Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Ron5]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... ek-tragedy

It's worth reading the entire article, more than @SW1 showed here (and thanks to him for sharing). The piece goes on to ask the question, is Ajax really needed anymore and what could or should be acquired instead?

The author looks about 15 years old but he's written some good stuff in the past.

[Lord Jim]

The Author does know his stuff, that is for sure, and usually doesn't hold back any punches on any given subject. The points he raises about the relevance of Ajax moving forward are valid to say the least. His mentioning that the Army held back on Ajax's issues before the review, deciding to keep the programme alive was mainly due to the fear of losing funding is a very real senario given the Treasury's history. I can understand the Army's point of view but the Review is now in the past and decisions have to be made.

If the Army drops Ajax, GD will go after compensation and the resultant case should be very interesting as long as the Government decides to truly mount a defence, which is not guaranteed. All the skeletons would be revealed and for all we know GD might even back down as a result.

Transferring the Digital framework to the Boxer should not be a major issue as the platform is already being built to operate with Morpheus in mind, and has the electrical power surplus and space to accommodate the required hardware. It is just a good job, for once, that the Army has set 2030 at the rough date it believes all its new pieces will be in place, or at least most of them, so nearly ten years to readjust the various programmes etc. gives the Army and Industry time to do so.

The programme most affected by the will be Boxer. It will probably have to take over the Recce role from Ajax within the Armoured BCTs and the Deep Fires BCT, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. A Recce version of Boxer already exists in the form of the Australian Boxer CRV, and if the UKs digital open architecture were added it would make a pretty good Ajax replacement. It also has greater firepower than the Ajax combining an effective 35mm cannon with two Spike-LR2 ATGWs, a weapon the Army should already be looking to adopt in my opinion.

In addition this could also spur the Army into actively expanding the number of Boxer variants is brings into service, effectively doubling down on the platform. With the exception of the MRV(P) phase two replacing a few of the legacy AFV platforms, Boxer would become to main AFV in service with the British Army replacing the majority of the CVR(T), FV432 and Warrior variants currently in service. This would lead to a not inconsiderable reduction in the day to day running costs of the Army's AFV fleet, from training to maintenance to availability. It may even have a greater effect on the platforms to be chosen to replace the AS-90 and could possibly lead to a replacement of at least partial of the tracked M270 GMLRS fleet as well.

But on the other hand if the MoD decided to perceiver with the Ajax, it is going to have to stand its ground on the fixed price of the current contract and demand GDF honour it, and that they deliver the 500+ vehicles to full operating standard by 2025. In no way or form should any additional money be spent on the manufacturing programme with GD. If additional variants are desired then that should be a separate new contract, and hopefully the MoD has learnt a few lessons regarding this. Personally I would use Boxer variants to fill any capability gaps identified in the Ajax fleet so that we have a common platform in both the Recce and Mech Infantry formations.

[SW1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... roops.html

Whatever happens, the MoD and General Dynamics (UK), the makers of Ajax, seem on course for a legal battle over the eye-watering sums involved.

Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace, who inherited the Ajax debacle, pulled no punches when he said: ‘We paid for a piece of equipment, we expect it to be delivered, and like any consumer we have rights. If it’s not up to scratch, we’ll take action.’

If only things were so simple. General Dynamics (UK) has received in excess of £3 billion for design and manufacturing work already completed, and these payments were made after the MoD agreed the company had met its production targets. The money will never be seen by the taxpayer again.

So where does responsibility lie?

The answer is complicated but involves an extraordinary ‘revolving door’ process whereby senior Army staff have ended up working for the firm that makes Ajax, General Dynamics (UK).

It includes decisions to reject a cheaper alternative made by British Aerospace (BAe), and then to change the vehicle’s design half-way through the process.

On top of this, there is the hubris of decision makers in the Army with their insistence that only the very best machine, with the latest technology, would do.

