Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 09:25
BB85 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 00:39 Ajax was ordered a decade ago and the army has shrunk considerably since then.
And yet how many CVR(T) and FV432 variants are still in use?

My comment was in response to complaints about the number of Ajax vehicles ordered not if they where still relevant/capable. Having said that CVRT and FV432 should have been retired and relaced 10 years ago, they are in services out of necessity rather than capability.
BB85 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 00:39 For all of the commentators that crack up about a scout vehicle being confused with an ifv, that's because the hull is based on an ifv packed with additional sensors for the recon role.
I guess that makes the Hippo BRV a MBT!

Nope again you are completely missing the point. No one has ever claimed that an IFV can perform the role of a scout vehicle. Only that alternative hulls in the same size/weight category as ASCOD, fitted with the same sensor suite and CTA canon would have been in service 5 years ago with much less risk. The CV90 hull has won every competition it ever faced off against ASCOD, the exception being the UK, which involved very little testing of a proven solution, even though BAE had a proven turret certified. It really does better belief.
BB85 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 00:39 With Warrior worn out and in need of replacement it seems bonkers that an ifv version was not included in the original order to bring it up to around 750 vehicles with 300 if them being ifvs with space for 6 dismounts.
You may have heard of this small project called WCSP...
Ahh yes that other hugely delayed then cancelled program where LM screwed up the turret and delivered 6 working vehicles. It was another Nimrod, they never would have been able to refurbish the hull numbers required within budget. They cut the hull numbers by 100 or so every year until it was down to 250, which they could have ordered brand new for the money wasted.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 28 Dec 2022, 23:06 Ahh yes that other hugely delayed then cancelled program where LM screwed up the turret and delivered 6 working vehicles. It was another Nimrod, they never would have been able to refurbish the hull numbers required within budget. They cut the hull numbers by 100 or so every year until it was down to 250, which they could have ordered brand new for the money wasted.
Jeez, bitter much?
The number upgraded was always limited by the number of guns (515 across WCSP and Ajax) contracted in 2015.
At a total of £1.4bn (~£600m down, £800m projected) for 250 vehicles it was a little less than £6m per vehicle which compares favourably to Ajax at a little under £10m per vehicle (and half of those don't have turrets) or the going rate for IFVs internationally which seems to be around £10m a unit.
I couldn't say if the turret worked, but it was reported to have completed most of its trials (which Ajax is just starting) when cancelled.

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

The original contract was to upgrade 380 vehicles, agreed only 245 would have a new turret so why the delay in delivering 140 upgraded vehicles without a turret? LM spent £600m delivering 6 test vehicles that took 9 years to complete testing. They where never delivering 250 vehicles for £800m. Buy cheap buy twice, especially in maintenance costs.
Ordering scout, ifv, apc and engineering versions of the already proven CV90 hull and using a BAE turret would have been more expensive initially but much better value for money long term and significantly lower risk.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:02 Ordering scout, ifv, apc and engineering versions of the already proven CV90 hull and using a BAE turret would have been more expensive initially but much better value for money long term and significantly lower risk.
Oh god, this tripe again.

CV90's proven hull? Proven where? Which conflict? Which terrain? At what weight? With what power demands?

If we're going to dismiss the ASCOD hill pedigree (which is entirely fair, and entirely irrelevant given the extensive modifications made for UK), then we should also apply the same consistency to the CV90.

The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.

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: 29 Dec 2022, 14:21 The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.
And how long has Ajax been under development compared with the Mk 4??? If Ajax had started development in 1939 for WW2, it would have entered service in the mid 1950's.

And by the way, in several areas, CV90 Mk4 well ahead of Ajax: mobility, noise, vibration, APS for starters.

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: 29 Dec 2022, 14:21 CV90's proven hull? Proven where?
Afghanistan along with Boxer.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:31
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:21 CV90's proven hull? Proven where?
Afghanistan along with Boxer.
So as unproven as Boxer then, glad we agree.

Oh and that was CV9035, so nothing like UK has wanted...
Ron5 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:29
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:21 The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.
And how long has Ajax been under development compared with the Mk 4??? If Ajax had started development in 1939 for WW2, it would have entered service in the mid 1950's.

