>Ajax will not see operational deployment before 2026, marking a 12-year delay from the contract signing.
Why didn't the UK just but CV90, Puma, or Lynx? For people that say the UK doesn't really need a big army, for the amount of money they spent on Ajax they could've bought another QE class. How does this make any sense?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/over-4bn-spent-on-ajax-vehicles-with-just-44-delivered/
The extra carrier wouldn't do any good when they don't have enough F35s for the two they already have.
They should build frigate sized drone/heli carriers for area control and low intensity missions like Yemen or anti piracy missions where they need to cover huge areas and not spend to much money.
One of those could do the job of a few normal frigates or destroyers while probably costing less than one in the long run due to cheaper ammunition.
Jets, lol, they don’t even have the men to man their fleet.
The UK is far away from any potential enemies and is surrounded by the sea. So they can afford to have land vehicle programs just be local labour projects with the intention of enriching the right people. Really the longer it takes and more money spent the better.
Wouldn't it have made more sense then to just build more frigates then? You can enrich the MIC and provide thousands of jobs and still get something useful out of it?
Because then you have to spend money crewing and operating those frigates. Money that could be spent on developing a new land vehicle!
>Wouldn't it have made more sense then to just build more frigates then
Frigates enrich another group of people
>CV90, Puma, or Lynx
Because Ajax is better than all of them in the recon role, the costs are largely down to previous governments and General Dynamics.
You mean the previous 3 or 4 Tory governments, as opposed to the current Tory government?
>Tory Tory Tory
how many armoured fighting vehicles were delivered under Labour?
ZERO.
how many nukes would the UK deploy if Labour had their way?
ZERO.
what plans does Labour have to solve the UK's economic crises?
universal wage, because "we don't know if it works but politicans must be seen to do something" (actual quote)
Frick off about Tories unless Labour can unfrick its Hamas-loving mudslime ass
>Tory Tory Tory
Tories are labour driving the speed limit at best, they're barely better.
>we're going to reduce immigration this time, believe us!
This isn't even fool me twice, this is like foo me 5 times. Both parties are treasonous and need to be torpedoed.
Between the two, I'll take the one not actively making the situation worse
>superior to AJAX by far
Meds
Lynx doesn't actively give it's crew brain damage.
Neither does Ajax
>not actively making the situation worse
You mean like importing more diversity than Blair's government ever did? Or like overseeing the spread of woke crap into into all aspects of governance, schooling and the military?
>"y-yes, I know the Tories are assfricking me, but at least they're not using taxpayer funded lube. No, I c-c-can't vote for anybody sane, I'd have to pay the lube tax for 4 years if the based Tories lost."
Good luck with that.
>importing more diversity than Blair's government ever did? Or like overseeing the spread of woke crap into into all aspects of governance, schooling and the military?
unironically yes, because we both know it would be worse under Labour
>vote for anybody sane
suggest an alternative then
Reform is steadily rising and already above libdems in polls. If Farage starts campaigning for them, they have a very real chance of beating Tories. You're getting Labour govt whether you like it or not, might as well use the opportunity to kill the "Conservative" party and free up the space for a better one.
How exactly is Ajax better then the CV90 or Lynx in the recon role. Ajax is based off the ASCOD platform. All three are equally shit for the recon role because they have too much fat due to the designs having to accommodate an infantry squad. The "recon light tank" itself is an outdated concept anyway.
>recon role
>fat IFV
wtf you even talking about? You need armored jeep for that, lol, like Fennek.
he’s a notorious coper. In his mind the wheeled boxer will replace the warrior
He also thinks an IFV doesn't need to fire on the move.
kek that’s warriortard making those posts to make the bongs look like copelords
It's cute that you think small vehicles are less detectable than large vehicles in the era of radar and thermals.
Large vehicles offer more electrical power for better sensors and communication. They can have bigger batteries for operating cold and they have more autonomy.
Boxer is replacing FV4XX series not warrior. Warriors replacement is yet to be settled on because Lockheed fricked up the upgrade by making it more expensive than brand new vehicles.
A boxer variant may be selected to replace warrior but it'll be turreted and probably make use of the already procured 40mm CTA guns.
Because just like in Germany with the Puma, a conservative government decided to buy it to funnel a shitload of money to their MIC friends
Oh Gupta ! You're having a busy day !
A conservative government currently headed by... a pajeet, you window-licking mong.
£100,000,000 each. Shouldn’t they be stealth or fly for that much much invested?
Or work
It's a British contract. This is how they do things. Remember their 'aircraft carriers'?
It's an American company, that's their MO.
Lol, I just realised something. You never ever see Russians on /k/ admitting to being Russians. Now it's highly unlikely they all disappeared so that means they're lurking round the edges false flagging as every over nationality they can and trying to stir up shit against Western nations, particularly the bongs, like the seething spiteful little cucks they truly are.
Now that's funny enough on it's own, but then you realize it's because /k/ is now so utterly hostile to all Russians that they are fundamentally unwelcome here and they know it, so they don't even try. /k/ has effectively been de-russified.
Yes, everyone who says anything remotely negative about the UK is actually a secret Russian.
Christ, you Brits might actually take the cake as the single most pathetic group of posters on this Godforsaken site.
