Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Under the hood: Special access to the British Army's advanced Ajax" video.

  1. Ultimately, Yes. Genuinely covert is people, scouting is having all the tech to see.
    4
  2. It is, we need to sell the military to the public, otherwise they disregard it. You hope insurance is a waste, but still get it, unfortunately the military needs selling to make sure we keep a good standard.
    3
  3. Mostly it's about domestic industry not ego. Domestic military industry is as important as today's army. But it can also be about individual army requirements rather than ego, that is more the case with Ajax. Basically lots of reasons that aren't ego.
    2
  4. It's an issue, clever poor kids can become officers, but don't want to serve.
    2
  5. Have you ever even read about wars? Some people fight, others don't, you have to deal with both.
    2
  6. Tell us why, and you might be making a point?
    2
  7. ​ @synchc Ajax is a CVR(T) replacement not a warrior replacement. It's all about the scouting tech not moving people.
    2
  8. ​ @syscoord195 CV90 would have had armour and tech slapped on it and been pushed to be built domestically. Ajax has gone badly, but from the start both options were similar.
    2
  9. I hope it turns out top notch but the issues mean I'll wait to be convinced. Particularly as is has so little cross compatability.
    2
  10. It might actually be the most important part, the easiest battle is the one you don't have to fight.
    1
  11. ​ @K_-_-_-_K CV90 and ASCOD were both in service vehicles neither did the job but both could be developed. That was the competition.
    1
  12. They dropped Warrior LEP, relying on Boxer ...
    1
  13. @dc-4ever201  I don't actual disagree with the choice, I was just pointing out we are moving to more wheeled. That said warrior/boxer might actually be infantry rather than cavalry, hard to tell without the horses ...
    1
  14. How, if you were in a fight and were offered zero armoured vehicles or only a few which would you choose?
    1
  15. @alangunningham5667  why would an island looking around the world be structured like a country directly bordering an adversary? Tanks do nothing to help our defence, they can help our allies, be so to subs and jets, and nukes. We have some tanks, but our limiting figure isn't the tanks we have, its the air and sea lift we have to to deploy and a sustain them.
    1
  16. @alangunningham5667  I don't know how you came to that. But to go back to my initial objection to your post. A small amount helps, it is worthwhile, even if more would be better. Second an armoured vehicle is useful even without large numbers of MBTs. And to add, the British army wouldn't even be best improved with more MBTs, what its actually lacking is long range fires and air defences.
    1
  17. @alangunningham5667  I think maybe it's a language issue and you don't understand the word worthwhile.
    1
  18. ​ @mitchrils from what I heard they sufficiently mitigated it. Its not a yes/no situation but how bad.
    1
  19. ​ @Ukbrummie worth klnotinvbits a family, so 589 in total buf 245 Ajax itself.
    1
  20. Yep, telling the airforce or artillery were where the MBT is.
    1