Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote:Imagine placing an order for an upgraded turret in 2021 and achieving IOC just 3 years later.
How LM won the Warrior contract in 2011 is beyond me, but when they could not demonstrate a reliable turret design by 2012 when BAE already had one the contract should have been torn up and awarded back to BAE and the LEP still would have been delivered around 2016. It does feel like civil servants who run these programs want to extend them as long as possible to get their entire career out of them.
BAE didn't already have a turret. They had a CT40 gun in turret, on a Warrior. But that's about 5% of the requirements.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Repeating myself but always put "Senior" before any reference to Civil Servants. They are the ones making the decision not the lower grades who are often overworked and definitely underpaid, but do the best they can in most cases.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

sol wrote:
Ron5 wrote:That might be the 50mm gun. Not sure.
According to article in the Shephard Media it is indeed a 50mm gun.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... es-london/

Article is suggesting that this is a new D-series turret design, developed for the Dutch CV9035 upgrade, just with different gun for presentation.
Except for the gun, is that not a picture of the vehicle that's been entered into the Czech competition which is quite different from the Dutch upgrades? It has significant chassis improvements in addition to the new turret and a more powerful engine. Max weight has increased which allows for a heavier armor package or more payload in the back.

Thanks for the link. The larger D turret is noticeable from the side because of the much larger overhang to the back. Also of note is that rubber tracks are available, there wasn't enough time to get them fitted for the show according to Soucy.

The Czech vehicle ..

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

From the Financial Times ..
UK defence procurement hampered by desire for ‘110% perfection’, says minister

Sylvia Pfeifer in London yesterday

The UK’s process of buying military equipment has been hampered by a desire for “110 per cent perfection” but the increasing reliance of weapon systems on electronics and software could help solve the problem, according to Britain’s defence procurement minister.

Jeremy Quin said the long-running problem was a result of an attitude in the armed forces that new equipment had to have “every single mod com that is going to be needed in 10 years’ time” in an attempt to ensure it is future-proof.

“That means that you are essentially asking yourselves and asking industry to produce, hopefully for a set price and at a set time, an asset that you haven’t yet seen nor hasn’t yet necessarily been designed,” Quin told the FT in an interview at DSEI in London, Europe’s biggest arms fair.

Quin’s remarks underline the UK’s poor record on military procurement, which is littered with projects running late and over budget. The latest is a £5.5bn programme to procure a family of armoured vehicles for the army, known as Ajax.

The vehicles, equipped with the latest digital sensors that would increase battlefield surveillance, were meant to be part of the army’s transition into an era of high-tech warfare.

The UK signed the contract with US defence contractor General Dynamics (GD) in 2014 for 589 vehicles, based on an existing design for the Spanish and Austrian armed forces that entered service in 2002.

Deliveries of Ajax should have started four years ago but so far none have entered service. Instead, the vehicles have been beset by noise and excessive vibration problems, prompting concerns they could cause lasting hearing damage to their crews.

The issues are so acute that ministers have come under pressure to cancel the contract. Defence analysts have said that repeated modifications demanded by the army were part of the problem.

Quin said he had met with GD’s chief executive, Phebe Novakovic, to discuss the problems, noting the company was “determined to get this sorted”.

However, he acknowledged he could not “100 per cent guarantee” that a resolution would be found and insisted the government would “never accept” a vehicle that did not meet its requirements. Independent trials of Ajax had resumed, he added, which would allow the MoD to identify “where the vibration is inside the vehicle”.

GD said it was working “very closely with the British Army to deliver this transformational capability” and was committed to “supporting the Ministry of Defence fully in getting this critical platform into service”.

Quin said the government’s new defence and security industrial strategy, published in March, would lead to a more “sensible approach” to procurement. One that was focused on bringing into service “in a more rapid, timely way kit that has real utility but with the scope to be enhanced”. The process would be easier than it was several years ago, he added, as upgrades were increasingly electronic or software related.

He also defended the government’s stance on the recent spate of defence takeovers which have fuelled concern of a hollowing out of British manufacturing.

Two of Britian’s defence industry stalwarts, Meggitt and Ultra Electronics, are the target of bids by foreign buyers. Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng last month intervened in the proposed takeover of Ultra citing national security concerns.