READ THE FILENAME OF HIS POST YOU FRICKING moronS. You talk about Brits as the worst posters, OK fine, I can agree with that (I'm Irish) but you're the fricking most moronic people ever. You don't even do basic shit. READ HIS FILENAME. WHAT BRIT WOULD TYPE THAT, moronS?
How do you fall for bait so fricking easily? I just don't get it. I really don't. /k/ is the easiest board to bait because they're all fricking predisposed for their own fricking opinion that all you have to do is go one way or another and you get (You)'s. You're fricking moronic, sort it out. Seriously.
Calm the frick down mick, I just asked why he's spamming.
I'm perfectly calm, you're just moronic and I am sick of morons like you on this board. Stop being moronic, it's really fricking easy. He's spamming because it gets (You)'s. What fricking more do you want? As for the other guy, thinking a Bong would have a filename of "laugh tummy" in German is so fricking moronic that I don't even know what more to say.
>I'm perfectly calm
Kek yeah it just emanates off you
>thinking a Bong would have a filename of "laugh tummy" in German
>implying that anyone is going to run some anon's filename through google translate
kek
>the filename must mean the poster shares that nationality
Holy reddit
It's highly unlikely a bong would use a German filename. That would be very weird. I mean maybe a french word but German? Never. Not in a million years.
Calm down fellow Paddy. Maybe the Bong just saved the file with the filename it was originally named as.
>fellow Paddy
Why the crying Russian wojak? I (
) hate vatniks/ziggers.
>WHY AREN'T YOU FALLING FOR MY TRICKS!?!?
Lol, they're so mad about being called out. I fricking hit the nail on the head it seems.
Hit what nail on what head? Take your meds.
Why are you posting this in multiple threads like it's a pasta
take meds
Looks like anon got the shills defensive with that callout.
Got any more insipid Brits bad takes? DAE ramps? How about a dentistry comment? I'm sure noone has done that before.
Fact is if it was as organic as you are pretending it is people would have got bored of the braindead repetition of stale memes 5 years ago, yet here people are posting the same dumb content in the same dumb threads.
Fact is, your average American or euro just doesn't care. The only people who regulary want to give others the impression that the UK is somehow failing are Russians, Indians and Iranians that inexplicably think Britain is somehow the root of all evil in the world.
Bullied into this abject insanity by a Floridian with a fart fetish.
Pathetic.
It's not unfortunately, it's an autistic sperg that lived in Florida called armatard.
it was a three day special de-vatBlack personfication operation
>why did they waste it on this thing that doesn't work, instead of wasting it on this other thing that doesn't work?
>Puma
hahahaha
>Why didn't the UK just but CV90, Puma, or Lynx?
The Ajax actually works. The issue was the Spanish (who Americans sourced to) welded the thing wrong so it vibrated. The Puma, on the other hand, is so fricking mechanically shit that a year or so ago, an entire brigade broke down on the same day. If you're going to shitpost and all, at least do some due diligence and not say stupid shit like the Puma (which the Germans have stopped buying because it's so shit).
The damage turned out to be minor and so the temporary funding freeze was lifted within months and the next batch has already been ordered.
18 of 18 inoperable
>minor
lol, Germany is a shitshow.
Except they weren't inoperable. The minor damage was stuff like a wiper being slightly bent, a window having a crack or an air conditioner needing its filter changed. The army reported these as 'damage sustained during exercise, sending in for repairs', which the media picked up as "completely inoperable! Scandal! Corruption! Everyone panic!"
This is pathetic bong cope because the vehicles had their final assembly done in Wales by a former-forklift factory that had no experience with heavy armored vehicles. The Americans (GDLS) didn't outsource the welds to the Spanish. The fricking Spanish make the ASCOD in the first place since it's a Spanish design, and other operators have no such problems with hundreds of vehicles in service
How's the weather in Florida?
GDLS said they could use an off the shelf vehicle, add the components specified by the MoD and then deliver it for a certain price. Once they got the contract they kept revising the delivery date and cost. GDLS essentially lied about their ability to deliver in order to secure the contract. The end result is a vehicle that is late and expensive but delivers everything the UK wanted and is the best recon vehicle in the world. It's fully networked with platforms like Apache, F35, wildcat, sky sabre and will be fully integrated with Challenger 3, Brimstone Overwatch and future fires.
>they could've bought another QE class
Well thank god they didn't lol, that class is fricked.
Seethe more, thirdie. It's the best carrier in the world outside of US CVNs right now.
Its shaft is shafted.
QE will get fixed, PoW took her place. Meanwhile the shafts your mom takes are just going to carry on coming.
It looks like it's a class issue. 2/2 with the same problem (despite the RN assuring it wasn't a shared issue).
Should have bought American.
At least it'd be useful as an artificial reef when they're scrapped in 15 years for lack of funds.
>ok warriortard
Nah. He's been AWOL since 'the pasta' broke him.
This is common or garden trolling.
What pasta?
he actually has been AWOL quite some time ever since the janny did in fact nuke several of his threads
it's been rather relaxing
>Why didn't the UK just but CV90, Puma, or Lynx?
the ASCOD was an off the shelf design that they went full moron over customizing. what would make you think they wouldn't do the same thing with the other options?
Is the ASCOD II really bad?
