Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[RunningStrong]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

Bollox.

Dutch MLU started in 2018 and integrated the Iron Fist program that had started in 2015. Contract award in 2021, first deliveries in 2024 and completion in 2027. $582 million for 122 CV90's plus 6 driver training vehicles.

Unlike the UK, Holland isn't so stupid as to overlap design with production.

You haven't a clue.

They didn't even have a requirements set in 2020.

"“BAE Systems Hägglunds carried out a pre-definition study in order to establish the needed improvements and agree on the requirements, with the aim of de-risking the MLU programme. This started in January 2020, one year before the contract signature,” Åberg explains. Four were the main bullets: situational awareness; make the vehicle compliant to the NATO General Vehicle Architecture, adding cyber-security considerations; improve protection, looking at state-of-the-art solutions which go well beyond adding tonnes of passive protection; and finally improve the firepower, and especially increasing the CV90 lethality range.

.....

The prototype turret is currently under construction at Örnsköldsvik, the first of type being also planned to be build in Sweden, before moving production to the Netherlands, to the Van Halteren Defence facility. The final design review is planned for December 2023, the delivery of the first serial vehicle being scheduled for January 2024, the last of the 122 vehicles to be delivered within December 2026. Should the option for 19 further vehicles be signed, these will probably be delivered before mid-2027."

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems- ... y-cv90-mlu

So a year later they have a requirements set, a concept and... No design completed.

[Ron5]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

Bollox.

Dutch MLU started in 2018 and integrated the Iron Fist program that had started in 2015. Contract award in 2021, first deliveries in 2024 and completion in 2027. $582 million for 122 CV90's plus 6 driver training vehicles.

Unlike the UK, Holland isn't so stupid as to overlap design with production.

I forgot to mention this information came from Jane's.

[Ron5]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

Bollox.

Dutch MLU started in 2018 and integrated the Iron Fist program that had started in 2015. Contract award in 2021, first deliveries in 2024 and completion in 2027. $582 million for 122 CV90's plus 6 driver training vehicles.

Unlike the UK, Holland isn't so stupid as to overlap design with production.

You haven't a clue.

They didn't even have a requirements set in 2020.

"“BAE Systems Hägglunds carried out a pre-definition study in order to establish the needed improvements and agree on the requirements, with the aim of de-risking the MLU programme. This started in January 2020, one year before the contract signature,” Åberg explains. Four were the main bullets: situational awareness; make the vehicle compliant to the NATO General Vehicle Architecture, adding cyber-security considerations; improve protection, looking at state-of-the-art solutions which go well beyond adding tonnes of passive protection; and finally improve the firepower, and especially increasing the CV90 lethality range.

.....

The prototype turret is currently under construction at Örnsköldsvik, the first of type being also planned to be build in Sweden, before moving production to the Netherlands, to the Van Halteren Defence facility. The final design review is planned for December 2023, the delivery of the first serial vehicle being scheduled for January 2024, the last of the 122 vehicles to be delivered within December 2026. Should the option for 19 further vehicles be signed, these will probably be delivered before mid-2027."

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems- ... y-cv90-mlu

So a year later they have a requirements set, a concept and... No design completed.

Your last sentence isn't supported by the first paragraph.

It's clearly a bit hard to build a brand new turret without a design for it. As for a final design review one month before the first production delivery. Obviously, there is a complete design in existence early than that otherwise the things couldn't be built in time. Sigh.

So a lot more than a render. Shame you didn't do your research until after making a dumb comment rather than before. Even though your research seems to have consisted of reading one magazine article

[RunningStrong]

Redback and Lynx could be considered as replacement for the Warriors, even tho in my opinion something like Dutch upgrade for their CV90s wold be better choice currently as CV90 is proven vehicle and widely used.

But upgraded Dutch CV90 isn't proven. It's a render.

Bollox.

Dutch MLU started in 2018 and integrated the Iron Fist program that had started in 2015. Contract award in 2021, first deliveries in 2024 and completion in 2027. $582 million for 122 CV90's plus 6 driver training vehicles.

Unlike the UK, Holland isn't so stupid as to overlap design with production.

You haven't a clue.

They didn't even have a requirements set in 2020.

