Ahh yes that other hugely delayed then cancelled program where LM screwed up the turret and delivered 6 working vehicles. It was another Nimrod, they never would have been able to refurbish the hull numbers required within budget. They cut the hull numbers by 100 or so every year until it was down to 250, which they could have ordered brand new for the money wasted.RunningStrong wrote: ↑28 Dec 2022, 09:25And yet how many CVR(T) and FV432 variants are still in use?
My comment was in response to complaints about the number of Ajax vehicles ordered not if they where still relevant/capable. Having said that CVRT and FV432 should have been retired and relaced 10 years ago, they are in services out of necessity rather than capability.
I guess that makes the Hippo BRV a MBT!
Nope again you are completely missing the point. No one has ever claimed that an IFV can perform the role of a scout vehicle. Only that alternative hulls in the same size/weight category as ASCOD, fitted with the same sensor suite and CTA canon would have been in service 5 years ago with much less risk. The CV90 hull has won every competition it ever faced off against ASCOD, the exception being the UK, which involved very little testing of a proven solution, even though BAE had a proven turret certified. It really does better belief.
You may have heard of this small project called WCSP...
Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Jeez, bitter much?BB85 wrote: ↑28 Dec 2022, 23:06 Ahh yes that other hugely delayed then cancelled program where LM screwed up the turret and delivered 6 working vehicles. It was another Nimrod, they never would have been able to refurbish the hull numbers required within budget. They cut the hull numbers by 100 or so every year until it was down to 250, which they could have ordered brand new for the money wasted.
The number upgraded was always limited by the number of guns (515 across WCSP and Ajax) contracted in 2015.
At a total of £1.4bn (~£600m down, £800m projected) for 250 vehicles it was a little less than £6m per vehicle which compares favourably to Ajax at a little under £10m per vehicle (and half of those don't have turrets) or the going rate for IFVs internationally which seems to be around £10m a unit.
I couldn't say if the turret worked, but it was reported to have completed most of its trials (which Ajax is just starting) when cancelled.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The original contract was to upgrade 380 vehicles, agreed only 245 would have a new turret so why the delay in delivering 140 upgraded vehicles without a turret? LM spent £600m delivering 6 test vehicles that took 9 years to complete testing. They where never delivering 250 vehicles for £800m. Buy cheap buy twice, especially in maintenance costs.
Ordering scout, ifv, apc and engineering versions of the already proven CV90 hull and using a BAE turret would have been more expensive initially but much better value for money long term and significantly lower risk.
Ordering scout, ifv, apc and engineering versions of the already proven CV90 hull and using a BAE turret would have been more expensive initially but much better value for money long term and significantly lower risk.
- These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Oh god, this tripe again.
CV90's proven hull? Proven where? Which conflict? Which terrain? At what weight? With what power demands?
If we're going to dismiss the ASCOD hill pedigree (which is entirely fair, and entirely irrelevant given the extensive modifications made for UK), then we should also apply the same consistency to the CV90.
The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
And how long has Ajax been under development compared with the Mk 4??? If Ajax had started development in 1939 for WW2, it would have entered service in the mid 1950's.RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 14:21 The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.
And by the way, in several areas, CV90 Mk4 well ahead of Ajax: mobility, noise, vibration, APS for starters.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
So as unproven as Boxer then, glad we agree.
Oh and that was CV9035, so nothing like UK has wanted...
I was just thinking I need some BS for the garden, you never fail to deliver Ronnie!Ron5 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 14:29And how long has Ajax been under development compared with the Mk 4??? If Ajax had started development in 1939 for WW2, it would have entered service in the mid 1950's.RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 14:21 The CV90 Mk4 which has somewhat similar capabilities to AJAX literally only started prototype testing this year.
And by the way, in several areas, CV90 Mk4 well ahead of Ajax: mobility, noise, vibration, APS for starters.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The one with the turret was the priority? Plus that's hardly the 100 a year loss you were waving around originally.
12 test vehicles, and £600m and 9 years doing the design work, building a prototype, testing it, building the test vehicles, testing them...
Yes it was behind on the original plan, but at least try to get the details right if you're going to complain.
Why not? Because all the non-recurring costs bumped the trials vehicles cost up? That's a non-sequitur.
Do you know how quickly BAE would have done it and how much it would have cost? Would that cost have been within the allocated budget?
This is the same BAE who presided over Nimrod, Terrier and Panther CLV, remember, they do not have an unblemished record.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5552
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
The thing here is Ajax is still on so yes it may be late but it seems it will arrive
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
BAE had already completed testing and certification on a CTA turret, awarding LM a £600m contract to complete trials and testing all over again was a huge risk and enormous waste of time and money the MOD didn't have.
There is no defending it.
Sorry they delivered a whole 12 vehicles that where immediately scrapped once the decision was made not to proceed with the contract.
Believing LM would not have run into multiple delays refurbing 40 year old vehicles that have served in multiple conflicts all over the world and had multiple ad-hoc armour upgrades is extremely naive, the sort of naivety that led to this mess, maybe you worked on this project
There is no defending it.
Sorry they delivered a whole 12 vehicles that where immediately scrapped once the decision was made not to proceed with the contract.
Believing LM would not have run into multiple delays refurbing 40 year old vehicles that have served in multiple conflicts all over the world and had multiple ad-hoc armour upgrades is extremely naive, the sort of naivety that led to this mess, maybe you worked on this project
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
It will arrive alright there is far too much money spent on it to pull the plug now, I just hope its performance meets expectations.Tempest414 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 16:59 The thing here is Ajax is still on so yes it may be late but it seems it will arrive
- These users liked the author BB85 for the post:
- Tempest414
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
If BAE had really got that far, how were they not able to comprehensively outbid LM in terms of time and schedule?
