Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

I think the issue is that although it hasn't been really adopted for AFVs, the design process for aircraft is rapidly becoming radically different from how it was previously done. This is saving a truly substantial amount of time and cost, aiming to halve the time it takes to new aircraft into service, with the Red Hawk and the USAF's NGAD the headliners. I believe it is being used by one or more of the participants in the US Army's Optionally Manned Ground Combat System or whatever its current name is, again to speed thing up and keep costs down, to meet the Army's demanding requirements. How it is introduced into European AFV programmes we will have to see.

[Ron5]

Ahh research ok…. would using them daily count

Yep flutter tests are still flown to demonstrate the computer model accuracy funnily enough as Aeroelastic effects are very hard to model.

So your company, after a computer simulation predicts a debilitating fault, still goes ahead and builds it just in case the computer was taking the piss??

Unusual to say the least but not at all relevant to the current discussion.

[Ron5]

I think the issue is that although it hasn't been really adopted for AFVs, the design process for aircraft is rapidly becoming radically different from how it was previously done. This is saving a truly substantial amount of time and cost, aiming to halve the time it takes to new aircraft into service, with the Red Hawk and the USAF's NGAD the headliners. I believe it is being used by one or more of the participants in the US Army's Optionally Manned Ground Combat System or whatever its current name is, again to speed thing up and keep costs down, to meet the Army's demanding requirements. How it is introduced into European AFV programmes we will have to see.

Be a while if these Luddites ever get to run the show.

[mr.fred]

Be a while if these Luddites ever get to run the show.

People with safety critical jobs often err to the conservative.
They’re usually not averse to change for the better, but do require any change to prove that it is safe

[SW1]

Ahh research ok…. would using them daily count

Yep flutter tests are still flown to demonstrate the computer model accuracy funnily enough as Aeroelastic effects are very hard to model.

So your company, after a computer simulation predicts a debilitating fault, still goes ahead and builds it just in case the computer was taking the piss??

Unusual to say the least but not at all relevant to the current discussion.

No your test team tests the limits to prove things don’t happen before you get to that point and limit the performance envelope accordingly so the user doesn’t get any nasty surprises.

[J. Tattersall]

Ahh research ok…. would using them daily count

Yep flutter tests are still flown to demonstrate the computer model accuracy funnily enough as Aeroelastic effects are very hard to model.

So your company, after a computer simulation predicts a debilitating fault, still goes ahead and builds it just in case the computer was taking the piss??

Unusual to say the least but not at all relevant to the current discussion.

No your test team tests the limits to prove things don’t happen before you get to that point and limit the performance envelope accordingly so the user doesn’t get any nasty surprises.

Let's be clear, aeroelastic effects are incredibly difficult to accurately predict. The combination of structural dynamics with fluid mechanics is incredibly difficult even with modern CFD and simulations. Hence enduring need for wind tunnel testing and near-onset flight test.

[Ron5]

Ahh research ok…. would using them daily count

Yep flutter tests are still flown to demonstrate the computer model accuracy funnily enough as Aeroelastic effects are very hard to model.

So your company, after a computer simulation predicts a debilitating fault, still goes ahead and builds it just in case the computer was taking the piss??

Unusual to say the least but not at all relevant to the current discussion.

No your test team tests the limits to prove things don’t happen before you get to that point and limit the performance envelope accordingly so the user doesn’t get any nasty surprises.

Let's be clear, aeroelastic effects are incredibly difficult to accurately predict. The combination of structural dynamics with fluid mechanics is incredibly difficult even with modern CFD and simulations. Hence enduring need for wind tunnel testing and near-onset flight test.

These two clowns are claiming two things: firstly that the new digital prototyping techniques being pioneered by Boeing and Saab for Red Hawk, are nothing more than use of CAD and FEA. Secondly, that digital prototyping has completely removed the need for hardware testing.

On both counts they are talking out of their asses.

And in the particular case of Ajax, whatever process GD used to design and test "so the user doesn’t get any nasty surprises" has blatantly failed. The users got so much of a nasty surprise they ended up under medical care with the risk of permanent damage to their hearing.

It's not like GD has suffered from a lack of time, they won the Ajax competition in 2010 to modify an existing vehicle. A decade to get something relatively simple so badly wrong is quite impressive.

Given that, I'm not quite sure why the two clowns are so resistant to the idea of trying something that might avoid this in the future. Hence my appropriate use of "luddite".

