Puma is a $6 Billion programme, however unlike the Ajax it isn't just a modification of a already existing vehicle (ASCOD) but a completely new clean sheet design that incorporates some of the most advanced tracked combat vehicle technologies to date. Puma programme was insanely ambitious. Ajax was pretty straightforward and should've been low-risk in comparison, yet it's more expensive now.
The biggest issue with British military procurement is the 2 year cycle for officers being involved. Officers in the British military are actively encouraged to make changes to their working environment and this is done via the OJAR (appraisal) system. Generally speaking, every 2 years a new Officer is appointed to a role. They come in and make changes (because their OJAR encourages it) which then leads to changing requirements and delays. The longer a vehicle is in development, the more likely new technologies appear, so those delays due to changing requirements then create new requirements based on the technology changes. So what you end up with is a self-fulfilling circle of changes being made constantly. Military officers assigned to procurement programmes should be kept on said programme until it is delivered.
@@charleswillcock3235 it is. But the only people capable of making these decisions are the officers themselves, and they won't do thst becsuse they worry it'll negatively impact their career. All you have to do is look at the latest change to officer living standards. Basically senior officers of a certain rank are entitled to a house. Usually one of the largest the military owns on their camp/base. I know single Wing Commanders that were given 4 or 5 bed houses. Anyway, there was a proposal drafted to give those houses to people with the largest families. Makes sense. But no, the officers kicked off and stopped that happening. Meanwhile, they're happy to sit there and let highly technical trades that are already underpaid, be moved into a lower pay tier with the response "pick a trade, take a chance" uttered to anyone that dares complain. Honestly, it's nonsense.
I was chatting to one of the Warrior upgrade programme engineers recently. The problem with that plan was that the work that was required for each vehicle was so massive that it was actually too expensive to upgrade the hull to fit the new turret and gun. It needed so much work to make the turret fit that it actually worked out cheaper to build a new vehicle.
Plus age hardening of Aluminium welds makes them more prone to cracks over time. The high recoil (20,000lbs ) through short springs required muzzle break to be designed to reduce stresses and barrel wobble. BAE said it would need new turret from the start , trying to bodge it in old one caused delays before this was realised.
@@peterwait641 It needed a new turret the day it entered service. Rarden was a joke - three rounds, then stop and load a new clip, three rounds. At the same time, the Yanks had Bushmaster with dual feeds. Don't get me started on the chaingun...
@@peterwait641 Whatever excuse BAE dish out it translates as "Our first concerns are the dividends we provide for our shareholders". BAE are too big and consequently get to large a share of the available money. Anything they do or say is stuffed with wheezes to up their profits. The best interests of the armed forces and the country don't get a look in.
£6 billion, 15 years later and still WIP? The government should really change its requirements management and procurement processes. And it is probably not containing sufficient defense against drones.
@@zulubeatz1 Yes, but not on camera. They were selected and groomed, not chosen at random, with their faces blocked, and their voices disguised to protect them.
I well remember being asked my opinion on SA80 when we first got it. Well I gave my opinion which wasn't very flatterring (Heavy, dreadful ergonomics, poor balance, the LSW version was pointless, can't shoot off the left shoulder etc. etc.) Needless to say I got taken aside for a bollocking! (This was just an internal thing - a passing Brigadier or General) No way is anybody going to give anything other than a glowing report ON CAMERA!
The project manager saying we must look forward and a driver saying it's more advanced than a platform designed in the 1960s doesn't feel like a ringing endorcement. It would have been nice to have someone rating it against Warrior.
That Major "Simon" is hilarious. "It has had a troubled past. But we have tried to do something which hasn't been done (you know) previously, in the fact that we are trialling it, we are developing it, we are testing it..." So is he saying that ordinarily the British Army doesn't do those sorts of things at all? Frankly no-one from the MOD should be trusted when it comes to commenting on Ajax (or any of their delayed projects). They are not going to give us an honest answer - they're just interested in covering their tracks.
================================ Major Simon's body language at 09:20 ===================================== suggests to me that the press release story is not 100 percent true. !!!!
It's a worse version of CV90 / BAE FRES SV. Ultimately, Ajax is built by US company out of the British taxpayer pocket, contracted only because Westminster decided they don't want to give BAE Systems yet another contract, even though BAE's product was clearly superior and the CV90 family is now a global success, in which UK could have participated. The whole thing is just a series of unmitigated disasters.
Quite a balanced overview, thank you. Two of the service men compared the interface operation to video game experiences. I'm parenthetically reminded of 1984's movie "The Last Starfighter." The story is that aliens have placed an arcade video game all over the earth and tracks the skill and ability of the players to identify future ace pilots for their own forces.
No. It's completely underarmed, should have a 57mm gun, twin cheek launcher on either turret cheek with Javelin in one and stinger or starstreak in the other. A.50 calibre gun and an automatic 40mm grenade launcher both in unmanned turrets. - 57mm for both hunting other IFV's, engaging fortifications and supporting infantry with direct fire support. - Twin cheek launchers for AT and anti drone/rotatory aircraft. - .50 calibre and 40mm also for anti drone work and anti infantry work.
If you are wondering what the armour profile could be like, a crewman told me that applique armour including era may be seen if deployed, otherwise I wasn't allowed to know the base armour
As someone else has already pointed out the Ajax is a very expensive version of the Ascod which seems to have been in successful service with the Spanish and Austrian armies for 20 years.
It's only losely based on ASCOD, but almost everything has been redesigned to meet British requirements. Not to mention the numerous variants that have had to be designed and produced. I think it's partly BECAUSE ASCOD has been in service for so long (making it a bit of a dated design now), the MoD specified such extensive redesigns.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 the changes to the ASCOD design are now sitting more than a decade and half in the past, so already not really that much of a leading edge anymore. and full service capability after 20 years of redesign and production nd problem solving? sorry but thats VERY late
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 more than a decade and a half old? GDUK only started on their redesign of the ASCOD 2 to UK spec in 2010... If you're talking about the first plans started to now, then you'd have to say ASCOD was 40 years old, not 20. And so 25 years younger is not insignificant. Pretty much every AFV takes at least 10 years to procure these days, so I'm not sure which service vehicles you think are more cutting edge? The German Puma took 14 years to design and they're still working things out.
It was the wrong choice of vehicle from the off, really chosen because HMG wanted to Punish BAE. They achieved their objective and employed lots of people in GD Spain and destroyed A vehicle manufacture in the UK. ASCOD despite GD's snake oil salesmanship bull, required a major development program which GD did not have the Knowledge or experience to do in South Wales which has Zero pedigree of A vehicle R&D design and manufacture. The result was entirely predictable
I had expected that the video would explain the cause of the well known vibration and noise problems, and what was done to fix them. In fact these problems were not discussed at all in the history of the vehicle section. Now I am not entirely convinced that they didn't just use some flimsy band aid fix to mask some more fundamental issues.
The weight gain from 25 t design to 38-42 t challenged the torsion bar and rotary damper suspension design. High track tension, track to sprocket interface noise . Think the drive sprocket teeth profiles were changed , better engine mounts , isolation mounts for seats and controls and noise cancelling headsets . The first hulls were of poorer construction ( size variations)quality control and some welding issues. The tank museum has a lot of support from the MOD so would not dwell on issues. Would seem mitigation has made them acceptable .
@@peterwait641 A lot of what you wrote sounds good, but a requirement for "noise-cancelling headsets" inside a vehicle in the recce role seems fundamentally bad.
@@peterwait641 I think it important to point out the issues (27 critical defects) are not resolved ..... They are mitigated to a greater or lesser degree. However, there is now a propaganda campaign by Army/MoD/HMG. A party line to follow and a total ban on discussing or publishing details. Through life costs and reliability on Ajax will be horrific. Ajax.... Yesterdays technology Tomorrow......
Isolation mounts for seats, controls and noise cancelling headphones . Think the profile of sprocket teeth was going to be changed. likely engine mounts were upgraded. Don't know if dimensional errors in early hulls could be fixed !
The Bradley had a rough start but now its proven to be a fantastic bit of kit. Not saying it will be the case with AJAX as well but only time will tell
As a Yank, it is disheartening to hear your MoD procurement process is just a messed up as our DoD’s. I guess bureaucracy, hubris, and incompetence has no borders.
If you read certain UK printed magazines (not blogs) you will soon discover that it is not unknown for senior officers to retire and get good jobs with arms manufacturers. I assume the same happens in USA.
I just read a story about a prototype plane that was built by the British during the dark days of WW2 at the point everyone was expecting Britain to be over run by the Germans. Apparently the Miles M20 aircraft went from the drawing board to first flight in just over 2 months. In wartime, against the backdrop of the battle of France. It seems that we have come a very long way, but in the wrong direction since then.
lions donkeys and dinosaurs - blundering and waste in the uk military lewis page c.2007 bureaucracy, hubris, incompetence and interservice rivalry. rank inflation and and and.... it is a british book but has plenty for americans to chew on
Same thing in Canada. There is a "formal" process for procurement of military equipment, but somehow we get garbage. Sometimes things work out in the favour of CAF members, but it's 2/3 garbage, and 1/3 good stuff.
The thing is your country can afford errors as it has so very much stuff and it also upgrades by division, we on the other hand don’t have enough rubbish to make up for its failures in numbers. We are also missing same as the US the modern drone ware fare effect. Each soldier should be able to deploy 5 drones instantly to defend him and attack if it’s needed. Like throwing a hand grenade but a drone.
what would be the point? if they go into too much detail - they give away info, and if it is 99% speculation and brochure info - then whats the point? watch some scifi instead time will tell if they work or not, and better we won't learn that at all
My country used to operate the Scorpion 90 & Stormer IFV. After spending a few hundred million pounds Sterling and decades of R&D, I was surprised the UK Army chose to upgrade an existing Austrian-Spanish vehicle (ASCOD). The Army added 10 ton of equipment/armour to the 28 ton vehicle and called it Ajax. During testing, severe vibration and noise which caused permanent hearing damage to the crews was discovered. Solution was to put more cushioning in the seats/steering & issue ear plugs for the crew/infantry. Hopefully this is not the permanent solution. 😢
When I was in the Army, we were told that Ajax was the result of someone wanting to upgrade Warrior's 30mm cannon to 40mm. It wouldn't fit the existing platform so the whole platform had to be upgraded. Like a lot of military equipment. It goes through a lot of problems, before they finally get something half decent. Only deployment in combat, will reveal whether it's actually any good.
From a German perspective, I have to say that things were not much different for us with the SPZ Puma. Exploding costs, a development process that dragged on endlessly due to ever new requirements and technical problems. And an army procurement office that only seems to exist to constantly come up with new and more complicated procurement processes. And what do we have today? A monster of a machine that is praised to the skies by the crews. On the one hand, I believe that the industry and those involved in the military need to work on creating more realistic schedules that allow for setbacks and changes in direction. On the other hand, I believe that staying power is simply part of developing something new.
"Prolonged indecision about the exact requirements". A seemingly-incurable British disease since the 1930s. Tanks and aircraft. I am reminded of the car Homer Simpson designs for his brother's company.
Big mistake. Just buy the CV90. BAE is a British company with a bit of Swedish flavour thrown in. This project is like the DeLorean, pride over common sense. Learn when to cut a failed project. Remarkable how easy it is to spend other peoples money (in this case, UK tax payers). Asking officers who cannot or dare say anything negative is just sad.
I grew up on the CV9040B and I love the thing. But it’s too light for all the things modern armies want to put into it. Also, without any 40mm L/70s lying around you’d be stuck with the Bushmaster 35mm which isn’t as potent as the CT40. I find Ajax to be a bloated white elephant but I’m now rapidly turning into an old fart (back in my day the CV90 still had a Coax Browning 1919 with cloth belts AND WE WERE BETTER SOLDIERS FOR IT).
The CV90 is purely Swedish, BAE just became the owner during the huge consolidation of military industries in the post Cold war West. Netherlands is building assembly factories for the CV90 as Hägglunds has reached their ceiling for the time being, but there are none in UK this far.
@@903lew The beauty of the CV90 is that you get (within reason) drop in whatever you want in the turret. I hope Sweden quick as hell adopts the CT40 as that would get rid of the largest drawback of the 40mm Bofors, the bulkiness of the ammunition.
