British Army Vehicles Out of Service Dates

I want to try and get a better picture of the out of service dates for British Army vehicles.

The information I have so far.

Alvis Stormer 2026
AS90 SPG 2030
Foxhound 2030
Fuchs 2020
Husky TSV 2024
Jackal/Coyote 2030
Landrover GS/FFR 2030
M270 GMLRS 2030
Panther 2037
Pinzgauer 2030
Ridgeback Ambulance 2024
RWMIK 2030
Warthog 2024
Wolfhound 2024

Please thrown up any others you know in comments.

53 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mr.fred
mr.fred
July 25, 2015 8:23 am

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2015-03-09/HL5565/
The out of service dates of the vehicles specified are as follows:
Vehicle Type
Planned Out Of Service Date
Challenger 2
2025
Driver Track Training Vehicle
2025
Challenger Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle
2040
Trojan
2040
Titan
2040
Warrior
2025
Saxon
Out of service
Samson
2026
Spartan
2026
Scimitar
2026
Samaritan
2026
Sultan
2026
Snatch Land Rover (1, 1.5, 2 and Vixen variants)
Out of service
Snatch Land Rover (2A and 2B variants)
2024
Snatch Land Rover (Vixen Plus variant)
2024
FV 430
Out of service
Mastiff
2024
Jackal
2030
Vector
2015
Bulldog
2030
Panther
2037

Although the dates for Challenger 2 and Warrior seem a bit close. Perhaps that is considering the current vehicles and not accounting for CLEP and WCSP.

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 25, 2015 9:45 am

mr.fred – ref Challenger & Driver Training Vehicle dates – possibly the list doesn’t cover the life extended variant which might well become known as Challenger 3? All the Challenger hulled vehicles going out of service in 2040 makes much more sense.

Three comments on the list though; firstly if MOD is spending a fortune upgrading Warrior why pension it off something like 6 years after the upgrade IOC? Secondly whats with all the CVR(T) variants on the list until 2026 – I thought essentially all CVR(T) except Scimitar 2 had already gone or were on their way to Witham ASAP? Lastly and most worryingly, seeing as the FRES (FFLAV, TRACER) programme has so far taken three decades to decide to buy ASCOD/Scout and Challenger upgrade programme is not yet in full swing, there is a gaping yawning gap approaching – in 8 years time we lose protected LR and the MRAPS, in 10 years we lose Warrior and light tracked armour (exception Bulldog) and in 15 years all armour except the Challenger hulled vehicles and Panther. Where are the replacement programmes?

We all know under the current procurement model the MOD will invent vastly complex requirements for solutions that are best of breed, world class, state of the art, yada yada yada, humma humma – to meet expectations within MOD these will not be off the shelf buys.

MOD never buys platforms off the shelf. Panther was as near as it gets – see here for how well that went: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/01/panther-command-liaison-vehicle/. When Quentin Davies announced “FRES is dead.” he proclaimed the selection of the ASCOD based Scout as a triumph of pragmatism, buying an off the shelf vehicle to get maximum capability for the available budget – since then it has been (apparently) completely redesigned despite looking the same, costing the taxpayer something like £600m to perform the design and qualification tasks.

So if the MOD remains true to form, there will either be a long expensive scoping study followed by a competitive procurement process and a contract for a new design of platform, shall we say 3 years study, 3 years competition/contract negotiation and 7 years design development & manufacture? Or there will be a shorter market survey study, a competitive procurement process and an off-the-shelf buy with modification programme to make the standard item good enough for UK service – 2 year study, 2 year competition/contract negotiation, 5 year COTS modification design development & manufacture? Starting now, with funded lines in MOD’s business plan firmly in place, that would be COTS (modified) ready for service in 2025 and new design in 2029, or thereabouts. That’s 9 years to get COTS in service and 13 years for custom design – against the three big out-of-service tranches in 8, 10 and 15 years time.

That capability chasm isn’t looking good. Especially as there doesn’t appear to be much will in MOD to start any Land Vehicle programmes soon.