[tomuk]

Today's public accounts committee on defence procurement. Feast your eyes.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... f6f18788cb

Not the most edifying to see how poor ones civil servants actually are. Mark 'Penfold' Francois MP is a bit of a twunt but the Perm Sec and Head of DE&S deserve a roasting.

On AJAX it appears nobody knows anything, what's causing the vibrations, when the vibration became apparent, why they weren't apparent sooner, when they will know what the problems actually are, how long it will take to fix it, unknown unknowns as Dick Rumsfeld would have suggested.

(In reality they know all the answers but a scrabbling round to agree the story. Lets see when the music stops see how much arse can be covered and who gets it in the neck? Army or GD/LM as it won't be MOD/DES.)

All the well dressed MOD commercial man (lawyer [he's not a lawyer but the former head of procurement surrey county council ]) could confirm was that if we cancelled we would be due substantial damages from GDUK, not the £3-4bn we've spent so far, but substantial.

Either cancellation or a substantially smaller number for the £5.5bn fixed contract are the outcomes I can see.

Oh and the 'rumor' that the AJAX contract had to go to anybody but BAE at the time as we were too reliant on them (BAE made MOD/DES look bad over previous disasters) well that 'rumor' is news to the Perm Sec and everybody at MOD. Was there not a similar preference by civil servants at DOT and Virgin Trains?

Unknown Unknowns. Lessons Learned. Complex Capabilities.

[J. Tattersall]

@tomuk
We do still have libel laws you know. Personal attacks on and accusations about individuals (whether in the public eye or otherwise) are unedifying and don't seem to be backed up by irrefutable evidence.

[seaspear]

There would be libel laws but what are the responsibilities of the D.O.D in compliance with laws on safety , certainly a private employer could be facing multiple lawsuits from affected employees for injury ( re troops affected by hearing damage) there have been enough articles to suggest the vibration problem was known of for some years, is there any whistleblower legislation protecting people from raising this effectively ?

[RunningStrong]

Given that, I'm not quite sure why the two clowns are so resistant to the idea of trying something that might avoid this in the future. Hence my appropriate use of "luddite".

The absolute bilge that you type is no doubt the best fan-fiction I've ever read.

[tomuk]

Who have I libelled? Have you watched the committee meeting? The AJAX program just like other programmes before it is a disgrace tonnes of taxpayers money pissed away with nothing to show for it. With frontline soldiers left to fight in old outdated equipment like FV432 and CVR(T).

[Ron5]

Oh and the 'rumor' that the AJAX contract had to go to anybody but BAE at the time as we were too reliant on them (BAE made MOD/DES look bad over previous disasters) well that 'rumor' is news to the Perm Sec and everybody at MOD.

Seriously, they never heard of it?? The old head of DE&S has tweeted that it was very real and only a few in POA held out against it.

Pants on fire.

[SD67]

Today's public accounts committee on defence procurement. Feast your eyes.

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Ind ... f6f18788cb


All the well dressed MOD commercial man (lawyer [he's not a lawyer but the former head of procurement surrey county council ]) could confirm was that if we cancelled we would be due substantial damages from GDUK, not the £3-4bn we've spent so far, but substantial.

Unknown Unknowns. Lessons Learned. Complex Capabilities.

Well that seals it for me. 3 month stop work during which time we negotiate an amicable separation. If no result at the end of 90 days see you in court.

The last thing a company like GD wants is a big public mediation with a prestige customer, it would be the end of their business in Europe. All that's needed is for the MOD to grow a pair.

You reach a point in a project where sometimes it's just better to let it go. The bandaid fixes may be doing more harm than good.

[J. Tattersall]

The bandaid fixes may be doing more harm than good.

Not quite sure what 'band aid fixes' (on I assume AJAX) you're referring to?

[RunningStrong]

"If we were to cancel the contract tomorrow, like we did with warrior, they use the same turrets"

Well firstly Warrior production contract was never in place, so nothing was cancelled.

Secondly, they don't use the same turrets.

How odd that politicians haven't got a clue.

[Lord Jim]

Well firstly Warrior production contract was never in place, so nothing was cancelled.

So the programme was not cancelled it just went away. From the answers given the MoD is scrambling to avoid admitting what has really happened. Saying that the issues with vibration and noise were only made know to the MoD at the end of 2020 is very hard to believe, and after being hard pressed to then say that there was mention of the issues earlier but were anecdotal and therefore it appear not investigated.

The halting of trial seems to get a strange explanation from the DE&S, what we have read was that trials had been suspended whilst an investigation would be held at Millbrook. Now they are saying the trails at Millbrook have been suspended and are only now restarting.

