UK Defence Forum

Ron5 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2021, 14:00
What do you mean?

8k rounds and 40,000km over how many vehicles?
Plus what does “availability” mean in this instance?

Looks ot me like the MoD cancelled the wrong programme and should have kept the Warrior CSP and canned Ajax regardless of the difference of money already spent. The saving would have been very roughly the same(haven't got the figured to hand).

Warrior should have been cancelled in 2016 or earlier as soon as LM had to go back to the drawing board with the turret. Warrior CSP was originally scheduled to enter service in 2016 and the best they could manage was 8 vehicles in 2020. It's a disgrace how these programs where aloud to drag on and hemorrhage money especially when warrior CSP was supposed to save money. I do think Ajax can be saved even if GDUK have to manufacture new hulls to the required standard.

mr.fred wrote: ↑04 Dec 2021, 15:19

Ron5 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2021, 14:00
What do you mean?

8k rounds and 40,000km over how many vehicles?
Plus what does “availability” mean in this instance?

You could ask Pagey, he does respond on twitter.

At least 3 vehicles as shown here ..

If the MoD has been more realistic and asked LM to develop a new turret from day one things would have been better.

It was LM who said they could integrate the canon into the existing turret to save costs, this despite BAE who had significantly more experience working on the canon and existing turret saying it could not be done.
Without any significant evidence the mod took LM at their word and selected this riskiest least proven option on the table. If LM offered the Ajax turret to begin with they probably would have been more expensive than BAE and lost the contract and the MOD is seems wanted to go above and beyond not to award the contract to BAE.

BB85 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 11:34 Without any significant evidence

http://www.strategic-bureau.com/wp-cont ... B_A101.jpg

Do you think the MOD made the decision based on a photo from LM?
Had it completed any trials to validate if it would work?
The answer is no which is why LM went back to the drawing board having been awarded the contract.
BAE had already spent years developing, testing and certifying their own turret but the mod still selected LM.
The decision is borderline criminal incompetence.

BB85 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 12:26 Do you think the MOD made the decision based on a photo from LM?

That’s a photo of actual hardware that existed at the time of the bid.
Presumably the MoD had opportunity to look at it?

Here’s a photo of the second prototype during the contract

Which did a bunch of firing trials. The turret shell changed soon after

BB85 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 12:26 BAE had already spent years developing, testing and certifying their own turret but the mod still selected LM.
The decision is borderline criminal incompetence.

It’s a puzzling decision, to be sure, but I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the “incompetence” line.

mr.fred wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 12:36

BB85 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 12:26 Do you think the MOD made the decision based on a photo from LM?

That’s a photo of actual hardware that existed at the time of the bid.
Presumably the MoD had opportunity to look at it?

Here’s a photo of the second prototype during the contract

Which did a bunch of firing trials. The turret shell changed soon after

BB85 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 12:26 BAE had already spent years developing, testing and certifying their own turret but the mod still selected LM.
The decision is borderline criminal incompetence.

It’s a puzzling decision, to be sure, but I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the “incompetence” line.

LM did not have a working turret when they won both the Ajax and Warrior contracts. Why do you think that?

Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 15:31 LM did not have a working turret when they won both the Ajax and Warrior contracts. Why do you think that?

Why did who think what?

I've tried to consider logical reasons for the MOD's selection process and management of the procurement process. They wanted a single prime contractor for both the Ajax and Warrior turret to ensure commonality on sensors, optics etc even though the turrets themselves would be different. They probably thought they would benefit from a reduced price through EOS
BAE lost the Scout/Ajax competition and GDUK teamed up with LM on the turret despite being forced to use the CTA canon 50% owned by BAE.
From what I've read the working relationship between LM and CTA has been far from ideal with LM blaming CTA for not delivering the required technical details on time and being responsible for the delays. All of this was entirely predictable and has been well understood by the MOD throughout the entire lifetime of the project but again they let is drag on for a decade without pulling the plug.
Hence my view the people responsible for selection without meaningful trials and managing the program are completely incompetant.

Wasn't it the policy of the MoD at the time of the development contracts for both the WCSP and Ajax programmes, to take charge of the majority of said programmes risk in order to get the best value for money. If so that truly bit them on their arses. It would be interesting to see if any ground work has been done to see how easy to would be to fit the Warrior CSP turret on a Boxer Mission Module? IT would surely reduce the dismounts, but with the Army looking to have smaller Sections and if a ration of 1:3 up gunned Boxers were realised things would be better for the new Mechanised Infantry, especially if those turrets could be fitted with say Javelin. We have the Cannons and the design is near enough set, surely it would be something worth looking into unlesss the powers that be want to sweep the whole WCSP under the carpet and pretend it never happened.

