Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
https://defenceindustrynews.com/all-new ... fv-tender/BB85 wrote:I see the Czechs have put their of competition on hold with none of the vehicles meeting national requirements due to inaccuracies in technical specs and arrangements with domestic suppliers. It would be interesting to see who was coming out on top. I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
I'm not sure how much of any of the Electronic Architecture on the ASCOD 2 is carried over from AJAX, or whether the tracks (Cook) or armour are shared.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I think the article says that the competition was put on hold because the paperwork accompanying the bids was not up to the standard required.BB85 wrote:I see the Czechs have put their of competition on hold with none of the vehicles meeting national requirements due to inaccuracies in technical specs and arrangements with domestic suppliers. It would be interesting to see who was coming out on top. I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
If I'm right, that's a lot different from saying the vehicles themselves didn't meet the requirements.
ASCOD 2 winning?
Only chance is if the Czech generals are as venal as the British ones.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
the 40% domestic content (rqr'ed) refers mainly the state owned company,BB85 wrote:arrangements with domestic suppliers
AND
there is already an armoured personnel carrier from GDELS in production in the Czech RepublicBB85 wrote: I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
"The Pandur 8x8 APC is manufactured in Austria while export versions are also built in the Czech Republic and licensed versions in Barreiro, Portugal" with over a hundred on order. Carries 12 troops as an APC, or 6 as an IFV fitted with a turret
- domestic content [TICK]
- tracks or wheels... who cares
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)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Not clear exactly how much workshare the UK has in Ajax to start withsol wrote:Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.Ron5 wrote:Not clear exactly how much workshare the UK has in Ajax to start withsol wrote:Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That's not much if we will be the only customer and anything coming out of Ascod 2 will be manufactured in Spain and Austria. The chassis for Ascod2 and Ajax looks much larger than the original Ascod, it can't just be bolt on armour.
So general dynamics have basically milked the mod to develop a new armoured vehicle and but deliver f all back in terms of UK jobs for exports.
So general dynamics have basically milked the mod to develop a new armoured vehicle and but deliver f all back in terms of UK jobs for exports.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That architecture will endure; but will we get over the turret 'troubles'?RunningStrong wrote: Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.
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)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
What turret troubles?ArmChairCivvy wrote:That architecture will endure; but will we get over the turret 'troubles'?RunningStrong wrote: Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The only positive of that last report on Ajax was that there was no mention of reliability issues or barrel wear from the CTA cannon so maybe the issues are fixed. Or all the issues raised where from testing Ares Joking aside, the report did mention not being able to fire on the move due to vibrations. If that is the case how the did this vehicle ever get signed off for production? Or where the demonstrator variants built to a much higher standard than production.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Ron5 wrote: What turret troubles?
Tell me more...BB85 wrote: all the issues raised where from testing Ares Joking aside
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)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.BB85 wrote:That's not much if we will be the only customer and anything coming out of Ascod 2 will be manufactured in Spain and Austria. The chassis for Ascod2 and Ajax looks much larger than the original Ascod, it can't just be bolt on armour.
So general dynamics have basically milked the mod to develop a new armoured vehicle and but deliver f all back in terms of UK jobs for exports.
They did put an additional contract to on-shore AJAX assembly in Merthyr Tydfil, and they knew full well that didn't include hull fabrication.
If MOD want an Australian-style contract then write one...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Or perhaps it's not nothing to do with the turret or the hull...BB85 wrote:The only positive of that last report on Ajax was that there was no mention of reliability issues or barrel wear from the CTA cannon so maybe the issues are fixed. Or all the issues raised where from testing Ares Joking aside, the report did mention not being able to fire on the move due to vibrations. If that is the case how the did this vehicle ever get signed off for production? Or where the demonstrator variants built to a much higher standard than production.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That leaves (suspension, power& transmission generally considered as part of the hull) the gun& the sensors)?RunningStrong wrote: nothing to do with the turret or the hull...
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)
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
So what has it got to do with?RunningStrong wrote:Or perhaps it's not nothing to do with the turret or the hull...
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
In this context they are fitted to the hull meaning the hull could be alright but the parts fitted are the problemArmChairCivvy wrote:That leaves (suspension, power& transmission generally considered as part of the hull)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Ajax seems to be turning into a Winstonian vehicle:
Famously, Winston Churchill defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"...
but it's not Russian dolls it is meant to be facing
Famously, Winston Churchill defined Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma"...
but it's not Russian dolls it is meant to be facing
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)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
So when the GDUK CEO said that Ajax would be "British to its bootstraps" and that 10,000's of UK jobs would be created, he was lying?RunningStrong wrote:I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.BB85 wrote:That's not much if we will be the only customer and anything coming out of Ascod 2 will be manufactured in Spain and Austria. The chassis for Ascod2 and Ajax looks much larger than the original Ascod, it can't just be bolt on armour.
