Sorry about that Bob. I enjoy teasing @RunningStong so much but I'll hang it up for the New Year.
Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Being wrong is something of a habit of yours.
Czech have agreed 30x173.
Knock knock, who's there?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Speaking of gun calibres, if that is the correct terminology, will we ever see a version of the AJAX with a medium gun such as the 105mm. I am curious as the USA seem to be going for a medium tank of similar size to the AJAX.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... struction/
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... struction/
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I don't think so as it would be to heavy for our light mechanised BCT's and our armoured BCT's have CH-3bobp wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 19:01 Speaking of gun calibres, if that is the correct terminology, will we ever see a version of the AJAX with a medium gun such as the 105mm. I am curious as the USA seem to be going for a medium tank of similar size to the AJAX.
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... struction/
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I think you are correct, the weight increase would also be too much for the suspension which is already struggling.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The Griffin 2 is lighter than the GVW of the Ajax chassis (38t vs 42t) and nothing I’ve seen suggests that the suspension is having problems due to the weight of the vehicle.
So why have you made this statement?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
On the basis that the AJAX was built on a ASCOD chassis and is already a lot heavier. The Griffin has wheels so totally different to AJAX.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Griffin 2 doesn't have the same chassis and suspension as ASCOD. Totally new design that will be used for production MPF.
ASCOD running gear was just used in the initial spare part bins concept vehicle (Griffin 1) for speed of manufacture to see if the army was interested. They were so a proper chassis was developed.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The US Army Mobile Protected Firepower, a new 35 ton light tank, initial $1.1 billion contract won by GD against a BAE inc offereing in June for possible total of 504, did see a suggestion it used an Ajax chassis, diesel up front and hydro-pneumatic shock absorbers instead of torsion bars and claimed it "rides like a dream", whether true don't know, is the Ajax chassis fitted with a hydro-pneumatic suspension?
The GD MPF fitted with latest unmanned variant of the Abraham 120mm turret.
The GD MPF fitted with latest unmanned variant of the Abraham 120mm turret.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Err, what?
The Griffin 2 is General Dynamics' light tank which is being used for the US MPF programme. It is tracked and weighs 38t. It does have wheels, but so do all tracked vehicles. Granted it is a different chassis.
Ajax has a GVW of 42t. I've not seen anything definitive anywhere of how much it actually weighs. Presumably the suspension is designed for this and while there have been statements made that the running gear was contributing to the vibration there hasn't been anything suggesting that this was due to the suspension vs the weight.
105mm turret have been fitted to most IFV chassis out there. They aren't that heavy, at least as the base structure. In extremis you could take a bit of weight off the armour packs if you were that tight against the weight limit, so if you wanted such a turret you could have one. Indeed, one of the proposed variants of FRES SV was a direct fire vehicle.
That said, it's probably not a great idea, because it wouldn't be that much more relative to the platform weight to fit a 120mm turret and I don't see where that would fit relative to a proper MBT.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
My dead brain cells thought you was referring to the French Griffin which has six wheels.....sorry for that.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I doubt British Army will consider any additional orders of Ajax until the current one is fully delivered. And even then, lot will depend on performance of all delivered vehicles by that time. Both Ajax and GD reputation is somewhat shaken and the Army will think twice before further orders.
US Army will use this tanks as fire support for light infantry and airborne/air assault units, with one tank battalion per division. How would the British Army use them? In four cavalry regiments or in some new armoured unit which would be equipped with "light tanks"? While it looks like a good platform to have, does the British Army even need it in structure defined by FS?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Thanks
My limited search says the GD Ajax chassis fitted with torsion bar suspension whereas with the GD MPF/ light tank chassis they have moved on to using hydro-pneumatic suspension, maybe or similar to the Horstman Hydrostrut®?
https://horstmangroup.com/horstman-prod ... ydrostrut/
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I think idea of a medium -weight direct-fire platform was always in direct competition with Challenge 2 LEP for budget. Building another "tank" would have been a political minefield for the Army to navigate past committees and NAO.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Putting aside for one minute weather we need a light tank or not this is the problem for the MOD which goes across all three services we can't buy A because it will effect B and we can't build X because it will effect YRunningStrong wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:10I think idea of a medium -weight direct-fire platform was always in direct competition with Challenge 2 LEP for budget. Building another "tank" would have been a political minefield for the Army to navigate past committees and NAO.
