UK Defence Forum

Regardless of previous statements, it appears to me that Ajax is too big to be cancelled and so everything will be done above and below board to bring the platform into service. What actually will lead to the vehicles being accepted, minimum compliance followed by a further programme to bring vehicles to full capability could in theory be one way forward, having GDUK delivering an Ajax platform that meets the base level of contracted requirements that are determined by both parties as meeting the original contractual obligations. I say this as I find it hard to believe GDUK could find a solution that would allow them to deliver a complete requirement standard within the current funding covered by the contract and that they would be unwilling to take a loss. The MoD would also not wish to lose the Programme form the negative ramification it would bring and the hole it would leave in the Army's future structure, having already cancelled the WCSP. Also, if cancellation caused GD to close its UK site it could possibly complicate future competitions.

If Ajax does end up being delivered, I wonder if there could be repercussions that may affect other aspects of the Army's modernisation programme, and will the Army be able to get the maximum usage out of the platform? I doubt we will get to see all that happens with this programme in the public domain for quite some time, if ever.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 10:48 I doubt we will get to see all that happens with this programme in the public domain for quite some time, if ever.

Do you think we’ve ever seen all that happens with any military vehicle programme?

In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

User Validation Trials of Ajax are resumed

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 20/hcws332

leonard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 18:32 In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

But Ajax isn't an IFV

sol wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 20:10 User Validation Trials of Ajax are resumed

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 20/hcws332

Let's just say best case scenario the noise and vibration is miraculously solved. If they are restarting the reliability trials are we looking at a year of trials to sign IOC?

So the gravy train rolls on ...... does this mean the MOD will continue paying.

leonard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 18:32 In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

Can't believe they've taken a 25t IFV and now it's a 42t whale. Should have known that would never work from the start...

RunningStrong wrote: ↑21 Oct 2022, 08:29 Can't believe they've taken a 25t IFV and now it's a 42t whale. Should have known that would never work from the start...

I thought for a moment I was going to have to explain what GVW meant again, then I saw what you did there.
Very droll.

leonard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 18:32 In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

Correction to the above their are already in field trials ( What a speed )

We should be sending a team of observers - you know just a bit of quiet benchmarking. That might focus a few minds.

leonard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 18:32 In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

Seems like Poland will probably go with ZSSW-30 remote turret on AS21, instead of EOS T2000 manned turret. Same turret is used by Borsuk IFV and Rosomak AFV.

In the meantime, Ajax is back for more testing

sol wrote: ↑23 Oct 2022, 18:02

leonard wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 18:32 In the meantime where defence is taken seriously somebody has just arrived in Poland for field trials and from the lattest info it will be procured in hundreds of vehicle's.

Seems like Poland will probably go with ZSSW-30 remote turret on AS21, instead of EOS T2000 manned turret. Same turret is used by Borsuk IFV and Rosomak AFV.

In the meantime, Ajax is back for more testing

Ajax sounded quieter than that last video doing the rounds. Obviously difficult to tell from that and may be meaningless

Does anyone in the forum have any first hand experience of Ajax noise versus that of tracked vehicles of a similar weight. I only have videos to go by but it has always sounded extremely loud and put that down to it being a mobile phone upload at a defense exhibition. I just can't see how it could be much louder than compatible vehicles in the 30-40 tonne range.

BB85 wrote: ↑24 Oct 2022, 15:27 Does anyone in the forum have any first hand experience of Ajax noise versus that of tracked vehicles of a similar weight. I only have videos to go by but it has always sounded extremely loud and put that down to it being a mobile phone upload at a defense exhibition. I just can't see how it could be much louder than compatible vehicles in the 30-40 tonne range.

It has rigid noise performance limitations, but videos haven't always been helped by various different videos of vehicles using tracks of different types (it's been tested with various brands and types), different age (reliability testing) and also difference between production and prototype vehicles of different build standards.

Can anyone point out a timeline where the issues with Ajax must be solved or the programme is cancelled or is it a case of an indefinite one so that they can keep trying to fix the issues regardless of how long it takes?

Lord Jim wrote: ↑25 Oct 2022, 12:25 Can anyone point out a timeline where the issues with Ajax must be solved or the programme is cancelled or is it a case of an indefinite one so that they can keep trying to fix the issues regardless of how long it takes?

I doubt it’s being considered in such binary terms.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑25 Oct 2022, 12:25 Can anyone point out a timeline where the issues with Ajax must be solved or the programme is cancelled or is it a case of an indefinite one so that they can keep trying to fix the issues regardless of how long it takes?

Spent nearly 5 years trying to fix CR2 reliability issues...

YouTube video giving a pretty good summary of the Ajax programme and worth a watch.

