The proven and flexibly designed CV90 has always been the best choice in terms of environmental and interoperability scenarios in Baltic States and NE Europe. It's what the soldiers, the grunts, greasers and tacticians, not the politicians, lobbyists and bean counters, would have chosen.
Used by Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, and the Netherlands. Join the family, UK! Being a Finn, I wish we had more of these than we already do.
There is scandal here. Labour don't give a monkeys about the military because if they did they'd spot it. £800 million to get Challenger 3 but we're only doing 146 of them. (Which is £5.5 million each). £4billion for 400 Boxers, (£10 million each) which are just armoured troop transports.. £3.5 billion for 500 Ajax which is 7.5 million each. Or upgrade our 400 Warriors for £850 million which is just over £2 million each. It's a no brainer. And not only that, Boxers don't synergise with challenger so they can't replace Warrior, they're not tracked and can't follow them over certain terrain. Ajax is faulty.. This is one massive fuck up. Challenger, Warrior, Scimitar synergized. Speed and power. This new makeup of armour in our military just doesn't make any sense come battle effectiveness. What would you rather have by your side. A boxer, £10 million. Ajax, £7.5 million or Challenger 3, £5.5 million? It's a no brainer. Heads need to roll.
@@BritishFreedom Warrior LEP was running late over budget and was only to upgrade 250 vehicles. They had already spent hald their £1bn budget testing just 10 upgraded vehicles. Heads to need to roll but it won't happen. We have blown £4bn on failed procurement projects and have 14 ares and 10 Warrior LEP vehicles to show for it.
@@Weakeyedominant If they're not upgrading the Warrior turret I'd go straight for CV90. Our tracked armoured force would lack agility, which you then replace with small unmanned drones to give us more situational awareness.
@@BritishFreedom I'm interested to see how good Lynx 41 is. It's a generation after Cv90 so a lot of the latest tech has been integrated into the design rather than bolt on after. RBSL could build it as part of their joint venture and hopefully the mod can claw back some of that 4bn to pay for it.
CV90 just works. Here in Finland our CV90 IFVs are loved by the users and the logistics people alike. CV90 is roomy, ergonomic, has AC, heating and cool digital displays. It is sold only as a custom tailored modular system. You pay precisely for what you need, nothing less, nothing more. CV90 is NOT super anything. Pretty expensive though.. However, if you can afford it, you can count of having the killing tool you want at the right place at the right time, operational. That is a rare luxury in the battlefield.
It is what the army wanted but the political wind at the time was against BAe and what was seen as a European product, whereas despite its Austrian/ Spanish origins the Ajax was seen as a US vehicle.
As a CV 90 user, I strongly recommend it. Powerful, accurate 40 mm gun, good mobility both in snow and sand. Maintenance is easy and it is extremely reliable.
@@Bald_Zeus The Bushmaster is a good option and perhaps better from a logistical standpoint. 40mm is not NATO standard. However, the Bofors 40 mm gives you better range, extreme penetration (for its size) and an AA capability with 3P ammo but it really boils down to your tactics.
If Ajax cannot even meet the simple requirements of an Armoured Combat Vehicle - then the UK Government is duty-bound to look at ALL alternatives. If the Ajax cannot fire on the move and can only reach half its maximum speed and the ride in the vehicle is poor to make the occupants ill, how can this vehicle ever be a good choice?
@@saviour1754 gunner cant see because of vibration and comes out of the vehicle deaf how is that any good? £5.5 billion spent for basically a shitty old transit van
I'm guessing it can also exceed 20mph, and reverse over obstacles higher than 20cm, and doesn't make the occupants violently sick, and it's weaponry actually works. I hope the gov/mod are made to pay over the Ajax catastrophie ! no doubt a few brown envelopes involved in this debacle
Commonality with our Nordic cousins as well, would be perfect to replace the Ajax plus it already has differing variants. A nice established platform that performs.
A modular CV90 was my preferred first choice too. With increased orders of different variants to follow in years to come. All built 100% here in NE England. Everything from the bog standard metal box APC and 40mm turreted recce vehicles to 105mm direct fire support variants. With air defence vertical missile equipped versions, mortar and a 155mm self propelled artillery version with automated turret. Why not NBC detector vehicles and others too. CV90 was tried and tested but so was ASCOD 2, the Ajax/Ares base vehicle. MoD procurement have a way of screwing up everything they touch.
There's a common theme with the UK when it comes to defence issues, we never want what others have got, we always try to come up with something unique to us and then claim it's the best in the world when it frequently isn't. It is and always has been a flawed policy. I was in the army through the late 80's and early 90's we bought Ptarmigan and it was out of date by the time it arrived in service and didn't link well with the systems our NATO partners used. Ultimately on Op Granby it wasn't used for the 100 hours of the actual land combat phase, completely pointless!
Agreed! That common theme is a little thing called the Ministry of Defence, world renowned for being able to screw up anything it turns its hands to. We could have replaced Warrior with CV90 years ago for what MoD have effectivel wasted on Ajax. But look on the bright side - lots of ex-MoD staff will slide into cushy jobs with the Ajax producer...
CV90 is a good option, Ajax is just a scrapyard on tacks. (From early stages of trials it was known that Ajax was 💩 but it was pushed through, 20 MPH and a ride that makes the crew look like they have been through a beating is more than laughable its incompetence)
The beauty of it is that you as a customer can choose who advanced you want it to be (within reason, you can't get it to fly). It also doesn't overcomplicate things so it is seen as quite reliable.
@@neilstern1694 you also won't get the CV90 to float, but other than that, you can get anything from a pintle mount APC or turreted GPMG armed Forward command/observer vehicle, an ARV, a 30-40mm IFV/AAV, a 105 or 120mm light tank/gun platform, or one of three different 120mm mortar carrier designs (1-2 tubes/vehicle in three different turrets with two different loading systems. The single tube turret and one of the double tube turrets are built by the Finnish defence industry.
The improvement in suspension derived from Formula 1 cars and the rubber tracks have given it even more impressive mobility capabilities, while also making it even tougher to hear by human ear when it's approaching.
Shouldve gone with CV90 in the 90s so you wouldnt have to constantly spend billions to upgrade your outdate MBT. CV90120 can counter even the most modern MBT at a fraction of the cost
Warrior was only in service in late 80s surely 90s was too soon to replace all warrior needed was a stabilise system and maybe antitank weapon system it would be equal with cv 9o but now it would be the better option along with boxer.