Mark1603
Mark1603
July 25, 2015 10:29 am

TD,
Perhaps, based on previous experience, you should reword the opening sentence to include “proposed”. As Chris points out we all know that the cogs in Abbeywood turn slower than my broken Grandfather clock, but at least that is right twice a day.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 25, 2015 11:04 am

Chris,
As noted, I think the Challenger and Warrior dates are based on the current standard of vehicle, so Warrior gets replaced with WCSP upgraded vehicles over the next ten years, the last RARDEN-armed vehicle going out of service by 2026. Likewise Challenger, unless CLEP goes ahead, is obsolete and out of service by 2025. If CLEP does go ahead then it’s a bit longer. 2040?

For CVR(T), surely we need something to work with until SV arrives?

Mike W
July 25, 2015 11:34 am

Chris

Very interesting series of comments. Just one or two points, though.

“Secondly what’s with all the CVR(T) variants on the list until 2026 – I thought essentially all CVR(T) except Scimitar 2 had already gone …”

But the Scimitar 2 family includes all five variants, doesn’t it? (Scimitar, Spartan, Sultan, Samaritan and Samson) and so they are likely to stay on until 2026. Make a good replacement armoured formation to accompany 16 AA Bde, wouldn’t they?

I am sure that what mr.fred says about out-of-service dates is true. Makes good sense.

The OSD for Fuchs seems incredibly early for a vehicle that is currently undergoing a major re-furbishment before being re-introduced to service. Only five more years service?

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 25, 2015 11:41 am

mr.fred – DefenseNews this Feb reported “Scout has a planned initial operating capability of July 2020 and the first converted brigade will be deployable by the end of that year, the MoD spokesman said.” – while later than the 2017 contracted IOC MOD claimed in Oct 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360915/desider_77_Oct2014-v1_0.pdf page 26) its still before the 2026 out of service date the above tables have for CVR(T). I’m just not sure I believe the tables; at least not if the OOS dates reflect removal from front-line combat service. That same page in Desider states Warrior CSP OOS to be in 2040 or so, so at least that and Scout will protect the nation while all the other armour is scrapped.

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 25, 2015 11:49 am

Mike W – as I understood the purchase, Scimitar 2 was a buy of about 100 new-build Spartan hulls with Scimitar turrets and a good deal of under the skin redesign & rework to make the whole a viable off-road vehicle. Mostly the driver (pun!) was that the Scimitar/Scorpion low profile hull put the driver at too great a risk from blast damage, as the internal height forced the driver seat to drop to the floor for head-in ops. The taller Spartan hull profile gave the necessary internal height to install a much better designed driver seat installation increasing blast event survivability. The other members of the CVR(T) family already have the taller profile hull, so no need to replace them with new-builds. Their last major rework was the LEP which replaced the Jag J60 engine with the Cummins diesel, somewhere in the 90s? So they are now really quite elderly old things.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
July 25, 2015 12:03 pm
Reply to  Chris

I thought we used Armour to invade dusty countries not protect the UK, we are an Island after all :)

Mike W
July 25, 2015 12:06 pm

Chris

Many thanks for the reply. You obviously know more than I do. However, I’m sure I read at the time when the “new-builds” were being constructed by BAE (as UORs?) that all five variants would be built. By the way, I think the number was nearer 60-70 than 100. Am I right?

Cheers,

Mike

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 25, 2015 12:39 pm

Mike W – I thought the number ordered was around the 100 mark but maybe things changed. As for all variants, had there been other redesigns I would have thought BAE would have labelled them Spartan 2 Samaritan 2 etc? I’ve not seen any evidence of non-Scimitar new build (although that’s no conclusive proof, obviously).

APATS – indeed we are an island. We have always been an island. Therefore we should have entrusted the nation’s future solely to the RN in 1914-18 and 1939-45 and saved all those soldier’s and airmen’s lives. Anyway the RN can’t bitch about the use of tanks – it invented them under the Admiralty Landships Committee!

HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview
July 25, 2015 12:39 pm

I ask a FOIA a couple of months back. Matches your figures…

FUCHs 2020
Warthog 2024
L131 AS-90 Self Propelled Artillery 2030
M270 GMLRS 2030
Alvis Stormer 2026
Ridgback Battlefield Ambulance 2024
Husky TSV 2024
Foxhound 2030

JamesF
July 25, 2015 12:48 pm

50 CVR(T) Mk 2 upgraded, all five variants, £30 million UOR contract 2010 – Scimitar made the news as it needed to re rehulled, unlike the other variants. The upgrade was to equip one Arm. Cav Regt. for service in Helmand. There was a similar Afghansitan theatre entry standard upgrade for a Coy’s worth of Warrior too, although it didn’t require a new hull.www.baesystems.com/download/baes_048444/cvrt

Mike W
July 25, 2015 1:45 pm

@James Fennell MBE

Many thanks for that information.

50 CVR(T) upgraded would be a useful capability to retain, even when the FRES SVs start coming on-stream. They could very well replace D squadron, Household Cavalry, which is no longer with 16 AA Bde.

HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview
July 25, 2015 2:10 pm

Will the ABSV ever materialise with Bulldog carrying on until the distant future?

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 25, 2015 2:31 pm

At the least ABSV will trail WCSP by 5 years, based on the provided numbers.

JamesF
July 25, 2015 2:44 pm

Maybe more Scouts too, now production is moving to South Wales?

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 25, 2015 3:03 pm

James Fennell MBE,
The vehicle that would replace Bulldog is ABSV, which was, last I checked, based on Warrior hulls. I’ve not heard anything about it recently.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 25, 2015 8:49 pm

I have not been a fan of FRES/Ascod/Scout, but am coming to think that the proposed 120mm version might be the only way we replace Challenger 2 in time. If we buy an off the shelf smoothbore 120mm gun with autoloader & stop the MoD gold plating it, there may even be a Scout variant I like.

Peter Elliott
July 25, 2015 9:04 pm

For me Challenger replacement will need to be Diesel – electric. The fuel savings are real now and will only get bigger. Cost of in theatre fuel is massive both financially and losistically.

Design a heavily protected hull around the diesel electric components. Then stick the latest German turret on top. Job done.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 25, 2015 9:56 pm

John Hartley,
Only (and probably not then) if you consider the 2025 date to be the absolute OSD for the Challenger 2. If, as I suspect, this refers to the mark of vehicle prior to the Challenger Life Extension Programme (CLEP), then we’ve got much more time to do something sensible rather than making a self-propelled anti-tank gun.

Peter Elliot,
If you’re designing an AFV hull, why would you want to go and buy a sub-optimal turret (because it’s designed for someone else hull, not yours) rather than roll your own?

duker
duker
July 25, 2015 10:34 pm
Reply to  Chris

Did the Army invent anything in the lead up and duration of WW1 ? The RN overturned everything with Dreadnought 8 years before the start and just as the armistice came into effect was about to use flat deck carrier and torpedo bombers to attack the german fleet in harbour.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
July 25, 2015 10:49 pm

@duker – Mobile all-arms warfare, including the use of light, medium and heavy armour with integrated air and other support assets? Although in fairness the Royal Navy had a role in developing armoured vehicles, and both Army and Navy invented the RAF…see “1918 – the Year of Victories” by Martin Marix Evans.

In fairness they had developed the first low-visibility khaki uniforms years before, along with the 1908 Pattern Web Equipment. And what was probably the best cavalry sword ever designed, although that was useful mostly in the Middle East…

GNB

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
July 26, 2015 2:53 am

I thought that the Army still have a large number of FV430 variants still in service, and that the Bulldog was basically an upgraded FV432 APC. Did the MoD upgrade the support variants as well?

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
July 26, 2015 3:07 am

Yep did a bit of digging and the FV432 upgrade to create the Bulldog was carried out on the FV432 APC. The FV430 series carries on in Infantry units as ambulances, mortar carriers, command vehicles and recovery vehicles, though the MoD doesn’t really shout out the fact that these are still in service, promoting the Bulldog programme instead. So the FV432 is out of service and a little white lie told to Parliament regarding its variants. As mentioned they are due to be finally replaced by the ABSV, but when this will happen seems to keep moving further ad further into the future as the speed of the WCSP keeps slowing down.

