AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

If we'd bought CV90 OTS it would a) already be in service, b) have OTS updates applied to it as they became available if we chose, and c) nothing to stop us designing custom updates to fit the CV90 family.

a - You are more optimistic than me but yes, probably and of course is what we should have done. We'd also have not wasted money on the proposed upgrade to Warrior.

b - Only if we included them in the price for the initial build/supply, ramping up the end price.

c - There most probably would be something in the contract stopping this, or at minimum a fee payable to the manufacturer for bastardising the eqpt. If not then the MoD would certainly lose any warranty and have to take responsibility for eqpt failure.
 
No. We’re small numbers and don’t have the luxury of bespoke for all the reasons given.

Your CV90 point doesn’t stand up, either. Who said anything about buying basic? Buying the best would still cost less. A Mk.3 CV90 would still be better than Ajax now. But your point about buying something at a given point in time meaning it then dates is reason to never buy anything.

Besides, Ajax has almost nothing in common with ASCOD 2.
The basic was what was available at the time the decision was made and by basic read CV90 0. CV90 3 did not appear until much later and there is now a much better turret available.

No idea where you're coming from with the ASCOD 2 bit unless it's a sort of upgrade comment.

 
The basic was what was available at the time the decision was made and by basic read CV90 0. CV90 3 did not appear until much later and there is now a much better turret available.

No idea where you're coming from with the ASCOD 2 bit unless it's a sort of upgrade comment.

Following your Wiki link, unable to reverse over anything more than 8" high?
Can anyone confirm that?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The basic was what was available at the time the decision was made and by basic read CV90 0. CV90 3 did not appear until much later and there is now a much better turret available.

No idea where you're coming from with the ASCOD 2 bit unless it's a sort of upgrade comment.

Ajax is supposedly based on the ASCOD 2. The reality is that it's been so fiddled with that it bears almost no resemblance to the 'minimum change, minimum risk military-off-the-shelf'* purchase we've made.



*Oh, and don't forget 'Built in Britain'.
 
Ajax is supposedly based on the ASCOD 2. The reality is that it's been so fiddled with that it bears almost no resemblance to the 'minimum change, minimum risk military-off-the-shelf'* purchase we've made.



*Oh, and don't forget 'Built in Britain'.

Im not convinced that CV90 wouldnt have been subject to the same buggerring about
 
There's been a lot of discussion about how the Army have constantly changed the requirements that have lead to the situation we are in now, but can anyone tell me what requirements were changed that fundamentally f@#$@d up the programme? I don't mean requirements from TRACER to x and y etc. I mean from when we said we want this stuff in this chassis and make sure it complies with all of our JSPs/DEFSTAN on HFI, EMC, environmental etc.

I'm sure we didn't ask for it to be longer or decided to change the turret originally specified in the initial requirements. They knew the systems we wanted in there, we've not changed our minds about fitting in Bowman, fitting a CT40/RWS etc.
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Oh well the Ajax has been saved

Although the Ajax —the first major vehicle the service has acquired in years — has faced challenges, it is not at risk of being axed, said British Army Gen. Sir Mark Carleton-Smith.

When asked about the risk of cancellation, Carleton-Smith said he felt there was a plan in place to restore the program’s potential.

Sound really great, but hang on

“In many respects, it's probably not surprising that the program is proving bumpy,” he said.

and the ultimate

Carleton-Smith added that the Army has not been able to be more transparent about the issues with the program because it is “subject to a sensitive contractual form.” But he noted that there is an “active and vigorous debate” about the project among the Ministry of Defence and General Dynamics.

“That one won't necessarily play out in the public domain,” he said.

"So just you jolly well listen! We are fixing it because I said we are fixing it because I am a bally genius."

"How? What do you mean how? That's a secret, (mutters 'impertinent sod')"



< Awaits news up the road that the retired General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith is appointed as a non executive Director of GD >
 
There's been a lot of discussion about how the Army have constantly changed the requirements that have lead to the situation we are in now, but can anyone tell me what requirements were changed that fundamentally f@#$@d up the programme? I don't mean requirements from TRACER to x and y etc. I mean from when we said we want this stuff in this chassis and make sure it complies with all of our JSPs/DEFSTAN on HFI, EMC, environmental etc.

I'm sure we didn't ask for it to be longer or decided to change the turret originally specified in the initial requirements. They knew the systems we wanted in there, we've not changed our minds about fitting in Bowman, fitting a CT40/RWS etc.

can we have some additional protection against Mines / IEDs
can we have some additional protection against direct fire
can we have Growth room we wanted Back
We still want the same mobility
Whilst were fettling can we make it so the tallest of squaddies is comfortable
can we have Growth room we wanted Back
We still want the same mobility

Why is it now 10 ton heavier 4ft wider and 6ft longer than the origional winning design ?
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
This was NEVER about delivering a suitable armoured vehicle to the British Army.
This was 100% about delivering post service jobs for the Chaps
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This was NEVER about delivering a suitable armoured vehicle to the British Army.
This was 100% about delivering post service jobs for the Chaps
Go on - prove it.

I'd suggest that any muddled thinking, if we might put it like that, was as a result of 'ensuring' UK workshare rather than as a result of people looking for post-Services careers.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Following your Wiki link, unable to reverse over anything more than 8" high?
Can anyone confirm that?
Ahem:

ajax.jpg
 
Following your Wiki link, unable to reverse over anything more than 8" high?
Can anyone confirm that?
Was discussed earlier I believe and the MoD apparantly have sorted it, mentioned (amongst other problems) here:

 
can we have some additional protection against Mines / IEDs
can we have some additional protection against direct fire
can we have Growth room we wanted Back
We still want the same mobility
Whilst were fettling can we make it so the tallest of squaddies is comfortable
can we have Growth room we wanted Back
We still want the same mobility

Why is it now 10 ton heavier 4ft wider and 6ft longer than the origional winning design ?
So none of these were in the original requirements for AJAX?

Given Afghan I'm sure the mine protection would have been an original thought?

Is protection levels not defined by a DEFSTAN that needs to be adhered to? Did we change DEFSTANS?

I'm sure for example, it's a case of cut and paste (as it's a HFI requirement) in everything it has to accommodate up to the 95% of soldiers or you saying we changed it to accommodate up to 100%?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top