Army's Ajax vehicle programme has 'turned a corner', minister says

A minister has said the troubled programme to deliver the British Army’s new Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has "turned a corner".
The vehicle, which has been beset by problems, has passed its validation tests and 400 hulls are now ready.
#forcesnews #britisharmy #ajax
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@jb76489]

“They’re ready to go and by that I mean they’re not ready to go”

[@scottyj8112]

Always said we should have gone with the CV90, another off the shelf items that are already proven, highly futureproof, owned by a British firm, and are ready to be acquired for the most part

[@Retrosicotte]

Problem is that when the decision was taken, BAE refused to build the CV90 in britain.

[@Lukky_Luke]

yes, think how many CV90 one would have gotten for the 4 Billion pounds (so far research cost of Ajax)

[@scottyj8112]

@Retrosicotte but it's not entirely built in the uk. The hull is built in Spain, and the turret is built in wales.

[@sprocket5526]

The newest version the NL just got, is an absolute beast. I'm not a IFV-o-logist, but I wager money that the newest CV90 version is about as good as it can get unless you have unlimited uncle sam pockets.

[@crissyb00]

@@scottyj8112 At what point did Wales cease to be part of the UK?

[@medic7698]

It's not so much the kit that needs sorting out but the entire procurement process.

[@peterwait641]

Alan Sugar needed to shake it up !

[@nvelsen1975]

Implying there's anything wrong with replacing your entire procurement process with "It has to come from whichever British defense company paid me the biggest bribe" (or Russian company if you happen to be Labour)

[@karlitobergkamp8082]

@@nvelsen1975🤔 mummy’s clever little boy.

[@medic7698]

@@karlitobergkamp8082 for a given of clever.

[@ScrotusXL]

The CV90 is developed by BAE Systems in partnership with a world renowned Swedish company. It’s got to be one of the best, and yet…..😮

[@mangrey2361]

Bofors and BAE systems AB made it. For the Swedish Army

[@ezragoldberg3132]

​@@mangrey2361 what about Hägglunds?

[@rohanbhardwaj262]

Pretty sure AJAX used CV-90 as a starting point

[@pekkadegroot8326]

@@rohanbhardwaj262 Perhaps, but they haven't been able to deliver on their promises, no matter how much pablum the Tory ministers are spewing. Slovakia bought about 150 units of CV-90 MkIVs for 1.7 billion euros. By my calculation that brings the unit cost to just above 11.3 million euros. At that price four billion pounds UK would have gotten over 350 of CV-90 MkIVs. Please elaborate in what way Ajax is better compared to CV-90 MkIVs and why it is better suited for UK use. PS. to the minister, you don't rely on an anonymous NCOs word to evaluate any procurement program. That's just nonsense.

[@Limit19970]

​@@rohanbhardwaj262 The General Dynamics Ajax is based on the Austrian/Spanish ASCOD AFV, which won against the BAE CV90.

[@terok1711]

Machines in development are always delayed. But the time for the Boxer is really surprising. As stated "of the shelf"...

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

not only off the shelf, Boxer has been in combat service with the dutch and german armies since 2011. The UK did not even accept the updates germany devised for Boxer with their combat experience (elevated mount for the weapon station etc) but just took the base A0 version instead of the optimised A1 or A2 version.

[@rorytucker9535]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Where did you see that by the way? I'm curious because from what I'd read, Britain was getting the A3 which was the same as the A2 but with a more powerful engine

[@questionmaker5666]

The Boxer still took eleven years to develop, what is causing problems is wanting an overly bespoke vehicle, ASCOD 2 was good enough, so why change it?

[@PavolFilek]

UK goes to hell, and soon will be in war with Russia.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Slap a BV in the German product and buy the darn thing. If the Germans are happy with it.. nuff said. Plus we had Brit designers in Germany on the program for 5 yrs in the 90s and then pulled out of the program.

[@Growlerinthebush]

From the introduction of the SA80 onwards the MoD have managed to waste £billions because you have too many people sticking their fingers in the pot. Back when I was a Chieftain Bridgelayer commander there were computers and navigation aids on just inside the Commander hatch that had never been used since it was put into service, the only good things that worked was the Image Intensifier for the driver and the clansman radios apart from the hydraulics for launching the bridge. If this was in Engineering tanks what wasn't used in the MBT's? Lucky for the Royal Engineers we had people that understood that we wanted and put the ideas into practice and most of them were servicemen on the ground not faceless Civil Service people that haven't a clue. Then after leaving the army I was involved in the aerospace industry, Nimrod cost the nation billions and then it was scrapped at £4.1 billion fleet. Strangely enough it was the same company that built the hydraulic rams and pack for the Chieftain Bridgelayer. Frankly I cannot see the Ajax making it into service anytime soon.

[@johnthebeloved6598]

Too many fundamental issues with it. I think there will be a save face episode of "lift rug" and "sweep under it". And then the health implications concerning personnel will continue to get buried. Just hope the HSE looks into the platform environments, and we get to the bottom of where / when the fundamental strategic decisions made that wrecked the capability... Perhaps lack of quality control / assurance on the chassis build in Spain would be a good start.. and why the engineering culture had been hindered by decision makers with insufficient experience to understand the emergent system behaviours as a result of their decisions.

[@peterwait641]

The Government insisted that old ex-saudi comet airframes were going to be used for Nimrod, the loon who made this decision should be named and shamed. The bulkheads and frames were corroded and needed extensive refurbishment , also being hand built the varying dimensions caused problems with interior and wing fitting !

[@peterwait641]

They also ordered 2oz PU coated nylon DPM water proofs in the 1980's , the waterproof PU coating delaminated after about a week of use. These were swiftly withdrawn and replaced with higher quality 4 oz Pu coated nylon waterproofs with taped seams that lasted better. Neither kept you dry to sauna action. Ventile was the material most suited to military waterproofs !

[@thefriendlyapostate8290]

If you carefully listen to the people reporting, neither do they but corners are being turned (kind of leaving open what is behind), hulls stand waiting at the production line - so yeah, surely the Ajax IFV is vibrantly pressing towards manifestation.

[@timmardon6161]

Pathetic! Words fail me and as an ex Blue and Royal who are supposed to be the first regiment to be issued Ajax and we lost our historic barracks due this show!! Someone needs a public slap at least!!

[@cirian75]

EX RDG here, these gits took our Challenger 2's off us and gave us Scimitars, are also waiting for Ajax.

