But it wasnt… it was designed by BRITISH PEOPLE in an
1 Like
Fine… America doesnt need it… there thats ur answer as it seems you lack common sense…
1 Like
Mhmhm even tho the CV90 was designed by Sweden I think ill ask for it in the UK cos BAE Sweden is a subsidiary
1 Like
This part at the bottom of the brochure means its the product of an American company. Many companies create subsidiaries in countries they want to market in (e.g. the UK) - doesn’t mean that subsidiary is inherently British.
So is this the justification British mains use so they can claim the entire Commonwealth in their TT?
Assigning a vehicle to a nation should go like:
- was it in-service with a country? if not…
- was it a private venture? yes… then put it in that the country of origin for the company
If BAE marketed some sort of vehicle that never went into service then it can go to the UK. But wanting this suggestion to go to the UK because it was only proposed to the British is just not where it’s at…
i love you ignore the part above where it says uk
Or ignore it was nearly an inservice design, specifically made for Britain but ok
My guy you are legit using the weakest arguments for giving the US a tank they had no hand in baring NAME alone
First Sentence
And I love the part where you ignored where I say: “Many companies create subsidiaries in countries they want to market in (e.g. the UK) - doesn’t mean that subsidiary is inherently British”.
You want some examples?
- Is Safran an American company because there’s a subsidiary based there?
- Is Rheinmetall an Australian company because there’s a subsidiary based there?
- Is Raytheon a UAE company because there’s a subsidiary based there?
Answer me this… what part of the turret is a British technology outside of the gun?
Tell me why that matters when the Warrior Turret was made for the UK, at the end of the day the fucking thing wasn’t made for the US the main buyer for the original dam thing was the UK and they did buy it… 1 BILLION till LHUK cocked up and went over budget
Strawmaning again are we what a troll
1 Like
America doesnt need the thing they have more then enough home grown ifvs and wheeled ifvs if need be such as the LAV or Stryker Series
LAV IIIs aren’t American
1 Like
Yh but LAVs are in service in america
1 Like
But the CSP turret never entered service with the British. OK, correct me if I’m wrong but this is what happened, yes…?
→ An American company (Lockheed Martin) wanted to make some money off of a British tender
→ They put together a turret to compete for the tender - the only technology on that turret which is remotely British is the gun
→ British test it out a bit but ultimately the deal falls through
→ Lockheed Martin moves on and markets a vehicle for anyone that’s uses the same turret (this suggestion)
So where exactly does it become British? When they ran it through some tests?
you are trolling my guy
… a British Company that is owned by a American company applies vs other companies to upgrade the Warrior, other companies fall through and the CONTRACT is given to them by the UK, they carry on making the Vehicle, ALONG SIDE, making the upgrade they think hmm we can export this and modify the turret for export (basically fitting it on a patria hull) no one wants to buy it so they drop the endevor and carry on with the LEGAL CONTRACT from the UK to upgrade the tank. Due to some problems that are their own the contract goes through as they went WAY over budget and thus the UK goes and reallocates the money into buying boxers.
While making the turret you see above, the company was contracted by the UK to make a variant, the original I might add, to upgrade their fleet.
The contract to make the turret only fell through in 2021, this turret version was advertised in 2016… do you see the difference in time?
I like how i was joking about this going to Sweden instead of UK and by some miracle it has now somehow ended in an argument between US vs UK
IDK man…