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
Yup
Poland has nothing to do with Britain whatsoever?
When I made this poll I was trying to resolve the arguments
🤣 no
Did you mean BAE Hägglunds?
It’s specifically built by General Dynamics UK. The whole subsidary thing means it’s under a different company which in this case makes it a British subsidary of a US company. Hence why it’s literally called General Dynamics UK
General Dynamics UK is owned by General Dynamics. It’s the same company just different for tax purposes.
Same thing is done for BAE.
There is no difference, both do their methods exclusively for tax purposes.
There’s a bit more to it than just taxes, it’s also to some extent political benefit. General Dynamics UK encompasses quite a few originally UK companies though and as such while it is indeed owned by General Dynamics it is still a UK subsidary and as such is run as it’s own company. Just that General Dynamics gets to boot the brass if they aren’t happy with the profits.
The point still stands that it’s a UK subsidary of an American company. Just like BAE Hägglunds is a Swedish subsidary of BAE Systems
They could get an Abrams too. They trialed that.