[@simonwood1402]

The words you are looking for are "Treason and Death Penalty"💀 after a fair trial obviously 👨‍⚖️ 🤔

[@paulg3216]

I cannae understand why the MPs don't simply tell the MOD: "no more of this malarkey!" It's embarrassing!

[@danielwhyatt3278]

Where did the Blues and Royals barracks used to be then? Was this due to budget cuts? My dad used to be Kings Troop so he was at their old barracks as well before they had to move.

[@timmardon6161]

@@danielwhyatt3278 Combermere Bks, Windsor! WG are now there.

[@McQueenPaul]

I used to work as a contractor on MOD projects and can honestly say that the real problem is the MOD procurement division itself. Too many involved in the decision making and too much moving the goal posts. Everything costs 10 times the amount it should and every delivery promise is just wishful thinking. Such a frustrating organisation to work for. I refused their contracts in the end.

[@photoisca7386]

I believe the Elizabeth line was about 80% complete in the summer of 2018. Through running from Reading to Abbey Wood commenced in November 2022. It currently is not possible to travel direct to Shenfield. This may sound irrelevant but saying a project is 80% complete really doesn't mean much. Completion is probably years in the future.

[@ic7481]

I read that they planned to scrap all of the already-built hulls? Somebody is telling porkies

[@blackdow9581]

Isn’t this the thing that causes serious head trauma to occupants

[@Astralwolf23]

Yup. Noise induced hearing loss. Hundreds of testing troops reported it and a few were even so bad they had to leave the army which is disgraceful.

[@metaljewelgaming]

Thankfully I understand it has been fixed...

[@Joe-rp8xn]

I hope it's been fixed. Other than that it "looks" like a proper IFV

[@dmytronovosad3035]

Heads are overrated

[@MrEsphoenix]

Something to do with the suspension I think. It also couldn't reverse over a curb and it's gun was constantly jamming if it tried to fire on the move. Fingers crossed that they're the issues that where fixed at least.

[@AXXeYY]

we had built and delivered the CV90 to you in 6 years after order //🇸🇪

[@Retrosicotte]

Problem is CV90 had BAE denying to build it in the UK, no-one was winning the competition by denying that.

[@86pp73]

@@Retrosicotte Ajax only receives turrets, final assembly and some other systems in the UK. Many other components are made abroad. The hulls are built in Spain, for instance.

[@AXXeYY]

@@Retrosicotte yeah thats true if you want to buy CV90 its going for the most part be swedish build.

[@europa1387]

We'll just have to use nukes as defence lol

[@Retrosicotte]

@@86pp73 with cv90 it was nothing, which was why they lost

[@MrTait_en_Chile]

Always the same. I've been a tiny bit involved in a few programmes and even as a baby engineer the blindingly obvious was obvious. No adults in the room to make a decent job of requirements. Decent practical maintainable afordable kit kit build to work from day one and then evolve. No BS about carrier Eurofighter, Nimrod.... Abbywood just turns the handle, industry whisles the tune and says thanks for the cash. Tax payers, soldiers, airman and sailors just have to pay up and shut up.

[@tatradak]

Me too, same experiences at Abbey Wood on trucks and I can't tell you the details as I would be in breach of HM....but it pathetic, they where offered a higher mobility truck at half the price....£1Bn of tax payers money burnt....

[@peterwait641]

Over four years to come up with new fuel water separator for T2, there was a Dutch firm that can make them to your specification in weeks.

[@nvelsen1975]

Advisors: *sensible advice resulting in a list of requirements and how various equipment meets those requirements, or doesn't* Politicians: "It haz to be British-built no matter what!!!" Advisors: *clock out for the week and get drunk to forget their sorrow*

[@RoamGaming]

"by completed, i mean 80%" I don't think he knows what completed means.

[@nobodyspecial4702]

Well, in any other industry 80% completed doesn't get you a paycheck, but defense has guys like him standing up for them.

[@setildes]

Great to see this moving forward.

[@uniformmike05]

Should have bought the CV90 instead, then it would be in service now. You still can, buy CV90 hulls and put the Ajax turrets on them.

[@Retrosicotte]

BAE refused to build the CV90 in the UK. That's what cost it the competition.

[@Paveway-chan]

@@Retrosicotte Strange choice on BAE's side

[@TheRst2001]

I read BAE offered to build ajax at a Newcastle plant

[@YuureiInu]

Is it normal to validate design after building 400 units?

[@christianjunghanel6724]

Well germany has also has problems with its puma programm ! And they build around 350 ant counting !

[@alphahawkgames6896]

Talk to dyson

[@RoamGaming]

no. it isn't normal to accept the design before validation.

[@jonesyjones7626]

Nail on the head. The Army, after 15 years of indecision, decided they had to do something quick and so decided to start the manufacture before the design was approved. Idiotic.

[@oldchinahand1305]

It depends on what the design issues are: design items are ranked critical to tertiary I.e Must have, should have and nice to have. As long as the Must and the important Should haves are resolved then you can put it into manufacture as the Nice to haves aren’t critical for getting the system operational. The question for Ajax is - How many Must or Should haves were outstanding.

[@chrisrowland1514]

CV90 enough said

[@benlepoidevin7047]

The only correct answer

[@benjaminelkins-green4013]

For those that know

[@ashleygoggs5679]

still baffles me to this day, i was talking to a staffy in the reme a few weeks ago and even he is baffled why the MOD simply didnt go for CV90. CV90 would make the british army an army to be feared.

[@davidhouseman4328]

We would have had many of the same issues with CV90, ones from British changes not the base vehicle.

[@Retrosicotte]

BAE refused to build it in the UK, thats why it lost.

[@viking197]

We really love investing in equipment and vehicles that have or had issues.

[@MrEsphoenix]

To be fair, that's pretty much any new military equipment from any nation. The main issue is we've decided to upgrade everything at once and go with new programs for them all.

[@4_youtube_is_dead]

ayayaya handicapped generation

[@WellBattle6]

Every single weapon in history has required modifications after they've already been issued to fix problems.

[@timmurphy5541]

I think other countries have these problems, soldier on and spend the money to get it right in the end, then other people buy it without mods (if they're sensible).

