There is no problem with your feeling. It’s really not good.
Isnt the Ajax mostly finished and arnt a few already in the hands of the army?
And is Cr3 finnished and handed to army? Not that it has to do anything with Ajax handing out, just a comparasion.
Mostly finished and I think its with a few units for testing, but AFAIK it hasn’t reached IOC, equally they can reject the hulls they have received as they still were not acceptable and up to the standard of the contract. Which in my opinion they should do. plus I think there’s still what 6 major issues left to fix of the 30-odd they started with.
I don’t care how stupid it makes the MoD look (we all already knew that), there are better options and they have a way out of the current subpar one.
1 Like
I mean that even if it was at its peak perfect according to the manufacturer specification, its still worse than a CV-90 or Redback.
1 Like
In 2023, the British Minister of Defence revised the initial combat capability (IOC) schedule of Ajax and defined it as the deployment of “a well-trained and deployable squadron”. The newly revised IOC plan will be realised between July 2025 and December 2025.
2 Likes
lol
2 Likes
And that makes me wonder why why they keep pushing into it (a pile of s***) instead of taking a proven design, and in extreme scenario taking for example CV90 (that BAE has full rights to, or at least a big share of them as a designer and manufacturer) and modifying it to the MoD needs…
2 Likes
They actually pulled that during the original deal, BAE unveiled FRES and the MoD didn’t bite, so they said they’d get domestic manufacturing, maintenance and modification, Hagglunds kicked off, BAE pulled the ‘subsidiary be quiet’ card, and the MoD still didn’t bite…
They’re heavily dumb, particularly as we could’ve built the entire CV-90 here in the UK at a new facility, so whatever cost-differences there might have been, would’ve been offset by both domestic manufacturing and all the economic benefits that go with it, plus new technological know-how, as well as further export potential.
1 Like
And even with that, due to RBSL (that work on 2 other pillars of the UK army, Boxer and Cr3) you can take Rheinmetall to help with all the things (and it is ironic, as Rhein makes Ajax turret)
1 Like
Can we please not mention Aja… gags…
Some people suffer genuine medical distress when that thing is brought up.
4 Likes
Thank god i suffer only mental. Years of maining UK thankfully allowed my brain to develop a fast and automatic sanity replenish system. I call it “Im leaving this mess(s***), 30 min and im back”
3 Likes
Lmao，Please wear “double-layer headphones” to relieve pain
1 Like
You can be sure i do ;). But to be frank i dont need to. This room filled with white cushions on all surfaces absorbs sound well.
I mean the MoD has spent too much money and has gotten the army too use to the unit to just drop it by this point tbh.
Plus I want it ingame te he
BAE’s bid didn’t include UK manufacturing until it was very clear they were going to lose. The most they offered the entire tender process was final assembly and fitting out in Newcastle to keep it open a few more years.
When they finally offered UK-manufacturing the plan for it was a rushed, back-of-a-napkin job and didn’t really show as much intent to invest in or modernise their facilities: The increasing value of the land was the biggest asset Newcastle had for BAE without them having to actually do any work there, so why spend money on it?
Don’t get me wrong; GDUK are useless. But BAE’s last effort at creating a tracked armoured vehicle (Terrier), was disaster as well, and T2 and CR2 before that had significant issues between introduction and ISD. Plus the MoD would still have required CV90 uses the same gun and tracks that the trials team reckon are responsible for a number of the issues with Ajax.
Ahhh that makes more sense, sheds some light.
Tbf though, BAE Hagglunds have had no issues integrating a number of guns and it sounds like BAE UK could do with the experience in manufacture and design of tracked vehicles. I still think CV90 would’ve been the better option but this does shed some light as to why ASCOD was selected.
Vibrations strong enough to make you throw up
It should do
I have a question:
（The Challenger 3 uses a new digital fire control system from Thales UK, consisting of the commander’s Thales Optronics ORION stable independent peri-sighting system, the gunner’s Thales Optronics DNGS-T3 day-night firing thermal sight, a new digital all-electric gun control system, and an improved ballistic computer. The “Orion” vehicle length sight mirror and the DNGS-T3 gun length sight mirror are equipped with Thales “Catherine MP” third-generation thermal imager, the sight line is bidirectional stable, and the fire control has automatic target identification and automatic tracking function, which can provide the vehicle with all-weather and day and night “hunt and destroy” ability.）
How does this new digital fire control and the new digital all-electric gun control system perform exactly the same in the game as the original Challenger 2？