The British Army is in a state of “enormous modernisation” which they say will transform the force “into a state-of-the-art fighting force equipped with the latest vehicles, informed by coherent information systems and networks, and employing the very best people”.

The British Army say that is currently managing one of the largest military modernisation projects in the world. Concurrently, we are looking to upgrade Challenger 2 and Warrior and introducing the Ajax and Boxer families of vehicles. Although it should be noted that there are some serious delays and issues involved.

Deputy Chief of the General Staff, Lieutenant General Christopher Tickell CBE, was quoted as saying:

“Our armoured forces will remain central to our ability to win in the close battle.  Modernised platforms with enhanced lethality, sensors and connectivity will deliver surprise and shock action on enemy positions, seizing and retaining the initiative and capitalising on fleeting opportunities to keep the adversary off balance.  They will continue to be at the heart of our land contribution to NATO, continuing to contribute to modern deterrence through deployments in Europe. 

They will operate as part of increasingly sophisticated multi-domain combined arms manoeuvre, augmented more and more with remote autonomous systems.

These projects have another benefit, they represent huge investment in UK industry.  Moreover, that investment is often made in parts of the country where our industrial expertise is strongest and in areas which are the focus of the government’s ‘levelling-up’ policy.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
75 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron
Ron
4 months ago

Good just get on with it rather than speaking about it all the time.

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago

“State-of-the-art fighting force equipped with the latest vehicles’, does that mean instead of upgrading a 40yo vehicle, they will be replacing Warrior? You would like to think so, but probably not!!!

Sleepy
Sleepy
4 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

The US Bradley is slightly older, and has no replacement anytime soon!

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago
Reply to  Sleepy

Absolutely, but doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. I appreciate that MOD is short of money, but now might be the time to bite the bullet and take some pain by splitting IFV buy from MBT buy. Both are due for upgrade/ replacement, if you upgrade both, then you will have the same problem in 10/15 years. Buy one new now, so that lasts for 30ish years and then place the other in 15ish years. However, appreciate lots of competing projects for available money so no easy choices.

Tim
Tim
4 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

The warrior isn’t a bad vehicle and to make it as good as any new vehicle would just mean putting a new turret and gun on it arguably the best AFV on the market is the CV90 but it’s hardly miles ahead of the warrior , the C2 in my view has had its day and it’s time to design a new tank but until nato decides what main gun size we are going to use there doesn’t seem much point yet same problem with the rifle until the USA decides on what size round nato is go8 go to… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Not saying the Warrior is bad, just old, worn out. Putting a new turret on it won’t change that fact unfortunately. Don’t necessarily agree ref C2, yes the gun is rifled, with shortcomings understood, but is still a match for anything we’re likely to meet weo new Russian T14. There are others who will have the pleasure of meeting it before we do should the need arise. To me it’s a case of horses for courses, both need replacing, so pick the one in most need. My thoughts only.

TrevorH
TrevorH
4 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

How many T14 are there? As I understand it there are 20, and just 100 ave been ordered but not delivered yet. I further read that the T14 is 55 tons, whilst the Challenger is between 62 and 75 tons

Warrior is not designed to fight tanks anyway. Warrior is an armoured box and ultimately troops debus from them and fight on foot. How does an armoured box, with no matter how thick the armour is, protect you?

The problem with all these vehicles is that they are getting very heavy.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

I’m not convinced that the T14 is going to prove that formidable a tank. Russian material science has not advanced passed the Western technology. They do not have armour that has proven to be immune to standard NATO rounds. The Russian active protection system has not been battle tested. Russia did deploy some initial trial versions of T14 to Syria but they were not rushed upto the frontlines and never were pitted against even hand held anti tank rounds. I think as and when the T14 is pitted in combat against another modern MBT it will prove to have a… Read more »

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Air strikes against Russia? You think we would have air dominance? I doubt it with their area denial and air power, I think their dominance of cyber shows it’s a little arrogant of west to assume our tech is superior, they invest billions, they choose certain areas (cyber, missle,subs) where they will get most bang for their buck. Numbers have a quality all of there own. As an RAF pilot once said out classing the enemy is great but if they out number you 10 to one it’s irrelevant. I think we need to realise if we don’t watch it… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

The Turret Is The Weak Point On The T14 – The Crew Module Looks To Be Well Protected But Put A Few Rounds Into The Turret And A Mission Kill Would Be Easy.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Paul, how do you know that?

