UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Member
Posts: 690
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 12 Jul 2019, 14:16

If you have designed your stowage racks to use the same fixings as your seats then you can just take the racks out and replace with seats.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 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?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Sep 2019, 04:46

Caribbean wrote: one "Formation Reconnaissance and Overwatch", with fewer "dismounts" (39 ordered).

+
RunningStrong wrote:it also says the 4 seater version ARES is fitted for Command and Control.

... Command and control of a UAV that is (agreed: inaccurate use of a std term)

Interesting that the split in the overall order went slightly down for Joint Fires (FV524 sprung back to life?); can't remember if this version (with 39 ordered) was the beneficiary, as the contracted total has not, to my knowledge, moved.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Sep 2019, 04:51

RunningStrong wrote:Ares variant has been shown with Pearson's Engineering bridge fitted. Could be something the British Army procure?

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 along
- that same kit has been sold to Indonesia and Malesia, fitted on top of a lighter carrier (yonks ago)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Sep 2019, 00:59

The Strike Brigades are probably going to rely on the lorry launched bridging systems rather then use a version of Ajax or Boxer for the role. The kit is already in service.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2470
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 04 Oct 2019, 19:53

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.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Oct 2019, 20:09

RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.


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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Oct 2019, 21:27

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
... no crossing under fire, then?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1335
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby seaspear » 04 Oct 2019, 21:48

Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.


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.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... 3-decision
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?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Jake1992 » 04 Oct 2019, 22:01

seaspear wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.


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.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/ne ... 3-decision
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?


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.

To me with the UK choosing Boxer it would of made sense for AUS to chose Ajax to have that commonality with a close ally, also with Ajax on the short list for the US it may have meant 3 very close allies having commonality over their tracker medium armour.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 05 Oct 2019, 03:05

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.

This article said that it didn't carry enough troops. I think the aussies would like 8.

I also read that the south korean vehicle was deemed to be favorite.

Surprised the cv90 was too expensive, i would have guessed it was the cheapest except for the korean vehicle.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10669
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Oct 2019, 07:13

Commonality, configurability and in-country manuf./ logs chain? As in
"Hanwha has undertaken to establish a self-reliant manufacturing base at Geelong for the Redback. This facility would also be used to manufacture the company’s K9 155mm self-propelled howitzer (SPH) that is believed to be under consideration for a sole-source acquisition of 30 SPH for the recently-revived and renamed Land 8116 Protected Mobility Fires Requirement.

In welcoming the Lynx’ shortlisting, Rheinmetall stressed the type’s significant commonality with Boxer and the vehicles’ modularity, allowing the reconfiguration of both fleets for emergent operational needs."
- commonality (the need for :!: ) goes beyond the 'Boxer' turret as is pointed out in comments to the article:
" As it stands there are already too many small cannon rounds planned: 20mm, 25mm, 30mm short for helicopter use, 30mm long to the Boxer, 40mm long to the new OPV's, plus what ever ends up on the T26. The situation is a shambles now. "

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Oct 2019, 13:22

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.
.

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.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Jake1992 » 05 Oct 2019, 14:31

RunningStrong wrote:
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.
.

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.


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.

Surely GD could of came to an agreement with a builder in AUS if they won, it’d be unrealistic for every bidder to have their own build facility in every country they bid in.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 05 Oct 2019, 14:35

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.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 690
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 05 Oct 2019, 15:29

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.

No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.
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.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1397
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Jake1992 » 05 Oct 2019, 15:51

mr.fred wrote:
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.

No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.
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.


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.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 232
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Oct 2019, 18:00

Jake1992 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
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.

No. Rheinmetall is offering their IFV, the KF41, with that turret. Unlikely they’d supply that to a competitors well.
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.


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.

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?

Then they'd have to share significant intellectual property and manufacturing work in a competition that they're confident of winning?

It's naive suggestions like that which is why FRES UV died even though GD had already won it.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 690
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 05 Oct 2019, 18:17

Plus, if you mandate the RLS turret, why would they price it competively?

Look at the Warrior programme. When they mandated just a cannon, half of the companies pulled out.

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Location: United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Blackstone » 06 Oct 2019, 16:51

Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.


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.

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.

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Location: United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Blackstone » 08 Oct 2019, 04:18

Blackstone wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

GDLS remains the only horse in the race for the Bradley replacement, with Griffin/ASCOD/Ajax. Could be seeing a US/UK shared hull.


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.

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.

Updating this with new information from GDLS via Breaking Defense.
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.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 08 Oct 2019, 07:19

I think this photo shows the new chassis & drive arrangement in the light tank Griffin variant...

Image

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 722
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 08 Oct 2019, 11:36

^ Love the look of that light tank proposal. Kinda reminds me of the M18 Hellcat for some reason.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3399
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Oct 2019, 14:05

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? Maybe this should now move to the USA thread?

Blackstone
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 13 Aug 2019, 05:00
Location: United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Blackstone » 08 Oct 2019, 18:47

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 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.
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.


Maybe this should now move to the USA thread?

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.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: stuartiannaylor and 6 guests