Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

NickC wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 11:16 The Challenger hydro-pneumatic suspension said to have provided years of outstanding cross-country performance through the long suspension arm travel and controlled bump and rebound behaviour offered, surely with that successful experience with hydro-pneumatic suspension why did Army not make it a requirement for the Ajax chassis?
Because it would be a terrible requirement. If you want outstanding cross country performance then write a requirement that states that.

If you want to mandate equipment then add it to the list that includes CT40 and Catherine MP. But be prepared for the fingers to point at mandated equipment if/when it doesn't meet performance requirements.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 22:45
SD67 wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 22:07
Ron5 wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 13:33
If the MoD wanted a brand new vehicle, it should have asked for a new one to be designed. But not by GD UK, who didn't have a clue but Bae or KMV or Rheinmetal.
I have to wonder. Ajax is a new gun, turret, optronics, electrical architecture and a euro standard power pack and we’re compromising all that for the sake of the base platform? How expensive would it really be to fire up CAD/CAM and design a new chassis from scratch. Hydragas suspension based on ch2. RBSL would do it for them.
Yes but didn't the original procurement require it was an existing platform based on the believe that it would be cheaper and easier than starting from scratch.

Just like Nimrod MR4A, an upgrade despite everything but the fuselage barrel being new, because an upgrade could be justified but not new build.
Yes that's my point. Internal politics decided that an upgraded vehicle would be chosen. Bad, bad, reason. Either go for an existing vehicle and accept any compromises that entails or go for a 100% bespoke not 90%.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

BB85 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 12:02 The whole procurement process was very odd.
Why did the mod commit to signing a production contract before GD had demonstrated that their initial test vehicles met the armies requirements?
Same with awarding LM the Warrior LEP contract without ever demonstrating that they knew how to build a turret that met the armies requirements, then letting them to drag it out for at least 10 years before they could successfully complete trials before cancelling.
I don't think they actually got a production contract for that one, but LM still received huge amounts of money to develop their own turret when BAE already have their own turret that had completed military certification.
I can understand taking risks when it comes to building ships and submarines etc, but for land vehicles and aircraft, the test vehicles always come before awarding production contracts, usually as part of a competition and would have identified and avoided these issues over 10 years ago.
The answer to all your questions is politics: army politics, MoD politics, Treasury politics. Ajax is a vehicle created by politics lightly influenced by military requirements.

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: 27 Feb 2023, 12:35
NickC wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 11:16 The Challenger hydro-pneumatic suspension said to have provided years of outstanding cross-country performance through the long suspension arm travel and controlled bump and rebound behaviour offered, surely with that successful experience with hydro-pneumatic suspension why did Army not make it a requirement for the Ajax chassis?
Because it would be a terrible requirement. If you want outstanding cross country performance then write a requirement that states that.

If you want to mandate equipment then add it to the list that includes CT40 and Catherine MP. But be prepared for the fingers to point at mandated equipment if/when it doesn't meet performance requirements.
Typical poor contractor attitude. Instead of trying to supply the best possible, hides behind words in imperfect contracts (as all contracts are).

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 13:51 Typical poor contractor attitude. Instead of trying to supply the best possible, hides behind words in imperfect contracts (as all contracts are).
Best possible under what constraints?

If you want gold plated, don't pay for copper.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

NickC wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 11:16
mr.fred wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 14:07
NickC wrote: 26 Feb 2023, 10:55 From above GD knew about the rough ride of the Ajax chassis more than a few years ago.
There are a few reasons to choose hydropneumatic over torsion bar, so I wouldn't take it as read.
The Challenger hydro-pneumatic suspension said to have provided years of outstanding cross-country performance through the long suspension arm travel and controlled bump and rebound behaviour offered, surely with that successful experience with hydro-pneumatic suspension why did Army not make it a requirement for the Ajax chassis?
Here’s a crazy idea - design a new chassis from scratch for both CH3 and Ajax. Maybe Ajax gets a SWB version. Both with Hydragas. Build them on one production line at the old Armstrong works currently used by Pearson. Commonality, economies of scale, option to grow the tank fleet in the future

