Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[SW1]

[Luke jones]

Sharpen the axe

[seaspear]

Although noise seems to have been in the Ajax case the worst, I would suggest that vibration is the most dangerous and has been shown to cause damage to the spine and internal organs certainly the articles below suggest there is sufficient knowledge and legislation covering this already .
https://www.ohsbok.org.au/wp-content/up ... -Noise.pdf
http://fosterohs.com/European%20Directi ... 202005.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/200 ... tents/made

[bobp]

Oh dear more cash down the plughole.

[Ron5]

[mr.fred]

Sounds like a tracked vehicle at speed to me. Shame there weren’t a few other tracked vehicles going past for comparison.

[Lord Jim]

Yes have no direct comparison means the video does not really enlighten us that much. The issues exist, that is for sure, how bad has yet to be fully determined, and the impact they may have on the programme as a whole is unknow at this time.

[Ron5]

Army leaders told to look at alternatives in case Ajax is cancelled.

Crisis talks over future of UK tank after troops suffer hearing loss
Larisa Brown, Defence Editor
Thursday July 01 2021, 12.01am BST, The Times

Urgent talks are due to be held over the future of the army’s new light tanks as it emerged that more than 20 soldiers suffered hearing loss after trials.

A further 83 soldiers will need annual hearing tests to check for symptoms after spending prolonged periods inside the Ajax armoured vehicle.

Army officers have now been ordered to look at other options, in the first sign that the programme could be dropped and more than £3 billion wasted, sources told The Times.

Senior officers will hold talks with industry partners next week to discuss alternative vehicles if ministers pull the plug on the £5.5 billion deal.

The Ajax programme has become an embarrassment for ministers who believe they may have been kept in the dark about the true extent of the problems with the tank so it was not abandoned as part of the integrated review.

Jeremy Quin, the defence procurement minister, will be questioned by senior MPs next month on the tanks.

The MoD placed an order with General Dynamics in 2014 for 589 reconnaissance vehicles, 245 of which will be used in support of the Boxer armoured vehicle. The Ajax was meant to be delivered from 2017 through to 2024. So far only 14 vehicles without a turret have been delivered. Noise, vibration and risky levels of radiation have resulted in troops reporting hearing loss, headaches, nausea and swollen joints.

Baroness Goldie, the defence minister, said there were 21 “incidents of hearing treatment” recorded after the suspension of trials in November, while 83 more troops would receive yearly hearing tests. As trials resumed in May, restrictions were placed on how long soldiers could spend inside, and hearing protection was handed out, but two more reported hearing loss this month.

An MoD spokesman said: “The permanent secretary has instigated a thorough safety investigation.”

[Lord Jim]

One of the questions has to be "What could replace Ajax?", and there are very few options available. Could the Ajax turret be mounted on a Boxer Mission Module? Would the Army even accept that. Few other NATO countries except the US actually use tracked Recce platforms anymore. Germany uses the 4x4 Fennek for example. Others also use wheeled platforms, like France, Italy. Few if any have developed a family of vehicles such as Ajax that carry out Recce as one of their core roles. Even the US has only started to use the M2/M3 chassis to replace its fleet of venerable M113s.

Maybe to we should take what maybe the easiest option, in my opinion and adopt the Boxer CVR, as is being introduced into the Australian Army. It would mean we would be abandoning the CT40 Cannon, but is that a price worth paying to reduce the costs of trying to integrating it into yet another platform moving forward.

On the positive side it would increase the commonality of the British Army's AFV fleet and if we bought it as per the Australian load out we would also be introducing a more effective ATGW and an under armour capability in the form of Spike-LR2 at the same time. Could this also open the way for the Army to reconsider using the Boxer as the basis for an IFV as well? In theory the Boxer could replace the Warrior, Ajax and the legacy FV432 and CVR(T) platforms still in service. Surely that would bring both financial and logistical benefits to the Army?

[Ron5]

One of the questions has to be "What could replace Ajax?", and there are very few options available.