>itt
Underage morons forget
>Abrams
>Leo2
>Bradley
>VBCI
>Puma
>F-35
And the list goes on.
Rename this board to /war thunder, and gun collectors/ because the level of understanding on procurement is a fricking embarrassment.
>It's perfectly normal to spend 5.5 billion dollars on a non working IFV that gives it's crew CTE, and still only have 44 examples after a decade. This is totally comparable to all of these other successful programs.
>comparing the Ajax Program to the fricking Leopard or F-35 programs of all things
Bongs live in a vatnik-tier stupor.
You need to grasp the difference between Western and Eastern procurement. Engineering issues crop up irrespectively. Western programs identify problems and fix them (Bradley, Queen Elizabeth class etc.), while Eastern programs push things into service regardless and pretend there's nothing wrong (BMPT, Kuznetsov class).
Then bottom feeders like you come along screeching about how bad western designs are and go very quiet when eastern stuff is "inexplicably" lost at a 10:1 ratio when shit hits the fan.
Kindly frick off, Ajax will be fine. OP news article is proof that the system works.
Nta but I'm not criticizing western designs. I'm criticizing the Ajax. Spending $5.5b to have only 44 vehicles that are so bad that they actively deafen and give the cre brain damage after 10 years is not the system working, It's British taxpayers being robbed.
The money is for almost 600 vehicles, were you one of the people crying in 2015 about less than 40 F-35 being delivered for a $1 trillion price tag?
No, you're wrong as usual.
No, moron, weapon programs that "cost billions of dollars" didn't spend all the money at once. Virtually none of that money gets spent until a working design is (a) mass produced and (b) operated for years
Sorry that the AJAX isn’t turning out the way you’d hoped anon.
Sorry your life isn't turning out the way you hoped warriorfart
NTA but you're an idiot. The $4b price tag is for the full production run, not 44 units, and usually includes spares, support and lifecycle costs. We have already been through this with the F35 program. How, in the year of our lord 2024, anons dont understand how procurement programs work, is beyond me.
You're talking to warriorturd, anon
I dont really care. I have found that if you just explain to someone why they are being a moron and/or a homosexual in matter of fact terms they tend to retreat into obscurity.
not him. he has no life, he has been doing this for years.
> The $4b price tag is for the full production run
wrong. All of the sources say that $4b has been spent. I’m sorry it’s hard for you to hear
>wrong. All of the sources say that $4b has been spent. I’m sorry it’s hard for you to hear
Yes. I have no doubt that 4B has been spent, in return they receive a full production run and support.
You're such a massive moron that you cannot comprehend explanation via comparison?
> in return they receive a full production run and support.
Increasingly nervous man
>Increasingly nervous man
If they dont the contractor is in breach and they could peruse the return of their funds. Its a contract promising future performance and consideration was payment for said performance.
Not complicated.
>return of their funds
Oh god I am laffin
>Oh god I am laffin
No, you're flailing about because you've run out of things to say but you're desperate for attention.
No refunds
You're such a massive moron that you cannot comprehend that some comparisons are massively moronic.
We spent years and years with
>omg spent 1T and only got one jet
in the same way that we have
>omg spent 4B and only got 44 metal bawxes
The examples marry perfectly, your inability to see this is not a reflection of a poor argument on my part, its a reflection on your mothers penchant for consuming alcohol while pregnant.
>Development cycle for a novel stealth aircraft, including almost every single component is expensive OMG shock
>Development of a derivative of ASCOD has taken 10 years, cost as much as a QE carrier, deafen the crew, and only 44 examples have been made.
The examples don't illustrate anything other than the fact that you are indeed a moron.
>omg you pay up front and get delivery later
>omg you pay up front and get delivery later
We arent talking about the platform, technology or anything of the sort. We are talking about acquisition projects. I cant make it any simpler. Either you are literally clinically moronic or you're being intentionally obtuse.
>we aren't talking about the technology
You have to be fricking with me right?
see
>you're being intentionally obtuse.
it's warriotard
take a fricking guess
>deafen the crew
Didn't you know it's already been fixed? or are you just a lying seething homosexual?
>double up on earpro
>fixed
Gloucester isn’t sending their best
Why would you just say random things? Whats the point?
>Whats the point?
distracts warriortard from his awful life
Because that is the stated fix. Wait until you hear about the vibration fix being an extra cushion
>Because that is the stated fix.
HUGE IF TRUE! Link?
You shouldn’t comment if you don’t have a basic understanding of the topic at hand
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cushions-and-ear-protectors-to-put-faulty-ajax-tanks-back-on-track-zwfc2jxw8
Holy shit. How do Bongs cope with this? It can't even be incompetence, the British government must actively hate their people. They take billions from them to produce things like this and then these moronic serfs defend it online. Unreal.
>cushions and ear protection to put faulty ajax tanks back on track
kek it’s real
>The modifications GD made to fix the issues include a redesign of seating mounts and extra cushioning, as well as remodified damping to hand controllers. The excessive noise issues have been addressed through the introduction of an inner ear piece providing communication functions as well as outer ear protectors.
So whats the problem?
>ear protection was the fix
>HuGe If TrUe
>okay so what
kek
>make claim
>ask for source
>provide
>analyze
>discussion continues
Whats the problem here?
