Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[shark bait]

What are the options? It's likely a new Ajax variant, or a new Boxer variant so their is no quick drop in solution.

That's two half developed possible solutions, would that take substantially longer than CSP to deliver?

[RetroSicotte]

What are the options? It's likely a new Ajax variant, or a new Boxer variant so their is no quick drop in solution.

That's two half developed possible solutions, would that take substantially longer than CSP to deliver?

That's the real question. The UK already has committed a contract for 245 CT40s, gotta find them a home after all. Ajax would be the easier changeover, of course, but then can the current manufacturing of it cope with a rapid changeover? Is it as simply as stripping out the fancy Ajax stuff from the back of the vehicle?

Lot of variables in this decision, but if they're considering dropping Warrior CSP at this point and thus condemning an otherwise reliable and understood vehicle, then that program must be in dire straits. Lockheed was it responsible for most of it? Remarkable if they can't even get an overhaul and turret replacement right after well over a decade of turret design trials on the thing.

[shark bait]

Surely it can't be too difficult, I would imagine an IFV is a little simpler with fewer complex electronics, but I admit that is a big guess. Some of the work must also be done, because GD offers and IFV for sale.

The project clearly is in dire straights, thus the silence, but I thought most of it was commercial rather than technical?

[RetroSicotte]

Surely it can't be too difficult, I would imagine an IFV is a little simpler with fewer complex electronics, but I admit that is a big guess. Some of the work must also be done, because GD offers and IFV for sale.

The project clearly is in dire straights, thus the silence, but I thought most of it was commercial rather than technical?

Oh I have no doubt it's simple to do. Unless something about the Ajax turret has issues, it really shouldn't be anything more than the ASCODs troop compartment with some stripped out kit and boom, there you go.

My main concern about Ajax is it's already deep into manufacturing 500+ vehicles, can that manufacturing line be turned around? Would it delay the "Scout" aspect to a costly point? Could they handle another 3-400 vehicles on top of it in their factory? The industrial logistics are my worry with that option.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The UK already has committed a contract for 245 CT40s, gotta find them a home after all.

A long-running topic

[shark bait]

Lockheed Martin already appear to be hedging their betes on the CTA40 turret, showing it on top on boxer. That would be very nice right? And reduces the need for Ajax in the strike brigades.

Could they handle another 3-400 vehicles on top of it in their factory?

Does it need to be that many? I'm assuming by doing the right thing and removing Ajax from the strike brigades would free up some slots for an IFV variant.

[RetroSicotte]

Lockheed Martin already appear to be hedging their betes on the CTA40 turret, showing it on top on boxer. That would be very nice right? And reduces the need for Ajax in the strike brigades.

Could they handle another 3-400 vehicles on top of it in their factory?

Does it need to be that many? I'm assuming by doing the right thing and removing Ajax from the strike brigades would free up some slots for an IFV variant.

If you're losing that many Warriors, then yes, you do need that many. And thats a lowball figure to replace what was truly lost with Warriors extended fleet. Still need vehicle numbers in the end.

[Timmymagic]

What are the options? It's likely a new Ajax variant, or a new Boxer variant so their is no quick drop in solution.

That's two half developed possible solutions, would that take substantially longer than CSP to deliver?

Get Ajax as an IFV, carry on with Boxer and take the turrets off Warrior and replace FV432 with them. Jobs a good 'un.

Oh and then sue the arse off LM...

[mr.fred]

Oh I have no doubt it's simple to do. Unless something about the Ajax turret has issues, it really shouldn't be anything more than the ASCODs troop compartment with some stripped out kit and boom, there you go.

The door at the back is a bit small
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AJAX ... 161419.jpg
and there doesn't seem to be much hull space behind the turret
https://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/wp-c ... g_test.jpg

[Lord Jim]

I think I mentioned elsewhere, GD has developed a new family of vehicles based on the ASCOD but leveraging items from the Ajax programme. This includes an IFV and a 120mm armed variants. This new ASCOD has far more commonality with Ajax than its predecessor so could be utilised to provide a solution to Warrior being canned.

[ArmChairCivvy]

This includes an IFV and a 120mm armed variants.