To understand where things went wrong, we must examine these issues, starting with the ‘revolving door’ between the MoD and General Dynamics (UK).

Certainly, for a clique of former British Army generals, the company has proved highly lucrative.

After overseeing procurement projects at the MoD, for which they were handsomely rewarded and given gold-plated pensions, they cashed in by joining the arms manufacturer.

General Dynamics (UK) hires these senior officers and defence officials not only because of their knowledge of securing contracts, but also because of their relationships with their successors at the MoD — the people responsible for deciding what equipment the UK’s armed forces should purchase.

[Ron5]

"Revolving Door" is a red herring designed to pull blame away from where it really lies. Revolving doors don't cause poor contractor performance like excessive noise and vibration. And years over schedule.

The Daily Telegraph had a story along the same lines this morning. Somebody from GD or the MoD has been busy briefing the writers.

The gorilla in the room is the fact that even with revolving doors and monopolies and all the other reasons cited in the articles, why do some (not all) other countries do so much better than the UK?

That's what needs to be explored.

Battle to get the troubled Ajax tank back on track

Troubled light tank reveals flaws in defence contracts, as sector is forced to over-promise and under-deliver
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 31 July 2021 • 5:00am

Trials of the Ajax had to be suspended from November 2020 to March of this year, after troops suffered swollen joints and tinnitus.

Seven years ago, David Cameron, prime minister at the time, stood on Celtic Manor golf course outside Newport to proudly announce a new armoured vehicle for the British Army.

The Ajax reconnaissance vehicle, built by defence giant General Dynamics’ UK arm, would “showcase the strength of the UK’s highly skilled defence sector”, he said.

It wouldn’t be long before those words would come to haunt Cameron. Instead of showing Britain’s military power, the project has become yet another example of the UK’s broken defence procurement system.

Only 26 of the expected 589 Ajax vehicles, so far costing £3.5bn, have been delivered after an order worth £5.5bn was placed in 2014.
Ajax tank. General Dynamics, the firm behind the Ajax admitted earlier this year that problems with the vehicles were known as far back as 2010.

Trials of the “troubled” light tank have also been paused because of safety concerns, which have left some personnel complaining of vibration injuries. Others have suffered hearing loss, which in some cases required steroid treatment in an attempt to reverse the damage.

Meanwhile, there remain concerns that it can’t reverse over low obstacles and that firing the Ajax’s main weapon cracks its hull.

Earlier this month, Jeremy Quin, the defence procurement minister, insisted the military, officials and General Dynamics were committed to making the Ajax a success.

But when grilled by the defence select committee, he told MPs “we can’t be 100pc certain that can be achieved”.

Spiralling costs and scrapped projects

Ajax is just the latest defence project to spin out of control. The Navy’s aircraft carriers doubled in price to £6.2bn, causing Dominic Cummings, the former adviser to Boris Johnson, to say their construction meant billions “squandered, enriching some of the worst corporate looters”.

Perhaps the most famous failure is the Nimrod reconnaissance plane. The £4bn project was abandoned when the technology wouldn’t work, and the jets were torn apart by bulldozers to public anger.

Many are now questioning why the MoD and defence industry haven’t learnt from their past mistakes.

It’s not in their interest, according to independent defence analyst Jag Patel, who regularly submits damning criticisms of the process to parliamentary defence inquiries.

“The private sector is more interested in extracting the maximum amount of money out of HM Treasury than supplying equipment to the Armed Forces that is fit for purpose, adequately sustained and value for money,” he says.

He argues a “revolving door from the military into industry” means people, often without commercial experience, end up in senior positions in defence companies.

Broken bidding process

Then there’s the issue of consolidation. About 40pc of the MoD’s spending goes to just 10 companies, creating what Patel calls a “stranglehold” with no real competition that results in persistent delays and rising costs.

Prof Trevor Taylor, director of defence industries at think tank RUSI, believes problems in defence procurement are inevitable.

