Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

The future, if it can truly be called that , of the UK AFV industry is going to be BAE/Rheinmetall i my opinion. As I cannot see the Army actually taking delivery of all the Ajax planned, maybe just to two Regiments worth for the Deep Fires BCT and possible the two Recce Troops in the armoured Regiments I cannot see GDUK maintaining the site in Wales unless It get part of the MRV(P) contracts. LM already appears to be backing out with only the Ajax Turrets still on going and this number could be reduced as mentioned above, but that is only my opinion.

Boxer is going to be a bigger programme than the five hundred odd already on order. It will not just equip the Mechanised Infantry but also replace the FV430 and CVR(T) series in many roles including in other branches such as Signals and the Engineers. Also I can see up to six Infantry Battalions being mounted in the Boxer.

[Tempest414]

FPE is dead. GDUK bought the business and closed the site. All sustainment work is now done at Merthyr.

Well ask them if they could build 700 Foxhound vehicles for 700,000 each then. This would be a 500 million pound deal plus the on going support

Why would LM corporate have any confidence in another UK Land development programme? What do they do with the turret manufacturing facilities?

If LM have there export turret ready to go all the pressure is on Supacat to come up with a 6x6 base to put it on . With say a order for 200+ LM's turret line would be back in the game plus UK PLC could have a very good 6x6 CRV on the market and again if if they could build it for 1.2 million per vehicle LM would be taking a share of a 250 million deal

[Ron5]

Why would LM corporate have any confidence in another UK Land development programme?

Why would the MoD have any confidence in LM UK or GD UK after these debacles?

By the way it was partly GD's and LM's fault that British owned AFV industry was killed so pleading for mercy now is a little obtuse.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Why would the MoD have any confidence in LM UK or GD UK after these debacles?

By the way it was partly GD's and LM's fault that British owned AFV industry was killed

A Mexican Standoff is a situation where two are more parties are locked in a stalemate situation, where no strategy leads to clear victory.
- Viva la Mexico! (The Lone Star cowboys might disagree?)

[Andy-M]

Just reading on another forum that Ajax Scout has been cancelled, they're normally red hot with their news, but nothing official yet. Here's the tweet they got it from.

[Defiance]

Got beaten to it a couple of days ago, it's what spurred this discussion

[RunningStrong]

Why would LM corporate have any confidence in another UK Land development programme?

Why would the MoD have any confidence in LM UK or GD UK after these debacles?

By the way it was partly GD's and LM's fault that British owned AFV industry was killed so pleading for mercy now is a little obtuse.

How was it GD/LM fault that British owned AFV industry was killed? They bid into a competitive programme, MOD made their choices. Both companies then invested heavily into UK faculties.

I'm not suggesting MOD should have faith in LM/GD again, what I'm asking is why should any other supplier have faith in MOD who clearly share some of the blame.

[Andy-M]

Got beaten to it a couple of days ago, it's what spurred this discussion

Teach me to read back a bit, thought I had some big breaking news there.

[Ron5]

How was it GD/LM fault that British owned AFV industry was killed? They bid into a competitive programme, MOD made their choices. Both companies then invested heavily into UK faculties.

They sold the MoD a bill of goods to win the contract. Shame on the MoD for believing them but bigger shame on the companies that did it.

IOW they cheated to win the contract then massively under performed. Go look at the upgraded Dutch CV90s to see what the army could be driving right now.



And the money saved by going with Bae could have bought these...

[RunningStrong]

They sold the MoD a bill of goods to win the contract. Shame on the MoD for believing them but bigger shame on the companies that did it.

IOW they cheated to win the contract then massively under performed. Go look at the upgraded Dutch CV90s to see what the army could be driving right now.

LMAO. Love it when the BAE fanbase comes out with this rubbish.

I don't see anything on the CV90 that AJAX isn't either already capable of or would be capable of if it was a requirement. Funny how people think companies are supposed to go above and beyond the contract, and then what, pay for the extra capability themselves?

[ArmChairCivvy]

And the money saved by going with Bae could have bought these...

[/quote]
The recce-renewal for Norway is also worth a look... don't have such a nice image for that one, sorry

SORRY again, the website had a problem with reposting the image in the middle; so the one on top DOES NOT relate to the Norgie (updated) version of CV90.

[Luke jones]

Driving up the A470 after work past Merthyr and saw a turreted Ajax on loader going south.

Didn't realise any were leaving the facility.
Cannon and all.

[RunningStrong]

Driving up the A470 after work past Merthyr and saw a turreted Ajax on loader going south.

Didn't realise any were leaving the facility.
Cannon and all.

They've been running down Bovvy for over a year...

[Luke jones]

Driving up the A470 after work past Merthyr and saw a turreted Ajax on loader going south.

Didn't realise any were leaving the facility.
Cannon and all.