"“BAE Systems Hägglunds carried out a pre-definition study in order to establish the needed improvements and agree on the requirements, with the aim of de-risking the MLU programme. This started in January 2020, one year before the contract signature,” Åberg explains. Four were the main bullets: situational awareness; make the vehicle compliant to the NATO General Vehicle Architecture, adding cyber-security considerations; improve protection, looking at state-of-the-art solutions which go well beyond adding tonnes of passive protection; and finally improve the firepower, and especially increasing the CV90 lethality range.

.....

The prototype turret is currently under construction at Örnsköldsvik, the first of type being also planned to be build in Sweden, before moving production to the Netherlands, to the Van Halteren Defence facility. The final design review is planned for December 2023, the delivery of the first serial vehicle being scheduled for January 2024, the last of the 122 vehicles to be delivered within December 2026. Should the option for 19 further vehicles be signed, these will probably be delivered before mid-2027."

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/bae-systems- ... y-cv90-mlu

So a year later they have a requirements set, a concept and... No design completed.

Your last sentence isn't supported by the first paragraph

So a lot more than a render then. Shame you didn't do your research until after making a dumb comment rather than before.

You're looking the fool here. A requirements set and a concept isn't anything physically made or tested. The render is a result of the concept they've envisaged.

You really don't understand system development, that is clear.

[Ron5]

The prototype turret is currently under construction at Örnsköldsvik

[Ron5]

You really don't understand system development, that is clear.

Not clear that GD understands it either

[RunningStrong]

. Even though your research seems to have consisted of reading one magazine article

Yes an article that interviewed the director of the business unit.

"EDR On-Line also talked to Dan Lindell, Director Combat Vehicles in Örnsköldsvik, central Sweden to get further details."

So to be clear, UK MOD have ordered AJAX, BOXER and CR3 without completion of trials. Dutch have ordered CV90 upgrades including new turret without even starting a prototype. French order their new wheeled fleet without even manufacturing prototypes.

Seems like everyone is overlapping design and production. Everyone except WCSP which got binned.

[Ron5]

Seems like everyone is overlapping design and production

So that's the only thing left to argue (even though I notice you use "trials" and "design" as meaning the same thing) ? But OK, not worth continuing.

[RunningStrong]

Seems like everyone is overlapping design and production

So that's the only thing left to argue (even though I notice you use "trials" and "design" as meaning the same thing) ? But OK, not worth continuing.

I haven't used them to mean the same thing. Again, showing you don't understand vehicle development, or even the current reality.

[Ron5]

Again, showing you don't understand vehicle development, or even the current reality.

Once again, not clear that GD does either.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist - Mea culpa

[Lord Jim]

Once again I feel I should mention Digital engineering here. The recent example as quoted in a recent edition of Military Technology by Lockheed Martin was that in the recent development of a new satellite there were able to go from what would usually have taken up to seven years of design, build, trials redesign etc. to a matter of months by doing the same digitally. BAe have the same technology currently being used on Tempest but eventually it will be applied to AFVs.

[mr.fred]

It’s a nice thought and I’m sure that it will eventually happen, but the difference in control of loads and materials between space, aerospace and land domains is very large, and that kind of uncertainty makes theoretical design rather tricky.

[Lord Jim]

LM also used the same tools to design and build the USAFs Red Hawk Advanced Trainer for a far lower price and far quicker then any other company could match, and have also used them on the new 6th Gen Fighter being developed. The aim is to drastically cut the time and cost it takes to get a prototype in the air and have said prototype far nearer the production standard for the start. And it is working, the two Red Hawk prototypes built first were basically production standard right out of the box.

With ground vehicles you will need data from physical trials to feed into the digital engineering tools. Boxer would be a good example, the data on the Drive Train Module should have been established pretty comprehensively by now, as well has what stress and strains it can take from various Mission Modules, and test done to ensure all this meets the necessary standards. So you could use the Digital tools to design a new mission module that can be test to see that a given weapon system is inside the know tolerances, therefore meets the required standards for the Module and also see if such an equipped module, given the data now known would meet the tolerances and standards of the Drive Train Module to allow it to be safely installed and operated.

This is sort of an interim option using both traditional Trial and Digital Toolboxes but eventually they will have computer modelling done of different terrain and weather and so on allowing these Toolboxes to be used from the start. Even so the Interim version should cut time and cost from a programme and speed up future upgrades etc. At least I hope so.