And by the way, in several areas, CV90 Mk4 well ahead of Ajax: mobility, noise, vibration, APS for starters.
I was just thinking I need some BS for the garden, you never fail to deliver Ronnie!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:02 The original contract was to upgrade 380 vehicles, agreed only 245 would have a new turret so why the delay in delivering 140 upgraded vehicles without a turret?
The one with the turret was the priority? Plus that's hardly the 100 a year loss you were waving around originally.
BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:02 LM spent £600m delivering 6 test vehicles that took 9 years to complete testing.
12 test vehicles, and £600m and 9 years doing the design work, building a prototype, testing it, building the test vehicles, testing them...
Yes it was behind on the original plan, but at least try to get the details right if you're going to complain.
BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:02 They where never delivering 250 vehicles for £800m.
Why not? Because all the non-recurring costs bumped the trials vehicles cost up? That's a non-sequitur.
BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 14:02 Ordering scout, ifv, apc and engineering versions of the already proven CV90 hull and using a BAE turret would have been more expensive initially but much better value for money long term and significantly lower risk.
Do you know how quickly BAE would have done it and how much it would have cost? Would that cost have been within the allocated budget?
This is the same BAE who presided over Nimrod, Terrier and Panther CLV, remember, they do not have an unblemished record.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

The thing here is Ajax is still on so yes it may be late but it seems it will arrive

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

BAE had already completed testing and certification on a CTA turret, awarding LM a £600m contract to complete trials and testing all over again was a huge risk and enormous waste of time and money the MOD didn't have.
There is no defending it.
Sorry they delivered a whole 12 vehicles that where immediately scrapped once the decision was made not to proceed with the contract.
Believing LM would not have run into multiple delays refurbing 40 year old vehicles that have served in multiple conflicts all over the world and had multiple ad-hoc armour upgrades is extremely naive, the sort of naivety that led to this mess, maybe you worked on this project :clap:

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Tempest414 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 16:59 The thing here is Ajax is still on so yes it may be late but it seems it will arrive
It will arrive alright there is far too much money spent on it to pull the plug now, I just hope its performance meets expectations.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
Tempest414

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 17:07 BAE had already completed testing and certification on a CTA turret, awarding LM a £600m contract to complete trials and testing all over again was a huge risk and enormous waste of time and money the MOD didn't have.
There is no defending it.
If BAE had really got that far, how were they not able to comprehensively outbid LM in terms of time and schedule?
BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 17:07 Believing LM would not have run into multiple delays refurbing 40 year old vehicles that have served in multiple conflicts all over the world and had multiple ad-hoc armour upgrades is extremely naive, the sort of naivety that led to this mess,
Surely BAE would have had the same problems?
BB85 wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 17:07 maybe you worked on this project
Who's to say? I could claim either way without changing the points I am arguing.
Is being involved the only reason to defend a position? Would that make you a BAE employee?
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Mr Carrot

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: 29 Dec 2022, 15:31 So as unproven as Boxer then, glad we agree.
A shed load more proven than Ajax that can't even get by user trials, let alone combat deployment.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 15:31 Oh and that was CV9035, so nothing like UK has wanted...
And how does the CV90 mk4 hull differ from that of the cv9035? Yeah, didn't think you knew.
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Dec 2022, 15:31 I was just thinking I need some BS for the garden, you never fail to deliver Ronnie!
Ha, so you can't rebut that the CV90 mk4 has superior mobility, noise, vibration, APS, gun, AT missiles, etc. than Ajax. Oh dear.

At least you're not claiming that Ajax has a great chassis because it's being used by GD in their US vehicles. Fact is they ditched the chassis and developed a new one.

I confidently predict no other nation will ever buy and use Ajax.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.

If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.

I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.

If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.

I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:15 A shed load more proven than Ajax that can't even get by user trials, let alone combat deployment.
We were talking CV90 and ASCOD at the contract award point, keep up at the back Ronnie.
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:15 And how does the CV90 mk4 hull differ from that of the cv9035? Yeah, didn't think you knew.
Yep. Quite significantly.
Ron5 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 14:15 Ha, so you can't rebut that the CV90 mk4 has superior mobility, noise, vibration, APS, gun, AT missiles, etc. than Ajax. Oh dear.
Why would I go to the effort of rebutting your fairytales again? Or you could provide that evidence that you haven't got!

