UK Defence Forum

Posted: **18 Sep 2022, 11:26**

RunningStrong wrote: ↑17 Sep 2022, 20:08
mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Sep 2022, 19:54 Full Bowman replacement is in the works at the moment,
It's hardly a replacement, Morpheous EvO is more an iteration of the BCIP5.6 hardware. Regardless, it's still a comprehensive installation if we want a digital recce platform with the ability to communicate in a secure digital network.

mrclark303 wrote: ↑17 Sep 2022, 19:54 Digital integrated aside, there is no reason they couldn't have adapted a known vehicle, they didn't, the Ajax hull is far removed from the original design via redesign, it's caused a large number of new problems all of its own.
Until about 12 months ago when CV90 mkIV was unveiled as a demonstrator, there wasn't a single platform available for the level of C4I and ISTAR equipment that AJAX has on board. That requires significant amounts of power, cooling, weight increase etc etc

How many MBT, let alone AFV/IFV, were equipped with commander and gunner sights of equal performance? How many have been fielded with all around digital camera systems? How many have been fielded with that and a medium calibre weapon with programmable rounds?

Yes, the MoD could have bought and Off the Shelf solution, but nothing out there was anywhere near at the time of contracting, and right now I'm not aware of anything, at a paper/top-trumps level, that surpasses AJAX's capabilities.

That's not to say it's better than everything else, because clearly to win the fight you have to be in the fight first, and secondly, gold-plating rarely wins wars.

And there in lays the problem Running Strong, somone should have hit the pause button at the programmes start, it was clearly overly ambitious, thus impossible to accurately cost and very poorly managed from the top to the bottom.

Even down to the Spanish built Ajax hulls requiring rework on arrival in the UK due to poor quality welding.

The fact they passed numerous factory line inspections, plus final inspection and shipping, only to be found sub standard on arrival, shows what a ridiculous mess the whole programme has descended into!

If it's going to be a technical first and the best of its type in the world, then it's going to be ferociously expensive and with past experience, we knew damn well it would be a programme full of problems and delays, so double your original ferociously expensive price tag and double the development time frame.

We will probably end up with Scimitar pulling a trailer full of stacked Ajax equipment, powered by dasiy chained car batteries

Posted: **18 Sep 2022, 23:48**

I personally like the US system of introducing a platform in its vanilla form, meeting the minimum requirements and then having an agreed spiral development programme to add on many of the nice to hav toys as well as any new technologies that appear during the platforms service life. EIth this you get a platform into servoce in a shorter timeframe and with less financial risr, but with growth potential to grow as is needed and also funded.

Maybe we should have kept the third Armoured Regiment, e-equip it with Challenger 3 and add it to the Deep Fires BCT so it can operate more like an Armoured Cavalry Brigade with integral heavy artillery support, with the capabilities including the necessary fire power to fight for the information needed to target the Enemy.

AS an alternative to Challenger 3, I wonder if it would be possible to have a Boxer Mission Module carrying the Turret form the Italian Centauro 2 with its 120mm gun and excellent FCS, optics and C3 capabilities.

Posted: **20 Sep 2022, 10:04**

Posted: **21 Sep 2022, 08:01**

Posted: **21 Sep 2022, 11:08**

Feels like the programme has had it, and the only thing left to quibble over is who foots the bill.

Hopefully they can get on with moving armoured recce onto Boxer quickly. Probably the lowest risk means of restoring capability.

Posted: **21 Sep 2022, 11:35**

If the turret is central to Ajax' recce capabilities (and assuming that we want to stick with the CTA40), then presumably the turret could be moved over to a Boxer module, which should have sufficient room to handle the internal systems. Then go for CV90 for the IFV requirement and integrate the new Warrior turret - or would that be tempting fate?

Posted: **21 Sep 2022, 15:37**

Caribbean wrote: ↑21 Sep 2022, 11:35 If the turret is central to Ajax' recce capabilities (and assuming that we want to stick with the CTA40), then presumably the turret could be moved over to a Boxer module, which should have sufficient room to handle the internal systems. Then go for CV90 for the IFV requirement and integrate the new Warrior turret - or would that be tempting fate?

Sounds dangerously like common sense to me, if anyone in MOD procurement reads this they will be pouring over their Collins English Dictionary, looking up "Common Sense" to read the definition of this strange new phase!

I can at least propose a solution regarding the hundreds of shoddily built Spanish Ajax hulls in storage, might I suggest they are transferred to Ukraine, to be stacked on top of each other and poured over with concrete, like modern day defensive Martello towers...

At least some use could be made of them......