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  Tim

The Annoying thing about Warrior is that there exists ( or did ) an Evolutionary Upgrade that on Reflection should have been Built,Warrior 2000 was Created for Potential Export admittedly ( and failed ) but surely must have some relevance Today – Again Why Keep Trying to Re-invent the Wheel all the Time.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

I think we are too far down the road on all these projects to do a re-think now. That would just delay modernisation in one particular area and there have been enough delays already with CR2 LEP, WCSP, Boxer procurement, CVR(T) replacement.

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago
Reply to  Graham

Morning Graham, i think you are probably correct with your thoughts. Given a clean shhet of paper, then I suspect that we would be looking at a totally different outcome for all those programmes. However, we are where we are, unfortunately.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

But IFV works with MBT, usually, so both must be upgraded at the same time. It is scandalous that WR and CR2 have not ever had a significant upgrade since being first fielded in 1984 and 1988 respectively. This wouldn’t happen for RN or RAF platforms!

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago
Reply to  Graham

Given the choice, and I’m not army, I would replace the Warrior with a new vehicle and upgrade CR2 without a new gun, IMO it doesnt need it, put some saved money into ammo for it, then if required join one of the new programmes when we have decided what we need from a new tank.
Yes, the army do appear to be behind the curve on keeping kit upto date with upgrades, dont know why that is when compared to the RN/RAF.

pkcasimir
pkcasimir
4 months ago
Reply to  Sleepy

Yes but the Bradleys are in the process of being upgraded.

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago
Reply to  Sleepy

The US Bradley has also been pretty consitently upgraded throughout its tiem in service.
This is something that I don’t believe we’ve done with Warrior, or CH2 for that matter…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

And at what strength? One Brigade? While there are delays, the main problems do not lie with the armoured brigades as such, they were strong already and the army had the money to upgrade Ch2, Warrior, and buy Ajax in 2015. They then went and added “Strike Brigades” to the mix, and Boxer, which while by all accounts a fantastic vehicle means we have too many programmes with the very common and real risk that none are dealt with properly: Strike without a host of capabilities compared to the mech bdes of many other nations. Boxer armed with a single… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
4 months ago

Don’t disagree with anything you’ve just said, it would take a v brave CDS to scrap AI and CH2 upgrades to concentrate all resources on furnishing Strike Brigades with proper capabilities-which, they should have had from the start. It’s a big mess, let’s hope that they can sort it, or we will probably be no better off in a few years time.

maurice10
maurice10
4 months ago

This goal to modernise is very much the Army’s answer to what is going on with the Royal Navy. However, are these plans affordable or should we be looking at retaining elements of heritage vehicles, where they can still do a good job? FV432 upgraded to Bulldog full armour kit could be one case in point? I now feel sure that CH2 LEP will go ahead as the hints from the Ministry seem to point in that direction? We may hear something soon, possibly a new Rheinmetall turret manufactured here in the UK, and employing British workers?

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

FV 432 are already more than 50 years old.

peter waite
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

They like them because they cost 1/4 the price of running a warrior lol!

maurice10
maurice10
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

Their age is not the issue. I’m sure the MOD still has considerable spares for FV432’s.
Look at the B52 they are still very capable aircraft and many armies around the World operate vintage weapons, which still serve a purpose.

andy
andy
4 months ago

I have to admit warrior is outdated,i served with warrior in 2LI when we got them i think from 1RRF when options for change arrived and reduncies were dished around like confetti,granted it was a good vehicle even though it should have had an auto cannon rather than the rarden 30mm,and they did fair quite well out in Bosnia,but like all things they are sadly lagging behind,and rather wasting money trying to upgrade the turret and internal stuff surely it would be better to build some new that could last 40 years rather than try and stretch a 40 year… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago

Translation: we don´t think Challenger is worthwhile to modernize but we will have vehicles with tracks,
Let’s think about it: any significant Challenger modernization will only be in field by 2025 at best.

Jacko
Jacko
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

There is a new turret,new gun already to go! All development done and tested just get on with it.

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  Jacko

It’s slightly difficult to extrapolate the subtext from the statement.

“We’re still kicking all the balls down the road” is what I take from this.

I suppose we will have to wait for the SDSR to find out if MBT capability will be retained, if not, then the Warrior update will likely be cancelled too with a slow phase out of service for both.

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

MBT will be retained the mod signed a new munitions contract for 2.4 billion running for 15 yrs from 2022 . I believe included in the list were ammunition for MBT’s why would they do that if they were planning on axing the tanks?