[@4_youtube_is_dead]

@@WellBattle6 nobody can fix F-22

[@donovanburkhard]

Companies and military should be extensively looked into by a 3rd party. Snuff out any corruption or purposeful delays

[@gazza9463]

Absolutely. Cutting a long storey short, I once,through official channels, questioned the price of a spare part whilst serving in the forces. I could have bought it for almost a 10th of the price on the high street. I received a letter saying in polite language,if you know what is good for your career, then mind your own business. I dare say this sort of thing occurs across all tax payer funded organisations, not just the military.

[@johnthebeloved6598]

Far too Masonic for that.

[@tdolan500]

The delays are baked in for the government to reduce the size of the cheques that have to be written every year. We have fallen into this practise of slow balling every procurement because of the optics on spending and yearly budgets. The result is we are too slow rolling out necessary upgrades and overall programme costs are vastly increased.

[@peterwait641]

@@gazza9463 The price printing on spares designed to stop people ordering and not using ( waste) was stopped due to questions like this !

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Whos going to look into them? The government? It will be that lot doing the corruption

[@meme4one]

Ajax running hot, like the blokes in the back.

[@DWillis7]

It better be phenomenal to justify going for this over the latest iteration of CV90.

[@danbatesy5492]

Definitely but can see mod buying it then not receiving it till 2030 a joke the military needs them now. It shouldn’t be this hard.

[@ScrotusXL]

It will need to fly, have a cloaking device and be steered using mind control to beat the CV90!

[@DWillis7]

@@ScrotusXL Yeah the CV90 is brilliant. Especially the latest variant. Matsimus has done some videos recently on it where he got to see it in person and shoot the autocannon

[@jarrettbobbett5230]

Thanks for the info. ❤ from Canada.

[@micumatrix]

I think due to the sophisticated Electronics and therefore the needed "modularity" for constant updates just messes up with all new projects. Most projects are electronically obsolete when the planning phase is finished. Wanting too much plagued Puma, Bradley etc. Sadly nothing new. At least its nearly finished. When buying cars I was advised to never buy first batch of a new development, but the last batch of the model before to avoid teething problems. CV90 is solid and the Lynx tries to avoid all issues encountered with the Puma. But now its too late for such alternatives.

[@soul0360]

I do this with every product, especially when having electronics. Be it computer, car, washing machine, or even a bicycle. There's the thing of ironing out bugs, as you mention. But there's also the thing of, last generetation typically costing way less. While the feature gap isn't that big.

[@LoyalUK]

exactly

[@questionmaker5666]

Bradley turned out to be a great design, its combat record speaks wonders, and is hardly obsolete.

[@TheBooban]

@@questionmaker5666 i heard it got stuck in the snow in Sweden and cv90 ran circles around it.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Bradley's are great. Did you watch that turd Pentagon film?

[@francoscott]

If it is 'running hot' why has the manufacturer, General Dynamics UK, missed Companies House deadline to file their Annual Accounts? Something stinks...

[@ic7481]

Something stinks like rotten eggs and beef in a blender

[@peterwait641]

Perhaps they are hiding the Government paying them more money despite saying they would not ?

[@philhines]

Don’t give up when you’re almost there! That’s they way it is with life!

[@Paveway-chan]

No, that's the sunk cost fallacy. Just because you've already invested loads doesn't mean you *have* to see it through to the end, because no one knows how much *more* the program will overrun its' budget

[@tatradak]

Well to start again and loss £4Bn sir you win that aguement hands down...but at £28.5 million each Ajax I hope as a tax payer you think a steel box on a set of tracks with an engine is value for money because as an engineer I can tell you straight your being price gouged, its a criminal offence in the USA and it should be here in the UK

[@HerfingPug]

The Brits always amaze and always punch well above their weight. Love ‘em, they will work these teething issues out.

[@stevenbreach2561]

While costing countless millions when we could have been operating CV90 in all its variants NOW!

[@danbatesy5492]

@@stevenbreach2561 they should have gone with the cv90 but the government and MOD will some how mess it up and the same issue will happen spend money on something then not end up with anything.

[@ScienceChap]

Ours is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world. I'm not convinced we do punch "above our weight" in the UK. We are a heavyweight. Perhaps not in the league of the US, but we certainly provoked the ire of Russia because they recognise that we could do them a great deal of damage. However we are obsessed with sovereign manufacturing capability - a desire that has reduced our forces to an underfunded joke with a bloated, unwieldy and cash hungry procurement process which can't see beyond the end of its own snout. Nice to be appreciated though...!

[@Blayda1]

@@ScienceChap because all those in government who chose the different military platforms are probably on the board if directors or have shares in the manufacturers . They dont want to lose their end of year bonus's.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

@@ScienceChap I do agree to an extent, but even the US has a similar issues with obsessively using home grown stuff to the point they are still stuck using the stinger

[@regarded9702]

I'm happy to hear it can turn now

[@heathradmacher6039]

What's ironic is the United States had the exact same learning curve with its Bradley fighting vehicle Cost overruns problems with the machine massive overspending eventually it became a very good platform but......

[@SussyImposter9856]

Yeah time will tell if the Ajax will be worth it or not. I will say the base design looks very promising.

[@TheRst2001]

Yes looking into it the ajax and ares etc may well turn out good kit. Has the same engine as the new Boxer which is Rolls Royce owned built subsidiary company from Germany what I can tell. Making logistics easy . The 40mm turret is built in uk and may also be used for boxer , again making logistics easier Also general dynamics which is huge have just got a contract for griffin 3 light tank in usa which originally used ascod2 hull for trials but now has its own new Hull, so its possible here that future ajax upgrades may get new hull ? . And GD also pushing for usa ifv vehicle. So in long term I think project will do OK , and when it finally gets rolling hopefully will see continuous upgrades . The weight of 38t to 40t for ajax is now the standard for newer ifv so in away ahead of its time But yeh the ineptitude of mod , GD and politicians have really made a hash of it all . But I'm trying to be optimistic 🤠

[@democracyoverdictatorship7483]

The insane level of incompetence is astounding.

[@Surv1ve_Thrive]

CV90. Possibly would have been simpler and more efective choce. BAE were prepared to build in the UK after initially refusing to, at first said will only construct in Sweden.

[@jpracing893]

Ajax should’ve been scrapped and gone with the CV90, but least it’s moving forward I’ve heard they’ve fixed the vibration issues. Boxer looks decent but why on earth does it take that long to produce something off the shelf. Challenger 3 should still go ahead but there’s so few in number needs double or triple the number of them.

[@davidhouseman4328]

I imagine the Boxer issue is about the work share the UK wanted.

