UK Defence Forum

BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.

Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.

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.

https://defenceindustrynews.com/all-new ... fv-tender/


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.

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 think the article says that the competition was put on hold because the paperwork accompanying the bids was not up to the standard required.

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.

In related news ..

BB85 wrote:arrangements with domestic suppliers

the 40% domestic content (rqr'ed) refers mainly the state owned company,
AND

BB85 wrote: I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.

there is already an armoured personnel carrier from GDELS in production in the Czech Republic
"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

sol wrote:

BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.

Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.

Not clear exactly how much workshare the UK has in Ajax to start with

Ron5 wrote:

sol wrote:

BB85 wrote:I wonder if the UK would have had any workshare had Ascod 2 won.

Why would it? ASCOD 2 is not exactly the same as Ajax, and it have completely different turret, provided by Elbit.

Not clear exactly how much workshare the UK has in Ajax to start with

Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.

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.

RunningStrong wrote: Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.

That architecture will endure; but will we get over the turret 'troubles'?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

RunningStrong wrote: Loads in the turret and Electronic Architecture.

That architecture will endure; but will we get over the turret 'troubles'?

What turret troubles?

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.

Ron5 wrote: What turret troubles?

BB85 wrote: all the issues raised where from testing Ares Joking aside

Tell me more...

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.

I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.

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...

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.

Or perhaps it's not nothing to do with the turret or the hull...

RunningStrong wrote: nothing to do with the turret or the hull...

That leaves (suspension, power& transmission generally considered as part of the hull) the gun& the sensors)?

RunningStrong wrote:Or perhaps it's not nothing to do with the turret or the hull...

So what has it got to do with?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That leaves (suspension, power& transmission generally considered as part of the hull)

In this context they are fitted to the hull meaning the hull could be alright but the parts fitted are the problem

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

RunningStrong wrote:

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.

I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.

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...

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?

The same sort of lying that has claimed that Ajax has no noise & vibration problems?

Ron5 wrote:

RunningStrong wrote:

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.

I don't remember MOD putting UK manufacturing in the original contract.

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...

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

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.

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.

Ron5 wrote:The same sort of lying that has claimed that Ajax has no noise & vibration problems?

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.

RunningStrong wrote:No one has claimed there are no issues

Most amusing

Ron5 wrote:

RunningStrong wrote:No one has claimed there are no issues

Most amusing

Selective quoting and not understanding the actual issue, that's the same as most your posts

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..."

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

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.