Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

So what do we know form open sources about the issues affecting the Ajax programme. First and foremost seems to be the excessive vibration the vehicle suffers from even when limited to 20mph, half its required speed. This and the high noise level that results, have caused all trials and training on the vehicle to be suspended. Even when using noise dampening headphones the crew were only able to operate the vehicle for around half and hour before feeing ill. These Vibrations are also one of the factors that have prevented the vehicle form being able to accurately fore its turret mounted weapons whilst moving. Finally and probably of least importance it has been found that the Ajax cannot reverse over an obstacle greater than 20cm in height.

So we have a platform that is over four years late entering service, that only a dozen or so Area variants have actually been delivered to the Household Cavalry who cannot train on them for health and safety reasons. Delivery of any other vehicles and/or variants is now delayed again as trials have been suspended due to the issues above.

This vehicle is supposed to be one of the corner stones of the Army's transformation, being its first digital platform, leading the way where others were to follow. In fact it is becoming the prime example of how not to run a procurement programme. Like the WCSP this was supposed to be a low risk option using an established in service platform and adapting it to meet the Army's requirements. It was supposed to create 1000s of jobs in the UK, the main reason BAe lost out incidentally, because their initial bid had most of the vehicle actually manufactured overseas and only the finally assembly was to be in the UK. Well that is basically where the Ajax stands now with the majority of manufacturing carriers out for the Hull overseas with only the Turret actually manufactured in the UK. GD's South Wales facility is used for final assembly. Chances are if we cancelled Ajax more jobs would be lost in Spain than in the UK.

Even if Ajax was actually work now, the units that will be equipped with it lack key capabilities to be effective. The actual Ajax with its CT40 autocannon need to be covered by an Overwatch platform with long range ATGWs to be effective. There is also a need for combat engineering vehicles such as a Bridgelayer as most of the time the Army's existing Titan and Trojan platforms will be supporting the two Heavy BCTs. Allocating some of the Royal Engineers Terrier CETs would help in this situation but will not solve it. Finally, whilst the Royal Artillery is traditionally responsible for the air defence of ground forces, the new Recce Regiments really need their own integrated capability to deal with aircraft, helicopters and most importantly enemy UAVs, using both passive and kinetic means.

So if the Army sticks with Ajax, it has ten years to get the vehicle working to he required levels, and add the missing variants whose capabilities are going to be needed to make the transformed Recce Regiments effective against a Peer level opponent. This is the level the Army must aim for with all its transformational programmes as if it does it can also handle threats at lower levels. Even the Light BCTs would have a role in a serious Peer conflict, but should be better able to than the old Saxon mounted Infantry Battalions sent out to reinforce the BOAR from the UK during exercises in the 1980s.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Wrong on about 8 counts, well done.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:being part of EvO.
Slang ... that I don't understand?
It's not slang.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/morpheus-pr ... or-defence
Thx, so from "has superseded morpheusneo.com" to EvO... difficult to keep up. Every time a project does not deliver, the name is changed
- Terrier being the exception; they just zeroed ;) the cost counter
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Nothing new on the 'digital front' as nothing has been delivered
"In April 2017, General Dynamics UK was awarded a £330 million contract"
except that Bowman has been enhanced with Israeli code. Bolting on additional modules does not equate to open architecture - but rather makes it more and more difficult to not just evolve [pun intended] but to maintain the existing not-open system.

So digging the hole deeper and Bowman kits (many 20 years old by now) will soldier on to 2030... at least
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Nothing new on the 'digital front' as nothing has been delivered
"In April 2017, General Dynamics UK was awarded a £330 million contract"
except that Bowman has been enhanced with Israeli code. Bolting on additional modules does not equate to open architecture - but rather makes it more and more difficult to not just evolve [pun intended] but to maintain the existing not-open system.

So digging the hole deeper and Bowman kits (many 20 years old by now) will soldier on to 2030... at least
Diverging from AJAX somewhat...

Bowman lives on in 5.6 and some time yet.

LETacCIS became Morpheus. Morpheus will replace Bowman, but with MOD as prime. EvO is a part of Morpheus and EvO is holding MODs hand to develop the open architecture required for MOD to act as Prime and sub-contract modules of the new Tac Com system out.