It speaks directly to how little you know of the AJAX program
>It speaks directly to how little you know of the AJAX program
I confirm that I have a life and gainful employment and cannot follow every twist and turn of british projects.
>include means solely
KYS
>but we redesigned the mount for the seat too
I’ve done more intricate metal work than that
>I’ve done more intricate metal work than that
And?
>include a redesign of seating mounts and extra cushioning, as well as remodified damping to hand controllers
once again, doesn't mean solely these 3 fixes you turbomoron
Yes it does. It says it right in the article.
> The modifications GD made to fix the issues include a redesign of seating mounts and extra cushioning, as well as remodified damping to hand controllers. The excessive noise issues have been addressed through the introduction of an inner ear piece providing communication functions as well as outer ear protectors.
No mention of other fixes
>"INCLUDE" MEANS THIS AND ONLY THIS OKAY!!1!!
sad
ESL the article says includes and then lists the modifications made
>n-n-no "include" means o-only this
>they absolutely MUST give us EVERY DETAIL of what they did
>no ur the ESL!!1!
seethe and cope lmao
>they only listed their most unimpressive modifications
it’s hilarious seeing how badly this hurts you. You’re cope is delicious
>You’re
>include is necessarily exhaustive!
>ur the ESL not me!
>UR COPING NOT ME
I look forward to seeing you mald uncontrollably about this another few years, warriorfart
>seethe and cope lmao
Nta, but it seems like you're the only one seething.
>nooooo there was some intricate unnamed fixes that I dreamed about
Desperate
>Asks for proof that the solution is cushions and doubled up ear pro because it would obviously be a moronic solution
>Gets proof
>It's actually a really good solution!
You can't make this up
>obviously be a moronic solution
How so?
They did a lot more than just require the use of earpr…ACK
Those were just some of the fixes
>comparing the most advanced stealth aircraft ever made to a metal box on tracks that makes anyone that touches it deaf
Lol @ you
>Then bottom feeders like you come along screeching about how bad western designs are
I'm not criticising western designs lmao, I'm criticising the comparison between a utter shitshow such as the Ajax program with wildly successful programs like the Abrams/Leopard/F-35/etc.
Ah yes the famously uncontroversial F-35. Frick off
Bradley was controversial as fu
Controversy isn't the same as program having problems. Are you seriously taking the criticisms of the bradley made by the guy that wanted to put wings on M113s seriously? Are you moronic?
The program that led to the Bradley lasted 17 years and went through multiple redesigns and congressional tarpits. It was even cancelled at one point. Now Bradley is fine. Frick off with your revisionism.
>Ah yes the famously uncontroversial F-35. Frick off
Controversial but extremely successful. Literally the most produced 5th gen on the planet, successfully used in combat, adopted by a dozen of nations.
Compare it to the Ajax: barely adopted by one nation, plagued by all kinds of defects, actively injuries its crew, delayed by a decade now, etc.
And a decade ago you'd be saying the exact same thing about the F-35. Expensive, delayed, unproven. Frick off.
>Unironically comparing a metal box on tracks to stealth jets.
Deranged.
>Disingenuous, Timewasting opinion in a vain attempt to get the last word in an argument he's losing
>Reddit spacing
Now get
>Disingenuous, Timewasting opinion in a vain attempt to get the last word in an argument he's losing
Literally your entire post. What kind of moron compares building a glorified tractor which is actually just a modification of an existing vehicle (ASCOD) to the development of novel technologies and stealth aircraft?
What kind of moron compares a multi billion pound integration of advanced sensors and technologies, across multiple variants for multiple battlefield uses to a tractor?
I dont see you gtfoing mr Reddit spacing. You've already proven you have no idea what you're talking about, why waste time here when you could be educating yourself using basic Google skills?
>I dont see you gtfoing mr Reddit spacing
Yeah I think you're just moronic. Extremely low quality posts are not allowed on this board.
>Ajax will be as successful as the F-35 and Leopard trust me! Two more weeks and it will stop vibrating its crew to nausea!
You're delusional.
This newbie wasn't around when F22 was suffocating it's pilots and F35 was weeks away from getting cancelled.
F-35 production began in 2007, but only instrumentation airframes
only in 2014 were the first combat-rated models delivered to external customers (I don't know about the USA)
at that time, 35 billion dollars had been spent on the F-35, for only 200 units
most of these were the Block 2 training type, with a few early Block 3s that didn't have any additional combat capabilities but had slightly upgraded hardware
Block 3F, the baseline combat type, was only produced in 2015, and is not considered to safely overmatch Russian or Chinese fighters - that will come with TR-3, ON WHICH WE ARE STILL WAITING TODAY
at that point, in 2014, it would have been accurate to say the US had spent 35 billion dollars for 200 test and training units and ZERO combat operational units
>not considered to safely overmatch Russian or Chinese fighters
Lmao literal Vatnik
>“We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35,” Hinote said. “It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.”
>Lt. Gen. Clint Hinote, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, 2021
now frick off
Safely overmatch isn't not still overmatching them to be fair. But it also makes the phrase worthless since it could mean any level of safety he decides is acceptable or not.
without TR-3, the only weapons F-35 fields is AMRAAM, Sidewinder, Paveways, JDAMs, and SDB 1
literally no other ordnance
reduced radar, ESM and DAS capability too
>Safely overmatch isn't not still overmatching them
Okay but what if they were unsafely still not not under-undermatching them (not)?
