UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Monty1985
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 27 Jan 2019, 13:42
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Monty1985 » 23 Feb 2019, 09:35

Is there any particular reason we are sticking with the Warrior? (I mean it was a good platform in it's day and at first glance it makes sense to upgrade it like other countries are doing to their IFVs). However we are in the process of introducing the Ajax family of vehicles to replace the CVR(T)s, but that in itself is based on an existing IFV design. Surely the sensible thing to do would be to have a stripped down Ajax with all the scouty bits taken off?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 10:15

A stripped down and substantially re-built Ajax would be heeded for the IFV role.

Plus there is cost:
The mixed fleet of turreted and turretless (about 50:50) Ajax family comes in at an average of £6m a piece. The Warrior contract is somewhere around £3m a piece.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 23 Feb 2019, 11:16

Monty1985 wrote:Is there any particular reason we are sticking with the Warrior? (I mean it was a good platform in it's day and at first glance it makes sense to upgrade it like other countries are doing to their IFVs). However we are in the process of introducing the Ajax family of vehicles to replace the CVR(T)s, but that in itself is based on an existing IFV design. Surely the sensible thing to do would be to have a stripped down Ajax with all the scouty bits taken off?

Possibly, but it be a very different beast to the AJAX for the user. You'd effectively have a shared hull and drivetrain, but different training and maintenance procedures.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2019, 13:00

Of course thing have come full circle here with the latest ASCOD IFV leveraging the majority of the improvements incorporated into the Ajax. It would be theoretically possible to reduce the number of planned Ajax, as we seem to have too many scouts on order, and change those at the tail end of the existing contract to an IFV variant and possibly extend the numbers to cover the amount needed to replace the Warrior but this would be far form cost neutral. We would though end up with a common tracked medium AFV fleet which could introduce savings down the line.

However as it stands the final version of the Warrior CEP now going through testing seems to be for all intents and purposes a new vehicle and as capable as most IFV out there. Where the Army needs to invest any money freed up from amending the Ajax programme, and also scrapping the Warrior BASV is in the Boxer plain and simple.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 13:45

What’s CEP? I’ve seen you use it for Warrior and Challenger, but I’m not familiar with it for either.
Warrior CSP is Capability Sustainment Programme
Challenger LEP is Life Extension Project

CEP?

I don’t know what the minimum number of Ajax is, but the turreted numbers are less than half of the total. I’d be reticent to commit to a medium armour fleet beyond 2030, with the changes going through the automotive industry with drivetrains.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 23 Feb 2019, 17:35

mr.fred wrote:I don’t know what the minimum number of Ajax is, but the turreted numbers are less than half of the total. I’d be reticent to commit to a medium armour fleet beyond 2030, with the changes going through the automotive industry with drivetrains.

245 Ajax turrets for a 589 all-variants fleet.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2019, 17:56

Ok I've been using CEP for Capability Enhancement Programme, rather then CSP because I see it more in that light as against just keeping the respective platforms running as the latter suggests. Sorry for any confusion.

As for the numbers, if each Ajax Regiment has three Recce Squadrons equipped with the actual Ajax then the number required is at most 120 equipped with the CTA40. If the Close Recce Troops in both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units also receive the Ajax that adds at most a further 40 so the maximum number of Ajax/CTA40 we should need is say 170 rounding up.

However if I follow my preferred reorganisation, then we only have two Recce Regiments, one in each Armoured Infantry Brigade, then we could end up needing as few as 100. So that would leave nearly 500 Ajax platforms to be used as required. 320 would be enough to re-equip the four remaining Armoured Infantry Battalions, leaving over 120 to be used in various support roles.

These number are not scientific but as far as they are concerned and if both the will to do it and the funding was available, the Ajax family could replace the bulk of the Warrior fleet, with the Boxer filling in the gaps.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 18:36

Remember that the Specialist Vehicle (SV) fleet consists of turreted Ajax, plus the turretless PMRS (Ares, Athena and Argus) and engineering variants (Apollo and Atlas) so you’ve only got 250-odd turrets to play with, which isn’t enough if you re-roled all of them.
If you want to covert the others, you’ll need to find the £2m or so per vehicle on top of the existing contract for turrets.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2019, 18:55

RunningStrong wrote:245 Ajax turrets for a 589 all-variants fleet.
but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gun
Lord Jim wrote:so the maximum number of Ajax/CTA40 we should need is say 170 rounding up.
add maintenance/ upgrading 10% =187, and what's needed in BATUS for 'real(alistic) training' and voi la! 215 is not far off

Whereas for Warrior no source seems to quote a number lower than 380; sure, we may have special versions as well, but there are 4 AI bns (any companies from reserves to be appended), so how many does that call for?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 19:22

ArmChairCivvy wrote:but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gun

I don’t think that’s true. Why would it be?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2019, 19:43

mr.fred wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:but only 215 of the 245 turrets come with the CTA gun

I don’t think that’s true. Why would it be?