Yes get the CV90! Build it in the UK! Put 40 mm or larger caliber on it. I may be Swedish and biased but this vehicle is great. Crew Comfort and high protection vs mines and IEDs, and a proven design.
Is it better than a heap of $5 billion junk? Yes. Is it British owned? Yes. Can much of the production happen on British soil? Yes. Is it actually great? Yes. So what is the problem? Is this just the British military tradition of competing to burn the most cash against the Murican war industry? Because the Ajax was a great example of that. Neverthless that trashy British infantry rifle. Even the improved version is kind of shit, the first version was just like the Ajax - completely useless. British military industry has so many failures it's worrysome. Compare that to the Swedish war industry. They cannot afford mistakes. Absolutely flawless. If you don't know what to buy and you lack money, buy Swedish military equipment.
Should we buy CV90?? Well, tbh, my (admittedly less than expert) opinion is 'yes' for a whole range of reasons. However, the deciding factor should be the informed consensus view of the professional British servicemen of all ranks who've used its predecessors and/or will have to use what we buy now. Plus are acquainted with the relevant alternatives including the current (iirc Mkiv) CV90 range vehicles themselves. While it's equally obvious that our metro-trash London establishment parasites should be totally ignored and told their pitiful virtue signalling drivel will not be given another moment's attention.
Wish the US would use these companies to supply our military rather than the small select few who seem to overcharge while producing equipment not as well made.
That is something i have always been thinking about, whenever the US or UK is getting something new it always seems to become 10x more expensive then it should have been & always late.
Could this be be IFV that replaces theUS Bradley IFV? We need SOMETHING very damn soon or at least a main armament upgrade to 40 mm. and a machine gun upgrade to .338 Norma that can be dismounted if necessary incase of total vehicle immobilization.
You have to laugh at these Military manufactures who appear to go straight from the drawing board and produce prototypes , and then leave it up to the buyer to really fully test and evaluate their product ? surely they must have been given a full specification and a list of requirements to meet ? before even consideration, example even the gun barrel has wear and tear issues , the ammo is expensive and made by one manufacturer
really The SWedish Armed forces have been testing these since year 2000 both in the US and in Europe , Liberia and Afghanistan. The Ammo is produced in Sweden out of the 1300 manufactured 65 % was on export
@mountain dweller, what do you mean? The cv90 has more than five different armament options, and the Bofors 40mm/L70 is just a set of modifications and new case dimensions on the 40mm m/38 that was licence built in every western Allied nation during ww2, especially the US and UK as a medium range AA-gun on ships, in gun pit mounts around ports, airfields and other critical infrastructure that would expect dive bombers, and, on wheeled mounts towed just behind the front line troops.
Politics... Thats generally the answer to every questionable decision ever made. Why buy something that you know works tailored for your needs for 1billion £ when you can have the pleebs voting for you build untested, flawed, severely limited, and barely working vehicles with an untrained workforce for 3billion £? But you are not alone Australia needs new submarines and while friendly and allied Japan has offered to sell the Soryou class frankly excellent (world top 3 subs easy) AIP conventional state-of-art energy cell submarine built in Japan by skilled workers for a steal ready to be delivered in record time. Australia instead wants France to design a convertion for their shortfin barracuda class nuclear submarine into a diesel sub, then have the Australians to build them in Australia The on going design phase alone has cost more than a small fleet of Soryou class submarines, the factory that needs to be built cost as much as 2 Soryou's and as it is an untested converted submarine you have no idea if it works or not and even in best case scenarios the new submarine will not be operational for another 10 years and that is IF the average australian plant worked magicly gains 20 years of experience in building submarines on day 1 of construction. But hey that worker votes for YOU and you get to call yourself a submarine building nation...
It's a proven chassis and will easily take the CTA Cannon/turret that general dynamics screwed up because they were mucking about with the feed system.
The Ajax, is currently in Trials, its a Prototype and Trials is when you find Faults that are corrected and fixed with the results being a usable Combat Vehicle. As an example, the GD Griffin ll, a close relative to the AJAX, is currently being tested in the USA to meet the US Army's MPF needs, so far the vehicle has performed above expectations and is inline to win the competition. As to the CV90, it did not meet the survivability and future weight growth needs, so no need in BAE, pushing the vehicle as a ready made fill in for the British Army's needs. And one need recall that the CV90 went through teething problems in the prototype phase, all new vehicles have such issues and that is where one finds them in the Prototype, Concept and Demo Phase.
At this late stage of trial most ‘clinches’ should have been sorted, redesigned and improved. To pass on kit of whatever type for the trial stages should not have major problems so far into the build update, let’s just admit it, it’s a screw up.
It would seem that Ajax cannot meet future weight growth either.... Also it's the British Army, there is only one...."armies"!!!! CV 90 also has a better gun system with Bofors
These faults should have been corrected years ago. At this stage, they should fix minor issues, like gun calibration, ergonomics and such, not find major design flaws. This sounds like the Nimrod MRA4 project : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4
Something else that is important to know about the CV-90 family of vehicles is that engine and transmission problems are frequent. The Canadian Army was looking at acquiring about 108 CV-90 IFV's under the Close Combat Vehicle programme so that at least one battalion of infantry would have the ability to keep up with the army's current fleet of Leopard 2A4M CAN and 2A6M tanks. The idea was to deploy the IFV's to Afghanistan to beef up the infantry's capabilities, and there was a proposal put forward to have DEW Engineering of Ottawa design a new turret which could accommodate a 25mm Chain Gun or pretty much any other autocannon in the 25mm - 40mm class. The Close Combat Vehicle programme died when the war in Afghanistan started winding down and an election year was coming up. It's a shame to see a promising vehicle platform like the Ajax at risk due to serious engineering and design problems. Here's hoping that the engineers find fixes and can resume production.
@@mozki1 the gun on all the current CV90's variants are all from ATK/Northrop Grumman, with them being the Bushmaster ll 30/40mm, Bushmaster lll 35/50mm and Bushmaster lV 40mm. The Swedish Army is the only user of the Bofors 40mm gun version.
The us should have put this into production 35 years ago instead of the bradely but the swedes did not anyone to use the 40mm back in the day,and the us had put 15 years of development into the bradely and the bushmaster cannon.