What was same turret to be used on both vehicles? Or if not what was the reason why they couldn’t use the same turret on both vehicles?

mr.fred wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 17:41

Ron5 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 15:31 LM did not have a working turret when they won both the Ajax and Warrior contracts. Why do you think that?

Why did who think what?

Seems odd offering a Brit advice on English Anyhoo, the question is:, why do you think that LM had a working turret at the time of the competition when they did not?

SW1 wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 22:34 What was same turret to be used on both vehicles? Or if not what was the reason why they couldn’t use the same turret on both vehicles?

Can't physically be the same but the original idea was to have a great deal of commonality between the two and that would be achieved by selecting the same turret supplier for both competitions. I suspect LM & GD between them threw that idea out of the window.

Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:16 why do you think that LM had a working turret at the time of the competition when they did not?

I think that LM had a physical turret at the time of the competition, as evidenced by the contemporary photographs. I assume that the MoD would have had access to it, which is kind of what I said, or at least intended to say.

Was it the MoD that stipulated the use of the Warrior Turret, or was that LM's proposition to keep the coat of their bid down even if they had an existing turret. Mind you the latter is moot if their existing turret was not already fitted with the CT40 cannon.

It was LM who proposed modifying the existing turret to keep costs down. It is the usual BS of defense contractors lying about costs to win contracts only for costs to escalate later. The MOD team incharge of scrutinising submissions are a waste of oxygen.
The MOD had a completely unrealistic budget for Warrior LEP/CSP and thought they could maintain hull numbers by refurbishing 450 vehicles on a limited budget instead of purchasing 250 new vehicles with the same budget or increasing the budget to fulfil the requirement.
Now we've spent 70% of the budget and have 8 test vehicles and around 250 turrets.
The mod has stated they have no plans to put the turrets on boxer but unless the extremely expensive sensors and optics can be removed and plugged into a new turret I don't see what option they have, those turrets cost millions each.

I could he making that up about the turrets actually, I know the Ajax turrets are almost all manufactured. I doubt LM produced many for the warrior without the production contract being signed. Although I would like to know how the blew most of the CSP budget on so few vehicles.
The 250 canons are probably rusting in a warehouse right now.

BB85 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 21:46 I could he making that up about the turrets actually, I know the Ajax turrets are almost all manufactured. I doubt LM produced many for the warrior without the production contract being signed. Although I would like to know how the blew most of the CSP budget on so few vehicles.
The 250 canons are probably rusting in a warehouse right now.

LM blew the WCSP demo budget on demo of the WCSP...

If LM's Warrior turret has been tried and tested during the WCSP demo programme, then not using them on a number of Boxers in each Battalion is really cutting ones nose of to spite ones face so to speak. If they have issues around calling a wheeled vehicle a IFV then just call it something ease like a fire support variant as an example.

If the Army decides to pursue its idea of reducing Infantry Sections to six personnel then having say two up gunned Boxers in every Platoon makes real sense as the vehicles retaining the RWS would have space for additional kit or additional personnel if required. Even not pursuing the fitment of ATGWs would leave the Platoons with much greater firepower as well as having improved observation tools. The least they could do is build three or four trail Boxers so equipped and give them to the newly stood up trails and development unit to see if the idea pans out.

mr.fred wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:30

Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:16 why do you think that LM had a working turret at the time of the competition when they did not?

I think that LM had a physical turret at the time of the competition, as evidenced by the contemporary photographs. I assume that the MoD would have had access to it, which is kind of what I said, or at least intended to say.

Unfortunately that's not correct. Like GD with their Ajax bid, LM's was only accompanied by a pile of slides & sweet promises.

BB85 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 21:46 I could he making that up about the turrets actually, I know the Ajax turrets are almost all manufactured. I doubt LM produced many for the warrior without the production contract being signed. Although I would like to know how the blew most of the CSP budget on so few vehicles.
The 250 canons are probably rusting in a warehouse right now.

You are correct, there isn't a large warehouse filled with Warrior turrets. No production contract was ever signed so none were made.

Ron5 wrote: ↑08 Dec 2021, 15:44 Unfortunately that's not correct. Like GD with their Ajax bid, LM's was only accompanied by a pile of slides & sweet promises.

I recall seeing those pictures at the time of the bid.
Happily search engines allow searches by time range, although it doesn’t work for pictures:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15446928
https://www.army-technology.com/news/news106347.html
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... cessful-l/