Was working off the numbers in my head
- CTA guns 215 (plus ten for testing)
- Joint Fires Control, 23 vehicles, and Ground Based Surveillance, 24 vehicles
- the former have turrets (fake guns, not to be easily recognised, and saving space inside the turret for 'more essential' things)

245 minus the 23 gives 222, so what will be happening with the 10 test guns: barrels depleted on 3 and 7 (hopefully) pressed 'back' into service
- the plus minus zero check sum doing columns and rows in the Ajax & Co orders have never been 100% clear to me
- esp. when tests showed that doing the Joint Fires Control job equally well in those rgmnts that have Warrior as the base AFV would need two of them fitted out (for each one Ajax JFC)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2019, 20:07

The 380 for Warrior must include the support variants plus those earmarked for the mythical BASV programme as there are only 57 Warriors in a AI Battalion together with around 20 FV432s and 8 CVR(T)s. BATUS is a strange subject and seems to be up their with other sacrosanct institutions where it is the greatest sin to even threaten its existence. Well if we work on it being a Battalion sized battlegroup with the OpFor being older vehicles namely non upgraded Warriors CRs and retained CVR(T)s then we would need another 40 odd Ajax variants to cover that so that would mean a maximum of 150 Ajax/ASCOD IFVs.

These could use the new turret developed by LM with the spare Ajax/CTA40 Turrets going to a Fire Support variant of the Boxer to give each Battalions a units of 8 or each platoon one. The support variants of the Ajax already on order would replace the majority of the FV432 used throughout the AI Brigade with as I mentions before Boxer filling in the gaps.

This would all be part of a wider reorganisation of the British Army into six Brigades, two Armoured Infantry, two Mechanised Infantry and two Motorised Infantry, with a Special Forces/Ranger formation made up of the SAS and Paras. I have already discussed some of this before in the Army 2025 Refined thread but will put an updated post on there tomorrow.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2019, 20:28

Lord Jim wrote:with the spare Ajax/CTA40 Turrets [if any]going to a Fire Support variant of the Boxer to give each Battalions a units of 8 or each platoon one.


What a great idea ;)
- what ratio would that make for, at the platoon level (turreted vs. APC-like )?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Gabriele » 23 Feb 2019, 20:43

Was working off the numbers in my head
- CTA guns 215 (plus ten for testing)
- Joint Fires Control, 23 vehicles, and Ground Based Surveillance, 24 vehicles
- the former have turrets (fake guns, not to be easily recognised, and saving space inside the turret for 'more essential' things)


Warrior FV514 has the fake gun; Ajax Joint Fires will have a real one.

It's 245 real gun vehicles for Warrior and 245 for Ajax, out of an order total of 515 CT40 guns. 25 are for trials and test and stuff.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 20:59

Lord Jim wrote:The 380 for Warrior must include the support variants plus those earmarked for the mythical BASV programme as there are only 57 Warriors in a AI Battalion together with around 20 FV432s and 8 CVR(T)s.

At 57 per battalion you’ll hit a hard limit at 4 if you convert all turreted Ajax. If you count recce formations, training and spares you’d be lucky to get two battalions of AI before needing to add more (at greater than £6m a pop)
BATUS is a strange subject and seems to be up their with other sacrosanct institutions where it is the greatest sin to even threaten its existence.
Maybe. But could you answer what you’d do without the facility?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2019, 21:47

I was not suggesting converting Ajax/CTA40 into the IFV. What I was doing was saying that we take the 170 already on order and use them in the recce role as intended. 250 would be purchased as the latest ASCOD IFV which is basically an Ajax IFV using the turret LM developed for the Warrior upgrade. The support variant (the remaining 170) would be used to replace the FV432 and CVR(T) support variants in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units as well as the Recce ones. To help with this you would have the money earmarked for the production of the Warrior CSP and Warrior BASV to supplement the existing Ajax budget. Some of the roles undertaken at present by the FV432 and CVR(T) would be taken on by variants of the Boxer such as Command vehicles replacing the Sultans currently used in this role, and also take on the role of armoured Ambulance, negating the need for the Ajax variant.

Obviously there is a lot more to this if one wanted to go right down into the weeds regarding detail but it is a real world option. It is a half way house between carrying on with what is currently planned and going for my actually preferred option and replacing the Warrior with Boxer variants and reducing the Ajax programme to roughly half of what it is now. Like the RAF the Army is going to have to get used to not having a large number of stored assets It is going to have to gain the maximum serviceability from the vehicle it has in the units.

