Now I’m even more confused. What made them accept the Challenger 3 TD as the name if it’s not officially referred to as that anywhere?
Well, It is a Tech Demo, and it is a Cr3 as it is known now. The past name so Cr3 Prototype was just straight up wrong so the change was accepted quickly
ATDU acknowledges it as the CR3 TD
The APS stuff was just a mockup for DSEI in 2021. All that was removed after the show and the vehicle stayed with the same configuration as it was initially shown in, until the turret was removed and put on a turret stand at RBSL’s Telford site last year
The TD no longer exists as a vehicle now that the proper CR3 Prototype is being produced
Because it was initially known as prototype, which I indicated was incorrect. It’s a technology demonstrator.
Nah that’s just a structure to hold the turret. For APS testing. IIRC there are no planned hull armour changes because the MoD don’t want to spend the money
There will be at least slight modifications to match the EPSOM
There are actually :)
In my honest oppionion, Cr2 hull, just like its turret, is overengineered and should be made from scratch
Mod be like here’s an extra 0.0001% budget for an extra 1mm of armour
Yea, sadly Ajax is eating the budget whole
I find hilarious Ajax is eating so much budget because it’s a modified existing platform in the ASCOD. You’d think it would make things cheaper. Should of just stayed with modernising the warrior as atleast that platform didn’t vibrate its crew to death
2 Likes
Well, they also had another way to go. BAE made CV90… But no, we will go the hard way. Also if the thing you create does not break at least 3 times you are doing it wrong
1 Like
Due to the incompetent operation of the Ministry of Defence, the Imperial Army will be stuck without infantry fighting vehicles in the future after the retirement of the FV510 and will rely on the. 50 machine gun of the Boxer APC against the BMP3 infantry fighting vehicles from Russia
1 Like
Agreed. In fact in my (armchair general) opinion the biggest issue is the hull. The turret they couldve just slapped on an 120mm smoothbore and blowout panels in the back where the penetrators are already stored.
Anything but BAE when BAE build something good yet when its something shit they lap it up like they’re dying of thirst.
In fact, the whole car design has problems (the effective protection of the vehicle is completely disproportionate to its 62.5 tons of weight), first of all, the huge hole in the middle of the hull front and the 80 mm protection design of the lower part of the hull front, the layout of the ammunition in the car is probably only the Ram this “second generation tank” design can be compared with it
Its bad by NATO standard in my opinion, mostly I’m disappointed by the fact that its taken this long to solve just some of the issues that existed. Better than most tanks the UK can expect to be facing but given its role and cost I fail to see how something like a CV90 would not do the same job for cheaper.
This is actually caused by the incompetent master of the Ministry of Defence unwillingness to give up the sinking cost to end this “clown” project. If they can close this project in time, the budget saved is enough to upgrade the FV520 infantry fighting vehicle or purchase CV90 variants to meet the needs of armoured reconnaissance vehicles. Unfortunately, the ruthless reality laughs at everyone. It’s sad.
The MoD cause most (if not all) issues with the British Defence Sector.
In my opinion they should use the clause for the Ajax Hulls being unsuitable to cancel the order and get the investment back, then they can buy the CV-90 FRES or whatever new CV-90 looks good to be honest.
It might just be me but Ajax doesn’t even look good on paper?
You know that when a thing gets withdrawn 3(it seems like there was a 3rd time, in september, it was put on hold) times it also does not look good irl.
1 Like