>Bradley, Queen Elizabeth
>Bradley successful with almost no problems during the development process
>QE program, 10 years after the lead ship is launched it's barely operational, doesn't have enough aircraft to fill it's airwings, regularly breaks down
>How does this make any sense?
Theft. That’s how.
For £100,000,000 each it should have a rail gun when finished right?
>just trust us bro, we totally will back you up. I swear we’ll produce the stuff you need when you need it.
If there is one thing the war in Ukraine should teach us is to never trust Americans or Continentals’ promises. I don’t care how much it costs as long as we develop it, it has a big, stupid union jack on it, and we can build it ourselves when we need it.
>staggering sum
£4 billion for R&D and delivery of 44 modern armored vehicles isn't that expensive though.
Are bongs moronic?
Another 3 or so billion and they will match the cost of their two aircraft carriers.
90 million pounds per is 10 times more than the latest Boxer
but OP is being disingenuous anyway by taking the programme cost and dividing by number of units produced instead of the number ORDERED (over 500)
Puma was never offered because the Germans were having issues with it and it was probably difficult to reconfigure it from an IFV to a Scout vehicle
Lynx didn't exist when Ajax was selected
So at this £100,000,000 unit cost, the bongs could have bought 1 F35 and 4-5 bradley fighting vehicles or CV90. Holy shit.
>£100,000,000 unit cost,
You're so dumb. It's a unit cost of a bit over £9m each. This is why you're NEET or working on a dead end job.
Hungary is getting 218 Lynx (superior to AJAX by far) for 1.8 billion Euros. A unit cost of £7.1m. They'll also have them before Ajax is operational.
Oh hey cool we can save £2 mill/unit by completely dropping the recon and networking requirements. Wowee, what value.
It doesn’t have advanced recon capabilities and any vehicle can be networked. FFS blue force tracker has been around for decades.
>It doesn’t have advanced recon capabilities
Stopped reading.
can you describe and explain these advanced recon capabilities?
Why would I bother? You made a dumb claim without even doing basic research. It's not my job to make you less stupid. Let's do this another way, what recon vehicle is more capable and why? Do your own homework if you don't want to get bullied.
It looks like you can’t list any of its advanced recon capabilities
My life doesn't materialy change by educating you, but bullying you for being dumb in the Internet age is great fun.
>cant provide a single reference to system description
>not even a glossy brochure
>no info on CAT, DRI, networking
Ajaxbros, this does not look good...
You seem to be confusing can't with won't. I'm Laughing at you for not even having done a Google search before opening your mouth. Do you work in some menial job where thinking isn't required?
Its actually my first post here, but i keep hearing all about this insane recon abaility so im getting curious as to what exactly it is
>It doesn’t have advanced recon capabilities
You have positive information? No, of course you don't, you're a seething mongoloid
>and any vehicle can be networked
Not to the degree that Ajax is, and not without similarly expensive electronics fits
>FFS blue force tracker has been around for decades
Yes, and its limitations are known as well, and it's expensive enough that it's not at all universally deployed
And Ajax is not just BFT as has already been stated ITT, but instead of scrolling up you just screeched in denial
Just fricking scroll up and READ Black person READ
>Lynx (superior to AJAX by far)
It doesn't even do a quarter of what Ajax does because it's an IFV and not a recon or engineering vehicle. The UK's spend stays in the UK, Hungarys goes abroad.
Rheinmetall is building like two factories in Hungary.
Weren't you guys trying to blame the Spanish for poor welds? Now it's all done inhouse in the UK? Which is it?
The first few hulls were made in Spain which was the cause of early delays and QC issues on like the first 20 of 600.
40 billion expended. 40 vehicles delivered. They dont even work. Keep coping. £100M each and counting.
It was actually 400 billion you bongoloid!!
It will buy a proven design after all.
Ahh yes the cherry Bakewell of future armored vehicles.
Of the future armored vehicles of its type, the OMFV will be better
From the people who brought you “ifv with non stabilized main gun” comes “vibrating death trap”
Now that we have established the Ajax will have a basic recon package, what else did they skimp on?
There unironically isn't a better recon vehicle than Ajax anywhere in the world, certainly not in Europe or the USA.
>this nonexistent recon vehicle is the best in the world
Sorry but the boxer is better. I know that’s not what you wanted to hear
> There unironically isn't a better recon vehicle than Ajax anywhere in the world, certainly not in Europe or the USA.
Huge if true, source?
Scimitar Mk.2
>Scimitar
Ajax's mission payload alone is more than the weight of a CVRT
Exactly my point.
Shart hours
Warriortard used to annoy me. And that's his reason to live.
He's been mocked openly on any site that does not allow anonymity. Whether it be wikipedia, touhou chat rooms (his favourite retro game), twitter, etc, etc...
He's not lying when he says he loves this place. And this is the point.
Anytime he annoys you, do something you enjoy. Go plinking, call the lads and do some lamping, take your wife/gf out for meal. In short, do the things he can't, and never will. Don't let yourself become the sad, lonely, individual who has made ragebaiting his life.
why do you keep posting this is multiple threads as if it’s a copypasta
Thanks. It's always fun to expose how little he knows. He's just a Google kid that doesn't understand what isn't written for him.
