Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

RunningStrong wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 12:57 High vibration in tracked vehicles isn't news to anyone.
Agreed, but the vibration in this case is being reported as "excessive" and, I would assume, makes a major contribution to the noise levels inside the vehicle. Fixing the fundamentals would seem most important to me.

In addition, I would have thought that excessive vibration would contribute to increased fatigue for the occupants and potentially have a detrimental effect on electronic and other components - yet more fundamental issues that need addressing.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 13:22
RunningStrong wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 12:57 High vibration in tracked vehicles isn't news to anyone.
Agreed, but the vibration in this case is being reported as "excessive" and, I would assume, makes a major contribution to the noise levels inside the vehicle. Fixing the fundamentals would seem most important to me.

In addition, I would have thought that excessive vibration would contribute to increased fatigue for the occupants and potentially have a detrimental effect on electronic and other components - yet more fundamental issues that need addressing.
Excessive has to be compared to a baseline standard. The baseline in this case isn't the same baseline that is applied to legacy platforms, which includes Warrior, CR2 and Bulldog. All of which benefit from legacy standards.

Hearing loss and vibration injuries have been normalised in armoured vehicle crews for decades (much like knees and back injuries have effected light role personnel since day dot).

That's not to say it's okay, or acceptable to harm service personnel. But that there's a lot of ignorance amongst commentators and politicians that haven't a clue about the reality of the situation and the physical sacrifices that service personnel have almost normalised.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post (total 3):
jedibeeftrixLord Jimjimthelad

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 10:07 I'm still in disbelief that it can take engineers so long to understand and remediate the problem.
How about fix the problem, prove that they've fixed it, prove it works across the fleet and then agree with the customer that it's done and how to release that information to the public in a way that won't be misinterpreted.
Caribbean wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 12:33 Curious as to how the headsets will fix the vibration issues?

Maybe fix the vibration issues first, then see whether the standard headsets need changing?
There was a known issue with the headsets - I posted the link some distance upthread. Even if there weren't, it was noted that the noise issue was at least partly electronic.
Then there was that the noise was the aspect that had actually caused proven injuries - the vibration wasn't conclusive, so it makes sense to go after the noise first.

Email Ittome
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Jun 2022, 14:07
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Email Ittome »

sol wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 06:28
Email Ittome wrote: 29 Jun 2022, 00:21 If US Army can get GD to finally fix the vibration issue with this piece of shit vehicle, maybe MoD can finally get the vehicle that will not cause British Army soldiers to prematurely go deaf and suffer from death by vibration!
I wouldn't hope to much. While it is based on ASCOD II, Griffin is not the same vehicle as Ajax. It will be not built in the same factory (quality control cold be much better) nor it will use the same equipment as Ajax. It is questionable does Griffin have same issues for same reasons. So even if US Army "fix" issues with Griffin it does not mean same could be applied for Ajax.
Yes I’m quite aware that it is not the same vehicle. Yes, I know It’s not built in the same factory. I am aware of all of that. I’m not holding out any hope, it’s just wishful thinking.

But at this point in Ajax’s development, it might be about time GD took some dramatic steps. If US Army is spending over billion dollars for testing and prototyping, maybe GD can utilize what lessons they’ve learned from development in Griffin and apply it to Ajax.

All just wishful thinking.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Connected to CT 40.



Keep in mind that it is not confirmed but if true it does not look good. Seems like Ajax problems never stops.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Cased telescopic systems do have form as barrel burners, but there are several questions that you'd want answered with that observation;
500-700 rounds of what?
How many vehicle-loads of ammunition is that?
How much is a new barrel?
How easy is it to install a new barrel?

Bear in mind that a Vickers machine gun (first one I found a reference to and one with a reputation for sustained fire ) has a barrel life of 10,000 rounds and a vehicle will carry several thousand MG rounds, so that's only 4 vehicle loads before you need a new one.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
SD67

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

sol wrote: 02 Jul 2022, 16:16 Connected to CT 40.



Keep in mind that it is not confirmed but if true it does not look good. Seems like Ajax problems never stops.
Pretty standard false information from people that don't understand what an Effective Full Charge is.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 02 Jul 2022, 18:34 Pretty standard false information from people that don't understand what an Effective Full Charge is.
As with many of these things it's not necessarily false information, but presented in a somewhat disingenuous way, either by accident or intent.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Given how long the gun has been in development and the amount of testing and trials it has undergone, if barrel The CT wear was really a serious problem I am pretty sure the Army would have raised the issue with CTA and refused to accept the weapon. The French do not seem to be having any major issues and their new Recce Platform is in service and appears to be doing well.

