They've been less than clear about long-term plans for the Styker BCTs or what a Stryker replacement might look like, for now this program is stated to be focused on replacing Bradley. My feeling is that Stryker replacement is going to be a ways off mainly due to the budget being tied up in other priorities.Lord Jim wrote:Just covering my 6 'O' Clock there. Thanks for the info. Is the OMFV also aimed at re equipping the Stryker Brigades or are the US Army looking at creating a new style of "Cavalry" units as well as replacing the M2/M3?
Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
-
- Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
As you say, it is not in the Big 6 and even those, like long-range precision fires are the battle ground as for funds: is something to be got ready by 2023 or by 2027... quite a differenceBlackstone wrote:My feeling is that Stryker replacement is going to be a ways off mainly due to the budget being tied up in other priorities
- what would/ could it mean for BA formations with Ajax?
- the long-barrel field gun (50+ km range) is one thing; also the new GMLRS is meant to give twice the range for half the price... a good deal?
- with these sorts of things at the bde level, it could make sense that the next level down only has "spotter" vehicles
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 89
- Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The Ajax-based GDLS entry for Mobile Protected Firepower, in miniature
Between the 105mm and Ajax DNA, there's a lot of potential here if the UK is interested in a small buy of MPF (or-like) vehicles.
Between the 105mm and Ajax DNA, there's a lot of potential here if the UK is interested in a small buy of MPF (or-like) vehicles.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
I think there is a common misunderstanding here.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Would a 105mm or 120mm be able to be fitted to an Ajax chassis though ? Would a light / medium tank like be able to be based on the Ajax to give that commonality ?Ron5 wrote:I think there is a common misunderstanding here.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
I cannot see why not, the Swedes did it with the CV-90. There is usually a way if you throw enough money at something and have the will to actually do it. However unless we decide to actually create a formation like the planned US Army Infantry Combat Brigades I cannot see us going down this route.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.Jake1992 wrote:Would a 105mm or 120mm be able to be fitted to an Ajax chassis though ? Would a light / medium tank like be able to be based on the Ajax to give that commonality ?Ron5 wrote:I think there is a common misunderstanding here.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Oh yes I remember reading that, does anyone know if large changes would need to be made like with the concept above or could we retain pretty much the whole base platform of Ajax ?RunningStrong wrote:The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.Jake1992 wrote:Would a 105mm or 120mm be able to be fitted to an Ajax chassis though ? Would a light / medium tank like be able to be based on the Ajax to give that commonality ?Ron5 wrote:I think there is a common misunderstanding here.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The turret would probably fit but there would need to be fairly major changes to the interior of the Ajax hull for this role for things such as ammunition stowage. It might also require a auxiliary power supply to power all the electronics when the main engine is off, or at least a large one if one is already fitted.
By the way is that a three man turret on the MPF or is it using an auto loader, otherwise the commander is also acting as the loader, far form ideal.
By the way is that a three man turret on the MPF or is it using an auto loader, otherwise the commander is also acting as the loader, far form ideal.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
I believe the direct fires Ajax variant was to have a longer chassis with an extra set of road wheels. It was to have a 105mm or 120mm gun.Jake1992 wrote:Oh yes I remember reading that, does anyone know if large changes would need to be made like with the concept above or could we retain pretty much the whole base platform of Ajax ?RunningStrong wrote:The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.Jake1992 wrote:Would a 105mm or 120mm be able to be fitted to an Ajax chassis though ? Would a light / medium tank like be able to be based on the Ajax to give that commonality ?Ron5 wrote:I think there is a common misunderstanding here.
GD originally said an Ajax chassis was used in the first mock up that was to gauge army interest in the concept. Use of an existing chassis obviously saved a bunch of time. Other components were begged, borrowed and stolen from existing vehicles.
After securing that interest, GD has forged ahead with their second iteration that has had a lot more development. In particular, there is now a new chassis and drive arrangement. Very little if anything is left from Ajax.
This is not an additional Ajax variant but a development model that's heading toward a brand new vehicle.