My personal view is that insufficient credit is given to intellect and guile of the staff officer who succeeded in naming the programme Ajax. After all, the original Ajax (of Greek mythology) effectively met his end by falling on his own sword after he didn’t get the armour he wanted.
Regardless, the CT40 autocannon they built for it is something very special indeed. No matter its legacy, it will be with us for a very long time and hopefully be adopted by many.
Or it's the reason the army abolishes it first, because do you really believe they'll built a large enough factory and fill large enough orders to keep it running? Yes the CT ammo is cool and futuristic for once, but that'll kill it through sheer cost.
@@texasranger24 It's not _just_ the ammo that's good, the gun is incredibly compact, had incredibly low recoil, amazing accuracy and the auto-ammo-type-selecting autoloader and magazine is the cutting edge. And it was designed with the French so both nations will be making and using the ammo. I'm hoping it wins some more order too, once the production bandwidth is high enough to make it easy to sell. Apparently it's going on some Corvette and frigates too
Yeah but the whole thing was supposed to be dual sourced with manufacturing at royal ordnance Nottingham... Instead only the one factory is in France and royal ordnance Nottingham has gone. Damn thing is nearly 30 years behind schedule almost all our small and medium arms and ammunition manufacturing capability is gone as is most of the engineering expertise.
@@MostlyPennyCat The recoil is 20,000 lbs through short springs , this required a muzzle break to be designed which can reduce it by up to half. This recoil was said to cause fire control problems and barrel wobble.
This happens everytime non-innovative army officers and MoD Excel- and buzz-word experts gets their hands on a project. At least 10-20 years behind and grotesqly expensive.
CVRT was marked for phaseout and replacement 32 years ago. the full replacement will be close to 40 years after that. no matter how much the german MOD and Procurement mess up, the british play in a whole new league of incompetence.
You are not calculating with the tremendous amount of money being made along the way. You just think it's incompetence. It isn't. All the people involved are getting paid, but only getting paid as long as the project goes on. Finishing the project means the money stops.
A few years ago, A friend had an interview at General Dynamics to work on this. He said that the two managers interviewing him were both idiots, very inexperianced and more interested in the extension he was building than his engineering credentials. He walked away uninterested in the role. He later found out that the chap who took it, left six months later stating that he could not work under such fools.
7 Billion for what is just a modification of an existing vehicle. It's a modified ASCOD IFV, ASCOD stands for Austrian-Spanish Co-operative Development. The ASCOD is in service in Austria and Spain as Ulan and Pizarro IFV respectively since 2002.
@@EP-bb1rm So is a Leopard 2A8 from a Leopard 2A4. Yet that development didn't cost more than a completely new clean sheet that is also outperforming it.
Drones are modular by their very nature. Just plop a drone launcher onto any vehicle. If you want a dedicated platform to haul a few dozen around and with a purpose-built drone piloting station, Boxer should offer a good basis. Just drop a new module on it.
This is SA80 all over again. You are stuck with it, there are issues, loads of them. But, you have to sort them. How is this the replacement for CVRT and not Warrior?.
CVRT and Ajax are both reconnaissance vehicles, whilst the Warrior is an APC/IFV. Warrior carries dismounts, the CVRT and Ajax do not. Ajax has a ton of cool tech for reconnaissance, the Warrior does not. Warriors' proper replacement is the Boxer.
For all the commenters saying going with the CV90 would've been the better choice, i doubt so. The Ajax is based on the ASCOD, an IFV that is successfully in service with the Austrian and Spanish armed forces since over two decades now. It was the constantly changing British requirements and feature creep that made the Ajax vehicle what it is now. It wouldn't have been any other way with the CV90. UK MoD is at fault, not the vehicles or the manufacturers.
Add in poor workmanship by GD as well.... Hull's have been delivered to Merthyr from the GD operation in Spain (Santa Barbara Sistemas) as much as 500mm from spec....and thats not a typo... Basically GD are mainly to blame, the reason requirements have changed so much is because they are so late in delivering it... And Lockheed Martin at the same time managed to mess up Warrior CSP so bad that the entire programe got canned... The real lesson is never let US primes into the UK market...
I partially agree, imo the main problem with Ajax is the basic ASCOD chassis was wrong from the start. CV-90 would have been a better starting position.
There are a few on here who appear to know how this vehicle will operate before it's even seen in service and quite a few who appear to be procurement experts. I served with the Venerable 432, Mobile Milan CRVT, and then the Warrior. They weren't perfect, but they did a job. Yes, there was always the requirement for REME, whether it be a new pack, gearbox turbo, or whatever. To think there would be a program that would be without problems ,when the digital change on these platforms is so much more advanced, you fool yourself. Warrior had it's time. The length of service for the 432 (or bulldog) is a testament to that. Boxer is replacing the troops' capabilities of Warrior. Ajax is for ISTAR. Something that the war in Ukraine is proving is a necessity. The ability of the canon to engage airborne threats such as drones is a game changer. It's had its problems. Cost tons of money, but it's here to stay. Moaning isn't changing anything. I support those still serving and hope this is yet more kit to keep them safe. Thank you all who are serving.
So many systems that became excellent had troubled beginnings - M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, the M16/M4 rifles, etc. It's the nature of things. One thing I am noticing is that modern AFVs seem to be festooned with sensors, and I wonder if a good autocannon burst, or even a burst of heavy machine gun fire or artillery shrapnel, will damage or destroy all those gee-whiz wonder sensors. We saw this with the Russian tank that was disabled by close range 25mm autocannon fire from a Ukrainian M2 Bradley.
If those sensors prevent you from getting hit, it's better to have them. Modern anti tank weapons, drones, and targeting systems are so good that if you get hit at all it probably destroy the vehicle let alone the sensors. Makes more sense to have as much ability to possibly detect an attack, protect against it, or engage a target before they engage you.
I think your own argument fell apart with your own words. An old and poorly spec'd MBT was disabled by two modern afvs hitting it hard. The tank didn't have great sensors or optics. The AFVs did.
Well of course the sensors are vulnerable, they always will be. It's better to have them than not though, right? You don't omit key features that enhance detection and protection just 'in case' they get rendered useless by enemy fire. Like that you'd never go to war.
@@pluemas Obviously the sensors are necessary, but...I do wonder if they might be better integrated into the vehicle, and given more armor protection, than just simply bolted on all over the place.
FRES, 10 years later scout SV, 5 years Ajax. So it started with FRES I took years to work out what they wanted, with endless amount of mind changing, in the process of that they scrapped CVR(T) which meant that the reconnaissance battalion’s and Platoons had no vehicles. They then took the Warrior off the infantry whilst scrapping the upgrades. To give to the reconnaissance. Leaving the infantry with no armoured fighting vehicles and then declared that they’re going to replace it with a wheeled platform. That will never be able to keep up with any of the tracked vehicles cross country which funnily enough is exactly where armoured battle groups operate. It all just comes down to that same old saying, lions led by donkeys. Nice one MOD and all the clowns at the feeding trough.
I had to wonder why they didn't just manufacture a new redesigned CVRT with the needed new capabilities, and a steel hull with wire channels and bolt-holes for maintenance and upgrade of all the fancy electric bits!
CVRT replacement programs actually started with project TRACER, based on feedback from Bosnia in 1995. Thanks to all the false starts and political dithering, It's actually taken them 30 years to get a pretty mid replacement vehicle in service.
Could've also picked from Rheinmetall or KNDS. The germans or francogerman coop would've had great vehicles as well, since Puma is now finally working and Lynx might not just eqip most of eastern Europe, but could also win the bid for 3000 units for the US XM30 program. And i'm sure they would've loved to get a foot in the door and start another factory in the UK.
16:50 very well said. We have to give our soldiers the best we can because we expect them to put their lives and wellbeing (also of their families) on the line.
Precisely. “Hey, Sgt. Rock! How do you feel about this new vehicle we gave you?” “Speak your mind, don’t worry about repercussions coming down from above!”
The Army expects its Officers to have the moral courage to speak up. Just because he didn't tell David Willey doesn't mean he hasn't expressed concerns. That's why the programme was delayed. Because those testing the system spoke up.
@@ScienceChapClearly haven’t worked with officers in the forces recently, a lot are yes men to the higher ups and MoD, regardless of feedback from those that are within their section. The amount of times I’ve had an officer come up to me and say their screen isn’t working and I go and turn the brightness up bewilders me. A degree seems to not involve common-sense.
As a former trooper of an Australian reconnaissance regt in the 80's and early 90's, I follow with interest what the current trends in tasks and equipment considered by various nations. In the case of the British Army the CVR(T) family of vehicles besides the physical age of the vehicles and even the 60's design what does the new Ajax family do task wise that the CVR(T) family in the recce role? The CVR(T)'s are lighter therefore easier to transport/deploy (how would Ajax have handled the ground in the Falklands?), they are smaller in dimension and thus easier to hide from opposition eyes while able to carry out it's own work. They were never intended to fight mainline forces but at least counter opposing recon elements if necessary to thwart the opposition intel gathering etc. Has anyone researched the potential of taking the design specifications of the CRV(T) family and replacing/updating the components be it the armour composition, sensor enhancement, powerpack and weapons (does the new 40mm gun fit inside a Scorpion/Scimitar turret?) as necessary. If the dimensions/size of the basic Scorpion hull is too restrictive then the "Stormer" series surely could be used as the base to build on. Having a proven platform already designed and only needing development with current technologies must be a cheaper but still effective choice when compared to the ongoing cost overuns and delays incurred with the new offerings from the various companies. Finally there was a suggestion that due to differences of opinion between the government of the day and BAE Systems was a factor pushing towards General Dynamics. Going on past performances of GD in regard to other military contracts the British government and DoD should have been more effective in their decision making.
BAE appears to have got kicked for bribery. So, there's that done. I have wondered for decades why CVRT wasn't redesigned, and new built about every fifteen years. Screw upgrading; it was great and easy to love at the time, but aluminum hulls need recycling.
The problem is, is if you ask the soldiers who are trialling it and they tell you it is a piece of junk that they hate, they will either not get a promotion, or they will face some other reprimand. Army does not want people rubbishing their kit to the media after paying for it. This is the culture of the military at the moment(or historically too I guess). Everything is fine and works well. Until it doesn't and then it comes out that everyone knew it was junk from the start and it's problems were never fully solved eccetra eccetra eccetra.
Armored vehicles have been surrounded by drama and controversy as hard trade offs are being made. Maybe delving in to those from the past and then looking at war time performance of the same would be an interesting episode.
For me, the problem is the Press has only one story: too expensive, doesn't work. I'm old enough to remember the story being told about the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, and the F-15 Eagle. And the same story was told about F-111. You can look at any expensive project and see the same story being told somewhere. Of course, this doesn't mean the story isn't true, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
Totally agree. The biggest problem is if they issue kit on a wide scale that still has problems. I’m British and don’t give a damn how much it costs as long as my troops get the best and if it’s designed and made in Britain more the better.
for that to be the same.. imagine if the USAF said that the f15 also had take cargo. As was pointed out many times in the video - not only did the british army not know what they wanted, even the GAO said they had no idea and then when they thought they did - they changed their minds multiple times. Then in slight of hand dob the weapons contractor in the dirt by leaking to the press how much over budget and late it is.
@@brankomilicevic6904 The IDF bought far later blocks. Much of earlier block airframes are useless because they cant be integrated with current weapons. Also drones. Long range drone for $15,000 or cruise missile for $1m ? Sitting on the tarmac the f35 is not that stealthy. Any weapons program has variables of cost, performance and politics.
The British Military Complex, has worked out, that if you take a project so far, it will not be cancelled due to the cash already blown on it to date & it will be funded for as long as they want to draw it out!
Ok, so I have huge respect for David and TM, but you cannot be serious! The civilians in the video have more credibility than the soldiers! I'm an ex Army officer and unless in a parallel universe serving personnel just won't be allowed to be critical in a video such as this. Starting with a "Programme Manager" was such a bad call as it sets the stage for a propaganda piece. Look, I suspect that the guys were to toally honest and accurate in what they said and that the vehicle is now/will be excellent, but this video is a terrible way to reassure anybody.
Agreed. You want to get a truthful opinion on a weapon system, the troops are the last people to ask about it, at least on camera/ in an official capacity.
