Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote:
RunningStrong 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..."
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 introduced
That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Well considering the majority of our Armoured Vehicles were built decades ago, and health and safety at the time is no where it is now, probably means that a new headset is needed across the board. However Ajax WAS designed with health and safety as it is now or very near to it and so the noise issues are a viable concern. Even with the new crew headsets there would also be noise issues for the dismounts in the Ares version, though a typical bodge job like having the dismounts where vehicle headsets whilst on board and then removing them and putting on their normal headgear may be the type of solution the MoD arrives at.

Regarding the hull, are the reports of the quality control being not up to scratch and hulls not being correctly aligned just lies? Surely if they aren't then that is going to affect the suspension etc. whilst the vehicle is moving?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Regarding the hull, are the reports of the quality control being not up to scratch and hulls not being correctly aligned just lies? Surely if they aren't then that is going to affect the suspension etc. whilst the vehicle is moving?
I’d suggest that the reports are often misrepresentations. Each time I see a report the error has grown another foot.

BB85
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Personal Injury lawyers are going to have a field day if it turns out soldiers suffered hearing loss due to inadequate PPE.
I'm not sure what the mod thought it would gain if it turns out the noise issues are down to the head sets, they really should have been supplied by GD if it's a new vehicle.
The vibration issues I'm still lost how a hull and mounting points that would have been CNC machined cannot be perfectly square. Maybe the suspension is a carry over from the original 25t Ascod. If you look at it's handling characteristics in trials against the AS21 redback in Australia it doesn't look the smoothest. I'm not sure how much the rubber tracks play a part but worth considering making the switch if they are rated for 50t according to the manufacturer.

Problem sorted sign off acceptance testing, declare IOC job done :D

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote:I'm still lost how a hull and mounting points that would have been CNC machined cannot be perfectly square
The hull isn’t machined out of a block of RHA, It’s a welded box. Welding tends to introduce variation. You can machine after welding, if you can get the machine to what you want cut.
Also nothing is perfectly square, there is always variation. The more you spend, the less variation there is.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: Personal Injury lawyers are going to have a field day if it turns out soldiers suffered hearing loss due to inadequate PPE.
That's been going on for years. I don't know many ex-forces personnel that don't have hearing issues.
BB85 wrote: I'm not sure what the mod thought it would gain if it turns out the noise issues are down to the head sets, they really should have been supplied by GD if it's a new vehicle.
Why? The headsets are Bowman across the fleet.
BB85 wrote: The vibration issues I'm still lost how a hull and mounting points that would have been CNC machined cannot be perfectly square.
You don't machine from a block. Plates are cut, jigs assembled, welding done.

The generic steel fabrication issues are variations in flatness of slabs provided, and then any hot work further distorts and weakens. This isn't news to anyone that fabricates steel, but there's always variation in such assemblies.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

For the hulls not to be square and outside tolerances, something must have been wrong with the jigs used, or how they were used.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:For the hulls not to be square and outside tolerances, something must have been wrong with the jigs used, or how they were used.
“Square” is also a measurement that tolerances apply to.
If things are out of tolerance, that’s a problem, but generally not an insurmountable one. If it’s been found internally, then you’d expect the supplier (GD) to fix the out-of-tolerance parts before delivery to the customer.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Wasn't that the issue they had in Spain though, hulls manufactured for the Ajax programme were outside of tolerances and this was discovered at GSUK's site when they went to complete the hulls there.

Regardless, it is amazing how quiet things have become for all things Ajax.

BB85
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I read up that RUSI article again last night. There definitely are issues with the hulls being fabricated outside of tolerance especially the initial 100. If that's the case how long would it take to fabricate new ones built to spec, strip the old hulls and assemble the new hulls where at least they know they are built to spec and test for vibration again.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote:I read up that RUSI article again last night. There definitely are issues with the hulls being fabricated outside of tolerance especially the initial 100. If that's the case how long would it take to fabricate new ones built to spec, strip the old hulls and assemble the new hulls where at least they know they are built to spec and test for vibration again.
Depends on what is out of tolerance and by how much, which would dictate whether it needs to be reworked or replaced.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

More "no problem here, move along" posts here I see.