The latter is a glaring omission in the Ajax/ Strike bde prgrms; the former would turn the current prgrms of fleet replacement on their head(s)... whereas doing the electric & al mods to Warriors (which was a separate prgrm, anyway, from the turret& gun) and using them in roles where FV432s are still retained? Then we might have something to take the Army - and its thinking on what kind of formations fit the bill (in two ways) - to 2035-40

[Lord Jim]

A combination of Ajax and Boxer would probably provide the Army with all the variants necessary to totally replace the FV430 series throughout the various units still equipped.

[Jake1992]

What are the chances of us adopting the Ajax based variant as a Replacemt for the Warriors at some point, with it being put forward for the Aus set up it wouldn't mean us developing a new IFV.

Would it be a better option than upgrading the Warriors ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

with it being put forward for the Aus set up it wouldn't mean us developing a new IFV.

Would it be a better option than upgrading the Warriors ?

As the previous SecDef would say: the Warrior prgrm is, errr, complex .

[mr.fred]

What are the chances of us adopting the Ajax based variant as a Replacemt for the Warriors at some point, with it being put forward for the Aus set up it wouldn't mean us developing a new IFV.

But it would mean us taking a share of developing a new IFV, or at least waiting for it to come along

Would it be a better option than upgrading the Warriors ?

No.
New IFVs seem to come in between 6-10 million currency (euros, dollars, Sterling) as a programme cost. The Warrior programme would have to get considerably more expensive to match that. It would also mean giving up on the CT40 as a common cannon, which would increase its ongoing costs and likely result in its obsolence sooner than would otherwise be the case.

[Lord Jim]

As it stands the rebuilt Warrior is the best we are going to get and to be honest it ain't a bad piece of equipment We are getting basically a new vehicle with greatly enhanced capabilities equal to almost any medium IFV out there. The issue I have is the convoluted nature of the whole programme and why they are not already in service.

[Luke jones]

For half the cost of new vehicles Warrior 2 should be the way forward. We own 700 of them after all.

Does anybody actually know what the problem is with this upgrade?
Why is it taking so long?
We were told it was coming soon when we were in Afghan in 2010. Its glacial.

[ArmChairCivvy]

For half the cost of new vehicles Warrior 2 should be the way forward. We own 700 of them after all.

Does anybody actually know what the problem is with this upgrade

There's two sides to the story; someone might know how the testing is going with the 8 delivered for that purpose?
- probably more important than how they actually perform will be the MTBF

We may (have) own(ed) 700 in all, but the original prgrm targeted 600, with a £ 1 bn budget
- the thru-life costing has been revised to £1.8 bn; for a smaller overall number!
- the MTBF stats may (?) bring another revision

So, is there an alternative? Battlespace, by Julian Nettlefold, had an article a year ago with this view:
". An Ajax solution for WCSP would give a huge [?] saving in Through Life Costs [the good old argument: save by paying more upfront!], commonality and fleet age and could be the answer though this would be a significant upfront investment and further delay.

The Warriors would then transition to ABSV variants, removing the turrets,, which of course reduces weight, and thus allows more protection, would give an FV430 Series Replacement as the US Army has done with the older Bradley chassis under the AMPV Program to replace the M113 fleet. Surplus Warrior vehicles would then be cannibalized to provide a spares package. "

Julian seems to be giving a vote to my long running view of where we will find the 245 turrets with CTA guns :
" transition to ABSV variants, removing the turrets,"

[Jake1992]

For half the cost of new vehicles Warrior 2 should be the way forward. We own 700 of them after all.

Does anybody actually know what the problem is with this upgrade

There's two sides to the story; someone might know how the testing is going with the 8 delivered for that purpose?
- probably more important than how they actually perform will be the MTBF

We may (have) own(ed) 700 in all, but the original prgrm targeted 600, with a £ 1 bn budget
- the thru-life costing has been revised to £1.8 bn; for a smaller overall number!
- the MTBF stats may (?) bring another revision

So, is there an alternative? Battlespace, by Julian Nettlefold, had an article a year ago with this view:
". An Ajax solution for WCSP would give a huge [?] saving in Through Life Costs [the good old argument: save by paying more upfront!], commonality and fleet age and could be the answer though this would be a significant upfront investment and further delay.