The big thing right now is where are all these Ajax / Boxers going between the 2 types we have 1212 on order and funding in place for another 500 odd Boxers
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Tend to agree.Tempest414 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:24 Putting aside for one minute weather we need a light tank or not this is the problem for the MOD which goes across all three services we can't buy A because it will effect B and we can't build X because it will effect Y
I don't think there's any shortage of CVR(T), FV432 and non-IFV Warrior (i.e. FST) variants to replace.Tempest414 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:24 The big thing right now is where are all these Ajax / Boxers going between the 2 types we have 1212 on order and funding in place for another 500 odd Boxers
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
To a certain extent and not something that you would ever be able to get around. The defence budget will always be finite so you can't have everything you might want and have to focus on what you need.Tempest414 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:24Putting aside for one minute weather we need a light tank or not this is the problem for the MOD which goes across all three services we can't buy A because it will effect B and we can't build X because it will effect YRunningStrong wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:10 I think idea of a medium -weight direct-fire platform was always in direct competition with Challenge 2 LEP for budget. Building another "tank" would have been a political minefield for the Army to navigate past committees and NAO.
The big thing right now is where are all these Ajax / Boxers going between the 2 types we have 1212 on order and funding in place for another 500 odd Boxers
In this specific instance you are looking at a situation where you are essentially duplicating a capability. Why buy a new Ajax tank when you could buy more Challenger 2 upgrades? Why support two fleets when you could have one? Of course that works both ways. Why upgrade Challenger when you could just buy more Ajax variants?
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I am sure but where do we stop. As it has been said what could be done with the money lets take the funding for the extra 500 Boxers lets say this equals 2.1 Billion should we be looking to buy 200 Boxers , 300 BVs-10's and 700 Bushmasters for the same moneyRunningStrong wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 17:26Tend to agree.Tempest414 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:24 Putting aside for one minute weather we need a light tank or not this is the problem for the MOD which goes across all three services we can't buy A because it will effect B and we can't build X because it will effect Y
I don't think there's any shortage of CVR(T), FV432 and non-IFV Warrior (i.e. FST) variants to replace.Tempest414 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:24 The big thing right now is where are all these Ajax / Boxers going between the 2 types we have 1212 on order and funding in place for another 500 odd Boxers
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I think industry tends to bend the MOD over a barrel and say if you want to produce them in the UK you need to order X amount, while if industry was exporting from existing production lines and they are competing against other suppliers the buyer has more leverage and can get away with smaller orders spread over multiple platforms over a longer period of time. They just need to make sure the production line is still active.
The MOD seems to think the MRAP's ordered for Iraq can cover MRVP until 2030 and will be focusing on precision fire next now that Boxer and Ajax have been ordered.
I don't see the MOD stretching beyond that before 2030, but who knows they could always surprise us, before the next election Ben Wallace could sign for a lot of expensive equipment with contracts that cannot be cancelled like labour did for the carriers.
Tempest is bound to be ring fenced, I do think this hyper sonic missile is at risk if we wont be ordering in enough quantities.
I would have thought long range stealthy TLAMS in large quantities where they way to go if they where significantly cheaper.
The MOD seems to think the MRAP's ordered for Iraq can cover MRVP until 2030 and will be focusing on precision fire next now that Boxer and Ajax have been ordered.
I don't see the MOD stretching beyond that before 2030, but who knows they could always surprise us, before the next election Ben Wallace could sign for a lot of expensive equipment with contracts that cannot be cancelled like labour did for the carriers.
Tempest is bound to be ring fenced, I do think this hyper sonic missile is at risk if we wont be ordering in enough quantities.
I would have thought long range stealthy TLAMS in large quantities where they way to go if they where significantly cheaper.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I don't really trust the mail online's journalism but they are saying Ajax received the all clear yesterday.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... rvice.html
I know it is still conducting reliability growth trials, but does this mean that GDLS will restart production and start completing the final hulls so that when the final trials are completed it's as good as ready to enter service in 2024.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... rvice.html
I know it is still conducting reliability growth trials, but does this mean that GDLS will restart production and start completing the final hulls so that when the final trials are completed it's as good as ready to enter service in 2024.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Going by Wednesday’s defence committee meeting, GDLS didn’t stop production, just deliveries.BB85 wrote: ↑12 Jan 2023, 23:44 I don't really trust the mail online's journalism but they are saying Ajax received the all clear yesterday.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... rvice.html
I know it is still conducting reliability growth trials, but does this mean that GDLS will restart production and start completing the final hulls so that when the final trials are completed it's as good as ready to enter service in 2024.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52