Interesting

Not until my numbers come up on Saturday night. Thinking about it, the rollover is £55m or more, maybe that is why talks are taking so long, they need to jackpot to reach that amount! Monday it is then for an announcement.

To answer your question mate, I am a 120 gunnery instructor so have had no dealings with the new 40mm apart from advising some industry punters on simulation requirements. i was probably ignored!
Basically Ajax is still at a very early stage in development as a vehicle with the Armoured Trials and development Unit still to recieve it for putting it through its paces. Looks good as a press snippet for the government but in reality, its along way from service.
The main concern for most is the vehicle size. Its a beast and alot bigger than what we use for close and formation recce at the moment but if it offers more protection then it may not be such a bad thing. Personnally id prefer something smaller and faster in a recce role as once the enemy see you, you wont be long for this world.
The weapon system seems ok but they will still use the L94 chain gun as secondary armanment. was hoping they would use somethingelse as its a overly complicated gun for some people to get there heads around which leads to crew induced stoppages.
The 40mm seems like its going to be very expensive to run as the ammunition, which looks like a cannister, isnt used by anyone else in NATO as far as im aware. Ive been told that its an awesome round though with a similar effect to a 100mm projectile which really gives the vehicle a punch on the battlefield. Like i eluded to earlier though, in their role, ideally they dont want to be locking horns with combat recce patrols as they consist of several modern battle tanks!
As for converting a regiment, the formation recce regiments will get these vehicles with the MBT regiments getting a troop for close recce. Also the new warrior will have the same turret as Ajax so armoured infantry regiments will have a better punch. Personally I think they should all be crewed by RAC regiments. We currently have Light Cavalry regiments who crew legacy vehicles from the Afghan conflicts. Basically cut down landrovers, no good in a conventional Armoured Brigade. These regiments should crew the new warrior as tactically they are more aware that an infantryman on armour. that way the grunts could sit in the back and get dropped off for ther close combat stuff, which they are really good at!

Not sure if anyone is still interested on the tank debate, but here is a story from Defensenews (it is a US site so ignore the spelling);

LONDON — The UK Ministry of Defence has kick-started a program to update the British Army’s neglected Challenger 2 main battle tank fleet with at least three contractors submitting initial proposals to undertake the work.

Challenger 2 builder BAE Systems, along with rivals General Dynamics UK and Lockheed Martin UK, have all confirmed they responded by the Jan. 14 closing date to a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) issued in December by the MoD’s procurement arm, the Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization.

Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, the builder of the Leopard 2 tank, was previously reported to be interested in the update program but it’s not known if the company has filed a PQQ now that buying new or secondhand tanks has been ruled out by the Army.

Company officials could not be contacted ahead of going to press.

Officially known as the Challenger 2 Life Extension Program (LEP), the update, including initial logistic support, could be worth up to £700 million (US $1 billion), said the MoD’s Contract Bulletin. The update program could also be applied to Challenger 2s operated by the Oman government, said the Contracts Bulletin.

The contractors are vying for two competitive assessment phase contracts expected to run for two years.

“The duration of the competitive assessment phase is expected to be two years, to be confirmed at the bid stage. Future [production and delivery] dates will be dependent on the solution and approval at the main investment decision point currently scheduled for 2019,” said a DE&S spokeswoman.

After prevaricating over what to do about obsolescence and upgrade issues on the Challenger for several years, the British have now moved to make good on a pledge in the government's recent strategic defense and security review (SDSR) to update the tank, extending its out-of-service date 10 years to 2035.

The move follows a reappraisal of the threat from a resurgent Russia and the public unveiling last year of the new generation T-14 Armata tank at a military parade in Moscow

The previous SDSR in 2010 saw Challenger fleet numbers reduce to 227 vehicles and the British under-investing in a platform seen by some as a Cold War relic.

That’s changing though, according to Ben Barry, the senior fellow for land warfare at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank in London.

“It’s fair to say Challenger 2 has been neglected. Its update was seen as a far lower priority than programs like the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle modernization,” he said.

