Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:And where were all those hulls manufactured? Not in the UK and so those 1000s of jobs never materialised. If that was a key factor in GD winning over BAe then surely GD should have been challenged on this.
GDUK and BAE initially bid for a demonstration contract, which GDUK then won. GDUK then sat down with MOD in 2015 for a production contract, which initially included very limited UK work because that's what MOD were prepared to pay for. That contract was then revised with EIISS which brought in the support contract and the Merthyr Tydfil factory.

If MOD/UK Plc want companies to create jobs in the UK, build facilities then that has to be stipulated in the price. Otherwise business will do what business does, and seek to maximise profits at delivery.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Fair enough. I was under the impression that the fact that BAe initially made a bid that has little or no UK manufacturing included whilst GD's did and that was one of the reasons along with what appears to be a "Anyone but BAe", mentality within the MoD at the time.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:So F35 doesn't follow MOD procurement rules? Neither does CR3? Or MIV?
RunningStrong wrote:At no point have I said there are no issues with AJAX. What I've pointed out repeatedly is that firstly you have repeatedly assumed all issues lay at GD's feet, and secondly you've falsely connected different issues and wrongly identified root-cause.

And yet again proving you can't comprehend simple English (isn't that normally covered at SNCO level?).
Resorting to whatabout-isms and personal attacks doesn't say much about the validity of you arguments does it?

By the way, the minister has confirmed the excessive level of vibration in the vehicles that GD claims they did not experience. So enough of the out late clubbing, and live fire exercises, nonsense.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... jax-issues

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:And where were all those hulls manufactured? Not in the UK and so those 1000s of jobs never materialised. If that was a key factor in GD winning over BAe then surely GD should have been challenged on this.
"British to its bootstraps" was the quote from head of GD. And it was stated as a key reason the GD bid was accepted even though it was not part of the requirement. Although, of course, the major reason actually was ABB.
Lord Jim wrote:The Army's best bet maybe to maintain the number of vehicles required but rejig the variants purchased, possibly reintroducing some or all of the variants that were in the cancelled third batch. If the Mod and GD really work together this maybe an option that gets both out of jail. Will extra money be needed?
If the MoD has to pay for the fixes, I suspect the Treasury's stance will be to take fewer vehicles keeping the overall costs the same i.e. the same approach that left the UK with 6 T45 out of 12.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would seem like good news for Ajax that there is not (in the current plans) a joint fires version of the Boxer; just a small number of observation posts
I don't think that is correct.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Fair enough. I was under the impression that the fact that BAe initially made a bid that has little or no UK manufacturing included whilst GD's did and that was one of the reasons along with what appears to be a "Anyone but BAe", mentality within the MoD at the time.
You are correct Jim.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:So F35 doesn't follow MOD procurement rules? Neither does CR3? Or MIV?
RunningStrong wrote:At no point have I said there are no issues with AJAX. What I've pointed out repeatedly is that firstly you have repeatedly assumed all issues lay at GD's feet, and secondly you've falsely connected different issues and wrongly identified root-cause.

And yet again proving you can't comprehend simple English (isn't that normally covered at SNCO level?).
Resorting to whatabout-isms and personal attacks doesn't say much about the validity of you arguments does it?

By the way, the minister has confirmed the excessive level of vibration in the vehicles that GD claims they did not experience. So enough of the out late clubbing, and live fire exercises, nonsense.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... jax-issues
There's no whataboutsism, you've made a claim that's patently false and I've provided several examples that prove that to be the case. You continue to make multiple false claims through misinterpretation and without reference.

Where did GD deny excess vibrations? And what have vibrations got to do with clubbing and live fire? Vibration and noise are entirely separate elements of health and safety legislation and management.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:And where were all those hulls manufactured? Not in the UK and so those 1000s of jobs never materialised. If that was a key factor in GD winning over BAe then surely GD should have been challenged on this.
"British to its bootstraps" was the quote from head of GD. And it was stated as a key reason the GD bid was accepted even though it was not part of the requirement. Although, of course, the major reason actually was ABB..
It's a nice soundbite, but given that MOD were requiring a French made gun, a Norwegian remote weapon system, based on a Spanish/Austrian vehicle with a German-sourced turret, I think MOD knew what they were getting into from Day 1, even if many others seem a bit confused.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Ajax spending so far. Over 3 billion and IOC not yet in sight. Yay.