“A lot of contracts are a competition of promises,” he says. “The companies are saying they will develop, test and produce something by a set date, often with technologies that don’t yet exist. And for a set price. It’s crazy.”

The problem is compounded by the scale of many projects, according to Taylor. “These contracts are so large that for some firms, if they don’t win them, they are out of business.”

This incentivises companies fighting for contracts to promise the lowest price, the fastest time and the highest performance, meaning “both sides telling lies”, says Taylor.

That leads to rising costs and delays when those promises turn out to be impossible to keep. “The problem is the MoD is being pushed for a price by the Government so they can budget it,” says one UK defence boss.

The MoD pushes a “prosperity agenda”, trying to encourage new companies, especially SMEs, into defence procurement, something that would also create more competition. But this creates fresh problems, says Taylor.

“SMEs are asked, ‘are you financially sound, have you got experience?’ in invitations to tender,” he says. “They aren’t financially sound enough to do a fixed-price contract, as going over budget could finish them. It’s no wonder SMEs buckle at defence work.”
Success stories

Not every contract fails. BAE Systems has been praised for its work on the new Type 26 frigate by the National Audit Office, which says the programme is ahead of schedule.

BAE chief Charles Woodburn says it “builds difficult things … when it comes to the big-ticket stuff on the world stage, we compare pretty favourably”.

He cites the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers: at £6.2bn for a pair, they are a bargain compared to the US Ford class, which cost almost $13bn (£9.3bn) each.

“For every challenging programme, there are success stories,” he says. “And really we want more of those.”

[mr.fred]

The gorilla in the room is the fact that even with revolving doors and monopolies and all the other reasons cited in the articles, why do some (not all) other countries do so much better than the UK?

I think to get a useful answer to that question, you would have to be able to identify which programmes really do do better, at which point you would be able to start looking at the differences.

[J. Tattersall]

why do some (not all) other countries do so much better than the UK?

Do they? Or are they just better at keeping the lid on bad news?

In UK there's a highly active NAO reporting to PAC shining a spotlight on government expenditure. Frankly one doesn't see such activism by the Cour des comptes in France and in Germany an all party committee of the Bundestag is responsible for approving new armaments projects, so they've only limited interest in seeing decisions which they're involved in being brought to public scrutiny. I could go on.

I won't underplay the seriousness of Ajax but to say other countries don't have similar problems (Eurohawk, Spanish submarines that were to heavy to surface, Tiger attack helicopter availability etc) just isn't true. Moreover don't confuse other countries' perhaps less rigorous scrutiny of public projects lead you to believe we've got bigger problems here.

[Ron5]

do do

You said do do, hee hee hee

[Ron5]

but to say other countries don't have similar problems (Eurohawk, Spanish submarines that were to heavy to surface, Tiger attack helicopter availability etc) just isn't true.

So who the fuck said that??

And while we're at it, boasting of the UK's wonderful NAO scrutiny doesn't explain why Germany, Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Italy etc etc have procured better army vehicles than the UK. And that's just in Europe.

[J. Tattersall]

Well you did....

why do some (not all) other countries do so much better than the UK?

...and can I ask you to have the common courtesy to moderate your language please. Expletives being so often used to make up for a lack of something sensible to say.

[SD67]

In other breaking news Ajax has made the Daily Torygraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ack-track/

"Battle to get the troubled Ajax tank back on track"

Pretty hit or miss article, as you'd kind of expect, but the timing is interesting - it could be a softening up exercise.

[RunningStrong]

but to say other countries don't have similar problems (Eurohawk, Spanish submarines that were to heavy to surface, Tiger attack helicopter availability etc) just isn't true.

So who the fuck said that??

And while we're at it, boasting of the UK's wonderful NAO scrutiny doesn't explain why Germany, Poland, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Italy etc etc have procured better army vehicles than the UK. And that's just in Europe.

Which better vehicle have they procured and have in service?

