Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

Well the CV-90 has proven to be the better more adaptable platform, and BAe did offer to match GDs level of UK manufacturing participation on its second try, but for some reason we ignored all that. LM would probably still have built the turret, though it may have based it on the CV-90s turrets which is larger then the ASCODS, originally being designed to hold a Bofors 40mm that was fed from below.

Just out of interest how many nations have put a CV-90 based platform into service compared to the ASCOD with two or three if the Greeks did actually bring it in as the Leonidas or something like that. And now you have the Rheinmetall Lynx beginning to be bought by teh NATO members who didn't buy a CV-90 variant.

But we were adamant we had chosen the best platform with the ASCOD derived AJAX and were happy to announce this to the world, at least we were over ten years ago. Would our current Prime Minister be confident to do so now? The Ajax situation is due to be resolved by the end of the year. I have no issue with Ajax continuing but no extra money beyond that already contracted should be spent on the programme , and transparency must be total to avoid money being spent under the table such as being added to the turret contract or others relating to the programme. If we proceed GD(UK) must delivers all 520+ members fo teh Ajax family at full capability as laid out in the contract, if they take a substantial loss it is their problem to resolve within GD as a whole.

[MikeKiloPapa]

It's interesting that BAE never appealed the loss of a £5.5Bn contract decided on such political grounds, isn't it?

Not really, considering that the succes rate of these appeals isn't far off 0%*. When the chance of a reversal of a decision is so small , it simply isnt worth the time, money and effort.

* Ofc Boeings appeal against the Airbus KC45 selection in the US tanker competition is an example of a succesful reversal , ultimately in Boeings favor. However it only happened because they had MASSIVE political, public and industrial backing, none of which BAE would have benefitted from in a case against the UK GOV/MOD.

[MikeKiloPapa]

Well the CV-90 has proven to be the better more adaptable platform

I dont think that is an unreasonable claim ...what is indisputable is that , some teething troubles on the CV90 MK IIIs aside, overall the swedish IFV is built to a higher standard and is a more reliable vehicle.
We've also thoroughly trialed and evaluated the ASCOD ...twice in fact....in 2004 , GDELS participated in the danish IFV competition with an ULAN specced vehicle and then a decade later with the ASCOD 2 in our APC trials. On both occasions the Spanish/Austrian vehicles suffered from frequent breakdowns, and a generally disappointing build quality. In the 2004 tests, it was found to have comparable protection and internal space/payload, but worse firepower and markedly inferiour mobility compared to the CV90.

Just out of interest how many nations have put a CV-90 based platform into service

7....besides ofc Sweden, it is in service with Norway, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark and Estonia( in chronological order)

compared to the ASCOD with two or three if the Greeks did actually bring it in as the Leonidas or something like that.

The Leonidas was a homegrown Greek APC which they then , unsuccesfully , tried to turn into an IFV (Leonidas 2).....Both predates ASCOD and as such is not related to the later vechicle . Though greece was an early participant in the project that would ultimately lead to ASCOD, they eventually left the program, leaving Spain and Austria as the only users.
Besides those the Philipines has recently chosen a light tank based on the ASCOD 2 chassis , and then ofc there is the the thread subject matter...your very own AJAX

But we were adamant we had chosen the best platform with the ASCOD derived AJAX and were happy to announce this to the world

Indeed ...i remember vividly how all the GDLS proponents crowed about how the ASCOD was the superiour vehicle thanks to its (alleged)greater growth potential...... ......Dont think they are crowing much now though

[SW1]

Irony of irony

[SW1]

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 06/hcws260

Extensive work has been undertaken on the Health and Safety aspects of the Noise and Vibration concerns raised on Ajax. The Report is being undertaken independently of the Ajax Delivery Team by the MOD’s Director of Health and Safety.

While the Report has not yet been concluded it is apparent that vibration concerns were raised before Ajax Trials commenced at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit in November 2019. In December 2018, an Army Safety Notice introduced restrictions on use in relation to vibration and identified that, in the longer term, a design upgrade was needed to reduce vibration.

Initially 121 personnel were identified as requiring urgent hearing assessments as a result of recent noise exposure on Ajax. Subsequently, the MOD broadened the scope of those who should be tested to all those who had been exposed to noise on Ajax. To date, a further 189 individuals have been identified that should be offered an assessment, giving a total number of 310 personnel. Of these 304 have been contacted successfully; the remaining 6 are UK service personnel who have recently left service and are in the process of being traced.

To assist in the delivery of Ajax we have identified the need for a full time, dedicated Senior Responsible Owner who will preferably be able to see the project through to completion, or indeed advise if the project is incapable of being delivered. A short-list of candidates is currently under consideration. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority are also providing MOD with expert support to establish a recovery plan for the programme.

