AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Londo

LE
Majority were sold...some with very little mileage.
View attachment 620739
It was a UOR so you (MOD) get the choice to keep it (MOD then has to pay for it) or you bin it. If you keep something like this then you cant go looking in the near future for something similar on tracks that could carry some troops with protection that was proven and possibly put some sort of surveillance crap in the back bit.....because that would just never work!
Comprende To me though it just seems such a shame but your explanation does make sense in a strange sort of way .
 
Comprende To me though it just seems such a shame but your explanation does make sense in a strange sort of way .
It makes me wonder about the financial acumen of HM Treasury.

They (are told to) find the purchase price funds for an UOR, and are then content to accept the inevitably much reduced auction disposal price to off-set those costs, whilst failing to appreciate the cost-benefit of allowing the vehicles to be retained in service :( .
 
Comprende To me though it just seems such a shame but your explanation does make sense in a strange sort of way .
I think also there was a lot of anti-Afghanistan thinking behind a lot of projects post HERRICK. Too many people using HERRICK as future concept-of-ops were frowned at by those that didn't go on a HERRICK which reduced massively after 2014. The thinking was back to the open plains of the Fulda Gap but by that time we missed the train on MBT production wise and lack of investment of CH2.
Interesting video popped up today on my Youtube feed.....

BOXER, CV90 and FENNEK scout vehicles.

Swap over to us lot back in Sennelager with CVRT's and dog-toffee PANTHERS...

It seems we are a little way behind with everyone else in getting up to date platforms out there and many years away still!
 
I think also there was a lot of anti-Afghanistan thinking behind a lot of projects post HERRICK. Too many people using HERRICK as future concept-of-ops were frowned at by those that didn't go on a HERRICK which reduced massively after 2014. The thinking was back to the open plains of the Fulda Gap but by that time we missed the train on MBT production wise and lack of investment of CH2.
Interesting video popped up today on my Youtube feed.....
BOXER, CV90 and FENNEK scout vehicles.

Swap over to us lot back in Sennelager with CVRT's and dog-toffee PANTHERS...

It seems we are a little way behind with everyone else in getting up to date platforms out there and many years away still!
There is a slight difference in offensive capability and defensive though…
We could/can are capable of launching an attack, the Germans are disinclined to
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It seems we are a little way behind with everyone else in getting up to date platforms out there and many years away still!
Is it not worse than that?

It's not so much that we're behind, so much as we've pretty much declared that they're not needed.

Meanwhile, the much-vaunted Rangers turn to just be some re-badged existing battalions. 'Cyber' is going to conquer all.
There is a slight difference in offensive capability and defensive though…
We could/can are capable of launching an attack, the Germans are disinclined to
What on earth are you talking about? The Germans are far more capable of launching an attack than we are. And, historically, the Germans have majored very heavily on attack being the best form of defence.
 
Are you saying the purchase of CV90 off-the-shelf, from an established, reputable, manufacturer - as done by a number of other countries - would be not be preferable to the debacle that is AJAX ?!
Yes. CV90 is no more suitable as a recce vehicle than Ajax; it too is way too big. And it too would have needed the same deep design and engineering changes necessary to turn ASCOD in to Ajax.

Like ASCOD, CV90 is a 20 year old design. The world has moved on. Buy COTS means buy old technology. Buy MOTS, you get a botch up like Ajax. We really should be able to procure and engineer state of the art / ground breaking AFVs that gives us a technology edge.
@Cynical brought REME to the discussion. Those that I have known, would have had the ability to make an comparative appreciation of what alternative manufacturers were offering.

Agreed.
No, it was you who raised REME in your post #4225. If you had the slightest understanding of how tender assessment works, you’d know that REME experts are invariably part of the tender assessment panel specifically looking at the ES elements of the bid. What they can’t do is assess the capability part of the bids; they don’t own the requirement or have the knowledge to do so.

You might want to take that up with them.
I would given the opportunity. They’re no different from any other VSO to hold those or other similar senior roles equipment capability or procurement; they’ve qualified on the back of their performance at regimental command, not their performance is similar more junior roles or smaller projects. Sure, they bring something to the party by dint of being, in the distant past, engineers but, unless being an engineer is part of the required SQEP for the role, that’s much more by good luck than good judgement.