Surely BAE would have had the same problems?
Who's to say? I could claim either way without changing the points I am arguing.
Is being involved the only reason to defend a position? Would that make you a BAE employee?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
A shed load more proven than Ajax that can't even get by user trials, let alone combat deployment.
And how does the CV90 mk4 hull differ from that of the cv9035? Yeah, didn't think you knew.
Ha, so you can't rebut that the CV90 mk4 has superior mobility, noise, vibration, APS, gun, AT missiles, etc. than Ajax. Oh dear.RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 15:31 I was just thinking I need some BS for the garden, you never fail to deliver Ronnie!
At least you're not claiming that Ajax has a great chassis because it's being used by GD in their US vehicles. Fact is they ditched the chassis and developed a new one.
I confidently predict no other nation will ever buy and use Ajax.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.
I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.
I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…Jake1992 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.
I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
We were talking CV90 and ASCOD at the contract award point, keep up at the back Ronnie.
Yep. Quite significantly.
Why would I go to the effort of rebutting your fairytales again? Or you could provide that evidence that you haven't got!
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I meant more in relation to the Boxer program it’s self not so much a separate tracked program ( this is what Germany has done )SW1 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 18:12Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…Jake1992 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.
I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
The idea that track boxer wasn’t developed at the same time as it’s wheeled variant giving a family of 2 vehicle with interchanged mission modules to replace all tracked and wheeled vehicles in both our own and German forces.
It just seems odd to me now looking at what’s here and what roads were taken that it never occur to anyone at time.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Why would they? Warrior entered service in 1987, 6 years before Boxer started and 9 years before UK joined Boxer project. They had no need to think about its replacement, especially considering that last Warriors were delivered around 1995 or something like that, and tracked Boxer would probably not even considered as CRV replacement at that time. Germany had its own project from 1996, which would eventually resulted with Puma IFV. There was just no need for tracked version at that time as there were other projects or already existing vehicles to cover roles that tracked Boxer would provide.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
We?????SW1 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 18:12Oh we did in 1996 we started working on the SEP modular armoured vehicle program and prototypes were in test in 2003. Scrapped…Jake1992 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 17:32 One thing Iv been thinking of over this whole Ajax Boxer debarcle is that I’m surprised that at the time of developing Boxer our selves an Germany didn’t look to develop the tracked version along side it.
If done at the same time as the wheeled Boxer it could of formed a nice joint replacement for both nations tracked forces that would also have the interoperability with its wheeled sibling.
I’m just looking at it with hindsight that it would of filled the Germans desire for a modula tracked vehicle and would of put a stop to our own flip flopping on track vs wheeled. I’m just really surprised no one back then thought of this at the time.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Looking at tracked Boxer, I'm not so sure its such a brilliant idea. Looks a POS and I'd struggle to think of any advantages over any of today's IFV's. Well, except for Ajaxsol wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 00:01Why would they? Warrior entered service in 1987, 6 years before Boxer started and 9 years before UK joined Boxer project. They had no need to think about its replacement, especially considering that last Warriors were delivered around 1995 or something like that, and tracked Boxer would probably not even considered as CRV replacement at that time. Germany had its own project from 1996, which would eventually resulted with Puma IFV. There was just no need for tracked version at that time as there were other projects or already existing vehicles to cover roles that tracked Boxer would provide.
PS And yes Karen, an Ajax IFV was entered into the Australian competition. Came last, I believe.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
And yet you accepted the comment that CV90 was proven in Afghanistan. Consistent much?RunningStrong wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 18:42 A shed load more proven than Ajax that can't even get by user trials, let alone combat deployment.
We were talking CV90 and ASCOD at the contract award point, keep up at the back Ronnie.
HA, ha, like you know. Good one.RunningStrong wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 18:42 Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 07:15
And how does the CV90 mk4 hull differ from that of the cv9035? Yeah, didn't think you knew.
Yep. Quite significantly.
APS, 50mm gun, AT missiles:RunningStrong wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 18:42 Ron5 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 07:15
Ha, so you can't rebut that the CV90 mk4 has superior mobility, noise, vibration, APS, gun, AT missiles, etc. than Ajax. Oh dear.
Why would I go to the effort of rebutting your fairytales again? Or you could provide that evidence that you haven't got!
Strategic & tactical mobility:
Noise:
QED
-
- Member
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
My god this discussion is depressing.
For so long the UK hasn't had new and up to date vehicles, now it seems some are suggesting we are getting to many.
Fucks sake like.
For so long the UK hasn't had new and up to date vehicles, now it seems some are suggesting we are getting to many.
Fucks sake like.
- These users liked the author Luke jones for the post:
- mr.fred
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
And yet you accepted the comment that CV90 was proven in Afghanistan. Consistent much?
[/quote]
Unproven in Afghanistan, at best!
So we'll put the CV90 Mk4 down as a 30mm or a 35mm?
[/quote]
Unproven in Afghanistan, at best!
It's quite obvious how little you know.
LMAO. Guzzled the BAE cool-aid? Nice render though, always good to use a shiny brochure to compare when it's clear you yet again haven't. But again, fallen at the first hurdle, to say something is better then you actually need to compare it.
So we'll put the CV90 Mk4 down as a 30mm or a 35mm?
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Cant see what the current discussion has to do with the AJAX, I must be losing the plot. My age perhaps. Happy new year.
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That's the CV90 Mk4 that won the Czech competition with a 50mm gun, APS & anti tank missiles.
Shame Ajax doesn't have any marketing material. I wonder if that's because GD regards it as unsellable.