AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

The rate we're going at, we won't have any meaningful number of MBTs to accompany!
What have I/we missed ?!

I thought they were getting-on, quietly, in the background, updating our MBTs ?!

There has certainly been enough YouTube videos, promos, etc., of prototypes at exhibitions, test grounds, to persuade me, that progress is being made ?!
 
What have I/we missed ?!

I thought they were getting-on, quietly, in the background, updating our MBTs ?!

There has certainly been enough YouTube videos, promos, etc., of prototypes at exhibitions, test grounds, to persuade me, that progress is being made ?!
I'm being very cynical and pessimistic here.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
If youve seen the breakdown of the 523 vehicles on order - only about 8o odd are Infantry carriers
Theres a lot of command vehicles (i mean a lot) but even if you account for some of these as platoon command vehc not HQ vehcs - there isnt enough lift for 2 battalions - yet the best part of 2 brigades worth of support.

Which suggests to me -A) they are expecting to be able a bunch more

b) They are following the German model where rifle platoons get Boxer - support gets MRVP

c) Were actually going Dutch ie - Infantry gets Tracked IFVs the Brigade support / eg arty obs engineering / ambulance get Boxer and so we dont need APC varians save a few to boost wheeled brigade firepower / protection
For the third time:

 
Let’s be clear. The army did not lie to Parliament. If there were lies, misrepresentation of facts it was senior officers who told them.

The buck stops with CGS. If Parliament was misled over Ajax, CGS’s position is untenable.
A good report from the HJS which explains where we are with Ajax, how we got here and what future actions could be


The broader concern here is that there has been a potential for a military cover-up of the noise and vibration problems, or at least the full extent of these problems. At the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) in 2017, Kevan Jones MP recalls that several people working on the Ajax problem in the British Army confided their concerns regarding the noise and vibration issues.

That is a full three years before the Minister responsible, Jeremy Quin MP, declared that he was only made fully aware of the extent of the problems in November 2020. However, a number and range of sources had confided in defence journalists back in 2017 regarding the scale of the problems. This includes sources from Lockheed Martin Ampthill who are involved in the turret manufacturing; several independent engineering contractors involved in both development and testing; members of the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU), Land Command and Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S); and people within the MOD.

The worry is that senior military personnel did not communicate these concerns and very serious problems upwards through the chain of command for fear of Ajax potentially being decommissioned, adversely affecting certain regiments.
 
Last edited:
For the third time:


I hadnt forgotten but Wanting to, having the option to and actually being able to are not the same thing - so i stand by my point
either
They are counting on getting more
They only intend to provide rifle platoons/ likely to face direct fire with Boxer rest get MRVP
The plan is tracked IFV for armoured brigades.

D - they are only purchasing enough section vehicles for a single brigade - they will have to share (sadly this is the most likely result
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
Begging your pardon, but the plan is no IFV for armoured brigades.
(For the British Army. I belatedly realise you may be referring to the Germans)
Correct - since the demise of WCSP the IFV must be MIV (BOXER) ergo a bigger buy...
 
Begging your pardon, but the plan is no IFV for armoured brigades.
(For the British Army. I belatedly realise you may be referring to the Germans)
No I was suggesting that (possibly) the low number of section vehicles is because what the army really wants is tracked IFV - and thus boxer isnt required in that role (save a regiment in each light brigade )

Boxer would fill the gap until such time as they can pry the cheque book out the treasuries hand (and promise its MOTS)
 
That’s what prototypes and trials are for. Trouble is that they are expensive so you end up with people cutting them out and trying to go straight to production, since we’re so much cleverer that people in the olden days.

Curious on the details of some of the problems you’ve cited. Sight graticule on the wrong side would only be a parallax issue and it’s not like there’s a very large offset on either vehicle.
With the weld, I understand glacis to be the slope on top and bellyplate to be the underside so they would never meet. The slope facing downwards I understood to be the toe plate. In any case, what’s the problem with the weld going across the vehicle? How else would you do it.
The graticle offset meant that the 30mm fired high and right ( you might remember the Warrior is a wee bit taller than Scimitar and the sight is set higher than Scimitar), we had a 14.7 mg which we fired through the weld, through the dummy in the drivers seat, through the dummies sitting on the left hand side and out the back door. A simple change of tucking the weld underneath the glass is solved it.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
I spent 23 years working on CVR(T) & have never heard of anyone suffering any kind of long term injury or effect.
Not saying it never happened, but if it did, it certainly isn't common.
Happened to me. SULTAN is very noisy if you're sitting over the idler and have your headset compromised by need to listen to BID250 on handset.
Mind you, I was also a gunnery officer (no ear defenders in turret) and got blown of the top a CVR one day when CR from ATDU let rip with APFSDS fro right of Firing point (at hard targets towards left of arc). 1300m Arish Mel gap IIRC.

I find deafness is often a blessing - I don't hear what morons are saying...
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Bring back the Long Armour Infantry course' where officers spent a year studying MBT technology. aic qualified officers were then posted to dagger earning pids in industry, testing and troop testing positions.
Indeed
The logic for this was never shared and we're suffering the consequences now. Having studied Mech Eng I really wanted to do this, but it got chopped mid 1980s just as I had completed Tp Ldrs course.
 

TamH70

MIA
No, there are to be no IFVs, regardless of wheels or tracks. This has been stated a number of times. According to the Army, IFVs are obsolete.

If true, then we're fucked.

What's the point of having infantry if they can't even get to FEBA before artillery twats them with extreme prejudice because they're in unarmoured vehicles, let alone not being able to advance to contact under armour?

Because that's what will happen.

Tovarisch Blokhin, your time has come. Go sort whatever idiots came up with that idea right the hell out.
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
As much as anything, I was pointing out that the reference recce vehicle is noisy enough to deafen, yet apparently quiet enough to recce. Consequently it could be taken that just because a vehicle is noisy enough to deafen doesn’t mean that it is too noisy to recce.

On top of that, the noise inside a metal box with a big engine isn’t necessarily the same as the noise outside.
If you're attenuating internal noise, that's one thing - although it effectively means that you must never operate the vehicles without headphones on/operational. Noise is also caused by vibration, and that may be another issue.

Yes, of course there's a difference between internal and external noise. But go and watch some of the videos of Ajax that don't have a thumping soundtrack superimposed. Tell me you're not concerned.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No, there are to be no IFVs, regardless of wheels or tracks. This has been stated a number of times. According to the Army, IFVs are obsolete.
No, that's just a convenient excuse.

The Warrior team was delivering a very nice upgrade with some good capabilities. The army just didn't have the £2bn to field it.

IFVs aren't obsolete. We're just incompetent.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
No, that's just a convenient excuse.

The Warrior team was delivering a very nice upgrade with some good capabilities. The army just didn't have the £2bn to field it.

IFVs aren't obsolete. We're just incompetent.
Really? Cost and time over runs and a meagre number of LM turrets, I thought it was in trouble?
 

Blogg

LE
No, that's just a convenient excuse.

The Warrior team was delivering a very nice upgrade with some good capabilities. The army just didn't have the £2bn to field it.

IFVs aren't obsolete. We're just incompetent.

Since the National Audit Office has now waded in on Ajax, Boxer, Challenger, and Warrior suspect there is going to be a bit of comparative silence.

Until March 2022 when the report will be published, that is.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top