As an approach to strategic HR its barking.
 
Yes. CV90 is no more suitable as a recce vehicle than Ajax; it too is way too big. And it too would have needed the same deep design and engineering changes necessary to turn ASCOD in to Ajax.

Like ASCOD, CV90 is a 20 year old design. The world has moved on. Buy COTS means buy old technology. Buy MOTS, you get a botch up like Ajax. We really should be able to procure and engineer state of the art / ground breaking AFVs that gives us a technology edge.

No, it was you who raised REME in your post #4225. If you had the slightest understanding of how tender assessment works, you’d know that REME experts are invariably part of the tender assessment panel specifically looking at the ES elements of the bid. What they can’t do is assess the capability part of the bids; they don’t own the requirement or have the knowledge to do so.


I would given the opportunity. They’re no different from any other VSO to hold those or other similar senior roles equipment capability or procurement; they’ve qualified on the back of their performance at regimental command, not their performance is similar more junior roles or smaller projects. Sure, they bring something to the party by dint of being, in the distant past, engineers but, unless being an engineer is part of the required SQEP for the role, that’s much more by good luck than good judgement.

As an approach to strategic HR its barking.
You're in one fcuking pedantic argumentative mood this evening :( !!

Is there no-longer anyone who will argue with you on the electric vehicle thread ?!
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes. CV90 is no more suitable as a recce vehicle than Ajax; it too is way too big. And it too would have needed the same deep design and engineering changes necessary to turn ASCOD in to Ajax.

Like ASCOD, CV90 is a 20 year old design. The world has moved on. Buy COTS means buy old technology. Buy MOTS, you get a botch up like Ajax. We really should be able to procure and engineer state of the art / ground breaking AFVs that gives us a technology edge.


I would given the opportunity. They’re no different from any other VSO to hold those or other similar senior roles equipment capability or procurement; they’ve qualified on the back of their performance at regimental command, not their performance is similar more junior roles or smaller projects. Sure, they bring something to the party by dint of being, in the distant past, engineers but, unless being an engineer is part of the required SQEP for the role, that’s much more by good luck than good judgement.
CV90 (the clue's in the name) has been in service for almost 30 years. But the Mark 1 of 1993 and the current Mark 4 are very, very different.

Up-thread I added a video about the Mark 4. It offers iFighting, a data-fusion capability which, if you believe some of our VSOs, is the sole preserve of Ajax. As to suitability for recce, it would certainly be no worse. At this point, I've more faith in it than I have in Ajax, and I'm not a fanboi.

I think your point about COTS/MOTS is off.

COTS doesn't necessarily mean old - see @CH512O's point up-thread about trucks. Some of the commercial sector's stuff is far in advance of what the military is currently running, or would even think to specify.

Ajax wasn't a MOTS buy at all. We took an ASCOD 2 and made some fundamental and wide-ranging changes. MOTS needn't mean buying a lash-up. MOTS means deciding what you want, then going out and finding something that matches that need as closely as you can.

That needs some fundamental changes from where we are, however.

At the outset, it means having decision-makers with the expertise necessary to make the right decision(s). I think we've lost that. That's not to say that the expertise has been wholly lost from the Army, it's to say that those making the decisions aren't the people with that expertise and they seem to be refusing to listen to anyone with that expertise. Yebbut Rangers and cyber. Light infantry all the way.

Once you've made the right decision(s), you then go out and find the best in breed. It comes to something, for example, when there is a version of ASCOD with a mast-mounted sight - pretty useful for peering at things, and yet Ajax doesn't have one. Even a vehicle as small as the Fennek manages to have one.

It means accepting that we are not unique. We seemed to get by rather well running Shermans in WWII, and production of the Cromwell was even curtailed because so many Shermans were still rolling off the lines in the US that we didn't need as many of the home-built product to see us out to the end of hostilities. In other words, we adapted to what we had.