Got to wonder if there was some form of industrial espionage/sabotage going on. Similar in a reverse way to the way the British sabotaged the Tu-144 (the Russian concord 'copy'.
CV90 would have been a better bet ,jeez an updated Warrior would have been a better bet than ajax...No doubt we will pay for the ajax corrections then others will buy it cheaper
You can imagine the UK politician. Sir, BAE systems has an armoured vehicle ready to buy off the peg...no, lets give GD 5 billion for something that doesn't work as well.
Doesn't work like that, politics are involved instead of getting a couple of crew's to look at the contenders it's top brass and mps that do all the dealing. They will stick with Ajax government doesn't like losing face.
The Boxer and Ajax vehicles are a result of a back door deal that Teresa May signed up to. Neither of these vehicles are actually manufactured in the U.K. In the case of Ajax; the vehicles are built in Spain and shipped to Wales, where they are fitted with U.K. specific equipment. BaE offered the CV90 to the British Government and even agreed to have the vehicles constructed in the U.K.; but the Morons in Whitehall decided in their extensive wisdom; that we should make sure that the Spanish, Germans and Dutch; who make the Boxer; are kept in employment?
Not to mention that building the CV90 vehicles in the UK would have provided your armed forces with a LOT quicker and easier access to maintenance and problem solving for integration issues between original template and nation specific modifications as well as a reliable parts supply if the shit does hit the fan. Especially after you dropped out of the EU
CV90 - Why choose anything else? BAE is British, BAE Hägglunds that designs these is owned by the UK already and open to UK production so why not? Go on... you know you need these lovely machines.
I would love the UK to adapt this platform and sue General Dynamics for wasting UK taxpayers money and harming military personnel with a heap of over hyped , political embarrassment. Like the saga of the SA80 taking decades to fix into an overpriced weapon with years of defective service to get right. The whole crux is getting UK Manufacturing facilities.
No Shit Sherlock, most ex Troopers could have told you 10 years ago that AJAX was not fit for the intended role, way too big and heavy with only a 40mm popgun. AJAX is also a 60 year old vehicle.
The Ajax is a useless vehicle for what it was Built for but would it be possible to use the Ajax platform for artillery replacement as they would not need to go over 20 mph
The Ajax is an interesting concept, but the recce variant is too big and unstealthy for recce taskings. The ideal recce platform is small, hard to see and fast. The Fennek and the Wiesel are two recce vehicles that fit into that category.
@@stevestruthers6180 despite beeing a bit on the big side, the CV90, with the semi-active Barracuda visual and IR cammo system fits that category too. And it brings a whole lot more bang to use if they need to get out in such a hurry they would be detected in moments regardless if they moved or tried to stay still and silent. especially for the new cannon+ Spike ATGM variant. The CV90 B+ has a hunter-kill commanders sight/periscope setup that allow the commander to laze and pre-send ballistics data for multiple subsequent targets independently of the gunner who just selects the next one as soon as he's done with the current and the turret will automatically traverse, adjust elevation and track on the data the commanders sight recorded for the gunner to do the fine tuning if the target has had time to move out of alignment or if the commander was a bit sloppy and then fire.
@@DefenseMilitaryReport If Ajax goes then we still need a tracked vehicle. Anyway, Boxer is just a armoured troop transport. This idea they can change Boxer in to a replacement for Warrior is for the birds.
@@DefenseMilitaryReport The Boxer is another scam the UK is buying like the Ajax wank ! Billions of honest taxpayers money will be wanked off yet again ! Just like with the SA 80 and other shit. :(
@@BritishFreedom Yes the UK should have brought the one built by BAE and Finland and still kept a tracked IFV Warrior or buy the CV 90. Also have some of the CV 90's with the 105mm gun as a medium tank. Thank you.
As we hardly build anything anymore, we'll have to buy from other countries. We invented the train and our railways are a shambles, we invented the tank and we'll probably ask other countries to build them for us. We own nothing anymore, here on Immigrant Island.
Why is the MOD consistently incompetent - Ajax is is badly designed, late, over budget, this seems to happen on a regular basis, why are they not being held accountable? Scrap it and get the CV90 - give the soldiers something safe and reliable to be in rather than go deaf.
Hey. Mr. Bloke Man we Yankees will take about 5,000 hulls because we’re putting an aluminum Abrams 105 turret. We have wars to fight. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸. We will run Detroit Diesel and an Allison transmission, maybe that will quite it down. U have too much quid into this for it not to work. 🤑🤑
Mate, I've been saying the same thing since I heard about the Warriors Upgrades, that I thought was a total waist of money, I've believe from long before the decommissioning date of the Warriors that we should began acquiring CV90's as a back up or to work along side the Warriors and slowing decommission them bringing in the CV90 to fully replace the Warriors, because for one they're British designed, by a British company, highly trusted around the world especially by our North American cousins, and again especially the Scandinavians and some Eastern block countries using the CV90 in all its variants from IFV or AFV with the Bofors 40mm/L70 CTA cannon to dedicated troop carrier to the full Turreted Assault variant with the 120mm light tank variants, u say variants because there is more than one 120mm option, two or maybe 3 i think. We should buy bit inky because it's a British military systems and platform, built in Sweden and other European countries, with some parts built in the UK, so it'd be easy to switch out the Ajax, keep existing vehicles and sort, iron out any problems they're having and cut order right down, and acquire the CV90, and do it soon, and all the money spent on the Ajax can be retrieved, well some can anyway, not all of course, but it can be transferred to the CV90 project, proven, highly mobile, brilliant engineering, and very good at all the jobs all its many many variants can do very adaptable, easy to maintain, and low over life costs, because it's all been perfected long ago and now they've been building in its massively grown reputation as a solid machine that gets the job done no matter the job. Anyway there's no reason that once the Ajax problems are fixed then we can start the production, but only if and when they're tested to Challenger 1 and 2 levels, smash the hell out of them, test until they break or don't fit that matter, but test until they break, fix and do again until perfection is found, of best to it, because the British army and mechanised divisions deserve it.
Yes obviously... will it happen .. never.. Ironically the CV90 built as an IFV (mainly) is much better suited than ajax for its reconasisance role - smaller exposed body & more mobile.