[mr.fred]

If Ron5 doesn’t feel like engaging productively, I’ll start:

The obvious one, and the comparison du jour, is CV90.
Muddied somewhat by it being in competition with Ascod for Ajax.

Another one would be Leopard 2. Widely regarded as successful and widely used across Europe.

My short take is that these two vehicles have the advantage of being brought into service as ‘good enough’ then being consistently upgraded.

[Lord Jim]

We do not like bringing "Vanilla" platforms into service, instead we demand limited quantities of platform that are fully capable when delivered to conduct troop trials and training under the guise of "Initial Operational Capability" followed by the remainder with the bugs irons out achieving "Full Operational Capability", when all are delivered. I believe this stems from the MoD's constant aim to get the best kit available for the lowest price, with these often contradicting each other. Our system encourages Companies to "Promise" that they can meet the criteria, but even when a fixed price contract is let, the MoD can end up getting a reduced number of platforms for the money due to problems and cost over runs by the Contractor.

The classic case for this was Nimrod where the initial contract was for over twenty aircraft and by the end before it was cancelled it was for less than six, with the BAe contacts going to the MoD and saying it would not be able to deliver the number of aircraft then under contract for the money left in the contract, and basically telling the MoD that if the numbers involved were not reduced they would walk away. The alternative would have been to tear up the contract and give BAe more and more money. In the end the MoD was told to cancel the programme as part of the 2010 SDSR as the number now being built was too few to meet the RAF needs, their were still technical problems with the programme, no extra money was available to bail out the programme, and the MoD also was looking to make cuts and Nimrod was an easy target because of the problems.

Could the same happen with Ajax. The MoD believes it has a tight contract with GD bound to deliver the number of Ajax currently on order for the price agreed, and has happily paid GD for meeting a number of key milestones and even accepted the first twenty odd vehicles as meeting the IOC. This means that GD has been paid for all the work up to date and has met the terms of the contract so far. However if GD determines that in order to correct the current issues with the platform as deliver the remaining vehicles will result in major loss for GD(UK) it may be able to down tools and walk away accepting a smaller loss resulting from the vehicles in various states of manufacture, possible after being instructed to do so by its parent company in the US. They should be clear to do such a thing as they have only been paid for work that teh MoD has agreed has been done. They may or may not hand over vehicles that are either completed or partially competed to the MoD, but the latter will not have received anything like the number of vehicles it needs, and it may not be viable to bring the platform into service at all.

It has been argues that other countries have the same issues as ourselves but do not wash their dirty laundry in public like we do with the NAO. That maybe be the case but the UK seems to be in a situation where a programme actually performing as the contract states is far rarer than one that doesn't, in fact it could be argues that the majority of the UK's recent defence procurement programmes have not performed well, been late and considerably over budget and in some cases not actually delivering any real world equipment when the contract was ended.

Fortunately at present GD(UK) seem positive they will deliver the number of vehicles ordered by the Army for the amount agreed within the planned timeframe. Everything it seem will depend on what it is going to take to fix teh vehicle so that it meets to capability that the Army wants with the remaining money left in the budget. We have to hope that if GD(UK) cannot they do not cut their losses and walk away form the programme. Not only would this mean the Army would have again not received anything for its substantial spend so far, it would be lacking what they believe is the cornerstone of their transformation. This is before you take into account the hundreds of job losses that would result in South Wales and Bedfordshire. Would anyone actually be held accountable within industry and the MoD if this were to happen?

[Gtal]

Which better vehicle have they procured and have in service?

The Germans have already been mentioned but is anyone here up to date with their Puma IFV?

That seems to also have turned out exceptionally well really.
Apparently the best armored IFV around right now with active protection.
It boasts a fully stabilized 30mm cannon with programmable munitions and two sets of optics providing hunter-killer capability. Plus 2 spike-lr atgw mounted on top.