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 19:03 Here’s a crazy idea - design a new chassis from scratch for both CH3 and Ajax. Maybe Ajax gets a SWB version. Both with Hydragas. Build them on one production line at the old Armstrong works currently used by Pearson. Commonality, economies of scale, option to grow the tank fleet in the future
For the vehicles that replace Ajax and Challenger, perhaps. Make it a family of armoured battlegroup vehicles, so tanks, recce, infantry, engineering and any other vehicle that would suit the chassis or common systems. Hydrogas might be a good solution, but equally in ten, twenty year's time it might be something different. Perhaps electromagnetic based or enhanced. Make modular that which you can - define interfaces and leave room for growth so you get easier upgrades or tailoring to a specific task.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 19:03 Here’s a crazy idea - design a new chassis from scratch for both CH3 and Ajax. Maybe Ajax gets a SWB version. Both with Hydragas. Build them on one production line at the old Armstrong works currently used by Pearson. Commonality, economies of scale, option to grow the tank fleet in the future
Disagree that we need an armoured recce vehicle that shares a platform with a MBT.

But there's a lot to be said for better use of an MBT chassis across multiple platforms. The Leopard has been used as a base for many different vehicles (but not an IFV to my knowledge?). But T-14/T-15 and Merkava/Namer are concepts we could consider if we value IFV survivability over other factors.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
sol

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

With conventional chassis design, the layout for an MBT and IFV have always been at odds. One based on the other is always a compromise vs one optimised for its role. The Russian approach of using the same basic chassis but reversing it to suit MBT and IFV is as good a solution as any, but future AFVs are likely to have a hybrid powertrain which offers increased flexibility on where you put things and increased opportunity for energy recovery.
SD67 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 19:03 Maybe Ajax gets a SWB version.
With tracked vehicles there are some pretty definite restrictions on length vs width. Too short and it isn't stable, requiring constant steering input, while too long and it's too stable, making it difficult to turn.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

7.62 metres v 8.3
(Ajax v CH2)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 19:03 Here’s a crazy idea - design a new chassis from scratch for both CH3 and Ajax.
I don't think that it is realistic to build new chassis for either CR3 or Ajax. It would require much more money and would delay their arrival even further. How could anyone justify spending so much money on Ajax while trying to sell to government spending even more for new hulls.

But for the next generation it would be good to go with such approach where one or two platforms could be used as a base for whole family of vehicles. For example French vision of MGCS sims like including three (four?) versions so far
  • Tank
  • Command and Control with CTA 40
  • Missile
  • SPG?
Image

C&C version could probably be used as a base for Ajax type vehicle.

Image

But MGCS is still very far from being properly defined. Armata is another good example of possibility. If either BAE or RM win US OMFV contract, either one of those could also be considered in future as a base for IFV, Recce, SPG and other vehicles.

It is shame that there are so many issues with Ajax as it could be used as a base for IFV and SPG (Donar). Theoretically it still could but I doubt that would happen. IMO, Ajax would really need to show its worth before UK decide to place further orders.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

sol wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 09:42
SD67 wrote: 27 Feb 2023, 19:03 Here’s a crazy idea - design a new chassis from scratch for both CH3 and Ajax.
I don't think that it is realistic to build new chassis for either CR3 or Ajax. It would require much more money and would delay their arrival even further. How could anyone justify spending so much money on Ajax while trying to sell to government spending even more for new hulls.
It's just a "what if" - ie would it really have taken longer than the 5 year delay to Ajax? Is turning a sow's ear into a silk purse really cheaper than just buying silk?