Yes and have an investigation in to the people responsible for these bad decisions. Plus the CV90 will be light enough to be carried by the M400 but they'll just throw money at the Ajax for another few years.
So you want a replacement for an old system and you buy an already old system because it has proven reliability? Does not make a lot of sense. You need to very clearly state what is missing and how the change is necessary and how it fulfills the need,
The modern CV90 MK4 is fully digital with the latest semi active hydro-gas suspension, Ajax uses 1950's style torsion bars with 1980's rotational dampers that don't work with the weight of vehicle !
Ajax is still in the trial stage it hasn't failed yet and for those saying "they always go with the cheapest option" CV90 was/is cheaper then the Ajax platform but couldn't fulfill all the requirements which Ajax did. As I said in the comments of your last upload care to state your sources for the information your talking about?.
@@SonsOfLorgar I'm not exactly sure but it was the army that raised issues I only know because a friend was on the evaluation team and currently is part of the team on ajax. Very defence projects are plain sailing in any nation and in the internet age sensationalising problem's is the norm but there's always issues with every project warrior and challenger 2 had issues but nobody really heard about them.
Yes yes yes complete madness not too its a proven system it has upgrades that the ajax system can only dream off its low coast easy to work on and is used by many NATO country's you could call it the Leopard of the IFV
Why the cv90 over the lynx? the lynx is far more modern. I dont really see how this would really be an upgrade from the existing warrior IFV and its updated turret.
never understood why they scrapped the chieftain, very good tank that just needed a better engine. sometimes quantity over quality works better, especially now that we have to budget more.
The chieftain was hopelessly obsolete when it was retired, not just it's engine. All it had going for it was that long and excellent 120mm gun and gorgeus curves that could make any hollywood actress green with envy.
CV90 MK 4 suspension hydro gas with semi active dampening is far superior to torsion bars with shocks and bump stops or Hydro pneumatic , hence best off road and stability when firing on move over rough ground !
HMS Agamemnon Sixth Nuclear-powered Attack Submarine British the most awaited th-cam.com/video/v41-5W9-5eQ/w-d-xo.html
We (Norway) bought a heap of these a few years ago and we are head over heels in love with these wonderful machines.
As a Swede your comment makes me happy :)
The proven and flexibly designed CV90 has always been the best choice in terms of environmental and interoperability scenarios in Baltic States and NE Europe. It's what the soldiers, the grunts, greasers and tacticians, not the politicians, lobbyists and bean counters, would have chosen.
Yes. Its tried and tested,and seemingly the preferred option by an overwhelmingly large majority ✔️✔️☝🏽
yes buy cv 90.
Used by Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, and the Netherlands. Join the family, UK! Being a Finn, I wish we had more of these than we already do.
Should've gone with CV90 in the first place
There is scandal here. Labour don't give a monkeys about the military because if they did they'd spot it. £800 million to get Challenger 3 but we're only doing 146 of them. (Which is £5.5 million each).
£4billion for 400 Boxers, (£10 million each) which are just armoured troop transports..
£3.5 billion for 500 Ajax which is 7.5 million each.
Or upgrade our 400 Warriors for £850 million which is just over £2 million each.
It's a no brainer.
And not only that, Boxers don't synergise with challenger so they can't replace Warrior, they're not tracked and can't follow them over certain terrain. Ajax is faulty..
This is one massive fuck up. Challenger, Warrior, Scimitar synergized. Speed and power. This new makeup of armour in our military just doesn't make any sense come battle effectiveness.
What would you rather have by your side. A boxer, £10 million. Ajax, £7.5 million or Challenger 3, £5.5 million? It's a no brainer. Heads need to roll.
@@BritishFreedom Warrior LEP was running late over budget and was only to upgrade 250 vehicles. They had already spent hald their £1bn budget testing just 10 upgraded vehicles. Heads to need to roll but it won't happen. We have blown £4bn on failed procurement projects and have 14 ares and 10 Warrior LEP vehicles to show for it.
@@Weakeyedominant If they're not upgrading the Warrior turret I'd go straight for CV90. Our tracked armoured force would lack agility, which you then replace with small unmanned drones to give us more situational awareness.
@@BritishFreedom I'm interested to see how good Lynx 41 is. It's a generation after Cv90 so a lot of the latest tech has been integrated into the design rather than bolt on after. RBSL could build it as part of their joint venture and hopefully the mod can claw back some of that 4bn to pay for it.
@@Weakeyedominant CV90 has the latest active suspension and supply chain in place !
CV90 just works. Here in Finland our CV90 IFVs are loved by the users and the logistics people alike. CV90 is roomy, ergonomic, has AC, heating and cool digital displays. It is sold only as a custom tailored modular system. You pay precisely for what you need, nothing less, nothing more.
CV90 is NOT super anything. Pretty expensive though.. However, if you can afford it, you can count of having the killing tool you want at the right place at the right time, operational. That is a rare luxury in the battlefield.
It is superior in one aspect compared to all other CV's and that is mobility
As a Swede your comment makes me happy :)
In my uneducated opinion, should have gone with the CV90 years ago!
Yes, Canada should have also
It is what the army wanted but the political wind at the time was against BAe and what was seen as a European product, whereas despite its Austrian/ Spanish origins the Ajax was seen as a US vehicle.
@@grahamariss2111 didnt realise the army acutally said this - doesn't surprise me though bloody british politicians.
As a CV 90 user, I strongly recommend it. Powerful, accurate 40 mm gun, good mobility both in snow and sand. Maintenance is easy and it is extremely reliable.
GB most likely won't get the Bofors 40mm if they'd go with CV90s though. I believe only Sweden went with Bofors and the exports used 30mm Bushmasters?
@@Bald_Zeus The preferred setup is really up to the GB. Many nations choose the 30 mm Bushmaster but imo the 40 mm Bofors is a better option.
@@anordman9659 agreed. I just believe they'd choose the bushmaster as it's already adopted by several NATO members
@@Bald_Zeus The Bushmaster is a good option and perhaps better from a logistical standpoint. 40mm is not NATO standard. However, the Bofors 40 mm gives you better range, extreme penetration (for its size) and an AA capability with 3P ammo but it really boils down to your tactics.
@@anordman9659 for sure. Personally I'd choose the 40 every day. But in the end it's all politicians sadly
Ajax is something we use in Sweden to scrub our floor with!
