Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[Lord Jim]

Whatever happened in the past, we have ended up with a dog's dinner of a programme. As mentioned in the article, upgrades are supposed to be quicker and cheaper than replacement yet we end up with programmes costs almost the same and taking longer, Warrior is a case in point.

[Ron5]

Whatever happened in the past, we have ended up with a dog's dinner of a programme. As mentioned in the article, upgrades are supposed to be quicker and cheaper than replacement yet we end up with programmes costs almost the same and taking longer, Warrior is a case in point.

I'm not sure that the program being an upgrade is the main problem but awarding the contract to a company with zero skills or experience based on their superior presentation skills, is not the way to achieve a speedy & successful outcome.

A bit like awarding the Type 31 contract to Babcock's. They must be thanking their lucky stars that a convenient excuse has emerged for their inevitable cost overruns and schedule delays.

[RetroSicotte]

I've removed he last number of posts that went past discussion or debate and just into insult and argument.

Either take it to PM, or be civil.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What happened with excess Warriors? Stored somewhere or?

Excess to what, old bean?

[Root] veg have re-entered the thread

EDIT: did I miss the Maris Piper dicussion (deleted), or was it on a related (AFV) thread?

[Ron5]

What's this then?

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0

Found on Defence Photography twitter.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good find:
Total value of the procurement (excluding VAT)
Value excluding VAT: 800 000 000.00 GBP

My guesstimate for the over-the-life cost (was made mandatory for projects of this size by your favourite Pinocchio) is twice the above
- neither of which include the value of the hulls as they enter into the process
- the 50% 'advertised cost does include keeping the fleet going (spares,too) over the first two years, and training
BUT; the projected life is to 2040+
... wasn't it ( along time ago) projected for 2035? So much water has passed under the Thames bridges inbetween that the actual number of years accounted for could actually be the same

Now, will they have MBTs to pair up with; and how many?

[Ron5]

Doesn't say how many Warriors will be upgraded either.

NAO did say to make Challenger 3 affordable the MoD cancelled some unspecified ATGW program(s) and cut numbers of tanks to be upgraded.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Doesn't say how many Warriors will be upgraded either.

That was the 'funny' bit... but it has been posted when all has been done and dusted, just to meet the letter of 'law'.
- 4 x 48 for the Warriors, but then there is maintenance reserve, BATUS and the version that will do the Ajax-Joint Fires job (less well) in the Warrior formations... 215?

I keep seeing 150 for Ch2s (will they be Ch3s?) but never a primary source for that number
- 3 x 48 (one from Yeomanry) plus a sqdrn for BATUS?

And the other Ch2s? Would be crazy not to keep them as 'infantry tanks' to be deployed in support of 1 Div formations... 7 Challies has been the number that can be landed in support of 3 Cdo

[Ron5]

I cling to my theory that in the post pandemic UK, the defense projects with the most UK content will be likely to be prioritized.

So for the army, I say up for : WSCP, Ajax, CR3 & Boxer.

And down for JLTV, Eagle/Bushmaster, Apache, ATGW & wheeled gun. Apache might be a done deal. The others are not.

Forget what else in on their plate.

PS yes, it's a bit sad some grunt in the MoD remembered to ask for the EEC's permission.

[Ron5]

PPS If it were me, I'd nudge UK industry to see if they could build JLTV under license. No harm in asking them and Uncle Donny (he owns the design I think).

[whitelancer]

I keep seeing 150 for Ch2s (will they be Ch3s?) but never a primary source for that number- 3 x 48 (one from Yeomanry) plus a sqdrn for BATUS?

I've seen 148 as the number to be updated. Assuming they maintain current Armoured Regiment organisation that will provide 2 Regiments with 56 for a total of 112. With one sqn at BATUS with 20 that will leave 16 for training, trials and development and as a sustainment fleet.
As for Warrior I believe an Armoured Infantry Battalion contains 57, on top of that their is the repair and recovery variant (plus the ones for the RA). In addition a battalion will have between 30 and 40 FV432 / CVR(T).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Eagle/Bushmaster, Apache, ATGW & wheeled gun. Apache might be a done deal.