@@andreww1225Those "civilians" were ex-serve members. Crewed, the warrior, CVRT and CR2. Their talks were edited and shortened. It's not just the looks. The money spent on testing and perfecting could've been better spent upgrading a current vehicle.
To be fair, at this point in time. Placing an order for the CV90 will probably take a decade to deliver because of it's high demand. I know for a fact that the factory in Sweden has had to expand massively to attempt to keep up with demand.
I looked up the unit cost and saw one account saying it cost $6,000,000 per unit. I think that's probably amortizing the development cost but it's still alot. It appears to be a decent vehicle, just not terribly cost efficient or time efficient, but that part is done so you're stuck with it now. I think the fact that it's gun is sighted and equipped to handle many targets, including aerial ones will help it in the long term, but I have to wonder how hard it will be for 7 infantrymen to dismount through that door? This could use a followup episode with more details like that on the ergonomics and effectiveness of the gun, although I imagine it's all classified.
Armoured recon is now a concept that has had its day. We should be investing in small unmanned systems with numbers. Not a limited number of large maned systems. I fear the Army is fighting the last war, not the next one.
No, it's not fighting the last war either. Armored Recon has been doa for way longer than that. No one even knows what war they're fighting but it's neither the last nor the next. It seems like they saw "The Bradley Wars", realized the Bradley had been successful, and thought copying the movie would get a good vehicle.
There are always people like you that seem to believe that at every major conflicts everything must be thrown out the window to rapidly capitalize on the last new flashing system, in this case drones. This posture is almost always wrong
@@parodyclip36 Absolutely. Like any weapon drones are only useful as part of a system. What stopped the Russian columns in 2022 was not just drones but their integration with artillery and ground units.
I think the war in Ukraine really has been the death knell for armoured recce. Absolutely anything they can do can be done faster, far cheaper and far safer by the drones. And even heavy armour has proved extremely vulnerable to them, to smart mines and to ATGMs - light armour is absolutely dead. Spend the money on SPA, drones and plain old trucks.
Don’t believe the press it’s a fantastic piece of kit with cutting edge technology. Even though the development has taken longer than planned it will be arriving in quantity just when it is required.
The Cav has several missions including screening the main body, finding and fixing the enemy, recon, and manning a DIP. They need equipment that accommodates their breadth of mission scope.
I think the biggest problem with Ajax is that its been a pointless exercise in misplaced national pride. All that money and all they've got is a crappier CV-90, which, it must be noted, BAE owns the liscense for. Why didn't the Gov opt for local production of the CV-90 with augmented systems and weapons as requested by the MoD? It would have been massively cheaper and would have produced a vehicle far better than Ajax currently is. For god's sake, the ammunition for the gun is already being made by BAE, do we really think they aren't capable of making the whole gun fit in the CV-90? No matter what way they cut it, Ajax doesn't deliver anything the CV-90 doesn't or couldn't, and has had far more issues than the Swedish vehicle. I can't help but think everyone you spoke to is wearing rose-tinted goggles and being stubbornly British for lack of a better term.
The one thing I can see that appears clearly superior on the AJAX than the CV-90 is the integration and apparently clearly replaceable armored systems for vision. CV-90 is hideously easy to blind, is extremely crippled while blinded of its electronics -- having little or no ability to use direct vision/periscopes -- and replacing them is a *itch!
when the M2/3 Bradley was in development it was rightly dragged for being a Congressional boondoggle, however in 2024 we are seeing Bradleys ragdoll Russian and Soviet era armor and even the odd MBT in Ukraine demonstrating that the vehicle in some of it's more modern variants (the Bradleys in UKR are not the most recent revisions) doing serious work. When i think about the Ajax, i am reminded of the bRadley and how a maligned vehicle can grow into something competent and capable. Not sure if that is true for the Ajax, doesn't seem that way, but still it can happen.
I thought it was kinda amusing that it hospitalised soldiers with 'whole body vibration' then I read the OHS sheet on whole body vibration and yeah. It is not something you want to be hospitalised with. I had thought that it would be more so short term damage, but no, it'll cause long term skeletal damage, particularly to the spine. What is more, excessive noise and vibration, both of which the Ajax was found to have in initial trials, has been proven to cause perment hearing damage much faster than just excessive noise does. So yeah, those soldiers who were hospitalised are facing the possibility of having a bad back for the rest of their life, or having their hearing irrevesibly damaged.
Big channel fan but gave this a downvote; extremely rare for me. Why? This was more of a PR job than an objective review or commentary. Asking army-provided army personal on camera for comments was hilarious Hopefully getting back to the usual quality stuff soon :-).
My dad was rekee in WW2, from 39 till 46, he told me he knew after two hours market garden was a failure, also one day in Germany he and his troop were rekkee for the Suffolks , round the corner, two Tigers, the lads from the Suffolks would of walked right into them. Rekkee so very important is all conflicts.
Or join the german Puma to have one program with twice the budget, rather than having 2 almost identical programs fail right alongside each other. Heck, by now you could probably join the american XM30 and get a 50mm main cannon and real anti drone and active protection capability.
@@Salamandra40k When it was first introduced, the Bradley was crucified by the media, today it is one of the best loved and trusted vehicles in Ukraine...
I know its late and its had loads of problems, but it's finally looking like a great piece of kit. Just wish they would keep and upgrade warrior too. We need the numbers
About some comments regarding CV90 and production in Sweden - BAE Hägglunds have no problem with building up production in another country or cooperate with other companies. ALL Swedish companies do this all the time. Basically all arms sales require this. BAE Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik are producing CV90 and BSV10 at max capacity and have a backlog. They employ partners in other countries to speed up production while expanding in Örnsköldsvik. Same with Bofors, Saab, Noma and other large Swedish arms producers. All are expanding the production but it takes time. Why the UK chose Ajax, or BAE in the UK did what they did, have nothing to do with Sweden I think. But with that said, the world was different at the time when Ajax was chosen.
While I think the result at the moment looks great and has a great weapon (40mm autocanon with telescopic rounds), but I can't help wondering why the Army didn't select the Swedish CV90 now in BAe's arsenal. If you look at the version the Royal NL Army is getting, with the 35-50mm Bushmaster, 2 Spike ER missiles and Trophy APS, sights tailor made to also engage drones and - what's better for armored recce I would think - a considerably lower profile than Ajax. And the development of the mk.4 variant has seen less hick ups too. The Bushmaster 35mm is said to be relatively easy replaced by the 50mm version for future overmatch. That all is not to say that Ajax is work in process and I'm quite certain it will turn out to be a terrific vehicle. I do think British taxpayers might have been better served by selecting the CV90 though.
It would have been easy to get CV 90 with that cannon and with all those other roles for much less money. But this wasn't about money, it was about national pride.
@@znail4675 LOL, and thus an American supplier was chosen, which offered a family of vehicles based on a Spanish design (ASCOD), which - in its ACRV variant - was armed with a French (Nexter) 40mm autocanon. So much for British pride. The vehicle is as British as Starbuck's, camembert an paella. I wonder how much of the money spent will actually end up in Britain. Maybe 12% spent on the labor force can generate some income tax revenues. Selecting BAe on the other hand.... It surely isn't a coincidence that 'Pennywise, pound foolish" is a British saying.
@@Pincer88 Yeah, I didn't say they made sense. They ordered a domestic produced instead of foreign off the shelf, just that they didn't have the expertise needed making it and ended up with an imported product anyway, just custom ordered. And yes, they could have used CV 90 and at least had a British owned company do it.
I have a fondness for common platforms to simplify logistics. As others have said an updated Stormer with some drones and a comprehensive electronics suite would be a handy reece platform, much lower profile, better for lurk mode ops. A version of Stormer with a missile suite similar to but more modern than those on the Striker would deal with most armoured threats, maybe mix in some Starstreak to take out enemy missiles and drones, but non of that is really a reece task. A Stormer base platform with a turret could carry the 40mm gun to support infantry, which was one of the tasks given to Scimitar, along with denying landing grounds for enemy rotary wing transports. There are many options for commonality, as demonstrated by the CVR-T series. The advantage of the CVR-T was it's low ground pressure, it really could go anywhere (including places an MBT could not). Making it small enough to be air-portable in planes of the 1960s placed a size constraint on the CVR-T design, so they could widen the platform by another foot or so. However I'm not sure we have the kind of manufacturing capacity in the UK to produce them any more, we can't even make our own small arms.
I'm sure the boys and girls using Ajax are well impressed with it compared to what went before . But , I do wonder what they would have made of a recon ISTAR CV90
This presentation is very informative for me, an American in New Jersey, who has been previously unaware of the history of this program. I believe the Bradley Fighting Vehicle back in the 1980s also had development problems. It seems that such problems multiply the greater the complexity of the final product sought. It seems, though, that British excellence in the development and production of cutting-edge armored vehicles will still be the unchallenged norm with the Ajax.
Right now finish the build with a GAU19 mounted on the commanders sight that is integrated into the Trophy or Iron Fist APS for dedicated CWIS anti FPV drone duty and you have something.
@@off6848 That would probably be able to weather 5 - 10 FPV's then, more than enough. They could have a lower fire rate for manual use against light skin vehicles and infantry. I suppose you could use something like the Dillon 134 7.62mm minigun if you were worried about ammo but I'd imagine the .50 Cal round would be more effective at destroying material like a Lancet TV guided ATGM and at that point you could conserve ammo in the .50 caliber GAU19 with a defensive laser for smaller hobby sized plastic IED FPV's. I think that would work better with the new hybrid engines that will come to market very soon with huge energy reserves for supplying advanced radar and laser systems. The Gau19 would become the last line of defence after a laser failed to stop the target. The onion of defence layers would be Laser, IED Jammer, GAU19, Ironfist/Trophy APS, Armor, spall liners. The laser and GAU19 would operate off the Trophy systems radar and become as common as any .50 cal mounted on any piece of military kit.
I like it. Accurate targeting of such small maneuvering targets can be extremely difficult, but from what I have seen, most of the time drone operators move in straight lines with only the occasional stop or course alteration; more like watching ships at sea, or in harbor, than manned military aircraft over a battlefield! I have liked an M134 minigun with the sensor package from an Avenger SHORAAD truck as a cupola weapon against sneaky folks, drones, rockets, and mortar shells since Iraq.
@@off6848 It would be a backup to a laser IMO with an AA fire rate and a manual aim fire rate to match closer to an M2 Browning to aid in duration for suppressing.
GAU19 does not have programmable ammunition which is needed to quickly take down fast moving small drones at distance. 40mm CT is better against drones.
38 to 42 tons for a 40mm armed reconnaissance vehicle? And at the same time the US is fielding the M10 Booker that weighs the same but with a 105mm(rifled for some unknown reason) Cannon. Come on guys
I think the real story and the elephant in the room is that a $200 drone with a small bomb attached to it can destroy a tank worth multiples of millions. The real question do tanks have a purpose in modern warfare
could do with a turretless variant of the Ajax IFV . . . the turretless variant will feature a 3.0 metre raised (heightened) hull providing some much needed space inside the otherwise tight knit crew & troop compartment . . . top of the 3.0 metre raised hull are two standard roof hatches for observation (situational awareness) & scouting . . . a 360° deg rotating remote weapons station positioned next to either of the roof hatches, will house a 23 MM GAU-19/U six-barrel rotary gun or a 0.50 Cal M2 heavy machine gun . . . a coil spring based 6.3 in. suspension lift that'll complement the torsion bar setup . . . offering better mobility regardless of terrain . . . the Ajax IFV needs to be lighter by weight, shouldn't tip the scales anymore than 33.0 tons (loaded) including installed armour . . .
Remember the british were offered several versions of the cv90 in the time it has taken for the ajax to come to fruition which would have been cheaper, just as good and more upgradeable and interchangeable with our allies.
I mean, it's at least easy to recycle seeing as it's scrap metal to begin with. But then again, the market for low grade RuSSian steel scrap isn't very profitable. But sure, Ukraine could probably make something useful from it once its insides have been scraped out of its former inhabitants.
The U.S. has had the Abrams tank for 40 years. The hull can be upgraded and has been several times. I don’t know why you’d want to scrap old vehicles that are solid and not just upgrade them.