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 09:47**

well if Ajax was to be canned then one way to get around who's fault and who foots the bill would be to give GDELS a contract for 900 6x6 Eagle V to be built in Wales. As the biggest problem to HMG is the Welsh jobs that would be lost the up side is that the Army could convert the 4th BCT from light infantry to light mechanised

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 11:06**

Presumably the silence about Ajax is due to legal wrangling about who is footing the bill between GD and the MoD.

It'd be nice to think there is also a considerable amount of work already gone into figuring out what will replace the capability. However, the liklihood we are into another 10 year procurement cycle for this is terrifying.

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 19:42**

Ajax is designed to fight the Russians or Russian tech isn't it? It's not going to be deployed to Taiwan (probably).

What does the conflict in Ukraine tell us about the need for directing fires (if that is the right phrase) via a medium weight armoured vehicle?

That's not a rhetorical question. I don't presume to know the answer, but is MoD just assuming the answer must be something that looks like a modern CVRT?

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 19:58**

Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 Ajax is designed to fight the Russians or Russian tech isn't it? It's not going to be deployed to Taiwan (probably).

What makes you think that?

Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 What does the conflict in Ukraine tell us about the need for directing fires (if that is the right phrase) via a medium weight armoured vehicle?

That's not a rhetorical question. I don't presume to know the answer, but is MoD just assuming the answer must be something that looks like a modern CVRT?

Ukraine tells us that effective use of artillery is dependent on effective ISTAR capability. Is Ukraine doesn't have an effective ground-based ISTAR capability, it's impossible to learn any lessons in that basis.

However, we do know that many nations have developed and continue to develop effective counter-UAS systems.

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 20:29**

RunningStrong wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:58
Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 Ajax is designed to fight the Russians or Russian tech isn't it? It's not going to be deployed to Taiwan (probably).
What makes you think that?

Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 What does the conflict in Ukraine tell us about the need for directing fires (if that is the right phrase) via a medium weight armoured vehicle?

That's not a rhetorical question. I don't presume to know the answer, but is MoD just assuming the answer must be something that looks like a modern CVRT?
Ukraine tells us that effective use of artillery is dependent on effective ISTAR capability. Is Ukraine doesn't have an effective ground-based ISTAR capability, it's impossible to learn any lessons in that basis.

However, we do know that many nations have developed and continue to develop effective counter-UAS systems.

I just typed out a few different erudite and witty responses, but on reflection, and given that I just had to look up what ISTAR means, perhaps I'll leave it there and get back in my box.

Posted: **22 Sep 2022, 22:01**

Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 20:29
RunningStrong wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:58
Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 Ajax is designed to fight the Russians or Russian tech isn't it? It's not going to be deployed to Taiwan (probably).
What makes you think that?

Zero Gravitas wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 19:42 What does the conflict in Ukraine tell us about the need for directing fires (if that is the right phrase) via a medium weight armoured vehicle?

That's not a rhetorical question. I don't presume to know the answer, but is MoD just assuming the answer must be something that looks like a modern CVRT?
Ukraine tells us that effective use of artillery is dependent on effective ISTAR capability. Is Ukraine doesn't have an effective ground-based ISTAR capability, it's impossible to learn any lessons in that basis.

However, we do know that many nations have developed and continue to develop effective counter-UAS systems.
I just typed out a few different erudite and witty responses, but on reflection, and given that I just had to look up what ISTAR means, perhaps I'll leave it there and get back in my box.

Don't worry about it. It is all part of RunningStrong's charm.....

Posted: **26 Sep 2022, 20:14**

Less than two years after contract is signed, Dutch have received their first upgraded CV9035NL (there is a really good photo of comparison of upgraded and original vehicles side by side)

And Britain still don't know when Ajax will be ready for active service.

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 00:23**

Yes an upgrade to a vehicle originally purchased in 2004 and which was the base for BAE's entry in the Scout SV(Ajax) contest

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 09:59**

Well at least there is an off the self option waiting if needed

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 14:48**

Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 09:47 well if Ajax was to be canned then one way to get around who's fault and who foots the bill would be to give GDELS a contract for 900 6x6 Eagle V to be built in Wales. As the biggest problem to HMG is the Welsh jobs that would be lost the up side is that the Army could convert the 4th BCT from light infantry to light mechanised

I was thinking exactly that. Make that factory the center of MRVP (or whatever it is called this week) and get them working on a steady drumbeat. That's assuming the relationship isn't damaged beyond repair. Or alternatively if it's "handbags at 10 paces" GD walks away and the MOD takes the plant.

The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc being let down by crude torsion bar suspension and poor welding. I wonder how difficult it would be for a UK engineering consortium to just design a new chassis from scratch, keep the engine turret electronics etc . Of course never going to happen.