Extending the life of current kit will be the first thing they look at.

[Ron5]

Some of you may remember that last year when I posted a story from the Australian editor of the Australian Defense Technology Review magazine.

An Ajax derivative submitted by GD had just been thrown out of the Australian competition for a new IFV family leaving the current shortlist of a Korean vehicle and a German one. The editor had said that one of the key factors in the Ajax entry being discarded was that the British Army had informally told the Aussies in no uncertain terms to keep well away from Ajax because it was a POS. I paraphrase there.

The story was gently dissed and swept under the bed.

Yesterday, Nicholas Drummond posted this tweet:



Remember that Government figures follow Drummond and read his tweets.

I am not sure who to fear for the most: the guys that snitched to the Aussies or the British Generals that hid these opinions away from UK Ministers.

[Lord Jim]

Extending the life of current kit will be the first thing they look at.

We would probably do better still retiring the remainder of the CVR(T) fleet and using Jackals for Recce in the interim.

[RunningStrong]

Some of you may remember that last year when I posted a story from the Australian editor of the Australian Defense Technology Review magazine.

An Ajax derivative submitted by GD had just been thrown out of the Australian competition for a new IFV family leaving the current shortlist of a Korean vehicle and a German one. The editor had said that one of the key factors in the Ajax entry being discarded was that the British Army had informally told the Aussies in no uncertain terms to keep well away from Ajax because it was a POS. I paraphrase there.

The story was gently dissed and swept under the bed.

Yesterday, Nicholas Drummond posted this tweet:



Remember that Government figures follow Drummond and read his tweets.

I am not sure who to fear for the most: the guys that snitched to the Aussies or the British Generals that hid these opinions away from UK Ministers.

It's not news that there are people that have been anti-AJAX within the army for years. They've never understood how we've gone from a 12t Scimitar 2 to a 38t AFV.

But then they don't understand the capability.

[seaspear]

The British army may be watching this evaluation lol
https://adbr.com.au/defence-shows-off-l ... ontenders/

[sol]

The British army may be watching this evaluation lol
https://adbr.com.au/defence-shows-off-l ... ontenders/

For Ajax replacement?

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used. British could choose 30mm Bushmaster instead of 35mm as the Royal Navy is already using former on number of ships. And for optics they could go with Thales Orion, same that would be used on CR3 and Ajax.

But for Ajax both vehicles are too big and would still require changes and testing to be able to replace Ajax. Ajax is smaller than ASCOD, from which it origins, even CV90 version that was offered by BAE for FRES was smaller than both Redback and Lynx. Not sure if either of those two would fit as replacement for Ajax. But that is just my opinion.

[whitelancer]

It's not news that there are people that have been anti-AJAX within the army for years. They've never understood how we've gone from a 12t Scimitar 2 to a 38t AFV.

Ironically Ajax would have been much better suited to operations as part of BOAR, while CVR(T) is better suited to expeditionary operations.

But then they don't understand the capability.

I've never even set eyes on Ajax, I can however imagine the capabilities it has, and I certainly know the sort of capabilities I'd like it to have. Perhaps If I ever get closely acquainted I will be pleasantly surprised, though I suspect in some areas it fall shorts of my hopes.
From your posts it appears you have a much better understanding of the capabilities that Ajax provides, so a question. Are those capabilities inherent in Ajax or are they a function of the all the electronic wizardry they have put in it. Wizardry they could put on any suitable vehicle and not necessarily on a 20 year old heavily modified APC which is large, heavy and under armed. Further more one that seems to have serious problems.

While I've never been a fan of Ajax I did at least expect it work.

[RunningStrong]

It's not news that there are people that have been anti-AJAX within the army for years. They've never understood how we've gone from a 12t Scimitar 2 to a 38t AFV.

Ironically Ajax would have been much better suited to operations as part of BOAR, while CVR(T) is better suited to expeditionary operations.

I'd love the Scimitar 2 to live on, but making it achieve the modern expectations of survivability is challenging.