Like the person said: This is what the Warrior Infantry fighting vehicle was meant to be with all its upgrades but all of them got canned while cutting numbers and putting up costs - I believe at one point they had a working new turret for the vehicle. The government also caned 3 review rounds of upgrades to the Challenger tank while cutting numbers like the Warrior upgrades thus putting up costs - what we getting now is the export Europen version of the tank designed in the 1990s/2000s - they replaced the British engine with the Leopard engine and gearbox & also replaced the gun & firing computers/sights. Because This is due to the old government back in 2010 (new at the time Conservative government) putting a £3.6bn black hole in the MOD budget (even when everyone from civil servants to lawyers to the boat yard themself told them it would council the fixed price agreement and BTW (the boat yard said) we going charge you £380 million to carry out a redesign & planning of the currently in production of the two new aircraft carriers. QED £3.6bn overspend later + £380 million and two years of delays the Royal Navy got two new aircraft carriers with no design changes and due to the delays France ordered two aircraft carriers from another company - The price of the UK aircraft carriers was based upon France would use the same design and order 2 possible 3 more thus the price would come down.
There are a lot of challenges and limitations when upgrading vehicles (space and weight the biggest two), and the hulls will inevitably get damaged over time from fatigue stresses in service. Warrior was last built back in the 80's, and CVRT in the 60's/70's. Warfare and technology has evolved massively in this time, to the point where you will get a much better product starting from scratch than be constrained by old vehicle hulls, which are probably all bent out of shape from 40+ years of use.
The US got Abrams, but intend to replace Bradley with the XM30. Germany got Leopard 2, but replaced Marder with Puma. France got Leclerc, but replaced their AMX-10 with VBCI. Russia got T-72, but... well... they're going to need a new IFV after losing all their BMPs in Ukraine lmao And while new MBT proposals like Panther are a hard sell, Lynx and Boxer are selling like crazy.
Because the Warrior is ancient and there's nothing else we can do with it. I've got a family member who's worked at the Telford plant for most of his career, and he can tell you that with the exception of Challenger 2, the British Army's armour was getting long in the tooth in the 2000s. It's a major pain in the backside to maintain or upgrade our AFV fleet because so much of it was designed around manufacturing and maintenance standards from the 1960s. Do you know how difficult it is to get tools in imperial measurements? Or how much of a headache it is to scour through paperwork and physical drawings to get technical data converted to modern digital formats? Or how much military strategists are held back by equipment designed to fight wars from 60 years ago? There's a reason the MoD's recent upgrade attempts for the Warrior were a failure, and it's not the fault of the new tech. Oh and I hate to break it to you, the production lines for the Warrior no longer exist. They were canned in the 90s once it was clear the Cold War was over. At least with the Abrams the US DoD has ensured that a skeleton production capability has been retained since the main runs ended. That hasn't happened here. Any losses the Warrior fleet takes is permanent.
Military procurement is like building the Space launch system. It costs a lot so it has to be perfect. But nothing is perfect so nobody is willing to sign off on good enough. So you get delays and then priorities change which causes more delays and runs up the cost further. Until you're left with a bloated white elephant, but since it's the only thing left in the room you build it and use it and work out the kinks in the field and hope nobody gets hurt.
I've said since the decision of the MOD to acquire this vehicle, I believe the CV-90 platform would have been a better decision, especially as it is a mature platform instead of a concept that has had to go through multiple steps to get to where it is now and still has more to go.
Great video, thank you! I'm pleased that there is some positivity at long last surrounding Ajax and that it's capabilities are being revealed and praised. The ammunition and cannon, coupled with the high-capacity sensors and accuracy, and presumably beasty armour, will mean this will be a formidable opponent on the battlefield. Seems like it will be able to neutralise an inbound enemy drone from
Seeing the Ajax and the Warrior both in the flesh (or should I say metal) at tankfest, you can definitely see the large size of the Ajax compared to the warrior, great to see a focus on crew effectiveness like on most British vehicles where crew space is a LOT better than other western designs, let alone soviet and Chinese ones
Watching Captain 'Simon', I'm reminded of the small poster I used to have stuck to the side of my computer - 'I know that you think that you know what you thought I said, but I must tell you that what you thought I said is not what I meant'.
It appears that the vision systems are protected and easily replaced. All newer versions of the CV-90 are easy to blind, extremely crippled when blinded because there's limited or no direct-vision for crew, and its electronic systems (ALL of them!) are hideously difficult to replace if there is anything but the most superficial damage! It's the kind of thing that few notice if all they have ever done are scripted and carefully-performed exercises, but anyone who has seen the results of private soldiers during war will wince at.
@@davidgoodnow269 I've never heard this feedback before. But if that's the case, why not just order a custom turret that rectifies the issue? To my knowledge, Hägglunds have constantly been refining the vehicle based on customer requests. Also, the CV90 isn't some un-tried thing like you're making it out to be. It's seen combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. And received excellent feedback everyhwere.
As much as I love this channel it has really gone off the boil over the last year. This one feels more like a corporate PR video for the MoD and GD than anything else.
A symbol of just about everything that is wrong with procurement in the MoD. Late, over weight, hugely over budget. The MoD could have bought something off the shelf from any number of makers. For the sake of our boys I hope it turns out to be a good piece of kit but I can't help thinking the Army (not for the first time) got into a sunk cost throwing good money after bad mentality.
I think we can safely ignore the comments of serving army people, they are not going to criticise it as they will get hammered by their bosses. Or lose their jobs. As with any arms procurement the key of any systems capability is how many overseas sales it gets. We, the UK, have to buy it, other countries don’t. If they think another ‘product’ is better they will buy that. Yes, I know, the reasons why countries buy stuff can be quite complicated, and possibly slightly dodgy, but its a good baseline. For instance how many countries use the SA80 family? But if it is a recce tool, doesn’t the Ukraine war show that drones are the way forward. Massively cheaper, super easy to upgrade (or bin if you need to), capable of adding the latest AI. It just seems like yet another MOD ********, to go with the long line of MOD **********.
No Air Defence and no Overwatch variant - massive mistake. I will never understand how ASCOD beat CV90. MOD swears by the procurement process and CADMID cycle but it clearly just doesn't work. Programme after programme is late or underperforming, and it's not the politicians that affects. Its our soldiers left at risk.
While the officer was praising the vehical he was constantly shaking he's head. He's body language says - He doesn't believe himself what he is saying.
That vibration issue is crazy. Seems like such a basic thing that never should have made it that far. What a mess, but military procurement usually is.
Like many similar projects, it has made rich men and women in boardrooms around the world richer and left us with no doubt a very fragile piece of equipment that cannot be manufactured on the scale needed to fight a real war. Meanwhile we choose manufacturing powerhouses as our enemies that may not produce equipment quite as space age, but in ten times the numbers. We will have a very unflattering age named after us.
Standard military procurement shambles. You can either have something with current technology which will be cheap(er), work, but be obsolete by the time it’s in service. Or… You can have all the bells and whistles, for a lot more cost, guaranteed project overruns, and needing a major refit within five years of entering service to stop it being obsolete. Rinse and repeat
As a German, I would like to thank the British armed forces and defence industry for making the Puma programme look less bad by comparison.
How much does the Puma get spoken about in the German military press? As the AJAX has had a lot of airtime on British military news outlets.
Puma is a $6 Billion programme, however unlike the Ajax it isn't just a modification of a already existing vehicle (ASCOD) but a completely new clean sheet design that incorporates some of the most advanced tracked combat vehicle technologies to date.
Puma programme was insanely ambitious. Ajax was pretty straightforward and should've been low-risk in comparison, yet it's more expensive now.
You’re welcome
This is really bad!
The crews enthusisams shows in their face, they look like a hostage got forced with a gun.
The biggest issue with British military procurement is the 2 year cycle for officers being involved. Officers in the British military are actively encouraged to make changes to their working environment and this is done via the OJAR (appraisal) system. Generally speaking, every 2 years a new Officer is appointed to a role. They come in and make changes (because their OJAR encourages it) which then leads to changing requirements and delays. The longer a vehicle is in development, the more likely new technologies appear, so those delays due to changing requirements then create new requirements based on the technology changes.
So what you end up with is a self-fulfilling circle of changes being made constantly. Military officers assigned to procurement programmes should be kept on said programme until it is delivered.
Sounds like lunacy on steroids.
"Kept on said programme until it is delivered"
would motivate officers
to get it finished!
/
@@zen4men exactly. It drives me crackers.
@@charleswillcock3235 it is. But the only people capable of making these decisions are the officers themselves, and they won't do thst becsuse they worry it'll negatively impact their career.
All you have to do is look at the latest change to officer living standards. Basically senior officers of a certain rank are entitled to a house. Usually one of the largest the military owns on their camp/base. I know single Wing Commanders that were given 4 or 5 bed houses. Anyway, there was a proposal drafted to give those houses to people with the largest families. Makes sense. But no, the officers kicked off and stopped that happening. Meanwhile, they're happy to sit there and let highly technical trades that are already underpaid, be moved into a lower pay tier with the response "pick a trade, take a chance" uttered to anyone that dares complain.
Honestly, it's nonsense.
@@skatman3278it is called them and us.
"making it work" "no looking back" thats official speak for 'its shot but we're stuck with it now'
So basically like getting married?
@@GrahamCStrouse You know you don't have to commit to a soul you don't like, aye?
@@JohnSmith-tg5li Tell that to the MOD when talking about the Ajax 😂
Another SA80?
@@GrahamCStrouse Why would you marry someone you don't want to be with?
I was chatting to one of the Warrior upgrade programme engineers recently. The problem with that plan was that the work that was required for each vehicle was so massive that it was actually too expensive to upgrade the hull to fit the new turret and gun. It needed so much work to make the turret fit that it actually worked out cheaper to build a new vehicle.
Plus age hardening of Aluminium welds makes them more prone to cracks over time. The high recoil (20,000lbs ) through short springs required muzzle break to be designed to reduce stresses and barrel wobble. BAE said it would need new turret from the start , trying to bodge it in old one caused delays before this was realised.
@@peterwait641 It needed a new turret the day it entered service. Rarden was a joke - three rounds, then stop and load a new clip, three rounds. At the same time, the Yanks had Bushmaster with dual feeds. Don't get me started on the chaingun...
@@peterwait641 Whatever excuse BAE dish out it translates as "Our first concerns are the dividends we provide for our shareholders". BAE are too big and consequently get to large a share of the available money. Anything they do or say is stuffed with wheezes to up their profits. The best interests of the armed forces and the country don't get a look in.
This was all known data, it is a GD excuse They promised the hull could cope with expansion to 42T watch their videos!
@@brianburnell8351 Government should have retained their stake in BAE.
£6 billion, 15 years later and still WIP? The government should really change its requirements management and procurement processes. And it is probably not containing sufficient defense against drones.
By the time it gets issued it will be obsolete
Wait till you hear about the US’s 2 trillion dollar jet
I'm waiting. @@comrade_commissar3794
@@comrade_commissar3794 f-35 has been a success and has been fielded
Cheaper to get someone with a shed to build the thing.
As to asking a serving soldier his opinion, I’m sure he will overlook the fact that his future prospects and promotion depend upon a glowing review.
I think you have the wrong army mate. British soldiers generally speak their minds.
@@zulubeatz1 maybe, but the bigwigs aren't going put forwards anyone like that be interviewed by the media.
@@zulubeatz1 Yes, but not on camera. They were selected and groomed, not chosen at random, with their faces blocked, and their voices disguised to protect them.
@@peterrhodes5663 I think you are referring to another army and its practices
I well remember being asked my opinion on SA80 when we first got it. Well I gave my opinion which wasn't very flatterring (Heavy, dreadful ergonomics, poor balance, the LSW version was pointless, can't shoot off the left shoulder etc. etc.) Needless to say I got taken aside for a bollocking! (This was just an internal thing - a passing Brigadier or General) No way is anybody going to give anything other than a glowing report ON CAMERA!
The project manager saying we must look forward and a driver saying it's more advanced than a platform designed in the 1960s doesn't feel like a ringing endorcement. It would have been nice to have someone rating it against Warrior.
It would have been nice to hear a comparison with the Bradley and CV-90
The driver did mention Warrior. He said Ajax is big step forward from CVRT and Warrior.