Then there's low recoil 120mm guns like that featured in the hitfact turret that was recently shown mounted on an AMV XP. That would probably not need a beefed up chassis.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
There is now the introduction of tracked vehicles with non steel tracks with composite rubber this has claims of reduced weight with either better belly armour or increased range ,but interestingly better vibrarion protection for crew ,in Australia the armed forces amongst some employers are under Comcare that has a code of practice for vibration that sets out responsibilities for employers to reduce vibrations ,I raise this as perhaps members here would know of similar legislation having influence on design or purchase of such
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The UK Health and Safety executive sets exposure limits of intensity and duration for vibration.seaspear wrote:There is now the introduction of tracked vehicles with non steel tracks with composite rubber this has claims of reduced weight with either better belly armour or increased range ,but interestingly better vibrarion protection for crew ,in Australia the armed forces amongst some employers are under Comcare that has a code of practice for vibration that sets out responsibilities for employers to reduce vibrations ,I raise this as perhaps members here would know of similar legislation having influence on design or purchase of such
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
https://www.comcare.gov.au/preventing/h ... /vibration
I can understand duration of exposure to risk but there is an obligation to reduce if not eliminate that risk ,to place a time limit on such would not ,generally the obligation is to identify and and assess such risk before taking action .
If there is a document that sets out such risks with Ajax vehicles that would be of interest ,that would be the obligation to assess for such risks if under U.K legislation but if not .
I can understand duration of exposure to risk but there is an obligation to reduce if not eliminate that risk ,to place a time limit on such would not ,generally the obligation is to identify and and assess such risk before taking action .
If there is a document that sets out such risks with Ajax vehicles that would be of interest ,that would be the obligation to assess for such risks if under U.K legislation but if not .
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The obligation would be to comply with the legal standards. Historically, the MOD had crown immunity and would only be interested in maintaining operational effectiveness, but this is no longer the case and the MOD is responsible for long term injuries like white finger etc.seaspear wrote:https://www.comcare.gov.au/preventing/h ... /vibration
I can understand duration of exposure to risk but there is an obligation to reduce if not eliminate that risk ,to place a time limit on such would not ,generally the obligation is to identify and and assess such risk before taking action .
If there is a document that sets out such risks with Ajax vehicles that would be of interest ,that would be the obligation to assess for such risks if under U.K legislation but if not .
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
If composite tracks are shown to reduce if not eliminate vibration should then all tracked vehicles be so equiped to meet occupational health and safety requirements ?
Are there also controls of vibration in tanks to mitigate such risk to crew ?
Are there also controls of vibration in tanks to mitigate such risk to crew ?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
If they already meet occupational standards, why change? It'll cost money and there may be maintenance and other performance implications.seaspear wrote:If composite tracks are shown to reduce if not eliminate vibration should then all tracked vehicles be so equiped to meet occupational health and safety requirements ?
Are there also controls of vibration in tanks to mitigate such risk to crew ?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/be ... ks/#page-1
The above article provides some pros and and cons of composite tracks ,I include this to show there are operational benefits of composite tracks , I am not suggesting change for changes sake but if there is also a legal requirement to provide a safe workplace follow it in design ,if there is a legal exemption in providing safety by design or discovery I would be interested in reading this
The above article provides some pros and and cons of composite tracks ,I include this to show there are operational benefits of composite tracks , I am not suggesting change for changes sake but if there is also a legal requirement to provide a safe workplace follow it in design ,if there is a legal exemption in providing safety by design or discovery I would be interested in reading this
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
You're missing the point. If a metalled track is within the legal limits, there's no justification to change.seaspear wrote:https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/be ... ks/#page-1
The above article provides some pros and and cons of composite tracks ,I include this to show there are operational benefits of composite tracks , I am not suggesting change for changes sake but if there is also a legal requirement to provide a safe workplace follow it in design ,if there is a legal exemption in providing safety by design or discovery I would be interested in reading this
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The legislation I am referring to requires the examination of the tasks for vibration , this would include the workplace in this instance the vehicles for whole of body vibration and this result would be shared with all concerned ,There is also a duty of care on the designer and supplier of such vehicles to identify and eliminate or reduce such risks ,
It would be interesting to find out if the Ajax can have composite tracks fitted as there appears to be benefits for the crew and for its operations
It would be interesting to find out if the Ajax can have composite tracks fitted as there appears to be benefits for the crew and for its operations
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
You will have a hard time finding technical data in the public domain.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Often at trade shows the sales people are more than happy to spruik ,asking them about the interior ergonomics could be interesting ,maybe Xavier and Gabrielle could be asked nicely to do this ,
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
To what end? I wouldn't think trying to sell via this forum will get you far...seaspear wrote:Often at trade shows the sales people are more than happy to spruik ,asking them about the interior ergonomics could be interesting ,maybe Xavier and Gabrielle could be asked nicely to do this ,
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5626
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Lots of talk about 105 and 120 mm but could 76mm with Vulcano guided rounds be made to workRunningStrong wrote:The turret ring on Ajax was sized for a larger weapon than 40mm as direct fire was part of the original concept family.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
P
Probably, but why?Tempest414 wrote:
Lots of talk about 105 and 120 mm but could 76mm with Vulcano guided rounds be made to work