Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Maybe there was something in the requirements that was necessary for the scout vehicle that was incompatible with an IFV?
I can’t think what that would be, but it could explain why the the British might warn the Australians off the vehicle.
Makes about as much sense as the British warning the Australians away from the vehicle because its bad but continuing to accept it into service.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:Presumably there is a lead time for all the components that go into a vehicle, plus the time to put them all together. If vehicles are being delivered then one can infer that there will be a number on the production line as well.
Ref The Times 8th Sept (hard to link), MOD report 44 AJAX Assembled and 147 Hulls on site.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok that's good to know. Now we just need to turn the taps off after the next 20 or so hulls are delivered and settle for that number of Ajax family members.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

Oldest trick in the book - fill the factory with widgets to make it look like something’s happening. It doesnt matter if there are 10,000 hulls “on the production line”, it’s the number that have actually been completed and passed QA. There were I believe 9 Nimrods on the production line - and 17 TSR2s

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SD67 wrote:10,000 hulls “on the production line”
A follow-on: all these from the Spanish plant (that has made many hundreds of the previous edition)?

Only for the integration "test" after the screw-driver facility had bolted all the various main components together to... fail?

In IT work it is a normal occurrence that all parts pass their Unit Tests - but the Integration Test... with all involved holding their breath - failing, sometimes spectacularly.
- in the typical defence comms fashion is has not been communicated whether the hiccup has been minor or major. Probably to avoid finger-pointing in the press (in this system of systems ;) project).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SD67 wrote:10,000 hulls “on the production line”
A follow-on: all these from the Spanish plant (that has made many hundreds of the previous edition)?

Only for the integration "test" after the screw-driver facility had bolted all the various main components together to... fail?

In IT work it is a normal occurrence that all parts pass their Unit Tests - but the Integration Test... with all involved holding their breath - failing, sometimes spectacularly.
- in the typical defence comms fashion is has not been communicated whether the hiccup has been minor or major. Probably to avoid finger-pointing in the press (in this system of systems ;) project).
I thought most fingers were pointing at the turret.

You are correct tho that all the 147 hulls at the factory are ones delivered from Spain. Hopefully made of the correct grade of steel. I'd check if it were me.

So much for the GD promise to build everything in the UK after the first 100. British to their bootstraps was their phrase with over 10,000 UK jobs. I expect them to say the same about their plans to build Eagle in the UK to meet MRV(P) part 2 because that's what they do. I expect the MoD and politicians will believe them because that's what they do.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »


Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Andy-M »

Why is there a fume extractor for an external weapon?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Andy-M wrote:Why is there a fume extractor for an external weapon?
What makes you think there is?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Maybe the fumes rising from the front right of the hull every time it fires?
I don’t think that’s what it is, but i’m curious as to what else it could be.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by bobp »

mr.fred wrote:Maybe the fumes rising from the front right of the hull every time it fires
Anything to do with the engine revving up?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

bobp wrote:Anything to do with the engine revving up?
Could be, but why should it? It's not like firing a Browning should require any power.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

What about powering the RWS etc. I am not sure if the Ajax family have auxiliary generators enabling systems to be powered whilst the main power unit is switched off like some AFVs do.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Aren't APUs meant to be running only when the main one is off?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:What about powering the RWS etc. I am not sure if the Ajax family have auxiliary generators enabling systems to be powered whilst the main power unit is switched off like some AFVs do.
What would the RWS be doing during firing that it isn’t doing prior to firing?
Does a solenoid draw that much power?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

What you're seeing is the firing gases hitting upward flowing air. It's not venting firing gases.
Lord Jim wrote:What about powering the RWS etc. I am not sure if the Ajax family have auxiliary generators enabling systems to be powered whilst the main power unit is switched off like some AFVs do.
AJAX vehicles have APUs.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... -land.aspx

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »



Note: ABB = Anyone But Bae

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

while i don’t think that the lm turret at the time was as advanced as the bae one, it was much more advanced than trl1.
https://youtu.be/rM2btez4tsc
note the age of the video, for example.

one thing that i’m always curious about everytime it is brought up: if there was an “anyone but bae” prejudice;
1) why didn’t BAE pursue legal action?
2) Why was there this prejudice?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Remind me again how GD and LM have failed hard on those programmes?

And this idea that CV90 was a OTS product continues to make everyone in industry laugh. Doesn't have a production CT40 turret, doesn't have a fully digital turret on market, doesn't have a fully digital hull.

