Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

https://static.rusi.org/312-Ajax.pdf

The travails of the Ajax programme have been widely publicised in Parliament and the media. This Emerging Insights paper provides an interim analysis of how and why this situation has come about.

It argues that the plight of the programme must be understood in the context of over 15 years of British Army and Ministry of Defence (MoD) failure to follow through on armoured vehicle projects, resulting in a loss of expertise in both the industrial and governmental sectors. It also confirms that the MoD, the Army customer, the procurement body and industry have all contributed to the programme’s shortcomings. The paper identifies four preliminary lessons.

First, it underlines the necessity for government to maintain a drumbeat of orders if it wishes to maintain a national industrial capability in a sector.

Second, if government runs down its in-house expertise, it must rely on corporate claims about what is possible in a period of time for a fixed sum of money. Yet, especially in a competitive context, companies can be driven towards excessive optimism in their offers.

Third, when projects involve an extensive development and production effort, a team approach that brings together suppliers, procurement bodies and customers is likely to work better than arms-length relationships.

Fourth, looking for individuals and bodies to blame does not incentivise transparency and effective lesson identification and learning.

The paper recommends that the planned inquiry focuses on holding to account individuals who were involved not only in recent years but also from the start of the programme, requiring them to identify the decisions they took. There is a need to understand the pressures that directed them to behave as they did so future acquisition programmes can be managed differently. The paper includes key questions for all the parties involved.
Many defence budgets overrun their schedules and budgets, and do not fulfil all their requirements. However, it is rare for an order to go into production that is fundamentally unsafe for its crews and simply not fit for purpose.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

The Russian advance on Pristina airport has to be one of the most successful military operation of all time. 200 paratroopers on light armour disrupted Western armour development for twenty years and counting.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post (total 2):
Zero GravitasSD67

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 17:25 However, it is rare for an order to go into production that is fundamentally unsafe for its crews and simply not fit for purpose.
That's somewhat of an exaggeration when taken in the context of AFVs. And more specifically noise and vibration. Let alone CO, Cyanide and shock...

Literally anyone with first-hand AFV experience will attest to that.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:03
SW1 wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 17:25 However, it is rare for an order to go into production that is fundamentally unsafe for its crews and simply not fit for purpose.
That's somewhat of an exaggeration when taken in the context of AFVs. And more specifically noise and vibration. Let alone CO, Cyanide and shock...

Literally anyone with first-hand AFV experience will attest to that.
They are not my words simply a copy of the report summary. I have no experience of afv to say if it’s true or false.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:03 Let alone CO, Cyanide and shock...
Sorry you have lost me, not sure what you mean!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army

Post by mr.fred »

whitelancer wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:26
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:03 Let alone CO, Cyanide and shock...
Sorry you have lost me, not sure what you mean!
At a rough guess, he means carbon monoxide and cyanide from gun fumes in the fighting compartment. Shock… from driving over obstacles, maybe? I’ve seen footage of a Challenger bouncing across a desert and one particularly energetic bump rattles the loader around his hatch like a basketball in a hoop before dropping out of view.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Senior Managers, both Military and Civilian who have worked on the Ajax programme at DE&S Andover are going to be in the crosshairs of the report. If their actions give GDUK the evidence they need to show that DE&S accepted and signed off on all stages so far including the IOC vehicles. If as a result this allows GDUK to state that they have not breached any of the terms of the contract and are entitled to compensation up to the remaining value of the contract, it will be the equivalent of the Night of the long knives with senior individuals trying to point the finger at anyone but themselves. How this will effect staff from DE&S who have moved on to other jobs within the MoD or moved to the civilian sector is going to be setting a huge precedent for the future. Could we even see legal action being taken against individuals ? The report is going to have major implication for the MoD and DE&S in particular as will affect all the Armed Services. It could also see GDUK expelled from future work of the MoD in areas they do not have a strong foundation of expertise.

