Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[BB85]

Some videos appear to show a thermal sleeve on the CTA40 cannon and others don't. I wonder if the initial trials versions did not include one for testing but the production variants will do? Always seemed very strange just to have the bare barrel exposed unless it was to make inspection during trials easier.

[Timmymagic]

This is interesting, a lot of people think Ajax is too big for Recon. People have mentioned Jaguar as an other way of doing things....turns out that Jaguar is a bit of a monster as well...

https://twitter.com/TotherChris?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

[RunningStrong]

This is interesting, a lot of people think Ajax is too big for Recon. People have mentioned Jaguar as an other way of doing things....turns out that Jaguar is a bit of a monster as well...

https://twitter.com/TotherChris?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

This is news to people?!

Jaguar is a modern 6x6 on a truck chassis. Anyone has been around modern 6x6/8x8 vehicles know they're not small vehicles! The CT40 was always an easy means to compare the two vehicles.

Recce isn't small.

[Jackstar]

At the DSEI 2023 defense exhibition in London, the British Army unveiled the latest variant of the Ajax armored vehicle fitted with the 40mm turret. This vehicle is set to replace the CVRT tracked armored reconnaissance vehicles, which have been in service with the British forces since 1970.
With its 40mm turret, the AJAX will serve as the backbone of the British Army's deployable all-weather ISTAR operations. Notably, AJAX is the inaugural British vehicle to incorporate the Case Telescoped 40mm Cannon (CT-40 Cannon), a collaborative effort between the UK and France. This cannon features a coaxially mounted 7.62mm L94 Chain Gun, housed within a dual-axis stabilized two-person turret.

The unique Cased Telescopic Ammunition (CTA) design sets it apart from traditional ammo. In this design, the projectile is encased within the cartridge, enveloped by the propellant, optimizing space and enhancing lethality. This versatile cannon can fire a range of ammunition types, from High Explosive and Armour Piercing to Training rounds.

Additionally, all Ajax variants without turrets come equipped with a Remote Weapon Station (RWS), compatible with a range of weapons including the 7.62 mm General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG), 12.7 mm Heavy Machine Gun (HMG), and the 40mm Grenade Machine Gun (GMG).


The vehicle's armor provides robust protection against a variety of threats. It's designed to withstand impacts from small arms fire, artillery shell splinters, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats. This ensures that the crew inside remains safe even in hostile environments.

Mobility is another key feature of the Ajax. It's powered by a powerful engine that allows it to traverse a range of terrains, from roads to rugged off-road landscapes. This ensures that the vehicle can be rapidly deployed to where it's needed most, whether that's in an urban environment or in the middle of a desert.

The Ajax is also equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance and target acquisition systems. These systems include thermal imaging and laser rangefinders, which allow the crew to detect, identify, and engage targets even in low-visibility conditions. This gives the Ajax a significant advantage on the battlefield, as it can operate effectively both day and night.

Furthermore, the vehicle has been designed with crew comfort and operability in mind. The interior is spacious, providing the crew with the space they need to operate effectively. Advanced communication systems ensure that the crew can maintain contact with command and other units, ensuring coordinated operations on the battlefield.

In summary, the Ajax armored vehicle with a 40mm turret is a state-of-the-art piece of military hardware. Its combination of firepower, protection, mobility, and advanced systems make it a formidable presence on the battlefield, capable of taking on a wide range of threats and challenges.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense ... _2023.html

[BB85]

This is interesting, a lot of people think Ajax is too big for Recon. People have mentioned Jaguar as an other way of doing things....turns out that Jaguar is a bit of a monster as well...

https://twitter.com/TotherChris?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

This is news to people?!

Jaguar is a modern 6x6 on a truck chassis. Anyone has been around modern 6x6/8x8 vehicles know they're not small vehicles! The CT40 was always an easy means to compare the two vehicles.

Recce isn't small.