[@farmerned6]

Chally 3 will be a dogs breakfast , we should be building New, not re-turreting OLD hulls, the Youngest Chally 2 is 21 years old now

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

@@farmerned6 Agreed. It's insane. I hate cost-cutting measures that will cost more in the long term. It's not like the upgrade is cheap or anything, at >£5m per vehicle, you could probably get an entirely new tank for £7-8m. Now we have a lot of data out of Ukraine, I hope we rethink this and go back to the drawingboard to get something a bit more survivable.

[@peterwait641]

would they not have an in service date if it was fixed ?

[@ScienceChap]

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph this week Edward Stringer (the former head of RAF intelligence) said that in his view the UK needs to dump the idea of on-shoring development and manufacture of top end kit, because we just don't buy at the scale necessary to make it economical. The US can. China can. However we're not buying 3000 tanks then keeping the manufacturing base open for decades to maintain and upgrade them. Instead we should do what the Poles have done. That is partner up with South Korea. Buy a small number of K2 Black Panther MBTs off the shelf, then build a large factory and build a shed load more under licence. They're calling it friend-shoring. You then have sovereign manufacturing alongside economies of scale in terms of logistics support, and the capacity to source spares from friendly nations. Plus you could sell them overseas, with all that brings. I cannot fathom how we have the 5th or 6th largest defence budget in the world, at $65 billion, but only 148 Challenger 3s on order. It's just completely beyond me. I get that purchasing power for the Zloty against the GBP is different because of costs in the UK being a lot higher, but the Poles are procuring 980 K2s... And M1A2s as well, on a total national defence budget of $14 billion. I do get that the Poles aren't running a large navy as well, but I mean.... really?

[@garrywynne1218]

You are not alone in your bemusement. We had nearly 1000 MBTs in Germany alone in 1990?

[@bushmasterflash]

You shouldn't let the drive to achieve perfection stand in the way of what is very good right now. If there is a capable vehicle right now then get it into service right now.

[@fensterputzernuernberg]

148 ? that would be roughly 3 per county....

[@maexlmaexl1478]

What I never got about the Ajax and its numerous issues, is that the deigns from ASCOG are based on developements from already proven ifvs in service. Spain uses it and Austria has its Ulan. Recently the Philippines ordered also more than a dozen ASCOG ifv with a 105mm as armored support. So how can you get the apparently working basic design for other countries so mismanaged that the crew suffers hearing loss and nausea and such???

[@peterwait641]

You pay off expensive highly skilled fabricators and welders , big gap so many may have retired and hire less experienced ones on poorer pay and conditions. Torsion bars with rotary dampers at edge of design weight limit are not going to perform like hydro-gas units . Horstman call them a budget solution !

[@georgegeorgakopoulos5956]

In Forces News we trust

[@robert6106]

I remember using the old 432 with its GPMG/L42? bubble turret. Then looking at that boxer mounted gun, how things have moved on.

[@alanmoffat4454]

YES THERE WAS 4330s IN BERLIN USED BY US AND BELONGING TOO SOMEONE ELSE.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Some APC style vehicles still have pretty much a single 7.62 mg.

[@peterwait641]

The 432 bulldog (with Cummins engine ) is still going, said to cost 1/4 of the price of warrior per mile to operate.

[@robert6106]

@@Ukraineaissance2014 Every effective weapon, drop the troops of and the APC withdraw to provide fire support and you have 20 or 30 GMPGs laying down beaton zones from a flank or where ever. Some roar of the lead ripping through the air.

[@stephen7571]

My instructor in 432 in 1980 whilst driving near longmore ranges said to me these things are ancient. They won’t be around for much longer!? Imagine my surprise 6 years later on posting to Minden with a regiment of mk1s with petrol engines. They are still going strong.

[@xaiano794]

Regardless of the vehicle, the gun is incredible, only the front armour on a MBT would withstand it and paired with all it's other capabilities and the fact we can operate them in far greater numbers this will be a great defence asset

[@Anonymous_User.]

The Western military procurement bureaucracies are plagued by very similar issues, often with ground force assets. I think that they should cut down on regulations, reduce and essentialize the requirements, and open the market for more competition. Also, reduce the influences in procurement programs from bureaucrats, such that military leaders, industry and experts can have greater influences on the procurement programs instead. Most importantly, the procurement requirements must be achievable for industry. This is not a problem of industry, but of poor and complex procurement programs created by clueless bureaucrats. Maybe simply procuring existing and proven assets is the best option now, say for example the CV90. The US Air Force's B21 Raider procurement program may be a model worth following due to the relatively low cost and timeliness it has supposedly demonstrated.

[@MrEsphoenix]

Got to be careful cutting regulations and the likes or you end up like Russia

[@danielcampbell3686]

So have they fixed the serious vibrating issues, that were causing soldiers to go deaf, etc from crewing it, or has that just been swept under the rug again.

[@86pp73]

How much do you want to bet that General Dynamics have slipped a sweet couple of million to some ministers and generals to keep the programme going?

[@TheBooban]

Yeah, they didn’t mention a word on that. That the factory was “running hot” is actually a problematic if those issues have not been dealt with. If they can’t fix it, cancel, buy CV 90 .

[@danielcampbell3686]

@@TheBooban they probably don't care it's not them that will be riding round in it

[@leeming1317]

Not service related.

[@peterwait641]

117 db seems a bit loud when health and safety limit is 85 db , how did the test crews not notice ?

[@mrkeogh]

Getting it to do *anything at all* is a milestone.

[@peterwait641]

Better to get paid for some arbitrary milestones than meet quality targets ?

[@radosaworman7628]

@@peterwait641 true but sometimes militaries are putting out incredible requirements due their indecisifness about curret threat. Perhaps cutting short some of the undoable requirements is needed to get thing going.

[@peterwait641]

@@radosaworman7628 The 20,000 lbs recoil of CTA is excessive , this data would tell any engineer that a muzzle break would be needed to reduce it. They tried to build it without and had to retro fit them later. Don't think they had expertise or put profit before common sense !

[@radosaworman7628]

@@peterwait641 Well. some things are hard to predict while your adapting couple of known parts toghether. As an example early Rosomak IFVs (Partia IFV made to polish requirements with Leonardo's Hitfis-25 turret modified to accept 30/35mm bushmaster gun - all relatively known quatities in 2000s) had problems with ergonomy that requred turret to be at specific positions to clear malfuntion without getting on the outside of the turret. Perhaps Ajax being amalgamation of more than 3 off the shelf parts has more problems- we had to drop ability to float (which was only made possible with second generation of Partia) and be transportable by C-130 to get it where it's now- a safe bet for countries like Japan to get decent and reliable thing to buy quickly- such is fate of innovators.

