3 August 2021
The initial groundwork behind the development of the Ajax family of vehicles was laid out under the British Ministry of Defence’s Future Rapid Effect System program. Its objective was to modernise the British Army’s arsenal of armoured fighting vehicles by procuring a range of specialised vehicles. Two main variants were proposed: a utility vehicle (UV) designed to assist in protected mobility, command and control, light armoured support, repair and recovery or medical support missions, and a specialist vehicle (SV) for scouting, armoured personnel carrying, repair, and recovery tasks. The UV part of the programme was taken on in 1999 by the Germano-British Boxer armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) produced by ARTEC GmbH. However, this progress was halted in 2003 by the British Ministry of Defence as this model, though quite effective on the ground, did not fit into A400M and C-130 Hercules aircrafts for transport.
This brings us to the purpose of this whole overhaul of the British Army’s vehicle fleet. The Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, pointed out during a Ministerial Keynote hosted by the Royal United Services Institute, that the Ajax vehicles were “bringing a step change in versatility and agility” to the future operative capabilities of the British army (RUSI, 2021). More concretely, this new range of AFV is meant to support light infantry units against hostiles in entrenched or fortified stance (Keller, Task and Purposes, 2020) while also being versatile enough to serve in airborne operations. Though this may also be the case for the current Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance Tracked (CVRT) range of vehicles designed by Alvis back in 1967 (Lagneau, Zone Militaire Opex36O, 2021), the Ajax AFV is a “fully-digital, fully-integrated reconnaissance vehicle” (Malyasov, Defence Blog, 2020), thus supposedly bringing the British Army’s reconnaissance vehicle fleet into the 21st century. This armoured assistance to infantry operations is referred to as ‘Mobile Protected Firepower’ by its parent company.
Indeed, in 2010, the SV aspect of the programme was awarded to the General Dynamics UK’s Ajax Scout Specialist Vehicle, which was based upon the previous Austro-Spanish ASCOD AFV family. The main opponent in the race to this contract was BAE Systems’ CV90. In 2014, the British Ministry of Defence announced the order of 589 new Scout SV AFVs of this type to its producer (Lagneau, Zone Militaire Opex360, 2021), which totalled about £4.5 billion (€4.5 billion, $4.8 billion) (Saballa, The Defense Post, 2021) for the American parent company. The purpose of this order within the wider Future Rapid Effect System overhaul is to contribute to the procurement of 4.000 armoured vehicles of various sizes, speeds, armaments, and thus various roles.
This particular model, referred to as ‘Ajax’, is designed to fulfil this scouting role and annex missions. In theory, it is meant to reach a speed of 40 mph (64 km/hr). To this end, it is equipped with versatile and lighter armaments, such as, for example, a CT40mm cannon from the Franco-British venture CTA International of parent companies Nexter and BAE Systems. It will also be armed with a 7.62mm calibre chain gun for anti-personnel purposes (Malyasov, Defence Blog, 2020). Moreover, not only is this vehicle protected by passive armour in the traditional sense, but it is also to be mounted with ‘Acusonic’ sensors allowing for “a 360-degree threat detection capability” (Thales Group, 2018). This type of sonar-based equipment is already being used by multiple navies on “small maritime vessels” and is reported to detect “incoming fire from about 1.5 kilometres (0.93 miles) away for large calibre small arms fire” (Ong, Naval News, 2021). On 15 March this year, it was announced that the British Army signed a £3.7 million contract with General Dynamics Land Systems UK to equip these Ajax vehicles with such sensors built in the UK, of which 735 were ordered (Kelly, The Defense Post, 2018).