But then they don't understand the capability.

I've never even set eyes on Ajax, I can however imagine the capabilities it has, and I certainly know the sort of capabilities I'd like it to have. Perhaps If I ever get closely acquainted I will be pleasantly surprised, though I suspect in some areas it fall shorts of my hopes.
From your posts it appears you have a much better understanding of the capabilities that Ajax provides, so a question. Are those capabilities inherent in Ajax or are they a function of the all the electronic wizardry they have put in it. Wizardry they could put on any suitable vehicle and not necessarily on a 20 year old heavily modified APC which is large, heavy and under armed. Further more one that seems to have serious problems.

While I've never been a fan of Ajax I did at least expect it work.

There's nothing inherently special about the ASCOD platform it is based on, but any legacy platform would lose significant interior space to do so. You wouldn't be able to retrofit the "gubbins" into an existing turret either, there's just an order of magnitude more equipment to fit that existing platforms. There's only so much you can put in the hull.

[Ron5]

It's not news that there are people that have been anti-AJAX within the army for years. They've never understood how we've gone from a 12t Scimitar 2 to a 38t AFV.

But then they don't understand the capability.

Not at all relevant to the Australian competition. They're looking for an IFV to carry a squad of troops, not a reconnaissance vehicle.

The proposal was based on Athena. Didn't make the final short list.

[Ron5]

The British army may be watching this evaluation lol
https://adbr.com.au/defence-shows-off-l ... ontenders/

For Ajax replacement?

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used. British could choose 30mm Bushmaster instead of 35mm as the Royal Navy is already using former on number of ships. And for optics they could go with Thales Orion, same that would be used on CR3 and Ajax.

But for Ajax both vehicles are too big and would still require changes and testing to be able to replace Ajax. Ajax is smaller than ASCOD, from which it origins, even CV90 version that was offered by BAE for FRES was smaller than both Redback and Lynx. Not sure if either of those two would fit as replacement for Ajax. But that is just my opinion.

I broadly agree that the Dutch upgraded CV90 in several aspects looks a lot more suitable for the Ajax role than Ajax. But I would keep the CTA40. I'm sure the good folks in Sweden with help from UK Bae could fit the gun into their latest CV90 turret without too much difficulty. A turret, by the way, that can also handle a 105 or 120mm gun.

There's a ton of anecdotal evidence that the army wanted CV90 but were overruled.

[RunningStrong]

It's not news that there are people that have been anti-AJAX within the army for years. They've never understood how we've gone from a 12t Scimitar 2 to a 38t AFV.

But then they don't understand the capability.

Not at all relevant to the Australian competition. They're looking for an IFV to carry a squad of troops, not a reconnaissance vehicle.

The proposal was based on Athena. Didn't make the final short list.

And the AJAX programme was never conceived as a IFV, as WCSP pre-dates it. And was up against 2 platforms designed as IFVs.

ASCOD was conceived as a IFV, but had only 8 dismounts in non-blast attenuating seats.

[RunningStrong]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

[sol]

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

That is true, but CV90 as platform is. And prototype of the new turret is currently under construction. But there is always an option to use some other turret. Plus thing is that British Army also has a lot of experience working alongside with them in Estonia so they should know how capable it is.

[RunningStrong]

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

That is true, but CV90 as platform is. And prototype of the new turret is currently under construction. But there is always an option to use some other turret. Plus thing is that British Army also has a lot of experience working alongside with them in Estonia so they should know how capable it is.

Feels like we're going down the ASCOD/AJAX and WCSP path again...

[seaspear]

This article suggests trouble was known as far back as 2017
https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... d-in-2019/

[Ron5]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

Bollox.

Dutch MLU started in 2018 and integrated the Iron Fist program that had started in 2015. Contract award in 2021, first deliveries in 2024 and completion in 2027. $582 million for 122 CV90's plus 6 driver training vehicles.

Unlike the UK, Holland isn't so stupid as to overlap design with production.