Image

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:And what have vibrations got to do with clubbing and live fire?
RunningStrong wrote:It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex
You tell me.

In fact, don't. I'm tired of the Baghad Bob routine. Just let us know if and when the vehicles will be fixed.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would seem like good news for Ajax that there is not (in the current plans) a joint fires version of the Boxer; just a small number of observation posts
I don't think that is correct.
RunningStrong wrote:false claims (...) without reference.
C'on Ron, if you don't think it is correct,
either A. give us the 'correct' answer,
or B. give us a reference that backs up your thinking of 'not correct'

As you may detect, the Boolean logic in the above still :D leaves (you 8-) ) some wiggle room
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)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote: I'm tired of the Baghad Bob routine.
Any relation to T26 Bob?? :lolno: :lol:

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:And what have vibrations got to do with clubbing and live fire?
RunningStrong wrote:It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex
You tell me.

In fact, don't. I'm tired of the Baghad Bob routine. Just let us know if and when the vehicles will be fixed.
Thus confirming you really don't know the difference between sound and vibration exposure. Difficult to have a coherent conversation built on foundations of sand.

And a falsely attributed quote. Bravo!
Tempest414 wrote:
It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.
Clubbing? Have you been outside recently? ;)

All personnel would be subject to an annual hearing test, but you're right that there will be no record of every instance they were exposed to loud noises since.

It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex
@RS this was your post ...so no false attribution.

Now this really is the last time I reply to your shit.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:All personnel who were at risk of exposure have had their hearing tested, and a small number of personnel are receiving ongoing medical attention.
Clubbing? Have you been outside recently? ;)

All personnel would be subject to an annual hearing test, but you're right that there will be no record of every instance they were exposed to loud noises since.

It also does not say weather the crews had there hearing tested before the trials and weather they could of got hearing damage else where they could have picked it up at long weekend clubbing or from a live fire ex
@RS this was your post ...so no false attribution.

Now this really is the last time I reply to your shit.
Which is clearly an editing issue of mine from quoting @Tempest414's. Shows a lot if you can't even spot that!

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Can we just all agree that at present Ajax doesn't work as it is required to do to allow it to enter service? :)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

What could have been in service right now and ready to be upgraded like the Dutch CV90's (2nd picture) ..



Image

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

That is interesting, as I thought the Norway recce (kit) upgrade was unique
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)

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:What could have been in service right now and ready to be upgraded like the Dutch CV90's (2nd picture) ..
:lol:

We would we be upgrading to the Dutch CV90 when AJAX offers nearly all of that capability?

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Defiance »

RunningStrong wrote:We would we be upgrading to the Dutch CV90 when AJAX offers nearly all of that capability?
... when it works

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Defiance wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:We would we be upgrading to the Dutch CV90 when AJAX offers nearly all of that capability?
... when it works
That is a very nice render of a CV90 upgrade.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Defiance »

RunningStrong wrote:
Defiance wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:We would we be upgrading to the Dutch CV90 when AJAX offers nearly all of that capability?
... when it works
That is a very nice render of a CV90 upgrade.
You're right, it's providing just as much capability to the British Army as Ajax is! For much less money too.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Clever clogs, those Dutch (the Swedes may have played a part, too ;) )
- throw in the Danes, for good measure, as they too chose the gun that can be upgraded with supershot, to equal our 'coke can' in punch

Oh, did I mention the Norgies (they converted a good number of IFVs into recce wagons that look much like an early version, a draft, of what is now pictured).
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

There's at least 3 capabilities on the upgraded Dutch vehicle that no Ajax will have entering service:

1. Elevating mast

2. APS

3. ATGW

Then there's the extreme noise & vibration or more precisely, lack of.

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

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I often wonder why the Army did not keep the Overwatch version of the Ajax in the programme. I cannot see a reasonable argument to do so, I mean what was to take its place or compensate for the lack of this capability within the Ajax equipped Recce Regiments? Surely they could have come up with a basic platform, even if it was just a RWS with two to four Javelin fitted, a bit like the Milan turret fitted to a number of Spartans in the late 1980s? Simply discarding it in order to save some dosh gives the impression they were not thinking things through very clearly, but that would not be the first time such an allegation was levied at the FRES programme now would it.

Post Reply