At the moment, we're no longer looking to preserve sovereign intellectual property. We've removed ourselves from the heavy armour game and our last domestic manufacturer is now part-German. BAE has buggered off to the States (where, incidentally, it runs a credible portfolio), and who can blame it? In terms of strategic protection, capability, call it what you will, getting a credible solution into the Army's hands in realistic numbers should be seen as far more important than a few engineering jobs in South Wales. Sorry, but it should.

So, having accepted we are not unique, buy something that fits as close as possible and fiddle as little as possible. If we need to fit such as Bowman/Morpheus/whatever, fine. But don't dick about to the extent that a 'MOTS' buy is essentially a new vehicle.

And if all of that means we have to adapt our tactics to the capabilities or even the limitations of the vehicles we procure, then so be it. Again, that's nothing we haven't done in the past but, more than that, is this:

We spend a lot of money to buy 'better' capabilities in lower numbers that too often are inferior to what other countries already operate and which we could buy having had someone else go through all the heartache of ironing out the issues.

As to Director Land Systems, he's a very competent guy, as a soldier and a project leader, who fully buys into the Serve to Lead ethos. I'm not sure that I can say that about some of his recent superiors, however.
 
Last edited:
Is it not worse than that?

It's not so much that we're behind, so much as we've pretty much declared that they're not needed.

Meanwhile, the much-vaunted Rangers turn to just be some re-badged existing battalions. 'Cyber' is going to conquer all.

What on earth are you talking about? The Germans are far more capable of launching an attack than we are. And, historically, the Germans have majored very heavily on attack being the best form of defence.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, historically they didn’t go home and **** the prom queen.

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, historically they didn’t go home and **** the prom queen.

But your point is nonsense.

Lots of Leo 2s, Puma, Pz2000, myriad other systems. Far more offensive capability. And they have a pedigree of attack, even in defence.
 
But your point is nonsense.

Lots of Leo 2s, Puma, Pz2000, myriad other systems. Far more offensive capability. And they have a pedigree of attack, even in defence.

Its even in the link I provided, their capabilities are legally defensive are they not. Although the export market is important
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Its even in the link I provided, their capabilities are legally defensive are they not. Although the export market is important
Whether they are legally defensive is by the by. The potential capabilities of the systems they have is another matter.

People think that if the Cold War had gone hot, the Germans would have done a repeat of the last months of WWII and home defence.

Not on your Nelly. They had plans to loop round and head for Moscow.
 
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, historically they didn’t go home and **** the prom queen.

Its even in the link I provided, their capabilities are legally defensive are they not. Although the export market is important
There are enough cynics sceptical about our own Government !!

You now want us to believe the propaganda distributed by the German Government to placate their woke, snowflake, socialist electorate ?!
 
CV90 (the clue's in the name) has been in service for almost 30 years. But the Mark 1 of 1993 and the current Mark 4 are very, very different.

Up-thread I added a video about the Mark 4. It offers iFighting, a data-fusion capability which, if you believe some of our VSOs, is the sole preserve of Ajax. As to suitability for recce, it would certainly be no worse. At this point, I've more faith in it than I have in Ajax, and I'm not a fanboi.

I think your point about COTS/MOTS is off.

COTS doesn't necessarily mean old - see @CH512O's point up-thread about trucks. Some of the commercial sector's stuff is far in advance of what the military is currently running, or would even think to specify.

Ajax wasn't a MOTS buy at all. We took an ASCOD 2 and made some fundamental and wide-ranging changes. MOTS needn't mean buying a lash-up. MOTS means deciding what you want, then going out and finding something that matches that need as closely as you can.

That needs some fundamental changes from where we are, however.

At the outset, it means having decision-makers with the expertise necessary to make the right decision(s). I think we've lost that. That's not to say that the expertise has been wholly lost from the Army, it's to say that those making the decisions aren't the people with that expertise and they seem to be refusing to listen to anyone with that expertise. Yebbut Rangers and cyber. Light infantry all the way.

Once you've made the right decision(s), you then go out and find the best in breed. It comes to something, for example, when there is a version of ASCOD with a mast-mounted sight - pretty useful for peering at things, and yet Ajax doesn't have one. Even a vehicle as small as the Fennek manages to have one.