Why would they say anything else? Those soldiers have their careers to consider. So they said what was expected.
Warrior being a 1980s vehicle so still 40 years old
@@GrahamBunneh If Warrior still works well, don't try to fix it. Any engineer knows that.
That Major "Simon" is hilarious. "It has had a troubled past. But we have tried to do something which hasn't been done (you know) previously, in the fact that we are trialling it, we are developing it, we are testing it..." So is he saying that ordinarily the British Army doesn't do those sorts of things at all?
Frankly no-one from the MOD should be trusted when it comes to commenting on Ajax (or any of their delayed projects). They are not going to give us an honest answer - they're just interested in covering their tracks.
Yes his phrasing was terrible and hilarious
Errrrrrm Household Cav officer, nuff said.
I think he meant it used to be MWEE who did the testing
================================
Major Simon's body language at 09:20
=====================================
suggests to me that the press release story
is not 100 percent true.
!!!!
Agree completely. So sad to see the Tank Museum making a propaganda film for the MOD.
Hey Tank Nuts! We hope you enjoyed our latest video. What are your thoughts on the new Ajax armoured vehicle? Let us know below
Are you (The Tank Museum) going to get an Ajax for the collection?
It's a worse version of CV90 / BAE FRES SV. Ultimately, Ajax is built by US company out of the British taxpayer pocket, contracted only because Westminster decided they don't want to give BAE Systems yet another contract, even though BAE's product was clearly superior and the CV90 family is now a global success, in which UK could have participated. The whole thing is just a series of unmitigated disasters.
Quite a balanced overview, thank you. Two of the service men compared the interface operation to video game experiences. I'm parenthetically reminded of 1984's movie "The Last Starfighter." The story is that aliens have placed an arcade video game all over the earth and tracks the skill and ability of the players to identify future ace pilots for their own forces.
No. It's completely underarmed, should have a 57mm gun, twin cheek launcher on either turret cheek with Javelin in one and stinger or starstreak in the other. A.50 calibre gun and an automatic 40mm grenade launcher both in unmanned turrets.
- 57mm for both hunting other IFV's, engaging fortifications and supporting infantry with direct fire support.
- Twin cheek launchers for AT and anti drone/rotatory aircraft.
- .50 calibre and 40mm also for anti drone work and anti infantry work.
If you are wondering what the armour profile could be like, a crewman told me that applique armour including era may be seen if deployed, otherwise I wasn't allowed to know the base armour
This smells suspiciously like the SA80/L85 program and the soldiers ordered to praise it at the time....
Have you ever used the SA80 operationally? Perhaps you’re just believing the competitions Propoganda.
As someone else has already pointed out the Ajax is a very expensive version of the Ascod which seems to have been in successful service with the Spanish and Austrian armies for 20 years.
It's only losely based on ASCOD, but almost everything has been redesigned to meet British requirements.
Not to mention the numerous variants that have had to be designed and produced.
I think it's partly BECAUSE ASCOD has been in service for so long (making it a bit of a dated design now), the MoD specified such extensive redesigns.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 the changes to the ASCOD design are now sitting more than a decade and half in the past, so already not really that much of a leading edge anymore. and full service capability after 20 years of redesign and production nd problem solving? sorry but thats VERY late
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 more than a decade and a half old? GDUK only started on their redesign of the ASCOD 2 to UK spec in 2010... If you're talking about the first plans started to now, then you'd have to say ASCOD was 40 years old, not 20. And so 25 years younger is not insignificant.
Pretty much every AFV takes at least 10 years to procure these days, so I'm not sure which service vehicles you think are more cutting edge? The German Puma took 14 years to design and they're still working things out.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 on the contrary, Puma S1, the most modern version is in service since 2020 and has the problems ironed out.
It was the wrong choice of vehicle from the off, really chosen because HMG wanted to Punish BAE. They achieved their objective and employed lots of people in GD Spain and destroyed A vehicle manufacture in the UK. ASCOD despite GD's snake oil salesmanship bull, required a major development program which GD did not have the Knowledge or experience to do in South Wales which has Zero pedigree of A vehicle R&D design and manufacture. The result was entirely predictable
I had expected that the video would explain the cause of the well known vibration and noise problems, and what was done to fix them. In fact these problems were not discussed at all in the history of the vehicle section. Now I am not entirely convinced that they didn't just use some flimsy band aid fix to mask some more fundamental issues.
The weight gain from 25 t design to 38-42 t challenged the torsion bar and rotary damper suspension design. High track tension, track to sprocket interface noise . Think the drive sprocket teeth profiles were changed , better engine mounts , isolation mounts for seats and controls and noise cancelling headsets . The first hulls were of poorer construction ( size variations)quality control and some welding issues. The tank museum has a lot of support from the MOD so would not dwell on issues. Would seem mitigation has made them acceptable .
@@peterwait641 A lot of what you wrote sounds good, but a requirement for "noise-cancelling headsets" inside a vehicle in the recce role seems fundamentally bad.
@@davidgoodnow269 well said. are noise cancelling headsets issued to the Russians too?
@@peterwait641 I think it important to point out the issues (27 critical defects) are not resolved ..... They are mitigated to a greater or lesser degree. However, there is now a propaganda campaign by Army/MoD/HMG. A party line to follow and a total ban on discussing or publishing details. Through life costs and reliability on Ajax will be horrific. Ajax.... Yesterdays technology Tomorrow......
Isolation mounts for seats, controls and noise cancelling headphones . Think the profile of sprocket teeth was going to be changed. likely engine mounts were upgraded. Don't know if dimensional errors in early hulls could be fixed !
Big thanks to everyone working at The Tank Museum
The Bradley had a rough start but now its proven to be a fantastic bit of kit. Not saying it will be the case with AJAX as well but only time will tell
How can the British army spend so much and end up with such subpar kit? The whole procurement system is rotten.
The whole project is so wierd to me since BAE Systems AB. which makes cv90 is a daugter company owned by the British, yet they refuse to get the cv90
This is the problem....Not getting enough bang for our buck!😢😢😢
It's called corruption and profit bloating.
Britain is rife with corruption. On the plus side fewer vehicles means fewer men dying in them. Every cloud
Corruption
As a Yank, it is disheartening to hear your MoD procurement process is just a messed up as our DoD’s. I guess bureaucracy, hubris, and incompetence has no borders.
If you read certain UK printed magazines (not blogs) you will soon discover that it is not unknown for senior officers to retire and get good jobs with arms manufacturers. I assume the same happens in USA.
I just read a story about a prototype plane that was built by the British during the dark days of WW2 at the point everyone was expecting Britain to be over run by the Germans.
Apparently the Miles M20 aircraft went from the drawing board to first flight in just over 2 months. In wartime, against the backdrop of the battle of France.
It seems that we have come a very long way, but in the wrong direction since then.
lions donkeys and dinosaurs - blundering and waste in the uk military lewis page c.2007
bureaucracy, hubris, incompetence and interservice rivalry. rank inflation and and and....
it is a british book but has plenty for americans to chew on
Same thing in Canada. There is a "formal" process for procurement of military equipment, but somehow we get garbage. Sometimes things work out in the favour of CAF members, but it's 2/3 garbage, and 1/3 good stuff.
The thing is your country can afford errors as it has so very much stuff and it also upgrades by division, we on the other hand don’t have enough rubbish to make up for its failures in numbers.
We are also missing same as the US the modern drone ware fare effect.
Each soldier should be able to deploy 5 drones instantly to defend him and attack if it’s needed. Like throwing a hand grenade but a drone.
Jokes aside,can you make a new set of tank chats featuring modern AFVs and IFVs?
what would be the point? if they go into too much detail - they give away info, and if it is 99% speculation and brochure info - then whats the point? watch some scifi instead
time will tell if they work or not, and better we won't learn that at all
My country used to operate the Scorpion 90 & Stormer IFV. After spending a few hundred million pounds Sterling and decades of R&D, I was surprised the UK Army chose to upgrade an existing Austrian-Spanish vehicle (ASCOD). The Army added 10 ton of equipment/armour to the 28 ton vehicle and called it Ajax. During testing, severe vibration and noise which caused permanent hearing damage to the crews was discovered. Solution was to put more cushioning in the seats/steering & issue ear plugs for the crew/infantry. Hopefully this is not the permanent solution. 😢
When I was in the Army, we were told that Ajax was the result of someone wanting to upgrade Warrior's 30mm cannon to 40mm. It wouldn't fit the existing platform so the whole platform had to be upgraded.
Like a lot of military equipment. It goes through a lot of problems, before they finally get something half decent. Only deployment in combat, will reveal whether it's actually any good.
a booklet for learning sign language has been added
From a German perspective, I have to say that things were not much different for us with the SPZ Puma.
Exploding costs, a development process that dragged on endlessly due to ever new requirements and technical problems. And an army procurement office that only seems to exist to constantly come up with new and more complicated procurement processes.
And what do we have today? A monster of a machine that is praised to the skies by the crews.
On the one hand, I believe that the industry and those involved in the military need to work on creating more realistic schedules that allow for setbacks and changes in direction. On the other hand, I believe that staying power is simply part of developing something new.
"Prolonged indecision about the exact requirements". A seemingly-incurable British disease since the 1930s. Tanks and aircraft.
I am reminded of the car Homer Simpson designs for his brother's company.
Big mistake. Just buy the CV90. BAE is a British company with a bit of Swedish flavour thrown in. This project is like the DeLorean, pride over common sense. Learn when to cut a failed project. Remarkable how easy it is to spend other peoples money (in this case, UK tax payers). Asking officers who cannot or dare say anything negative is just sad.
Yeah, I thought that, too. No way Rupert is going to say anything ‘honest’!
I understand the government didn't buy CV-90 because they didn't want to be seen as buying from BAE systems. And look what happens.
I grew up on the CV9040B and I love the thing. But it’s too light for all the things modern armies want to put into it. Also, without any 40mm L/70s lying around you’d be stuck with the Bushmaster 35mm which isn’t as potent as the CT40.
I find Ajax to be a bloated white elephant but I’m now rapidly turning into an old fart (back in my day the CV90 still had a Coax Browning 1919 with cloth belts AND WE WERE BETTER SOLDIERS FOR IT).
The CV90 is purely Swedish, BAE just became the owner during the huge consolidation of military industries in the post Cold war West. Netherlands is building assembly factories for the CV90 as Hägglunds has reached their ceiling for the time being, but there are none in UK this far.
@@903lew The beauty of the CV90 is that you get (within reason) drop in whatever you want in the turret. I hope Sweden quick as hell adopts the CT40 as that would get rid of the largest drawback of the 40mm Bofors, the bulkiness of the ammunition.
"Just drive down that road until you get blown up, then report back" - Patton. Respect to the recce teams who risk everything.
My personal view is that insufficient credit is given to intellect and guile of the staff officer who succeeded in naming the programme Ajax.
After all, the original Ajax (of Greek mythology) effectively met his end by falling on his own sword after he didn’t get the armour he wanted.
Or officers showing off their expensive classical education. Better to call the vehicle by its function to avoid confusion .
Regardless, the CT40 autocannon they built for it is something very special indeed.
No matter its legacy, it will be with us for a very long time and hopefully be adopted by many.
Or it's the reason the army abolishes it first, because do you really believe they'll built a large enough factory and fill large enough orders to keep it running?
Yes the CT ammo is cool and futuristic for once, but that'll kill it through sheer cost.
@@texasranger24
It's not _just_ the ammo that's good, the gun is incredibly compact, had incredibly low recoil, amazing accuracy and the auto-ammo-type-selecting autoloader and magazine is the cutting edge.
And it was designed with the French so both nations will be making and using the ammo.
I'm hoping it wins some more order too, once the production bandwidth is high enough to make it easy to sell.
Apparently it's going on some Corvette and frigates too
Yeah but the whole thing was supposed to be dual sourced with manufacturing at royal ordnance Nottingham... Instead only the one factory is in France and royal ordnance Nottingham has gone. Damn thing is nearly 30 years behind schedule almost all our small and medium arms and ammunition manufacturing capability is gone as is most of the engineering expertise.
@MostlyPennyCat the auto-selecting auto loader is not that innovative - Russia tanks have had a similar system for a few decades now.