However I cannot see the media getting excited about the report or its ramifications. They will still be concentration on "Partygate", or whatever new red top headline takes its place. No doubt the Defence Select Committee will have mush to say on this subject but their recommendations will not have any real impact as usual.

We can just keep our collective fingers crossed that the Boxer and Challenger 3 programmes are more successful and do form a foundation of a future Land Industrial Strategy. If Rheinmetall and its partners do not deliver the MoD will be looking for platform that are manufactured overseas form then on. A very sad end for a Country that developed the AFV and was a world leader for a time. It could be compared to teh USA leaving the aviation business! :lolno:

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:39
whitelancer wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:26
RunningStrong wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 19:03 Let alone CO, Cyanide and shock...
Sorry you have lost me, not sure what you mean!
At a rough guess, he means carbon monoxide and cyanide from gun fumes in the fighting compartment. Shock… from driving over obstacles, maybe? I’ve seen footage of a Challenger bouncing across a desert and one particularly energetic bump rattles the loader around his hatch like a basketball in a hoop before dropping out of view.
Correct. That's why you tend to see fume extractors on larger calibre weapons, it's not for ballistic reasons!

Prior to WCSP being scrapped, it had no separation between the breech and the crew compartment, whilst AJAX does have this separation. It baffles me how that one would have faired if WCSP had been held to the same standards (it wasn't, because it was considered a legacy platform).

Carbon Monoxide awareness has long been a part of standing orders. And shock attenuating seats aren't just useful in a mine-blast.

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 the Warrior had this issue with CO then surely the CVR(T) series had similar issues if using their guns too frequently? Neither the Scorpion or Scimitar/Sabre had a fume extractor. As for shock attenuating seats, how many of our tracked AFVs actually have these at present? In do any of our legacy AFVs meet the standards the Ajax is being tested against?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jan 2022, 23:12 If the Warrior had this issue with CO then surely the CVR(T) series had similar issues if using their guns too frequently?
Correct.
Lord Jim wrote: 22 Jan 2022, 23:12 As for shock attenuating seats, how many of our tracked AFVs actually have these at present? In do any of our legacy AFVs meet the standards the Ajax is being tested against?
CVRT mk2 has mine blast seating. Not aware of any others.
And no, because they all meet legacy standards with grandfathered rights.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Could that have been an issue then with management thinking more about how things used to be rather then what is needed now. From experience I know of officers who thought that way at time and had to have their backs covered by others.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

I should first say I have no scientific information to go on, but I would be very surprised if the Rarden cannon presented a problem on CVR(T) or Warrior. Not only where the working parts pretty well enclosed the spent cases where ejected outside of the turret. The co-ax however is a different matter, though the use of a chain gun on Warrior should have reduced the problem.

As for shock/blast resistant seating, if you look on the Boxer thread at the pictures of the inside of the rear compart its fairly obvious what the problems are when that is fitted. Its a matter of choice, are the potential reduction in deaths and injuries worth the downsides, in the current health and safety environment the answer for most would be yes, though I would suggest its rather less clear cut than many appreciate.

Returning to Ajax, any increase in Health & Safety standards seem to be irrelevant to the problems of noise and vibration encountered. For a start the Army doesn't appear to have any specific standards for AFVs, which could be a problem when negotiating with GD. More importantly the personnel at ATDU would be experienced operators of various legacy platforms if the noise and vibration was no worse on Ajax they would hardly have commented on it. Obviously both are major problems which ultimately come down to GD. Of course The MOD can't escape blame for a poorly run program. I have to say their is little you can argue with in the RUSI article up thread. I would highlight 3 things, the lack of a single person with responsibility for the whole program, the lack of expertise within the MOD, (the disposal of the establishments was a major mistake), and the limited involvement of the user, until a very late stage of the program.

