Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Ron5]

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?

You don't have a copy of the KURS, shame on you

[SD67]

The Army have placed two of the five largest contracts of the last decade - Ajax and Boxer. Ajax is somewhere north of 5 billion GBP and rising and the initial batch of Boxer is 2.5. Between those two programs the Army have spent / committed to spend as much as the Navy have on the Carriers and not much less than the RAF will spend on F35 out to 2025.

For 8 billion pounds we could buy 200 M1 or Leo2, 500 Jaguar for recce, 2000 Patria AMV for everything else and still have change left for artillery.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yeah, and about Ajax (FRES SV) specifically the KURS were to guarantee success both in delivering user-centric design and in further, agile procurement
- the company that wrote them resigned the commission a year later

[CMOR]

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).

This, except the fuller story is ever so slightly worse: there was, way back in the mists of time (2014) a tentative plan to buy a genuine "Medium Armour" variant of Ajax with a 120mm main gun, which would have been part of the "Block 3" acquisition. Of course, this wound up being financially non-viable, and so the UK got stuck with the current buy.

[mr.fred]

For 8 billion pounds we could buy 200 M1 or Leo2, 500 Jaguar for recce, 2000 Patria AMV for everything else and still have change left for artillery.

Realistically the M1s or Leo 2s, to the latest standard, will cost £ 8-10m each, so £2bn for them.
I would be surprised if the Jaguar comes in at under £5m apiece once you factor in the full system cost. £1m for the whole thing in fighting configuration isn’t credible. so that’s £2.5bn for 500.
Patria AMVs are likely to be £4m apiece so you could blow the whole budget with them. You could get 700 with the leftovers from the first two, but then you’d have no artillery. Best case you might be able to trade 2:1 with the AMVs?

[Lord Jim]

The Army is basically with Ajax trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and has too much tied up in the programme to even consider changing the contract for fear of repercussions even if the result would actually benefit the service in the medium to long term.

If they decided to revert it role to what it was intended and reduced the overall number things would be far better. Retaining the Close Recce Sections/Troops in the Armoured Infantry and Armoured regiments rather then disbanding them when the CVR(T) is withdrawn would be a start and form two dedicated formation Recce Regiments would finish the job. All that would be needed would be a version to undertake the ATGW Over Watch role, something that has already been proposed by industry with a variety of weapon systems.

I am sure I am repeating myself but we could cut the production order to around 200 for all Ajax family versions and save a considerable sum even after any compensation paid to the contractor. £3.5Bn is still unspent in the programme so I would say at least £1Bn would be available for other programme.

Boxer is going to be the core of the British Army's AFV fleet for the future, or at least the manned part. With its Mission Module I am pretty sure additional versions will arrive but the issue is how long it is going to take and where the funding will come from.

IF we are determined to pursue the full Ajax contract then we need to think more radically. The ASCOD 3, which was the basis for the proposal for the US Army's medium combat vehicle, in its initial form drew a lot from the work done to develop Ajax and as a result has many common components. By using the ASCOD 3 as a starting point and ensuring things like the drive train are common we would have the basis for an IFV. Then using the Lockheed turret designed for Warrior we could have a replacement for said vehicle. I know we have discussed this before, but I know we have been down this road before with some pretty heated discussions. But if the have to buy all 500+ Ajax hulls then it should be considered, around 300 IFVs and other variants would be needed to replace the Warrior in all four Armoured Infantry Battalions. Warrior would have to remain in service as is for a while longer but if the Army set 2030 at the target for the recapitalisation of its AFV fleet it could be done providing the Army with both a New Recce Capability as well as for the Armoured Infantry.

[SD67]

For 8 billion pounds we could buy 200 M1 or Leo2, 500 Jaguar for recce, 2000 Patria AMV for everything else and still have change left for artillery.

Realistically the M1s or Leo 2s, to the latest standard, will cost £ 8-10m each, so £2bn for them.
I would be surprised if the Jaguar comes in at under £5m apiece once you factor in the full system cost. £1m for the whole thing in fighting configuration isn’t credible. so that’s £2.5bn for 500.
Patria AMVs are likely to be £4m apiece so you could blow the whole budget with them. You could get 700 with the leftovers from the first two, but then you’d have no artillery. Best case you might be able to trade 2:1 with the AMVs?

389 Jaguars are being purchased, now, in a fixed price contract of 1 million eur each including R&D. I’m not sure what you mean by full fighting trim. Has the same gun as Ajax and is physically entering service now.

Sweden ordered 226 AMVs for 2.5bn SEK = 250 million GBP or thereabouts, including 100% offsets. Early 2010s. Let’s call it 2million GBP each in today’s money.

Look I’m being generous. I’m not benchmarking against Korea. Not factoring the reality that Ajax will never work and Challenger LEP will end up being descoped. Or the age of Warriors powertrain and impact of weight growth over the base design. Maybe my figures are lightly out there’s an easy way to find out - define some KURs and put out a big RFP.