[@peterwait641]

@@radosaworman7628 All the reason s not to use CTA cannons were in the American Air force Lab evaluation report , they spent over $200 million since the 1950's and decided against it !

[@mandalorion]

Never mind Ajax, how in the name of arse, is Mark Francois still an MP?

[@keithdurose7057]

This situation is truly amazing. In the early 1990's the British Army up graded its amphibious bridging and rafting equipment. In service was the excellent but aging Eisen Werk Kaiserslauten M2 Alligator. The next model was the M3. After proving the design in a very short time it was adopted. My involvement was regarding the maintenance specifically welding repairs. 28 Engineer Regiment based in Hameln were the British operators of the equipment. As the welding manager in the A&G section Workshop REME. (Although the section less the armourerd were RE's) I visited EWK on many occasions. Although the design was a vast improvement it was a highly simplified vehicle for maintenance purposes. The main obstacle was not getting it to swim or drive but to stop it! Most R&D went into developing the brakes. Perhaps giving the trials and development contracts to German industry could speed things up? After all the Challenger 3 is really a tank on par with the next generation Leopard. The turret, gun and ammunition are to be exactly the same. Not before time. 148 would facilitate some training. 1480 would constitute a reasonable armoured force. Comparing that to Russian tank losses. Primarily the T72. That amount would last 18 months in combat. Vital for force projection is artillary. A better AS90 needs to be in service ASAP.

[@lacdirk]

How many can be crewed, though?

[@BOOSSHH]

Huh crazy world, i currently work on the M3's are the brakes are one of the things that give us the most headaches.

[@capoeirastronaut]

Smart people are saying, give all the Challengers to Ukraine to do what they were built for, beat Russians, & upgrade to Leopards entirely for the UK.

[@GrundleLongDong]

When comparing losses we do also need to compare the quality of said tanks and what they’re equipped with. As seen Russias t72 force is very much lacking in both protection (these are mostly 80s-90s t72s with well outdated armour) and firepower (captured examples show that they’re using not their new ammunition but far outdated ammo such as 3bm42. Their lack of properly up to date tanks on the field, as well as their poor tactics (tanks have been used in isolation way too often) has definitely had an effect on their losses. Even still your point still stands, but I do believe this change constitutes a change in doctrine where we as a fighting nation become much more specialist rather than a brute fighting force

[@lacdirk]

@@capoeirastronaut There won't be any Leopards to get once the US okays the transfer of them to Ukraine. In fact, there won't be any spare tanks left in European NATO in the end. That's why Ukraine can only win if US Abrams tanks come by the thousands. The US has more spare Abrams in storage than the European NATO countries have tanks. If there's a circular exchange to provide more European tanks to Ukraine, it will be old Abrams tanks that replace them, not other European tanks.

[@KomradeMatt]

Why did they go down the route of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme and give the Warrior a 40mm gun which is also stabilized?

[@MrEsphoenix]

To be fair, the warrior chassis is becoming very dated it's self. After sinking so much money into the Ajax, it would likely cost more overall to go back and upgrade the warrior. The question is whether they should have just gone with the CV90 from the start and set up a UK production deal, saving all the issues that comes with developing new equipment.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@MrEsphoenix CV90 would have need adaptation like ASCOD did to get to Ajax. Can't have gone worse but it still would have been a development.

[@MrEsphoenix]

@@davidhouseman4328 There would have been less development on a chassis that's already proved it's self across a massive range of adaption is the difference. I'm not saying it would have been the right way to go, just that it was a better option than trying to upgrade the warriors that are simply old and outdated.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@MrEsphoenix Ajax isn't a warrior upgrade, it based on the Spanish/Austrian ASCOD.

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@MrEsphoenix I may have misunderstood you, apologies if you meant CV90 from the start for the Warrior upgrade rather than Ajax.

[@martindornan1667]

The Ajax vehicles were meant to come into service in 2017, it's now February 2023 and the Tory Westminster minister still can't give a date when Ajax vehicles will come into service.

[@Geekwithnonumnum]

Challenger 3 should be ok, but only if they take it back to the chassis. I would say that if your taken it back to the chassis why not build a new tank? I think the repurpose of challenge 2 to 3 is to save money and trying to predict the future of tank warfare because a lot of people are saying that it’s drone warfare now.

[@currentcommentor8745]

Have they resolved vibration issues yet?

[@BillyBatts714]

What a complete waste of money. Some people's had back handers , corrupt officials

[@TheMrReee]

The biggest problem is arms procurement is a closed market, if outside companies could offer design and build, they could be produced much cheaper. Too many back handers are given out in the highly corrupt defence industry.

[@peterwait641]

They should ban after dinner speaking for defence companies and jobs for high ranking military staff !

[@senseofthecommonman]

People seem to misunderstand what this is really about. Despite the delays and failures, the money is still flowing. The companies get richer, the shareholders (government ministers by any chance) get richer, so in reality as always it’s going exactly to plan. That’s once you realise what the plan really is.

[@phooogle]

The cost to upgrade Challenger 2 is to Challenger 3 is TWICE the cost of building the things in the first place. I know, inflation, but WTH?

[@ic7481]

You can attribute it to corporates' increased appetite for filthy lucre

[@TheClipper7]

Britain has put SOO much money in this its finacially impossible to get out of,so it will be the future IFV of the UK !

[@fuckoff4705]

1:33 what does the british government have 'underway' on an AFV mainly built in the netherlands and germany? Do you mean the 100 boxers currently under procurement?

[@MrEsphoenix]

Rheinmetall BAE is part British after the merger and has a site in the UK too.

[@fuckoff4705]

@@MrEsphoenix There was no merger, Rheinmetall BAE is just the name of a joint venture between BAE and rheinmetall, the boxer is still produced solely in the netherlands and germany though

[@ahmadloai2378]

I don't think that 148 tank will be enough in a full-scale war Based on the Ukrainian experience, this number of tanks will not be sufficient for more than two or three months of work in the field under the best conditions.

[@eatdriveplay]

It’s certainly not enough - by NATO planning standards and templates, there are defined areas of influence a vehicle/platform/unit can hold. 100+ vehicles is one brigade and will not cover more than 100 miles width and even lesser depth.

