This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 13:59 by stancrist
Latest 11:18 by schnuersi
Latest 3:24 by gatnerd
Latest 11-Jun by autogun
Latest 3:09 by schnuersi
Latest 4-Oct by stancrist
Latest 30-Sep by Refleks
Latest 30-Sep by Refleks
Latest 28-Sep by graylion
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
Gee, that is the most comforting post I have seen in a long time.
Of course, my first thought was " That's nice... I wonder what thread this is? Oh, UK spending."
In today's Financial Times:
Army's £5.5bn armoured vehicle project at risk
A £5.5bn project to build the army a state of the art armoured fighting vehicle may be scrapped after more than a decade, a defence minister has admitted. Delivery of the Ajax vehicle should have started four years ago , but trials have been halted twice after concerns that noise and vibration were damaging crews' hearing. One MP said "it's heavier than a Sherman tank. It's too small. And it's as stealthy as a Ford Transit full of spanners".
Too small? That's a new one. It's already the size of a bus and dwarfs the CVRT it's intended to replace.
There is a growing air of failure around the project. If a defence minister has gone public in doubting its future, then it's probably only a matter of time.
How can anyone mess that up so badly, then keep carrying on with it as if everything's OK?
Nimrod AEW.1. Nimrod Mk.4. To name just 2. National pride.
I grant you the Nimrods, but I doubt that national pride had anything to do with it. I suspect that no-one wants to bring the bad news to those at the top, so they keep their heads down and keep beavering on in the hope that someone, somewhere, will come up with some solution. In the meanwhile, they keep getting paid, and keep their fingers crossed that the inevitable finger of blame will point to someone else (if anyone at all).
The problems are still there - with some additions, it seems: https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/10/26/british-army-vehicle-headsets-under-investigation-for-hearing-risks/
Tony, I think you might find this article from The Economist interesting. Basically saying that England is shifting back towards focusing on Naval as opposed to land power.
Archived to bypass paywall:
Sounds like a fair summary of the situation.
...the armed forces would be designed for “permanent and persistent global engagement”...
Meaning what, exactly?
...America and Britain agreed to help Australia build nuclear submarines to deter China.
Deter China from doing what? Shipping goods to any countries other than the United States and Britain?
the MOD still considers the General Dynamics United Kingdom-designed vehicles as “not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”....
HS&EP describes Ajax as being far from being a modified Military Off-the-Shelf programme (the Ajax is mechanically based on the Spanish-Austrian ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle), with Ajax in practice “spearheading a range of world-leading technologies” that required significant testing before manufacturing could start. Instead, the developmental decision was made to conduct concurrent demonstration and manufacturing phases for six different vehicles at four build standards or “capability drops”. The review team found that the concurrent nature of the program was not what teams were used to managing, resulting in confusion, disagreement, frustration and in some cases paralysis of decision making across the program, in addition to increasing the amount of potentially exposed personnel due to the Reliability Trials conducted on currently built Drop 1 Ajax vehicles.