PS replacing the tracks with rubber ones would presumably help with the vibration and noise issues but having the tracks absorb excess vibrations would shorten their lives. IOW no such thing as a free lunch.

PPS and despite the CDS winks and nudges, excess noise in a reconn vehicle is not in the best interests of their crews :(

BB85
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

I would love to know how Ajax stacked up compared to Lynx and AS21 Redback. The Aussies where very quiet on why it didn't meet their requirements. I know the other two are technically IFV's but if the digital architecture is fully networked and allows them consume and process the same data to track and engaged targets on the battlefield from well beyond visual range in real time they effectively combine the Scout and IFV role into 1. I actually think Ajax has taken so long to bring into service Lynx and AS21 have left it behind.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote:I would love to know how Ajax stacked up compared to Lynx and AS21 Redback. The Aussies where very quiet on why it didn't meet their requirements. I know the other two are technically IFV's but if the digital architecture is fully networked and allows them consume and process the same data to track and engaged targets on the battlefield from well beyond visual range in real time they effectively combine the Scout and IFV role into 1. I actually think Ajax has taken so long to bring into service Lynx and AS21 have left it behind.
Technically the GD offering to Land400 phase 3 wasn’t Ajax at all, but Ascod 2, but I agree that it would be interesting to know the assessment as there will be some common features.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

As reported by Aussie technical journalists, Ajax was rejected because a) they didn't like the turret, they had previously rejected it in the CRV program, b) their contacts in the British Army advised they should keep well clear, and c) was too small.

I say Ajax because the vehicle supplied by GD for them to take a look at was an Ajax variant. Ares?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:As reported by Aussie technical journalists, Ajax was rejected because a) they didn't like the turret, they had previously rejected it in the CRV program, b) their contacts in the British Army advised they should keep well clear, and c) was too small.

I say Ajax because the vehicle supplied by GD for them to take a look at was an Ajax variant. Ares?
Of those concerns only the British Army’s opinion is pertinent to Ajax. The down-select was back in late 2019 so it would be informative to our current situation to know what drove those opinions.

I’d also be interested to know what ruled CV90 out, particularly with the interest in it from this and other forums.

sol
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

mr.fred wrote: I’d also be interested to know what ruled CV90 out, particularly with the interest in it from this and other forums.
According to informed sources, the AJAX was regarded as not fit for purpose, and the BAE Systems-Hagglunds CV90 was assessed as too expensive.
From https://www.australiandefence.com.au/de ... 3-decision. On some other places I found same explanation, but they could originate from the same rumor. So it might or might not be true but it sound very plausible. If I am not wrong with CV90, BAe has policy to build hulls in Sweden while tings like turrets are usually produced/assembled in the country which is procuring them. That also might be an issue.

Even tho I am a great fan of CV90, IMO, if British Army decide to replace Warriors with tracked IFV, it might not be a bad idea to go with some solution which would give them chance to produce whole or majority of the vehicle at home just for a sake of retaining capability to produce such vehicles. In that case vehicles like Lynx might not be a bad choice, considering for example that 172 out of 218 Hungarian Lynx should be built locally in new factory and current Rheinmetall presence in UK. But that is just my opinion, of course, British Army should do why they consider is best for them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

sol wrote:considering for example that 172 out of 218 Hungarian Lynx should be built locally in new factory and current Rheinmetall presence in UK
Army-technology.com has provided a price tag (warning: 3-way ccy conversions ahead :!: ) for the quantity we would require
"Rheinmetall Protection Systems has been contracted to equip Hungary’s new Lynx infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) with StrikeShield hard-kill active protection system (APS).

The more than $170m (€140m) order will involve the installation of the APS on 209 Hungarian Lynx IFVs.

The Lynx IFV is an advanced, highly protected, tracked armoured vehicle developed by Rheinmetall.

Last September, Hungary became the first Nato and EU member state to order the Rheinmetall Lynx IFV in a deal worth €2bn (£1.82bn)"
- but nothing is said about the facilities cost for the local manufacture/ assembly
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: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

sol wrote:BAE Systems-Hagglunds CV90 was assessed as too expensive.
As CV90 was expected to be one of the lowest priced (if not the lowest) finalists, some Aussies took that to mean that Bae's plan for local production was crap. Which agrees with your comments.

Post Reply