The government kept a “very close watch” on all takeover activity, Quin said, while acknowledging that the country needed to strike a “balance” between attracting investment and preserving critical capabilities.

“We benefit in the UK from having companies that are investing globally and are investing in the UK. There are tens of thousands of UK jobs . . . where employees are employed by international companies including international defence companies and investment in the sector is good.”

“Making certain that we also have UK companies providing specific needs for the UK armed forces . . . is also important,” he said.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Video by BAe Systems on their CV90 Mk4, highlighting the improvements from the Mk3.

OF course it is a PR report, but it is very interesting never the less. What I found especially interesting was its digital architecture and it would be interesting to compare this to the Ajax, as this has been stated as really the key new capability for the latter platform.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe we could organise our Heavy BCT to have three Infantry units, one in the CV90 Mk4 and two in Boxer APCs? Give the Armoured Infantry Battalion a Scout Platoon of eight recce orientated CV-90s and give each Armoured Regiment a full Squadron of eighteen CV-90 Recce. No specialist variants of the CV90 in the Infantry Battalions, they should sue the same Boxer variants as the Mechanised Battalions in these roles to save money.

Leaving the Deep Fires BCT for the moment, we would need at most 175 CV90, possibly less to achieve the above dependant on how many attritional vehicles we decide we need and how many would be required a BATUS if that still exists and we haven't moved live fire battlegroup training to eastern Europe.

Of course if we just bought the CV-90 as a recce platform we would need less, and including the Deep Fires BCT would need around 150 at most. Taking the first option and equipping the Deep Fires BCT would raise the total required to around 280. Still less than the Ajax contract, where we are buying too many, and the Army is trying to find uses for them all.

Well at least those are my rear of a fag packet calculation.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

The concept is not new but now with a different gun from Rheinmetall (low recoil 120mm 47 caliber that fires all the ammo that the Challenger 3 gun will fire), a low profile 2 man turret, all mounted on a CV90 Mk IV chassis (i.e. the latest) complete with rubber tracks from Soucy and with a max weight of 37-45 tons. I suspect the higher weight would require steel tracks.

Compare with the Ajax direct fire variant that was a requirement but couldn't fit within GD's 4.6 billion price.


Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: Compare with the Ajax direct fire variant that was a requirement but couldn't fit within GD's 4.6 billion price.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

If Ajax continues, the greatest need regarding new versions will be one carrying an NLOS type missile systems to provide Over watch to the rest of the formation rather than a direct fire version. There also needs to be a development path for the improvement of the platform such as introducing a ATGW launcher to the CT40 turreted version as well as a telescoped mount for a EO module and Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR). Engineering versions should also be a priority especially a Combat Engineering version and a Bridge laying version. We cannot afford not to pursue these version of our Recce Regiments are going to have the flexibility and mobility they need to carry out their assigned roles. Even then there are further versions that are desirable such as an anti air option.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:If Ajax continues, the greatest need regarding new versions will be one carrying an NLOS type missile systems to provide Over watch to the rest of the formation rather than a direct fire version. There also needs to be a development path for the improvement of the platform such as introducing a ATGW launcher to the CT40 turreted version as well as a telescoped mount for a EO module and Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR). Engineering versions should also be a priority especially a Combat Engineering version and a Bridge laying version. We cannot afford not to pursue these version of our Recce Regiments are going to have the flexibility and mobility they need to carry out their assigned roles. Even then there are further versions that are desirable such as an anti air option.
GD displayed an Ajax variant at DSEI last week that carried Brimstone. The installation looked rather amateurish and some folks that know, doubt its ability to actually fire the missiles. That's assuming they don't get shaken to pieces first.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Was that the one with a couple of "Launchers on the back held up by hydraulic struts like those on a car boot/Tale gate? Although I think Brimstone would be a great weapon system, with it not being chosen for the Apache Guardian, I think we should stick with Extractor Mk2/Spike NLOS, which was developed for the British Army already. We should work with the manufacture to both make a launcher Mission Module for Boxer and also look at the smaller launcher used by South Korea that can fit on a 4x4 and consider adopting it for our light units such as those in the light BCTs. Alternatively we could keep using the trailer launchers we currently have and increase their number for these Lighter units.