Much of Bowman hardware had a refresh for 5.6.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:with MOD as prime
A new 'integrator of integrators' :think:

The biggest army program (Boxer might grow past it, but as for now).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A BCT
The term Brigade combat team is far to pink and fluffy also can a BCT deploy as a Company and Battalion battle group and if needed rapidly upscale

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: deploy as a Company and Battalion battle group and if needed rapidly upscale
There doesn't need to be such a tight connection. We have airborne at company level, RM at a bn+ level and then the ATF1 to go with either.
- the follow on would likely be a BCT of suitable type
- why maintain the spearheads, if we have no spear (sent) to follow

As for Ajax, it would ideally be the cornerstone of a recce and screening force (prepositioned?) behind which other types of units could deploy. I think @SW was seeking some such set up?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Wrong on about 8 counts, well done.
Please enlighten us.

Are we to believe that there are no serious issues with Ajax and the storing in the media are simply gossip with no foundation? Is GD actually delivering all variants of the Ajax to the Household Cavalry, just doing it at night so nobody sees? Are there no variants of the Ajax that have not been covered by the existing contract that the Recce Regiments really need to be effective? There has been no pause in trails or training and the effects on soldiers have been the result of a few snowflakes complaining to the Medical Officer? There are no issues with the Gun or FCS when moving and any vibrations have been exaggerated by those testing the vehicles and more so by the media? So basically the programme is fine, the four year delay has been put to good use and the Household Cavalry will be fully re-equipped in the next couple of years and available for combat deployment?

Have I covered everything, probably not, oh well?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Wrong on about 8 counts, well done.
Please enlighten us.

Are we to believe that there are no serious issues with Ajax and the storing in the media are simply gossip with no foundation? Is GD actually delivering all variants of the Ajax to the Household Cavalry, just doing it at night so nobody sees? Are there no variants of the Ajax that have not been covered by the existing contract that the Recce Regiments really need to be effective? There has been no pause in trails or training and the effects on soldiers have been the result of a few snowflakes complaining to the Medical Officer? There are no issues with the Gun or FCS when moving and any vibrations have been exaggerated by those testing the vehicles and more so by the media? So basically the programme is fine, the four year delay has been put to good use and the Household Cavalry will be fully re-equipped in the next couple of years and available for combat deployment?

Have I covered everything, probably not, oh well?
Much of it is gossip from a red-top and a Twitter account, yes.

There are delays in delivery to units, but you've made big assumptions on why that is.

You talk about variants, but the bridge layer has been demonstrated as a front end equipment, and the CT40 with a (qualified) airburst round is capable of SHORAD.

You've conflated several different issues and assumed they're all related, they're not.

The programme isn't the same one that was signed by David Cameron in 2015. So applying 2015 delivery schedules is utterly pointless.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: The programme isn't the same one that was signed by David Cameron in 2015.
Isn't the total number, as well as variants that are included within that, unchanged?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: The programme isn't the same one that was signed by David Cameron in 2015.
Isn't the total number, as well as variants that are included within that, unchanged?
https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... le-delays/

"“In addition to these design issues, the CT40 was issued to GDLS-UK significantly later than planned in the joint programme schedule, and at a different configuration to that in the

contract documents, resulting in substantial redesign and consequential programme delays of around 18 months.”

The company added that a ‘stable and defined build standard’ was not finalised until the AJAX contract was recast in 2019. The company added: “There remains some outstanding characterisation issues with aspects of the CT40 cannon performance.”"

They didn't recast the contract in 2019 just for the cannon.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

So in the UKDJ report on the 6th June 21 GD say there are a small number of issues being reviewed and closed out in partnership with the Army and MOD ahead of IOC

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:They didn't recast the contract in 2019 just for the cannon.
I'm aware of all (?) cannon aspects of this story, so what else falls under the operative word 'just'
in the above
... and might it be that another recasting will be called for?

Brings to mind the film Apocalypse NOW :D
- a great film in the c. 2 hrs std version
- what might it have been like in the 5 and a half hour version :!: before the realities of showing a film in a cinema caught up
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

- So do we know what caused the speed limitation and has that been fixed?
- What caused the excessive vibrations?
- What make the vehicle so noisy that even wearing sound dampening headphones the crew a limited on how long they can operate the vehicle?
- Are there still problems firing the main gun whilst on the move?
- is there no issue regarding the height of obstacle the Ajax can reverse over?
- Have trials and training resumed yet?
- Do we know when the first actual turreted variants will be delivered?
- Do we know the delivery timetable for the platform.
- Because the restarted the clock in 2019 the vehicle is now only two years late is that right?

