia conflict, the Army will be very much on its own. In fact, part of the point in Strike is to degrade parts of that IADS to make openings for the RAF. Strike won't have air cover and it won't have the support of the UK's Armoured Brigades either, because of the time it will take to deploy them.

I thought the discussion was about the survivability of heavy armor vs the Russians. In which case the RAF & AAC will have a huge role to play. The AAC will act as part of combined arms, it will not operate independently of armor or infantry and vica versa. The RAF will support Strike just as much as it supports anything else. The idea of it (the RAF) waiting for ground forces to make it safe to operate is nuts.

And while higher defence spending would be nice, the Army absolutely deserves to take a lot of the flack for the current state of its equipment. No one forced it to abandon MRAV to pursue FRES, only to catastrophically screw that up at a cost of billions, and wind up purchasing Boxer anyway, years later than it could have done, at a vastly inflated price tag. No one forced it buy Ajax, only to suddenly shift it to a completely new role which it is ill-suited for. No one forced the Army to waste years on Lockheed Martin's unviable plan to upgrade Warrior's turret, only for them to eventually realize in 2014 that BAE had been right after all and it need a new one. The mass obsolescence problem is the result of this comedy of errors, where bad decisions just keep compounding on each other as the effects ripple down through the decades. Other European Armies, with less money, have done a vastly better job of modernization. The British clown show is embarrassing and if we were a serious country, plenty of former Army top brass would be stripped of their honours, titles, & medals.

Yes, the mess is partly of the Army's making but much more due to the government starving it of upgrade funds over the last decades. Some of the decisions you list were taken above the Army's level. For example, the "anyone but Bae" movement did not come from the army. There seems little doubt the MoD wished to broaden the industrial base and that was a part of ordering equipment from companies that hadn't much clue, GD UK and LM UK and destroying Bae Land in the process. Inevitably that would cause a learning curve. Of course now those pigeons have come to roost, the decision makers are notable for their silence. Such is the British way: take a decision and if it backfires, let someone else take the blame.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the vehicle providing "additional firepower"

could be fires.
As opposed to (just)

direct fire support for Strike

forced into the fire support role

a little bit of both (of the above), while waiting for the air force to come around, and make a bigger noise? Apaches might be a tad closer (but they are slower).

in the Army's thinking (and here at least I think they're being realistic) the RAF/Apache will not be available for Strike, because of Russia's highly sophisticated integrated air defence system

All sides will have to balance their offence/ defence:
- one may have more 'land' and the other more 'air'
- NATO's problem (with land defence) has always been that where the initial thrust - whether it is probing, a 'faint' or the main one - is coming, will be unknown... so it is nice to have tacair to freely move around and pummel the OpFor. Russia has known this for yonks, and done their best; Israel keeps testing if it is 'any good' .

[SD67]

Ajax was acquired to fill two roles: reconnaissance and medium armor. It will perform role 1 with the heavy armor and role 2 with Strike.


Yes, the mess is partly of the Army's making but much more due to the government starving it of upgrade funds over the last decades. Some of the decisions you list were taken above the Army's level. For example, the "anyone but Bae" movement did not come from the army. There seems little doubt the MoD wished to broaden the industrial base and that was a part of ordering equipment from companies that hadn't much clue, GD UK and LM UK and destroying Bae Land in the process. Inevitably that would cause a learning curve. Of course now those pigeons have come to roost, the decision makers are notable for their silence. Such is the British way: take a decision and if it backfires, let someone else take the blame.

On the first point I'm not sure that's right. Ajax was never intended as medium armor, it was forced into that role because it was already ordered when Strike was conceptualised. But then, without turning this into a History of FRES thread, contracts can be renegotiated, especially when production hasn't barely started. The idea that the size and shape of Ajax is cast in stone like the second amendment is just not realistic. It should not be impossible for a customer as big as the UK to say "on reflection we need fewer of variant x but a few Brimstone carriers / Shorad / tank destroyers".

On the second point, agree the government has made many mistakes with the army, I wouldn't say "not enough funding" is one of them. They've already spent 2.7 bn GBP on Ajax. 580 million last year alone. That's alot of money. For less than 580 million France are replacing their entire recce fleet with a brand new all French vehicle (Jaguar).

[RunningStrong]

For less than 580 million France are replacing their entire recce fleet with a brand new all French vehicle (Jaguar).

But are they comparable to the AJAX design? (and only 300, not 589).

This article is all over the place, but suggests no electro-optic sight for the Gunner or Driver. Is it an unmanned turret? How armoured is the turret given that the vehicle is circa 25t? What's the pedigree of the chassis, some suggestion it's a truck chassis? Does that mean it's optimised for road use over off road?

Interested to know how it compares to AJAX beyond the CT 40mm.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Seems quite sensor 'rich' whereas protection levels are a - at least to me.

This is via Shephardmedia from Eurosatory 2018:
"
Owing to its use as a reconnaissance platform [ which is not the only role] by the French Army, the vehicle uses an extensive range of sighting systems that includes both direct optics and EO/IR technology. The commander and the gunner each have a direct-view optic specially designed for the Jaguar by French company Safran, along with the PASEO EO/IR sight with day/night capabilities.

The driver is sat centrally and utilises three periscopes to look out under cover; this includes a central periscope that can switch to IR vision during night operations (utilising an IR camera sited next to the driver position). There are also cameras around the vehicle, two on either side and a rear-view camera.

Situational awareness is also enhanced by two Antares 360 sensors from Thales, which can also provide a laser warning capability, as well as a Pilar V acoustic detection system from French company Metravib."

[SD67]

Well it's 1 million EUR each fixed price, and being delivered.

[Ron5]

On the first point I'm not sure that's right. Ajax was never intended as medium armor, it was forced into that role because it was already ordered when Strike was conceptualised.

Numbers ordered should convince you. Always way too many for just a reconn vehicle. The medium armor requirement was independent of Strike.

contracts can be renegotiated, especially when production hasn't barely started. The idea that the size and shape of Ajax is cast in stone like the second amendment is just not realistic. It should not be impossible for a customer as big as the UK to say "on reflection we need fewer of variant x but a few Brimstone carriers / Shorad / tank destroyers".

True but do you really want to add the considerable cost of developing these new variants right now? Can't buy everything at once.

I wouldn't say "not enough funding" is one of them

All of BA's major equipment is obsolete or obsolescent, that's been caused by not have enough funds to update/replace pieces individually over time. That's been a conscious decision by the past few UK governments. It would be like British Airways not replacing aircraft for decades and then finding it has to replace all of them at once. Effing moronic.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The medium armor requirement was independent of Strike.

Don't seem to remember any such requirement, other than recce and then the new formulation for strike... where was that articulated?