Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Ron5 wrote:Who has ever sued??
The other way: the MoD sued over Terrier... you can guess who it was that they sued (the answer is in preceding posts)
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)

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 »

The missing 'Ajax' variant (will it ever go to production?):
https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2 ... ogram.html

14 per bde is the plan; in our case the question becomes "for which brigades"
- LJ's favourite: nip the required number from the turreted AJAX versions on order for the 'medium' armour rgmnts (as opposed to recce)
- but why would/ should we discount other bdes (or get around such a philosophical question by just having a pool, to support them from. A bit like with Vikings or LGs)?
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 »

mr.fred wrote:
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?
And yet you didn't know the GD bid was based on modifying the existing turret. Mmmmm. Rather a key point.

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:
mr.fred wrote:
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?
And yet you didn't know the GD bid was based on modifying the existing turret. Mmmmm. Rather a key point.
How could the GD bid be based on modifying an existing turret when there wasn’t an existing turret to modify?

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:
mr.fred wrote:
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?
And yet you didn't know the GD bid was based on modifying the existing turret. Mmmmm. Rather a key point.
How could the GD bid be based on modifying an existing turret when there wasn’t an existing turret to modify?
My apologies, I have been talking at cross purposes. I was referring to the WCSP program not the Ajax. mea culpa.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

@RunningS

Judging by your emotional reaction I assume you are in someway connected to the Ajax program. Nobody likes having the baby called ugly and let me be clear, I am not in any way criticizing the technical capability of the Ajax family. I am sure they will be very fine vehicles, not ugly at all. I do criticize their cost and very late delivery which, I believe, could have been avoided if Bae had won the competition.
RunningStrong wrote:Late to which original contract? Development? Production? Extended Support Contract and on-shoring?
The development & manufacturing contract which is by far the most valuable, was for 3.5 billion pounds and first production deliveries in 2017. Care to share the latest cost estimate and delivery date for the Ajax production scout variant?
RunningStrong wrote: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.
I was under the impression Rheinmetall was manufacturing the turrets.
RunningStrong wrote:Who who's claiming a BAE TRL6 turret? That's OTS to Tom, Fuck and Harry.
Not Bae. Just some guy on twitter with decades of armor experience from serving in the BA. But seeing the GD/LM turret only existed on PowerPoint and Bae were trialling their turret, I'd be very comfortable in asserting the Bae product was very much more technically ready.
RunningStrong wrote: 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..
My point was that prior to the competition, Bae flew in experts and actually built a prototype turret and vehicle. GD/LM spent their time creating PowerPoint slides. It's as if GD/LM didn't really expect to win the contract and was putting in the minimum effort.
RunningStrong wrote:And the last time BAE Land manufactured an armoured vehicle? Didn't Corus build the Terrier hulls...
I think you may have forgotten that the Bae bid was based on CV90. Which is pretty much my whole point. Bae had a real prototype based on a real vehicle with considerable operational and export success, and real experience in building more. GD/LM had none of that. Zilch.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:@RunningS

Judging by your emotional reaction I assume you are in someway connected to the Ajax program.
By the same line of thought, you would think many detractors of the AJAX programme had lost their wives to a mythical man of Greece. There's a lot of armchair procurement managers that seem to forget they only know what's in the public domain, but somehow that makes them an authority.
Ron5 wrote: The development & manufacturing contract which is by far the most valuable, was for 3.5 billion pounds and first production deliveries in 2017. Care to share the latest cost estimate and delivery date for the Ajax production scout variant?
Development contract £500m
Production Contract £3.5Bn
Support and On-shoring Contract £390m