Could not have put it any better myself!
Ajax is a mythological hero in greek legend...just like Achilles ...OMFG you pleb
Those of us that have studied Greek mythology already know who Ajax, Achilles, Agamemnon etc etc were, and the word is plebeian you ignoramus.
Same here…in the 1970s🤷🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
🇬🇧
I bet it smashes them stains away....
If Ajax cannot even meet the simple requirements of an Armoured Combat Vehicle - then the UK Government is duty-bound to look at ALL alternatives. If the Ajax cannot fire on the move and can only reach half its maximum speed and the ride in the vehicle is poor to make the occupants ill, how can this vehicle ever be a good choice?
It cant fire on the move?
@@saviour1754 The barrel wobbles due to high recoil so accuracy lost when second round fired !
CV90 can fire on the move...
@@saviour1754 gunner cant see because of vibration and comes out of the vehicle deaf how is that any good? £5.5 billion spent for basically a shitty old transit van
@@will.s4611 im not supporting the ajax i think the cv90 is cooler and better
I'm guessing it can also exceed 20mph, and reverse over obstacles higher than 20cm, and doesn't make the occupants violently sick, and it's weaponry actually works. I hope the gov/mod are made to pay over the Ajax catastrophie ! no doubt a few brown envelopes involved in this debacle
Commonality with our Nordic cousins as well, would be perfect to replace the Ajax plus it already has differing variants.
A nice established platform that performs.
A modular CV90 was my preferred first choice too. With increased orders of different variants to follow in years to come. All built 100% here in NE England. Everything from the bog standard metal box APC and 40mm turreted recce vehicles to 105mm direct fire support variants. With air defence vertical missile equipped versions, mortar and a 155mm self propelled artillery version with automated turret. Why not NBC detector vehicles and others too.
CV90 was tried and tested but so was ASCOD 2, the Ajax/Ares base vehicle. MoD procurement have a way of screwing up everything they touch.
100% yes to CV90. Needs a new name though. Good system. British owned, Swedish made, great alliance. Ajax is not a done deal.
BAE is not british owned
Needs to be British made.
@@SA-xf1eb in my opinion it has to be amphibious, since Britain surrounded by sea
@@edwardvalivonis23 oh yes it is,its owned by the british state, by all means check.
@@ellepant it's owned by few American companies. You can check
There's a common theme with the UK when it comes to defence issues, we never want what others have got, we always try to come up with something unique to us and then claim it's the best in the world when it frequently isn't. It is and always has been a flawed policy. I was in the army through the late 80's and early 90's we bought Ptarmigan and it was out of date by the time it arrived in service and didn't link well with the systems our NATO partners used. Ultimately on Op Granby it wasn't used for the 100 hours of the actual land combat phase, completely pointless!
Agreed! That common theme is a little thing called the Ministry of Defence, world renowned for being able to screw up anything it turns its hands to. We could have replaced Warrior with CV90 years ago for what MoD have effectivel wasted on Ajax. But look on the bright side - lots of ex-MoD staff will slide into cushy jobs with the Ajax producer...
The thing is the CV90 is technically British as it's designed and built by BAE which is infact British so god knows...
There is reason Australia chose to dump the AJAX as a contender for the Land 400 phase 3 program....it's just not up to the task.
CV90 is a good option, Ajax is just a scrapyard on tacks.
(From early stages of trials it was known that Ajax was 💩 but it was pushed through, 20 MPH and a ride that makes the crew look like they have been through a beating is more than laughable its incompetence)
The uk should order 1000 cv 90s and 1000 boxers then phase out fv 432 and warrior.
I would never think I know best , but this looks very advanced.
The beauty of it is that you as a customer can choose who advanced you want it to be (within reason, you can't get it to fly). It also doesn't overcomplicate things so it is seen as quite reliable.
@@SWEmanque thanks for the feedback. I just like idea of survivability very interesting. Very sophisticated. But I'm just a kid at heart.
@@neilstern1694 you also won't get the CV90 to float, but other than that, you can get anything from a pintle mount APC or turreted GPMG armed Forward command/observer vehicle, an ARV, a 30-40mm IFV/AAV, a 105 or 120mm light tank/gun platform, or one of three different 120mm mortar carrier designs (1-2 tubes/vehicle in three different turrets with two different loading systems. The single tube turret and one of the double tube turrets are built by the Finnish defence industry.
@@SonsOfLorgar But Your not allowed to at the moent to get the Finnish Amos system because most of them are Eitheri going TO FDF
The improvement in suspension derived from Formula 1 cars and the rubber tracks have given it even more impressive mobility capabilities, while also making it even tougher to hear by human ear when it's approaching.
this looks a lot better than the Ajax
Shouldve gone with CV90 in the 90s so you wouldnt have to constantly spend billions to upgrade your outdate MBT. CV90120 can counter even the most modern MBT at a fraction of the cost
Warrior was only in service in late 80s surely 90s was too soon to replace all warrior needed was a stabilise system and maybe antitank weapon system it would be equal with cv 9o but now it would be the better option along with boxer.
Everyone said get these. Mod does opposite
How can the Ajax system progress so far, without havinf its apparently numerous shortcomings addressed? (Rhetorical question, methinks.)
That's the trouble - the Contract has progressed but the vehicle hasn't. It's junk.
Yes get the CV90! Build it in the UK!
Put 40 mm or larger caliber on it.
I may be Swedish and biased but this vehicle is great. Crew Comfort and high protection vs mines and IEDs, and a proven design.
Has the best suspension of vehicles in its class, the supply chain is in place and it could be built in Wales when GD leaves in disgrace.
The suspension is based on Formula 1 suspension.
Is it better than a heap of $5 billion junk? Yes. Is it British owned? Yes. Can much of the production happen on British soil? Yes. Is it actually great? Yes. So what is the problem? Is this just the British military tradition of competing to burn the most cash against the Murican war industry? Because the Ajax was a great example of that. Neverthless that trashy British infantry rifle. Even the improved version is kind of shit, the first version was just like the Ajax - completely useless. British military industry has so many failures it's worrysome. Compare that to the Swedish war industry. They cannot afford mistakes. Absolutely flawless. If you don't know what to buy and you lack money, buy Swedish military equipment.