[mr.fred]

With ground vehicles you will need data from physical trials to feed into the digital engineering tools.

You do. That data will be somewhat more variable than space and aerospace so you can be less definite about the results.

the two Red Hawk prototypes

They still built prototypes. I imagine that they will still test the production standard too.

[RunningStrong]

LM also used the same tools to design and build the USAFs Red Hawk Advanced Trainer for a far lower price and far quicker then any other company could match, and have also used them on the new 6th Gen Fighter being developed.

5 years between prototype flight and production flight (probably) doesn't strike me as particularly fast for what is a basic jet.

Textron Scorpion did the jump in 3 years...

[SW1]

I don’t think there’s a full understanding of what digital engineering tools are for and how there used. The certification process is still the certification process and the product has to be shown to be compliant. Certification authorities will still demand physical proof tests. Digital engineering systems can help to indicate what are the critical loading cases ect that need tested are.

Where they add value is configuration iteration and thru life component access and life cycle prediction before things are built.

[RunningStrong]

I don’t think there’s a full understanding of what digital engineering tools are for and how there used. The certification process is still the certification process and the product has to be shown to be compliant. Certification authorities will still demand physical proof tests. Digital engineering systems can help to indicate what are the critical loading cases ect that need tested are.

Where they add value is configuration iteration and thru life component access and life cycle prediction before things are built.

And how does that differ from several decades of CAD design and FEA?

[SW1]

I don’t think there’s a full understanding of what digital engineering tools are for and how there used. The certification process is still the certification process and the product has to be shown to be compliant. Certification authorities will still demand physical proof tests. Digital engineering systems can help to indicate what are the critical loading cases ect that need tested are.

Where they add value is configuration iteration and thru life component access and life cycle prediction before things are built.

And how does that differ from several decades of CAD design and FEA?

It’s really just a rebranding of said systems and there wider adoption

[Lord Jim]

They still built prototypes. I imagine that they will still test the production standard too.

Agreed, but due to the data already collected, many key standard were able to be sign off and the physical trials process started much further along the process than if the a more traditional process had been used. This there reduces the time required to certify the platform and get it into service. This is in no way a rebranding of CAD. AS for a basic jet, I cannot think of any supersonic aircraft that has gone from the completion of the first prototype to squadron FOC in five years or less which is what is planned with the Red Hawk. Anyhow I have pushed this thread far to far off topic, maybe we should carry on in the USA thread?

[jonas]

Defence Committee questions on Ajax 20th July :-

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... programme/

[Ron5]

I don’t think there’s a full understanding of what digital engineering tools are for and how there used. The certification process is still the certification process and the product has to be shown to be compliant. Certification authorities will still demand physical proof tests. Digital engineering systems can help to indicate what are the critical loading cases ect that need tested are.

Where they add value is configuration iteration and thru life component access and life cycle prediction before things are built.

And how does that differ from several decades of CAD design and FEA?

It’s really just a rebranding of said systems and there wider adoption

Not hardly dude. You need to do more research on what's going on in this field.

If Ajax has been developed with these techniques, its problems with excessive vibration would have been discovered via computer simulation well before any steel was cut.

[RunningStrong]

I don’t think there’s a full understanding of what digital engineering tools are for and how there used. The certification process is still the certification process and the product has to be shown to be compliant. Certification authorities will still demand physical proof tests. Digital engineering systems can help to indicate what are the critical loading cases ect that need tested are.

Where they add value is configuration iteration and thru life component access and life cycle prediction before things are built.

And how does that differ from several decades of CAD design and FEA?

It’s really just a rebranding of said systems and there wider adoption

Not hardly dude. You need to do more research on what's going on in this field.

If Ajax has been developed with these techniques, its problems with excessive vibration would have been discovered via computer simulation well before any steel was cut.

[Ron5]

"Eeee lad, you'll never tell if yon fancy wing will flutter till you build one and fly it"

"21st century on line 1"

[SW1]

Ahh research ok…. would using them daily count

Yep flutter tests are still flown to demonstrate the computer model accuracy funnily enough as Aeroelastic effects are very hard to model.

[RunningStrong]

"Eeee lad, you'll never tell if yon fancy wing will flutter till you build one and fly it"

"21st century on line 1"

Please Sir, tell us more about the armoured vehicle design process you've never been a part of, or the programme you have zero personal experience of