It's not the size of the contract that dictates the latest agreement.
Ron5 wrote: I was under the impression Rheinmetall was manufacturing the turrets.
AJAX, yes. WCSP, no.
Ron5 wrote: Not Bae. Just some guy on twitter with decades of armor experience from serving in the BA.
That explains it then. I've never met an armour specialist that know much about systems.
Ron5 wrote: But seeing the GD/LM turret only existed on PowerPoint and Bae were trialling their turret, I'd be very comfortable in asserting the Bae product was very much more technically ready.
That's like saying because you've built a Ford Fiesta you know more than the McLaren F1 team.
Ron5 wrote:
My point was that prior to the competition, Bae flew in experts and actually built a prototype turret and vehicle. GD/LM spent their time creating PowerPoint slides. It's as if GD/LM didn't really expect to win the contract and was putting in the minimum effort.
Because that's all you know. And to be frank, I'm not sure you know a lot about the topic.
Ron5 wrote: I think you may have forgotten that the Bae bid was based on CV90. Which is pretty much my whole point. Bae had a real prototype based on a real vehicle with considerable operational and export success, and real experience in building more. GD/LM had none of that. Zilch.
GD proposed built on ASCOD built by GDLS Spain. BAE proposed based on BAE Sweden design. How many guys in BAE UK had manufactured one before?

You're drawing some strange differences for what was 2 very similar proposals. Was politics part of the final decision? Almost certainly. But this idea that BAE was miles ahead isn't even supported by people that were on the project :crazy:

J. Tattersall

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:@RunningS

Judging by your emotional reaction I assume you are in someway connected to the Ajax program.
By the same line of thought, you would think many detractors of the AJAX programme had lost their wives to a mythical man of Greece. There's a lot of armchair procurement managers that seem to forget they only know what's in the public domain, but somehow that makes them an authority.
Ron5 wrote: The development & manufacturing contract which is by far the most valuable, was for 3.5 billion pounds and first production deliveries in 2017. Care to share the latest cost estimate and delivery date for the Ajax production scout variant?
Development contract £500m
Production Contract £3.5Bn
Support and On-shoring Contract £390m

It's not the size of the contract that dictates the latest agreement.
Ron5 wrote: I was under the impression Rheinmetall was manufacturing the turrets.
AJAX, yes. WCSP, no.
Ron5 wrote: Not Bae. Just some guy on twitter with decades of armor experience from serving in the BA.
That explains it then. I've never met an armour specialist that know much about systems.
Ron5 wrote: But seeing the GD/LM turret only existed on PowerPoint and Bae were trialling their turret, I'd be very comfortable in asserting the Bae product was very much more technically ready.
That's like saying because you've built a Ford Fiesta you know more than the McLaren F1 team.
Ron5 wrote:
My point was that prior to the competition, Bae flew in experts and actually built a prototype turret and vehicle. GD/LM spent their time creating PowerPoint slides. It's as if GD/LM didn't really expect to win the contract and was putting in the minimum effort.
Because that's all you know. And to be frank, I'm not sure you know a lot about the topic.
Ron5 wrote: I think you may have forgotten that the Bae bid was based on CV90. Which is pretty much my whole point. Bae had a real prototype based on a real vehicle with considerable operational and export success, and real experience in building more. GD/LM had none of that. Zilch.
GD proposed built on ASCOD built by GDLS Spain. BAE proposed based on BAE Sweden design. How many guys in BAE UK had manufactured one before?

You're drawing some strange differences for what was 2 very similar proposals. Was politics part of the final decision? Almost certainly. But this idea that BAE was miles ahead isn't even supported by people that were on the project :crazy:
@RunningStrong
Next thing you'll be telling us that not everything in the Daily Mail is true, and that we should value full facts over hearsay !

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 »

I think I should post this in response to the copied tweet regarding where the two competitors were in terms of maturity.
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a technology management tool that provides a measurement to assess the maturity of evolving technology. The Ministry of Defence defines these levels as:[221]
TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported.
TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated.
TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept.
TRL 4 Technology basic validation in a laboratory environment.
TRL 5 Technology basic validation in a relevant environment.
TRL 6 Technology model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment.
TRL 7 Technology prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
TRL 8 Actual Technology completed and qualified through test and demonstration.
TRL 9 Actual Technology qualified through successful mission operations.

Taken from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /61913.htm

If one really was at TRL1 vs TRL 6 then it would be unconscionable to pick the less mature over the other, but I don’t see how one could make that claim.