Well funny Thing is That Britsh Doesnt Own the CV90 Design at all PAtria Does
Should we buy CV90?? Well, tbh, my (admittedly less than expert) opinion is 'yes' for a whole range of reasons. However, the deciding factor should be the informed consensus view of the professional British servicemen of all ranks who've used its predecessors and/or will have to use what we buy now. Plus are acquainted with the relevant alternatives including the current (iirc Mkiv) CV90 range vehicles themselves. While it's equally obvious that our metro-trash London establishment parasites should be totally ignored and told their pitiful virtue signalling drivel will not be given another moment's attention.
Wish the US would use these companies to supply our military rather than the small select few who seem to overcharge while producing equipment not as well made.
That is something i have always been thinking about, whenever the US or UK is getting something new it always seems to become 10x more expensive then it should have been & always late.
The answer is yes. Should of been done years ago.
Could this be be IFV that replaces theUS Bradley IFV? We need SOMETHING very damn soon or at least a main armament upgrade to 40 mm. and a machine gun upgrade to .338 Norma that can be dismounted if necessary incase of total vehicle immobilization.
You have to laugh at these Military manufactures who appear to go straight from the drawing board and produce prototypes , and then leave it up to the buyer to really fully test and evaluate their product ? surely they must have been given a full specification and a list of requirements to meet ? before even consideration, example even the gun barrel has wear and tear issues , the ammo is expensive and made by one manufacturer
really The SWedish Armed forces have been testing these since year 2000 both in the US and in Europe , Liberia and Afghanistan. The Ammo is produced in Sweden out of the 1300 manufactured 65 % was on export
@mountain dweller, what do you mean?
The cv90 has more than five different armament options, and the Bofors 40mm/L70 is just a set of modifications and new case dimensions on the 40mm m/38 that was licence built in every western Allied nation during ww2, especially the US and UK as a medium range AA-gun on ships, in gun pit mounts around ports, airfields and other critical infrastructure that would expect dive bombers, and, on wheeled mounts towed just behind the front line troops.
@@SonsOfLorgar He's talking about Ajax not CV90 I believe...
@@bjornrosenlund135 He's referring to the Ajax
cv90 swedish power
Why didn't we buy it in the first place?
Politics...
Thats generally the answer to every questionable decision ever made.
Why buy something that you know works tailored for your needs for 1billion £ when you can have the pleebs voting for you build untested, flawed, severely limited, and barely working vehicles with an untrained workforce for 3billion £?
But you are not alone
Australia needs new submarines and while friendly and allied Japan has offered to sell the Soryou class frankly excellent (world top 3 subs easy) AIP conventional state-of-art energy cell submarine built in Japan by skilled workers for a steal ready to be delivered in record time. Australia instead wants France to design a convertion for their shortfin barracuda class nuclear submarine into a diesel sub, then have the Australians to build them in Australia The on going design phase alone has cost more than a small fleet of Soryou class submarines, the factory that needs to be built cost as much as 2 Soryou's and as it is an untested converted submarine you have no idea if it works or not and even in best case scenarios the new submarine will not be operational for another 10 years and that is IF the average australian plant worked magicly gains 20 years of experience in building submarines on day 1 of construction. But hey that worker votes for YOU and you get to call yourself a submarine building nation...
Agree with many comments, however as we are all aware they (MOD) will throw yet more funding at the program.
Rumour 1 has it that it has been sent to Millbrook testing ground. Rumour 2 Horstman have been brought in to try and fix it !
Yes, absolutely yes , if the New Ajax is making test crews feel ill then you have a BIG problem
CV90, Far better, proven, cheaper to by !!!!!!!!
The Swedish built a great product and stand by it without all the British political Bullshit !!!!!
It's a proven chassis and will easily take the CTA Cannon/turret that general dynamics screwed up because they were mucking about with the feed system.
The recoil is too high, prob' any turret would wobble with this cannon
Meggitt engineering vending machine department designed the feed system, you can have coke or tango sir!
The Ajax, is currently in Trials, its a Prototype and Trials is when you find Faults that are corrected and fixed with the results being a usable Combat Vehicle.
As an example, the GD Griffin ll, a close relative to the AJAX, is currently being tested in the USA to meet the US Army's MPF needs, so far the vehicle has performed above expectations and is inline to win the competition.
As to the CV90, it did not meet the survivability and future weight growth needs, so no need in BAE, pushing the vehicle as a ready made fill in for the British Army's needs. And one need recall that the CV90 went through teething problems in the prototype phase, all new vehicles have such issues and that is where one finds them in the Prototype, Concept and Demo Phase.
At this late stage of trial most ‘clinches’ should have been sorted, redesigned and improved. To pass on kit of whatever type for the trial stages should not have major problems so far into the build update, let’s just admit it, it’s a screw up.
It would seem that Ajax cannot meet future weight growth either....
Also it's the British Army, there is only one...."armies"!!!!
CV 90 also has a better gun system with Bofors
These faults should have been corrected years ago. At this stage, they should fix minor issues, like gun calibration, ergonomics and such, not find major design flaws. This sounds like the Nimrod MRA4 project : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Nimrod_MRA4
Something else that is important to know about the CV-90 family of vehicles is that engine and transmission problems are frequent.
The Canadian Army was looking at acquiring about 108 CV-90 IFV's under the Close Combat Vehicle programme so that at least one battalion of infantry would have the ability to keep up with the army's current fleet of Leopard 2A4M CAN and 2A6M tanks. The idea was to deploy the IFV's to Afghanistan to beef up the infantry's capabilities, and there was a proposal put forward to have DEW Engineering of Ottawa design a new turret which could accommodate a 25mm Chain Gun or pretty much any other autocannon in the 25mm - 40mm class.
The Close Combat Vehicle programme died when the war in Afghanistan started winding down and an election year was coming up.
It's a shame to see a promising vehicle platform like the Ajax at risk due to serious engineering and design problems. Here's hoping that the engineers find fixes and can resume production.
@@mozki1 the gun on all the current CV90's variants are all from ATK/Northrop Grumman, with them being the Bushmaster ll 30/40mm, Bushmaster lll 35/50mm and Bushmaster lV 40mm. The Swedish Army is the only user of the Bofors 40mm gun version.
Britain should go with CV90 a lot better than Ajax
Why replace Warrior with another vehicle developed around the same period. Perhaps something more upto date.