[tomuk]

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 06/hcws260
While the Report has not yet been concluded it is apparent that vibration concerns were raised before Ajax Trials commenced at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit in November 2019. In December 2018, an Army Safety Notice introduced restrictions on use in relation to vibration and identified that, in the longer term, a design upgrade was needed to reduce vibration.

Is that a different timeline again?

[SW1]

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 06/hcws260
While the Report has not yet been concluded it is apparent that vibration concerns were raised before Ajax Trials commenced at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit in November 2019. In December 2018, an Army Safety Notice introduced restrictions on use in relation to vibration and identified that, in the longer term, a design upgrade was needed to reduce vibration.

Is that a different timeline again?

Yes earlier than previously stated

[Lord Jim]

Imagine if the WCSP is reborn to provide a replacement for Ajax rather than an IFV!!

[Ron5]

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 06/hcws260

Extensive work has been undertaken on the Health and Safety aspects of the Noise and Vibration concerns raised on Ajax. The Report is being undertaken independently of the Ajax Delivery Team by the MOD’s Director of Health and Safety.

While the Report has not yet been concluded it is apparent that vibration concerns were raised before Ajax Trials commenced at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit in November 2019. In December 2018, an Army Safety Notice introduced restrictions on use in relation to vibration and identified that, in the longer term, a design upgrade was needed to reduce vibration.

Initially 121 personnel were identified as requiring urgent hearing assessments as a result of recent noise exposure on Ajax. Subsequently, the MOD broadened the scope of those who should be tested to all those who had been exposed to noise on Ajax. To date, a further 189 individuals have been identified that should be offered an assessment, giving a total number of 310 personnel. Of these 304 have been contacted successfully; the remaining 6 are UK service personnel who have recently left service and are in the process of being traced.

To assist in the delivery of Ajax we have identified the need for a full time, dedicated Senior Responsible Owner who will preferably be able to see the project through to completion, or indeed advise if the project is incapable of being delivered. A short-list of candidates is currently under consideration. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority are also providing MOD with expert support to establish a recovery plan for the programme.

That's a damning statement. @SW1 has edited it, so worth going to the link and reading in full.

And no SRO yet? Seems an obvious problem not having someone senior in charge of the program from the MoD side. Shoot, it's only a 6 billion pound contract. As folks are pointing out on UKDJ, that would buy two more QE carriers or 60 more F-35.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/not-pos ... r-service/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/taxpaye ... -soldiers/

[Ron5]

Imagine if the WCSP is reborn to provide a replacement for Ajax rather than an IFV!!

Imagine the Army leadership and MoD admitting they made a mistake in cancelling WCSP.

Oh look, a flying pig

[BB85]

It looks like the plug could be pulled on Ajax altogether. I honestly don't think the MOD can be trusted to purchase the groceries. From the news leaking out they have known about these fundamental problems for nearly 10 years but continued to sign contracts and piss away time and money.

[RunningStrong]

It looks like the plug could be pulled on Ajax altogether. I honestly don't think the MOD can be trusted to purchase the groceries. From the news leaking out they have known about these fundamental problems for nearly 10 years but continued to sign contracts and piss away time and money.

There's a gross misunderstanding about this, that stems from Carew Wilks' response at the parliamentary hearing.

Noise and vibration have always been an aspect of Armoured vehicles, especially tracked. So it has always been a part of the design and test to consider and monitor it. So of course MOD would discuss it on any programme from the very beginning.

This also has to be considered in the context of the latest health and safety standards and the increasing pressure on MOD from HSE, despite the crown immunity aspect.

Fundamentally though, there has been a failure to protect the fighting capability of the crew, and that's a result of two issue, one of which is noise and attributed to the mitigation, or.lack of, provided by MOD equipment, and the other is the vibration issue that appears far more complex and could sink the programme.

[SW1]

Mood music sounds like it’s changing

[Lord Jim]

Whilst noise and vibration are going to be experienced with tracked Armoured vehicles, the issues with Ajax seem to be at a level that goes way beyond what would be expected, causing actual physical injury to the crew. It also appears that these issues have been known about for far longer that originally acknowledged.

GDUK saying that their crews did not have issues with nose because of their superior sound mitigation headsets would be relevant is the contract was for such headsets, but the contract is for an AFV, and the headsets used by the Army seem to be perfectly fine when used in other AFVs used.

But as pointed out the vibration issue is the issues that could lead to the death of the programme, and it appears more and more attention is being given to what to do if this happens. The use of Warrior would be a desperate stop gap, but at least they are younger than the existing CVR(T)s except possibly the Scimitar II if they are still around. With current ongoing programmes, and unless the Army wants to change its recce mission parameters, the Boxer CRV being delivered to the Australian Army seems to be the most likely choice as a replacement. IF however the Army decides that it would rather its recce platform be stealthy a smaller vehicle maybe in order.