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 18:12
Jake1992 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.

If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.

I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…
I meant more in relation to the Boxer program it’s self not so much a separate tracked program ( this is what Germany has done )

The idea that track boxer wasn’t developed at the same time as it’s wheeled variant giving a family of 2 vehicle with interchanged mission modules to replace all tracked and wheeled vehicles in both our own and German forces.

It just seems odd to me now looking at what’s here and what roads were taken that it never occur to anyone at time.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Jake1992 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
Why would they? Warrior entered service in 1987, 6 years before Boxer started and 9 years before UK joined Boxer project. They had no need to think about its replacement, especially considering that last Warriors were delivered around 1995 or something like that, and tracked Boxer would probably not even considered as CRV replacement at that time. Germany had its own project from 1996, which would eventually resulted with Puma IFV. There was just no need for tracked version at that time as there were other projects or already existing vehicles to cover roles that tracked Boxer would provide.

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: 30 Dec 2022, 18:12
Jake1992 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.

If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.

I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…
We?????

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

sol wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 00:01
Jake1992 wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
Why would they? Warrior entered service in 1987, 6 years before Boxer started and 9 years before UK joined Boxer project. They had no need to think about its replacement, especially considering that last Warriors were delivered around 1995 or something like that, and tracked Boxer would probably not even considered as CRV replacement at that time. Germany had its own project from 1996, which would eventually resulted with Puma IFV. There was just no need for tracked version at that time as there were other projects or already existing vehicles to cover roles that tracked Boxer would provide.
Looking at tracked Boxer, I'm not so sure its such a brilliant idea. Looks a POS and I'd struggle to think of any advantages over any of today's IFV's. Well, except for Ajax :D

PS And yes Karen, an Ajax IFV was entered into the Australian competition. Came last, I believe.

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: 30 Dec 2022, 18:42 A shed load more proven than Ajax that can't even get by user trials, let alone combat deployment.

We were talking CV90 and ASCOD at the contract award point, keep up at the back Ronnie.
And yet you accepted the comment that CV90 was proven in Afghanistan. Consistent much?
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 18:42 Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 07:15
And how does the CV90 mk4 hull differ from that of the cv9035? Yeah, didn't think you knew.

Yep. Quite significantly.
HA, ha, like you know. Good one.
RunningStrong wrote: 30 Dec 2022, 18:42 Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 07:15
Ha, so you can't rebut that the CV90 mk4 has superior mobility, noise, vibration, APS, gun, AT missiles, etc. than Ajax. Oh dear.

Why would I go to the effort of rebutting your fairytales again? Or you could provide that evidence that you haven't got!
APS, 50mm gun, AT missiles:
Image

Strategic & tactical mobility:


Noise:


QED

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

My god this discussion is depressing.
For so long the UK hasn't had new and up to date vehicles, now it seems some are suggesting we are getting to many.
Fucks sake like.
These users liked the author Luke jones for the post:
mr.fred

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

And yet you accepted the comment that CV90 was proven in Afghanistan. Consistent much?
[/quote]
Unproven in Afghanistan, at best!
Ron5 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 14:49 HA, ha, like you know. Good one.
It's quite obvious how little you know.
Ron5 wrote: 31 Dec 2022, 14:49 APS, 50mm gun, AT missiles:
Image

Strategic & tactical mobility:


Noise:


QED
LMAO. Guzzled the BAE cool-aid? Nice render though, always good to use a shiny brochure to compare when it's clear you yet again haven't. But again, fallen at the first hurdle, to say something is better then you actually need to compare it.

So we'll put the CV90 Mk4 down as a 30mm or a 35mm?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Cant see what the current discussion has to do with the AJAX, I must be losing the plot. My age perhaps. Happy new year.
These users liked the author bobp for the post (total 3):
CaribbeanLittle Jjimthelad

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: 31 Dec 2022, 18:28 So we'll put the CV90 Mk4 down as a 30mm or a 35mm?
That's the CV90 Mk4 that won the Czech competition with a 50mm gun, APS & anti tank missiles.

Shame Ajax doesn't have any marketing material. I wonder if that's because GD regards it as unsellable.

Post Reply