When I talk about the user in this instance I am referring to those who have to command, operate and maintain the vehicle on the Battlefield. They should be involved from the start of a program when specific requirements are set, and certainly when any choices are made concerning a specific vehicle as in the selection of ASCOD as opposed to CV90. It would be really interesting to know the selection process that was conducted, I get the impression it was more of a paper exercise than anything else, with little or no involvement of users and a lack of expertise and facilities within the MOD to conduct a proper assessment. Indeed their seems to have been little involvement of the user until vehicles arrived at ATDU, which is far too late in the program.
I have raised this point up thread and it has been disputed by @RunningStrong, with no knowledge of what information he has, I never argued the point, now I do. So I would ask what involvement did users have, if any in the Ajax program prior to it arriving at ATDU?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Some of the issues these days may come form the emphasis on capability rather than more specific requirements. We would not say request a tracked Armoured Recce vehicle able to effectively engage enemy light and medium armour whilst protecting its crew form weapons likely to be used by an opponent. Instead a capability requirement would be issued for a platform to conduct recce over most terrain types and able to protect any crew on board. It may or may not be able to engage enemy platforms and personnel depending on what weapon system is proposed, and how this may effect the size and weight of any proposed platform.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: 23 Jan 2022, 14:09 Returning to Ajax, any increase in Health & Safety standards seem to be irrelevant to the problems of noise and vibration encountered. For a start the Army doesn't appear to have any specific standards for AFVs, which could be a problem when negotiating with GD.
Entirely incorrect.

The army has very clear standards and also must consider the HSE limitations as a duty of care.

whitelancer wrote: 23 Jan 2022, 14:09 So I would ask what involvement did users have, if any in the Ajax program prior to it arriving at ATDU?
Users from ATDU and supporting units have been embedded at GDUK as part of trials, human factors and extreme climate testing throughout the entire programme.

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 problems could also have arisen if the ASCOD 2, from which the Ajax was created also did not meet current UK H&S standards due to its age. With the desire to get the Ajax up and working could GDUK not paid full attention to the need for the ASCODs hull etc. to be modified to a higher H&S Standard until too late in the programme to be cost effective to correct and therefore were not exactly forthcoming when issues started to appear. Just an idea.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

RunningStrong wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 08:54 Entirely incorrect.

The army has very clear standards and also must consider the HSE limitations as a duty of care.
Well the reports up thread only mention Health and Safety at work regs, nothing specific to AFVs! However lets assume the Army has very clear standards for noise and vibration on AFVs. Prior to down selecting GD for the scout program they would of course have checked that Ascod confirmed to said standards, or at least prior to actually ordering Ajax or when the prototype of each variant, in particular Ajax itself, made their appearance. Or finally before accepting any of the variants for service. Did GD carry out any such checks? Did the Army at any point confirm that Ajax met the required standard?
Now if the standards do exist the checks were carried out and if the standards were met the question becomes why is their a problem with noise and vibration?
Clearly something went wrong.
RunningStrong wrote: 26 Jan 2022, 08:54 Users from ATDU and supporting units have been embedded at GDUK as part of trials, human factors and extreme climate testing throughout the entire programme.

In which case why did the problems only come to light recently, the first evidence seems to be from 2017?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 00:18 Well the reports up thread only mention Health and Safety at work regs, nothing specific to AFVs! However lets assume the Army has very clear standards for noise and vibration on AFVs. Prior to down selecting GD for the scout program they would of course have checked that Ascod confirmed to said standards, or at least prior to actually ordering Ajax or when the prototype of each variant, in particular Ajax itself, made their appearance. Or finally before accepting any of the variants for service. Did GD carry out any such checks? Did the Army at any point confirm that Ajax met the required standard?
Now if the standards do exist the checks were carried out and if the standards were met the question becomes why is their a problem with noise and vibration?
Clearly something went wrong.
Why would they check ASCOD when it was fundamentally a different platform they would be delivered? Heavier, larger, different turret, different seats, different crewstations, different tracks...

Were tests done? Yes. But if you read the latest report these tests were limited and results were extrapolated onto different platforms without proper verification of the modelling when hardware became available.