@@MostlyPennyCat The recoil is 20,000 lbs through short springs , this required a muzzle break to be designed which can reduce it by up to half. This recoil was said to cause fire control problems and barrel wobble.
This happens everytime non-innovative army officers and MoD Excel- and buzz-word experts gets their hands on a project.
At least 10-20 years behind and grotesqly expensive.
CVRT was marked for phaseout and replacement 32 years ago. the full replacement will be close to 40 years after that.
no matter how much the german MOD and Procurement mess up, the british play in a whole new league of incompetence.
You are not calculating with the tremendous amount of money being made along the way. You just think it's incompetence. It isn't. All the people involved are getting paid, but only getting paid as long as the project goes on. Finishing the project means the money stops.
@@marrs1013 Spot on the profit motive!
A few years ago, A friend had an interview at General Dynamics to work on this. He said that the two managers interviewing him were both idiots, very inexperianced and more interested in the extension he was building than his engineering credentials. He walked away uninterested in the role. He later found out that the chap who took it, left six months later stating that he could not work under such fools.
7 Billion for what is just a modification of an existing vehicle. It's a modified ASCOD IFV, ASCOD stands for Austrian-Spanish Co-operative Development. The ASCOD is in service in Austria and Spain as Ulan and Pizarro IFV respectively since 2002.
And a not particularly well done modification, i'm afraid.
Completely different vehicle to ASCOD in weapons, systems and capability
@@EP-bb1rm So is a Leopard 2A8 from a Leopard 2A4. Yet that development didn't cost more than a completely new clean sheet that is also outperforming it.
@@jonny2954 2A8 traces from 2A7...
@@cesarsalas8506 If you have not sat in one, not operated one, then your opinion, and that is what it is, opinion, is worthless.
A somewhat chilling closing summary. We're on a countdown to war.
Every day, it feels more and more like a rerun of the 1930s.😢
With Ajax playing the part of the Fairey Battle ?
War only happens if people allow it.
I think a recon vehicle with drone launch capability and scouting is the way of the future.
you can launch drones from other platforms without wasting all the money to develop a recon vhcl
Howe and Howe are developing drone tracked vehicles to combine these philosophies.
Drones are modular by their very nature. Just plop a drone launcher onto any vehicle.
If you want a dedicated platform to haul a few dozen around and with a purpose-built drone piloting station, Boxer should offer a good basis. Just drop a new module on it.
@@GM-xk1nw Of course you can.
@@GM-xk1nw they dont have any armor to protect themselves from small arms fire or arty.
This is SA80 all over again. You are stuck with it, there are issues, loads of them. But, you have to sort them.
How is this the replacement for CVRT and not Warrior?.
Warrior is a True IFV where as this program was to replace CVR(T) variant. Boxer is the true replacement for IFV warrior.
CVRT and Ajax are both reconnaissance vehicles, whilst the Warrior is an APC/IFV. Warrior carries dismounts, the CVRT and Ajax do not. Ajax has a ton of cool tech for reconnaissance, the Warrior does not. Warriors' proper replacement is the Boxer.
For all the commenters saying going with the CV90 would've been the better choice, i doubt so.
The Ajax is based on the ASCOD, an IFV that is successfully in service with the Austrian and Spanish armed forces since over two decades now. It was the constantly changing British requirements and feature creep that made the Ajax vehicle what it is now. It wouldn't have been any other way with the CV90. UK MoD is at fault, not the vehicles or the manufacturers.
Too true
Yup, initial gold plating on specifications & then continually tweaking them is the best way to blow a budget limit right out of the water.
Add in poor workmanship by GD as well....
Hull's have been delivered to Merthyr from the GD operation in Spain (Santa Barbara Sistemas) as much as 500mm from spec....and thats not a typo...
Basically GD are mainly to blame, the reason requirements have changed so much is because they are so late in delivering it...
And Lockheed Martin at the same time managed to mess up Warrior CSP so bad that the entire programe got canned...
The real lesson is never let US primes into the UK market...
I partially agree, imo the main problem with Ajax is the basic ASCOD chassis was wrong from the start. CV-90 would have been a better starting position.
@@Bananaskin101 Why? The ASCOD chassis has a larger internal volume, exactly what the Army wanted.
There are a few on here who appear to know how this vehicle will operate before it's even seen in service and quite a few who appear to be procurement experts. I served with the Venerable 432, Mobile Milan CRVT, and then the Warrior. They weren't perfect, but they did a job. Yes, there was always the requirement for REME, whether it be a new pack, gearbox turbo, or whatever.
To think there would be a program that would be without problems ,when the digital change on these platforms is so much more advanced, you fool yourself.
Warrior had it's time. The length of service for the 432 (or bulldog) is a testament to that.
Boxer is replacing the troops' capabilities of Warrior. Ajax is for ISTAR. Something that the war in Ukraine is proving is a necessity. The ability of the canon to engage airborne threats such as drones is a game changer.
It's had its problems. Cost tons of money, but it's here to stay. Moaning isn't changing anything.
I support those still serving and hope this is yet more kit to keep them safe.
Thank you all who are serving.
So many systems that became excellent had troubled beginnings - M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, the M16/M4 rifles, etc. It's the nature of things. One thing I am noticing is that modern AFVs seem to be festooned with sensors, and I wonder if a good autocannon burst, or even a burst of heavy machine gun fire or artillery shrapnel, will damage or destroy all those gee-whiz wonder sensors. We saw this with the Russian tank that was disabled by close range 25mm autocannon fire from a Ukrainian M2 Bradley.
CR2 failed reliability trials...
If those sensors prevent you from getting hit, it's better to have them. Modern anti tank weapons, drones, and targeting systems are so good that if you get hit at all it probably destroy the vehicle let alone the sensors. Makes more sense to have as much ability to possibly detect an attack, protect against it, or engage a target before they engage you.
I think your own argument fell apart with your own words.
An old and poorly spec'd MBT was disabled by two modern afvs hitting it hard. The tank didn't have great sensors or optics. The AFVs did.
Well of course the sensors are vulnerable, they always will be. It's better to have them than not though, right? You don't omit key features that enhance detection and protection just 'in case' they get rendered useless by enemy fire. Like that you'd never go to war.
@@pluemas Obviously the sensors are necessary, but...I do wonder if they might be better integrated into the vehicle, and given more armor protection, than just simply bolted on all over the place.
FRES, 10 years later scout SV, 5 years Ajax.
So it started with FRES I took years to work out what they wanted, with endless amount of mind changing, in the process of that they scrapped CVR(T) which meant that the reconnaissance battalion’s and Platoons had no vehicles. They then took the Warrior off the infantry whilst scrapping the upgrades. To give to the reconnaissance. Leaving the infantry with no armoured fighting vehicles and then declared that they’re going to replace it with a wheeled platform. That will never be able to keep up with any of the tracked vehicles cross country which funnily enough is exactly where armoured battle groups operate.
It all just comes down to that same old saying, lions led by donkeys. Nice one MOD and all the clowns at the feeding trough.
I had to wonder why they didn't just manufacture a new redesigned CVRT with the needed new capabilities, and a steel hull with wire channels and bolt-holes for maintenance and upgrade of all the fancy electric bits!
CVRT replacement programs actually started with project TRACER, based on feedback from Bosnia in 1995. Thanks to all the false starts and political dithering, It's actually taken them 30 years to get a pretty mid replacement vehicle in service.
@@davidgoodnow269 They did about 10 years ago. About 50 Scimitar 2s were built on the Stormer hull to support Op Herrick in Afghanistan.
@@jaybluff281 Interesting! I wonder how those performed, in comparison?
They should have gone with the CV-90 and if the current lineup didn't match what the MoD wanted, Im sure the Swedes would have made it in their needs.
Could've also picked from Rheinmetall or KNDS. The germans or francogerman coop would've had great vehicles as well, since Puma is now finally working and Lynx might not just eqip most of eastern Europe, but could also win the bid for 3000 units for the US XM30 program. And i'm sure they would've loved to get a foot in the door and start another factory in the UK.
@@texasranger24That's true
@@texasranger24 I doubt it will end up in the US. They have a history of trialling foreign made weapons and the going with US made ones.
@@texasranger24 Everyone wants the PUMA to win the XM30, lets just hope the US government doesnt mess it up like they did with the MPF.
Cv90 is old hat now..BAE. Is already designing CV replacement.
16:50 very well said. We have to give our soldiers the best we can because we expect them to put their lives and wellbeing (also of their families) on the line.
08:08 as if you’d expect a comparatively junior officer in his position to say anything else…
what he said was a real nothing burger lol
Precisely. “Hey, Sgt. Rock! How do you feel about this new vehicle we gave you?” “Speak your mind, don’t worry about repercussions coming down from above!”
The Army expects its Officers to have the moral courage to speak up. Just because he didn't tell David Willey doesn't mean he hasn't expressed concerns. That's why the programme was delayed. Because those testing the system spoke up.
@@ScienceChap oh you sweet summer child…
@@ScienceChapClearly haven’t worked with officers in the forces recently, a lot are yes men to the higher ups and MoD, regardless of feedback from those that are within their section. The amount of times I’ve had an officer come up to me and say their screen isn’t working and I go and turn the brightness up bewilders me. A degree seems to not involve common-sense.
What is the change these soldiers who were interviewed were ordered to give glowing review of Ajax??
As a former trooper of an Australian reconnaissance regt in the 80's and early 90's, I follow with interest what the current trends in tasks and equipment considered by various nations. In the case of the British Army the CVR(T) family of vehicles besides the physical age of the vehicles and even the 60's design what does the new Ajax family do task wise that the CVR(T) family in the recce role?
The CVR(T)'s are lighter therefore easier to transport/deploy (how would Ajax have handled the ground in the Falklands?), they are smaller in dimension and thus easier to hide from opposition eyes while able to carry out it's own work. They were never intended to fight mainline forces but at least counter opposing recon elements if necessary to thwart the opposition intel gathering etc.
Has anyone researched the potential of taking the design specifications of the CRV(T) family and replacing/updating the components be it the armour composition, sensor enhancement, powerpack and weapons (does the new 40mm gun fit inside a Scorpion/Scimitar turret?) as necessary. If the dimensions/size of the basic Scorpion hull is too restrictive then the "Stormer" series surely could be used as the base to build on.
Having a proven platform already designed and only needing development with current technologies must be a cheaper but still effective choice when compared to the ongoing cost overuns and delays incurred with the new offerings from the various companies.
Finally there was a suggestion that due to differences of opinion between the government of the day and BAE Systems was a factor pushing towards General Dynamics. Going on past performances of GD in regard to other military contracts the British government and DoD should have been more effective in their decision making.
BAE appears to have got kicked for bribery. So, there's that done.
I have wondered for decades why CVRT wasn't redesigned, and new built about every fifteen years. Screw upgrading; it was great and easy to love at the time, but aluminum hulls need recycling.
The problem is, is if you ask the soldiers who are trialling it and they tell you it is a piece of junk that they hate, they will either not get a promotion, or they will face some other reprimand. Army does not want people rubbishing their kit to the media after paying for it.
This is the culture of the military at the moment(or historically too I guess). Everything is fine and works well. Until it doesn't and then it comes out that everyone knew it was junk from the start and it's problems were never fully solved eccetra eccetra eccetra.
Armored vehicles have been surrounded by drama and controversy as hard trade offs are being made. Maybe delving in to those from the past and then looking at war time performance of the same would be an interesting episode.
For me, the problem is the Press has only one story: too expensive, doesn't work. I'm old enough to remember the story being told about the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, and the F-15 Eagle. And the same story was told about F-111. You can look at any expensive project and see the same story being told somewhere.
Of course, this doesn't mean the story isn't true, but I'm somewhat skeptical.
Totally agree. The biggest problem is if they issue kit on a wide scale that still has problems. I’m British and don’t give a damn how much it costs as long as my troops get the best and if it’s designed and made in Britain more the better.
for that to be the same.. imagine if the USAF said that the f15 also had take cargo. As was pointed out many times in the video - not only did the british army not know what they wanted, even the GAO said they had no idea and then when they thought they did - they changed their minds multiple times. Then in slight of hand dob the weapons contractor in the dirt by leaking to the press how much over budget and late it is.