Apparently the CTA40 turret on the Jaguar is not stabilised yet and is pending a software upgrade before it can fire on the move. I don't have the link it came off one of those automated YouTube videos that pulls the publication from a french government publication. It is expected to be upgraded next year. I just thought that was interesting to know. The French appear to be able to deliver vehicles and upgrade them later rather than delay the whole thing for a decade until every box or ticked. Lessons learned I hope.

[RunningStrong]

Apparently the CTA40 turret on the Jaguar is not stabilised yet and is pending a software upgrade before it can fire on the move. I don't have the link it came off one of those automated YouTube videos that pulls the publication from a french government publication. It is expected to be upgraded next year. I just thought that was interesting to know. The French appear to be able to deliver vehicles and upgrade them later rather than delay the whole thing for a decade until every box or ticked. Lessons learned I hope.

That's appalling! The French have accepted a modern medium calibre weapon that can't fire on the move! That's disgraceful.

[mr.fred]

That's appalling! The French have accepted a modern medium calibre weapon that can't fire on the move! That's disgraceful.

They should fire everyone involved and burn the factories to the ground!

[Jackstar]

Varients of new Ajax armoured vehicles on the driving range.

[Jackstar]

Ajax & Ares taking part in Iron Titan.


https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense ... e_vignette

[FutureTechToday]

Regarding AJAX's ISTAR capability, can anyone explain if there is AI or ML built in to enable automatic detection and classification of threats and targets? Or does the crew have to continuously observe?

Is AJAX equipped with a STANAG 3733 Laser Target Designator?

[RunningStrong]

Regarding AJAX's ISTAR capability, can anyone explain if there is AI or ML built in to enable automatic detection and classification of threats and targets? Or does the crew have to continuously observe?

Is AJAX equipped with a STANAG 3733 Laser Target Designator?

Nothing stated in the public domain.

[FutureTechToday]

Why do think nothing has been stated in public? Does this imply these features are absent? I cant imagine these basic features are classified.

[RunningStrong]

Why do think nothing has been stated in public? Does this imply these features are absent? I cant imagine these basic features are classified.

To be blunt, no one is going to add anything that isn't in the public domain.

ETA - CR3 and AJAX share the same sights

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... allenger-3

"The Challenger 3 will receive Thales's Signal Processing System (SPS), delivering video tracking and a Wide Area Search and Detection (WASAD) capability. The spokesperson added that “the gunner and commander sights are linked to the SPS which provides automatic video tracking capability, allowing acquired targets to be tracked day or night. In addition, the commander's sight through the SPS has a WASAD capability which provides up to a 360° panoramic view of the scene and is able to detect and alert the commander of threats and potential targets of interest”."

[BB85]

This article is a bit old now so not sure if there is a more up to date on on think defense
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/british- ... lity/ajax/
But it covers most of the questions you asked about target tracking, risk detection and laser warning receivers.

[sol]

4 Ajax of the Household Cavalry on exercise

[mr.fred]

Moved here to be on topic

And if there really is a unique UK need for gold plated electronics then it should have been modularised and separated from the platform. By making it bespoke and platform specific you're basically allowing GD to milk us for the next 30 years.

Isn't Ajax supposed to be GVA compliant? So the electronics are modular and can be swapped out?

If that's true then why persist with the Platform? Take out the electronics and plug them into something OTS.

Why not persist with the platform? Is there anything out there that could be had quicker and cheaper from this point?
Is there a platform out there that is GVA compliant?

[SD67]

Moved here to be on topic

And if there really is a unique UK need for gold plated electronics then it should have been modularised and separated from the platform. By making it bespoke and platform specific you're basically allowing GD to milk us for the next 30 years.

Isn't Ajax supposed to be GVA compliant? So the electronics are modular and can be swapped out?

If that's true then why persist with the Platform? Take out the electronics and plug them into something OTS.

Why not persist with the platform? Is there anything out there that could be had quicker and cheaper from this point?
Is there a platform out there that is GVA compliant?

