Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Posted: 12 Sep 2019, 19:16
Jane's report that Ares variant has been shown with Pearson's Engineering bridge fitted. Could be something the British Army procure?
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
+Caribbean wrote: one "Formation Reconnaissance and Overwatch", with fewer "dismounts" (39 ordered).
... Command and control of a UAV that is (agreed: inaccurate use of a std term)RunningStrong wrote:it also says the 4 seater version ARES is fitted for Command and Control.
Before the further order batches were cut, and the main worry was to get the numbers of Ajax match the 5 rgmnts' needs, there were 30-36 Warrior conversions in plans to provide gap crossing for medium formations, without needing to send a chally version alongRunningStrong wrote:Ares variant has been shown with Pearson's Engineering bridge fitted. Could be something the British Army procure?
My dream on it is that in the end the UK, US, AUS and CAN would all choose a variant of Ajax. Looks like the US could but looks like AUS won’t now, such a shame.RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... mpetition/
GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.
... no crossing under fire, then?Lord Jim wrote: lorry launched bridging systems rather then use a version of Ajax or Boxer for the role. The kit is already in service
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... 3-decisionJake1992 wrote:My dream on it is that in the end the UK, US, AUS and CAN would all choose a variant of Ajax. Looks like the US could but looks like AUS won’t now, such a shame.RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... mpetition/
GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.
To be honest I never read why it wasn’t chosen just saw the final 2 listed and that Ajax wasn’t one of them. It would be interesting to know what they meant by this.seaspear wrote:https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... 3-decisionJake1992 wrote:My dream on it is that in the end the UK, US, AUS and CAN would all choose a variant of Ajax. Looks like the US could but looks like AUS won’t now, such a shame.RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... mpetition/
GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.
Is there any explanation as to what the article meant by not fit for purpose ? Were the requirements of Land 400 unable to be met by Ajax?
Worth noting it is a completely different turret to the one the UK will have. I heard differently on the grapevine, supposedly GD's lack of on-shore facility was the killer blow.Ron5 wrote:I read somewhere that the Australian army thought the the turret offered on the ajax was a piece of shit. That's an exact quote.
.
Is it the same as AUS is putting on their Boxers ? If not why surely that would of been the most sensible choice followed by the CT40 IMO.RunningStrong wrote:Worth noting it is a completely different turret to the one the UK will have. I heard differently on the grapevine, supposedly GD's lack of on-shore facility was the killer blow.Ron5 wrote:I read somewhere that the Australian army thought the the turret offered on the ajax was a piece of shit. That's an exact quote.
.
The latest DTR magazine offers a little bit more on this claiming that in addition to a disappointing turret, there wasn't enough growth margin for the Australian requirement either.Ron5 wrote:I read somewhere that the Australian army thought the the turret offered on the ajax was a piece of shit. That's an exact quote.
No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.Jake1992 wrote:
Is it the same as AUS is putting on their Boxers ? If not why surely that would of been the most sensible choice followed by the CT40 IMO.
This is one area I don’t get when righting up whats required why couldn’t AUS simply say they have to have the same turret as their Boxer. Yes this would in a way give Rheinmetall the edge but surely this way they wouldn’t mind their competitors using the turret as they’d be guarantied work what ever come.mr.fred wrote:No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.Jake1992 wrote:
Is it the same as AUS is putting on their Boxers ? If not why surely that would of been the most sensible choice followed by the CT40 IMO.
Apparently the requirement specified that the weapon system uses the same 30x173mm ammunition as that used by the Boxer, so that puts the CT40 out as well.
Struth no. If RLS know they have an advantage because they've already won one bid and there's a commonality advantage, why would they willingly give away that advantage?Jake1992 wrote:This is one area I don’t get when righting up whats required why couldn’t AUS simply say they have to have the same turret as their Boxer. Yes this would in a way give Rheinmetall the edge but surely this way they wouldn’t mind their competitors using the turret as they’d be guarantied work what ever come.mr.fred wrote:No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.Jake1992 wrote:
Is it the same as AUS is putting on their Boxers ? If not why surely that would of been the most sensible choice followed by the CT40 IMO.
Apparently the requirement specified that the weapon system uses the same 30x173mm ammunition as that used by the Boxer, so that puts the CT40 out as well.