Extractor Mk2 has the advantage of having a "Man in the loop", guidance mode, something Brimstone currently lacks, though I believe a package is under development to add this capability. Extractor Mk2 Is a mature system in use in all three domains, land, sea and air already in service with multiple nations. The Manufacturer has a facility already in the UK and we could become the European manufacturing site for Spike NLOS, with other Spike variants already being produced in Europe and adopted by many NATO militaries.

One of these, the Spike LR2 should be the weapon to equip out Recce Ajax and Boxers as their Anti Armour weapon system. This to has a "Man in the loop", guidance option and is superior to Javelin, the other option in all areas. Javelins only plus is that it is already in service as an infantry operated weapon system.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Just refreshed and worth a read on the utterly depressing history of the Ajax and WSCP programs ...

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/cased-te ... nt-system/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Shouldn't we be hearing about the results of the independent tests soon? I must admit part of me hopes Ajax is doomed as I still think it is not the platform the Army need.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

We will prob hear in 18 months unless the army think our hearing is damaged to.
The problem with canceling is the 3.5bn will not be reimbursed its gone, which means if we order Cv90 or Lynx we will need to cut mrvp, Indirect fire or puma replacement. I don't get the impression the army want Ajax anymore either especially if it turns out the hearing and vibration issues are being grossly exaggerated so some people can make an easy personal injury claim.
I just don't understand why they faffed around so much cancelling boxer, ordering phiranah 5 cancelling ordering ajax and attempting to cancel againnajd ordering boxer. How incompetent are these people.
The whole tracked vehicle fighting in Norway and Sweden also annoys me. We are 100 times more likely to be deployed to the middle east and north Africa than anywhere near the scandies so selecting armoured vehicles on that logic is completely moronic.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Shouldn't we be hearing about the results of the independent tests soon? I must admit part of me hopes Ajax is doomed as I still think it is not the platform the Army need.
Are you sure they are actually running?

PS Just read in a parliament report that they were resumed. No reporting date given.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I thought the Army and Manufacturer's trials were halted but the independent ones were progressing to try to discover the cause of the fault once and for all at the Millbrook Test Centre. I also thought the result were due next month.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I thought the Army and Manufacturer's trials were halted but the independent ones were progressing to try to discover the cause of the fault once and for all at the Millbrook Test Centre. I also thought the result were due next month.
I think they paused the independent ones but are back up and running but with no public end date.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

BB85 wrote:We will prob hear in 18 months unless the army think our hearing is damaged to.
The problem with canceling is the 3.5bn will not be reimbursed its gone, which means if we order Cv90 or Lynx we will need to cut mrvp, Indirect fire or puma replacement. I don't get the impression the army want Ajax anymore either especially if it turns out the hearing and vibration issues are being grossly exaggerated so some people can make an easy personal injury claim.
I just don't understand why they faffed around so much cancelling boxer, ordering phiranah 5 cancelling ordering ajax and attempting to cancel againnajd ordering boxer. How incompetent are these people.
The whole tracked vehicle fighting in Norway and Sweden also annoys me. We are 100 times more likely to be deployed to the middle east and north Africa than anywhere near the scandies so selecting armoured vehicles on that logic is completely moronic.
The theory is that the budget for Ajax is over 6 billion and that with a mere 3.5 billion being already spent to produce 20 odd vehicles (and you thought Rolls Royce's were expensive), that leaves 2.5 billion in the kitty. More than enough to buy a replacement type (for fun, let's say CV90) off the shelf.

But of course, none of the bespoke UK sensors & comms as fitted to the Ajax recon variant. But other goodies like mast sensors, rubber tracks, APS & missiles instead. And maybe a bigger gun!

And yes, British Army procurement is totally fucked up. It's one solid and indisputable success has been to totally destroy the UK's AFV industry.