I don't know - ask the market. It's called a "tender".
Personal view - Ajax has been three years away from service entry for the last 15 years. Even after all the money spent noone can guarantee an in service date. Meanwhile the Koreans are setting up an entire production line, from scratch for MBTs in Poland, in a couple of years.

[mr.fred]

I don't know - ask the market. It's called a "tender".

Do you know how much a "tender" costs? How long it takes? Do you cancel Ajax before you do it in the hope that it gives you a good answer, or do you let Ajax stumble on with the axe hanging over it?

Personal view - Ajax has been three years away from service entry for the last 15 years.

Remarkably clever, since it's only been under contract for 13 years.

Even after all the money spent noone can guarantee an in service date. Meanwhile the Koreans are setting up an entire production line, from scratch for MBTs in Poland, in a couple of years.

It's dragged on for longer that it ought, that I'll agree with. There's probably a lengthy book that could be written on the blunders and mistakes made over the project, but we still have the reverse edge of the sunk cost fallacy:
Anything new you bring in now is competing from the current point in time, not some point in the past. A comparable vehicle to Ajax comes in at about £10m each (similar to Ajax's overall programme cost) but if Ajax is 2/3 through it's budget then each one costs it's proportion of what's left, so on that basis an Ajax costs about 1/3 what a comparable vehicle does.

The army is currently on exercise with Ajax. It's not in service, but troop trials are at least something.

[RunningStrong]

Moved here to be on topic

And if there really is a unique UK need for gold plated electronics then it should have been modularised and separated from the platform. By making it bespoke and platform specific you're basically allowing GD to milk us for the next 30 years.

Isn't Ajax supposed to be GVA compliant? So the electronics are modular and can be swapped out?

If that's true then why persist with the Platform? Take out the electronics and plug them into something OTS.

Why not persist with the platform? Is there anything out there that could be had quicker and cheaper from this point?
Is there a platform out there that is GVA compliant?

There's nothing else out there fitted with a CT40 turret on a 6 ft turret ring, with sufficient power, heat dissipation and growth that matches AJAX, no.

Many of the electronics have been taken from AJAX and shared on the Boxer and CR3 programmes. Not everything.

Thales command and gunner sights shared with CR3.
Gunshot detection system shared on AJAX and Boxer.
Thales RWS largely the same across all platforms.
Thales LSAS is largely the same on Foxhound and AJAX.
AJAX turret and WCSP turret were supposed to largely share electronic equipment.

[Tempest414]

Moved here to be on topic

And if there really is a unique UK need for gold plated electronics then it should have been modularised and separated from the platform. By making it bespoke and platform specific you're basically allowing GD to milk us for the next 30 years.

Isn't Ajax supposed to be GVA compliant? So the electronics are modular and can be swapped out?

If that's true then why persist with the Platform? Take out the electronics and plug them into something OTS.

Why not persist with the platform? Is there anything out there that could be had quicker and cheaper from this point?
Is there a platform out there that is GVA compliant?

There's nothing else out there fitted with a CT40 turret on a 6 ft turret ring, with sufficient power, heat dissipation and growth that matches AJAX, no.

Many of the electronics have been taken from AJAX and shared on the Boxer and CR3 programmes. Not everything.

Thales command and gunner sights shared with CR3.
Gunshot detection system shared on AJAX and Boxer.
Thales RWS largely the same across all platforms.
Thales LSAS is largely the same on Foxhound and AJAX.
AJAX turret and WCSP turret were supposed to largely share electronic equipment.

With this said money spent on Ajax is now starting to benefit Boxer and CR3 programs meaning these programs follow some what better

[RunningStrong]

With this said money spent on Ajax is now starting to benefit Boxer and CR3 programs meaning these programs follow some what better

There's no doubting that AJAX had a significant impact on the UK supply chain, but many suppliers entered the market when the fleet estimates were in the thousands (when you consider the thousands of CVR(T) that were in the fleet it was supposed to replace, as well as some warrior variants).

