David Moyes
-
Posts
409 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
41
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by David Moyes
-
-
-
14 hours ago, Laviduce said:
More British propaganda about the Challenger 2 having better armor than the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 SEP. Nationalistic/biased publications do not help much. I wonder what they were thinking writing this stuff.
To be fair it was written by a soldier, who was probably just parroting what he's been told. -
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?
-
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:
I know that you want to imply that the "Ajax" should be used as a synonym for the ASCOD 42 chassis...
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.
Spoiler
As development went on the design had to deviate further from the standard ASCOD 2 to meet requirements.Spoiler
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.
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:The ASCOD 42 hull prototype was made by Steyr SF and blast testing was done in January and early February 2010 at GDELS' facility in Austria. At the 18th Feburary 2010, the company also announced that the ASCOD prototype was capabable of supporting a gross vehicle weight of 42 metric tons
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.
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:Not only is the name "Ajax" only used for three very specific variants for the British army (so calling it "hull for the fromer Scout SV program" would be more appropriate)
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:The Ajax - or rather the decision of British politicians to pay an hefty extra for the local production of the ASCOD 2 hulls
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.On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:They added a new engine, transmission, tracks and final drive (all components happen to be made by German contractors)
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/
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:I disagree. That's a result of the different armor packages and different angles at which the photos were taken. The interior photo of the Ares (which is based on the ASCOD 42 platform) and the ASCOD 35 prototype from Eurosatory 2018 show comparable amount of interior space. The photo of the ASCOD 42's interior seems to be taken at a different angle and with a different focal length, hence distorting the image compared to the other photos.
Here is the interior of the Ulan, which has the same width and length than the interior compartment available in an Ajax, ASCOD 35 and ASCOD 42. Note that the different angle, focal length and seats make it seem as if there was much more legroom available than in the other vehicles.
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)
On 6/25/2018 at 3:10 PM, SH_MM said:IMO the ASCOD 42 is unlikely to be offered, given that no IFV variant of this vehicle exists (if the version presented at IDET 2017 is indeed an overloaded ASCOD 35 hull). That would also mean that the ASCOD 2 could be offered with a "decent" power-to-weight ratio of more than 20 hp per metric ton at gross vehicle weight. This would still be much below the automotive performance of Puma (25 hp/tonne at GVW), Lynx KF41 (23 hp/tonne at GVW) and CV90 Mk IV (27 hp/tonne at GVW), but still somewhat competitive. It also would avoid going up against the heavily armored Puma and KF41 Lynx, which due to their greater supported weight and/or their more weight efficient manufacturing techniques (in case of the Puma) have clear advantages over the ASCOD 42.
This however could mean that for General Dynamics the problems of the LAND 400 Phase 2 repeat themselves again: offering a less costly, but less competitive solution with no manned turret (as the LANCE turret apparently isn't available through GFE and the Steyr plant where the SP-30 turret of the Pizarro and Ulan was made has been downsized to near non-existence after winning the Scout-SV contract with a LANCE-based turret)...
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.- Xlucine and Mighty_Zuk
-
2
-
On 6/20/2018 at 12:56 PM, SH_MM said:
I wonder if the UK actually holds any intelelctual property rights on the Ajax. Usually IP is related to funding the development of a complete vehicle, the FRES Scout SV program however only considered only variants of already existing vehicles that were in service with at least one user country. The new turret is largely based on Rheinmetall's design. Basically this whole program looks rather similar to the LAND 400 project, with the exception of the UK wanting a greater amount of special modifications to their platform.
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.
On 6/20/2018 at 12:56 PM, SH_MM said:
The image showing that they ASCOD 2 PSO is indeed just a Scout SV MTR, where the sign was removed using photoshop, which is quite damning. However I remember having read somewhere that there also was a real PSO variant; maybe they simply decided to use it later as MTR for the Scout SV program? How much has to be changed to raise the weight limit of an ASCOD 2 from 35 to 42 tonnes? The CV90 Mk III was tested a weight of 40.4 tonnes, despite even the current CV90 Mk IV having a maximum gross vehicle weight of just 37 tonnes, in so far the Scout SV MTR (and the Ajax) could very well be overloaded vehicles with some changes to transmission, final drives and tracks only.
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:
On 6/20/2018 at 12:56 PM, SH_MM said:
General Dynamics hasn't really been strict with the nomenclature of the ASCOD family. Steyr SSF (the Austrian part of GDELS) described the Ulan as an ASCOD 2 variant, because it has a larger engine than the Pizarro - but it doesn't support the full weight of 35 tonnes. Also all Ulan IFVs were delivered before the ASCOD 2 was officially announced.
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:
-
-
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?
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:AFAIK the ASCOD 2 PSO technology demonstrator was the first vehicle based on the ASCOD 42 chassis. The British PMRS Ares is based on this vehicle.
The ASCOD 2 tested in the Czech Republic exceeded the weight limit of the ASCOD 35 chassis; it has to be an ASCOD 42.
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. -
Some stuff I have seen:
GD's offer will be based on Ajax, either original British model orthe 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.
On 6/15/2018 at 5:33 PM, SH_MM said:The older IFV variant offered to the Czech Republic was based on the ASCOD 42 hull (ASCOD 2 hull with 42 tonnes maximum gross vehicle weight), but was limited to just 38 tonnes thanks to (also) relying on rubber band tracks from Soucy Defence
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.
Britons are in trouble
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
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.