AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
So how do you update the technology? Is it as simple as changing an LRU in an aircraft? Can software be upgraded by a simple data loader?
Its a platform so will need to integrate with the actual combat systems, sights, Bowman and everything else that sits on it.

This is far from an easy job and if they are going 'Ganz Neue' they will have to work out how to communicate with legacy systems.
 

TamH70

MIA
Ah the good old MORPHEUS and TRINITY projects not to mention NSoIT(D) and other little bits it's going to be a blast

I've been Binging the various new acronyms you lot have been firing about, and even glancing at the headlines as to what they all mean has my eyes glazing over, rubbing my bristly chin, and thinking that instead of trying to ponder more about them, maybe it's a good idea to get that Big Mac from McDonald's for 99p after all...
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I picked it up through this thread from Gaby, but interesting post on BAD for the L16.


I assume its one of those things that gets pushed to the side due to money issues
 
I’ll post this again:

How is this a Bowman problem? The Bowman ANR headsets both crew guard and Combat are absolutely belting bits of kit.
Average subjective ratings were negative for wear and listening comfort, with over two thirds of crew reporting headaches and half reporting tinnitus from headset use. Headsets differed in ratings for helmet integration, due in part to non-individualised fit. It is recommended that future headsets are individually-issued and fit-tested in tandem with other protective equipment, and that they are well-maintained and regularly audited to check the level of performance that they are achieving.
 
I worked on armour for years both with Clansman ANR and non ANR, latterly with Bowman, I never knew anyone who had an issue with the Bowman ANR headset. I agree that they should be moulded to the ears a bit like the special ones that I had made for Afghanistan (which the Army stopped issuing due to cost). I think they are trying to move the blame from the actual piece of kit that is causing the issue which is the platform

Edited to add that it seems after reading more in depth that some of the equipment seems to be old and has not been replaced tested and calibrated
 
Last edited:
I worked on armour for years both with Clansman ANR and non ANR, latterly with Bowman, I never knew anyone who had an issue with the Bowman ANR headset. I agree that they should be moulded to the ears a bit like the special ones that I had made for Afghanistan (which the Army stopped issuing due to cost). I think they are trying to move the blame from the actual piece of kit that is causing the issue which is the platform
The point of the paper wasn’t that the equipment was defective by design, but the issue and maintenance in the tested environment was lacking some of the steps necessary to be effective.
To paraphrase, the headsets were issued to the vehicle, not the crew, weren’t being taken care of and were frequently the wrong size for the user.
 
The point of the paper wasn’t that the equipment was defective by design, but the issue and maintenance in the tested environment was lacking some of the steps necessary to be effective.
To paraphrase, the headsets were issued to the vehicle, not the crew, weren’t being taken care of and were frequently the wrong size for the user.
I agree and having read through the paper it seems that since the demise of the Signal Squadrons within Brigade who used to WFM these and maintain them there seems to be an issue with the state of the equipment. Any electronic equipment requires maintenance as we know and failure to do so in this case has resulted in physical harm.
 
I agree and having read through the paper it seems that since the demise of the Signal Squadrons within Brigade who used to WFM these and maintain them there seems to be an issue with the state of the equipment. Any electronic equipment requires maintenance as we know and failure to do so in this case has resulted in physical harm.
I’d like to think that a report from three years’ ago would have been actioned by now, but maybe not?
 
I’d like to think that a report from three years’ ago would have been actioned by now, but maybe not?
I agree and the end user has to take some responsibility also. You wouldn't deploy with a faulty weapon so why deploy with a headset that doesn't work. One of the biggest issues used to be was that the end user didn't know what headsets they needed and would often order crew guard when they needed combat and vice versa - which as you know don't fit the wrong helmet!
 
I’d like to think that a report from three years’ ago would have been actioned by now, but maybe not?
Three years ago would coincide with us no longer being able to demand headset spares, on the basis any we repaired couldn’t be tested for hearing protection. A little while before that policy changed such that crews were no longer allowed to wear ballistic glasses with ANR, since the arms interfered with the earpiece seal.

So something happened.
 
Its a platform so will need to integrate with the actual combat systems, sights, Bowman and everything else that sits on it.

This is far from an easy job and if they are going 'Ganz Neue' they will have to work out how to communicate with legacy systems.

The main gun is an upgraded version of a gun in service with 7 countries de risk and ensure commonality as far as possible.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I still think you're being overly critical.

For example, the Chieftain started life in 1949, and only entered service in the early 60's. Conqueror started around 43/44, entered service in 55. MBT-80 started in the late 1960's (as did Warrior).

Those sorts of time frames are for a analogue tank, when we've got a dedicated design department and factories to work on them.

The time frames for Cr3 are entirely consistent. Hell, I'm pleasantly surprised it only took 6 years from someone saying 'We need an upgrade' to upgrade going into production. Take the Conqueror as an example. That was effectively a new turret wanged onto an existing chassis, that took about as long, and it was much simpler, despite the new directions we were going and the monstrous L1.
I don’t think you can compare the product development cycle for a 40s-60s armoured vehicle with what is achievable today. Engineering was entirely analogue when Conqueror was developed. Even when Warrior was designed, most of the drawing would have been on paper.

Product development cycles have been slashed over the last 30 years.
 

TamH70

MIA

Latest Threads

Top