Some of those smaller suppliers have been bitten and frankly weren't interested in follow up work with the UK fleet.

Others, like Thales have benefited massively on optics, and also a follow-on order for Accusonic system.

[SD67]

I don't know - ask the market. It's called a "tender".

Do you know how much a "tender" costs? How long it takes? Do you cancel Ajax before you do it in the hope that it gives you a good answer, or do you let Ajax stumble on with the axe hanging over it?

Personal view - Ajax has been three years away from service entry for the last 15 years.

Remarkably clever, since it's only been under contract for 13 years.

Even after all the money spent noone can guarantee an in service date. Meanwhile the Koreans are setting up an entire production line, from scratch for MBTs in Poland, in a couple of years.

A comparable vehicle to Ajax comes in at about £10m each (similar to Ajax's overall programme cost) but if Ajax is 2/3 through it's budget then each one costs it's proportion of what's left, so on that basis an Ajax costs about 1/3 what a comparable vehicle does.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the opposite of recognised Cost Accounting / Project Accounting. The fact that 2/3 of the budget has been spent does not mean 2/3 of the milestones have been achieved.

44 complete vehicles have been handed over - all non turreted = roughly 8% completion.
It's reported that 190 chassis are in "various states of completion". So that milestone is running at 32% x whatever % "various" means (let's say 80%) = 25%.

So what you would normally be doing now is rebaselining the cost projection based on the actual spend to date and the actual milestones delivered to date and rolling that forward to get the estimated cost to completion. If it has cost (say) 2 Billion to date to deliver 190 chassis means it will likely cost 6.15 Billion to deliver 585, so no the cost per unit is not one third the alternative it is in fact much higher based on the running rate achieved to date.

Unless the contract is absolutely water tight fixed cost - but GD deny that

[mr.fred]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the opposite of recognised Cost Accounting / Project Accounting. The fact that 2/3 of the budget has been spent does not mean 2/3 of the milestones have been achieved.

No, it doesn't. Why would it? I didn't say that it did.

44 complete vehicles have been handed over - all non turreted = roughly 8% completion.
It's reported that 190 chassis are in "various states of completion". So that milestone is running at 32% x whatever % "various" means (let's say 80%) = 25%.

Yet there are pictures upthread of turreted vehicles on exercise.
The contract for the full quantity of vehicles has used up about 2/3rds of the budget. It has to deliver the remaining vehicles within the remaining 1/3rd.

So what you would normally be doing now is rebaselining the cost projection based on the actual spend to date and the actual milestones delivered to date and rolling that forward to get the estimated cost to completion. If it has cost (say) 2 Billion to date to deliver 190 chassis means it will likely cost 6.15 Billion to deliver 585, so no the cost per unit is not one third the alternative it is in fact much higher based on the running rate achieved to date.

I'd say that's a hopelessly simplistic way of modelling it, but even if that's the method you use you've still got a programme that is running and delivering product against which to compete in time and money. Comparable "OTS" vehicles cost as much as Ajax's entire programme budget averaged out over the number of vehicles, so unless you think that Ajax will require it's entire budget again to complete, a replacement will not be able to compete.

[RunningStrong]

44 complete vehicles have been handed over - all non turreted = roughly 8% completion.

Turreted AJAX have been handed over...

Unless the contract is absolutely water tight fixed cost - but GD deny that

The contract is watertight fixed-price for what MoD contracted. Did MoD change the contract? I think we all know the answer to that one...

[Jackstar]

Lockheed: Ajax tank turrets programme over halfway through production.
The Ajax turret production line at Lockheed Martin UK’s Ampthill site. Lockheed Martin has delivered 62% of the Ajax programme’s turrets – while General Dynamics says 143 of the total 589 vehicles are fully assembled.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/lo ... n/?cf-view