The weapon systems is a very novel design and allows tis installation to be far less intrusive that other auto cannon of similar size, It's ammunition though noticeably expensive is far more compact and therefore easier to handle and a greater quantity can be stored. WE seem to be having issues as we have chosen to have a bespoke ammunition feed system unlike the French who are using the one designed by the manufacturer. But I believe the Ajax Turret has passed its own trials and it is the Hull of Ajax that is causing the issues. IF Ajax is not accepted into service I believe we should look at using the Ajax turret on a CVR variant of the Boxer. It's Mission Modules can accept a larger Turret Ring as has been shown by the installation of large calibre main guns, and as Boxer has the same open architecture as Ajax, and given the majority of Ajax's clever but are in the Turret, such an undertaking should be possible within a reasonable timeframe.

Of course the MoD could just as iesily drop the whole weapon system if Ajax is rejected and chose an off the shelf Turret that has already been cleared for use on the platform, to provide a Cavalry/Recce vriat of Boxer or purchase an entirely new platform but in reduced numbers.

Does anyone know when the decision to either go with or reject Ajax might be or is the MoD doing the same old thing and being total opaque and is willing to bring a platform into service that has been subject to many compromises because the programme could not be seen to fail?
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
Dahedd

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by leonard »

For all the Ajax critics which are many and I thought are very harsh on the vehicle itself in comparison with this kind of vehicle ergonomics what can you say!!!!!

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jonas »

Commons answers 14th Sept :- These soundbites show little optimism.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 9-06/48235

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

But it also shows that there is a levl of conservatism that wants to see Ajax delivered at all costs. As far as I am concerned the fact that no delivery schedule can be made public, and that might not even exist is a reason for the plug to be pulled now to allow alternative solution to be properly investigated and compared as replacement for the CVR(T). Simplest would be a stop gap of a modified Warrior using its troops compartment to house additional equipment and the optics of the Turret improved and digitised. A more permanent option might be to develop a Recce Mission Module for the Boxer, maybe using he current verion being purchase by the Australian Army as a starting point. This may be a very cost-effective solution in the long run.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jonas

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by inch »

How about canceling now ,stop dick arseing about and just buy an existing model out there that fits the bill ,and no modification ,done troops happy

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

inch wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:31 How about canceling now ,stop dick arseing about and just buy an existing model out there that fits the bill ,and no modification ,done troops happy
There aren't any existing models that "fit the bill" with no modification. That's a simple fact.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

exactly what requirements does the British Army have that Poland and Korea don’t have? The threat they face in the land domain is somewhat higher than ours.

At least with Nimrod the RAF had the excuse that a jet MPA didn’t exist.
These users liked the author SD67 for the post (total 2):
inchwargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

The big problem for the Army is we do what we always do we go all cutting edge very 30 years and then spend the next ten year putting it right the ten years after that doing nothing then the last ten looking at an upgrade that is canned so we can start the process again

Ajax is a new hull with a new turret with a new weapon with new optics and a new set of H&S regs

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:47
inch wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:31 How about canceling now ,stop dick arseing about and just buy an existing model out there that fits the bill ,and no modification ,done troops happy
There aren't any existing models that "fit the bill" with no modification. That's a simple fact.
I believe the USMC are rolling out a similar recon vehicle as they have a very similar requirement, obviously we don't really require an amphibious capability, but if it works and fits the bill and of course Ajax can't be quickly fixed, cancel it and order the USMC vehicle off the shelf.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Slight tangent from the vehicle but USMC reconnaissance from this summer

https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/ ... al-forces/

As far as the 2nd Light Armored Recon Battalion, we developed it in experimental mode: a mobile reconnaissance company with a mobile reconnaissance team. These are Marines who might have been communicators, intel specialists, mechanics or scouts. We looked at who is best suited to do this, who could operate in a smaller team, and who has an interest in making some of these systems come together when they might not have been designed to work together. We had four mobile reconnaissance teams, and that was the primary sensing force that was out there. Each of those teams had about four to six Marines and sailors; we had a headquarters element forward, away from Naples, led by one of our O-6s, and below that an RXR element. We had some other sensing elements forward doing different types of intel collections. The key was all that was brought back and fused in the fleet headquarters, and that all together was recon/counter-recon.

