gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191133
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

UK military spending review   General Military Discussion

Started 13/3/21 by autogun; 13890 views.
RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

5-Jun

Foreword - I fell foul of the forum arrangement and have picked on a message a year ago. Still... 

DavidPawley said...

Did the bbc mention that LM is closing the factory where the Ajax turret is made because of the WCSP cancellation?

GDLS has already declined to purchase the factory and maintain production. The turreted Ajax are de facto cancelled.

Why would the BBC mention that? Surely they'd need a credible source?

Even so, a year ago there were ~60 turrets delivered

DavidPawley said...

The NVH issues are due to the weight reduction demanded by MoD; the only fix is to redesign, adding the weight (~8 tonnes) back which can’t be done without breaching the contracted requirements.

 

Some of them, maybe, but equally the latest report (25th May 2022) is saying things like:

The Department has also found that the headsets worn by crews—which the Army uses on all armoured vehicles—did not provide expected levels of protection. It will start upgrading its headsets from August 2022

While an earlier report (HS&EP Ajax Noise and Vibration Review) notes that additional sources of noise and vibration come from running gear, engine and quality control issues.

DavidPawley said...

The LAND400 project team was right to reject the Ajax proposal as unfit for purpose.

Possibly, but we don't know their reasons and if they are the same.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

Possibly, but we don't know their reasons and if they are the same.

Well, the L400.3 team was warned by British Army personnel that Ajax was useless.

Regardless, L400.3 requires 8 dismounts and Ajax has 4 so, it fails immediately.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

Why would the BBC mention that? Surely they'd need a credible source? Even so, a year ago there were ~60 turrets delivered

Credible source? LM press release...

60 turrets for how many hulls accepted?

Ajax is dead. It has taken down WCSP in its thrashing around. Chances are there will be further program casualties before the end is finally admitted.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

DavidPawley said...

Ajax is dead. It has taken down WCSP in its thrashing around. Chances are there will be further program casualties before the end is finally admitted.

Maybe Ajax is dead, but I think it was Boxer that killed WCSP. Ajax was committed alongside WCSP while Boxer was the sudden new thing.

DavidPawley said...

Credible source? LM press release...

I don't think I've seen a LM press release saying that they were closing the factory. Do you have a link?

DavidPawley said...

60 turrets for how many hulls accepted?

Depends who the hulls are accepted by (26* by the MoD, 250+ by GD)

The point is that there are 60+ turrets already made so even if LM stopped making them they still exist

*These accepted before the vibration and noise issues came to light, I guess they're currently held but not used?

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

ThrDavidPawley said...

Well, the L400.3 team was warned by British Army personnel that Ajax was useless.

Regardless, L400.3 requires 8 dismounts and Ajax has 4 so, it fails immediately.

The Ajax isn't an IFV, so of course it would fail as an IFV. 

The IFV based on the same chassis and offered to the Land 400 phase 3 programme managed 6 dismounts, if I recall correctly - still not enough and likely one of the reasons it failed, but that's no reflection on Ajax's performance it it's planned roles.

graylion

From: graylion

7-Jun

RovingPedant said:

The Ajax isn't an IFV, so of course it would fail as an IFV. 

So what is it then?

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

7-Jun

graylion said...

RovingPedant said:

The Ajax isn't an IFV, so of course it would fail as an IFV. 

So what is it then?

A recce vehicle.  That's Ajax the vehicle variant rather than Ajax the vehicle family. 

A Scimitar with a bit more firepower, a lot more protection, much better sensors and considerably more interior space.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

8-Jun

RovingPedant said:

The IFV based on the same chassis and offered to the Land 400 phase 3 programme managed 6 dismounts, if I recall correctly - still not enough and likely one of the reasons it failed, but that's no reflection on Ajax's performance it it's planned roles.

Hahahahahaha.

Requirement is for 8+3, what kind of moron tenders a 6+3 vehicle?

Anyway, I've had it with you digging deep to defend MoD's litany of failure against the perceived criticism of an off-hand prediction.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

8-Jun

RovingPedant said:

A Scimitar with a bit more firepower, a lot more protection, much better sensors and considerably more interior space.

And more vibration. And hull sides different lengths. And welds that have gaps in them. And a turret that fails reliability testing. And more...

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

8-Jun

DavidPawley said:

And welds that have gaps in them.

Seriously? How did they manage to do that? This is such a basic thing if this isn't done right it can be safely assumed nothing is.

TOP