The big change that may come out of this though is in programme management. Senior managers may in future have to be in post for a significant period of time, at least to cover one section of the procurement cycle. This is going to create issue with career paths of Service Personnel and may even affect civilian staff. I wonder how either would look at being in a single post for over five years lets say. In addition being held responsible for said part of a programme, and their future prospects being dependant on meets the targets of a given stage of a programme will require quite a change in mindset.

[mr.fred]

GDUK saying that their crews did not have issues with nose because of their superior sound mitigation headsets would be relevant is the contract was for such headsets, but the contract is for an AFV, and the headsets used by the Army seem to be perfectly fine when used in other AFVs used.

I don’t know if “perfectly fine” is a valid assessment.
https://publications.ergonomics.org.uk/ ... nction.pdf

[RunningStrong]

GDUK saying that their crews did not have issues with nose because of their superior sound mitigation headsets would be relevant is the contract was for such headsets, but the contract is for an AFV, and the headsets used by the Army seem to be perfectly fine when used in other AFVs used.

That's completely wrong. AFV crews have always been exposed to noise levels that exceed the latest HSE standards for noise exposure required today. The HSE standards have improved and evolved over time and placed more stringent limits on the exposure levels.

Previous platforms have been exempt on grandfather rights.

But this isn't just an issue of AFV, but all weapon systems, including mortars which have been a particular issue for MOD.

So perhaps best not comment on aspects you're not aware of.

[SW1]

Grandfather rights the most dangerous phrase in new product development a program or company can use seen many an argument over it. A number of company/institution has been brought to its knees using it and it costs a fortune when it does.

[Ron5]

It looks like the plug could be pulled on Ajax altogether. I honestly don't think the MOD can be trusted to purchase the groceries. From the news leaking out they have known about these fundamental problems for nearly 10 years but continued to sign contracts and piss away time and money.

There's a gross misunderstanding about this, that stems from Carew Wilks' response at the parliamentary hearing.

Noise and vibration have always been an aspect of Armoured vehicles, especially tracked. So it has always been a part of the design and test to consider and monitor it. So of course MOD would discuss it on any programme from the very beginning.

This also has to be considered in the context of the latest health and safety standards and the increasing pressure on MOD from HSE, despite the crown immunity aspect.

Fundamentally though, there has been a failure to protect the fighting capability of the crew, and that's a result of two issue, one of which is noise and attributed to the mitigation, or.lack of, provided by MOD equipment, and the other is the vibration issue that appears far more complex and could sink the programme.

That's a lot of chatter that the quality control issues building the hulls in Spain hinder any fleet wide solution. The story goes (and a lot of it is founded in a RUSI article by Jack Watling) that the hulls vary so much in dimensions, location of attachment points for such things as suspension and in trueness. As an example, Jack reported hull lengths had a 6 inch variance. The Spanish builders drilled and fitted by eye rather than jig and ruler.

If true, that means any solution/amelioration for vibration for one particular vehicle would probably not work for another. As well as the problems that standardized spare parts might fit or not fit. If true, this could either GD has to re-manufacture every hull somewhere other than Spain at a large cost to them.

Somewhat ironic that, if true, the "British to its bootstraps" Ajax is killed by Spanish made parts.

[SW1]

It won’t be the product that will kill it, it will be the politics and who’s door it darkens that does it.

[BB85]

Maybe there is some hope for a solution if the Spanish made hulls can be stripped and scrapped at GD's expense and new hulls made in Wales, I think the latter models where meant to have the hulls manufactured in Wales anyway.
I still think there is more to come on the turret though so who knows.

[Ron5]

I think the latter models where meant to have the hulls manufactured in Wales anyway

I think that original intent got ditched along the way.

[seaspear]

Did someone really believe that vibration could be addressed with superior headsets, There are a number of N.A.T.O studies going back over twenty years detailing the issues of vibration in vehicles,I have deleted my previous connection so members can do their own research .

[mr.fred]

Did someone really believe that vibration could be addressed with superior headsets,This N.A.T.O study suggests otherwise
file:///C:/Users/Michael/Downloads/$$TR-SVK-CAN-AVT-16-1-ALL.pdf

Try a file location that isn’t on your hard drive.

I didn’t see anyone claiming that vibration could be mitigated with headsets, but noise can be.

[RunningStrong]

Did someone really believe that vibration could be addressed with superior headsets,This N.A.T.O study suggests otherwise
file:///C:/Users/Michael/Downloads/$$TR-SVK-CAN-AVT-16-1-ALL.pdf

Confusing noise and vibration is a bit, well, stupid.

[RunningStrong]

Maybe there is some hope for a solution if the Spanish made hulls can be stripped and scrapped at GD's expense and new hulls made in Wales, I think the latter models where meant to have the hulls manufactured in Wales anyway.
I still think there is more to come on the turret though so who knows.

No, the additional contract was to move the systems integration of the hulls (which is a significant piece of work in itself) to Merthyr, not the hull fabrication.