Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

David Moyes

Contributing Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by David Moyes

  1. UK still has a strong engineering base, various companies work on other nation's AFVs and produce componenets. New development in Titanium. It depends how indigenous it needs to be. High carbon Steel, transmission and gun would need to be imported. The UK government just has to be fully committed to the project. Which is the number 1 reason why it will never happen. Were suggested by officers along with Challenger 1 being armed with a L44. It seems many of the bad choices in UK AFV design can be traced back to Army leadership and Government rather than industry.
  2. Where would these second-hand Leopard 2s come from? I thought all the cold war stock had been sold?
  3. Horstman InArm: https://horstmangroup.com/horstman-products/horstman-inarm/ Used on Puma and many in-development/prototype AFVs. Related? http://www.horstmaninc.com/news/horstman-acquires-l-3-communications-electronic-systems-suspension-unit
  4. Not sure that's true. Rheinmetall recently signed Curtiss Wright for work: https://t.co/y3P5U6Wfzj and the BAE bid is rumoured to also offer a 120mm smoothbore. Army procurement has been a disaster for at least 20 years. Cuts have played a part but it's mostly down to the Army's poor decision making.
  5. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/axe-hangs-over-uk-warrior-upgrade/
  6. To be fair it was written by a soldier, who was probably just parroting what he's been told.
  7. http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/a42b8bf8#/a42b8bf8/34 Article on the Queen's Royal Hussars participation at Tank Challenge. Claims they placed 4th. Which was also posted on their Facebook page shortly after the competition finished. Won CASEVAC serial. Podium'd others including defensive live firing, pistol shoot and obstacle course. Struggled in others because of weight and agility. Has a tank comparison page. Usual "rifled gun more accurate", "3-piece quicker", "moar armour" but then says the CR2's fire control computer was better at hitting moving targets than the Leopard 2's. wat?
  8. You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming that ASCOD 2/42 is a British invention? I'm not. Nor am I denying Spanish, Austrian or any other foreign companies involvement. My point is Ajax/Scout SV started off as a modified version of ASCOD 2/42, where the UK would hold IP rights over that specific platform. As development went on the design had to deviate further from the standard ASCOD 2 to meet requirements. The other major part of Ajax/Scout SV is the UK specific software package (GVA) and data-sharing integration which I imagine is why GD would base their Australia/US offers on it rather than a conventional ASCOD 2/42 like they have with Poland/Czech Rep. Right, but they called it ASCOD SV: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1566&printmode=1 Once again, not claiming that ASCOD 42 is exclusive to UK just that GD seemingly never made a non-Ajax related example until the MMBT. I suspect that GD thought the Czechs would want a lighter IFV then when they found out otherwise it was too late to make a 42t. version so simply claimed the already built ASCOD 35 was a 42 but restricted by the rubber band tracks. Not true. The hulls were meant to be made and vehicles assembled in the UK at a Defence Support Group facility however when the Government sold the company GD were left without a UK manufacturing base. The Gov/MOD then told GD to build them in Spain to save money. When this news broke the MOD blamed GD and EU competition laws claiming they had nothing to do with it (a story they still persist with). It was GD who came back with a new offer (as part of a larger maintenance contract) where all the Hulls and first 100 vehicles would be made in Spain but they would establish (largely at their own cost) a new plant in Wales to assemble the other 489 vehicles. They did this with the belief that it would secure them the MIV and MRV-P contracts. http://www.cookdefencesystems.co.uk/images/pdf/SCOUT SV TR40 407 Double Pin.pdf https://www.contracts.mod.uk/do-features-and-articles/ajax-boosting-uk-land-capabilities/ Sure but I still believe that later ASCODs are at least longer. Supposed measurements for Pizarro/Ulan: ASCOD 35: "The IFV’s hull, in its basic variant, has the following dimensions: length - 6430 mm, width - 2990 mm, height - 1970 mm (without the turret), ground clearance - 512 mm." https://www.defence24.com/ascod-vehicle-presented-in-kielce Ajax: "6.6m" https://des.mod.uk/what-we-do/navy-procurement-support/ajax/?portfolioCats=119 ThinkDefence lists it as 7.62m (I assume this includes rear storage) In the case of Ajax the engine can be uprated to 800kw. It's also worth remembering that Australia just selected the Type-26 as their new frigate, so UK-AUS defence relations are quite high at the moment. Both have recently chosen Boxer, GD could play up interoperability between the two militaries.
  9. From what I've heard ASCOD FRES was initially chosen as a "Military off the shelf" project but as development went on UK requirements resulted in it becoming an effectively new platform along with years-long delay. Development budget was £500m. 2009: 2012: 2014: The boss of GD UK has talked about export potential several times. The impression I get is the Ajax platform is GD's premium AFV/IFV offering. The Test Rig showed up in late 2012: https://www.army-technology.com/news/newsgdels-tests-mobile-test-rig-uk-army-specialist-vehicle/ First reference to the PSO seems to be 2013. Ajax/Ascod 42 seem to be much larger than the 32: MMBT: 35: Ares: Ulan PT5: Used as the ASCOD 2 demonstrator. I'm pretty sure it was used in the FRES SV trials. Ulan 2 offered around 2004:
  10. https://twitter.com/DTRmag/status/1008966190604083200 https://twitter.com/DTRmag/status/1008997386939559937
  11. My use of "Ajax" was referring to the platform rather than the specific model. Perhaps "Scout SV" may have been a better term but it's never used any more and Ajax has become interchangeable. People have stated the offer as "Ajax-Based" but it could be confusion over the names and the image shows data ports which thus far are only on the Ajax family. Who knows where the Intellectual Property rights of ASCOD end and Ajax begin? It would not be the first time a company has up-rated an engine and overloaded the vehicle. GD have shown a habit of re-using ASCOD prototypes and giving them new names. First Scout SV mock-up was a Pizzaro PT3 with a lance turret, the Griffin was probably using the exact same hull. ASCOD PSO is just the Scout SV Mobile Test Rig: As for keeping Warrior that is up in the air. The programme is years behind schedule, way over-budget and rumoured that only a handful are upgradable as the aluminium hulls are worn out.
  12. Some stuff I have seen: GD's offer will be based on Ajax, either original British model or the composite-hull Griffin that is competing for MPF. (Person referred to it as "American version", I realise now this probably means GD's Bradley replacement) Considered cheaper Scania engine when AMV35 looked favourite. Sticking with MTU; Boxer CRV uses the same engine. Image comes from GD presentation when they were showing LAV CRV around 2016. Info said its stretched to fit 8 dismounts. Speculation: GD = Ajax + Elbit MT30 Rheinmetall = Lynx + Lance Both turrets have manned/unmanned versions so should be able to switch quickly to Aus preference which I suspect will be manned. BAE probably won't bid. The budget approach with AMV35 failed and Aus army won't be impressed by the cramped CV90. They may have said it's Ascod 42 but I'm pretty sure Ascod MMBT is the first non-Ajax 42t. model they have made.
  • Create New...