APC Development and related topics.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Now, in the Editor when I right click on the unit, and select Information, the 50 cal TMG not the Bushmaster is loaded in weapon slot 1.

=====

The information screen is reading the original unit data in the OOB not the modified unit you created..........it's always been that way

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don my apologies but, now I realize why Jan. 2017 was stuck in my head, should've reread it before posting. However I think (Post #168) might be useful and the ones before it as well. Mostly to ensure we're using the right TOW II for those units. As noted then as being tested (3 yrs ago.) the TOW2 ITAS and AERO is now in use on the LAV-ATA1 for at least a year or more now from I can gather.

This next I've been tracking for over 8 yrs. now([b]Post #259[and the UK chose an APC that it turned down under the FRES Program. The BOXER is back however this will still require some additional tracking. FRES collapsed in 2008 when the final contract between the UK and GD for the PIRANHA 5 couldn't be settled upon. The BOXER was "rumored" to have a close second at the time. The new program was decided upon in Sep. 2015 and here it's only a year later and we as noted above, the BOXER wins. With BREXIT in play and Germany being seen as the "De Facto" leader of the EU and the UK wanting out of the EU on favorable terms and buying 800 units, it would seem some accommodation might be made in the UK's favor-but that's just "Conspiracy Theory" stuff!?! Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._11710161.html

If you think I was good in picking the BOXER back in the day when FRES was starting up, wait until you see what gets posted in the MBT Thread in a day or two!?! And right on time as well.

Anyway have a good night!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Go back to the purchase screen,,,,,, change back to US army and save and this is what you will see

Slick workaround for an OOB that has filled weapon slots AND allows people to use the default OOBs!

Who said Canuks weren't smart?

[DRG]

That little trick has been known for a couple of decades, apparently not as commonly as I assumed. It was more useful to scenario designers in the original SSI game with it's much smaller unit pool to draw from. Our expanded OOB's don't require SD's be quite as creative

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

Don my apologies but, now I realize why Jan. 2017 was stuck in my head, should've reread it before posting. However I think (Post #168) might be useful and the ones before it as well. Mostly to ensure we're using the right TOW II for those units. As noted then as being tested (3 yrs ago.) the TOW2 ITAS and AERO is now in use on the LAV-ATA1 for at least a year or more now from I can gather.

This next I've been tracking for over 8 yrs. now([b]Post #259[and the UK chose an APC that it turned down under the FRES Program. The BOXER is back however this will still require some additional tracking. FRES collapsed in 2008 when the final contract between the UK and GD for the PIRANHA 5 couldn't be settled upon. The BOXER was "rumored" to have a close second at the time. The new program was decided upon in Sep. 2015 and here it's only a year later and we as noted above, the BOXER wins. With BREXIT in play and Germany being seen as the "De Facto" leader of the EU and the UK wanting out of the EU on favorable terms and buying 800 units, it would seem some accommodation might be made in the UK's favor-but that's just "Conspiracy Theory" stuff!?! Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._11710161.html

If you think I was good in picking the BOXER back in the day when FRES was starting up, wait until you see what gets posted in the MBT Thread in a day or two!?! And right on time as well.

Anyway have a good night!

Regards,
Pat

Interesting. Somewhere on here I posted a link to the whole sorry (and hugely expensive) FRES story. A vast amount of money indeed for the rather large and heavy, but otherwise underwhelming Ajax and the more or less off the shelf Boxer.

Someone still needs to tell me exactly what Ajax can do that Warrior 2000 cannot (both are about the same size and weight and have the same weapons system, although I think Ajax can swim). About the only thing I can think of is that Ajax can be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (Cavalry and Royal Tank Regt) thus adding tone to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl...

One factual error in the link. The UK Pound Sterling has not "collapsed", or anything like it, since Brexit, despite the wishful thinking of assorted remaniacs and remoaners.

The largest British services website was about 80% in favour of leaving the EU on a site poll the day before the vote.


I'm also a little puzzled why a 60,000 man British Army that will have 250-300 Warrior 2000 really needs 800 of these Boxer 8x8's. Given the constraints in the UK Defence budget, and the need for more spending in other areas, especially the Royal Navy, I would have thought an order for 400 would have been enough for now. Boxer should be air portable for the British, but Ajax is not unless the RAF C-17 Globemaster's can carry one, but even if it can the RAF has only eight or nine of those aircraft.

[Suhiir]

Well the ability to swim would be awfully handy for river crossings.

Besides the Ajax has undoubtedly has some basic tech upgrades over the Warrior 2000. Probably things like computerized fuel injection and such. And there is something of a need to keep the defense industry, and it's workers, employed. No need to feed it with both hands mind you, but you really don't want it to wither away completely because you will need it in the future.

[IronDuke99]

In the case of the Ajax, most of that Defence Industry work is not in the UK.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

In the case of the Ajax, most of that Defence Industry work is not in the UK.

Ah so ...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The +'s and -'s of the UK AJAX Program. This very simply breaks downs the issues associated with the AJAX as discussed elsewhere, while still providing and confirming other data we're seeing on the type. Most useful here are the pictures that show AJAX in it's different armored configurations, a nice plus for this somewhat controversial piece of equipment.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/aj...ance-tank-apc/

Taking the World view...Things I'm watching
Czech Republic: BMP-2 coming out, CV-90 coming in.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...gramme-4893442
http://www.defence24.com/367643,cv-9...bmp-2-platform

Denmark: Increasing interoperability of it's CV 9035 fleet.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._72510161.html

France: The venerable Renault VAB has just celebrated 40 years of service. (C'mon you thought I wouldn't do it!?!)
http://www.armyrecognition.com/octob..._12010162.html

Indonesia: The Marines want a new toy and the Ukraine might just have the one they want.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/septe..._12409162.html

Got rid of a couple and keeping a couple. Have a great morning or evening based on your sith-e-ation (Work with me here and just say it fast!?!)

Regards,
Pat

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

The +'s and -'s of the UK AJAX Program. This very simply breaks downs the issues associated with the AJAX as discussed elsewhere, while still providing and confirming other data we're seeing on the type. Most useful here are the pictures that show AJAX in it's different armored configurations, a nice plus for this somewhat controversial piece of equipment.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/aj...ance-tank-apc/

Regards,
Pat

Yes I thought it was too heavy for Atlas, but, perhaps, C-17 could carry one. Cool, UK could, perhaps, move eight of them a day. Much of the size and weight seem to have been about surviving IED/mines. (Although I would be interested to know how many Scimitar were actually lost to mines, and how many crew)?

Ajax is very large and tall for a recce tank and it does need an ATGM...