So general dynamics have basically milked the mod to develop a new armoured vehicle and but deliver f all back in terms of UK jobs for exports.
They did put an additional contract to on-shore AJAX assembly in Merthyr Tydfil, and they knew full well that didn't include hull fabrication.
If MOD want an Australian-style contract then write one...
The same sort of lying that has claimed that Ajax has no noise & vibration problems?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
He was, like many a salesperson (President and MD, not CEO) before him, but the quote has to also be taken in context of the time.Ron5 wrote:So when the GDUK CEO said that Ajax would be "British to its bootstraps" and that 10,000's of UK jobs would be created, he was lyingRunningStrong wrote:I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.BB85 wrote:That's not much if we will be the only customer and anything coming out of Ascod 2 will be manufactured in Spain and Austria. The chassis for Ascod2 and Ajax looks much larger than the original Ascod, it can't just be bolt on armour.
So general dynamics have basically milked the mod to develop a new armoured vehicle and but deliver f all back in terms of UK jobs for exports.
They did put an additional contract to on-shore AJAX assembly in Merthyr Tydfil, and they knew full well that didn't include hull fabrication.
If MOD want an Australian-style contract then write one...
It was 2010, they'd just won the demonstration phase contract for £500m and UK AFV production was limited but still breathing (CVRT 2, Terrier).
The initial FRES SV variants for demo were limited, but a family to directly replace CVR(T), FV432 and some Warrior variants was already widely circulated, with circa 2,000 vehicle order possible. Wheels had been abandoned in the UV Trials of Truth a few years before.
The gun was already French made, the base platform already Spanish, and the basic metal work of the turret already German.
By 2015 however, the variants hadn't grown, the UK manufacturing had disappeared and David Cameron wanted to sign a contract at the NATO summit so that he could show he was putting his hand in his pocket. A number was agreed, and a contract was written around that number.
No one has claimed there are no issues, the problem is where those issues lie and who's responsible for them. The nuances of that are public, but you've chosen to ignore them repeatedly.Ron5 wrote:The same sort of lying that has claimed that Ajax has no noise & vibration problems?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Most amusingRunningStrong wrote:No one has claimed there are no issues
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Selective quoting and not understanding the actual issue, that's the same as most your postsRon5 wrote:Most amusingRunningStrong wrote:No one has claimed there are no issues
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I'm not sure this was shared, but MOD have identified that there are wider noise implications on other legacy platforms that use the same headsets.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hear ... -8m825rngj
"Military sources said that soldiers had been given a “time limit” for how long they can exercise in the Warrior vehicles and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (CVRT), a family of armoured fighting vehicles that includes the Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks.
Sources said that they could only exercise in some of the vehicles for in some cases as little as 55 minutes amid concerns that the headsets could be..."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hear ... -8m825rngj
"Military sources said that soldiers had been given a “time limit” for how long they can exercise in the Warrior vehicles and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (CVRT), a family of armoured fighting vehicles that includes the Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks.
Sources said that they could only exercise in some of the vehicles for in some cases as little as 55 minutes amid concerns that the headsets could be..."
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Interesting timing CDS just mentioned something similar at the defence select committee. He mentioned about his own hearing as a result of using warrior and fv430. And at least implied none of the vehicles would meet todays standards in being introducedRunningStrong wrote:I'm not sure this was shared, but MOD have identified that there are wider noise implications on other legacy platforms that use the same headsets.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hear ... -8m825rngj
"Military sources said that soldiers had been given a “time limit” for how long they can exercise in the Warrior vehicles and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (CVRT), a family of armoured fighting vehicles that includes the Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks.
Sources said that they could only exercise in some of the vehicles for in some cases as little as 55 minutes amid concerns that the headsets could be..."
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.SW1 wrote:Interesting timing CDS just mentioned something similar at the defence select committee. He mentioned about his own hearing as a result of using warrior and fv430. And at least implied none of the vehicles would meet todays standards in being introducedRunningStrong wrote:I'm not sure this was shared, but MOD have identified that there are wider noise implications on other legacy platforms that use the same headsets.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hear ... -8m825rngj
"Military sources said that soldiers had been given a “time limit” for how long they can exercise in the Warrior vehicles and the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (CVRT), a family of armoured fighting vehicles that includes the Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks.
Sources said that they could only exercise in some of the vehicles for in some cases as little as 55 minutes amid concerns that the headsets could be..."