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 15:09**

SW1 wrote: ↑20 Sep 2022, 10:04

Well to me that's pretty clear, it's gone legal. Once it goes legal there's no turning back. Big Chiefs visiting from the US, no more friendly visits for a chat and a cup of tea.

GD is NYSE listed so Sarbannes-Oxley is going to come into play. If there's the slightest whiff of cancellation they'll have to provision in their 2022 accounts or else risk serious sanction, my bet is this gets resolved one way or the other by christmas.

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 15:29**

SD67 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 14:48 The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc...

Two. Two wonderful hi tech turrets. With CTA40, sensors etc.

The Warrior CSP turret was also considered to be pretty spiffy!

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 15:30**

SD67 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 14:48
Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 09:47 well if Ajax was to be canned then one way to get around who's fault and who foots the bill would be to give GDELS a contract for 900 6x6 Eagle V to be built in Wales. As the biggest problem to HMG is the Welsh jobs that would be lost the up side is that the Army could convert the 4th BCT from light infantry to light mechanised
I was thinking exactly that. Make that factory the center of MRVP (or whatever it is called this week) and get them working on a steady drumbeat. That's assuming the relationship isn't damaged beyond repair. Or alternatively if it's "handbags at 10 paces" GD walks away and the MOD takes the plant.

The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc being let down by crude torsion bar suspension and poor welding. I wonder how difficult it would be for a UK engineering consortium to just design a new chassis from scratch, keep the engine turret electronics etc . Of course never going to happen.

Oshkosh buy it and build JLTV instead?

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 18:00**

SW1 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 15:30
SD67 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 14:48
Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 09:47 well if Ajax was to be canned then one way to get around who's fault and who foots the bill would be to give GDELS a contract for 900 6x6 Eagle V to be built in Wales. As the biggest problem to HMG is the Welsh jobs that would be lost the up side is that the Army could convert the 4th BCT from light infantry to light mechanised
I was thinking exactly that. Make that factory the center of MRVP (or whatever it is called this week) and get them working on a steady drumbeat. That's assuming the relationship isn't damaged beyond repair. Or alternatively if it's "handbags at 10 paces" GD walks away and the MOD takes the plant.

The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc being let down by crude torsion bar suspension and poor welding. I wonder how difficult it would be for a UK engineering consortium to just design a new chassis from scratch, keep the engine turret electronics etc . Of course never going to happen.
Oshkosh buy it and build JLTV instead?

Or Thales buy it and build Bushmaster so many options

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 18:31**

If things do go legal I wonder how much further that would delay ordering an alternative.
Also would it effectively mean the army has abandoned the CTA Cannon.
I think the Jaguar has been in service with the French for two years, I'd be curious to know if they encountered an of the issues with the Cannon that we did now their scout vehicles are in service. I'd also be curious in terms of how it stacks up against Ajax in its primary role. They really did play a blinder with that Jaguar and Griffon project two vehicles the British army desperately needs. Who know we might even make a purchase..

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 18:51**

Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 18:00
SW1 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 15:30
SD67 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 14:48
Tempest414 wrote: ↑22 Sep 2022, 09:47 well if Ajax was to be canned then one way to get around who's fault and who foots the bill would be to give GDELS a contract for 900 6x6 Eagle V to be built in Wales. As the biggest problem to HMG is the Welsh jobs that would be lost the up side is that the Army could convert the 4th BCT from light infantry to light mechanised
I was thinking exactly that. Make that factory the center of MRVP (or whatever it is called this week) and get them working on a steady drumbeat. That's assuming the relationship isn't damaged beyond repair. Or alternatively if it's "handbags at 10 paces" GD walks away and the MOD takes the plant.

The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc being let down by crude torsion bar suspension and poor welding. I wonder how difficult it would be for a UK engineering consortium to just design a new chassis from scratch, keep the engine turret electronics etc . Of course never going to happen.
Oshkosh buy it and build JLTV instead?
Or Thales buy it and build Bushmaster so many options

Where Thales not planning to build bushmaster in Scotland?

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 20:11**

SD67 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 14:48 The silly thing about this debacle is it seems to be the most basic parts of the vehicle that don't work. It seems we have this wonderful hi tech turret with CTA40, sensors etc being let down by crude torsion bar suspension and poor welding. I wonder how difficult it would be for a UK engineering consortium to just design a new chassis from scratch, keep the engine turret electronics etc . Of course never going to happen.

Issues with the CT40 integration are well documented by parliament and elsewhere.

Posted: **27 Sep 2022, 20:14**

SW1 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 18:51 [
Where Thales not planning to build bushmaster in Scotland?

Yes. Optronics are in Glasgow. But it wouldn't be the first time they've done vehicle integration in South Wales. They did Warthog and I believe early foxhound work in Llanelli.

UK Defence Forum

Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)