Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
SD67
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

jonas wrote:Ajax is an important capability for the Army and we are
committed to working with General Dynamics for its
delivery.
That sentence just undermines the Minister's negotiating position IMHO. Ajax is not the capability, it's the platform. And we shouldn't be "committed to working with General Dynamics", we should be committed to ensure the army gets a decent solution, whether through GD or someone else.

NAO are having a sniff

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... programmes

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
jonas wrote:Ajax is an important capability for the Army and we are
committed to working with General Dynamics for its
delivery.
That sentence just undermines the Minister's negotiating position IMHO. Ajax is not the capability, it's the platform. And we shouldn't be "committed to working with General Dynamics", we should be committed to ensure the army gets a decent solution, whether through GD or someone else.

NAO are having a sniff

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... programmes
3 billion in efficiency savings my ass. 3 billion in cuts more like.
A Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson told Janes on 4 October, “We want our armed forces to have the very best ships, aircraft, and vehicles, while always delivering value for money at every stage of our procurement programmes. We support the NAO's review as defence continues to deliver its ambitious modernisation plans set out in the Integrated Review. Through new streamlined processes and developing our industry contracts with a focus on delivery, we have delivered over GBP6.2 billion [USD8.4 billion] of Equipment Plan financial savings since 2016 and are on course to deliver GBP3 billion of efficiency savings between 2021 and 2025.”
But then they're "always delivering value for money" (eyes roll).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

And here is me thinking we had moved away from having an Equipment Plan partial funded by "Efficiency" Savings with the MoD. Wasn't that how the Black Hole was formed, committing to spending the money before any savings were made, then finding things did add up and there was a deficit. Next round more Efficiency Saving are promised to cover the deficit whilst still maintaining the equipment plan and even adding new items to it, and so on.

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Great efficiency savings scrapping 50% of MBT's, 100% of IFV's and goodness knows how many frontline troops to cover the cost of failed procurement projects. I'm sure the mandarins in Whitehall and the top of the mod didn't see much of the efficiency savings.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
BB85 wrote:I think the latter models where meant to have the hulls manufactured in Wales anyway
I think that original intent got ditched along the way.
Fork-lifted away?
Anyway, just getting the newspaper headlines while away, only two things came thru: AUKUS and AJAX troubles (that much the general public gets to know of these things, then :crazy: )
... sorry to interrupt; will keep catching 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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:Options are

Boxer CRV ( Boxer to enter service with the army is a plus but it costs 4 million per unit)
CV-90 ( The latest offering is little more than drawing so is not off the self )
I should :D read the next 10 pages before putting my spoon into making this broth, BUT 8-)
1. as the CV90 'Dutch' was not given much credence, take the Norgie remanufacture into recce wagons (half-way there?) and get them (with the CT40?) for the two Heavy BCTs... and be done with it
2. All the other BCTs with a need for a 'fighty' recce wagon to have the Aussie edition: on wheels, but with the CT40, again

Shimmples? No?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Shimmples? No?
No.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by seaspear »

Often with hearing loss, it can only be determined by testing, vibration exposure/ injury is also complicated for testing.
Is there a requirement for members of the armed forces to have a high degree of acceptable hearing,to stay in the armed forces, and are the armed forces risking a number of personnel being medically unfit for duty?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:There were only ever 250 - odd turreted versions, I'm assuming the supporting variants were thrown in to bring the production run up to a minimum viable quantity.

Another point is that unlike Nimrod MR4A, there are decent MOTS alternatives available now.
While u are making a valid point about the numbers (3000 was the starting point - heh-he), you may want to check which shed held the gubbins that the lead integrator put on the MPA that we. in the end, bought instead :wave: ... ie. a product wholly theirs).
Lord Jim wrote: Just so I am on the right page, are we taking over command of the NATO High Readiness force in 2024 hence the more urgent need to get things purchased/modified and in service by that date?