I agree with the end of near-shoring and bringing the vital 'categories' back home... who could OshKosh instruct in the UK to build their battle wagon under license? It's more of a truck than a car

But as for the list, in detail
- only the MIV and Warrior bns will have protected ambulances, so there is a strong driver for the first half of the planned purchase (not so for the second half). All formations having some number of protected kind then makes it possible to have more of another kind (but the Landies are going) with the actual field hospital units. The whole affair goes back to the armed forces Covenant and putting the requirement into what now has turned into the JLTV bundle does not seem like such a great idea - except at the general level of keeping numbers of "non-std" vehicles in frontline formations to the minimum.
- wheeled gun? Could anyone conceive (or take seriously?) Strike bdes... with no artillery moving with them, at their pace. Taking the licensing idea, what could the US ERCA be mounted on (rather than being towed)? The new breach and hence meeting the performance parameters (ROF and range, as well natures of rounds) set by the army is only abt 2 years away... makes its availability the same as the time for standing up the first strike bde

As for Warrior I believe an Armoured Infantry Battalion contains 57, on top of that their is the repair and recovery variant (plus the ones for the RA). In addition a battalion will have between 30 and 40 FV432 / CVR(T).

Establishment strengths are all at sea, but it would be useful to calculate on this basis what number in total would come out of 4 bns (the ambulances have already been converted for A-stan).

[ArmChairCivvy]

I agree with the end of near-shoring and bringing the vital 'categories' back home... who could OshKosh instruct in the UK to build their battle wagon under license? It's more of a truck than a car

I thought that I would bring this thought over from the Brexit thread, though it is much wider and perhaps should move onto the SDSR thread for discussion

Online ordering and FaceTime may have been around for a few years but large numbers of particular older generations didn’t use them or understand them, now they been forced to use them in some cases the “fear” factor will have disappeared. Likewise online streaming and many other work related activities. Not that everything will change after lockdown but trends will change. For example there already had been a move in some industries to start near shoring or have less outsourcing that will not see renewed focus or changing of delivery models in aviation. The move into 3D printing may now see more investment in manufacturing.

From aviation (the Czechs are big in supplying spare parts for models out of production, just for starters), moving on, to the wider military, and the problem with limited/ recurring at infrequent intervals production runs:
"Parts produced with [these= affordable] printers historically have had poor strength and toughness, which prevented affordable printers from being used to resupply military parts on demand"

From https://www.army.mil/article/234790/new ... _producers

It is also the cover story of the April edition of Advanced Engineering Materials, a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal,
so anyone interested can follow the comments/ discussion and tell us if this is
A. pie in the sky (for now)
B. standard practice in the '30s, or
C. nonsense

[Lord Jim]

If we transpose the planned new vehicles into the existing organisations for both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry Regiments/Battalions, ignoring vehicles that are routinely attached but not organic and those assigned to BATUS, to equip the two Armoured Infantry Brigades we will need;

112 Challenger 2mod
118 Warrior 2
8 Challenger ARV
48 Ajax
180 Boxers in various configurations.

I have used the Boxer as the replacement for all the FV432 and specialist Warrior variants as well as all the CVR(T) variants except those in the Recce role, so for example the new Mortar Carrier is now based on the Boxer. You could reduce the number of Warrior required further by replacing those in the Support Company by further Boxers, where their greater carrying capacity would allow additional ammunition to be carrier for the ATGW etc.

As for production of the JLTV in the UK, well I think the initial orders should probably come from the US, but is we do end up buying the higher numbers suggested then possibly look to local manufacture. Whatever happens having a substantial repair and overhaul capacity to maintain and upgrade the fleet should be a non brainer. We should also seriously look and the Ambulance variant of the JLTV as an alternative to the MRV(P) part two platform using this and the Ambulance variant of the Boxer to cover the requirement. In fact I still believe that we do not really need the MRV(P) part two unless we are going to turn a number of the current Light Infantry Battalions in 1st (UK) Division into Motorized units. I would rather look to providing an air portable platform able to be carried inside a Chinook for 16 Air Assault, many of which are now either in production or at the latter stages of development in many countries.