Don't agree with the Middle East and Africa focus though. It will be a very brave British prime minister that commits to another one of Blair's foreign adventures. All seem to have ended very badly for the UK. Hasn't done Blair any good either.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Foxhound Protected Vehicle

Post by Ron5 »

I managed to get hold of an interview with a GD employee on their Ajax stand at DSEI last week:

Q "How are you doing with the Ajax noise and vibration problems?"
A "Noise and vibrations are two very different things. Noise is how you hear the Beatles. Vibration is why your wife sits on your clothes dryer"

Q "OK, so how are you doing with the Ajax vibration issues?"
A "General Dynamics is supplying vehicles to the Army that completely met the contract"

Q "So there are no vibration issues?"
A "There has been some press stories but you know the media, always looking for a scandal even if there isn't one to be found"

Q "So there are no vibration problems?"
A "General Dynamics is supplying vehicles to the Army that completely met the contract"

Q: "I give up"
A: "Would you like some tea? Serve yourself. For some reason my hands shake so much I spill every drop"

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:I managed to get hold of an interview with a GD employee on their Ajax stand at DSEI last week:

Q "How are you doing with the Ajax noise and vibration problems?"
A "Noise and vibrations are two very different things. Noise is how you hear the Beatles. Vibration is why your wife sits on your clothes dryer"

Q "OK, so how are you doing with the Ajax vibration issues?"
A "General Dynamics is supplying vehicles to the Army that completely met the contract"

Q "So there are no vibration issues?"
A "There has been some press stories but you know the media, always looking for a scandal even if there isn't one to be found"

Q "So there are no vibration problems?"
A "General Dynamics is supplying vehicles to the Army that completely met the contract"

Q: "I give up"
A: "Would you like some tea? Serve yourself. For some reason my hands shake so much I spill every drop"
Cool story bro.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Sorry, forgot to put a few smileys at the end. If the US with its long history of middle weight AFV cock-ups can't make fun, who can? :D :D

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by GarethDavies1 »

It is all F embarrassing. We should never have gone with Ajax....we lost the plot in the late 90s early 2000s when we decided to lose the ability to properly design a new and modern AFV from scratch. Its not rocket science for F sake.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

We need to stop spending good money after bad. Yes we have spent £3Bn+ on Ajax, but it isn't the platform the Army need, but rather the one that is under contract so they have to find a use for it. It maybe a digital hub or whatever but so ids Challenger 3 going to be. In fact almost any new AFV these days falls into that category. We could still use the optics etc form Ajax on another platform, but there are other options out there. We should get hung up on the need to use the CT40 either, unless we are going to use an off the shelf design, most likely French that we can drop into a platform.

We need a Recce platform that can keep an eye on the enemy without being spotted and that can link up to other platforms seamlessly and covertly. So what do other nations in NATO use? Well the Dutch and Germans use the Fennek, a small stealthy 4x4. France uses everything from the AMX-10RC to the VBL 4x4. Italy and Spain use various home grown 4x4 or 6x6 and the USA uses a multitude of platforms from the M3 Bradley to the JLTV.

If I had a choice I would look at a Fennek type platform that operated under a comprehensive over watch capability. A flexible platform able to carry not just Recce sensors and optics but also be able to carry out other roles such as anti-tank and air defence. The nearest thing we have in the pipeline would be the JLTV and it might be able to do the job. With the right mix of vehicles and with the right support there is no reason it couldn't. We would need light weight engineering platforms such as a Bridgelayer and a Combat Engineering Vehicle but we could use the Boxer as the base for these, something we will have to do anyway for the Heavy BCTs and even the Light BCTs. The JLTV could be fitted with a light weight APS like what could also be fitted to the Boxer, but this would usually be a case of fitted for but only a Brigades worth in depot to cover deployments. Of course if we forward deploy our planned Deep Fires BCT then those should have an APS as standard, to protect the platform as it tries to break contact from a confrontation.

Another alternative would be to look at the recce version of the CV-90 that the Norwegian Army is adopting. This is a mature and capable platform which still has plenty of growth left in it. Equipping a couple of Recce Regiments with this platform could lay the seeds for the future purchase of the IFV version to equip a couple of Armoured Infantry Battalions whilst the rest still use the Boxer in the Heavy BCTs.

Think I may have stirred the pot enough here mind you.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Here's a short video of the CV90 Mk IV at DSEI last week. Shows the 50mm gun, twin missiles, APS & mast sight in detail.


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

I don't really understand why the British Army is declaring the IFV obsolete when the rest of the world is still buying them. Anyhoo, a relatively small order of the CV90 IV (250 vehicles?) bought off the shelf would enable infantry to accompany the Cr3's at a reasonable cost.

Post Reply