It will be interesting to see how long it takes to organise such a Brigade and get them into position.
Oh well, the Germans have the same problem, but they will be facing it earlier... as their Pumas are not quite what they were supposed to be... and their digitalisation has not been postponed - but cancelled for good.
Ron5 wrote:replacing AJAX with CV90.
as a recce wagon
Ron5 wrote: In fact, tracked IFV's seem to be the hottest part of the market
and if we do/ will not have any such (at all) then the biggest armour fleet's fate (the Soviets losing c. 2000 against the Finns who had none, to muster) will be a lesson "relearned"
- but we are excelling with 'lessons learnt' aren't we
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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: How many marks of Centurion, widely regarded as being the finest MBT ever made, were there? How many iterations of M1 Abrams or Leopard 2?
Quite. Mustang was a mediocre fighter, until it got the Merlin engine (and the bubble canopy).
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: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BB85 wrote:Great efficiency savings scrapping 50% of MBT's, 100% of IFV's and goodness knows how many frontline troops to cover the cost of failed procurement projects
Yeah, the IFVs part is the one that grates: how do these folks intend to use MBTs? With the 22 Streetfighter kits, to blow down walls so that what remains can be flushed out of 'insurgents'?
- if so, no need to spend nearly a bn£s to modernise
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: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

CV90 would of been the answer 15 years ago but I don’t think it’s the answer today if the decision is made that Ajax will not be saved. If that does happen the only place the army has left to go is to have the two heavy brigades resemble US Stryker brigades but mounted on boxer. Tanks can be added to the structure if a mission demands it. If they decided they wanted tracks in the mix they could in future work perhaps with Germany to develop a tracked drive unit that accepts boxer modules. Deployability from the UK over a given range will be crucial for the army going fwd.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
BB85 wrote:I think the latter models where meant to have the hulls manufactured in Wales anyway
I think that original intent got ditched along the way.
Fork-lifted away?
Anyway, just getting the newspaper headlines while away, only two things came thru: AUKUS and AJAX troubles (that much the general public gets to know of these things, then :crazy: )
... sorry to interrupt; will keep catching up
It's always nice to get new contributors to the forum. Welcome aboard :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:CV90 would of been the answer 15 years ago but I don’t think it’s the answer today if the decision is made that Ajax will not be saved. If that does happen the only place the army has left to go is to have the two heavy brigades resemble US Stryker brigades but mounted on boxer. Tanks can be added to the structure if a mission demands it. If they decided they wanted tracks in the mix they could in future work perhaps with Germany to develop a tracked drive unit that accepts boxer modules. Deployability from the UK over a given range will be crucial for the army going fwd.
Boxer's nice until it rains a lot then watch them axle deep in mud desperately trying to spin their way out :D

PS No point in deploying quickly over 1000's of miles if you get squished flat when you arrive. Always better to be late to the party but correctly dressed.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:Boxer's nice until it rains a lot then watch them axle deep in mud desperately trying to spin their way out
Well large tyres, heavy duty suspension, a central tyre pressure system and a powerful drive train with plenty of torque means that there are very few places a tracked vehicle can go that a Boxer cannot also. Tracked vehicles have few advantages over modern 8x8 vehicles whilst the latter certainly have advantages over the former such as mobility on roads or good going and most beneficially much lower running costs. If you want a traditional heavy formation that has very little deplorability and costs a fortune to operate then by all means go for a fully tracked formation.

So in relation to the British Army, the Deep Precision Fires BCT that is going to live in eastern Europe equipped with two regiments of M270 GMLRS would be a good place for two Recce Regiments equipped with large well protected tracked Recce vehicles. How even for our heavy and Light BCTs that are all supposed to have a certain level of strategic deplorability, we need to minimise the number of tracked vehicles and the large support tail they require to be able to operate.

What we need is a fast, well protected wheeled 8x8 platform that can be easily altered to carry our a multitude of different tasks from carrying infantry supporting out Challenger 3s, to Recce, to Air Defence, Command vehicle, the list goes on and on. Until technology enables it, there is not alternative to the Main Battle Tanks in a number of its key roles, and so we must retain out Challenger 3s until that time. This also mean retaining a number of Heavy Armoured Engineering Vehicles to support them. This means that the Heavy BCTs will still need a number of HETs but substantially fewer than a traditional Armoured Brigade need for anything more than tactical manoeuvres over a limited distance and then it still requires a very large logistics train to keep moving etc. .

The Lighter units hopefully will be centred on a fleet of 4x4 and 6x6 MRV(P) platforms eventually, and therefore shouldn't have any of the above issues.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote: If you want a traditional heavy formation that has very little deployability and costs a fortune to operate then by all means go for a fully tracked formation.
Pretty sure I want a formation that can take on the enemy's best and beat it it. Doesn't matter if its dirt cheap and gets there quickly if upon arrival it gets flattened.

All the other big guys in the armored world are going for tracked tanks with tracked IFV. More than a few are buying brand new tracked IFV.