Out of interest, how many CVRT and Warrior vehicles would you have per Challenger 2 in an armoured brigade? If there's only going to be 150 Challenger 3's, does the force look particularly balanced with 589 CVRT replacements and zero Warriors?

If not, and assuming Ajax isn't killed off, doesn't it make sense to develop a common remote turret with CTA40 for Boxer and the Ajax family and convert a certain quantity of the Ajax/Ares order into IFV's?

Lord Jim wrote: ↑25 Oct 2022, 15:20 YouTube video giving a pretty good summary of the Ajax programme and worth a watch.

It's like someone took an inaccurate Daily Fail article and stuck a robo voice on it

UKD wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 16:36 Out of interest, how many CVRT and Warrior vehicles would you have per Challenger 2 in an armoured brigade? If there's only going to be 150 Challenger 3's, does the force look particularly balanced with 589 CVRT replacements and zero Warriors?

There will be four regiments equipped with Ajax, plus some other units, like MLRS and 155mm SPG regiments, will receive number of them. Also some might end in the two armoured regiments but not sure if and how much. I don't know will armoured regiment retain recce platoon in Type 58 structure, but some C&C might be included in HQ squadron. As Deep Reece Strike will have two of those four regiments, majority of Ajax will end there, the rest will mostly go to two armoured BCTs.

UKD wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 16:36 If not, and assuming Ajax isn't killed off, doesn't it make sense to develop a common remote turret with CTA40 for Boxer and the Ajax family and convert a certain quantity of the Ajax/Ares order into IFV's?

Not sure why Ajax should receive a new turret. But IMO it would be a good idea to equip some Boxers in mechanised battalions with remote turret with CTA40, either some already developed (like Nexter's RT), or some existing one modified (for example Kongsberg's RT60 if possible), or completely newly developed in the UK. Unfortunately, seems like there is no current plans for something like that, at least for now.

If all issues with Ajax could be fixed, then maybe British Army could consider a tracked IFV for infantry based on Ares. But again, there is no mention that the Army has intention to get a new IFV as a replacement for Warrior in near future and Boxer should be used in that role instead.

sol wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 19:09

UKD wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 16:36 Out of interest, how many CVRT and Warrior vehicles would you have per Challenger 2 in an armoured brigade? If there's only going to be 150 Challenger 3's, does the force look particularly balanced with 589 CVRT replacements and zero Warriors?

There will be four regiments equipped with Ajax, plus some other units, like MLRS and 155mm SPG regiments, will receive number of them. Also some might end in the two armoured regiments but not sure if and how much. I don't know will armoured regiment retain recce platoon in Type 58 structure, but some C&C might be included in HQ squadron. As Deep Reece Strike will have two of those four regiments, majority of Ajax will end there, the rest will mostly go to two armoured BCTs.

UKD wrote: ↑31 Oct 2022, 16:36 If not, and assuming Ajax isn't killed off, doesn't it make sense to develop a common remote turret with CTA40 for Boxer and the Ajax family and convert a certain quantity of the Ajax/Ares order into IFV's?

Not sure why Ajax should receive a new turret. But IMO it would be a good idea to equip some Boxers in mechanised battalions with remote turret with CTA40, either some already developed (like Nexter's RT), or some existing one modified (for example Kongsberg's RT60 if possible), or completely newly developed in the UK. Unfortunately, seems like there is no current plans for something like that, at least for now.

If all issues with Ajax could be fixed, then maybe British Army could consider a tracked IFV for infantry based on Ares. But again, there is no mention that the Army has intention to get a new IFV as a replacement for Warrior in near future and Boxer should be used in that role instead.

You'd keep most of the Ajax turrets as you'd still need a recce variant and the turrets have probably already been made. Point is there's just too many Ajax but a gaping hole in the IFV area. The Deep Strike BCT is just a car-park for the excess Ajax variants. Convert them to IFV's and have at least one tracked IFV battalion in each heavy BCT (or split them so you have one with all Ares IFV and one with all Boxer IFV). Those would be much more capable, more logical formations. The current force structure is not designed, it's a fudge from cuts and fucked up procurements.

First of all we need to get Ajax in service then we can make a call on what goes were and so on

remembering right now CRV(T) is being replaced by Warrior in the armoured Recce regiments if Ajax fails there will need to be a race on for a armoured recce wagon to replace those Warriors ( I would like to see these Warriors get a RWS mount to allow better 360 sighting and fire on the move )

Also remember the Dutch run trials in which they fitted a 30mm RWS on Boxer some good video on youtube for me fitting a 30mm RWS with 2 Javelin on some Boxers and Ares would be a good start

Looks like Ajax completed user validation trials, reliability trials are next step.