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:
Ron5 wrote:@RunningS

Judging by your emotional reaction I assume you are in someway connected to the Ajax program.
By the same line of thought, you would think many detractors of the AJAX programme had lost their wives to a mythical man of Greece. There's a lot of armchair procurement managers that seem to forget they only know what's in the public domain, but somehow that makes them an authority.
Ron5 wrote: The development & manufacturing contract which is by far the most valuable, was for 3.5 billion pounds and first production deliveries in 2017. Care to share the latest cost estimate and delivery date for the Ajax production scout variant?
Development contract £500m
Production Contract £3.5Bn
Support and On-shoring Contract £390m

It's not the size of the contract that dictates the latest agreement.
Ron5 wrote: I was under the impression Rheinmetall was manufacturing the turrets.
AJAX, yes. WCSP, no.
Ron5 wrote: Not Bae. Just some guy on twitter with decades of armor experience from serving in the BA.
That explains it then. I've never met an armour specialist that know much about systems.
Ron5 wrote: But seeing the GD/LM turret only existed on PowerPoint and Bae were trialling their turret, I'd be very comfortable in asserting the Bae product was very much more technically ready.
That's like saying because you've built a Ford Fiesta you know more than the McLaren F1 team.
Ron5 wrote:
My point was that prior to the competition, Bae flew in experts and actually built a prototype turret and vehicle. GD/LM spent their time creating PowerPoint slides. It's as if GD/LM didn't really expect to win the contract and was putting in the minimum effort.
Because that's all you know. And to be frank, I'm not sure you know a lot about the topic.
Ron5 wrote: I think you may have forgotten that the Bae bid was based on CV90. Which is pretty much my whole point. Bae had a real prototype based on a real vehicle with considerable operational and export success, and real experience in building more. GD/LM had none of that. Zilch.
GD proposed built on ASCOD built by GDLS Spain. BAE proposed based on BAE Sweden design. How many guys in BAE UK had manufactured one before?

You're drawing some strange differences for what was 2 very similar proposals. Was politics part of the final decision? Almost certainly. But this idea that BAE was miles ahead isn't even supported by people that were on the project :crazy:
Your contract numbers add up to 4.4 billion. the NAO latest estimate is about 5.5 billion. That 1.1 billion overrun would buy quite a lot of urgently required Army kit don't you think?

The modified CV90, was to be built in Sweden by the experienced team there.

And clearly that's not the only things you do not know thanks to your rather pathetic attempts to counter my points. Your repeated claims to know all are not matched by the facts you put in your comments. Not in the slightest.

And to repeat my major point which seems to be escaping you: there is ample reason and evidence to believe that if the MoD had selected Bae, the resulting family of vehicles would already be in service at a considerably lower price leaving funds available for other army urgent needs.

Yes, the Bae entry might have been only 95% as good as Ajax (which I believe will turn out to be magnificent) but delivered a lot earlier and a lot cheaper. Oh and a lot more exportable. No country in the world is going to buy any Ajax variant. We're even told the British Army advised Australia not to select Ajax. But a British Army standard CV90, you bet there would be exports. Not the least to existing CV90 customers.

P.S. thanks for the laugh comparing Ajax to a Formula 1 car. Jeesh. How old is the Ajax chassis design again?????

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:We're even told the British Army advised Australia not to select Ajax. But a British Army standard CV90, you bet there would be exports.
And you here you have it, the epitome of what's wrong with this forum. A Twitter rumour is regurgitated as fact, and to top it off an unfounded statement of fact for future sales. Bravo.

You also don't understand the NAO scope that is beyond just the GDUK contract. It includes all the CT40 cannons MOD procure (which oddly BAE have never put in their own platform, despite being a JV and manufacturing the ammunition) and MOD facility costs (for the extensive training provision that has been put in place), or for any which way the MOD has revised their scope over the years. So your suggestion of over-runs is based on a figure you've entirely misunderstood.

You also lambast GDUK for "lying" about UK content, whilst admitting the BAE solution could use an experienced workforce based abroad. Again, inconsistent and peculiar.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:the epitome of what's wrong with this forum
Yes, you can say that but also one can turn it around, as facts (and agendas) get quickly cross-checked
- about which I am v glad about as half of what I write is from memory, rather than thousands of bookmarks and therefore cannot always be 100% accurate
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Ron5 wrote: We're even told the British Army advised Australia not to select Ajax
So no hearsay there then.