Should of bought these instead. Far superior
The us should have put this into production 35 years ago instead of the bradely but the swedes did not anyone to use the 40mm back in the day,and the us had put 15 years of development into the bradely and the bushmaster cannon.
Yes most definitely, it saves them on money having shares, they should equipt some with the twin ammos aswell....
Why not call the CV90120 a light tank?
Bae offered these and also offered to be built in Newcastle when the Ajax was selected.
You forgot to add the anti- airctaft version
It will soon win the bid to be the platform for the New US Army IFV w/ 50mm Bushmaster Cannon !!!
Just why the UKMOD thought it could build something better just proves how poorly advised they are.
Got to wonder if there was some form of industrial espionage/sabotage going on. Similar in a reverse way to the way the British sabotaged the Tu-144 (the Russian concord 'copy'.
CV90 would have been a better bet ,jeez an updated Warrior would have been a better bet than ajax...No doubt we will pay for the ajax corrections then others will buy it cheaper
The Warrior upgrade cost £1bn and upgraded, what, 10 vehicles, before cancellation?
@@barrygregory8177 Most scrapped but one gone to the tank museum so its a billion dollar vehicle!
Why would Swedes give a hostile country arms?
Hostile country?
I dont understand why we dont have the CV90 its made by a british company BAE systems? It makes no sense
Hell yes they should have done this from the start!
Eu procurement laws wouldn’t allow us to choose cv90
@@springer3783 I thought that the CV90 being built by BAE a British company and them being made in Sweden would meet these requirements?
@@paulstone9667
Doesn’t work that way
You can imagine the UK politician. Sir, BAE systems has an armoured vehicle ready to buy off the peg...no, lets give GD 5 billion for something that doesn't work as well.
Doesn't work like that, politics are involved instead of getting a couple of crew's to look at the contenders it's top brass and mps that do all the dealing. They will stick with Ajax government doesn't like losing face.
David Cameron was involved and signed the contracts lol
The British Army should also consider the German Lynx IFV or the Korean and Israeli alternatives.
Unlike KF-21 others are not amphibious
The Boxer and Ajax vehicles are a result of a back door deal that Teresa May signed up to. Neither of these vehicles are actually manufactured in the U.K.
In the case of Ajax; the vehicles are built in Spain and shipped to Wales, where they are fitted with U.K. specific equipment.
BaE offered the CV90 to the British Government and even agreed to have the vehicles constructed in the U.K.; but the Morons in Whitehall decided in their extensive wisdom; that we should make sure that the Spanish, Germans and Dutch; who make the Boxer; are kept in employment?
Boxer was a British/Dutch/German project from the outset, hence they're all rhd. We stupidly pulled out & Lithuania later took our place.
@@gregs7562 for Lithuania I would go with Stryker since Stryker is amphibious and Boxer not
Not to mention that building the CV90 vehicles in the UK would have provided your armed forces with a LOT quicker and easier access to maintenance and problem solving for integration issues between original template and nation specific modifications as well as a reliable parts supply if the shit does hit the fan. Especially after you dropped out of the EU
@@SonsOfLorgar agree
WEll BaE Cant Offer Anything as CV90 is owned by PAtria not BaE systems itself and It was Patria That said Fuck no on most contracts
CV90 - Why choose anything else? BAE is British, BAE Hägglunds that designs these is owned by the UK already and open to UK production so why not? Go on... you know you need these lovely machines.
I would love the UK to adapt this platform and sue General Dynamics for wasting UK taxpayers money and harming military personnel with a heap of over hyped , political embarrassment. Like the saga of the SA80 taking decades to fix into an overpriced weapon with years of defective service to get right. The whole crux is getting UK Manufacturing facilities.
No Shit Sherlock, most ex Troopers could have told you 10 years ago that AJAX was not fit for the intended role, way too big and heavy with only a 40mm popgun.
AJAX is also a 60 year old vehicle.
The Ajax is a useless vehicle for what it was Built for but would it be possible to use the Ajax platform for artillery replacement as they would not need to go over 20 mph
The Ajax is an interesting concept, but the recce variant is too big and unstealthy for recce taskings. The ideal recce platform is small, hard to see and fast. The Fennek and the Wiesel are two recce vehicles that fit into that category.
@@stevestruthers6180 but because of Ajax size it could probably be used Artillery
@@stevestruthers6180 despite beeing a bit on the big side, the CV90, with the semi-active Barracuda visual and IR cammo system fits that category too. And it brings a whole lot more bang to use if they need to get out in such a hurry they would be detected in moments regardless if they moved or tried to stay still and silent. especially for the new cannon+ Spike ATGM variant. The CV90 B+ has a hunter-kill commanders sight/periscope setup that allow the commander to laze and pre-send ballistics data for multiple subsequent targets independently of the gunner who just selects the next one as soon as he's done with the current and the turret will automatically traverse, adjust elevation and track on the data the commanders sight recorded for the gunner to do the fine tuning if the target has had time to move out of alignment or if the commander was a bit sloppy and then fire.
It's up to me is it?
Ask the army not the stupid civil service bean counters..that struggle to run a bath.
Seems an ex general was on the board of GD and lobbied for Ajax!
an emphatic yes......
...... or just upgrade the Warrior Turret.
Warrior project 'upgrade' has been halted because MoD favour (spent) BOXER
@@DefenseMilitaryReport If Ajax goes then we still need a tracked vehicle. Anyway, Boxer is just a armoured troop transport. This idea they can change Boxer in to a replacement for Warrior is for the birds.
@@DefenseMilitaryReport The Boxer is another scam the UK is buying like the Ajax wank ! Billions of honest taxpayers money will be wanked off yet again ! Just like with the SA 80 and other shit. :(
@@BritishFreedom Yes the UK should have brought the one built by BAE and Finland and still kept a tracked IFV Warrior or buy the CV 90. Also have some of the CV 90's with the 105mm gun as a medium tank. Thank you.
Warrior upgrade has cost £1bn already. And has been cancelled before it started.
Yes they should of bought this 110%
Yes, they should have done that in the first place!
The big question is: can this expensive CV90 match WWII German Tiger?
