Comments by "David Houseman" (@davidhouseman4328) on "Army's Ajax vehicle programme has 'turned a corner', minister says" video.

  1. 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.
    7
  2.  @mrgingerninjadan  BAEs official bid was in Sweden, made thinking they'd win anyway. After the decision went against them they came back trying to sweeten the deal with a UK build.
    4
  3.  @mrgingerninjadan  There wasn't a lot of difference in the base platforms in the competition. Its all the changes the MOD required that have caused the issues.
    3
  4. 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.
    2
  5. We would have had many of the same issues with CV90, ones from British changes not the base vehicle.
    2
  6.  @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.
    2
  7. It's not a direct replacement, it's more Boxer and Ajax together will cover the duties of transport and support. A dedicated IFV would be better but on a limited budget fewer vehicle types should mean more vehicles.
    1
  8.  @MrEsphoenix  Ajax isn't a warrior upgrade, it based on the Spanish/Austrian ASCOD.
    1
  9.  @MrEsphoenix  I may have misunderstood you, apologies if you meant CV90 from the start for the Warrior upgrade rather than Ajax.
    1
  10. Britain doesn't want to be a Superpower, but it's budget is nothing like a third world country, it's one of the worlds largest. We don't do much by ourselves, Ajax is based on a Spanish/Austrian design, Challenger 3 is working with German company. Basically you couldn't have said much more that wrong.
    1
  11. Main point, they didn't want an IFV. It's a CVR(T) replacement not a Warrior replacement, reconnaissance rather than troop transport.
    1
  12. The Navy is the priority, Army is back of the queue. The projects discussed are way behind and don't even include the warrior upgrade that was previously planned.
    1
  13. Hopefully in it starts bad but turns out alright.
    1
  14. I imagine the Boxer issue is about the work share the UK wanted.
    1