You need to separate the noise from the vibration. Whilst often related, in this instance the reasons are explained in the parliamentary accounts and reports, should you choose to read them.
whitelancer wrote: 27 Jan 2022, 00:18 In which case why did the problems only come to light recently, the first evidence seems to be from 2017?
Came to light to who? Again, read the latest reports on MOD safety and you'll see there are clear issues within MOD on the ownership and communication of known issues. That doesn't mean they are responsible for causing them, but if they fail to communicate that internally, that is not the fault of the contractor.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-pol ... 693070.amp


A new report has cast doubt over the future of an armoured vehicle being built for the Army in south Wales.

The Ajax project employs 800 people across two sites at Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale, and supports more than 4,000 jobs across the UK.

The National Audit Office (NAO) warned there was a risk that troubles with the project "might prove insurmountable".

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson said it would "not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose".

The NAO said there were "challenges and difficult decisions" if the MoD is to deliver the project.
Its report found that the MoD itself has no confidence in its own target for Ajax to be fully operational by April 2025.

It also warned that it could take until the end of 2022 to find a solution, because the MoD and the manufacturer disagree on the safety of Ajax.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by TSharpe28 »

SW1 wrote: 11 Mar 2022, 08:30 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-pol ... 693070.amp


A new report has cast doubt over the future of an armoured vehicle being built for the Army in south Wales.

The Ajax project employs 800 people across two sites at Merthyr Tydfil and Oakdale, and supports more than 4,000 jobs across the UK.

The National Audit Office (NAO) warned there was a risk that troubles with the project "might prove insurmountable".

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson said it would "not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose".

The NAO said there were "challenges and difficult decisions" if the MoD is to deliver the project.
Its report found that the MoD itself has no confidence in its own target for Ajax to be fully operational by April 2025.

It also warned that it could take until the end of 2022 to find a solution, because the MoD and the manufacturer disagree on the safety of Ajax.
Here's the NAO's full report

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-ajax-programme/#
These users liked the author TSharpe28 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Some commentary by Jon hawkes on the report

These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
TSharpe28RunningStrong

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Still nothing sorted.

No decisions been made.

It's a total fuck up, just bin the thing, it's shit.

A decade plus of Army incompetence.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by TSharpe28 »

More than a decade plus.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by TSharpe28 »

Thinkdefence's thread


User avatar
Zero Gravitas
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Zero Gravitas »

Ok, I admit I'm clueless about all this, but usually as a layman when I read one of the equipment threads I like to think I can pick up an idea about what it is and what it does.

Is there any short description of what Ajax is for? What is its 'elevator pitch'?

We need Ajax because.....?

Destroyers do air defence.
MBTs do what, combined arms maneuver primarily?
Arty blows things up.
A400 moves things.
Rivet joint listens to things.

What does Ajax do?

I have a vague idea that it is supposed to do recce and will cue other systems via bowman to blow things up. But in an army that could deploy - what 30k soldiers or something of that order - isn't 100s of recce units... rather a lot of recce and cueing? Why is that not better done by cheap, expendable drone these days anyway?

What is it cueing GMLRS, arty? How much of that have we got?

If you go to the CVRT wiki page (not definitive I know, but still) it says: "To support the air-landed troops, a requirement was identified for an AFV that could provide fire support with an anti-armour capability and be light enough to be airportable by the projected Armstrong Whitworth AW.681."

If you go to the Ajax page it says: "The purpose of the FRES programme was to find a replacement for the British Army's Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) family of vehicles, which have been in service from 1971."

Very happy to be corrected, but isn't part of the problem with Ajax that the need/mission (or whatever the military procurement term would be) hasn't been clearly defined?

It's to replace CVRT.

Well, ok. First question, do we need an armoured & tracked vehicle for that that doesn't fit in A400 and will cost over £10bn?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Part of British army thinking is the Cavalry ( Recce ) advance to contact and engage the opposite force and at the same time direct deep fires

with this being said Ajax is a step change in sensors , coms , and fire power. what we are starting to see with the Cavalry units is the use of small drones as part of there kit

Post Reply