Trials have taken place to test out the ability of the Ajax to deliver on expectations and fulfil its expected role. These consisted of up to 28 serials on distances ranging between 500 and 800m (Malyasov, Defence Blog, 2020). During these tests at the Millbrook Proving Grounds (Lagneau, Zone Militaire Opex360, 2021), a significant set of technical issues arose. The main problem, as remarked upon by many insiders and observers, is the significant amount of vibrations felt by crew members when going at speeds close to or above 18 mph (30 kph) (Lagneau, Zone Militaire Opex360, 2021). Due to this, it is estimated that 8 British servicemen suffered injuries and around twenty “sought treatment because of hearing issues” (Saballa, The Defense Post, 2021). It has been reported that such issues with the vehicle model had been common knowledge of General Dynamics for a decade now. Vice president of the UK branch, Carew Wilks, told the Telegraph “If we’re talking about noise and vibration on the platform, this has been a feature of the design since 2010 when we started working on the program” (Hardy, The Telegraph, 2021). Other technical issues were noticed during these trials, such as the inability of the Ajax to reliably reach past “half the intended top speed” of 40 mph (64 kph) or to reverse over objects of 20 cm in height (Sabbagh, The Guardian, 2021).
The Ajax program has also repeatedly been complicated by delays and missed deadlines. Indeed, the first models of this vehicle should have been delivered as early as 2017, yet the first 14 intended for testing purposes only reached Millbrook in 2020 (Lagneau, Zone Militaire Opex360, 2021). This led to many doubts on the ability of the partners of the British military in this project to deliver in the near future, or indeed at all, the expected functional, battle-ready, ultra-connected AFV. For instance, The Guardian refers to an internal assessment of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, whose baseline was that “successful delivery of the programme to time and budget […] appears to be unachievable” (Sabbagh, The Guardian, 2021). British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace himself admitted, “it’s a troubled program, no one’s hiding that … And we’ve got to fix it. We’ve got to get to the bottom of the problems with it. We, both General Dynamics and the army, have determined they’re going to have to put this right. It is a firm contract; the price is firm. We’ve already withheld significant amounts of money … It has to be fixed” (Chuter, Defense News, 2021).
Out of this situation arises this question: Can Ajax be saved or will it fall on its sword like its mythological namesake? At first glance, as is suggested by the previous quote, it seems there is no intention to back down and abandon this project from the British authorities. During a June debate session at the House of Lords “the Ministry of Defence was adamant that Initial Operating Capability would be declared at the end of the month” (Hansard, 2021). The Guardian, among others, also reports the Ministry of Defence “said it had no plans for a delay”. However, a more recent intervention in July at the House of Commons by Minister for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin contrasted with this view, admitting one “cannot be 100% certain that the salvation of the programme can be achieved” (Parliamentlive.tv, 2021). Trials have also been paused due to health safety concerns for the personnel involved and out of a sense that “mitigation measures put in place to protect soldiers – including ear defenders – were not sufficient” (Brown, The Times, 2021). The Ministry of Defence’s own press office tweeted on 29 June 2021 that these trials “have been suspended and will only resume when we are assured that mitigations are fully effective” (Ministry of Defence Press Office, 2021). Though this may be the case, cancellation of this whole affair would be costly, as some have reported that, should this happen, a significant legal battle between British authorities and General Dynamics UK could arise due to a supposed breach of contract (Saballa, The Defense Post, 2021).
Beyond anyone’s concrete ability to save this programme, it is also worth considering if Ajax is actually worth the administrative, financial, and maybe legal effort it would take to bring it to completion. As noted by Dr Jack Watling, the bulky and relatively slow vehicle may not be the best fit for reconnaissance missions, however, Ajax is much more than just a new vehicle designed for that purpose (Watling, RUSI, 2021). The purpose of this programme was to bring about a digital revolution to the fighting capabilities of the British Army in the field. As claimed by the Minister of Defence in front of the House of Lords in June this year, “as our first fully digitalised armoured fighting vehicle, Ajax will provide crews with access to vastly improved sensors, and better lethality and protection” (Hansard, 2021). The mantle of reconnaissance can be taken up by gradually more advanced radars and unmanned aerial vehicles, yet this cannot be said of the field data hub role that was intended for the Ajax (Watling, RUSI, 2021). In light of the expected retiring of its Warrior model, it needs some kind of replacement and fast. Either Ajax is deemed worth the cost. Thus, the programme should be satisfactory in good time, or it is not worth the hassle and another vehicle should be developed even faster.