As we hardly build anything anymore, we'll have to buy from other countries. We invented the train and our railways are a shambles, we invented the tank and we'll probably ask other countries to build them for us. We own nothing anymore, here on Immigrant Island.
cant movie it the hole line and team is Swedish. and i dont unerstand why the british army dosent get like 500 of these
Why is the MOD consistently incompetent - Ajax is is badly designed, late, over budget, this seems to happen on a regular basis, why are they not being held accountable? Scrap it and get the CV90 - give the soldiers something safe and reliable to be in rather than go deaf.
Yes please. Ajax seems to be going nowhere.
Its the SA80 all over again, politics/profit getting in the way of bloody common sense
Laser weapon?
The best in western world!!
you have not met the Puma
We save a thousand CV90s for export to US and Canadian army,.or Australia
This is nothing more than a CV90 advert....
Hey. Mr. Bloke Man we Yankees will take about 5,000 hulls because we’re putting an aluminum Abrams 105 turret. We have wars to fight. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸. We will run Detroit Diesel and an Allison transmission, maybe that will quite it down. U have too much quid into this for it not to work. 🤑🤑
Yes !!!!! Drop Ajax !!
Short answer - YES!
You can replace the warrior and the MBT's.
They are replacing the challenger 2 with challenger 3
@@gunnutcase1234 smooth out the barrel and call it the '3', LOL....
Mate, I've been saying the same thing since I heard about the Warriors Upgrades, that I thought was a total waist of money, I've believe from long before the decommissioning date of the Warriors that we should began acquiring CV90's as a back up or to work along side the Warriors and slowing decommission them bringing in the CV90 to fully replace the Warriors, because for one they're British designed, by a British company, highly trusted around the world especially by our North American cousins, and again especially the Scandinavians and some Eastern block countries using the CV90 in all its variants from IFV or AFV with the Bofors 40mm/L70 CTA cannon to dedicated troop carrier to the full Turreted Assault variant with the 120mm light tank variants, u say variants because there is more than one 120mm option, two or maybe 3 i think.
We should buy bit inky because it's a British military systems and platform, built in Sweden and other European countries, with some parts built in the UK, so it'd be easy to switch out the Ajax, keep existing vehicles and sort, iron out any problems they're having and cut order right down, and acquire the CV90, and do it soon, and all the money spent on the Ajax can be retrieved, well some can anyway, not all of course, but it can be transferred to the CV90 project, proven, highly mobile, brilliant engineering, and very good at all the jobs all its many many variants can do very adaptable, easy to maintain, and low over life costs, because it's all been perfected long ago and now they've been building in its massively grown reputation as a solid machine that gets the job done no matter the job.
Anyway there's no reason that once the Ajax problems are fixed then we can start the production, but only if and when they're tested to Challenger 1 and 2 levels, smash the hell out of them, test until they break or don't fit that matter, but test until they break, fix and do again until perfection is found, of best to it, because the British army and mechanised divisions deserve it.
Nah, it's still a swedish system.
@@antiwacks4017 It's a GREAT Swedish system that could have been built in the UK
The CV90 is 100% Swedish design.
@@scratchy996 Designed and made in Sweden, owned by BAE
@@antiwacks4017 That's like saying that Jaguar and Land Rover are Indian cars because they are owned by Tata Motors.
Yes obviously... will it happen .. never.. Ironically the CV90 built as an IFV (mainly) is much better suited than ajax for its reconasisance role - smaller exposed body & more mobile.
Should scrap Ajex and get this.
No brainer ✊🏻
Yes and have an investigation in to the people responsible for these bad decisions. Plus the CV90 will be light enough to be carried by the M400 but they'll just throw money at the Ajax for another few years.
And continue robbing the UK tax payer, while leaving our forces exposed.
A rhetorical question, methinks.
Uh no just rededesign ajax
yes yes yes
So you want a replacement for an old system and you buy an already old system because it has proven reliability?
Does not make a lot of sense. You need to very clearly state what is missing and how the change is necessary and how it fulfills the need,
The modern CV90 MK4 is fully digital with the latest semi active hydro-gas suspension, Ajax uses 1950's style torsion bars with 1980's rotational dampers that don't work with the weight of vehicle !
Ajax is still in the trial stage it hasn't failed yet and for those saying "they always go with the cheapest option" CV90 was/is cheaper then the Ajax platform but couldn't fulfill all the requirements which Ajax did. As I said in the comments of your last upload care to state your sources for the information your talking about?.
Defence select committee are not impressed lol
@@peterwait641 Ah yes the people representing whoever pays them the most regardless of what's better.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated which requirements did the CV90 fail? And which variant failed them?
@@SonsOfLorgar I'm not exactly sure but it was the army that raised issues I only know because a friend was on the evaluation team and currently is part of the team on ajax. Very defence projects are plain sailing in any nation and in the internet age sensationalising problem's is the norm but there's always issues with every project warrior and challenger 2 had issues but nobody really heard about them.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated If he was on the evaluation team he should have been barred from working for GD, sounds like corruption ?
If it works us in the UK ! Won't end up buying it then .lol lol 🤣
buy em
Yes yes yes complete madness not too its a proven system it has upgrades that the ajax system can only dream off its low coast easy to work on and is used by many NATO country's you could call it the Leopard of the IFV
far better than ajax in every way
Yes
Why the cv90 over the lynx? the lynx is far more modern. I dont really see how this would really be an upgrade from the existing warrior IFV and its updated turret.
In what aspect? The adaptive armor of the CV90 can make it disappear on thermal or look like a regular car.
never understood why they scrapped the chieftain, very good tank that just needed a better engine. sometimes quantity over quality works better, especially now that we have to budget more.
Are you being serious?
The chieftain was hopelessly obsolete when it was retired, not just it's engine.
All it had going for it was that long and excellent 120mm gun and gorgeus curves that could make any hollywood actress green with envy.
seems 50% were broken down on some exercises, suspension and armour outdated !
Puma or Lynx are better I guess. "Unrivaled in the 20 to 40 ton class? The CV90 is a very good verhicle but give me a break. xD
Take them out in snow and marshland and match the mobility of the CV90 and then you can have a leg to stand on, until then I suggestion you sit down
CV90 MK 4 suspension hydro gas with semi active dampening is far superior to torsion bars with shocks and bump stops or Hydro pneumatic , hence best off road and stability when firing on move over rough ground !
The variant armed with a 120mm main gun reminds of the Merkava tank.