CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I contributed a fair amount of time and money at the Rorke's Drift coming through Darwin during our Timor rotations. I too would consider it vital ground probably more so than Roberston Barracks.
#metoo
 
The latest Soldier magazine is very clear on the future of WR. In the first paragraph of the article Brig John Clark states that Warrior is not being replaced with Boxer. In the last paragraph of the same article it then states Warrior will remain in service until Boxer is introduced.
Is it any wonder the MP's have had a tits full of these twats?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
The latest Soldier magazine is very clear on the future of WR. In the first paragraph of the article Brig John Clark states that Warrior is not being replaced with Boxer. In the last paragraph of the same article it then states Warrior will remain in service until Boxer is introduced.
Is it any wonder the MP's have had a tits full of these twats?
Saying that WR remains in service until BOXER is introduced doesn’t necessarily mean one replaces the other. It may mean that another tracked IFV will be procured or that no tracked IFV is planned.

No nuance some people - I doubt the MOs would know the difference if they were run over by any hue of AFV.
 

Some more mainstream media cut through in this shambles.


“In my view it is coming to that point where we should consider cancelling [Ajax] and look into procuring a far smaller vehicle,” Ellwood said. “There’s no doubt that the equipment on it is state of the art, but unfortunately it’s very expensive, very heavy and the noise that it makes is phenomenal.”

CV90 - far smaller, vastly quieter, as lethal, works faultlessly


BD4CC2D1-DE30-493C-8693-2AB57148B226.jpeg
 
CV90 is not a “far smaller” vehicle.
”As lethal” is a matter of target set. Arguable.
”vastly quieter” and “works faultlessly”. You have something to back that up?

Also, have you found the necessary billions yet?
 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
CV90 is not a “far smaller” vehicle.
”As lethal” is a matter of target set. Arguable.
”vastly quieter” and “works faultlessly”. You have something to back that up?

Also, have you found the necessary billions yet?
Why bother engage with him, he claims we would have been gifted MV22, M1a2, and everything in between!
 
CV90 is not a “far smaller” vehicle.
”As lethal” is a matter of target set. Arguable.
”vastly quieter” and “works faultlessly”. You have something to back that up?

Also, have you found the necessary billions yet?

well, that’s not a half scale CV90 parked beside them....

35mm + ATGMs = CV90 really can bite an MBT

plenty of videos without the obligatory for AjAX to drown out the din crashing rock track to demonstrate how quite CV90 is, plentry iof videos too from numerous end users in Afghanistan praising it forits dependability too.

but hey! Anything but BAE!

and the taxpayer got shared with a £5Billion Turkey.
 
well, that’s not a half scale CV90 parked beside them....
That’s a CV9030 parked next to a KF41 and an Ascod 2 in IFV configuration*, not Ajax.
It might still be a bit smaller, but not far smaller.
If you compare GVW then Ajax has 5t more capacity (13%), but the square cube law means that doesn’t necessarily change outside dimensions that much.
35mm + ATGMs = CV90 really can bite an MBT

No ATGW for Ajax because that’s the requirement, so a replacement wouldn’t have them

plenty of videos without the obligatory for AjAX to drown out the din crashing rock track to demonstrate how quite CV90 is, plentry iof videos too from numerous end users in Afghanistan praising it forits dependability too.
Noise on youtube videos doesn’t count unless there is a sound source in the same video to compare it to.
The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but overall user opinion is worth considering

but hey! Anything but BAE!

That’d be the company that had been making money hand over fist off the MOD from a series of less than stellar deliveries then investing it overseas?
*Ares with a turret on top
 
Some more mainstream media cut through in this shambles.
Just trying this as a test - could someone try the link below, then try to open the first result (with the picture) and let me know if they can view it?

This is because, the reason I originally started posting twitter links is much less effective now but doing above works for me.

 
That’s a CV9030 parked next to a KF41 and an Ascod 2 in IFV configuration*, not Ajax.
It might still be a bit smaller, but not far smaller.
If you compare GVW then Ajax has 5t more capacity (13%), but the square cube law means that doesn’t necessarily change outside dimensions that much.


No ATGW for Ajax because that’s the requirement, so a replacement wouldn’t have them


Noise on youtube videos doesn’t count unless there is a sound source in the same video to compare it to.
The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but overall user opinion is worth considering



That’d be the company that had been making money hand over fist off the MOD from a series of less than stellar deliveries then investing it overseas?
*Ares with a turret on top


Yet BAE were the company who said from the get go that the Warrior upgrade would need a new turret to fit the 40mm CTA.

ALL the cost over runs on Warrior upgrade are purely the fault of MoD. From deciding to only procure part of the 40mm CTA package to believing LM that it would fit.
 
That’s a CV9030 parked next to a KF41 and an Ascod 2 in IFV configuration*, not Ajax.
It might still be a bit smaller, but not far smaller.
If you compare GVW then Ajax has 5t more capacity (13%), but the square cube law means that doesn’t necessarily change outside dimensions that much.


No ATGW for Ajax because that’s the requirement, so a replacement wouldn’t have them


Noise on youtube videos doesn’t count unless there is a sound source in the same video to compare it to.
The plural of anecdote isn’t data, but overall user opinion is worth considering



That’d be the company that had been making money hand over fist off the MOD from a series of less than stellar deliveries then investing it overseas?
*Ares with a turret on top

translation - it’s crap because we specced a crap vehicle

AJAX is huge, carries no extra dismounts over CV90, and is already way off the pace systems wise
 
translation - it’s crap because we specced a crap vehicle

AJAX is huge, carries no extra dismounts over CV90, and is already way off the pace systems wise
The core vehicle, ASCOD, is fine. A Scout vehicle based on a pure ASCOD Hull would have been fine.

MoD and the utterly crap way the Army runs projects f**ked that up. Over a 1,000 changes as claimed on here suggests either the core chassis was the wrong chassis for what the Army really wanted or the Army had no real idea what they wanted so made s**t up as they went.
 
The core vehicle, ASCOD, is fine. A Scout vehicle based on a pure ASCOD Hull would have been fine.

MoD and the utterly crap way the Army runs projects f**ked that up. Over a 1,000 changes as claimed on here suggests either the core chassis was the wrong chassis for what the Army really wanted or the Army had no real idea what they wanted so made s**t up as they went.

incremental tweaking - its the curse of the British Army.

No one can just buy COTS, it has to be modified for ‘unique operational requirements’, and everyone who gets a vote feels an obsessive need to modify everything down to the colour of the screws holding down the rubber doormat.

in actuality, AJAX is no longer ASCOD, its an entirely new vehicle - but!
no ones actually treated it like a new vehicle and ran first of class prototypes and trials -its gone straight into production hiding behind the fantasy Its the ‘proven’ ASCOD.
 
Last edited:
Top