>CV90
Old, reaching the limit of organic growth and not a purpose built recon vehicle.
>Puma
Even worse program history than the Ajax. Well over a decade behind schedule and not going to be completed until 2030.
>Lynx
Didnt exist.
AFAIK the AJAX just has BFTs, a set of pas-13s for the dismounts, and link-16. It’s not that impressive for a recon vehicle
>AFAIK
and you know nothing
>pas-13s for the dismounts
Just making stuff up are we?
It’s part of sl-3
Disregard, this is bongsbane stirring shit
>t. fartsniffing homosexual fondling himself on Onlyfans for cash
literally projecting
What will be the Bing cope when Ajax gets canceled and the MoD either buys foreign or doesn't buy anything?
Warrior service life extension would be the funniest program of all time
Why didn't they just get an interim off the shelf solution if they were having so much trouble during development? Or how about just pushing for a joint IFV program with the US years ago since it's the same companies in both countries making these vehicles, doctrine and requirements are nearly identical and you get cost savings.
>b-b-but we're not in a war and it's not needed!
You do it so you can better inform your industry on what you need and want while simultaneously discovering what works and doesn't work with the added benefit of having an immediate upgrade available.
>why don’t the British make smart decisions when it comes to armored fighting vehicles
It’s tradition by this point
all this is answered ITT if you would fricking SCROLL BEFORE POSTING
None of that was answered
What a strange thing to lie about.
wait till you hear about warriortard
who's warriortard?
Alright lets delve in!
>Outed himself as poor
Factory worker with a toolbag from Amazon, got caught replying to himself about his cool bag ($15 amazon) Tradies bullied him really bad.
>Doxxed his own wiki
Got caught editing to Bradley wiki and outed himself as Loafiewa, profile lists as Autistic loner. Change the location to Kent to cover his tracks.
>Doxxed his own Twitter
He looks at male dicks and wants to move to Canada.
>Posts his wifes OF images and requests
She's a fat prostitute thats forced to sell her self online
>Doxxed his own OF
He's also fat and sells videos of himself farting and burping and touching himself (picrel) and jerking off
>Posts fat out of shape Dog
Basically animal cruelty in an image, it was fat and pathetic resembling a wooden beer barrel.
>Posts gun and bedside table
His bedside table is covered with dust so his house is almost certainly a pigsty
>Has been obsessed with the British and the mighty Warrior for over 6 years
Guess Jake Paul isn't the only one he wants to notice him.
Try not to be mean to this anon, he's the most pathetic poster here. Who else could spare 8 hours a day posting here for the past 5 years?
interesting how quiet it suddenly got 😉
>Why didn't the UK just but CV90, Puma, or Lynx?
because it isn't an IFV you ESL street shitter.
That said I don't like Ajax because its too slow and fat. The CVRTs were way cooler.
>ESL street shitter
maybe you should try not being illiterate if you won't want people to think your obvious agitprop threads aren't being posted from Bombay.
>HA! They fixed the problem!
This is why the mods nuke your threads the second they come online.
Post 209 btw
>just wear extra ear pro and here’s a pillow for your ass
>fixed
I think we’ve found the next big bong insecurity
>have problem
>cheap and easy solution
>this is bad
How many threads you get nuked over the past three days?
Yeah I’m sure all of the dumb grunts that will ride in them will absolutely always be wearing their ear protection.
They aren't IFV's so yeah, I guess vehicle crews tend to have their equipment with them. If they don't, whatever hearing damage will be dwarfed by the hearing damage suffered from being on an active battlefield w/o ears.
>insecurity
>t. guy who posts endlessly for years harping on the same nothingburger
holy projection batman
>picrel the highest paid Bong engineer
If it works it works.
haven't you got Onlyfans clients to service?
How have the British managed to design a vehicle so bad that the crew will go deaf just driving it around? I don't even think North Korean armored vehicles are this bad.
How did they manage to frick up on their IFV and tanks as well? It’s tradition
In their defense they are getting rid of the shitty rifles gun on the challenger 2. The challenger 3 is shaping up to actually be good
Massive unrestricted third world immigration has turned the UK into a turd world country unable to actually design or build a useful system.
I mean Christ, the prime minister is literally a street shitter lol
Do not redeem sir
Slightly louder than a Brad.
>Under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, the Lower Exposure Action Value for noise at the ear of a user is 80 dB(A) and the Upper Exposure Action Value is 85 dB(A). The Exposure Limit Value is 87 dB(A). Maximum noise levels on Ajax platforms have consistently been in the region of 117db(A).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review/ajax-noise-and-vibration-review#root-cause-analysis-and-findings
>Bradley Fighting Vehicle 115
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0701/ML070120304.pdf
There are still people on /k/ who actually know what the frick is up, and we will swing by from time to time to slap you manchildren in the wiener.
and FYI the Brad's noise reading of 115dB is at idle, not while moving. The Brits have a problem because their version of OSA laws dont have big carveouts for the military like ours do.
kek this guy just got caught lying. The brad clocks in at 74-95 at idle. This anon just tried to say it was 115 at idle. LMAO
>115dB at 20 mph.