The tanks are here to stay for sure man ??

peter wait
4 months ago

Spoke to a painter who was on MOD contract, they were going along painting windows on a building in Blandford Camp, behind them was a team ripping out the windows and fitting UPVC ones. A building at Bovington had all new windows fitted and was demolished a year later lol

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
4 months ago
Reply to  peter wait

Let’s hope the Armoured warfare procurement dept weren’t also responsible for housing ?

peter waite
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

Think it will be 5 years before build starts then 10 years to complete , better to join new Euro tank and supply hulls with hydro-gas with German gun and transmission with the French turret! Supply chain for are unique tank of about 100ish is really too expensive !

Mark
Mark
4 months ago

State of the art when? At this pace it will be obsolete the day its rolled out!

Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago

“The British Army is in a state of “enormous modernisation” which they say will transform the force “into a state-of-the-art fighting force equipped with the latest vehicles, informed by coherent information systems and networks, and employing the very best people”. I mind the navy coming out with similar guff in about 2001. By 2015 it was going to be ‘all singing, all dancing’ ‘you can’t bend it’ bestiest navy in the world and it was like they were writing off the 14 years in between. Its all just bollox (or hyperbole if you’re feeling generous). I hope the army get their act together… Read more »

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
4 months ago

This is great news. Whilst it is understandable many in here are sceptical given the track record of the mod it is rather bemusing so many just poo poo every positive announcement ? I means it’s like would you rather the Headline was “British army committed to removal of all medium and heavy armour , artillery and offensive combat capability”? They can’t win say something positive get shat on say something negative get shat on with a big told you so . It’s the people that make the service what it is and this country is unparalleled in its skill… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago

Everyone knows the issue is the Challenger, when they tell you about “armored forces” that just appears to escape the question, since an Ajax is armored so they could not get caught in a lie…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJH_-S_MGs

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

It is LPC. I just like to look beyond the headlines to the nitty gritty!

We may end up with the worlds best vehicles….in regimental strength!

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
4 months ago

Here’s hoping amigo .I have no doubt that the C2 upgrade will make it prob the best tank on the planet. The C2 has no losses to enemy action. It’s tough as old boots and the only thing that really mattered about it was the lack of modern ammo for the rifled barrel. So imagine what a brand spanking new turret will add . Prob will be a reduction in numbers but still it’s better than having no tanks. Mix it in with the Ajax platform and boxer and sunset riders are back in town???? All we then need is… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago

For myself, its the rhetoric that is the issue rather than the plan itself. As I said above, I heard similar from the navy and…. quick as a flash, feck all happened.

Maybe just a case of ‘fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me’ but I’ll believe it when I see it.

George Royce
George Royce
4 months ago

We need to make a totally new tank. That would set British industry off to the races, in many other avenues too. It’s about time we do this, IF we are committed beyond words.

John Clark
John Clark
4 months ago
Reply to  George Royce

I know we have discussed the pros and cons of this before George, but a UK national MBT project to build a handful of tanks (250 max) would be prohibitively expensive.

Our only recourse would be joining in the European project, but considering the current EU hostility towards us and their closed drawbridge mentality, that looks unlikely….

Perhaps a small contribution to the next US MBT programme?

George Royce
George Royce
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

I think we should have more military projects with CANZUK. We shouldn’t join a US program as we’d get virtually no say at all but we’d cough up a lot of money for it. I think we seriously need to increase our armed forces size. The pandemic has not made this easy but we have to wake up and smell the coffee. The EU don’t like us, as shown was the horrific and callas hard border article 16 situation just yesterday. We can’t rely on NATO. We have to stand up on our own two feet. So as ever, with… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
4 months ago
Reply to  George Royce

What about collaboration with the South Koreans?
I don’t think we be sending many tanks to Central Europe in the future.

George Royce
George Royce
4 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Sure, I think we should look at that. Anything but a US or EU project. Time and time again, we have seen it never lives up to expectations in performance, but far in a way exceeds our financial expectations. But Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be our first ports of call. They have some amazing industries, why have we taken so long to work with them on a grand scale?

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  George Royce

Slight problem with your proposal. NZ doesn’t have any tanks and barely has any IFVs, that’s not likely to change much if at all. That leaves Canada and Australia with approximately 80 and 60 MBTs respectively. Further compounded by Australia planning to upgrade its current Abrams to the M1A2 variant. The total CANZUK numbers, even assuming Oz decided on a long term shift from Abrams, don’t make commercial sense for design and production of a new MBT. There’s nothing strategic about building our own MBTs, assuming MBTs are even an appropriate solution for a future peer battlefield. We’d be better… Read more »

Andy a
Andy a
4 months ago
Reply to  George Royce

Why can’t we rely on nato? It’s very different beast to Eu. But yes we need to be prepared to stand alone

Steve R
Steve R
4 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Think it would be possible for us to contribute towards it and we licence-build US tanks here? Might be a good way to go; save money on design costs, retain UK jobs and skills and possibly even be able to afford at the very least to replace the Challenger 2s on a one for one basis, maybe even a small increase.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

CR2 LEP is an excellent option especially the Rheinmetall proposal to replace the turret with one that incorporates their smoothbore cannon, plus of course the other hull upgrades proposed. All design and development work is done and JV company set up. Just need Contract Award. Absolutely no need to buy an American tank.