The Warriors would then transition to ABSV variants, removing the turrets,, which of course reduces weight, and thus allows more protection, would give an FV430 Series Replacement as the US Army has done with the older Bradley chassis under the AMPV Program to replace the M113 fleet. Surplus Warrior vehicles would then be cannibalized to provide a spares package. "

Julian seems to be giving a vote to my long running view of where we will find the 245 turrets with CTA guns :
" transition to ABSV variants, removing the turrets,"

For me this is the route to go, a long term plan with the aim of bringing all the medium armour down to 2 families ( tracked based on the Ajax family, wheeled based on the boxer family )
As mentioned it would be a large up front cost but the end savings from the reduction in through life cost and training would out weight that to me.




We can now see the IFV Ajax is here so design costs to bring it in line with what we'd want would be minimul. Say change out the turret to a CT40 so it falls in line with the Ajax scout.

[Lord Jim]

All of the above is perfectly logical but there is one major issue and that is the up front cost. the MoD's budget is so taught that there is definitely no money available up to 2025 and after that there is still a bow wave of existing planned programmes that will absorb the majority of funding. The saving from cancelling the WCSP will not cover the ABSV conversions in all probability as that programme appears to be basically unfunded. We will make do with Warrior until its planned OSD unless there is significant additional money put into the Army's AFV programme.

[mr.fred]

We can now see the IFV Ajax is here so design costs to bring it in line with what we'd want would be minimul. Say change out the turret to a CT40 so it falls in line with the Ajax scout.

Assuming you meant minimal cost, you’ve got a funny idea of what “minimal” means. Developing a new turret to fit the CT40 to fit on the ASCOD IFV hull isn’t going to be cheap. Then buying all these brand new vehicles will cost as well.

And we’ve not got any money up front.

[Jake1992]

We can now see the IFV Ajax is here so design costs to bring it in line with what we'd want would be minimul. Say change out the turret to a CT40 so it falls in line with the Ajax scout.

Assuming you meant minimal cost, you’ve got a funny idea of what “minimal” means. Developing a new turret to fit the CT40 to fit on the ASCOD IFV hull isn’t going to be cheap. Then buying all these brand new vehicles will cost as well.

And we’ve not got any money up front.

Yes I did mean minimal sorry my spelling is not the best.
Considering this new IFV is based on the Ajax which is designed to operate the CT40 changing the design from the Aus turret back to a CT40 would not cost an arm and a leg.
Yes we would have to buy these vehicles but that is not part of a desgin cost.

I agree we havnt got the money to do so, I was mearly stating that I belive a long term plan such as this would be the best way forward.

As I see it one if the biggest problems across all percurment in the MOD is having to stick to the fix year budget, this has caused projects to cost vastly more or ended up with vastly less units due to an inefficient way of spending.
The money for each projected needs to be spent a the way that gets best value for the tax payer, now if this means spending £2bn in year one of a project instead of £500m but leads to low cost down the line of the project then that's how it should be.

[bobp]

I read somewhere that the Warrior protection against mines was low and that the positioning of the fuel tank had something to do with it. Could the protection level be an issue in the upgrade program bearing in mind recent conflicts and IED munitions.

[mr.fred]

I read somewhere that the Warrior protection against mines was low

Compared to what?

and that the positioning of the fuel tank had something to do with it.

The details of that sort of thing is something that anyone who knows should neither deny nor confirm

Could the protection level be an issue in the upgrade program bearing in mind recent conflicts and IED munitions.

Given that Warrior was used extensively on both Telic and Herrick that hypothesis seems shaky.

[mr.fred]

Considering this new IFV is based on the Ajax which is designed to operate the CT40 changing the design from the Aus turret back to a CT40 would not cost an arm and a leg.

Is it based on the Ajax or the Ares? Given the hull shape, I'd think the latter, which may result in limitations that preclude the CT40
Is that turret a two-man recce turret, like the Ajax, or a more lightly featured two man turret built around a 30mm? What's the hull intrusion of the different turrets?