JamesF
July 26, 2015 6:50 am

I imagine someone is thinking about the cost implications of ABSV compared to a follow-on buy of UK-manufactured Scouts. There are already repair, recovery and command variants, and an ambulance and weapons carrier would be pretty straightforward additions. I imagine Bulldog is being used for some specialist roles, as there is no current requirement for an APC (the three mech battalions are using Mastiff, no?). To my mind the best use for Mastiff/Ridgeback is to make sure all force troops have protected mobility (RA, RE, RLC), given experience in asymmetric theatres where there are no ‘rear areas’, and the mech battalions need a small buy of something with wheels that will fit in an Atlas.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 26, 2015 8:22 am

mr.fred. 5-10 years ago, the UK should have built a Challenger 3 prototype from the Challenger 2E enhanced export model. We did not. Instead we closed the Newcastle factory & lost the skills.
So the MoD keeps looking at a C2 SLEP/upgrade, but what they can afford is too little to be credible & what they would like to do, would end up being as expensive (& riskier) as buying a new tank.
So maybe, a tank spun out of FRES/Scout, might turn out to be the only realistic, partly British option.

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 8:37 am

Or save our brass and buy what we need off the Germans, when we need it.

Who knows they may even buy a combat ship design off us..? Surely the way forward…

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
July 26, 2015 9:01 am

For me the obvious replacement for the Challenger 2 would be to join the German programme to develop a replacement for the Leopard 2. The project is in its early stages but the planned in service date is 2025 or thereabouts. A Fire Support Vehicle/Tank Destroyer based on the FRES/Scout would be viable, but without the levels of protect offered by a full blown MBT we would have to totally change the way we train and operate our armoured units. However I am not a fan of the FRES/Scout. I would rather see the bulk stripped out and to increase the number of dismounts, if this is possible, and used to replace the Warrior if we are contracted to buy the numbers already planned. This would basically turn it into a ASCOD 3. We would only need between 70 and 80 actually Scout variants if we did away with the Heavy Cavalry Regiments and simply provided each Armoured and Armoured infantry Regiment with a Troop/Platoon of 8 Scouts. The fact that the planned FRES/Scout formations are to be called Heavy Cavalry Regiments shows how their role has changed, being seen as medium armoured formations rather than recce units, and they will be used as such. No surprise there as this is the role the CVR(T) formations have been used in for years.

JamesF
July 26, 2015 9:23 am

@Lord Jim, I think the term used in Army 2020 is Armoured Cavalry, not Heavy Cavalry, although the Jackal equipped units in the Adaptable Force are referred to as Light Cavalry, so by implication you may be right. Armoured Recce has proven extremely useful. Scout SV is a dedicated ISTAR vehicle, with a much larger turret ring than an IFV, to allow for a larger turret full of sensors. The PMRS is basically an APC, with a remote weapons station – no doubt an IFV variant could be developed, although I think we are going down the WCSP route. A 2.1m turret ring fire support variant with a 120mm gun has been touted as Challenger 2 replacement. Although as suggested, probably makes more sence to buy German given that we are not going to have a big requirement and we haven’t sold many MBTs since the ’50s – so development costs of an MBT replacement would probably not be justified by the scale of the buy.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 26, 2015 10:12 am

Regarding the Franco-German MBT programme, I advise staying out and buying the end result if it’s any good. Getting involved in the programme would only cause tensions and additional cost.
My alternative to buying abroad is, as ever, to increase the number of vehicles built. We won’t need so many MBTs, but we do also need to replace Warrior, so let’s have both based on the same components, if not the same structure. We also need to replace AS90, which is in a similar weight class, so that can go into the pot too.
I’d suggest starting where SV leaves off, so we get a 40t and up operational weight. This would cover the armoured battlegroups, leaving the mechanised infantry and the light end waiting for something.

The Other Chris
July 26, 2015 10:22 am

We have some of the world’s best protective technology as born out by the US purchasing from us to implement it.

