Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

farcicalities of [...] how the MOD selected GD for Scout and LD for WCSP

I only now detected your perfect joke

[mr.fred]

OK, let's hash it out a bit more:

What is a general design compared to a detailed design, in your opinion?

[ArmChairCivvy]

OK, let's hash it out a bit more:

What is a general design compared to a detailed design, in your opinion?

I'm sure there would be a hand book for this, but off the top of my head
- a general design would work the concept (which heeds requirements, and may be also exposes where they have been set so as to be excessively expensive to meet fully... that would cause an iteration of its own) into a whole, where some of the components to be used have already been tested/ certified and for some one would have to resort to TML and TRL analyses to assess the risk and the impact to the "whole"
- a detail design would mean that metal can be cut, and put together as well as knowing how much wiring and how many screw drivers it will take for all the gubbins that will need go inside, to make it work as specced (and of course, still meet the higher level - military - requirements)

If you've had a coffee already, pls feel free to improve the definitions as the above was written v much on the hoof

[mr.fred]

For the moment I’ll say that I don’t think you can make the split like that. I’ll see if I can generate a good summary later.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Thanks - I was borrowing from other industries, so we can compare notes

[whitelancer]

I only now detected your perfect joke

Oops!
More a Freudian slip than a deliberate joke I'm afraid.

[mr.fred]

I'm sure there would be a hand book for this, but off the top of my head
- a general design would work the concept (which heeds requirements, and may be also exposes where they have been set so as to be excessively expensive to meet fully... that would cause an iteration of its own) into a whole, where some of the components to be used have already been tested/ certified and for some one would have to resort to TML and TRL analyses to assess the risk and the impact to the "whole"
- a detail design would mean that metal can be cut, and put together as well as knowing how much wiring and how many screw drivers it will take for all the gubbins that will need go inside, to make it work as specced (and of course, still meet the higher level - military - requirements)

If you've had a coffee already, pls feel free to improve the definitions as the above was written v much on the hoof

I think the concern I have with the split suggested is that it allows one group to wave their hands around, making grandiose statements and a heap of assumptions (the general design) before handing it off to the people who know how to do it (the detail) except now they have been further hamstrung with a box to keep inside.

I would expect splits between what you want (the requirement), how you are going to do it (design) and how you are going to make that repeatably in large numbers (manufacture).The requirement stage results in a number of concepts, the design stage results in prototypes and the manufacture stage results in production systems.

Each stage needs to iterate, going back to the previous stage(s) to discuss details and interface and you want input from the successive stages to inform previous stages. The requirements need to be realistic, the design needs to be produceable and the manufacture needs to fulfil the design.

There is still a problem with splitting even these stages between organisations with loss of details and compromise between levels. This is especially true if the organisations have an adversarial approach to things, which is something I’ve seen advocated here quite often.

[ArmChairCivvy]

loss of details and compromise between levels. This is especially true if the organisations have an adversarial approach to things, which is something I’ve seen advocated here quite often.

As a generic flow, we are not in disagreement. Now, the contractual model needs to do away with 'adversarial' without doing away with competition altogether
... enter the contractual model; that and the flow can only work (well) together. In isolation it would be easy to agree.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I reread your post, and

allows one group to wave their hands around, making grandiose statements and a heap of assumptions (the general design) before handing it off to the people who know how to do it (the detail) except now they have been further hamstrung with a box to keep inside

I seem to recognise FRES as a system of systems - approached without a refined contract model, nor that (non-existent) one accompanied with a 'persistent' client PMO (cfr. JPO for the not-so-good, but not ill-fated F-35 JSF)
... and AP Consulting... and Atkins Engineering (in this order, or was it v.v.) contracted as 'stand-ins' for both of those, and supposedly good at seeing where the boundaries between 'the' system and ' the other' systems resided.

[Ron5]

Tracer by all accounts was pretty darned good and should not have been cancelled. Same goes for Boxer.

In an alternative history, the UK would have gone into Afghanistan with both vehicles. How many billions would have been saved by not needing all those UOR vehicles? Enough for a brand new Challenger replacement and lots of new artillery?

[mr.fred]

If the MoD had gone all pragmatic and settled for the Stormer family to refresh CVR(T), bought Piranha 3 that Alvis was making under license to replace Saxon, and procured Warrior 2000 for the IFV fleet, that would have freed up the older Warriors for conversion to replace the FV 430 family and the whole armoured fleet would have been in a far healthier place.
Plus any of the other contenders for FCLV instead to Panther.

There’s a graphic out there showing proposed AFV variants based off the Warrior chassis, which wouldn’t have been a bad thing.