Written by Liam Thomas Hutton
Bibliography
Brown, Larissa, “New £3.2bn Ajax tanks withdrawn again after troops suffer hearing loss”, The Times, June 29, 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-3-2bn-ajax-tanks-grounded-again-after-troops-suffer-hearing-loss-xg0q5g30l
Chuter, Andrew, “British committee wants to shake out Ajax’s vibration problems”, Defense News, July 19, 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/07/19/british-committee-wants-to-shake-out-ajaxs-vibration-problems/
Hardy, Jack, “Firm behind Army’s ‘troubled’ £3.5bn armoured vehicle fleet knew of technical problems back in 2010”, The Telegraph, July 20, 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/07/20/firm-behind-armys-troubled-35bn-armoured-vehicle-fleet-knew/
Keller, Jared, “This could be the Army’s next light tank of choice”, Task and Purpose, April 24, 2020, [online]. Available at: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-mobile-protected-firepower-general-dynamics-submission/
Kelly, Fergus, “Thales’ Acusonic shot detection system to be installed on British Army’s Ajax armored vehicles”, The Defense Post, March 15, 2018, [online]. Available at: https://www.thedefensepost.com/2018/03/15/uk-thales-acusonic-sensor-ajax-armoured-fighting-vehicle/
Lagneau, Laurent, “Les essais de l’Ajax, le futur blindé de la British Army, sont de nouveau suspendus”, Zone Militaire Opex 360, June 30, 2021, [online]. Available at: http://www.opex360.com/2021/06/30/les-essais-de-lajax-le-futur-blinde-de-la-british-army-sont-de-nouveau-suspendus/
Lagneau, Laurent, “Bruit excessif, vibrations, vitesse limitée… Le véhicule blindé Ajax donne du fil à retordre à la British Army”, Zone Militaire Opex 360, June 4, 2021, [online]. Available at: http://www.opex360.com/2021/06/04/bruit-excessif-vibrations-vitesse-limitee-le-vehicule-blinde-ajax-donne-du-fil-a-retordre-a-la-british-army/
Malyasov, Dylan,. “General Dynamics and British Army showcase AJAX firing skills”, Defence Blog, September 10, 2020, [online]. Available at: https://defence-blog.com/general-dynamics-and-british-army-showcase-ajax-firing-skills/
Ministry of Defence Press Office. (2021), “Ajax trials paused”, Twitter. [online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/DefenceHQPress/status/1409899245163929605?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1409899245163929605%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2F
Ong, Peter, “Thalès creates acoustic shot detector sensor for Maritime environment”, Naval News, May 14, 2021. [online]. Available at: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/05/thales-creates-acoustic-shot-detector-sensor-for-maritime-environment/
Royal United Services Institute, (2021). “Land Warfare 2021: Ministerial Keynote and Closing Remarks”. 17 June 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSIRHbFXofM
Sabbagh, Dan, “MoD says delivery of £3.5bn tank fleet will go ahead despite safety fears”, The Guardian, June 3, 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/03/mod-military-pauses-trials-army-tank-fleet-safety-concerns-ajax
Saballa, Joe, “Manufacturer of ‘Troubled’ UK Tank Aware of Issues Back in 2010”, The Defense Post, July 23, 2021, [online]. Available at: https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/07/23/manufacturer-uk-tanks-issues/
Thalès Group, “New acoustic shot detection system to protect Ajax vehicle crews”, Article, March 15, 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/new-acoustic-shot-detection-system-protect-ajax-vehicle-crews
UK Parliament Hansard Lords’ Chamber. (2021) “Ajax Programme”. Volume 812: debated on Wednesday 9 June 2021, [online]. Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2021-06-09/debates/E4E49106-C594-40A8-96A6-EC08B7899E6A/AjaxProgramme
UK Parliament live.tv. (2021) “Defense Committee Tuesday 20 July 2021”. [online]. Available at: https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a76c7259-26f3-43f2-b721-03957c76fcd3
Watling, Jack. (2021), “The British Army’s Greek Strategy”. Royal United Services Institute, Commentary, 22 July 2021, [online]. Available at: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/british-armys-greek-tragedy