The thing about a new build is per unit costs decrease as you move down the cost curve, it is possible, easy even to extend production as needed. Not the case with a refurb project - we hit 148 Challenger 3 - what if more are needed? Someone then has to go scouring the junk yards

MGCS concept looks nice, though of course it's just wallpaper at the moment

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:25 It's just a "what if" - ie would it really have taken longer than the 5 year delay to Ajax?
You are asking would it take longer to contract, develop, build and test new chassis instead of using contracted, developed and built chassis that is currently in the testing phase? Not to mention that there are currently some 140 mostly finished Ajax family vehicles and over 200 produced hulls overall. How long would it take from developing a new chassis till the final delivery? Take for example Boxer, it is developed and in production, and yet, by 2025 it is expected to have just 27 vehicles delivered with all 623 delivered by 2032. There is no way that Ajax on the new chassis would be developed, produced, delivered and operational before current Ajax fleet.
SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:25 The thing about a new build is per unit costs decrease as you move down the cost curve, it is possible, easy even to extend production as needed.
Again, everyone are talking like getting money for it would be easy. How much additional cost will require a develop, produce and test new chassis? Even if there is a chance to get more money, when this money would be available, especially considering all other projects that needs to take place down the line? Not to mention, how do you expect for a public and its representatives to react if the Army ask for more money to build a new hull for vehicle which is already late and in troubles and on which is already spent so much money?
SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:25 Not the case with a refurb project - we hit 148 Challenger 3 - what if more are needed? Someone then has to go scouring the junk yards
Without knowing the state of the 75 tanks in the storage we can only guess. Also I doubt that UK will sent to Ukraine or scrap all the tanks beside those 148. So it is possible that, if more tanks needed, there will be enough hulls. I doubt that UK would want to increase its tank fleet well above 200, considering that anything more would require restructure of part of the army. For three armoured tanks there should be enough tanks, probably even for four. Anything more than that is highly unlikely, not just because tank numbers but also with current ORBAT and manpower.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

sol wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 13:24
SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 12:25 It's just a "what if" - ie would it really have taken longer than the 5 year delay to Ajax?
You are asking would it take longer to contract, develop, build and test new chassis instead of using contracted, developed and built chassis that is currently in the testing phase?
No I am asking whether, back in around 2012, before the contract was signed in 2014, whether it would not have been better to design a base platform from scratch, rather than taking a 1990s APC which started out at 19 t then doubling the weight and stretching it in every direction. It is a 5.5 billion contract. The entire design phase of T26 was only around 700 million.

I am aware that there are a large number of hulls in various states of completion. Also aware that fewer than 20 have been handed over and accepted by the customer. First thing I was taught way back in the day in automotive "We don't get paid for Work in Progress". 90% completion is like 90% legality. There was a company called British Leyland that used to make 90% complete cars, it didn't end well

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:05 It is a 5.5 billion contract. The entire design phase of T26 was only around 700 million.
You do realise that you are comparing a production contract with a design contract, right?
SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:05 I am aware that there are a large number of hulls in various states of completion. Also aware that fewer than 20 have been handed over and accepted by the customer. First thing I was taught way back in the day in automotive "We don't get paid for Work in Progress". 90% completion is like 90% legality. There was a company called British Leyland that used to make 90% complete cars, it didn't end well
Defence doesn't work like automotive, though.
Custom, low production numbers automotive doesn't work like high production number automotive either.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SD67 wrote: 28 Feb 2023, 16:05 It is a 5.5 billion contract. The entire design phase of T26 was only around 700 million.
Scout SV demonstration contract was £500m.

What was £859m spent on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-31554494

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Was Scout SV ever actually demonstrated prior to the contract being signed in 2014?
I don't recall ever seeing a demonstration vehicle or the mod signing off that it met any requirements, maybe it was demonstrated on a power point demonstration that cost £500m.

Ideally BAE and GD should have been contracted to produce demonstration vehicles with the most capable selected and with an obligation for 80% of build and future exports to be performed on the UK. I would have combined scout and warrior replacement into a single hull, with the scout and engineering vehicles being delivered from 2017 to 2022 and warrior replacement vehicles from 2023 onward.