[@davidhouseman4328]

The only full scale war envisioned is defending eastern Europe against Russia as part of NATO. In that context continental Europe will provide the tank numbers. If we were somehow fighting alone we be turtleing on our island and it's the Navy and RAF thats key.

[@Mindcrime80]

British strategic planning does not forsee any land war fought by Britain alone , only as a US sidekick. The “Global Britain” stuff was just a gimmick to be sold to the brexit voters

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

It will be combined with germany, france, the US etc. That sort of coalition war is the only one we would use massed tanks in.

[@ryanbrewis6990]

No nation besides the US has the depth for such a war. Look at the aircraft and tank fleets across Europe, a hundred or two tanks or jets is the norm. We aren't set up for a Ukraine style war, very few forces are because buying, manning and maintaining huge armoured vehicle, artillery and aircraft forces is incredibly expensive and most nations don't have a public willing to shoulder that cost plus volunteer in numbers enough to field it.

[@ukironman1]

I saw these being transported the other day on the motorway and they are horrendously enormous and have no business being a recce platform, as they can be seen from over the horizon…

[@SussyImposter9856]

That's par for the course for most IFV's these days as people have realized it's better to have actual protection and space inside than a super compact ifv like the bmp 2

[@ukironman1]

@@SussyImposter9856 it’s not supposed to be an IFV dumbass, it’s supposed to be a recon unit.

[@Norwichjase]

How ridiculous! The country is in dismay and a cost of living crisis, yet we’ve spent £5bn+ and not taken delivery of anything yet. How ridiculous

[@mattyallen3396]

Why not the LAV?

[@FallNorth]

I really don't like those wide overhanging "skirt" areas wide of the tracks? Surely at a pinch in say a tight urban (or tree) environment they might mean it can't go where it otherwise COULD go? I can't think of anything else offhand like it. It's like it's got an extra 2-3 ft in width that certainly isn't used by troops.

[@redjacc7581]

interesting that they haven't actually said the noise and vibration has been "fixed" why not? and if it has what was causing it?

[@jamesward6460]

Exactly my thoughts!!! I think they ahve "fixed it" by sweeping it under the rug!! They might issue extra ear defense and cushions to be worn under the uniform of soldiers using the equipment!!🤣

[@timmurphy5541]

Apparently there were 2 issues - one is that all the hulls were not built exactly the same so it has been hard to be sure they have identified the general problem and made a general enough fix that it will work on the next and the next. Things tend to have resonant frequencies based on how long they are and whether there's anything to damp them. So dimensions matter and the input frequency matters (e.g. the engine vibration). There was also another issue with their headset which actually enhanced the kind of noise that they were experiencing instead of cancelling it.

[@peterwait641]

117 db recorded inside , expect they used hydraulic mounts to dampen engine vibration, don't know how they will cure track /sprocket interface noise without changing to rubber composite tracks and running gear. Seats could have isolation mounts along with steering assy and pedals . Would they not have an in service date if really fixed ?

[@gilly9666]

The only people who should be buying this kind of thing is the people who operate them

[@markellis7819]

I thought this had been thrown out as it's not usable due to vibration and ride

[@nightwing.3378]

They should have chosen Hanwa and Samsung tech to build military weapons 10 years so they would already have it today. 750 K9 Thunder 1000 Challenger 3 build from K2 Black Panther 250 Chungmoo K239 800 Red Back IFV 1200 Boxer IFV 8000 MAN Military truck

[@spacefx1340]

Don't forget Ajax has the first stabilised 30mm gun in history on a ifv , no joke some mod goon said it on the warrior upgraded turret program 😉.

[@peterwait641]

Some Goon thought the AJAX 1950's torsion bars and 1970's rotary dampers an advanced modern suspension system, Horstman calls it a low cost solution ! It is the 40 mm CTA cannon , however they seem to have had teething troubles with this as well !

[@dulls8475]

Lets see if we can get it to drive in a straight line.

[@rokuth]

400 hulls... More range targets now available for the British Army... I can't believe I just said that...

[@GiveMeBackMyUsernameYouTube]

Personally I'd prefer if we just bought some IFVs from South Korea with a domestic production and technology sharing clause. It would probably be cheaper and lead to less perforated eardrums.

[@heybabycometobutthead]

Why? There's no technology korea produces that can't be produced here, the physical vehicle in this project is the problem, that is foreign, there's no problem with the technology in this vehicle which was produced here.

[@jarnohiddingh4307]

Or just buy cv90 wich is in use with 9 eu/nato ally’s

[@GiveMeBackMyUsernameYouTube]

@@jarnohiddingh4307 Or that. I'll be honest, I was thinking the same but I couldn't remember the name. A lot can be said regarding the benefits standardised equipment between allies and the streamlining of logistics and training that goes along wth it.

[@mstevens113]

Ajax is not an IFV so it's a non argument.

[@GaminHasard]

@@heybabycometobutthead production at home

[@arakami8547]

I really still would've preferred procurement of the KF31/41 Lynx, it's modularity makes it ready for all-out war and deployment in force anywhere on earth. 93 Ares APC variants I simply do not believe is terribly suited to replace the 800 odd Bulldogs in service, if the Boxer were to struggle in wet cratered ground there'd be an insufficient number of APCs available for any competent manoeuvre. You can't bring in more Ares because you have so few, and you can't bring in more Boxers lest you plan to Haig your way through the enemy battlespace with units unfit for the terrain with deficient battle effectiveness. You can be reinforced with Ajax' variants, though she's quite an expensive bit of equipment you're taking from elsewhere that may require the firepower and has fewer seats. The reason APCs exist is to provide protected mobility for the infantry at the cheap. All that said, if the Ajax has smoothed out all its faults and the British Army is simply not expected to operate in terrible force in environments such as the Falklands or other Marshes, and on top of that the Boxer isn't so incapable of traversing muddy terrain, it should still fit well into how the British Army sees the future battlefield looking like.

[@stevenbreach2561]

Lynx has its own problems ,I believe

[@arakami8547]

@@stevenbreach2561 I think you may have mistaken the Lynx for the Puma. The Lynx was built for reliability and cheap maintenance.

[@janecme]

It turns corners as well

[@clangerbasher]

Too large. Too expensive. What FRR wanted was another vehicle CVR(T) sized such as Stormer. My concern is what platform is actually going to undertake all the other light cavalry tasks such as screening, vanguard and rear guard, exploitation, feints etc?