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:
Ron5 wrote:We're even told the British Army advised Australia not to select Ajax. But a British Army standard CV90, you bet there would be exports.
And you here you have it, the epitome of what's wrong with this forum. A Twitter rumour is regurgitated as fact, and to top it off an unfounded statement of fact for future sales. Bravo.

You also don't understand the NAO scope that is beyond just the GDUK contract. It includes all the CT40 cannons MOD procure (which oddly BAE have never put in their own platform, despite being a JV and manufacturing the ammunition) and MOD facility costs (for the extensive training provision that has been put in place), or for any which way the MOD has revised their scope over the years. So your suggestion of over-runs is based on a figure you've entirely misunderstood.

You also lambast GDUK for "lying" about UK content, whilst admitting the BAE solution could use an experienced workforce based abroad. Again, inconsistent and peculiar.
Your behavior fits the profile of a phony (words chosen carefully). You robustly deny facts and opinions of others yet offer nothing in return that would give you any more credibility than a casual internet warrior. Your few and infrequent "facts" like contract details can easily be found on the internet.

You're persistent in dragging the discussion away from my point that a CV90 based solution would have been quicker, cheaper and more exportable. I'll follow your red herrings one last time then I'm done with this.

I didn't state that Australian story was fact. The originating twitter user is a professional Australian journalist with an international reputation so carries some weight. You on the other hand have none.

The CT40 would be added to the list of supported CV90 weapons in a heartbeat if there were any customer interest. There isn't.

The president of GDUK on the day their win was announced, stated that the Ajax vehicle would be British to its bootstraps and would create/sustain 10,600 UK jobs. Lies.

The MoD requirement placed absolutely no obligation on the bidders to build their vehicles in the UK. The requirements stressed low cost and low risk. Bae judged that the lowest risk and lowest cost approach was to assemble their offering on the hot Swedish production line. After it became clear that a key MoD differentiator was in fact UK content, Bae offered to build the vehicles in the UK at the same price. That offer was rejected and thousands of Bae experienced UK workers were laid off.

I'm done. Ajax has proven to be a badly run program that is many years late and over budget. I believe, as others more expert than myself, that a Bae offering would have been cheaper and in service by now. I respect your opinion is different but it doesn't appear to have any additional credibility than mine.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote: Your behavior fits the profile of a phony (words chosen carefully). You robustly deny facts and opinions of others yet offer nothing in return that would give you any more credibility than a casual internet warrior. Your few and infrequent "facts" like contract details can easily be found on the internet.
You realise how idiotic it would be for anyone that knew anything that wasn't already in the public domain to share it on a web domain to gain kudos from Ron5? :lol:
Ron5 wrote: I didn't state that Australian story was fact. The originating twitter user is a professional Australian journalist with an international reputation so carries some weight. You on the other hand have none.
Exactly, I don't pay my bills by filling my twitter feed with unverified information. Remind me what I have to gain?
Ron5 wrote: The CT40 would be added to the list of supported CV90 weapons in a heartbeat if there were any customer interest. There isn't.
Of course it would, but BAE systems have no incentive to sell a weapon system they are 50% owner of... Perhaps because they haven't designed a magazine for it...
Ron5 wrote: The president of GDUK on the day their win was announced, stated that the Ajax vehicle would be British to its bootstraps and would create/sustain 10,600 UK jobs. Lies.
On the day the Demo contract was announced yes. Then the programme was estimated at >1500 vehicles and about 10 variants in future business. Subsequently the MOD re-scoped the programme, so that when the 589 order was placed it was a shadow of the earlier CVR(T) replacement programme it was meant to be.

That said, the tier 1 supplier list in the UK is quite comprehensive and has developed several products within the electronic architecture that could be used throughout the British army fleet, not just the Thales sights that RLS propose for CR2 LEP.
Ron5 wrote: That offer was rejected and thousands of Bae experienced UK workers were laid off.
Great rant but your numbers are grotesquely wrong, again. BAE had already laid off the majority of its workforce due to lack of business. The loss of the Scout and Warrior contracts was only the last mail in what was already a bloated and unsustainable business model.