As far as the level of knowledge, some may not have done their research beyond seeing both turrets were being manufactured by LM and used the CT40 cannon.

But the MoD's procurement system is broken, other nations may have issues with major programmes, but with the UK it seems to be that it is hard to identify a programme, especially when it comes to Army programmes. Lessons have not been learned, just more and more red tape added, with little or no value for money being realised for the Tax Payer. Up front risk reduction should already be being carried out as part of the bidding process. All the initiative that were mentioned have been recognised since the mid 1990's and multiple restructurings, both organisational and in skill levels. As far as contracts, I in my lowly position within the MoD, would place contracts on a weekly basis to quoting total numbers are meaningless. It issue is will the Major contracts.

It is going to be interesting how Boxer works out as well as Rheinmetall. Maybe the less the MoD is involved the better moving forward, with the MoD simply saying after looking at various options, we need X number of Boxers, how much? Ok here is a fixed price for that amount for the number required, run things as you see best, we will not change the specifications until after delivery or try to alter the contract in anyway.

As for Challenger 3, well we have tried US companies as programme leads, lets see how the Germans do.

[RunningStrong]

So the programme was not cancelled it just went away. From the answers given the MoD is scrambling to avoid admitting what has really happened.

Call it what you want, but there's no parallel to AJAX.

It is going to be interesting how Boxer works out as well as Rheinmetall. Maybe the less the MoD is involved the better moving forward, with the MoD simply saying after looking at various options, we need X number of Boxers, how much? Ok here is a fixed price for that amount for the number required, run things as you see best, we will not change the specifications until after delivery or try to alter the contract in anyway.

Boxer isn't a Rheinmetall programme. It's OCCAR that are the prime. manufactured by ARTEC, which is a joint Rheinmetall and KMW venture.

In turn, there's Rheinmetall Germany and UK, as well as KMW and WFEL.

Anyone that thinks Boxer is more straightforward is deluded.

[SW1]

GD land systems written evidence on Ajax to defence select committee

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 37866/pdf/

[Ron5]

I wonder how many lawyers participated in the writing of that.

[Ron5]

[Lord Jim]

Anyone that thinks Boxer is more straightforward is deluded

Well it is in service with at least three nations armies, is combat proven and has been developed into multiple versions, a proven modular construction and architecture, easily able to incorporate different nations requirements. Maybe the programme wasn't as straight forward, but it was managed well and has delivered a very effective product.

That sort of puts it in the premier league of European programmes where as Ajax has been relegated to the local parish league. I don't care what capabilities it has on paper, if it cannot be used operationally it is about as much use as a Renault 4 in a peer on peer conflict.

The time this programme has taken, problems such as the vibration issues cannot hove gone undetected until the last couple of years! Far more likely is that they were identified but the fixes that have been tried over a period of time have failed to cure the problem, which may mean it is imbedded in the platforms main components such as its suspension etc. that could require a major redesign, pushing back any IOC let alone FOC to wards say 2030 as the current FOC as the Head of DE&S mentioned is 2025 if everything were going smoothly.

If a quick fix is not identified after the trials at Millbrook, Ajax should be put out of its misery. If possible the remaining funding should be used to purchase a number of Boxer CRVs to operate as part of the Deep Fires BCT. These should be as near to the Australian spec. as possible with UK comms plugged into its open architecture which is the same as we will be getting and using the more powerful drive train we are already buying. This way there will no additional training or infrastructure costs. Will it be as capable as what Ajax was intended to be. Most likely not but it will get the job done, and the introduction of the manned Lance Turret could pave the way for a number of Boxers to be purchased with the unmanned version of the same turret to give the Army a wheeled IFV.

[Lord Jim]

GD land systems written evidence on Ajax to defence select committee

How can Ajax have completed 60,000km for trails and yet the vibration and noise issues were only detected when operated by Army crews recently?

[seaspear]

Define recently if defense reporters were aware of this in 2017

[RunningStrong]

Anyone that thinks Boxer is more straightforward is deluded

Well it is in service with at least three nations armies, is combat proven and has been developed into multiple versions, a proven modular construction and architecture, easily able to incorporate different nations requirements. Maybe the programme wasn't as straight forward, but it was managed well and has delivered a very effective product.

You've strangely deviated from what your own discussion point was, which was MOD complicating the issue through design and contractual changes.

The moment they do that, which I think is inevitable and especially so if people are seeking a variant to perform IFV duties, the whole thing will quickly become derailed and step away from being a MOTS product.