Same story for F-35 but the Israelis sure like it. And any aircraft Finland and Switzerland chose (especially pre NATO Finlad) simply cant be bad.
@@brankomilicevic6904 The IDF bought far later blocks. Much of earlier block airframes are useless because they cant be integrated with current weapons. Also drones. Long range drone for $15,000 or cruise missile for $1m ? Sitting on the tarmac the f35 is not that stealthy. Any weapons program has variables of cost, performance and politics.
Brilliant last words “get a move on” and that goes for the Challengers upgrades.
The British Military Complex, has worked out, that if you take a project so far, it will not be cancelled due to the cash already blown on it to date & it will be funded for as long as they want to draw it out!
Turns out the sunken cost fallacy wasn't a fallacy, but a way of life. And quite a profitable one...
Ok, so I have huge respect for David and TM, but you cannot be serious!
The civilians in the video have more credibility than the soldiers!
I'm an ex Army officer and unless in a parallel universe serving personnel just won't be allowed to be critical in a video such as this. Starting with a "Programme Manager" was such a bad call as it sets the stage for a propaganda piece.
Look, I suspect that the guys were to toally honest and accurate in what they said and that the vehicle is now/will be excellent, but this video is a terrible way to reassure anybody.
Agreed. You want to get a truthful opinion on a weapon system, the troops are the last people to ask about it, at least on camera/ in an official capacity.
Those civilians sounded like idiots one of them just didn’t like the looks 😂
@@andreww1225Those "civilians" were ex-serve members. Crewed, the warrior, CVRT and CR2. Their talks were edited and shortened. It's not just the looks. The money spent on testing and perfecting could've been better spent upgrading a current vehicle.
To be fair, at this point in time. Placing an order for the CV90 will probably take a decade to deliver because of it's high demand. I know for a fact that the factory in Sweden has had to expand massively to attempt to keep up with demand.
I looked up the unit cost and saw one account saying it cost $6,000,000 per unit. I think that's probably amortizing the development cost but it's still alot. It appears to be a decent vehicle, just not terribly cost efficient or time efficient, but that part is done so you're stuck with it now.
I think the fact that it's gun is sighted and equipped to handle many targets, including aerial ones will help it in the long term, but I have to wonder how hard it will be for 7 infantrymen to dismount through that door? This could use a followup episode with more details like that on the ergonomics and effectiveness of the gun, although I imagine it's all classified.
it doesn't carry any infantrymen - it's a recce vehicle not an IFV
The troops had to toe the line! Career interviews.
Armoured recon is now a concept that has had its day. We should be investing in small unmanned systems with numbers. Not a limited number of large maned systems. I fear the Army is fighting the last war, not the next one.
No, it's not fighting the last war either. Armored Recon has been doa for way longer than that. No one even knows what war they're fighting but it's neither the last nor the next. It seems like they saw "The Bradley Wars", realized the Bradley had been successful, and thought copying the movie would get a good vehicle.
Meanwhile in Ukraine the Bradley (a similar ifv ) is kicking crap out of Russian tanks and trenches and they want more of them
There are always people like you that seem to believe that at every major conflicts everything must be thrown out the window to rapidly capitalize on the last new flashing system, in this case drones. This posture is almost always wrong
@@parodyclip36 Absolutely. Like any weapon drones are only useful as part of a system. What stopped the Russian columns in 2022 was not just drones but their integration with artillery and ground units.
I think the war in Ukraine really has been the death knell for armoured recce. Absolutely anything they can do can be done faster, far cheaper and far safer by the drones. And even heavy armour has proved extremely vulnerable to them, to smart mines and to ATGMs - light armour is absolutely dead. Spend the money on SPA, drones and plain old trucks.
Don’t believe the press it’s a fantastic piece of kit with cutting edge technology. Even though the development has taken longer than planned it will be arriving in quantity just when it is required.
The CT40 cannon seems to be the most impressive part by far. The less said about the rest of the project, the better.
I agree 100% but I guess if it's the only thing that works then it's kind of the important bit.🤭
The Cav has several missions including screening the main body, finding and fixing the enemy, recon, and manning a DIP. They need equipment that accommodates their breadth of mission scope.
I think the biggest problem with Ajax is that its been a pointless exercise in misplaced national pride. All that money and all they've got is a crappier CV-90, which, it must be noted, BAE owns the liscense for. Why didn't the Gov opt for local production of the CV-90 with augmented systems and weapons as requested by the MoD? It would have been massively cheaper and would have produced a vehicle far better than Ajax currently is. For god's sake, the ammunition for the gun is already being made by BAE, do we really think they aren't capable of making the whole gun fit in the CV-90?
No matter what way they cut it, Ajax doesn't deliver anything the CV-90 doesn't or couldn't, and has had far more issues than the Swedish vehicle.
I can't help but think everyone you spoke to is wearing rose-tinted goggles and being stubbornly British for lack of a better term.
the swedish state owns the IP of CV90
The one thing I can see that appears clearly superior on the AJAX than the CV-90 is the integration and apparently clearly replaceable armored systems for vision. CV-90 is hideously easy to blind, is extremely crippled while blinded of its electronics -- having little or no ability to use direct vision/periscopes -- and replacing them is a *itch!
when the M2/3 Bradley was in development it was rightly dragged for being a Congressional boondoggle, however in 2024 we are seeing Bradleys ragdoll Russian and Soviet era armor and even the odd MBT in Ukraine demonstrating that the vehicle in some of it's more modern variants (the Bradleys in UKR are not the most recent revisions) doing serious work. When i think about the Ajax, i am reminded of the bRadley and how a maligned vehicle can grow into something competent and capable. Not sure if that is true for the Ajax, doesn't seem that way, but still it can happen.
This feels like a video commissioned by the mod
pile of crap with some civil servant and minister on the take
It probably was commissioned by the MOD in all honesty.
This channel belongs to the Bovington Tank Museum, which is an MOD-operated organization.
I thought it was kinda amusing that it hospitalised soldiers with 'whole body vibration' then I read the OHS sheet on whole body vibration and yeah. It is not something you want to be hospitalised with.
I had thought that it would be more so short term damage, but no, it'll cause long term skeletal damage, particularly to the spine. What is more, excessive noise and vibration, both of which the Ajax was found to have in initial trials, has been proven to cause perment hearing damage much faster than just excessive noise does.
So yeah, those soldiers who were hospitalised are facing the possibility of having a bad back for the rest of their life, or having their hearing irrevesibly damaged.
Big channel fan but gave this a downvote; extremely rare for me. Why? This was more of a PR job than an objective review or commentary. Asking army-provided army personal on camera for comments was hilarious Hopefully getting back to the usual quality stuff soon :-).
exactly! the purple shed were never going to give true feelings on this flawed vehicle that brave men might very well entrust their lives to
I get your point but who else was going to comment on what it's like to operate it?
Well, do you have a better idea to get interviews with the crew or getting it shown to the public?
My dad was rekee in WW2, from 39 till 46, he told me he knew after two hours market garden was a failure, also one day in Germany he and his troop were rekkee for the Suffolks , round the corner, two Tigers, the lads from the Suffolks would of walked right into them. Rekkee so very important is all conflicts.
Should've just bought some new CV90s. Would've saved a lot of money and got a platform that won't need a decade of debugging.
Or join the german Puma to have one program with twice the budget, rather than having 2 almost identical programs fail right alongside each other.
Heck, by now you could probably join the american XM30 and get a 50mm main cannon and real anti drone and active protection capability.
I can almost promise in like 20 more years, ajax will be touted by the brits as a great success and worth the extended development
@@Salamandra40k When it was first introduced, the Bradley was crucified by the media, today it is one of the best loved and trusted vehicles in Ukraine...
@@karlhofmann1446 Exactly what I mean
@@Salamandra40k as has happened before, lots of options said the challenger 1 was trash until the first gulf war
I know its late and its had loads of problems, but it's finally looking like a great piece of kit. Just wish they would keep and upgrade warrior too. We need the numbers
i saw this thing in person and boy it looks pretty cool
About some comments regarding CV90 and production in Sweden - BAE Hägglunds have no problem with building up production in another country or cooperate with other companies. ALL Swedish companies do this all the time. Basically all arms sales require this.
BAE Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik are producing CV90 and BSV10 at max capacity and have a backlog. They employ partners in other countries to speed up production while expanding in Örnsköldsvik. Same with Bofors, Saab, Noma and other large Swedish arms producers. All are expanding the production but it takes time. Why the UK chose Ajax, or BAE in the UK did what they did, have nothing to do with Sweden I think. But with that said, the world was different at the time when Ajax was chosen.
While I think the result at the moment looks great and has a great weapon (40mm autocanon with telescopic rounds), but I can't help wondering why the Army didn't select the Swedish CV90 now in BAe's arsenal. If you look at the version the Royal NL Army is getting, with the 35-50mm Bushmaster, 2 Spike ER missiles and Trophy APS, sights tailor made to also engage drones and - what's better for armored recce I would think - a considerably lower profile than Ajax. And the development of the mk.4 variant has seen less hick ups too.
The Bushmaster 35mm is said to be relatively easy replaced by the 50mm version for future overmatch.
That all is not to say that Ajax is work in process and I'm quite certain it will turn out to be a terrific vehicle. I do think British taxpayers might have been better served by selecting the CV90 though.
It would have been easy to get CV 90 with that cannon and with all those other roles for much less money.
But this wasn't about money, it was about national pride.
@@znail4675 LOL, and thus an American supplier was chosen, which offered a family of vehicles based on a Spanish design (ASCOD), which - in its ACRV variant - was armed with a French (Nexter) 40mm autocanon. So much for British pride. The vehicle is as British as Starbuck's, camembert an paella. I wonder how much of the money spent will actually end up in Britain. Maybe 12% spent on the labor force can generate some income tax revenues. Selecting BAe on the other hand.... It surely isn't a coincidence that 'Pennywise, pound foolish" is a British saying.
@@Pincer88 Yeah, I didn't say they made sense. They ordered a domestic produced instead of foreign off the shelf, just that they didn't have the expertise needed making it and ended up with an imported product anyway, just custom ordered. And yes, they could have used CV 90 and at least had a British owned company do it.
I have a fondness for common platforms to simplify logistics. As others have said an updated Stormer with some drones and a comprehensive electronics suite would be a handy reece platform, much lower profile, better for lurk mode ops. A version of Stormer with a missile suite similar to but more modern than those on the Striker would deal with most armoured threats, maybe mix in some Starstreak to take out enemy missiles and drones, but non of that is really a reece task. A Stormer base platform with a turret could carry the 40mm gun to support infantry, which was one of the tasks given to Scimitar, along with denying landing grounds for enemy rotary wing transports. There are many options for commonality, as demonstrated by the CVR-T series. The advantage of the CVR-T was it's low ground pressure, it really could go anywhere (including places an MBT could not). Making it small enough to be air-portable in planes of the 1960s placed a size constraint on the CVR-T design, so they could widen the platform by another foot or so. However I'm not sure we have the kind of manufacturing capacity in the UK to produce them any more, we can't even make our own small arms.
Ouf, some real expert opinions in the beginning there.
Civvies and "contractors" are the best experts out there ofc.
The last two are ex serving members. Crewed the chally2, CVRT and warrior.
that cased telescoping ammo is one of those things that you think "where was this years ago and how did we live without it?" things.
I'm sure the boys and girls using Ajax are well impressed with it compared to what went before . But , I do wonder what they would have made of a recon ISTAR CV90
Those already exist.
This presentation is very informative for me, an American in New Jersey, who has been previously unaware of the history of this program. I believe the Bradley Fighting Vehicle back in the 1980s also had development problems. It seems that such problems multiply the greater the complexity of the final product sought. It seems, though, that British excellence in the development and production of cutting-edge armored vehicles will still be the unchallenged norm with the Ajax.
Right now finish the build with a GAU19 mounted on the commanders sight that is integrated into the Trophy or Iron Fist APS for dedicated CWIS anti FPV drone duty and you have something.
10 seconds to empty every shot carried
@@off6848 That would probably be able to weather 5 - 10 FPV's then, more than enough. They could have a lower fire rate for manual use against light skin vehicles and infantry.