The amount of Ajax-ness in the Griffin family may be decreasing a bit compared to the original concept, I'm wondering if the GDLS team would have fared better in Oz if they had embraced more development on the vehicle.Jake1992 wrote:My dream on it is that in the end the UK, US, AUS and CAN would all choose a variant of Ajax. Looks like the US could but looks like AUS won’t now, such a shame.RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... mpetition/
GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.
Updating this with new information from GDLS via Breaking Defense.Blackstone wrote:The amount of Ajax-ness in the Griffin family may be decreasing a bit compared to the original concept, I'm wondering if the GDLS team would have fared better in Oz if they had embraced more development on the vehicle.Jake1992 wrote:My dream on it is that in the end the UK, US, AUS and CAN would all choose a variant of Ajax. Looks like the US could but looks like AUS won’t now, such a shame.RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... mpetition/
GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.
Assuming General Dynamics does win the production contract in 2023, what will their vehicle look like? It will not resemble the Griffin III concept vehicle that vied with the Lynx on the floor of last year’s Association of the US Army mega-conference, company officials told me. In fact, they said, the GD OMFV shares no major components with the ASCOD/Ajax lineage of combat vehicles, widely used in Europe, on whose proven chassis and automotive systems GD build its Griffin series, including its offering for the Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower light tank.
“The suspension is a totally new design. The engine and transmission are totally different. Drive train is different. Exhaust placement is different,” Keith Barclay, director of global strategy for General Dynamics Land Systems, said in an interview. (The core of the engine is the same as MPF, but not the configuration, cooling, or transmission).
That said, Barclay went on, this is not new unproven tech. “These are very high Technological Readiness Level (TRL) components that have been through quite a bit of testing, and we’ve just packaged them and designed them… into a new configuration.” (Of course, “quite a bit of testing” isn’t the same as actually being deployed on hundreds of vehicles in Spanish, Austrian, and — soon — British service, as was the case for many of the Griffin’s components). While the GD OMFV’s components aren’t the same as those on the ASCOD/Ajax/Griffin series, they do build on that experience, Barclay said, as well as on decades of General Dynamics R&D for the cancelled FCS and GCV programs.
The requirements as stated publicly do not explicitly call for an off-the-shelf solution. The very fast timeline and stated desire for non-developmental solutions seemed to lean that way, but not the requirements.Lord Jim wrote:Wasn't the whole OMFV supposed to be based on a proven existing platform? It is a bit like GM trying to get SAAB to base there last car on an existing GM Vauxhall/Opel design with minimum changes yet they went ahead and changes over 90% of the platform. So how much is actually proven and in service with GDLS's proposal then?
The Army’s preliminary basic operational requirements for the OMFV include the following:
Optionally manned. It must have the ability to conduct remotely controlled
operations while the crew is off-platform.6
Capacity. It should eventually operate with no more than two crewmen and
possess sufficient volume under armor to carry at least six soldiers.
Transportability. Two OMFVs should be transportable by one C-17 and be
ready for combat within 15 minutes.
Dense urban terrain operations and mobility. Platforms should include the
ability to super elevate weapons and simultaneously engage threats using main
gun and an independent weapons system.
Protection. It must possess requisite protection to survive on the contemporary
and future battlefield.
Growth. It should possess sufficient size, weight, architecture, power, and
cooling for automotive and electrical purposes to meet all platform needs and
allow for preplanned product improvements.
Lethality. It should apply immediate, precise, and decisively lethal extended
range medium-caliber, directed energy, and missile fires in day/night/all-weather
conditions, while moving and/or stationary against moving and/or stationary
targets. The platform should allow for mounted, dismount, and unmanned system
target handover.
Embedded platform training. It should have embedded training systems that
have interoperability with the Synthetic Training Environment.
Sustainability. Industry should demonstrate innovations that achieve
breakthroughs in power generation and management to obtain increased
operational range and fuel efficiency, increased silent watch, part and component
reliability, and significantly reduced sustainment burden.
I would understand such a move. However, unless/until more information rules it out, I think GDLS' OMFV is still relevant discussing future growth/upgrades of the Ajax family.Maybe this should now move to the USA thread?