[RunningStrong]

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."

Sensor rich? It has DVO periscopes and a single NVG sight for the driver? Also appears to have a single electro-optic Paseo sight, an acoustic sensor and laser warning system.

AJAX has 2 Thales Catherine MP Thermal sights, a further reversionary electro optic sight, 360 Laser Warning, Thales Acoustic gunshot detection, driver thermal imaging and 360deg cameras. As well as all that being in a full integrated digital network across the platform.

They appear to be miles apart in price, and specifications.

[RunningStrong]

389 Jaguars are being purchased, now, in a fixed price contract of 1 million eur each including R&D. I’m not sure what you mean by full fighting trim. Has the same gun as Ajax and is physically entering service now.

Because you never know what is in scope of Government Furnished Equipment. We know the CT40 is part of the GFE for AJAX/Warrior, but what the scope of French GFE is unknown.

[mr.fred]

389 Jaguars are being purchased, now, in a fixed price contract of 1 million eur each including R&D. I’m not sure what you mean by full fighting trim. Has the same gun as Ajax and is physically entering service now.

Well, there’s many different ways of accounting. I strongly suspect that the French aren’t counting radios, sights, weapons and a bunch of other things in that contract price. The full cost will be higher.

Sweden ordered 226 AMVs for 2.5bn SEK = 250 million GBP or thereabouts, including 100% offsets. Early 2010s. Let’s call it 2million GBP each in today’s money.

The Leopard fire sale is over. The Polish are paying £4m a piece to upgrade the Leopards they already have. The Australians are paying £8m each to upgrade the Abrams they already have. The Germans cost their 2A7s at £10m each.

www.armyguide.com have rather good lists of programme costs relating to different vehicles. Inflation over ten years is 20% or so.

Look I’m being generous. I’m not benchmarking against Korea. Not factoring the reality that Ajax will never work and Challenger LEP will end up being descoped. Or the age of Warriors powertrain and impact of weight growth over the base design. Maybe my figures are lightly out there’s an easy way to find out - define some KURs and put out a big RFP.

Your figures are hugely out. Your pessimism of British AFV programmes is only matched by your optimism regarding foreign programmes.
Ajax will work. How well will depend on what value you ascribe to “work”.
Challenger 2 LEP scope change is most likely to be a quantity variation. If you’re taking any part of the Rheinmetall option, there’s no savings to be made leaving bits out.
Warrior is halfway through reliability trials with its powertrain and aged hull. If there is a problem there it will surely be found.

[Ron5]

On twitter today. DTR is an Australian online defense magazine. A good one too.

Puzzled by the Ajax line.


"DTR Magazine
@DTRmag
Replying to
@Paulblake8A

To my mind, if they retain CR2 they will need an IFV with like mobility. So keep some Warriors perhaps. But definitely cap Ajax production. It is known that the British Army waved Australia away from down-selecting Ajax IFV for Land 400 Ph 3. "Don't do it" was the message"

[Lord Jim]

Obviously it seems the British Army has to follow the Party line regarding Ajax when discussing it in the UK but when talking through "Back Channels" to other i.e. the Australian Army, they are more open about how the Ajax programme is viewed.

The Army has been forced to find a role for Ajax and with the half arsed plan for "Strike", at least as it currently stands, it was the one and only option to provide the formations with any form of firepower beyond that utilised by the dismounted infantry, be it in a limited form. It is however far from the ideal platform to provide this capability, bringing more negatives than positives to the "Strike" Brigades. So much so that its inclusion severely hinders the primary role for which these Brigades are being created to perform as well as greatly increasing their logistical footprint and support costs.

But the Army's Top Brass fear that any reduction in the Ajax programme will focus justifiable criticism on themselves and there predecessors, as well as no doubt affecting the Army's other AFV procurement programmes, putting them under greater scrutiny, which may not actually be a bad thing.

The Army is facing not a mountain to climb but a shear cliff face as it seeks to recapitalise its AFV fleets, a situation not all of its own making, but those at the top still carry a substantial amount of responsibility. If one is optimistic, the Army may get itself back in order by the early 2030s, but it must stop trying to jam platforms into unsuitable roles just because the respective procurement programmes are underway. Nearly all oversight bodies have repeatedly called for the MoD as a whole to be more transparent.

The Army needs to be brave and honest when a programme may no longer provide the capabilities the Army will need moving forwards, or if the numbers originally planned are no longer needed. It must also be clear when it needs to improve existing capabilities or introduce new ones. Programmes need to be carried out in a far more rapid fashion, n with no repeats of programmes taking decades to produce sometimes nothing at all. Boxer is criticised, but at least it is a modular platform which can be easily changed to meet new threats by upgrading current models or purchasing either whole new platforms or simply new Mission Modules.