The digitalized "infantrist of the future" has also been fully integrated into the Puma providing realtime communication and video feeds back to the squad commander.
Drones have also been integrated allowing for birds eye views or forward recce footage to be provided live to the soldiers. And when mounted, the Puma provides the mounts with 360° video feed.

Removable modular armor also means this beast can be airlifted in the A400m (4 Puma in 5 planes). Making it highly deployable.

The germans are going to deploy these to the VJTF they're taking command of, as a final sort of field test but the sergeant I spoke to said it was just as much about showing off some bad ass genuine innovation.

Was an experienced hand and he reckoned the end product as a system was highly innovative in terms of integration, connectivity and versatility and could well become the model for groundforce digitization and integration.



And honestly the french approach with their VCBI, while not as sophisticated because they have other priorities, was remarkably well thought through an coherent, inevitable trade-offs and necessary compromises were faced head on taking a whole forces perspective.
And I'm pretty sure they set an inofficial record for the shortest time from procurement decision to fielding a substantive fleet.



Edit: The thought that the UK is just more public when it comes to these issues is just ridiculous.
In Germany shitting on the military is a favorite media past time and every nut and bolt has to be voted on by parliament.

I did a quick google search around the Puma and reading a couple articles you'd think it is an unmitigated desaster.
Meanwhile there's been over 200 delivered of which 50 are digitalized.

[RunningStrong]

If Ron5 doesn’t feel like engaging productively, I’ll start:

The obvious one, and the comparison du jour, is CV90.
Muddied somewhat by it being in competition with Ascod for Ajax.

Another one would be Leopard 2. Widely regarded as successful and widely used across Europe.

My short take is that these two vehicles have the advantage of being brought into service as ‘good enough’ then being consistently upgraded.

Which CV90? Because currently there is no CV90 in service that offers anywhere near the same capabilities as what AJAX is intended to provide.

[mr.fred]

Which CV90? Because currently there is no CV90 in service that offers anywhere near the same capabilities as what AJAX is intended to provide.

Any of them. It’s not supposed to be a direct comparison, just a comparison of programmes which are regarded as successful with those regarded as less so to work out why that may be.

The Germans have already been mentioned but is anyone here up to date with their Puma IFV?

I don’t follow it very closely, but wouldn’t claim to be up to date with it.

That seems to also have turned out exceptionally well really.

That surprises me, because I thought it had been struck with many problems, such as mobility issues necessitating another roadwheel, inability to accommodate taller soldiers and costs to make Ajax blush.
Wiki reckons that the unit cost is somewhere around €9m, while the digitisation effort is costing €10m each.

Removable modular armor also means this beast can be airlifted in the A400m (4 Puma in 5 planes). Making it highly deployable.

An interesting statement as Ajax is cited as being completely impractical to deploy for the exact same arrangement.

I did a quick google search around the Puma and reading a couple articles you'd think it is an unmitigated desaster.

From my reading on the subject it came across as expensive, with a few teething troubles, and subject to a fair amount of bashing from the press, but has ended up being a pretty good vehicle for is operators.

[J. Tattersall]

The answer is complicated but involves an extraordinary ‘revolving door’ process whereby

...well revolving door might well be an area in which EU (defence) leads the way https://euobserver.com/tickers/152462 !

[Lord Jim]

The "Revolving door", has been around for what seems like ever. It is a natural path for Senior Officers after they retire around 55 to move on to a civilian job often in an area they have some experience in. What is not acceptable is if a serving Officer is influenced either directly or indirectly by a company when allocating contracts. That is a Court Martial offense and if not identified whilst said person is in uniform , then it should be seen as a criminal offence. The problem is proving it, because of the "Revolving door" being so common.

[Ron5]

The answer is complicated but involves an extraordinary ‘revolving door’ process whereby

...well revolving door might well be an area in which EU (defence) leads the way https://euobserver.com/tickers/152462 !

Revolving doors are not the problem. They help manufacturers understand the military and vice versa.