The MOD trying to deliver AJAX and Warrior LEP in the same time on a very thin budget, with contractors who had no experience of CTA or manufacturing turrets in the UK was never going to work.

I do hope corners have not been cut on Ajax to get it over the line, I'm sure its sensor suite is cutting edge, but not much good if it will be plagued with reliability and moblity problems over the next 30 years.
These users liked the author BB85 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacSD67

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 09:19 Was Scout SV ever actually demonstrated prior to the contract being signed in 2014?
I don't recall ever seeing a demonstration vehicle or the mod signing off that it met any requirements, maybe it was demonstrated on a power point demonstration that cost £500m.
There was definitely an ARES vehicle around at that time, it was parked in front of the Celtic Manor Hotel for the NATO summit.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I remember being confused that all of the issues reported to the press over the years focused on the canon and ammo feed mechanism.
But over half the variants didn't require a turret so why were they not delivered first, inline with the original delivery dates, that would give more time to sort out the turret.
The vibration issues were not reported until 2020 from memory, it doesn't give a lot of confidence about how transparent these problems were being reported.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 13:28 But over half the variants didn't require a turret so why were they not delivered first, inline with the original delivery dates, that would give more time to sort out the turret.
Because MOD stopped paying? I understand their point being these are all support variants, why would we accept them when the principal variant is not available?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

It looks like none of the variants met the mod requirements though but the issues of vibration noise etc was suppressed for years while they blamed the issues on the turret and government supplied equipment.
To be honest even without the turret and ammunition feed mechanism if the MOD were constantly changing their requirements which increased the weight on the chassis that would still make it their fault it was just that these issues where kept under wraps for so long, when it was meant to enter services first on 2018 and then in 2020

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 01 Mar 2023, 14:09 It looks like none of the variants met the mod requirements though but the issues of vibration noise etc was suppressed for years while they blamed the issues on the turret and government supplied equipment.
To be honest even without the turret and ammunition feed mechanism if the MOD were constantly changing their requirements which increased the weight on the chassis that would still make it their fault it was just that these issues where kept under wraps for so long, when it was meant to enter services first on 2018 and then in 2020
To be clear on the whole were GD hiding something theory, GD had personnel in the vehicles running tests. GD are subject to the same HSE limits as the MOD are. If GD personnel were getting injured on trials witnessed by MOD personnel then how was it being covered up given the practical issues and legal obligations?

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Sorry wasn't suggesting it was GD covering anything up. The lack of transparency is more on the mod's side. There wasn't any mention of vibration and noise issues publicly until a few months before IOC was due to be announced in June 2020 (might have been 2021 due to COVID I can't remember). When it missed IOC in 2018 they blamed the turret and ammunition handling system which is why I thought the issues where only limited to the Ajax variant.

If Ares for example was used as the initial demonstrator vehicle if there were serious noise and vibration issues it should not have been signed off in 2014.
If the vehicles were fine in 2014 and the initial production vehicles were rattling due to QC issues I don't see why it would have taken so long to resolve.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I think it's quite important that the noise and vibration issues are considered separately. While they are linked at the fundamental level, there is the noise, which actually caused measurable harm, and that was due at least in part to the British Army's equipment*, and vibration, which was reported but not confirmed (i.e. the symptoms were gone by medical inspection the next day).

* Given that there was a report on the parlous state of headsets a year or two previous, plus the army has launched a wholesale replacement across the fleet, not just for Ajax, it's likely that this was a long running problem and it was only the Ajax controversy that brought it up.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

And of course the MoD still cannot clarify when the Ajax will be operational, or it IOC. The Army top brass got a real grilling on the subject when questioned by the Defence Select Committee.

Building a platform whilst it is still undergoing development always causes problems. Both GD and BAe should have been asked to produce a number of prototypes that the Army would then evaluate. The capability requirements for the platform should also have been far more vigorously monitored and controlled.

If we had gone for a platform that met say 80% of the Army's needs, could the possible savings allowed a few of the Stage 3 platforms to be buildt as part of the Contract.

Post Reply