Would a Franco-German MBT be considered good enough, by the MOD, without integrating that defensive technology in from the start? Foxhound is an example of inclusive design from day one.

Would we end up with part of a Scout SV program (opposed to the vehicle itself) where a vehicle without this technology underwent expensive redesign to leverage it after the fact?

Still uncertain that the UK needs an MBT for ourselves any more. Are we maintaining MBT’s primarily for our allies benefits? Could we benefit ourselves and our allies more by focusing on capabilities we do need ourselves in numbers that make a large and sustainable difference?

A next-gen all-weather AAC controlled AH platform supporting increased numbers of our own UV/SV vehicles and/or Franco-German heavy armour for example?

JamesF
July 26, 2015 11:38 am

@ToC – yes I agree will all that. The FRES armour package to hang on Scout is also a result of that expertise and probably pretty damn good.

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 12:34 pm

That’s why I’d maybe invest in a British designed hull but save money by dropping in the German turret “as is”.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 26, 2015 12:40 pm

Peter Elliot,
What is why you’d try and combine a bespoke hull and an off the shelf turret?
If it’s armour technology, the turret needs armour too.
You’d also need to integrate and prove the turret in the new hull, so I don’t know what you would necessarily be saving.

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 12:43 pm

I understand that. But if you know what turret you are getting before you start then surely you can design the new hull with all its new drive and running gear round that. It’s not like I’m saying drop a MOTS turret into an existing design.

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 26, 2015 12:47 pm

But why make a new hull and not a new turret? Why not buy the whole integrated vehicle?

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 12:50 pm

Because the performance gains are in the BAE diesel electric drive and the British are best at protection. But for firepower a German gun in a German turret using NATO standard ammunition is “good enough”

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 12:52 pm

And I’m not saying the current German turret btw. Whatever one they are using in 15 years time when we need it.

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 26, 2015 12:57 pm

I agree – the turret ought to be an integral part of the design to exploit maximum efficiencies in internal volume, systems installation etc, and to ensure coherent protection design. I know the modern fashion is for turret manufacture to be a separate company’s effort (LM for GD’s Scout, Oto Melara for the Polish Patria AMV etc) but for MBTs far better to get the whole thing done by the same design team.

Peter Elliott
July 26, 2015 1:05 pm

I guess we’ll just end up buying Leopard 3 then ;)

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 26, 2015 1:06 pm

Peter Elliot,
I’m still not following your logic. If we want British protection technology, then that is also needed on the turret, so are we going to use the (possibly) inferior German armour scheme or are we going to try to retrofit our survivability scheme onto their base turret?
The BAE hybrid drive system isn’t necessarily British. I think the hybrid drive system is Qinetiq (though not sure which part) while the integration was by the ex-United Defense in the US. BAE doesn’t have much land domain presence in the UK anymore.
Couldn’t we go for a wholly UK vehicle and use the appropriate de facto standard armament at the time?

stephen duckworth
July 26, 2015 1:32 pm

The RPG-29 uses a two part warhead to help defeat reactive and standoff armour with the latest defence against this being active defence systems to interfere with the warhead even further away . Main gun projectiles are also vulnerable to these active defence systems but may be defeated/confused by a similar two part projectile one following another a very short distance behind not giving the active system time to detect and launch a second defensive round. I can’t seem to see such a round in existence , are there any?

Saul
Saul
July 27, 2015 8:45 am
Reply to  mr.fred

Mr Fred,

CR2 and WR are both slated for an OSD of 2035. WCSP and the CR2 LEP programme are both designed to generate a viable platform until 2035, when both will need replacing. CR2 LEP is being scoped now, in terms of what can be done to mitigate obsolescence. It looks like it won’t get a smoothbore main armament, however. CR2 LEP should kick off by 2022, to complete by around 2025, which is when the genuine replacement for the vehicle will begin to be developed. this fits in with the US keeping their MBT until the same period.