Individuals using revolving doors to advance their bank accounts, on the other hand, is potentially a problem. So if the British army generals selected GD UK for Ajax because they were essentially bribed to do so by the promise of a future job, the culprits should be jailed.

But did that happen? I personally think that most unlikely. I suspect stupidity in the army, civil service and parliament is rather more widespread than corruption.

[Ron5]

If Ron5 doesn’t feel like engaging productively, I’ll start:

Cheeky bugger. Wasn't me that said do do

Anyhow you could add AMV, Boxer, Centauro to your list.

The key is "have" procured. Those countries have better vehicles in service that the British Army has.

It's fine to say CR3 & Ajax & Boxer & JLTV & Archer will be so much better when they're in service but by the time they are, everyone else will be onto their next generation. None of these British vehicles advances the state of the art that much. If at all.

[mr.fred]

Anyhow you could add AMV, Boxer, Centauro to your list.

The key is "have" procured. Those countries have better vehicles in service that the British Army has.

It's fine to say CR3 & Ajax & Boxer & JLTV & Archer will be so much better when they're in service but by the time they are, everyone else will be onto their next generation. None of these British vehicles advances the state of the art that much. If at all.

In this instance, I’m not really interested in relative merits of the end product. Rather, I would like to compare those programmes deemed to be successful and those which are not.
Boxer would be an interesting one as we get to compare procurement of the same vehicle by a number of different countries.

[Lord Jim]

For me Challenger 3 is the key programme. Boxer is proven but we will have to see how Rheinmetall get on working with UK companies to produce the UK vehicles. The advantage they have is that any problems can be compensated for to a certain extent by manufacturing vehicles form their German production line. With Challenger 3 it is all focused in the UK, and I have no doubt about Rheinmetall's ability to design and manufacture its own products in Germany, if they run into trouble in the UK it is either going to be issues with interference from the MoD or problems with UK contractors adjusting to Rheinmetall's way of doing things.

Both the programmes are probably the last gasp of UK AFV manufacturing or even final assembly. IF they fail then we will be reduced to the MoD fitting UK only kit to platforms designed and built by other countries for the future.

[RunningStrong]

It's fine to say CR3 & Ajax & Boxer & JLTV & Archer will be so much better when they're in service but by the time they are, everyone else will be onto their next generation. None of these British vehicles advances the state of the art that much. If at all.

It's unsurprising you think can make that claim with your complete lack first-hand insight into any of the projects

[Ron5]

Anyhow you could add AMV, Boxer, Centauro to your list.

The key is "have" procured. Those countries have better vehicles in service that the British Army has.

It's fine to say CR3 & Ajax & Boxer & JLTV & Archer will be so much better when they're in service but by the time they are, everyone else will be onto their next generation. None of these British vehicles advances the state of the art that much. If at all.

In this instance, I’m not really interested in relative merits of the end product. Rather, I would like to compare those programmes deemed to be successful and those which are not.
Boxer would be an interesting one as we get to compare procurement of the same vehicle by a number of different countries.

So you don't think getting a superior vehicle into service is indicative of program success?

[Ron5]

It's fine to say CR3 & Ajax & Boxer & JLTV & Archer will be so much better when they're in service but by the time they are, everyone else will be onto their next generation. None of these British vehicles advances the state of the art that much. If at all.

It's unsurprising you think can make that claim with your complete lack first-hand insight into any of the projects

I wonder how much of your much vaunted, super secret, Ajax capability is provided by its payload*. Because as a vehicle, Ajax looks totally unremarkable even ignoring its habit of injuring its crew.

A view that's backed up by Ajax and its cousin vehicles 100% lack of success in international competitions. I predict the current Czech competition going the same way with the Ajax cousin not even making the short list.

*a payload that could probably just as easily be carried by other vehicles. Like Boxer. A question that I'm sure is being asked is what would it take to transfer the payload across?