Well except that they’ve owned them for about 20 years before they produced it….
Not like they were building it for Sweden/any nation and then got bought out.
It’s literally a modernization of a Swedish project consisting of a Swedish turret using a Swedish gun on a Swedish truck chassi made in Sweden by the Swedish branch which is made up of the same Swedish company that built the first one and now you’re trying to stamp a British flag on it. You’re no worse than the brits who claim the NLAW is british even though it was designed and built by SAAB just because the british gouvernment asked them to build it for them as they lacked the know-how.
3 Likes
Well I mean, it’s not a wholly “Swedish project” when it’s a UK owned company.
But if it makes you feel better they could call it a “produced under license” product since dozens of countries build/built L70 under license…. It’s also not much different than multiple variants of other vehicles that were produced by one country but used by another.
Almost exactly like the NLAW which is mostly built in the UK
Or the Boosvark which uses a 23mm gun 🤣
Your argument is that Ajax is American.
Britain doesn’t need another country’s equipment.
2 Likes
The difference is that Ajax is in active service with britain, thus making it a completely valid addition to them. If they never adopted it and it lost the competition to say the CV90 FRES then yes I would say they shouldn’t get the Ajax, but that the CV90 FRES would be a completely valid claim.
1 Like
Other options exist, either Warrior based or the new Indian tank for a tracked light tank system. No need to steal a Swedish vehicle.
The Zorawar LT would be a far more interesting and unique option imo.
active service*
- Terms and conditions apply, potential date of service in numbers in 2030, pending further tomfoolery and cockaboutery
2 Likes
So identical.
CV 90 series vehicles are in-service in Sweden and not in Britain, on top of being made in Sweden.
Oh, by the way… what you did is known as movement of the goalposts, and I adapted to your post’s logical fallacy instantly.
Stop with the logical fallacies.
It reminds me of someone who wanted to add the AW129 Mangusta to the British TT just because it was produced in Italy by AgustaWestland.
1 Like
UK definitely needs high-top tier light vehicle that’s actually good, so yeah, why not.
Like I said in my forum starter comment, the Rooikat MTTD 120 could fill the same role, just without the smoke grenades and other stuff but at least has Gen 2 Thermals
British main claiming some random ass vehicle, here we go again.
Spoiler
10 Likes
BAE Hagglunds, a Swedish division. Operates in Sweden, under Sweden, it kinda does its own things, so It’s barely able to be called BAE.
The entirety of the CV 90 family was created a long 3 years before the merge of Alvis, then later Vickers, and eventually BAE Land systems.
TL;DR
No, it’s not British.
4 Likes
because a lot of the vehicles Britain used are either going to be dead-on-arrival or not unique enough
His argument is the exact opposite! He’s saying the CVs are Swedish because they’re built by a Swedish subsidary, in Sweden, For Sweden.
The Ajax is built by a UK subsidary, in the UK, for the UK
1 Like
Poland had CV90120T on trials. Could be added to UK.
I’ll add that BAE Hugglands regularly refuses stuff like local production etc in bids made by BAE, unless BAE starts pulling teeth etc. BAE Hugglands is pretty much operates as its own thing.
2 Likes
No, Ajax is built by an American subsidiary, not British.
It’s built by General Dynamics in Britain.
BAE is 40% owned by sweden brother
And it was driven by swedish crew not polish