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
July 27, 2015 2:18 pm

“Dorchester” or whatever the current generation of composite armour is exactly what we would bring to any Anglo/German MBT programme. The French are not pursuing a MBT replacement at this time, have only just brought the Leclerc into full service. Given the state of current US AFV programmes which with the exception of Striker have been more of a disaster then our FRES over the past decades, working with the Germans seems to be a logical choice. In addition with NATO countries rethinking their use of MBTs or reintroducing them, a Leopard 3 would be in an ideal place to pick up orders.

Have we found a new manufacturer for ammunition for the CR2? At present I believe we only have a APFSDS round in production with the HESH and APFSDU (Charm) rounds having been withdrawn for various reasons. As part of the CR2 LEP would it be possible to adapt the FCS to enable the CR2 to fire the IMI 120mm APAMS? This would increase the effectiveness of the CR2 in supporting infantry etc..

Hohum
Hohum
July 27, 2015 2:50 pm

First, for god sake stop whining about Scout cost, it’s costing exactly what it should cost- the only people who think otherwise are people too lazy or stupid to go an look at the cost of other turret equipped tracked vehicles (hint; Puma).

Second, many OSS’s are arbitrary. We know Challenger isn’t going anywhere and Warrior definitely isn’t (I suspect the 2025 date tells us when the upgrade is expected to finish). The interesting dates are around platforms one would expect to see replaced by Utility Vehicle and MRV-P. They are really the only ones to worry about near term.

Mickp
Mickp
July 27, 2015 3:31 pm

@Hohum, aren’t these OSDs reference points for MOD accounting purposes that will be constantly reviewed and revised depend ending on upgrades and operational needs, ie pinch of salt territory?

Engineer Tom
July 27, 2015 3:56 pm

Germany could be a good partner to work with if it is done in an equal manner and to clear goals etc. i.e. we want an MBT to have the latest British armour the latest German gun system as a base point and then work out the best of everything else, with compromises for price obviously. Both agree to order 350 each and then see what we end up with.

I am guessing that we have similar requirements maybe with the UK putting a bit more priority into a sand capability and Germany pushing for more of a snow capability. I would also suggest only having one assembly plant trading off more of the component parts production to the country without the assembly plant.

But it would need two very sensible MOD’s to sit down and agree what they want and then for both countries to actually work together rather than try and be too protectionist about workshare.

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 27, 2015 3:59 pm

An interesting suggestion to go look at comparative costs. No guarantee these are accurate, but the coverage is quite extensive. Scout appears near the bottom of the second table, that for IFVs: http://nationsdawnofanera.weebly.com/afvs.html

Hohum
Hohum
July 27, 2015 4:47 pm

Chris,

That website is worthless, the numbers are a joke.

Chris
Editor
Chris
July 27, 2015 5:27 pm

Fine Hohum – you obviously have a better source of data. Please share it if not classified or proprietary so we can all be equally well informed.

Frenchie
Frenchie
July 27, 2015 6:29 pm

@Lord Jim

The Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) notified the modernization contract to Nexter about the Leclerc, the manufacturer in order to provide the latest technologies. The contract covers the renovation of a fleet of 200 tanks as well as 18 recovery vehicles for 330 million euros. The first deliveries are planned from 2018.

The planned work will allow the Leclerc tank to make the most firepower and mobility. With its new telecommunications system, information and command, Leclerc will integrate and interact with other components of the operating theater (infantry, drone, other armored vehicles …). The Leclerc tank will also be better protected IEDs through the development of new armor kits. It will benefit from innovations in stealth, protection.
The Leclerc is expected to remain in service until 2040 and beyond, after a renovation phase in the Scorpion program, delivery of the first renovated char expected in 2019.

Lord JIm
Lord JIm
July 28, 2015 6:29 am

Yes, I knew about the development path fro the Leclerc. I only mentioned that the French were not involved in the German Leopard 2 replacement programme because someone called it an Franco/German one.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural
July 31, 2015 10:30 am

With Nexter and KMV putting ink to paper and becoming KANT , won’t any MBT development be a Franco/German affair now?

The way Leopard (and to an extent, CV90) has become ‘Europe’s Tank’ seems like the best way of doing things in terms of creating a large user base and a second hand market. More of a happy accident than design I suppose…