It surely cant be that bad; can it?

A stealthy reconnaissance vehicle... allegedly...

Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 12 June 2021, 05:40:52 PM
A stealthy reconnaissance vehicle... allegedly...

Like most tracked vehicles.
"Stealthy"; if you use it in an artillery barrage.

I've never liked it and I'm not surprised - the silence up until now indicated that deadline after deadline was being missed. There's a lot of comparable stuff out there that the British Army could have gone for instead. Currently, the Aussies are looking at Rheinmetall's Lynx and Korea's Redback whilst the Czechs are buying the latest incarnation of BAE Hagglunds' proven CV90.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 12 June 2021, 06:27:22 PM
Like most tracked vehicles.
"Stealthy"; if you use it in an artillery barrage.

Although it has to be said that future barrages may no longer need to be so noisy given that the use of rubber tracks is now gaining momentum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJmBt2V0HA

... however, I am slightly concerned about the worrying rumours about the introduction of chocolate armour ...

Let us hope it isn't another SA80 type disaster

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 June 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Let us hope it isn't another SA80 type disaster

It already has been, this thing should have been in service 10 years ago.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax/from-scimitar-to-fres-to-ajax-the-sixties-and-seventies/
(follow the menues at the bottom of the page - it's a long read!)

It's part of the British army tradition, the vehicles never work properly....

I have never been in any AFV, so curious about the experience of those who Have?
Rather doubt that any squaddie was 'asked' for 'opinion' about 432 or maybe, Warrior, prior to introduction? Modern H&S?
Articles do not say 'Who' had joint pain.. 'crew' or 'guys in back'? If crew, bad design but maybe fixable. My uninformed thought is that 'guys in back' would 'have things 'pretty much the same' in any APC... getting rattled and banged about... unless too cramped or some seating probs.
Tinnitus could be from 'modern' engine/transmission 'whine' or electricals that were not there before? Some things possibly 'fixable'... that's what evaluation is for.

Rather worrying, though!

Possibly worse is 'not being able to reverse over 20cm obstacle! That is ridiculous... when a fast 'back out' absolutely necessary!

My ignorant perception is that, with the added armour 'it just LOOKS like a pig'... so maybe it IS? Far too 'heavy'... but the guys need the protection!

Just what may have been 'wrong' with the Warrior... apart from age? Upgrade cancelled... because New Kit ..and 'orders' on it's way? Or would 'upgrade' have been equally bad?

I reiterate...I am uninformed... but curious?

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 13 June 2021, 02:53:03 PM
It's part of the British army tradition, the vehicles never work properly....

Or Boots...

... not that I have worn them! 

Once broke in my DMS were fine, I have worn them !

Back in the 1980s when they were thinking of MCV-80 (later to become Warrior IFV) some actually made the mistake of asking a squaddie what type of APC they wanted and he just pointed to a nearby Challenger....

As the Israelis have found by experience, and the British and Canadians latterly in WW2, the only viable APC is a tank hull. You can have all the fancy guns, bells, whistles, missiles and what-not as you like, or not, but a minimum pre-requisite is 16" of Chobham frontal armour behind an ERA layer.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 14 June 2021, 05:16:01 AM
Once broke in my DMS were fine, I have worn them !

I used to wear my second pair of Ammo boots in the field...

Whoops, will leave now. Thought this was about an Amsterdam football team.

RE Boots: I remember some press 'outrage' over 'leaky' boots in Falklands... then 'melting soles' in the Gulf. Whatever the kit, job done! 
But just think about the Napoleonic Brit 'boots'... REALLY 'UNIFORM'... swap feet to equal out 'wear'! LOL!