[@_Pyrophoric_]

You cant hide on the modern battlefield like you could in the 60's when Scimitar was the armored recce vehicle of choice... Its recce by force now, with stealth and mobility still being as important as they always have been but not at the total expense of firepower and survivability. CVRT was highly mobile but seriously lacked (which is a bit of an understatement) firepower and survivability. It was fine though when there were no thermal sights, drones and advanced attack helicopters around, when if you were identified you could literally out run the fire control system and gun control equipment of whatever was firing at you. That is not happening in this day and age. Warrior was supposed to completely replace CVRT which never happened albeit until very recently (40 years later) but it was brought into service with the same fundamental issue of having poor firepower but arguably better mobility, for a much heavier vehicle, and much better survivability with at least some element of armour. The problem is that whenever you wish to armour something the trade off is weight and size. The VERDI programs that began in the mid 80's were set to remedy the firepower issue and improve on the others over the initial WR but they went no further than prototype stages... Probably because of bureaucrats getting in the way of what is actually needed like they always do... There are literally dozens of procurement examples I could insert here... Its never been about us that serve having the best possible kit to do our jobs but the cheapest. It was cheaper to leave WR as it was.

[@clangerbasher]

@@_Pyrophoric_ Thank you.

[@CFMLEAP]

Isn’t this the same IFV that can’t fire on the move?

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I must say I agree with Kevan Jones about the Challenger 3 upgrade having all the hallmarks of a catastrophe of a program. We're spending FAR too much (about £5m per tank) on an upgrade (just a new turret) when we'd be stuck with the same old Challenger hull dating back to the early 1980s. It will probably cost us more in the long run doing this cost cutting program now, rather than just going back to the drawingboard and developing a brand new vehicle (maybe something along the lines of an Abrams X or T-14 with an unmanned turret) and then trying to offset the cost with exports.

[@reecewestmoreland6137]

I disagree with you, and Kevan Jones, the Abrams and Leopard 2 platforms are much older both dating back to 1980s and are still good platforms and getting upgraded with years left in their lives, were as the challenger 2 is from the late 90s meaning it's barely over 20 years old, half the age of the Leopard 2 and Abrams and has room for upgrades. Also i think your thinking Challenger 1, which is basically a whole different tank, as it shares a fraction of the compoents with the 2. It's like comparing Leopard 1, with 2, both are called Leopard but they wholey different vehicles. 5 million per tank isn't much given a less capble leopard2 A7 is roughly 15 million per unit and don't come with half the features Challenger 3 is slated to have, while desigining a whole new vehicle from the ground up will take a long time and still require the upgrade in the interim peroid anyway as tank develpment programs can easily take over a decade. The M1 Abrams, and Leopard 2 development started in the late 1960's with the joint MBT-70 program and neither entered service till roughly the 1980's.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

No. Abrams is from the 80s as well, and the t14 is a joke. As said above challenger 2 shares something like 3% of parts with challenger 1

[@jimscott1717]

The 142 that have been "nearly completed" and the 400 hulls . . . . where were they built. Was it at the new faciliity in South Wales or were these builts in the EU. I thought that the idea was to build the majority of them in the UK?

[@peterwait641]

The hulls were built in Spain , was only supposed first few to get the production line going but seems they all are. Don't know how they have ISO9001 as they were not made to drawings ?

[@yorkshire_tea6875]

I see someone at BAE saw the Bradley IFV and just traced it

[@andreasjonsson8075]

Why not buy the puma or cv9040?

[@teatanks6481]

unless they just upgrade the Warrior again, this thing is not gonna come close to full service. too many fundamental issues with logistics, procurement and reliability that can't easily be solved.

[@stevie5100]

Unfortunatly warriors are getting replaced with boxers

[@imperialinquisition6006]

@@stevie5100 Why is that unfortunate? The boxer seems pretty good. There is a version with a turret, used by Australia, or planning to be, I believe and probably many other countries as well, e.g. Germany

[@stevie5100]

@@imperialinquisition6006 because we didnt purchase the turret. Im not just a soldier that doesnt want a change in kit. We're losing firepower. Going from a 30mm to remote contol hmg/gmg like on the panther

[@teatanks6481]

@@stevie5100 the Boxer is more a replacement for something like the Bulldog, replacing our boxy tracked APCs for something more mobile and modern. The Ajax is the intended Warrior replacement but hopefully at this rate it's not gonna go that way.

[@stevie5100]

@@teatanks6481 im in an arkiured unit. Our rifle company warriors are getting swapped for boxers

[@deanfirnatine7814]

WTH is wrong with industry in the UK, France, Germany and the US, it take a decade to make something that should take less than five. What happens if we get in a war?

[@Sanginius23]

It is a mistake to start mass production before the product is accepted by the Army / MOD.

[@nlomas]

Almost replacing the Eurofighter for the title of Weapon of Mass Construction!

[@nordnord8141]

Did he really compare a tank to a Ford Escort? If the base chassis is solid then upgrading the Challenger 2 make good sense.

[@cypeman8037]

This is nothing new is it. Procurement to standards issued by people that don't have to use these systems is very difficult.

[@Swift-mr5zi]

CV90 PLEASE!

[@TheToonMonkey]

148 Challenge 3.....that order clearly doesn't reflect current year issues.

[@johnnybbgunner2136]

Why another war?

[@adrianstone8541]

He may have said it but who can hear it ?

[@nobodyspecial4702]

80% complete isn't "completed" by any intelligent definition of the word.

[@dessmith7658]

That's British intelligence for you

[@TgamerBio5529]

Had high hopes for Ajax but a disappointment for that many years still waiting 😞

[@greyvoice7949]

Ajax is not fit to fight a modern war it seems (unless they have done some upgrades that no one knows about!)

[@XTSu-sl1bb]

Please buy off the shelf, we in the uk simply can’t produce anything these days.

[@XTSu-sl1bb]

Money is better spent buying systems that work

[@paxundpeace9970]

Imagine in school in completed my homework but it is only 80% done.

[@frankthompson6503]

Noise vibration put in rubber to stop this.

[@andrewcombe8907]

Sounds like the SA80/L85 debacle. Perfectly acceptable alternative 5.56mm rifle system in the C7 and C8 of Diemaco Canada but oh no, have to buy something manufactured at home.