“Three things have changed since 2010. The Army now has control of its budget, priorities and requirements. Secondly, we have a resurgent Russia and finally the advent of operationally fielded active protection systems [on vehicles like the Armata] makes direct fire anti-armor guns and the tank much more important,” Barry said.

The LEP assessment phase has still to be formally funded, approval for that is expected at the end of the month, but the MoD said in documentation supporting the release of the PQQ that getting the process underway now would speed the subsequent release of an invitation to negotiate to selected bidders.

The DE&S spokeswoman declined to detail the scope of the update plan citing operational sensitivity. Industry executives though said the update would focus mainly on updating turret subsystems and would not involve replacement of the L30 gun or the powerpack.

Since Challenger 2’s entry into service in 1998 the British have considered numerous options to upgrade the machine, most notably replacing the 120mm rifled gun with a smoothbore cannon, which is the standard fit throughout the rest of NATO.

Upgrades have been pushed through to meet urgent operation requirements but many of the tanks' turret systems face obsolescence.

At last September’s DSEI defense show in London, British Army boss Gen. Sir Nick Carter admitted the tank was showing its age.

“We certainly have issues with the tank we have at the moment and we should be in no doubt that if we don’t do something about it some obsolescence built into it will be challenging,” he said.

One case in point is Thales UK’s TOGS II thermal observation and gunnery sight where the British are looking at providing a stop-gap capability ahead of the life-extension program kicking in.

“This interim solution will ensure Challenger 2 retains a credible capability through to the LEP; the planning assumption for service entry is 2018,” said the spokeswoman.

Getting the tank update underway coincides with the award of assessment phase contracts to BAE and WFEL, Krauss Maffei Wegmann’s UK-based bridging arm, to update heavy forces and general support bridging capabilities, a requirement driven in part by the growth in weight of some of the Challenger fleet from 62.5 tons to 75 tons to meet requirements during operations in Iraq.

The companies will undertake rival two-year assessment phase work ahead of a competition to provide the British Army with updated bridging capabilities.

BAE, the incumbent British Army bridge supplier with the BR90 system, is targeting the bridging upgrade and the Challenger 2 program as key campaigns as it seeks to secure a long-term future for its much diminished land systems business in the UK in the face of stiff foreign competition.

Big land contract decisions in the UK have gone against BAE in recent years with General Dynamics beating the company to a big scout reconnaissance vehicle contract and Lockheed Martin securing the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle upgrade deal — together they form the Army’s premier vehicle programs.

Both companies have set up armored vehicle operations in the UK on the back of the deals.

Although BAE has substantially retrenched its land operations, the company, the design authority on Challenger 2, has built a new design center and retained a core of heavy armor engineers to support post design services and the life-extension bid.

Lulworthgas are you one of those nutters who drive the target tanks on the ranges ??

Do you think 120mm is the optimum size or do you think the next generation will change, either upwards or down? I recall a few years ago, probably longer in fact, a suggestion of 140mm becoming the next NATO standard calibre but would involve two piece ammunition and auto loaders. Could have been quietly shelved.

I think I read that the British 105mm on the then new Centurion (with stabilised gun and sight system) was a game changer in the 1950s. The Soviets had 100mm then and went to 115mm before going to 125mm now. Didn't the Centurion engineer vehicle have a short 165mm gun for demolition work?

Will the advent of additional reactive and passive armour mean new designs in size or ammunition?

Thanks.

Don't give the MOD ideas, Nobby!

For anyone still interested, ARRSE is reporting a 130mm gun from Rheinmetall.

www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/rheinmetall-developing-new-130mm-tank-gun.251357/

Wait, there's an ARRSE gun?

Sometimes democracy isn't always a good idea.

The official name of a new multi-million pound research vessel could be the RRS Boaty McBoatface after the internet was asked for its ideas. When the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) opened up suggestions to name their new ship, little could they have predicted what the frontrunner would be. Steaming ahead of its rivals, RRS Boaty McBoatface is outstripping the likes of Endeavour, Henry Worsley, David Attenborough, Falcon and many more offerings.

www.independent.co.uk/news/boaty-mcboatface-could-be-the-name-of-200m-research-vessel-after-public-vote-a6942551.html