AJAX - the ‘NOT the CR2 upgrade’ thread

Is UK limited, by treaty, to a given number of tanks, and if so, how many?
CFE Treaty. But its limitation of NATO compared to Russia etc. But Russian Federation binned it back in 2007 and the last report out from the NATO/UK side of life on holdings etc was 2017.
 
I find that hard to believe.

The undying trend for AFV's was extending time of development up until at least the Cr2. During that time we had the advantage of a dedicated design department. We lost that ability. But do tell, what AFV's have we implemented since Cr2? The only ones I can see are:

Boxer
Scimitar II
Cr3
WCSP
Tracer/FRES/Ajax

One of which was COTS, and two that were upgrades to an existing chassis. The other was an upgrade that was killed off by idiotic management. and then we get to the steaming poop in the fridge...
I'll stick by the claim it'll take at least 20 years to get our next MBT designed. I have yet to see any examples of it going faster.
I fundamentally disagree. There’s nothing very complex about an AFV save it’s armour. The vast majority of components are off the shelf; it’s an integration challenge. The only thing that allows it to take 20 years is bureaucratic inertia.

Across industry, product development cycles have been slashed because that’s what the competitive market requires. Can’t keep up, go broke.


If we really are facing a genuine existential threat from a peer enemy, they’ll be investing in out developing us. We rally when to be asking ourselves why it takes 20 years to develop a tank.

The alternative is the Boxer fiasco, where we are buying an already obsolete vehicle 20 years too late.
 
What have they to do with numbers of tanks in the British army?
Are we not limited by post Cold War treaties, OSCE or similar?
The answer is yes - I was just highlighting some of the legislation that we will have to adhere to in order to gain export licenses. ITAR is relevant if we are using US tech hardware etc. A bit like when BAe were hindered in what they could sell to KSA due to US banning sales of arms

Edited to add - the UK can have as many MBTs as they can afford and these are then declared under the treaty - can't remember it's name but I had to line all my armour up at Catterick and Tidworth for inspection
 
Last edited:
The answer is yes - I was just highlighting some of the legislation that we will have to adhere to in order to gain export licenses. ITAR is relevant if we are using US tech hardware etc. A bit like when BaE were hindered in what they could sell to KSA due to US banning sales of arms

Edited to add - the UK can have as many MBTs as they can afford and these are then declared under the treaty - can't remember it's name but I had to line all my armour up at Catterick and Tidworth for inspection
Thanks for clarifying.
 
I'm not sure. There's enough complexity and investment in re-builds and updates to keep a manufacturer ticking over. It is state aid to a manufacturer but others do it. Add to that things like funding for next generation projects, and doing stuff like APS upgrades at Vickers, and you could keep a factory 'ticking over' with the ability to expand production if needed.
There's ways around that issue. Common chassis shared between an IFV and a MBT. Equally, we have more than a few other armoured roles that need filling, eg SPG. An order for MBT+ 50% reserve, along with IFVs is going to keep a factory going for years.

Outside thought, isn't GKN available right now?

I fundamentally disagree. There’s nothing very complex about an AFV save it’s armour. The vast majority of components are off the shelf; it’s an integration challenge. The only thing that allows it to take 20 years is bureaucratic inertia.

If we really are facing a genuine existential threat from a peer enemy, they’ll be investing in out developing us. We rally when to be asking ourselves why it takes 20 years to develop a tank.

The vast majority of the time is working out what works and what is needed. It's got nothing to do with red tape. Sorting out what the tank is going to look like normally takes a hell of a lot longer than the CAD and build part of the project.
 
There's ways around that issue. Common chassis shared between an IFV and a MBT. Equally, we have more than a few other armoured roles that need filling, eg SPG. An order for MBT+ 50% reserve, along with IFVs is going to keep a factory going for years.

Outside thought, isn't GKN available right now?


Sorting out what the tank is going to look like normally takes a hell of a lot longer than the CAD and build part of the project.
All while meeting the dimensional constraints for road/ rail/ ship transport.
 
All while meeting the dimensional constraints for road/ rail/ ship transport.

Not sure what your point is. But I'd venture if you're sending IFVs you'll be sending MBTs as well. And they'll be going by ship at some point. Land has options, albeit not great ones (rail or tank transporter).
 
I saw how Leopard faired against IEDs and it wasn't pretty, I was one of the 'lucky' ones who had access to the vehicle graveyard in BSN to salvage UOR equipment from vehicles that were beyond repair

Where and whose Leo’s?

How did the Canadians & Danish fair in Afghanistan ?

Which are more modern uparmoured versions compared to Turkish
 
Not sure what your point is. But I'd venture if you're sending IFVs you'll be sending MBTs as well. And they'll be going by ship at some point. Land has options, albeit not great ones (rail or tank transporter).
My point is simply that those transport constraints also limit how much variety you have to play with in designing AFVs, whether tank, SPG, IFV or whatever else.
 
. . . But I'd venture if you're sending IFVs you'll be sending MBTs as well . . .

On recent past experience . . . NOT if we are going back to the Middle East :( .
 
Not sure what your point is. But I'd venture if you're sending IFVs you'll be sending MBTs as well. And they'll be going by ship at some point. Land has options, albeit not great ones (rail or tank transporter).
Track mileage is also a huge issue - I was there when they re-templated BATUS and moved the Armoured ranges almost next to Crowfoot
 

Latest Threads

Top