[@zuluhyena305]

As someone who loves the chally, I really hope that chally 3 doesn't go ahead or has some serious changes before it does. The technology demonstrator doesn't seem to be much different from the chally 2 and seems basically pointless. Just get something off the shelf or design something new, simple as that

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

Buy Leopard 2A7. The UK Military back in the 90´s wanted to buy Leopard 2A4/A5, but the government bought the "budget" version with Challenger 2

[@davidhouseman4328]

Challenger 3 makes more sense if you see it as a bridge to the future European MBT. Challenger 2 needs some work just the extend the life and electronics upgrades and the like, the extra changes get us working with NATO standard ammo and with Rheinmetall along with getting some more recent design and construction experience.

[@ecaeas4439]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The "budget" version. I mean, they're different tanks. Beyond the possibility of choosing to opt for a domestic design to increase domestic r&d and operate a fully independent force, or potentially even backhanded deals (there is a bribe culture when it comes to MoD contracts as evidenced by the parliamentary committee on it, and the dozens of allegations made over the years of it), there would be some merit to opting for the challenger over the leopard. They're very closely matched vehicles, even today. It would be billions of pounds more spent buying Leopard tanks, as opposed to updating the challenger. Is there a risk of falling behind technologically? Well given that Rheinmetall BAE are designing the challenger 3, I don't know if there is a danger of the MBT the UK operates falling behind.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@ecaeas4439 Challenger 2 has not been modernised since 1992. I would call that falling behind. Challenger 2 production ended in 2002, all production lines have closed in 2005. Ammunition production ended in like 2008?. The UK has lost the capability to design an MBT or AFV. You are already buying basicly only foreign products, because in the last 20 years every domestic project ran into the ground, due to loss of capability and know how. Rheimmetall-BAE-Systems-Land is a Rheinmetall majority owned joint venture, where Rheinmetall brings in its technology, BAE nothing. There is no developement or design on Challenger 3, it just gets a Leopard 2A7 technology injection. The whole Project developement and design was done before the joint venture started. The joint venture is only there, that the UK can produce Rheinmetall License Vehicles and Weapons in the UK. (Boxer, Challenger 3 etc)

[@ecaeas4439]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Alright, it's fallen behind by virtue of not receiving upgrades to it in 30 ish years. The MoD hasn't bought any new challengers and the sale of them abroad has been pretty much non-existent. It's a tank designed primarily to be an independent platform for this country, not as modular and regularly upgraded as the leopard 2. It's frankly the MoD's problem, they've focused on other areas of defence and neglected keeping the challenger fully up to date with other Western MBTs. However, I don't think anyone is suggesting the challenger 2 is obsolete when compared to the Abrams or Leopard. The new models of both have better capability than the challenger 2. "The UK isn't capable of designing an MBT or AFV", "Rheinmetall brings the technology, BAE nothing". 😂😂 Have you looked into which companies are actually fitting the technology in the tank? Pearson engineering are designed the subsystems for the tank turret, Thales group are fitting the targeting system, the suspension is the same because it wasn't an issue. Rheinmetall is adding a gun and re-designing the turret to accommodate the single step ammunition. What else? The Uk's defence laboratory is also handling the armour upgrade. BAE systems are a far larger company that Rheinmetall. Much more spent every year on R&D too. BAE sold a controlling stake of their land division, probably putting more emphasis on their main sectors.

[@konackt]

A functional organisation would build a prototype and when it's found to meet requirements, begin serial production. Bragging that you've got over a hundred vehicles 80% complete without a single one finished is beyond absurd.

[@jimmccork]

Inappropriate questions from a politician to a serving soldier. He doesn’t make them. MOD procurement in post 10 years ago responsible for this mess.

[@worstchoresmadesimple6259]

I read somewhere that Defence spending was going to be increased to 3%? .Is that possible? ...I have seen three decades of rather odd defence spending reviews. Unusual. Low numbers of Fighter aircraft compared to centralised France, less than 80,000 professional soldiers, still, there are two aircraft carriers, and sadly in the face of giving up the Harriers 11 years ago. I really don't know why they selected the General Dynamics Ajax, troops going deaf during trials, etc etc etc.

[@oscarcharliezulu]

Hope they’re more reliable than my range rover sport.

[@expatingermany7685]

I remember back in the end of the 80's early 90's the discussion within the RAC whether we should buy the Leo2 or develop Ch2. After serving in chieftain unit and personally watching Ch1 fail once put up against M1 Leo 1 and 2. The troops wanted the Leo2A5 which was developed for our roll and tested funny enough by my troop Sargent, it was turned down for something to be built in the UK. Now Ajax has become a bottomless pit and could be put in line with the German Puma which can be knocked out of service with its own fire extinguisher. I've been in uniform for nearly 30 years and I've come to the conclusion that the British army doesn't need over complicated state of the art equipment simply because the units can't and won't maintain it in the manner it should be, in turn the equipment fails because the crews and the REME are inadequately trained and really can't be bothered and that's the same reason why the whole German Puma fleet failed in November last year.

[@peterwait641]

Have seen quite a few packs where they leave the old hydraulic filter O'rings on the machined threaded groove and put the new ones on top of the PTFE washer , not grease the HTT ram housing or use hylomar sealant, overtighten idler bearing causing failure, all rollers falling out when removing and don't mention the daft no step step lol

[@jimmoynahan9910]

"watching Ch1 fail once put up against M1 Leo 1 and 2. " Except it was better than all three? Lmao.

[@phooogle]

Go straight to Chally 4. The lad is right.

[@Pesmog]

At best Chally 3 will have a very short service life. The Generals know from what they are reading in reports and seeing on the videos from Ukraine that the UK army now needs a completely new design of tank.

[@tams805]

@@Pesmog And what, pray tell, would that be? The only real available upgrade its class is the K2 (the Japanese Type 10 is considerably lighter), and that's really not much different. The next step for tanks is APS like Trophy, and that can quite easily be added to Challenger 2/3.

[@ecaeas4439]

@@tams805 It is being added to the challenger 2. To be honest, I don't know why trophy hasn't been added to western MBTs sooner. Hasn't been around for a decade?

[@olafweinzer5746]

IFVs, new MBT, warships and missiles like Spear 3, the same problem: delay and raising costs £££££££££££. South Korea note 10, UK note 0. Many elderly people at the forefront of projects

[@paulh3935]

It'll probably make a lot of noise turning that corner.