I do hope GD and the MoD working together get the Ajax programme up and running and even make up for lost time, but we should throw any more money at the programme that what has already been agreed in the contract. IF that mean GD can only deliver a percentage of what was initially ordered then so be it, but we should not throw more good money after bad, especially when funding is so tight and increase on ajax will have an impart on other vital programmes.

Having the Ajax Recce Regiments organised like the existing Regiments equipped with the CVR(T) before the Striker was withdrawn, would be an ideal solution, but they must be supported by organic Armoured Engineering vehicles ideally based on Ajax, as the Regiments are destined to be operating in out in front of other units and it will be difficult to move units from the Existing Field Engineering Regiment up to support them, quickly, plus these are needed to support the Armoured Regiments. If we adopt the Air Burst Anti Air round for the CT40 it would be a good start, but we need to include additional sensors to the FCS as well as a passive counter UAV system on to a number of Ajax as well.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.
It was utterly predictable that two companies with zero experience in developing armored vehicles would have major problems with budget and schedule . Even if the customer was the Vatican. Especially when both companies wildly over promised.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: If we adopt the Air Burst Anti Air round for the CT40 it would be a good start, but we need to include additional sensors to the FCS as well as a passive counter UAV system on to a number of Ajax as well.
Why not use the existing thermal imaging?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.
It was utterly predictable that two companies with zero experience in developing armored vehicles would have major problems with budget and schedule . Even if the customer was the Vatican. Especially when both companies wildly over promised.
Come on Ron I'll give you Lockheed Martin but General Dynamics make M1 Abrams, LAV/Stryker, ASCOD and Piranha.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.
It was utterly predictable that two companies with zero experience in developing armored vehicles would have major problems with budget and schedule . Even if the customer was the Vatican. Especially when both companies wildly over promised.
Come on Ron I'll give you Lockheed Martin but General Dynamics make M1 Abrams, LAV/Stryker, ASCOD and Piranha.
Not Lockheed UK, not in Ampthill.

Bit like saying Bae knows how to make Bradleys.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.
It was utterly predictable that two companies with zero experience in developing armored vehicles would have major problems with budget and schedule . Even if the customer was the Vatican. Especially when both companies wildly over promised.
Come on Ron I'll give you Lockheed Martin but General Dynamics make M1 Abrams, LAV/Stryker, ASCOD and Piranha.
Not Lockheed UK, not in Ampthill.

Bit like saying Bae knows how to make Bradleys.
Good thing it was Rheinmetall doing the crusty metal work, Lockheed Martin were just doing the digital turret systems integrated with a CT40 weapon system, which um, no one else has done before...

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:I see no way the army can walk away from Ajax now. If it did, it will have spent billions got nothing and have to either gap the capability altogether or scrap something else big to pay for starting again with something else. Because no way they get more cash.

I can to an extent understand GD exasperation with MOD it loves nothing better than to change things late they are a difficult customer to trust. But there are clearly issues and it’s up to both to trust each other define what they are and sort them out.

It was those who took the decision in 2010 to start both warrior and this were the blame ultimately lies.
It was utterly predictable that two companies with zero experience in developing armored vehicles would have major problems with budget and schedule . Even if the customer was the Vatican. Especially when both companies wildly over promised.
Come on Ron I'll give you Lockheed Martin but General Dynamics make M1 Abrams, LAV/Stryker, ASCOD and Piranha.
Not Lockheed UK, not in Ampthill.

Bit like saying Bae knows how to make Bradleys.
Good thing it was Rheinmetall doing the crusty metal work, Lockheed Martin were just doing the digital turret systems integrated with a CT40 weapon system, which um, no one else has done before...
With more armored vehicle experience, they wouldn't have a) wasted time and money trying to shoehorn the new gun into the old turret and b) been quicker doing the gun integration into the new turret.

One story has one of their earlier designs running the ammo feed outside the turret until the army told them not to be so effing silly.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1469
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:One story has one of their earlier designs running the ammo feed outside the turret until the army told them not to be so effing silly.
Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:One story has one of their earlier designs running the ammo feed outside the turret until the army told them not to be so effing silly.
Outside the turret and its armoured protection, or outside the crew space?
I don't think Ron knows the difference...

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:Outside the turret and its armoured protection
Yes.

Post Reply