It means accepting that we are not unique. We seemed to get by rather well running Shermans in WWII, and production of the Cromwell was even curtailed because so many Shermans were still rolling off the lines in the US that we didn't need as many of the home-built product to see us out to the end of hostilities. In other words, we adapted to what we had.

At the moment, we're no longer looking to preserve sovereign intellectual property. We've removed ourselves from the heavy armour game and our last domestic manufacturer is now part-German. BAE has buggered off to the States (where, incidentally, it runs a credible portfolio), and who can blame it? In terms of strategic protection, capability, call it what you will, getting a credible solution into the Army's hands in realistic numbers should be seen as far more important than a few engineering jobs in South Wales. Sorry, but it should.

So, having accepted we are not unique, buy something that fits as close as possible and fiddle as little as possible. If we need to fit such as Bowman/Morpheus/whatever, fine. But don't dick about to the extent that a 'MOTS' buy is essentially a new vehicle.

And if all of that means we have to adapt our tactics to the capabilities or even the limitations of the vehicles we procure, then so be it. Again, that's nothing we haven't done in the past but, more than that, is this:

We spend a lot of money to buy 'better' capabilities in lower numbers that too often are inferior to what other countries already operate and which we could buy having had someone else go through all the heartache of ironing out the issues.

As to Director Land Systems, he's a very competent guy, as a soldier and a project leader, who fully buys into the Serve to Lead ethos. I'm not sure that I can say that about some of his recent superiors, however.
My bad. I was using the definition of MOTS used in civvi Strasse; Modified Off The Shelf. Under that definition, Ajax is very much MOTS. In fact, it’s an absolute classic example of the risks involved in modifying a mature design. Any purchase of CV90 would be the same.

TBH I’d forgotten the military usage, not that it makes much sense to delineate between Military and Commercial Off The Shelf. In both cases you’re buying an existing, commercially available fully developed piece of equipment from a commercial manufacturer.

So my point remains that, if you buy what is available today off the shelf, it is, by definition, dated. In some cases it’s 20-30 years old.

You make a very valid point that commercial stuff is often far more advanced than military thinking. That ability to scan global industry used to exist. Long gone.

As for future procurement of AFVs, I completely agree it needs an absolute shake up. There needs to be an industrial strategy that maps out a viable work stream that keeps one manufacturer in business. We do it with ships; why can’t we do it with armour?

As for Director Land Systems, I find it hard to believe that he is much different from his predecessors or those around and above him. He’s a product of a system just like the rest. And however competent (in relative terms) he is, he will leave the role after two years having achieved absolutely bugger all.
 
@Listy can probably add something here on where the design capabilities of the Army vis a vis AFVs resided.

Users provide user input, experience and comment; REME, generally, fixes things (quiet there in the cheap seats!).

I wouldn't expect a REME type to be an expert in armour formulation, for instance - that's a scientist's/chemist's job.

Don't ask me. When I put in a FOI request of DTSL and QinetiQ for 'number of experts working on armoured systems by year' I was roundly ignored.

All I know is that the AFV used to be largely designed by DTD/MVEE/FVRDE/whatever its called this week, then once the design was complete industry was brought in to liaise. Tell you what, give me the job, base it at Millbrook and I'll start designing tanks! After all I couldn't make a bigger horlicks of it any more than current!

If MVEE/FVDRE were still running and in charge of Army vehicle design, plus a bit of sense, CVR(T) Scorpion would likely have been replaced by CVR(T) Stormer which itself would be in line for a mid life update or even replacement itself. Maybe. Or we might still be running around after the latest unaffordable hotness.

Well, if you're after pimped CVR(T)'s, KADDB has a couple ready to rock.
scorpion_upgrade_kaddb_sofex_2008_army_recognition_002-jpg.1407


CVRT_armoured_with_Kastert_turret_KADDB_SOFEX_2016_Special_Operations_Forces_Exhibition_Amman_Jo.jpg.f5571431072ab65df75fda252bcbf3af.jpg
 

Latest Threads

Top