I saw this yesterday, apologies if it has been linked here before, the author concludes that AJax is too broken to fix and suggests CV90 could be bought to at least replace Warrior. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-cont ... rt-web.pdf

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
He can say that if he likes but I don’t think it’s possible, considering the going unit cost for IFV acquisition tends to be closer to £10m. I mean, his low end is about half the price of Boxer.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...
As he says in his book (zero points for reading comprehension), the costings are sourced from the contract costs for the CV9035 as purchased by Estonia, Denmark and Holland between 2004 and 2014.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2095.html

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:. He says that 245 CV90 III IFVs could be acquired for around 700 million.
The variant the Dutch are already doing a USD500m upgrade on 144-off?

Numbers don't add up...
As he says in his book (zero points for reading comprehension), the costings are sourced from the contract costs for the CV9035 as purchased by Estonia, Denmark and Holland between 2004 and 2014.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2095.html
:lol:

Zero points for not understanding. The Dutch bought MK3, they're already out of date, they're already paying USD500m to upgrade a smaller fleet to the CV90 ~mk4 grade.

Where's the value in saying we'd replace AJAX/Warrior with an already out of date platform!?

sol
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Considering that Hungary deal with Rheinmetall for 218 Lynx IFVs and 9 Buffalo armored recovery vehicles, will cost around $2.4 billion (£1.7 billion ?), it is hard to believe that 245 CV90 would cost "just" £700 million. Norway upgraded 103 CV90 and bought 41 new chassis for £500 million and that was almost 10 years ago. IMO, 200+ CV90MkIV would probably cost at least between £1.5 - £2 billion, maybe even more.

BB85
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I dont see how vibration and noise issues can't be overcome. The biggest disappointment is that it has taken this long to be addressed which means those in charge of managing the project have hidding issues to meet targets. If it is down to manufacturing defects GDUK can manufacture new hulls and have have British engineers inspect them before they leave the factory in Spain. The weight shouldn't be the issue, while 38 tonnes is heavy for a scout vehicle is the going rate for tracked IFV's these days. GDUK need to be working day and night to resolve these issues and then work day and night to get back in track as the build rate would have been very slow to maintain jobs over the lifetime of the contract.
Unfortunately the bad press has all but guaranteed it will never win an export contract while a proper scout vehicle like Jaguar IBRC will likely be sold in the thousands.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:Pretty sure I want a formation that can take on the enemy's best and beat it it. Doesn't matter if its dirt cheap and gets there quickly if upon arrival it gets flattened.
I fully agree. But if we go down the real "Heavy" route with a couple of our BCTs they are going to be definitely or almost definitely limited to operations in Europe, simply because the cost of moving and operating such a formation further afield would have a detriment effect on the money available for other more useable formations.

The current Government want all our Armed Forces to have a true global reach, beyond a few SF, RM or Rangers here and there. In my view this means that a large part of our heavy BCTs as well as the light BCTs have to be have maximum strategic mobility under their own power, greatly reducing both the need for HETs and the size and cost of the logistics train that will be following these formation. AS a result I see the Deep Precision Fires BCT as the only formation that should be almost wholly tracked as should also be prepositioned in eastern Germany or Poland. This of course means the reserve component of this formations needs to have yearly deployments to Europe for at least a part of it. It is this, and only this formation that should receive Ajax or whatever platform may replace it, either tracked or wheeled.

The costly elephant in the room with the Army's reorganisation is the definite need to increase the readiness of various BCTs with one of each Heavy and Light BCT being on high readiness at any given time. There needs to be regular deployment exercises to friendly nations in areas we wish to maintain some influence and at least every four years there needs to be a full short notice Brigade level deployment.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting piece of information I spotted reading the 2020 British Army Review (p.21) https://armyprod-cms1.greatstate.cloud/ ... dition.pdf . During any given operation by tracked heavy units, 25% are down for maintenance to the vehicle and its tracks especially. That equates of a Company or Squadron per Regiment/Battalion out of action at any given time. It also highlights the much greater logistical train needed to support heavy tracked platforms compared to light platforms. It then goes on to explain how light forces are able to spend a far greater time on mission that in maintenance compared to heavy forces. At present Light Forces refers to the Army's Wheeled vehicles already in service such as Foxhound, Jackal and Mastiff currently deployed in Mali, but will no doubt also apply to the Boxer and MRV(P) when they enter service.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Lord Jim wrote: During any given operation by tracked heavy units, 25% are down for maintenance to the vehicle and its tracks especially.

You have misread the article. What it actually says is that the mean rate of failure is four times higher for heavy forces equipped with Challenger and Warrior than that of light forces. Though it doesn't specify the light vehicles it refers to. That is a rather more reasonable picture than the one you presented it as.

Post Reply