The MOD created a gold plated requirement, they never went looking for OTS. And they've inherited the cost and delay that comes with pushing the envelope.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:while i don’t think that the lm turret at the time was as advanced as the bae one, it was much more advanced than trl1.
https://youtu.be/rM2btez4tsc
note the age of the video, for example.

one thing that i’m always curious about everytime it is brought up: if there was an “anyone but bae” prejudice;
1) why didn’t BAE pursue legal action?
2) Why was there this prejudice?
1. GD/LM won the contract based on modifying the existing Warrior turret. Never happened.
2. What "legal action" ? What on earth thinks that stands a chance in the UK?? Who has ever sued??
3. Take your pick. The same prejudice resulted in a National Shipbuilding Strategy that said don't award the Type 31 contract to Bae. Go read it.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:1. GD/LM won the contract based on modifying the existing Warrior turret. Never happened.
That can't be true of the Ajax contract that involved GD, because there wouldn't be enough Warrior turrets spare.
Ron5 wrote:2. What "legal action" ? What on earth thinks that stands a chance in the UK?? Who has ever sued??
You'd think if the prejudice were that obvious and clear cut like everyone says, you could litigate based on an unfair competition.
Ron5 wrote:3. Take your pick. The same prejudice resulted in a National Shipbuilding Strategy that said don't award the Type 31 contract to Bae. Go read it.
The usual response. "everyone knows" except when you ask anyone they can't give specifics.
Therefore I contend that it does not exist, and never did.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:Remind me again how GD and LM have failed hard on those programmes?

And this idea that CV90 was a OTS product continues to make everyone in industry laugh. Doesn't have a production CT40 turret, doesn't have a fully digital turret on market, doesn't have a fully digital hull.

The MOD created a gold plated requirement, they never went looking for OTS. And they've inherited the cost and delay that comes with pushing the envelope.
1. Many years late, many millions over budget. If you think they're meeting the terms of their original contract, you might be the only person in the UK that does.

2. Bae spent 50 million of its own money producing and testing a CT40 turret prototype. They even brought armor specialists from their US subsidiary over to help. LM had a powerpoint slide showing how they would modify the existing Warrior turret. Bae said that would be impossible. They were right but hey ho, lets keep with LM(UK) while they run up the tab building a new turret based on a German import.

3. Bae never claimed they had an OTS product. What they claimed was they had in the modified CV90 plus turret, was something that could be developed and built at low risk and to budget. Something the GD/LM has noticeably failed to do. Seeing that Bae had built a running prototype and had a history of actually building armored vehicles unlike GD(UK) & LM(UK), there's more than ample reason to believe they could. Ajax, of course, is being built in what was a disused factory by workers who'd never built anything more than a fork lift truck before.

4. Creating a gold plated requirement is one thing. Awarding the deal to two companies that between them had exactly zero experience in building armored vehicles was effing stupid. And on top of that those two companies lied through their teeth on how much work would be performed in the UK.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:1. GD/LM won the contract based on modifying the existing Warrior turret. Never happened.
That can't be true of the Ajax contract that involved GD, because there wouldn't be enough Warrior turrets spare.
Ron5 wrote:2. What "legal action" ? What on earth thinks that stands a chance in the UK?? Who has ever sued??
You'd think if the prejudice were that obvious and clear cut like everyone says, you could litigate based on an unfair competition.
Ron5 wrote:3. Take your pick. The same prejudice resulted in a National Shipbuilding Strategy that said don't award the Type 31 contract to Bae. Go read it.
The usual response. "everyone knows" except when you ask anyone they can't give specifics.
Therefore I contend that it does not exist, and never did.
You really should research the history of the program rather than airing out uninformed opinions.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:You really should read the history of the program rather than airing out uninformed opinions.
I'm quite familiar. I've been following it for a while.

Perhaps you could direct me to specifics reasons as to why "Anyone but BAE" might exist?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: 1. Many years late, many millions over budget. If you think they're meeting the terms of their original contract, you might be the only person in the UK that does.
Late to which original contract? Development? Production? Extended Support Contract and on-shoring?
Ron5 wrote: 2. Bae spent 50 million of its own money producing and testing a CT40 turret prototype. They even brought armor specialists from their US subsidiary over to help. LM had a powerpoint slide showing how they would modify the existing Warrior turret. Bae said that would be impossible. They were right but hey ho, lets keep with LM(UK) while they run up the tab building a new turret based on a German import.
The LMUK turret isn't based on the RLS LANCE turret. So BAE spent a few thousand on a business class ticket, hence they had a better solution. Strange logic.

MOD were given a risk profile, they made their choice.
Ron5 wrote: 3. Bae never claimed they had an OTS product. What they claimed was they had in the modified CV90 plus turret, was something that could be developed and built at low risk and to budget. Something the GD/LM has noticeably failed to do. Seeing that Bae had built a running prototype and had a history of actually building armored vehicles unlike GD(UK) & LM(UK), there's more than ample reason to believe they could. Ajax, of course, is being built in what was a disused factory by workers who'd never built anything more than a fork lift truck before.
So who's claiming a BAE TRL6 turret? That's OTS to Tom, Fuck and Harry.

BAE get credit for flying an armour specialist over. But GDUK get no credit for having corporate reach-back to ASCOD, Piranha, LAV and Abrams? Odd. Also GDUK had integrated BOWMAN throughout the British army fleet.

Lockheed Martin meanwhile have only got experience of complex systems integration from the AWE down to attack helicopters...


Ron5 wrote:
4. Creating a gold plated requirement is one thing. Awarding the deal to two companies that between them had exactly zero experience in building armored vehicles was effing stupid. And on top of that those two companies lied through their teeth on how much work would be performed in the UK.
And the last time BAE Land manufactured an armoured vehicle? Didn't Corus build the Terrier hulls...

Meanwhile Linde factory workers were mass producing products, not kit assembling limited runs of 60 (sixty!).

Post Reply