They've been running down Bovvy for over a year...

I didnt realise any of the examples with turret had been delivered due to issues.

Thanks

[mr.fred]

I didnt realise any of the examples with turret had been delivered due to issues.

Thanks

There’s a difference between “delivered to service” and “delivered for trials”

[Defiance]

I don't see anything on the CV90 that AJAX isn't either already capable of or would be capable of if it was a requirement. Funny how people think companies are supposed to go above and beyond the contract, and then what, pay for the extra capability themselves?

In the seven years since they won the contract they've provided a handful of vehicles for testing and they're still finding significant operational problems to fix - I wouldn't tag people having higher expectations as expecting them to go 'above and beyond'

[Ron5]

LMAO. Love it when the BAE fanbase comes out with this rubbish.

Not sure the Lockheed folks were doing the same after cancellation of Warrior WSCP.

[Ron5]

Driving up the A470 after work past Merthyr and saw a turreted Ajax on loader going south.

Didn't realise any were leaving the facility.
Cannon and all.

They've been running down Bovvy for over a year...

Tellingly Pagey has been silent on Ajax, refusing to comment. Yet his support for Warrior WSCP was vociferous. Not hard to figure he's not an Ajax fan. Neither a Bae one, he would prefer Leopard to Challenger.

[RunningStrong]

I don't see anything on the CV90 that AJAX isn't either already capable of or would be capable of if it was a requirement. Funny how people think companies are supposed to go above and beyond the contract, and then what, pay for the extra capability themselves?

In the seven years since they won the contract they've provided a handful of vehicles for testing and they're still finding significant operational problems to fix - I wouldn't tag people having higher expectations as expecting them to go 'above and beyond'

Did you want to go back and reference the CV90 post? Why would GDUK fit systems if the MOD hasn't set a requirement for it? For example, has the MOD chosen an active protection system yet? I'm not aware it has. Has MOD requested a telescopic sight? Also not aware that MOD have required it on any platform to date (does user even want it?).

GDUK have delivered several variants into Army user, with exception of AJAX.

[RunningStrong]

Driving up the A470 after work past Merthyr and saw a turreted Ajax on loader going south.

Didn't realise any were leaving the facility.
Cannon and all.

They've been running down Bovvy for over a year...

Tellingly Pagey has been silent on Ajax, refusing to comment. Yet his support for Warrior WSCP was vociferous. Not hard to figure he's not an Ajax fan. Neither a Bae one, he would prefer Leopard to Challenger.

Has he been silent? I've seen posts where he's pretty happy to talk about how sensor superiority and C4I is the battle winner, and widely accepts that everything is taller than a CR2/Abrams these days!

[whitelancer]

He is certainly right that situational awareness is a battle winner, however I am not convinced by his acceptance of the height of some modern AFVs. While it is understandable why IFVs are the height they are their is no good reason for Ajax to be as tall as it is.

[RunningStrong]

He is certainly right that situational awareness is a battle winner, however I am not convinced by his acceptance of the height of some modern AFVs. While it is understandable why IFVs are the height they are their is no good reason for Ajax to be as tall as it is.

I assume that's a compromise being based on a mostly common hull platform.

[whitelancer]

I assume that's a compromise being based on a mostly common hull platform.

Of course all AFVs are a compromise between many competing requirements, with Ajax I think they have made the wrong choices. You only need to look at CVR(T) to see how to get a family of AFVs right. Choosing an off the shelf hull for for all the Scout variants when it was far from ideal for the main variant which of course is Ajax was not a sensible choice. As a result it is far larger (certainly in terms of height), and heavier than it needs to be. Which if the reports up thread are correct is one of the problems with Ajax.

Incidentally reports that their is a problem with firing on the move are interesting. Up thread their is an early video of Ajax where their seems to be a problem with the Gun Control Equipment (GCE), I commented on it at the time. Their are a few possible causes of such a problem but they should have been eminently fixable. Though it was surprising it hadn't been fixed prior to being shown off. Also during the early firing trials it was notable that their were straps on the barrel, presumable to prevent excessive movement, not something I have ever seen before. I thought at the time it was possible some new health and safety requirement. But were these early indications of the problem? If so and they haven't found a fix by now it would suggest incompetence and/or a fundamental flaw.

[mr.fred]

Also during the early firing trials it was notable that their were straps on the barrel, presumable to prevent excessive movement, not something I have ever seen before. I thought at the time it was possible some new health and safety requirement. But were these early indications of the problem?

Not without precedent, but sometimes it doesn’t work.
https://www.wired.com/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki/

[SW1]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15123499/ ... e-hearing/

NEW tanks which cost the Army £5.5billion were grounded after making troops sick and damaging their hearing.

Crews suffered nausea, swollen joints and tinnitus from the din and vibrations inside the Ajax armoured vehicles.