[ArmChairCivvy]

112 Challenger 2mod
118 Warrior 2
8 Challenger ARV

While I applaud the 1:1 between the MBTs and the supporting infantry vehicles, and also the 1:10 between MBTs and what can (only) be recovered by such heavy&specialised vehicles
... the wider 'cocktail' goes amiss with:

- AJAX all being for strike bdes (surely not, in the longer run, BUT)
- and MIVs being there (in AI bdes) to reduce the number of Warriors (for now, or the near future).

Should we fix this discussion, or the projections, to be up to the point when the second Strike Bde will have been stood up
... anyone, tell me the date

[ArmChairCivvy]

... anyone, tell me the date

Err, my wording reminded me of the Warrior IFV version going to be around, to 2040 or later
- quite different from getting the 2nd Strike Bde stood up

[abc123]

If we transpose the planned new vehicles into the existing organisations for both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry Regiments/Battalions, ignoring vehicles that are routinely attached but not organic and those assigned to BATUS, to equip the two Armoured Infantry Brigades we will need;

112 Challenger 2mod
118 Warrior 2
8 Challenger ARV
48 Ajax
180 Boxers in various configurations.

But, why wouldn't Boxers be in Strike brigades and Ajax in Armoured instead?

[whitelancer]

112 Challenger 2mod
118 Warrior 2
8 Challenger ARV
48 Ajax
180 Boxers in various configurations.

If we just count the number of Warrior IFV''s the total required for 2 brigades would amount to 176.
With 44 per Battalion. This excludes any in support company..

[Lord Jim]

Sorry read the wrong line, the number of Warriors required in IFV form for the four Battalions would be 228.

As far as Ajax is concerned the whole programme should be cancelled as it is the wrong vehicle for the Army, being designed for a role that doesn't exist anymore and it being totally unsuited to be used as a light tank with only a 40mm autocannon. Remember the production contract is going to cost the MoD £3.5Bn!

Why use Boxers in the Armoured Infantry, well firstly they are a better fit to replace the FV432 in the roles it currently carries out and secondly if we take the Mortar Carrier, it makes sense to have a standard vehicle in both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry.

Mind even is we managed all of this, we still end up with a dog's dinner of four ineffective Brigade totally unsuited for the roles they are going to be used for, lacking core capabilities, sufficient firepower and in the case of the Strike Brigades a split personality that will prevent them from carrying out the role intended for them.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Remember the production contract is going to cost the MoD £3.5Bn!

If that's purely production, the fraction of 0.8 bn divided 3.5 bn and adjusted for the difference in numbers, say two and a half hundred vs. five and a half hundred may explain why the MoD has persisted with the travails of the Warrior prgrm?

[Lord Jim]

This is one of the reasons the NAO are so critical of the Ajax programme. The MoD has spent so much, yet still only around 8 Ares variants have been delivered to the Army at Bovington, no actual turreted variants have. The whole programme is just a dogs dinner with no one willing to take responsibility and admit that it has cost too much, has taken too long and that the vehicles is now no longer what the Army needs. The programme should have been kicked into touch at least a decade ago.

[Ron5]

From April 22 evidence to Parliamentary Defence Committee:

" ...the French have indicated that they are advancing between 30 and 50 projects at this time to support their industrial base. In the US, their $2 trillion package includes a $17 billion line that is effectively for Boeing. It is that sort of initiative that I am wondering whether you are actively considering the pursuit of, or whether you are bringing forward projects that would support our industrial base.

Mr Ben Wallace (Minister of Defence): We are not considering bringing anything forward at the moment .."

So much for my theory that high UK content projects will be prioritized.

Britain knows best #4,786,002.

[ArmChairCivvy]

at the moment

Translation: he is not in the inner circle; what a wonderful way of avoiding contradicting himself (later)

[Ron5]

https://twitter.com/DefencePhoto/status ... 0827627521

https://twitter.com/DefencePhoto/status ... 2876359680

[SW1]

Possibly applicable to Ajax too