Peter S
Peter S
4 months ago

Investment in UK industry? Too much of our equipment is non UK sourced: all the guns for the next generation of frigates; diesel engines for River 2, types 26 and 31; CMS for type 31; CTAs for Warrior and Ajax; all the clever bits for Boxer. Meanwhile Germany, which buys only in small numbers, continues to expand military production. We really need to look closely at how France, with similar sized forces to UK, has managed to retain sovereign design and manufacturing capability across a wide range of equipment. Not only does this make sense in economic terms but also… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

You need numbers…you can’t escape from them. The Type 31 itself is based on a foreign design.
German Navy buy guns in Italy, missiles in US and Scandinavia. Only heavy torpedoes they produce. They are also more of a land power and everyone in West rely in their tank guns.
France lost manufacture of small arms for their army, no more naval guns.The frigates and destroyers are consortium with Italians. And their new replenishment ships are based on Italian design.

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

So everyone has to compromise somewhat.

Peter S
Peter S
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

I know that France is replacing its Famas assault rifle with a German one. It continues to design and make naval guns including a naval version of CTAs
Looking at the equipment list of the French armed forces, it is striking how much is French designed and built.
We of course need first to decide what we want, something that seems to elude generals and politicians alike. It is worrying how many senior military leaders seem to express themselves in the same vacuous bullshit language as their political masters.

AlexS
AlexS
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

CTA was born for land proposes..
Their frigates and destroyers have Oto Melara 76, the 100 Creusot Loire is not build anymore the firm went bankrupt.

peter waite
4 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

Have you seen US 1996 Government report into the 200 million dollars they spent on CTA . The findings were excessive recoil, short barrel life, jams with rotating breach and very expensive rounds which is why they ditched the project!

Ian M.
Ian M.
4 months ago
Reply to  peter waite

recoil is 45mm

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

How many times on this site have we seen ‘BAE Systems win US Navy contract’ ect. It’s a global market, not every single thing can be built in the UK, yet we still have one of the largest defence industries in the world. It’s another example of putting ourselves down, and presume everyone else does it better. They don’t. France isn’t building 15% of every single F35, that will be over 3000 airframes. France hasn’t designed the T26, or Astute class, the list could go on.

Peter S
Peter S
4 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

BAE wins many US contracts but to do so has to build in USA( a legal requirement). For example the M777 howitzer, initially designed at Barrow, is now assembled in USA with a lot of US components. I am all for joint projects if the economies of scale outweigh the costs of more complicated supply chains. The point that concerns me is how much capability to design and build esp.land systems we have lost. So instead of having a state owned champion like Nexter or DCNS, we rely on a private sector that cannot wait for orders, so shuts down… Read more »

peter wait
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Ajax is the emperors new clothes !

George Royce
George Royce
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

I could not agree more Peter. Outsourcing for some things is good, but not when it comes to vital hardware. No nation should rely on another to develop its hardscore frontline units.

peter wait
4 months ago
Reply to  George Royce

Which outsourcing are you thinking went well, PFI seemed to be the worst example. When sold to foreign companies the profits leave the country?

George Royce
George Royce
4 months ago
Reply to  peter wait

The CV90 or Ajax has been a great success. Shame we didn’t buy more.

Mike O
Mike O
4 months ago

I wrote a long rant about this but thought better than posting ?. Long story short if you fuck this modernisation up you risk making the army irrelevant. The potential peer adversaries will be able to overmatch the equivalent British units if you fuck this up. Doctrine, training and ethos only get you so far. British soldiers will always give there all. But you can only do so much in your grandfather’s armour. Please don’t fuck this up army/MOD/government or anyone else involved.