I suppose you could use something like the Dillon 134 7.62mm minigun if you were worried about ammo but I'd imagine the .50 Cal round would be more effective at destroying material like a Lancet TV guided ATGM and at that point you could conserve ammo in the .50 caliber GAU19 with a defensive laser for smaller hobby sized plastic IED FPV's.
I think that would work better with the new hybrid engines that will come to market very soon with huge energy reserves for supplying advanced radar and laser systems. The Gau19 would become the last line of defence after a laser failed to stop the target.
The onion of defence layers would be Laser, IED Jammer, GAU19, Ironfist/Trophy APS, Armor, spall liners. The laser and GAU19 would operate off the Trophy systems radar and become as common as any .50 cal mounted on any piece of military kit.
I like it.
Accurate targeting of such small maneuvering targets can be extremely difficult, but from what I have seen, most of the time drone operators move in straight lines with only the occasional stop or course alteration; more like watching ships at sea, or in harbor, than manned military aircraft over a battlefield!
I have liked an M134 minigun with the sensor package from an Avenger SHORAAD truck as a cupola weapon against sneaky folks, drones, rockets, and mortar shells since Iraq.
@@off6848 It would be a backup to a laser IMO with an AA fire rate and a manual aim fire rate to match closer to an M2 Browning to aid in duration for suppressing.
GAU19 does not have programmable ammunition which is needed to quickly take down fast moving small drones at distance. 40mm CT is better against drones.
38 to 42 tons for a 40mm armed reconnaissance vehicle? And at the same time the US is fielding the M10 Booker that weighs the same but with a 105mm(rifled for some unknown reason) Cannon. Come on guys
You could get a fair few, combat proven, CV 90s in a variety of configuration for that price...
I think the real story and the elephant in the room is that a $200 drone with a small bomb attached to it can destroy a tank worth multiples of millions.
The real question do tanks have a purpose in modern warfare
looks to be a system with great promise particularly that gun. good luck from Australia.
could do with a turretless variant of the Ajax IFV . . . the turretless variant will feature a 3.0 metre raised (heightened) hull providing some much needed space inside the otherwise tight knit crew & troop compartment . . . top of the 3.0 metre raised hull are two standard roof hatches for observation (situational awareness) & scouting . . . a 360° deg rotating remote weapons station positioned next to either of the roof hatches, will house a 23 MM GAU-19/U six-barrel rotary gun or a 0.50 Cal M2 heavy machine gun . . . a coil spring based 6.3 in. suspension lift that'll complement the torsion bar setup . . . offering better mobility regardless of terrain . . . the Ajax IFV needs to be lighter by weight, shouldn't tip the scales anymore than 33.0 tons (loaded) including installed armour . . .
As a reconnaissanse vehicle, it appears to be less of an asset than a rather large, vulnerable and expensive target. Hopefully I’m wrong.
My key question: are those boxes -- on three sides of the hull, above track-level -- lockers for the squad to store rucks and rations in? Extra fuel?
Remember the british were offered several versions of the cv90 in the time it has taken for the ajax to come to fruition which would have been cheaper, just as good and more upgradeable and interchangeable with our allies.
It's about making weapons to sell to everyone else. All our nations are is a gun store.
And this is why the BMP will forever be the best IFV on the market.
I mean, it's at least easy to recycle seeing as it's scrap metal to begin with. But then again, the market for low grade RuSSian steel scrap isn't very profitable. But sure, Ukraine could probably make something useful from it once its insides have been scraped out of its former inhabitants.
The puma
The U.S. has had the Abrams tank for 40 years. The hull can be upgraded and has been several times. I don’t know why you’d want to scrap old vehicles that are solid and not just upgrade them.
The British Army has had the Challenger MBT for forty years and they're just upgrading it to Chally 3. Ajax isn't an MBT.
Like the person said:
This is what the Warrior Infantry fighting vehicle was meant to be with all its upgrades but all of them got canned while cutting numbers and putting up costs - I believe at one point they had a working new turret for the vehicle.
The government also caned 3 review rounds of upgrades to the Challenger tank while cutting numbers like the Warrior upgrades thus putting up costs - what we getting now is the export Europen version of the tank designed in the 1990s/2000s - they replaced the British engine with the Leopard engine and gearbox & also replaced the gun & firing computers/sights.
Because
This is due to the old government back in 2010 (new at the time Conservative government) putting a £3.6bn black hole in the MOD budget (even when everyone from civil servants to lawyers to the boat yard themself told them it would council the fixed price agreement and BTW (the boat yard said) we going charge you £380 million to carry out a redesign & planning of the currently in production of the two new aircraft carriers.
QED £3.6bn overspend later + £380 million and two years of delays the Royal Navy got two new aircraft carriers with no design changes and due to the delays France ordered two aircraft carriers from another company - The price of the UK aircraft carriers was based upon France would use the same design and order 2 possible 3 more thus the price would come down.
There are a lot of challenges and limitations when upgrading vehicles (space and weight the biggest two), and the hulls will inevitably get damaged over time from fatigue stresses in service. Warrior was last built back in the 80's, and CVRT in the 60's/70's. Warfare and technology has evolved massively in this time, to the point where you will get a much better product starting from scratch than be constrained by old vehicle hulls, which are probably all bent out of shape from 40+ years of use.
The US got Abrams, but intend to replace Bradley with the XM30.
Germany got Leopard 2, but replaced Marder with Puma.
France got Leclerc, but replaced their AMX-10 with VBCI.
Russia got T-72, but... well... they're going to need a new IFV after losing all their BMPs in Ukraine lmao
And while new MBT proposals like Panther are a hard sell, Lynx and Boxer are selling like crazy.
Because the Warrior is ancient and there's nothing else we can do with it. I've got a family member who's worked at the Telford plant for most of his career, and he can tell you that with the exception of Challenger 2, the British Army's armour was getting long in the tooth in the 2000s. It's a major pain in the backside to maintain or upgrade our AFV fleet because so much of it was designed around manufacturing and maintenance standards from the 1960s. Do you know how difficult it is to get tools in imperial measurements? Or how much of a headache it is to scour through paperwork and physical drawings to get technical data converted to modern digital formats? Or how much military strategists are held back by equipment designed to fight wars from 60 years ago? There's a reason the MoD's recent upgrade attempts for the Warrior were a failure, and it's not the fault of the new tech.
Oh and I hate to break it to you, the production lines for the Warrior no longer exist. They were canned in the 90s once it was clear the Cold War was over. At least with the Abrams the US DoD has ensured that a skeleton production capability has been retained since the main runs ended. That hasn't happened here. Any losses the Warrior fleet takes is permanent.
Military procurement is like building the Space launch system. It costs a lot so it has to be perfect. But nothing is perfect so nobody is willing to sign off on good enough. So you get delays and then priorities change which causes more delays and runs up the cost further. Until you're left with a bloated white elephant, but since it's the only thing left in the room you build it and use it and work out the kinks in the field and hope nobody gets hurt.
I've said since the decision of the MOD to acquire this vehicle, I believe the CV-90 platform would have been a better decision, especially as it is a mature platform instead of a concept that has had to go through multiple steps to get to where it is now and still has more to go.
Cameron said he was impressed with ASCOD so must have been another decision like brexit !
Great video, thank you! I'm pleased that there is some positivity at long last surrounding Ajax and that it's capabilities are being revealed and praised. The ammunition and cannon, coupled with the high-capacity sensors and accuracy, and presumably beasty armour, will mean this will be a formidable opponent on the battlefield. Seems like it will be able to neutralise an inbound enemy drone from
Seeing the Ajax and the Warrior both in the flesh (or should I say metal) at tankfest, you can definitely see the large size of the Ajax compared to the warrior, great to see a focus on crew effectiveness like on most British vehicles where crew space is a LOT better than other western designs, let alone soviet and Chinese ones
That's something I wanted to hear more about.
Watching Captain 'Simon', I'm reminded of the small poster I used to have stuck to the side of my computer - 'I know that you think that you know what you thought I said, but I must tell you that what you thought I said is not what I meant'.
Can anyone tell me what advantages this has over the latest CV90?
money goes in a different pocket
@@jonny_codphilo7809 Hägglunds is owned by BAE, so it's not even like it's a foreign product.
None. CV90, ASCOD (AJAX), AS21 and KF41 are all pretty similar in capabilities.
It appears that the vision systems are protected and easily replaced.
All newer versions of the CV-90 are easy to blind, extremely crippled when blinded because there's limited or no direct-vision for crew, and its electronic systems (ALL of them!) are hideously difficult to replace if there is anything but the most superficial damage!
It's the kind of thing that few notice if all they have ever done are scripted and carefully-performed exercises, but anyone who has seen the results of private soldiers during war will wince at.
@@davidgoodnow269 I've never heard this feedback before. But if that's the case, why not just order a custom turret that rectifies the issue?
To my knowledge, Hägglunds have constantly been refining the vehicle based on customer requests.
Also, the CV90 isn't some un-tried thing like you're making it out to be. It's seen combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine. And received excellent feedback everyhwere.
As much as I love this channel it has really gone off the boil over the last year. This one feels more like a corporate PR video for the MoD and GD than anything else.
A symbol of just about everything that is wrong with procurement in the MoD. Late, over weight, hugely over budget. The MoD could have bought something off the shelf from any number of makers. For the sake of our boys I hope it turns out to be a good piece of kit but I can't help thinking the Army (not for the first time) got into a sunk cost throwing good money after bad mentality.
How can they go wrong relying on a system built around a 1990s concept introduced thirty years later?
Not sure what you really understand but this was off the shelf system - a number of countries use a version of Ajax already
The name wasn't changed because of a single complaint and it hasn't fired on the people of the islands (yet), so not *everything* wrong with the MoD.
I think we can safely ignore the comments of serving army people, they are not going to criticise it as they will get hammered by their bosses. Or lose their jobs.
As with any arms procurement the key of any systems capability is how many overseas sales it gets.
We, the UK, have to buy it, other countries don’t. If they think another ‘product’ is better they will buy that.
Yes, I know, the reasons why countries buy stuff can be quite complicated, and possibly slightly dodgy, but its a good baseline.
For instance how many countries use the SA80 family?
But if it is a recce tool, doesn’t the Ukraine war show that drones are the way forward. Massively cheaper, super easy to upgrade (or bin if you need to), capable of adding the latest AI.
It just seems like yet another MOD ********, to go with the long line of MOD **********.
No Air Defence and no Overwatch variant - massive mistake. I will never understand how ASCOD beat CV90. MOD swears by the procurement process and CADMID cycle but it clearly just doesn't work. Programme after programme is late or underperforming, and it's not the politicians that affects. Its our soldiers left at risk.
It was the "bid fixing" and corruption that probably eliminated BAE Systems from really had the most impact on not choosing CV 90.
Good Video and unfortunatly correct final words. Greetings from Germany
How many CV90’s they could have bought for 7 Billion pounds? Which is a superior platform anyway !
Now *that* is a fine question!
I wonder if anyone in Parliament asked it?
While the officer was praising the vehical he was constantly shaking he's head.
He's body language says - He doesn't believe himself what he is saying.
Interesting video. However I do wonder what Mr. Fletcher would have thought about it.
Is Ajax better than cv90 or any other similar vehicle we could have bought off the shelf?
Should have just procured CV-90 if they wanted a new IFV or just upgraded Warrior
That vibration issue is crazy. Seems like such a basic thing that never should have made it that far. What a mess, but military procurement usually is.
Like many similar projects, it has made rich men and women in boardrooms around the world richer and left us with no doubt a very fragile piece of equipment that cannot be manufactured on the scale needed to fight a real war. Meanwhile we choose manufacturing powerhouses as our enemies that may not produce equipment quite as space age, but in ten times the numbers. We will have a very unflattering age named after us.
Standard military procurement shambles. You can either have something with current technology which will be cheap(er), work, but be obsolete by the time it’s in service. Or… You can have all the bells and whistles, for a lot more cost, guaranteed project overruns, and needing a major refit within five years of entering service to stop it being obsolete.
Rinse and repeat
Watch the interview with Dominic Cummings and Chris Williamson and you'll discover exactly why the MOD, and other departments are next to useless.
The guy who caused chaos in education with Gove?
Are we going to mention the guy in the army to sign off on the ajax project. Ended up being head of General Dynamics in merthyr tydfil.?