You can see how this differs from
> and FYI the Brad's noise reading of 115dB is at idle, not while moving
This changes the fact that Brad is 10db quieter than Ajax's max reading?
I was merely pointing out that guys lie
>I was merely pointing out that guys lie
Was it a lie or a mistake?
>idle 74
come again?
>117 at idle
Holy shit the Ajax is fricked. The Bradley is only between 75 and 95 at idle. Shocking really
Where does it say 117 at idle for Ajax?
Hmm I can’t find it where it says at idle or while moving. Thus a comparison cannot be drawn. Idk where that guy saw idle
>Hmm I can’t find it where it says at idle or while moving
Scroll to the top of the document. Its the mistake I made when first bring it up. Its Speed then sound.
You can compare max 117 to max 115. Considering they're both diesel engines vehicles of approximately the same dimensions, I'd be shocked if the Ajax wasn't similar to the brad at idle too
You really can’t because the Bradley chart specifies at idle and at speed. The Ajax source doesn’t make any mention of idle or at speed. Sorry just can’t do it
> Considering they're both diesel engines vehicles of approximately the same dimensions
There’s more to it than that. For example
> Quality issues associated with, but not limited to, inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of bonding and weld quality; all of which can lead to potential electromagnetic compatibility issues with communication equipment. As witnessed during trials, insecure components and bolting within the vehicle can also lead to noise and vibration, and again this was noted by ATDU crews.
Those aren’t problems noted with the Bradley
>maximum damage control
Damage control was saying “but they are both diesels of the same shape” when the issues were caused by faulty welds, loose bolting, and improperly lain cable
Damage control is you saying
>but they dont differentiate between idle and moving
Report clearly states that *MAXIMUM* noise levels in Ajax are 117. US report shows brad hits a maximum of 115 at a certain speed.
Idle or mobile is moot. Maximums are what counts and for the brits 117 is too high.
Ajax says the maximum value is 117. Which implies full rattlebones. You got to use that big bot brain of yours, make the connections.
Max at idle or at speed? They don’t say. A comparison simply can’t be made
Next level desperation.
>take the L
>warriortard
What the frick are you trying to say
>whoswarriortard.exe
I didn’t ask who he is. I was more confused as to why you brought him up to me in the first place
Take the L, Warriortard. Pretending you don't know what the word maximum means is moronic even by your standards
>Hmm I can’t find it where it says at idle or while moving
The max reading per the MOD report was 117. The max reading you get in a brad is 115. No further comparison is needed, unless you're suggesting the brits turned it on and then turned it off and went home.
>all these shitposts about the Ajax destroying its crew's ears and it turns out its only slightly louder than a Bradley M3A2
>let reply to my own post, that'll show them
And what a bargain at £4 bln. I mean it almost works as well as a Bradley! They could have bought 40 f35s, or hired people to staff their fricking navy with thay money.
At 4billion for the order, it's 16m per unit.
F-35s are around 80m per unit.
>16m a unit
That’s terrible for just a bog standard recon vehicle with basic networking capabilities.
It's cheaper than Puma. Puma was 22m per unit.
Pumas are vastly more capable fighting vehicles
I doubt that.
German equipment has proved pretty awful lately.
>hurr noisy Ajax! ha! Idiot brits
>Bradly dB drops
>abandon thread!
wienerslap delivered.
>abandon thread
>thread continues
It was real in your mind
nta but the banter obviously stopped.
Not only did the banter stop but everybody also clapped for the complete vindication of the AJAX
>nta
The rallying cry of that anon
So is £100,000,000 a normal price for tanks and armored vehicles?
No, it’s pretty high
I thought it seemed high. Finland only paid something like 2 million Euros per unit on their CV90s.
A no brainer
>warriortard still falseflagging and samegayging
I don't know what i expeted.
you’re in deep like some kind of warriortard doomer
>Past midnight
>Still yelling at his boogeyman
Go to bed Nigel, this is pathetic.
>actually replies
>twice
Someone felt addressed.
Does everyone in this thread not know about link-16? If AJAX doesn’t use link-16 it uses something like it. I doubt it would be as good as link-16 considering all of the infrastructure needed for secure networking
>hurr durr just use link 16
if it was that fricking simple, homosexual, the USAF wouldn't have spent forfrickingever trying to get F-35 to talk properly on Link 16 to other platforms
>I doubt it would be as good as link-16 considering all of the infrastructure needed for secure networking
frick would you know about it
> frick would you know about it
I know the bongs didn’t launch their own TDMA-based secure, jam-resistant, high-speed digital data link
for now
and that's all you know
they were only just figuring it out this side of 2020 (and taking forever to do it by the way) as you can see from the timeline below
these datalinks are actually not quite as plug and play as most people imagine
that is the other part of what makes everything, including Ajax, F-35 and F-15X, so damn expensive - making it ACTUALLY compatible with as many cross-domain and allied systems as possible
>test
>test
>demonstration
What are you referencing, they absolutely haven’t launched a link-16 competitor.
>>test
>>test
I dont even know what the frick you are trying to say anymore.
F-35s arnt reliant on Harvest lightning to talk to US IADS including IBCS and Aegis.
>Linking F-35s to IBCS via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) provided enhanced situational awareness and weapons-quality track data to engage airborne targets. The proof of concept demonstration used experimental equipment developed by Lockheed Martin, including the Harvest Lightning Ground Station and IBCS adaptation kit (A-Kit).