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
4 months ago

It seems to me that the gereral might have an appropriate name. The article made me chuckle anyway. The army is a shambles. As Daniele has said all its programmes are late and over price. Much of its equipment is out of date.Its re organisation plans are stuck in a morass of indecision. There was a report prepared for the Cameron government which highlighted twelve threats facing the United Kingdom. Only four involved conventional war…a large scale attack on the U.K.;The U.K. being drawn into a war between two foreign powers;insurgency involving a friendly nation and an attack on a… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago

Aside from the fact that Ben Wallace stated in September last year that the UK is not scrapping all tanks, there is a compelling reason why not at this time, the UK doesn’t have other suitable mobile direct and indirect fire assets. No 105mm on tracks or wheels, no 120mm mortar on tracks or wheels, no 120mm assault gun solution on tracks or wheels, no solutions such as vehicle launched Brimstone. Getting any of that isn’t going to happen over night. Hence Challenger has to remain for now in some form, to at least offer direct fire support. The real… Read more »

peter wait
4 months ago

Rubber track life is not much better than steel, more suited to lighter vehicles!

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  peter wait

Its getting there, currently topping out at ~42 tonnes, so CV90, Ajax, Ascod class medium armour. But I’m looking at the future where we should expect to see continuing improvements in performance at this weight class over time.
https://www.soucy-defense.com/

Mike O
Mike O
4 months ago

There is a lot of sense in what you say. ISTAR, precision fires and mobility are probably key in open battle but I can still think of scenarios where heavy armour would have an advantage. Specifically in close terrain or built up areas in support of infantry. Also let us not forget AVREs are basically MBTs. Nothing clears obstacles like Trojan. Perhaps future armoured divisions should be built around the alternative systems you describe (I think I agree with you on this). But also it is probably worth maintaining a couple of MTB regiments for those times when you really… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

I agree we need the supporting firepower for infantry, though in an urban area we might be better off with medium weight platforms armed with mortars or 105mm with high elevation capability, rather than a conventional MBT. We could continue to use Challenger chassis for engineering support just by storing and re-purposing current MBT. I suspect part of the reason we haven’t seen many armies implementing the medium tank/assault gun to date has been the large legacy of cold war MBTs. The issue for many European and western aligned armies apart from the US is that their relatively low numbers… Read more »

Mike O
Mike O
4 months ago

Reference Leopards it is only hypothetical now as I believe upgrading Challenger is the current plan but is it the best plan? Well I guess that depends on your definition of best. I agree with looking at the euro tank projects in future but timings have a habit of slipping. It could easily be the 2040s before it is ready. Is Challenger ready for another 20 years? Reference a medium weight force. If the army really committed to it and filled the capability gaps you have mentioned then I would support it and upgrading Challenger in the interim would make… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

We really are hostages to the defence review, hopefully not too much more pushing it to the right. That does still assume that it includes a vision beyond the next decade too, and doesn’t leave us hanging with unanswered questions for the 2030s. I agree 2040s seems more realistic on new tanks. We’ll also be lucky if the first Challenger LEP are in service by the mid-2020s, unless its a very minimal upgrade. If the LEP includes a change to 120mm smooth bore then we open up access to all current and future modern rounds that should keep it relevant… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago

The reference to UK industry and levelling up is duly noted. A quote from the Rheinmetall web site. “Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) is a UK-based combat vehicles design, manufacturing and support business. Headquartered in Telford in the West Midlands, RBSL employs a skilled workforce, located in Telford as well as at sites near Newcastle, Bristol and in Dorset. RBSL’s employees work continually to protect people and national security by supplying the most advanced products and in-service support available.” A Novavax vaccine factory is being built on Teeside. Industrial strategy, job creation and sovereign capability will be big factors in… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
4 months ago

If I was planning British Armour.

  1. Upgrade CR2 for now.
  2. Carry on with Ajax & Boxer buy.
  3. Fit some of the Boxer with 35mm Skyranger turret for Shorad (anti UAV).
  4. Buy 75 medium tanks, probably whichever one the US Army adopts.
  5. Join one of the international projects for a new MBT next decade.
  6. Buy some 2nd hand 155mm M777 off the USMC.
  7. Just do a simple cheap upgrade/update to Warrior.
peter wait
4 months ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Cancel Ajax after current 100 or so hulls are completed and make up the rest with CV90, cancel CTA and fit bushmaster. Replace warrior with CV90 lol

John Hartley
John Hartley
4 months ago
Reply to  peter wait

Which Bushmaster? The new 50mm version packs a punch, but might be a more extensive/expensive conversion.

Joe16
Joe16
4 months ago

“The British Army say that is currently managing one of the largest military modernisation projects in the world.”
Did they claim they were managing it, or were you being generous George? From many perspectives I think it could be argued that the army has been (and may continue to be) mis-managing those projects for some time now…