Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 800
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Franni told to get back in his box :LOL:


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

But he wasn’t the only one to get the same information


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Sources so credible they can’t be verified?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 800
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 12:46 But he wasn’t the only one to get the same information

There's a great news source called arrse.co.uk if you want more high quality and referenced defence news.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 13:05
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 12:46 But he wasn’t the only one to get the same information

There's a great news source called arrse.co.uk if you want more high quality and referenced defence news.
I’ll look into that….

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »


Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
Scotland

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:21
So, the programme rattles on then?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:21
So, the programme rattles on then?
No decisions will be made until next year according to the statement in the House of Commons. Defence Committee chairman said if it can’t be fixed by next February it should be scrapped.

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
Scotland

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:28
Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:21
So, the programme rattles on then?
No decisions will be made until next year according to the statement in the House of Commons. Defence Committee chairman said if it can’t be fixed by next February it should be scrapped.
... and then what? They can't be planning on going back to a blank sheet of paper, so there must be a contingency in the works already?

sol
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:28 No decisions will be made until next year according to the statement in the House of Commons. Defence Committee chairman said if it can’t be fixed by next February it should be scrapped.
And if it fixable, who should pay for fixing all those things?

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 776
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

For me personally, even if the mechanical issues can be resolved, perhaps the bigger question right now is one of doctrinal suitability. As things stand, Ajax sits rather awkwardly within the Army's plans.

It's crystal clear that some sort of broadly equivalent capability is essential to the Army's future, but I think - if we are to be entirely honest - the question very seriously needs to be asked as to if the Ajax platform (and family) is still the right, not merely the most convenient, way of delivering that?

Just my two pennies worth.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Totally agree with that, it would look fine if it was equipping the Recce Regiments that were part of the BAOR back in the late 1990s, But as it stands it lacks key capabilities to be considered a Light Tank and is sort of too big to be a Recce Platform in the way the CVR(T) it replaces were used. Also key variants are lacking from the Family that would allow units equipped with Ajax to be fully utilised and effective. We obviously could not go back to a clean sheet design is Ajax were to be dropped, but there are platforms out there that could do the same job.

For me the Obvious choice is a UK version of the Boxer CRV, entering service with the Australian Army. There is another option for Boxer involving using a turret equipped with the CTA 40mm Cannon, but any turret covered by the latter is lacking maturity whilst the Rheinmetall turret installed on the Boxer CRV is far more so, also being used on the Lynx IFV. This would of course mean that no platforms equipped with the CTA 40mm Cannon would exist within the British Army and the 500+ Cannons already bought and paid for would either stay in storage or need to find a new home, preferably not landfill.

The other alternatives for Ajax in teh Recce role would be based on an in production IFV such as the CV-90 or aforementioned Lynx. All of these could either use an existing turret or one that uses the CTA 40mm Cannon, but like with Boxer the later would be more expensive, and that is before we start talking about the cost of ammo.

One whacky use of the surplus CTA 40mm Cannons would be to use some of the Challenger 2 tanks that are not to be upgraded to Challenger 3 standard and build a UK version of the Russian Terminator Combat Vehicle, replacing the existing turret with a remote one housing dual 40mm Cannon and up to eight missiles, either long range ATGWs or SAMs. The vehicle would have a crew of three, Commander, Gunner and Driver. Again a wacky idea.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 18:35 dual 40mm Cannon
Look at how the CT40 feeds and tell me how that is supposed to work.

BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I've skimmed through the report but couldn't find the section where they explained why these problems took so long to identify and address.
For drive train is it fair to assume they will move to rubber tracks?
The engine is the same one going into boxer so why has no one else reported issues?
The QC issues are extremely disappointing but it doesn't sound like any of them should be difficult to fix it the manufacturer's put some pride into their work.
The headsets can't take long to sort out either.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 800
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 18:35 But as it stands it lacks key capabilities to be considered a Light Tank and is sort of too big to be a Recce Platform in the way the CVR(T) it replaces were used
...
For me the Obvious choice is a UK version of the Boxer CRV, entering service with the Australian Army.
Doesn't make sense. At DSEI it was apparent to everyone just how tall the Boxer mortar vehicle was alongside the CR3 demo, that's without a Boxer turret installed.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I was suggesting alternatives that didn't require a clean sheet design, and as we are already buying 500+ Boxers, that would be my choice. As for size, just look at the post in the Australia thread showing the size difference between a veteran M113 and the Lynx and Red Back IFV that are competing for part of the Land 400 programme. Modern APCs and IFVs are getting Big. You want eight dismounts, plus a certain level of protection, Drive Train power and the possibility of a Turret, you are not going to get a CVR(T) sized platform. Unless you actually started with a clean sheet of paper you are going to have to base your Recce Platform on an existing design that meets the majority of your criteria. That is going to leave you with modifying either a tracked or Wheeled platform that is a IFV or APC. We have used the ASCOD 2, an IFV, as the basis for Ajax and have run into issues as have been discussed here.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2820
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 37 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:43
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:28
Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:21
So, the programme rattles on then?
No decisions will be made until next year according to the statement in the House of Commons. Defence Committee chairman said if it can’t be fixed by next February it should be scrapped.
... and then what? They can't be planning on going back to a blank sheet of paper, so there must be a contingency in the works already?
CVRT mk3? They have created a big hole all of there own making.

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
Scotland

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 16 Dec 2021, 11:20
Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:43
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:28
Rentaghost wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:26
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2021, 14:21
So, the programme rattles on then?
No decisions will be made until next year according to the statement in the House of Commons. Defence Committee chairman said if it can’t be fixed by next February it should be scrapped.
... and then what? They can't be planning on going back to a blank sheet of paper, so there must be a contingency in the works already?
CVRT mk3? They have created a big hole all of there own making.
Indeed.

My preference would be to use Boxer. If the USP of Ajax is its situational awareness, and digital connectivity, then those components could surely be engineered into a Boxer module and you even have a choice of two CTA40 Turret designs to use as well.

You keep the ISTAR functionality, but mate it to a reliable, proven vehicle that doesn't need a redesign to fit it all in.

jonas
Member
Posts: 993
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jonas »


SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

You guys are over analysing and over complicating this. It’s very simple - projects and products that fail to hit their objectives get cancelled. What happens next is a second order issue.

If you’re not willing to cancel then no program will ever deliver as the suppliers know you’re a soft touch.

You don’t stay in a dead marriage because you’re worried about the cost of getting back into the dating scene.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post:
Zero Gravitas

sol
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Kevan Jones, MP North Durham, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the scope of the parent company guarantee from General Dynamics for the delivery of AJAX includes reimbursement in the event that the vehicle is unable to reach IOC.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, answered:

“Yes, provided liability for breach is established.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/builder ... r-service/

Still, I doubt Ajax will be scrapped, it is just to "important" to fail as lot of capabilities in Future Soldier depend on it, basically a huge part of 3rd Division.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

plus the MOD wont be able to pin it on GD

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I would agree the Ajax is important to Future Soldier in its current form but the latter is not dependant on it as such. In my opinion the Army will unfortunately still proceed with Ajax with GD biting the bullet for any cost to put things right, delivering exactly what in in the contract. They may however get a sweetener by the need to develop additional variant of the platform to fill glaring hole in the capability needs of the unit to operate it, a long range Overwatch platform and a Bridging Units for example. Both could possibly be developed and brought into service at the same time the new Recce Regiments are stood up, or not long after.

sol
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

There might not be news updates about Ajax till July


BB85
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I wish I only had to provide a status update on my programs every 6 months and not even provide set milestones for what will be achieved in 6 months.
I expect another update to say the review has been completed and GD are now investigating possible solutions. It could be 2025 before Ajax is in service and in need to for its life midlife upgrade before a Life extension program in 2030.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
SD67

Post Reply