AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
I do realise that armoured vehicles are manufactured with thick, heavy, armoured steel, but presumably (?!), GD are using CAD/CAM to at least design and cut the steel sections, with which to form the basic armoured steel "box" . . . or are they ?!

If the steel sections have been cut to precise, uniform, standard dimensions, how incompetent do they then have to be, to then weld them together, in an inconsistent manner ?!
 
I do realise that armoured vehicles are manufactured with thick, heavy, armoured steel, but presumably (?!), GD are using CAD/CAM to at least design and cut the steel sections, with which to form the basic armoured steel "box" . . . or are they ?!

If the steel sections have been cut to precise, uniform, standard dimensions, how incompetent do they then have to be, to then weld them together, in an inconsistent manner ?!

I have seen evidence of the real meaning of CAD. If one were to look for Project Binky on Youtube it is demonstrated repeatedly and to great effect.








Basically, before cutting steel, the parts were cut from carton boxes, bent and checked for fitting etc. Hence there is evidence that CAD actually refers to cardboard-aided-design, for all those tricky bits. Obviously in Spain they have found that their old boxes are too small for CAD'ing an amoured chassis, resulting in the problems we have seen.
 
Neither of you have suggested that they were cutting the steel, with hand-held gas-torches, following hand drawn chalk-lines, but from @truck_trasher's anecdote it wasn't much more precise !! :( .
 
Neither of you have suggested that they were cutting the steel, with hand-held gas-torches, following hand drawn chalk-lines, but from @truck_trasher's anecdote it wasn't much more precise !! :( .
There needs to be some appropriate tooling to hold the plates in the correct place while they are welded. Not having seen their production area I'm not about to speculate on where exactly things are going wrong.
 
There needs to be some appropriate tooling to hold the plates in the correct place while they are welded. Not having seen their production area I'm not about to speculate on where exactly things are going wrong.
The way you’d build a welded hull such as this, everything sould be placed into jigs.
I’d guess the hull parts aren’t being fitted in the jig’s correctly or there is something extremely wrong with the quality control in the factory. There should be checks at every turn.
 
There needs to be some appropriate tooling to hold the plates in the correct place while they are welded. Not having seen their production area I'm not about to speculate on where exactly things are going wrong.
That was discussed, speculated upon, way back. I don't think any speculation is necessary. From the reports of non-parallel sides and inconsistent dimensions, the evidence would indicate a certain level of incompetence.

I only raised this specific point, in response to @bobthebuilder's comment about earlier generations using drawings produced on paper (as I personally saw for the Army's Foden DROPS vehicles !), and wondered how GD could make such an ARRSE of using contemporary CAD/CAM systems . . . With very little effort, it would seem :( .
 
The way you’d build a welded hull such as this, everything sould be placed into jigs.
I’d guess the hull parts aren’t being fitted in the jig’s correctly or there is something extremely wrong with the quality control in the factory. There should be checks at every turn.
There’s no “or” about it. It’s irrelevant whether the jigs are wrong, components aren’t fitted into the jigs correctly or whether Manuel is working on a “she’ll be right mate” basis.

It’s a monumental failure of Quality Assurance.
 
No its not, but assuming RBSL have had a "tank" to play around with and managed to mount a turret onto a hull and fix a gun into it then I would assume a 3 years timline and not 6.
I wonder if the extended timeline for the upgrade programme is about keeping a minimal amount of work ticking over until Future MBT production can begin - perhaps also with an eye to money found down back of sofa because Vlads being a dick seeing the rest of the fleet upgraded
 
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.

I find that hard to believe.

The undying trend for AFV's was extending time of development up until at least the Cr2. During that time we had the advantage of a dedicated design department. We lost that ability. But do tell, what AFV's have we implemented since Cr2? The only ones I can see are:

Boxer
Scimitar II
Cr3
WCSP
Tracer/FRES/Ajax

One of which was COTS, and two that were upgrades to an existing chassis. The other was an upgrade that was killed off by idiotic management. and then we get to the steaming poop in the fridge...
I'll stick by the claim it'll take at least 20 years to get our next MBT designed. I have yet to see any examples of it going faster.
 
I find that hard to believe.

The undying trend for AFV's was extending time of development up until at least the Cr2. During that time we had the advantage of a dedicated design department. We lost that ability. But do tell, what AFV's have we implemented since Cr2? The only ones I can see are:

Boxer
Scimitar II
Cr3
WCSP
Tracer/FRES/Ajax

One of which was COTS, and two that were upgrades to an existing chassis. The other was an upgrade that was killed off by idiotic management. and then we get to the steaming poop in the fridge...
I'll stick by the claim it'll take at least 20 years to get our next MBT designed. I have yet to see any examples of it going faster.
Not to mention we have turned off all of the production lines within the UK hence why AJAX and Boxer are only being assembled in the UK.

The Vickers factory by the Tyne is now an industrial park and I don't think there is scale or capability at Telford to actually manufacture a whole fleet of MBTs. The last scalable effort was Terrier, and before that Titan and Trojan.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't think the design will be the issue - more the building of the hulls. The technology piece won't be an issue per se, but due to the armour being classified it will have to be built in the UK and as per my previous post the question where and by whom remains wholly relevant
AJAX armour is classified too...
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't think the design will be the issue - more the building of the hulls. The technology piece won't be an issue per se, but due to the armour being classified it will have to be built in the UK and as per my previous post the question where and by whom remains wholly relevant
This was covered in the CR2 thread that got binned. There’s expertise enough in the country to build the bodies-in-white, the powertrains and suspension. We could buy in the gun.

But what design expertise for MBTs do we have left?
 

Latest Threads

Top