Jump to content

Ajax Issues


Dawes
 Share

Recommended Posts

This all reminds me of another not-yet-ancient-thread, maybe about a year ago, about IFV caliber cannons that resulted in illuminating a sort of two main categories that IFV caliber cannons fall into. One put emphasis for being ready and avaiable to provide much fire support. The other put emphasis on armor penetration ability. Basically, 20-25mm wss the former while 35mm plus being the latter. 30mm being a sort of compromise of the two classes. The smaller caliber naturally had more ready ammunition and greater ammo storage. The larger caliber had better punch. Which was better tended to be up to what the designers in question wanted between the two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Two vehicles - Begleitpanzer 57 analogue and a separate APC with an RWS mounted 40mm AGL and LMG in whatever calibre is flavour of the month.... 

Given that Ajax is 7 or 8 different vehicle variants, the point of having multiple types is fairly moot - the 40mm armed IFV is quite different to the APC variant, even to having a different (still side opening) rear door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Nimrod wasnt. Twice. The only question is, why does the Army do next, having shagged its replacement for the 50 year old CVRT, AND Warrior. Because they could have converted warrior hulls to carry the Ajax turret, if some clown hadnt cancelled Warrior in favour of Ajax.

GD  also dont really seem to entirely grasp there is a problem with vibration so much as a problem with non standard noise cancelling earphones. That is not such a great place to start iwth putting the problem right. They were told right from the start of tests of this vehicle there was a problem with vibration, but nothing seemed to make it to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know nearly enough about the project to comment on whether some obstinate busybody within the MOD is raising a stink by demanding something exceeding the legal requirements for workplace safety, or whether it's indeed GDLS bungling the process. Wouldn't be the first time in .mil procurement that armies or individual project managers all of a sudden develop a certain fixation, or use a single issue as leverage because they want something entirely different.

The Ulans and Pizarros I've driven in were totally acceptable WRT noise and vibration, within what's to be expected in a tracked armored vehicle, so I'm meeting with some skepticism the claim that the Ajax using the same hull and drivetrain components is dangerously noisy and uncomfortable to ride with. But again, I don't know enough details, so I can't say who's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I don't know nearly enough about the project to comment on whether some obstinate busybody within the MOD is raising a stink by demanding something exceeding the legal requirements for workplace safety, or whether it's indeed GDLS bungling the process. Wouldn't be the first time in .mil procurement that armies or individual project managers all of a sudden develop a certain fixation, or use a single issue as leverage because they want something entirely different.

The Ulans and Pizarros I've driven in were totally acceptable WRT noise and vibration, within what's to be expected in a tracked armored vehicle, so I'm meeting with some skepticism the claim that the Ajax using the same hull and drivetrain components is dangerously noisy and uncomfortable to ride with. But again, I don't know enough details, so I can't say who's right.

No, its rather more serious than that. Crews have reported injuries from the vibration, I think there may even have been damage to hearing. If you listen to the Parliamentary inquiry, some of them even seem to be suffering from industrial white finger, which is the kind of injury you get from using things like pneumatic drills. I doubt that has been seen in British tracked vehicles since the MkV Infantry tank.

It seems to be a case of the lower ranks of the Army saying 'we really dont want this', and the higher ranks and the MOD closing ranks and saying 'well you really ought to, because its the only think we have as an option'. When of course, it really isnt. Apparently BAE offered an CV90 based option, but the MOD didnt want to buy ONLY from BAE, and in fact insisted it was anyone else other than BAE. Which as they were instrumental in creating BAE and making it become the behemoth it became, really illustrates the mentality at work at the moment.

 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help but feel this is what happens when you close your AFV research and design centre and production facilities and have to start from scratch.

Best,

Greg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea was to take a proven underlying design and tailor it. I suggest that vibration and noise issues have very little to do with the equipment fit, they're fundamental to the vehicle and engine combination.

As has been noted, it's quite likely that the ASCOD2 platform was selected due to the "Anybody but BAE" mindset in place at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt it. Ajax do not make sense now with a minimal tank fleet and no tracked IFV,  maybe  MoD wants to get rid of them without a big penalty.  There is a considerable lack of detail in what has been said.

Why MoD approved all steps until now?

 

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we have nearly as many tanks as Germany at the moment. I'd like it to be bigger, but even after the cuts it's going to be bigger than the majority of European nations.

I think really, we have been had. One by a Defence Contractor, and once by the Army that could fulfil the recce role a hell of a lot cheaper using drones.

No, the MoD really wants them. Even now, when it's becoming increasingly apparent it's probably unsalvageable. There is no conspiracy here, only incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well we have nearly as many tanks as Germany at the moment. I'd like it to be bigger, but even after the cuts it's going to be bigger than the majority of European nations.

I think really, we have been had. One by a Defence Contractor, and once by the Army that could fulfil the recce role a hell of a lot cheaper using drones.

No, the MoD really wants them. Even now, when it's becoming increasingly apparent it's probably unsalvageable. There is no conspiracy here, only incompetence.

Would take an ODS level NATO-wide conflict to shake Europe into defense investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now Russia has its bases in Belarus, and Ukraine is all but surrounded, we may not have long to wait. We shall see. I look with dismay that the British Army will soon have more light infantry Brigades than Mechanized Infantry Brigades. You would think the Army leadership have wholly ignored the events of 2014, and still think the WOT is the only war that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...