Job losses are regrettable, however I know man ex-BAE engineers found work very quickly in GD and LM.
Ron5 wrote: I'm done. Ajax has proven to be a badly run program that is many years late and over budget. I believe, as others more expert than myself, that a Bae offering would have been cheaper and in service by now. I respect your opinion is different but it doesn't appear to have any additional credibility than mine.
You need to read the NAO report 2019 again :lol:

AJAX - Expected Cost At Approval £5,479m. Expected Cost £5,454m

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by military »

Julian Nettlefold, the editor of Battlespace magazine, has gone on the record with some of the problems with Ajax and Warrior. I placed the Warrior quotes in the Warrior thread here on the site.
Yes and no. The choice of the CT40 canon as GFE equipment on both vehicles is the major cause of problems on Warrior and Ajax. 40mm was chosen by the Army in the first instance as they saw their tank capability disappearing and 40mm was seen as a way of staying in the game. Only France has chosen CT40 given the Joint UK/Franco programme. It has costs over £50 million to get to where it is now but problems still persist:
1. Warrior – Power problems, turret redesign.

2. Ajax – the turret cannot withstand the recoil and wobbles making target acquisition
difficult


ASCOD should never have been chosen as the base vehicle for Ajax as both the Spanish and Austrian governments had rejected the vehicle. GDUKLS has had huge build standard problems with the hulls being imported from Spain. There is little or no UK content as the Specification is built around the ASCOD Spanish vehicle.

In addition GDELS is finding it had to retain the right level and capability of staff at its Welsh facility.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/

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 »

military wrote:Julian Nettlefold, the editor of Battlespace magazine, has gone on the record with some of the problems with Ajax and Warrior. I
He’s very forthright with his statements. I wonder how he knows these things.
It’s certainly the first I’ve heard about the Pizzaro and Ulan being rejected by Spain and Austria respectively. The spanish cut their second batch short, according to Wiki, perhaps that’s what he means?

His comments on Challenger, particularly what he thinks is included in the LEP, seems a little off compared to my understanding.

I might be misreading, but is he saying that steel was welded to aluminium on the Warrior? I’m no authority on it, but I understand that would be tricky at best.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

military wrote:Julian Nettlefold, the editor of Battlespace magazine, has gone on the record with some of the problems with Ajax and Warrior. I placed the Warrior quotes in the Warrior thread here on the site.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/
Thank you for that, it was a good laugh!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by bobp »

military wrote:2. Ajax – the turret cannot withstand the recoil and wobbles making target acquisition
difficult
Major problems then with the Turret and Hull.

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by military »

mr.fred wrote:He’s very forthright with his statements. I wonder how he knows these things.
It’s certainly the first I’ve heard about the Pizzaro and Ulan being rejected by Spain and Austria respectively. The spanish cut their second batch short, according to Wiki, perhaps that’s what he means?
That is one interpretation but I also found the comment puzzling.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

At ATDU. Don't remember seeing the steps before. Nice.

Image

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Worth a read for the armchair generals. Perhaps Julian Nettlefold might even read it, or perhaps he'll just keep making stuff up :crazy:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/4 ... -evidence/

CMOR
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by CMOR »

"Furthermore, there remains some outstanding characterisation issues with aspects of the CT40 cannon performance."

I read the GD submission a couple of times and noticed that it remained very shy on the exact question of so few (no?) turreted Ajax variants have been accepted into service (Ares only, last I checked), but is this a hint?

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:Worth a read for the armchair generals. Perhaps Julian Nettlefold might even read it, or perhaps he'll just keep making stuff up :crazy:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/4 ... -evidence/
Thanks. I learned a bit reading the company inputs. The others, not so much.

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 »

Of those submissions, I’d recommend

8, 11, and 13 as the involved company perspectives
3, 5 and 6 are interesting as context, but there’s not much specifics, although 3 is a nice historical view of “how we got here”
7 is interesting as a point of view from someone involved reporting as a private individual.
12 is a bit more of a sales pitch, but there’s some interesting bits as well.

Post Reply