Because you’ve got to be able to get there and be flexible, “small form factor” was our theme. We have great communications systems, backpack radios and the Harris system radios — the AN/PRC-150, the AN/PRC-160, the AN/PRC-117. We’re able to leverage those and apply methodology to use them at the right time in the right place so we’re not revealing ourselves. We’re being smarter about how we’re using our current systems. That was one of our goals.

We originally wanted UTVs because they’re able to get us around quicker, and they are still very viable because they fit inside a CH-53 helicopter or V-22, and they can extend our reach and speed. What’s not viable is a larger vehicle that we would have to get strategic lift for or transport on a ship.

The key term for us, “small form factor,” was about the ability to tap into something called the Common Aviation Command and Control System, or CAC2S. It’s about linking into the Link 16 network, which would have in the past taken four or five Humvees, big radars or generators. Now, think about a couple laptops and a couple of small-scale PacStar-type terminals that can fit in a backpack or on a UTV. That CAC2S was the heart and soul of taking all this stuff we’re collecting and entering into a process, a system, that would then eventually kick out a Link 16 link between us and supporting assets, whether that’s an F-35 or a destroyer, or providing our ability to link back into a fleet headquarters, into that maritime ops center, and having our locations show up in a command post.

We bought commercial off-the-shelf FLIR [maritime recreational] radar systems that we were able to link into Link 16. That was kind of the missing link in the sense that no one had ever done that before. So you’d have these off-the-shelf radars that can, yes, acquire a target, but it took those Marines a number of different littoral exercises to figure out how to connect it into that CAC2S system. So light, mobile, very flexible forces; low numbers of very highly trained Marines that really trained themselves specifically for this kit. Then we’re able to reinforce it with support from the fleet headquarters, and then mobility assets from the ARG-MEU. Other supporting platforms across the task force and 6th Fleet enhanced what we’re able to do in recon/counter-recon.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 11:34
RunningStrong wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:47
inch wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:31 How about canceling now ,stop dick arseing about and just buy an existing model out there that fits the bill ,and no modification ,done troops happy
There aren't any existing models that "fit the bill" with no modification. That's a simple fact.
I believe the USMC are rolling out a similar recon vehicle as they have a very similar requirement, obviously we don't really require an amphibious capability, but if it works and fits the bill and of course Ajax can't be quickly fixed, cancel it and order the USMC vehicle off the shelf.
When did USMC use Bowman?

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 12:47
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 11:34
RunningStrong wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:47
inch wrote: 16 Sep 2022, 20:31 How about canceling now ,stop dick arseing about and just buy an existing model out there that fits the bill ,and no modification ,done troops happy
There aren't any existing models that "fit the bill" with no modification. That's a simple fact.
I believe the USMC are rolling out a similar recon vehicle as they have a very similar requirement, obviously we don't really require an amphibious capability, but if it works and fits the bill and of course Ajax can't be quickly fixed, cancel it and order the USMC vehicle off the shelf.
When did USMC use Bowman?
Bowman's old hat now, technology has moved on...
I'm not saying we won't have to make a few mods, but Ajax is a total dog's dinner, typical MOD utter procurement fu*k up at enormous tax payer expense!

It works like this, Start with an existing proven design, then modify it beyond all recognition, watch the problems mushroom until someone pulls the plug and everyone involved walks away scot free, (no blame or personal responsibility), onto their next multi billon pound throw away MOD gravy train contract.....

I think that's the tried and tested procurement system in the UK.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 17:03 Bowman's old hat now, technology has moved on...
Can you point me to the other digital tactical communication system that is available across as many platforms?

Yes, some technology has moved on, but the level of integration of Bowman and Bowman successor is unrivalled across any other nations armed forces.

And it's because of that level of integration that any AFV would not be Off the Shelf design. That's before we even get into making an American product compatible with UK CA standards.
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 17:03 I think that's the tried and tested procurement system in the UK.
The people responsible for the AJAX requirements and selection left the programme over a decade ago having moved out of their 2 year staff rotation...

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mrclark303 »

RunningStrong wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 18:09
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 17:03 Bowman's old hat now, technology has moved on...
Can you point me to the other digital tactical communication system that is available across as many platforms?

Yes, some technology has moved on, but the level of integration of Bowman and Bowman successor is unrivalled across any other nations armed forces.