[ArmChairCivvy]

settled for the Stormer family to refresh CVR(T)

The CVR(T) family being wide, in the actual recce function the idea that bears much resemblance to the Israeli Carmel (which is more fighty and still only emerging) was the Warrior-based
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/british- ... s/verdi-2/ before Tracer - that Ron was referring to - took over .
- the troop leader for these would have ridden in a more spacious and external comms oriented Stormer

[BlueD954]

Twitter debate on possible demise of WCSP and alternatives.

[Ron5]

Good news

[ArmChairCivvy]

Great! 4 working days left, to get Ch3 thru the Main Gate

What do IFVs without tanks make? Not much

[SD67]

Good news

New bits on hard worked old chassis. Land-Nimrod here we come.

[Tempest414]

Twitter debate on possible demise of WCSP and alternatives.

There are only 3 real options here 1) go ahead with WCSP , 2) down grade this to a hull and power pack refurb only and 3) carry on with Warrior as is and reduce usage to extend life anything outside these will cost more money

This being said if Boxer's module's are plug and play then maybe once the Australian 30mm module is fully signed off we could buy 100 units to plug into our hulls

[ArmChairCivvy]

Warrior was to be for 6 bns and will be for 4.

There's been talk abt hull inspections, and perhaps so many have been rejected that we only just have enough

But that aside, assume we have c. 100 to play with. To what uses should they be put (ABSV... or)?

[BlueD954]

Warrior was to be for 6 bns and will be for 4.

There's been talk abt hull inspections, and perhaps so many have been rejected that we only just have enough

But that aside, assume we have c. 100 to play with. To what uses should they be put (ABSV... or)?

ABSV was cancelled 4 years ago

[ArmChairCivvy]

The requirement has not gone away, hence the question 'format'.

[BlueD954]

The requirement has not gone away, hence the question 'format'.

Technically 'Armoured Support Vehicle'

Q12 https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 12523/pdf/

[ArmChairCivvy]

There's been talk abt hull inspections, and perhaps so many have been rejected that we only just have enough

But that aside, assume we have c. 100 to play with. To what uses should they be put (ABSV... or)?

Skirting around issues (like nothing has been sacrificed?) reaches such heights, as per this quote from the written evidence
"What other capabilities has the Army sacrificed in order to fund overruns in its corearmoured vehicles programmes? Overruns are due to both financial decisions (to balance the budget) and unforeseen programme risksmaterialising that affect performance. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that ‘other capabilities’have been ‘sacrificed in order to fund overruns’. Defence and the Army continue to make difficultbalance of investment decisions, creating capability gaps due to several factors. This includes financial pressure as well as cost overruns due to financial decisions and programme performance. Thesecapability gaps and risks have all been articulated in the annual Land Environment Capability Assessment Register which is regularly reviewed against the ever-developing threat and classified as Secret."

that one can conclude, with reasonable confidence,
- Warrior hulls beyond the minimum number for the 4 AI bns (turreted variant) and some special versions (AO, ambulance, recovery) that might only need marginal upgrades or none at all... will be junked
- the Army will soldier on with a much older platform (Bulldog) until about 2030
- by when the Boxer volumes will reach a level that makes it possible to introduce matching specialist versions, as replacements

[J. Tattersall]

Warrior hulls beyond the minimum number for the 4 AI bns

Indirectly raises an interesting point. Why actually would UK need more than 4 battalions of armoured infantry? While it has had many more armoured units in the past was that more due to legacy cold war era equipment purchases than to the objective needs of the army. If IR is the opportunity to right size the army (in equipment, personnel and organisational terms) then what should 'right size' be for armour? Might it be less than four battalions?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Might it be less than four battalions?

Let's take that in isolation
- a bn is the smallest unit (typically smaller than an all-arms BG) capable of independent action
- let's improve on the force generation cycle (1 out of 3 in readiness)... and have 3, somehow
- 3 plus something else (tanks?) could make up a brigade
- a brigade's sphere of influence is a max 70 km (different from a front; I hear they don't exist anymore)

So, in an intensive situation, against a peer, we could hold/ take that sort of patch (not specified where)
... would that be something that would, for instance, help us to maintain all the command postings that we currently hold across NATO? Just one indicator, not a goal in itself
BUT, the bottom line: I don't think so!

[BlueD954]

Technically there's a fifth battalion or sixth, but these are Army Reserve units and I doubt their will be equipped with Warrior or Warrior CSP all the time.

5 Rifles paired with 7 Rifles for eg.

Can't remember the exact pairing but this may help:




Or see

https://britisharmedforcesreview.files. ... rbat-1.pdf