AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Do like the look of that BAE M8, Composite Rubber Tracks, not too heavy, fairly fast.
One thing I find strange, the big long 105! For a vehicle designed to be air portable, its a big ol’ long gun. I’d have thought a shorter barrelled main gun would have been more practical and a bit of weight saving.
Curious as to which gun you would prefer, and how that would affect its ability to deal with its target set.
 
The article mentions 2 (or 3) being air portable. I'd imagine that the gun turrets would be turned to face each other, so that the barrels over-hang each other . . . rather than the barrels sticking out of the cockpit, or backwards through the still open stern ramp !! ;) .
Curious as to which gun you would prefer, and how that would affect its ability to deal with its target set.
Are they going to take on MBTs or just IFVs, I’d have thought a 90 similar to what was in the Scorpion 90.
If the 105 is what’s required….. I’m a Recce CVRT bloke, just keep looking at that big old tube sticking out in front.
 
Nah, one gets loaded upside down, with the other on top, dorsal and ventral gunports provided.
Is that not the position in which they would copulate . . . ?!

I can imagine two of them unloading, to be followed by a "litter" of little Ferrets . . . ;) .
 
Are they going to take on MBTs or just IFVs, I’d have thought a 90 similar to what was in the Scorpion 90.
If the 105 is what’s required….. I’m a Recce CVRT bloke, just keep looking at that big old tube sticking out in front.
They’re intended as mobile firepower for infantry/airborne troops, a somewhat overdue replacement for the M551 Sheridan, so they’ll be up against whatever gets sent at them. While they might not get sent against armoured formation some older tanks might be expected.

Plus the 105mm is produced and supported in the US, which counts for a lot in a US vehicle.
 
Is that not the position in which they would copulate . . . ?!

I can imagine two of them unloading, to be followed by a "litter" of little Ferrets . . . ;) .
I had these in mind
5FE6AFA4-FB1D-4BA9-8287-231F6C322241.jpeg
 

riksavage

War Hero
Interesting comparison here. 20t for the BAE offer, 30-40t for the GDLS one.
BAE was originally designed for airdrop and C130 transportability. It’s an old concept/design being regurgitated for the new tender.

GDLS is a newer design built to meet the requirements of the tender.

Soucy rubber tracks offered in the bids. Wouldn’t rubber tracks offer up a partial solution to reduce vibration/noise issues in AJAX, or is the platform too heavy?
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
BAE was originally designed for airdrop and C130 transportability. It’s an old concept/design being regurgitated for the new tender.

GDLS is a newer design built to meet the requirements of the tender.

Soucy rubber tracks offered in the bids. Wouldn’t rubber tracks offer up a partial solution to reduce vibration/noise issues in AJAX, or is the platform too heavy?

At the start of the Ajax project they weren't mature enough in the 40tn range, so weren't considered, but they are now
 
BAE was originally designed for airdrop and C130 transportability. It’s an old concept/design being regurgitated for the new tender.

GDLS is a newer design built to meet the requirements of the tender.

Soucy rubber tracks offered in the bids. Wouldn’t rubber tracks offer up a partial solution to reduce vibration/noise issues in AJAX, or is the platform too heavy?
Rubber tracks might hide, reduce, mask, the vibration/noise . . . but, would themselves deteriorate by having to absorb the vibrations. None of which addresses the root cause of the problem, and is merely dealing with the symptoms :( .
 
Last edited:
They’re dragging the ‘keep/discard’ decision out until the VSO’s/MOD mandarins responsible for this debacle have finished planning their exit strategy. Once they’ve exited stage left, pension intact and private sector job secured, we might actually hear a definitive result.

If only we could resurrect Stalin and send him off on one of his officer purges! I’d happily volunteer for the firing squad.

The money wasted on AJAX could have bought more Astute Class SSNs, far more bang for buck with greater strategic influence. They can be on station anywhere in the world in 15-20 days for four months at a time without returning to stock up on sausages. Silent and unseen. AJAX would struggle to drive 15-20 miles without screwing up the crews hearing and dental implants and it’s definitely NOT silent and unseen!
Why would you even think that money reserved for AJAX (Army) would be better spent on even more vessles for the Royal Navy?

I can just see theNavy in your new ships now, exercising on Salisbury Plain with the rest of the deployable Bde!
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I seem to have got a lot of 'Funnies' for that. Unintentionally.

What I meant was that I'm fairly sure that if the AJAX platform was being offered for a US competition, the hulls would be being built in a US plant far away from the one in Spain.

It would be interesting to see the qualitative difference and effect. Repeating myself again but one of the issues we have last time anyone discussed things publicly is that the variance in the Spanish-built hulls means that we don't know if we have a fundamental design issue or just gash build quality.

However, as @Majorpain notes, it's now not an AJAX chassis.

Of course, if we then talk about a 'medium tank', that 105mm starts to look rather better than the 40mm CTA - and I'm sure you could stick some sights and connectivity on the American offering (if it's not already there - inconceivable that it isn't, I guess...).

Aaaaaand back to the discussion of whether putting a Bloody Big Gun on a recce vehicle is a good idea.
 
Last edited:

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I seem to have got a lot of 'Funnies' for that. Unintentionally.

What I meant was that I'm fairly sure that if the AJAX platform was being offered for a US competition, the hulls would be being built in a US plant far away from the one in Spain.

It would be interesting to see the qualitative difference and effect. Repeating myself again but one of the issues we have last time anyone discussed things publicly is that the variance in the Spanish-built hulls means that we don't know if we have a fundamental design issue or just gash build quality.

However, as @Majorpain notes, it's now not an AJAX chassis.

Of course, if we then talk about a 'medium tank', that 105mm starts to look rather better than the 40mm CTA - and I'm sure you could stick some sights and connectivity on the American offering (if it's not already there - inconceivable that it isn't, I guess...).

Aaaaaand back to the discussion of whether putting a Bloody Big Gun on a recce vehicle is a good idea.
You want big? I'll give you big:

1634225811990.jpeg
 
Top