mr.fred wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
I think you're just being pedantic.
Probably. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
Also, no one is saying, "if it fits, it good to go!"
Not exactly, but you're saying that you can see no downsides and Jim is saying it's illogical to do anything else. I think that there could well be downsides and doing something else might well be the logical step.
I didn't say you were wrong, In fact. i don't think there is anyway to say what is right or wrong answer because we don't have all the information.
Also I didn't say there were no downside, in fact I think there are plenty of downside that we do not know yet. But from outside looking in, it does beg the question, is there a better option? This is a very promising start to an issue that needs to be addressed. I'm thinking UK would be wise to get involved early as possible to remedy a potential problem. If there are other options, again, please lets hear about it so we have additional information. But you also have to apply the same rational that you have applied to the tracked Boxer.
mr.fred wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
UK already have this turret they'd paid for from Lockheed, it's been tested on a tracked Warrior and Ajax so why not test it on the Tracked Boxer.
I believe that the structure is different but much of the functional stuff is the same, but to test it on Boxer would require money. Unless the British Army decides it does want an IFV, hot on the heels of deciding that they don't, that testing isn't likely to happen.
Personally, I think that the army does need an IFV, but I'm not sure which is the best vehicle. I have reservations about it being the latest bandwagon.
There are some benefits that can be derived from failed or cancelled project. This is one of those things that can be beneficial. I do realize that turret ring size is a major obstacle with integration, not sure Warrior and Boxer had the same size right. But I believe Lockheed turret has already been fitted to a boxer Mission module, so there is a genesis to start testing this integration. Again, not saying it'll be ready to go or free, (don't need to be said, but for someone's benefit, I'll state it for them) but you have a foundation to re-start this program. UK can leverage lessons learned from Warrior sustainment program, so again, can it be repurposed? If it's cost prohibitive then by all mean, get one of the turret that's been tested by other countries. I'm not wedded to this turret. if there are better and cheaper that can be produced in UK all the better.
Also, I wouldn't call it hoping on a bandwagon, I see logical progression from wheeled to tracked vehicle that can possbile use the same mission modules. If modularity can help leverage your limited resources to increase the effectiveness, this will only benefit the British Army. I do believe modularity would help logistics in the future of military equipment and it's a intriguing idea that has the backing of a multi billion dollar armored company. If ARTEC think it's a feasible idea, then I don't see why UK should not investigate it. The consortium that built Griffon for the French Army, were able to keep 70% of its components with the Jaguar. These are two completely different vehicle. So if they can achieve this type of commonality with tracked and wheeled Boxer, why would you not? (Disclaimer, I understand it will cost money and be subjected to testing and trials. And they will not just fit but also function properly in Tracked and Wheeled Boxer)
mr.fred wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
How many years has it been since they known about the issue? You're telling me they still need more time? Are you f*cking kidding? If you haven't fixed the issue at this point, there is a fundamental problem that can't be resolved. Unless there is a redesign, which won't happen, therefore it will be a compromised POS, you're being delusional if you think that 5hit can be fixed.
Well, getting angry and using curse words about something that you patently don't understand is a sure way to bolster your credibility on the internet.
Identifying a fix is different to implementing a fix which is again different to getting that agreed with a number of different authorities and all of that is different to having the results of all that made public.
First of all, I never identified myself as an expert, so of course I don't have any idea what is actually going on. However, I'm making an educated guess from the information we've seen. Recently they presented ASCOD2 for Slovakian evolution, and Slovaks also noted the vibration issue. So I think there is a fundamental issue with the design. Why would you submit something that has known issue? Unless you're telling the new customer that when you buy this, you can design it so it doesn't kill you with vibration. Ok, I'm just being cynical.
Speaking about something that I know, software implementation at a large corporation. we see this type of BS all the time. Sometime software isn't what was sold and requirements were not meet. What usually happens is the vendor tells you, we'll fix it in the next patch or next version. In the meantime you still pay and have to implement this software that isn't what you wanted. I would think this is more of an issue with an armored vehicle. You can't just rewrite the code for a physical design.
So that is why I'm calling the eventual Ajax fix a bullshit. You know for a fact they will never redesign it without UK paying for it.
The problem has been identified, and no fix has been implemented, therefore my point still stand. After all these years you can't fix the problem, then it's a piece of 5hit. Do you actually think they'll come up with a miracle fix? You think some engineer will have an Eureka moment? I wouldn't hold my breath. That is why probability of this fix being a workaround and not a fix is most likely. In ITIL problem management, it's a workaround until the problem is fixed.
And I'm seeking or in need of internet credibility, not chasing some internet IFV expertise level up here, and if I feel like cursing then I will proceed to f*cking curse. Also it's not really anger, it's a literary tool to display shock and dismay.
I think I've been civil and courteous, I will not be dragging this topic into name calling and using a straw-man fallacy to win any internet arguments. I would hope that you refrain from disparaging others just because of the choice of the words that were used. We're all grown ups here. There aren't any words we have seen or heard before. Therefore, I will not engage in any subject that is not related to Tracket Boxer any further. This is just a mental exercise in subject we all enjoy discussing. Thank you for you consideration and lets just have constructive conversation.
mr.fred wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
Given the track (pun intended) record, I have more faith in ARTEC over GD at this point.
Even if that is valid, and there's enough against GD at this point, it doesn't mean that ARTEC is magically free from the tyranny of physics. It's this kind of sub-critical thinking that could be cited as a cause for the GD problem in the first place.
That's why it's called faith, as in you are more willing to believe something when you've seen their track record. Just because I have faith in one company based on their track record, doesn't mean I have blind trust. I'm making no assumptions here.
I am under no illusion that ARTEC/RBSL will magically produce a world beating tracked Boxer IFV. Far from it. Nor am I saying put all the eggs in one basket with Boxer. What I would like to see is UK getting on the tracker Boxer program early to develop the modules that can be useful and leverage the Boxers program got UK benefit. One of the issues with going with ASCOD was the lack of user base. If they had gone with CV90, they would have had more data and information based upon the number of customers that were already using them.
mr.fred wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 07:59
Email Ittome wrote: ↑20 Jun 2022, 23:47
Again, if you have other ideas, i would like to hear about it as well.
I think it would be best to look at the options and evaluate them based on cost and performance before comparing both to the need and finances available. Off hand that's going to be KF41, CV90, Warrior 2, Redback, Ascod 2, Tracked Boxer and Wheeled Boxer.
I would agree that looking at other programs would be wise decision, but in this days of commonality and austerity, does it make sense to have different types of vehicles? I would hate to think no lessons were learned from Ajax saga. I made this point elsewhere, CVR(T) FV430 were simple design that could be modified to fit the requirement, for goodness sake, it's still service. If British Army could get that much usage out of Boxers, we all be in our adult diapers talking about the Boxer controversy of 2022.
Thank you again for indulging me by reading my ranting or not reading them. But I would appreciate a civil discourse, we already have too many hostility that we have deal with in real life. I would like to hear others ideas, good or bad or indifferent. We all do this for our enjoyment, we enjoy discussing this type of topic. No need for name calling... other than General Dynamic UK, they can go f*ck themselves.