And it's because of that level of integration that any AFV would not be Off the Shelf design. That's before we even get into making an American product compatible with UK CA standards.
mrclark303 wrote: 17 Sep 2022, 17:03 I think that's the tried and tested procurement system in the UK.
The people responsible for the AJAX requirements and selection left the programme over a decade ago having moved out of their 2 year staff rotation...
Full Bowman replacement is in the works at the moment, People moving on every two years is exactly the problem... As I said, no-one is responsible for the bloody mess that Ajax is, it's outrageous..

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.

We will, without doubt, do exactly the same with Puma replacement, instead of an off the shelf combat proven design ( Blackhawk), we will go the Leonardo route and re-Invent the wheel at huge expense and at least 10 years late ... You just know it!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

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.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Have there been any major problems with the Ajax (and Warrior) turrets that have to had a fix identified and hopefully instigated. Yes, the Ajax turret has a larger turret ring that is larger than is normal for such and IFV, Warriors is of the more accepted size.

e high tech equipment on the Ajax is in the turret so if it is a viable weapon system, surely a Mission Module for my personal favourite AFV the Boxer could be made to accommodate it, with room in the Module for other systems. Boxer is already fully digitised and has the excess power available for the systems that would need it. There would be room in the back for a telescopic mast containing a EO device and a GRS together with an operator with room probably left for two dismounts for recce on foot if required. Failing that we could use the Warrior 2 turrets, easier to integrate and again it is fully digitized which could be complimented by a mast mounted EO/GSR.

I strongly believe that the Army should try to use the Boxer to cover as many roles that require an AFV with reasonable ballistic and mine protect platform. The core Mission Module design has been tested and cleared for direct fire guns up to 105mm so designing Mission Module that will accept either turret should not be either an expensive or drawn out process. AS an out of the Box alternative, Nexter have already developed and tested both manned and un-, armed turret that again have been tested on the Boxer, that incorporate the CT40. in addition, their turrets can also accept ATGWs of varying types. Using the manned turret for a Recce variant and an unmanned one to equip a number of Boxers in Infantry Battalions would be possible.

But I agree Ajax is a dead duck. The Government and MoD must bite the bullet, lay blame where it is felt will do the least political damage and move on with a solution that can be instigated as fast as possible. As mentioned above, the two option I suggest are just a few of the many options available.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mrclark303 »

Lord Jim wrote: 18 Sep 2022, 05:26 Have there been any major problems with the Ajax (and Warrior) turrets that have to had a fix identified and hopefully instigated. Yes, the Ajax turret has a larger turret ring that is larger than is normal for such and IFV, Warriors is of the more accepted size.

e high tech equipment on the Ajax is in the turret so if it is a viable weapon system, surely a Mission Module for my personal favourite AFV the Boxer could be made to accommodate it, with room in the Module for other systems. Boxer is already fully digitised and has the excess power available for the systems that would need it. There would be room in the back for a telescopic mast containing a EO device and a GRS together with an operator with room probably left for two dismounts for recce on foot if required. Failing that we could use the Warrior 2 turrets, easier to integrate and again it is fully digitized which could be complimented by a mast mounted EO/GSR.

I strongly believe that the Army should try to use the Boxer to cover as many roles that require an AFV with reasonable ballistic and mine protect platform. The core Mission Module design has been tested and cleared for direct fire guns up to 105mm so designing Mission Module that will accept either turret should not be either an expensive or drawn out process. AS an out of the Box alternative, Nexter have already developed and tested both manned and un-, armed turret that again have been tested on the Boxer, that incorporate the CT40. in addition, their turrets can also accept ATGWs of varying types. Using the manned turret for a Recce variant and an unmanned one to equip a number of Boxers in Infantry Battalions would be possible.

But I agree Ajax is a dead duck. The Government and MoD must bite the bullet, lay blame where it is felt will do the least political damage and move on with a solution that can be instigated as fast as possible. As mentioned above, the two option I suggest are just a few of the many options available.
Some very sensible solutions, my guess would be fit the equipment into Boxer, if I was a betting man, unless they are totally sold on a tracked solution.

The only problem is someone will insist on the hull being shortened, then decide it needs to have lift jets and wings to self deploy .... Oh, a direct energy weapon, that will be cool, we'll have one of those too....

They just can't help themselves and no one seems to stop them.

We can only hope for more procurement in the future like our bargain priced AH64E, a 'very rare' example of common sense in Defence procurement.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Lord Jim

Post Reply