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.

RovingPedant said:

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

So what is it then?

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.

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.

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...

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.

schnuersi said...

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.

It's entirely possible that someone isn't aware of stitch welding. I seem to recall mention that the spacing in some of the stitch welded parts were irregular, but that's kind of a different thing.

RovingPedant said:

It's entirely possible that someone isn't aware of stitch welding.

This is possible but unlikely.
Usually allmost all parts of an AFV are seam wealded. Only this way it will be gas and water tight. Also the load and potential stress on most parts require it.

schnuersi said...

This is possible but unlikely.
Usually allmost all parts of an AFV are seam wealded. Only this way it will be gas and water tight. Also the load and potential stress on most parts require it.

Any joints that have a sealing or ballistic function yes. Seam welded and on both sides. 

Internal or external stiffening ribs or welds which do not have sealing or ballistic functions are often stitched to reduce the heat and residual stress put into the structure.

No, it was just shitty workmanship and no QA, not stitch welding.

The hulls were not within spec and that's why they weren't accepted.

Running gear couldn't be installed because hull out of true is one complaint I recall.