With Ajax as production has barely started we do have the option to both reduce the quantity and the make up of the fleet to be procured, and their capabilities. Waiting a few extra years, rather than continuing to rush headlong down the road of the current programme, could in the end see the Army with a far more effective AFV family and operational in the numbers the Army actually needs. Doing this now rather than at a later date will avoid both additional, avoidable costs and the possible waste of reducing the fleet of nearly new vehicles that are no longer needed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

IFV for Land 400 Ph 3. "Don't do it" was the message

+

must stop trying to jam platforms into unsuitable roles just because the respective procurement programmes are underway

I read the situation as:
- the army has done a quick evaluation of substituting new (modified) Ajaxes for old, upgraded Warriors
- and that evaluation of "an insurance policy" that in theory could be quickly executed has come up with some definitive no-no's

Of course we are all just reading between the lines and guessing.

[RunningStrong]

With Ajax as production has barely started we do have the option to both reduce the quantity and the make up of the fleet to be procured, and their capabilities.

Define "barely started". Because I think anyone with any knowledge of the programme would agree that's about 12 months out of date.

[Ron5]

The constant change of ideas is what led to the FRES debacle and millions wasted.

Where I live it's called the shiny penny syndrome. You're walking along to your destination and you spy a shiny penny on the ground off to the side. You switch directions and stoop to pick up the shiny penny and discard your current burden. A little while later the same happens, and again, and again. You never reach your goal and you leave a trail of once shiny pennies behind you.

The army has made its choice, they need to stick with it.

[Ron5]

IFV for Land 400 Ph 3. "Don't do it" was the message

+

must stop trying to jam platforms into unsuitable roles just because the respective procurement programmes are underway

I read the situation as:
- the army has done a quick evaluation of substituting new (modified) Ajaxes for old, upgraded Warriors
- and that evaluation of "an insurance policy" that in theory could be quickly executed has come up with some definitive no-no's

Of course we are all just reading between the lines and guessing.

I'm still very puzzled about the "don't do it".

The Ajax results from a pretty much total redesign of ASCOD to meet the UK requirements. So the British Army can't possibly be negative about its capability. So, to me, the only thing left is build quality. If the combination of Spanish hull and Welsh fork lift assemblers has resulted in a poorly built vehicle, I would understand. But has that happened?

[mr.fred]

The Ajax results from a pretty much total redesign of ASCOD to meet the UK requirements.

UK requirements for a scout vehicle, not an IFV?

[Lord Jim]

Define "barely started". Because I think anyone with any knowledge of the programme would agree that's about 12 months out of date.

Well out of 500+ we only have around a dozen with an actual unit, these being support variants and then there is the roughly 12 development and test vehicles, so that is what I define as barely started. You can be sure that as soon as a full spec actual "Ajax" is delivered to the Household Cavalry there will be Press Releases galore.

[RunningStrong]

Define "barely started". Because I think anyone with any knowledge of the programme would agree that's about 12 months out of date.

Well out of 500+ we only have around a dozen with an actual unit, these being support variants and then there is the roughly 12 development and test vehicles, so that is what I define as barely started. You can be sure that as soon as a full spec actual "Ajax" is delivered to the Household Cavalry there will be Press Releases galore.

There's no shortage of vehicles...

[Lord Jim]

Well only a total of between 5% and 10% of the vehicles contracted for have been delivered so far and yet again no actually "Ajax" have reached units yet. The only ones in existence are those being used for testing and trials. So considering the contract is for 500+ by any definition deliveries have barely started.

[RunningStrong]

Well only a total of between 5% and 10% of the vehicles contracted for have been delivered so far and yet again no actually "Ajax" have reached units yet. The only ones in existence are those being used for testing and trials. So considering the contract is for 500+ by any definition deliveries have barely started.

Sorry to say, but you're way off the mark. Just because you haven't seen deliveries doesn't mean vehicles don't exist.

[Lord Jim]

That is what has been announced so far. If you have knowledge of dozens of additional vehicles being delivered, especially to Bovington, I am sure we would all like the be made aware of this.

[RunningStrong]

That is what has been announced so far. If you have knowledge of dozens of additional vehicles being delivered, especially to Bovington, I am sure we would all like the be made aware of this.

Again, original point wasn't about deliveries, but about vehicles already made.

[mr.fred]

Presumably there is a lead time for all the components that go into a vehicle, plus the time to put them all together. If vehicles are being delivered then one can infer that there will be a number on the production line as well.

[Ron5]

The Ajax results from a pretty much total redesign of ASCOD to meet the UK requirements.

UK requirements for a scout vehicle, not an IFV?

Why would that make a difference? The vehicle offered to the Australians was larger than Ajax to make room for guys in the back. Different turret and gun too.