Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:something like a 50% increase in unit cost
Started with 600 for a bn, what was it for 380?

This 280 will be (?) 1.5 bn... or be cut :?:
- MTBF will tell
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Need 245 for 4 battalions, and turrets/guns have already been ordered. 250 is unworkable, and 280 also. You'd be cutting all REME vehicles, pretty much. Which are not used just in armoured infantry units, but REME battalions and tank regiments.

The whole thing would fall apart.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

280 Will equip all four Armoured Infantry Battalions replacing all variants of the Warrior within them plus allow BATUS to be re equipped with a dozen or so spare. As to what will replace the FV432 variants within the Battalions my bet is on variants of the Boxer with no replacement for the Scimitars as the Recce Sections are being deleted with the arrival of Ajax. So this will include the FV512 and FV513 vehicles used by the REME LADs

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:one FV524 Warrior artillery observation post vehicle
This one is interesting as upgrade trials (5? yrs back) showed that doing the Joint Fires job properly, each team would need two Warriors.
- it was reported in the Gunner, to quite some detail
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Gabriele »

What i read was the opposite: the 2-vehicle approach was abandoned because it led to much increased radio traffic between the vehicles, with obvious correlate issues. The prototype fit eventually trialed was for a single vehicle solution. What's not clear is whether that kit is funded, since it is not technically part of WCSP proper.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:the 2-vehicle approach was abandoned because it led to much increased radio traffic between the vehicles, with obvious correlate issues. The prototype fit eventually trialed was for a single vehicle solution.
- yes, the approach was abandoned; hence I was surprised to see that designation reappear (in one vehicle instance, for the trials)

I can understand that they want to go for a solution that is on the same hull as the rest of the formation... but can it do "Joint Fires"?
- or will there be something in those (next level) formations that these few bns will be attached to that can?

Going a bit further back in time:
ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2015, 17:01
I would not be surprised if there were to be three different levels of fit-out (taking the example from some other armies):
- artillery forward observation [this is probably what we will get?]
- battery command vehicle [this version of Warrior since long gone... and would not be up to it, anyway]
- a higher level command vehicle [that can also do joint fires -air/ ground coordination that is - and likely to be...] the Joint Fires Control (23 vehicles) version within the Ajax family. The question immediately arises whether such a number is enough
A. for two AI and two Strike Bdes
B. is the assumption that an AI bde will not be fielded without a Strike bde, ever? Would explain the deletion of lower level recce assets from the former,
and C. what about Joint Fires when other formations are fielded... will there be enough vehicles to be embedded in RA rgmnts? Whole fleet mgt, of course :) , will be the answer
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Special versions aside, this is the latest for the main prgrm (from 2019 departmental overview):

Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme
Infantry fighting vehicle Lockheed Martin UK, subsidiary of US firm
Competitive 1,319 £ mln at contract and 1,550 predicted
ISD planned Nov 2018 and now predicted Mar 2023 [... so pretty close to the first Strike Bde becoming operational?]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Little J »

Matsimus' take on the upgrade programme

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Also appeared on forces tv news:

https://www.forces.net/video/british-forces-news
Saturday’s programme.
Mentions improving the chain gun, which I imagine would be welcome.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV) 26th December 2019
The British Army's Warrior armoured vehicle first entered service in 1988. Eight years ago, manufacturer Lockheed Martin was contracted to upgrade the vehicle's turret. That design is now being road-tested, which the Ministry of Defence will use to decide whether to upgrade the entire fleet.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by dmereifield »

8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by dmereifield »

dmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAE

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

dmereifield wrote:
dmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAE
What about Lockheed Martin?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by dmereifield »

mr.fred wrote:
dmereifield wrote:
dmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAE
What about Lockheed Martin?
Yeah, not LM either!


RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

As per, raked with inaccurate information that will be quoted as fact by some. But, as an opinion piece and a brief history it's reasonable.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Care to point out the many inaccuracies you have alluded to?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

More on the Warrior as a whole from Think Defence:
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/warrior- ... g-vehicle/

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Regarding Hawkes’ piece; there are some things one might take issue with but it depends on your point of view. He says 15 years, but the contract was given in 2011, so that’s 9. If you go back to the original LIP competition then that was about mid- 2000’s. Which view you take then colours the comparisons. For example; The Bundeswehr was looking at Marder replacements back in the late 80’s, which would make the programme that eventually led to Puma twenty years at least.

The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?

Gradual upgrades vs substantial and less regular ones: a recent thing, surely? Otherwise explaining 13 marks of Centurion and 12 marks of Chieftain is tricky?

Rounds carried? 70 round but the accompanying graphic suggests that these are ready rounds. Compare with the CV9040, which is armed with the gun that the CT40 was intended to be compared against, that only has 24 ready rounds.

Supposition on decisions made on the RARDEN and ammo? It could be other reasons driving it?

The things I can see aren’t necessarily wrong, but one might disagree or suggest cherry picking of stats to portray things in a particular light.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
Seriously?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
Seriously?
Yes. Explain to me how it can happen without the decision makers being literal potatoes.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: which would make the programme that eventually led to Puma twenty years at least.
They did refurb Marders on the way, but only as a stopgap
mr.fred wrote:explaining 13 marks of Centurion and 12 marks of Chieftain is tricky?
Score a Bull's Eye there!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
Seriously?
Yes. Explain to me how it can happen without the decision makers being literal potatoes.
Four elements of any procurement:

Technical
Schedule
Cost
Politics

Got to get them all right to win the bid. Bae didn't. Lockheed did. Of course, Lockheed lied but honesty isn't required, just believability.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:
Four elements of any procurement:

Technical
Schedule
Cost
Politics

Got to get them all right to win the bid. Bae didn't. Lockheed did. Of course, Lockheed lied but honesty isn't required, just believability.
So your argument seems to be that the BAE bid team and the MoD assessment team were staffed by Maris Pipers?
I’m not buying that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The continual upgrade path seems to have been followed during the Cold War as we were always trying to get the most out of what we already had, especially the Army. The RAF relied more on programmes to bring in new platforms such as Tornado but that did not stop them from adopting good (and some bad) ideas. The Navy for the most part wee focused on ASW in the North Atlantic but again did look at gradual upgrades like the RAF when technology and funding allowed.

Since then and "Options for Change", this practice seems to have halted only taking place as a result of UORs. These may or may not be brought into the core as we have seen post Iraq and Afghanistan. There are a few exceptions like the Thermal sights for the CVR(T) and Warrior, but those programmes really only came about as a result of the first Gulf War.

A classic comparison would be the upgrade paths for the RAF's Jaguars and Tornados. The former had a continuous upgrade path after Gulf War one adding new avionics, Helmet sights, designator pod, new recce pod, over wing AAMs, air to ground data links and so on over time, within a limited budget. Tornado on the other hand under went and exceedingly expensive major one stop upgrade programme to bring the fleet up to GR4 standard, that went over budget and was late in its delivery.

Post Reply