>"F-35s arnt reliant on Harvest lightning to talk to US IADS"
>post excerpt showing how Harvest Lightning was needed to provide WEAPONS QUALITY TRACK DATA
WDHMBT
>Ignoring MADL
>Ignoring Airborne Sensor Adaptation Kit (A-Kit)
>Ignoring Aegis integration which doesnt use harvest lightning
Either moron, or troll at this point. I cant tell yet.
>jUsT uSe LiNk 16 bRoOoOo
Yeah you know what? you're absolutely right
Link 16 can do all that natively, so clearly the
>Adaptation Kit
is pointless and the DoD is just giving Lockmart busywork to fluff the bottom line with
>>jUsT uSe LiNk 16 bRoOoOo
I never said this. You are talking to multiple people here.
If you would just take a deep breath and stop being such a angry homosexual, we could have continued on having a decent discussion on the matter at hand, but its clear you only care about being perceived as right at this point.
>I never said this. You are talking to multiple people here.
regardless, I don't see what's your problem, even just the brief excerpts posted above spell out the situation clearly for anyone not a total fricking moron or a disingenuous mong
but here's a bone anyway:
>MADL
the flaw with MADL is that as far as other assets are concerned, it is "receive only", F-35 cannot transmit weapons-track-quality data to other shooters
THAT IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE SOLVED HERE
>Airborne Sensor Adaptation Kit (A-Kit)
yes, this is the equipment that needed to be developed in order to solve the problem of F-35 currently not being able to talk to other assets
>Aegis integration which doesn't use harvest lightning
they had to develop that as well, and it was the first item on the list because of how important F-35 is to the Navy
it then took them FOUR YEARS to proceed to tying F-35 in with IBCS and validate it with a live firing
this shows you how difficult it actually is to network these assets together
This is just one big goal post shiftaroo.
Lets recap.
I said the F-35 can integrate with US IADS.
You said that the F-35 could only do this with a special data link.
While partially true in regards to a test with IBCS in 2019, I provided other information stating that the F-35 wasnt dependent on harvest lightning for IADS integration.
Now youre on a angry spergout. I just dont get it. I have to assume youre just shitposting now.
>I provided other information stating that the F-35 wasnt dependent on harvest lightning for IADS integration
which presumably was this:
>The proof of concept demonstration used experimental equipment developed by Lockheed Martin, including the Harvest Lightning Ground Station
do any of those words mean anything to you?
the only network into which F-35 is fully tied in is the Navy's NIFC-CA
Read Black person, read.
I simply stated that the F-35 can integrate with US IADS. Thats it.
I dont give a flying frick about how it manages to achieve this.
You on the other hand, got fricking mentally rocked by some other homosexual babbling about link 16, and ever since you have been transposing weird straw man and imagined arguments onto my posts ever since.
TL:DR
Restating my original position:
The F-35 can integrate with US IADS.
My follow up:
The F-35 is not solely dependent on harvest lightning to integrate with US IADS. End.
>The F-35 can integrate with US IADS.
>My follow up:
>The F-35 is not solely dependent on harvest lightning to integrate with US IADS
yeah sure you're technically correct
F-35 is integrated with NIFC-CA as is
>ever since you have been transposing weird straw man and imagined arguments
maybe before jumping in blindly you should've fricking read the original fricking discussion, which was on GROUND VEHICLES and IBCS specifically, frickhead
>which was on GROUND VEHICLES and IBCS specifically, frickhead
I know, you fricking seething ass clown.
My first post in this thread was about F-35/HIMARS integration.
You clarified on the data link being the other way around, and I responded with the only other instance that I was aware of was F-35/IADS integration. I then immediately conceded that US IADS isnt staying true to the spirit of what you originally meant (IE Ground Vehicle like AJAX) and to carry on.
Ever since you have just been white knuckle posting about shit I never said, let alone implied. Take a deep breath and fricking collect yourself you ragey mongoloid.
I could point out AGAIN where you slipped up but yknow what, forget it
the gist is accurate enough anyway
There is no slipping up you belligerent maniac.
The F-35 can integrate with US IADS.
Period. End of story.
Anything after the above is shit you made up in your mind.
Frick off warriortard you aren’t fooling anyone
>surprised it takes some trial and error to integrate advanced systems
>they work now but it’s bad because they didn’t work before
F35 can talk with other link-16 platforms. It’s been figured out so where is the issue?
The initial costs are always high, but once the factory is up and running they will be able to export it and it should make it up for the lost money
>bongs
>exporting an armored vehicle post 1980
Who’s going to tell him
>Why didn't the UK just but CV90, Puma, or Lynx?
To maintain a domestic arms industry within Britain. While it can cost more for a given contract, even a smaller arms sector can retain enough institutional knowledge to be scaled up at a later date should the need arise, which is much easier than building up a new arms industry from scratch in an emergency. If the sector was allowed to die off completely then all the knowledge it has collectively built up would be lost as the people who work within it find jobs in other sectors and new talent is not trained to replace the old hands, leaving Britain reliant on foreign companies who are unlikely to prioritise British procurement needs over their own nations, especially in an emergency.
pic unrelated