But here I am just pointing out a viable number of options at a time when the Army is finally getting round to bringing its AFV fleet up to date, and has the opportunity to think outside the box and under go a transformation. the current plan is the field two heavy formations that would not look out of place in BOAR and two "Strike" brigades that whilst good on paper seem to lack a density in firepower that smaller units need to have to take a numerically superior opponent. A Boxer equipped battalion only has 12 Javelin launch units with around six missiles per launcher. These are the main AT weapon of the Battalion and will have to be fired out in the open not under armour, I could go on.

The Army has some good kit on order and more could be on the way, eventually but the organisation has to be right to get the most out of both the equipment and personnel.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Feb 2019, 22:44

Lord Jim wrote:I was not suggesting converting Ajax/CTA40 into the IFV. What I was doing was saying that we take the 170 already on order and use them in the recce role as intended. 250 would be purchased as the latest ASCOD IFV which is basically an Ajax IFV using the turret LM developed for the Warrior upgrade. The support variant (the remaining 170) would be used to replace the FV432 and CVR(T) support variants in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units as well as the Recce ones.

The current contract is £3.5bn for 250-ish each of the the turreted and unturreted tactical variants, plus 90-odd engineering vehicles. As I understand it. It appears that you want to convert 170 turretless vehicles into turretted, which would cost probably £2-3m a go, at the least. The ASCOD IFV that you describe doesn't exist at present, so that's a bunch more development.
Lord Jim wrote:To help with this you would have the money earmarked for the production of the Warrior CSP and Warrior BASV to supplement the existing Ajax budget.
ABSV. Which I don't think is funded?
Lord Jim wrote:Obviously there is a lot more to this if one wanted to go right down into the weeds regarding detail but it is a real world option. It is a half way house between carrying on with what is currently planned and going for my actually preferred option and replacing the Warrior with Boxer variants and reducing the Ajax programme to roughly half of what it is now. Like the RAF the Army is going to have to get used to not having a large number of stored assets It is going to have to gain the maximum serviceability from the vehicle it has in the units.

Kick the can down the road and its FRES all over again. Chasing the idealised (which may not even be possible) at the cost of the attainable. Meanwhile the army soldiers on (geddit?) with increasingly obsolescent equipment. I can't say it's not a real world option because it's been done before, but can we not?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2019, 23:04

A demonstrator of the latest ASCOD IFV which is in reality a IFV based on the Ajax already exists, and being a simpler vehicle compared to the Recce version it would also be cheaper. We have a contact of around 580 of the Ajax family and if we followed such a fictional route these would be new build vehicle not conversions of vehicles already delivered. They would replace them in the contract. Only a few dozen Ajax have been built as yet so nothing is literally set in stone as deliveries are destined to take years.

We all agree that Army has needed to revitalise its AFV fleet for years, the continued use of the FV432 is a prime example. It is finally getting at least some new kit, but all of these programmes have been run at a pace that gives the impression they are going backwards. The upgraded Warrior looks like it will be a good platform and a great leap forward in capability over the existing version.

The option I was suggesting was one where he Army would get a totally new vehicle that is part of one family covering a multitude of roles within the Armoured Infantry and armoured units. This mean common training, maintenance and running costs, and these would produce saving through out the life of the Ajax family fleet. By putting money currently earmarked for the Warrior CSP into the Ajax programme the would be a negligible need for new money.

This was not an in depth fully laid out proposal just an observation that there could be options going forward. These suggestions do not warrant the school master critique as if it was a full blown dissertation. Next I will have red lines drawn all over highlighting my woeful spelling and grammar. :roll:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Feb 2019, 04:07

Gabriele wrote:It's 245 real gun vehicles for Warrior and 245 for Ajax, out of an order total of 515 CT40 guns. 25 are for trials and test and stuff.

Thx, this is what happens writing off the top of "memory" so I had taken the x15 from the total, and 'transported' it to the subtotal (which is 245; not 215)
Lord Jim wrote:Some of the roles undertaken at present by the FV432 and CVR(T) would be taken on by variants of the Boxer such as Command vehicles replacing the Sultans currently used in this role, and also take on the role of armoured Ambulance, negating the need for the Ajax variant.
Whether negating or not; still a good idea in formations where the number of platforms needing REME support can be reduced - and making good use of the larger internal volume (of the high-roofed version of) the 8x8 vehicle.
Lord Jim wrote:Like the RAF the Army is going to have to get used to not having a large number of stored assets
Not so sure as Whole Fleet Mgt makes a lot of sense for assets that are meant to last (and be trained on/ with) for 40 years or so.
Lord Jim wrote:These are the main AT weapon of the Battalion and will have to be fired out in the open not under armour, I could go on.
I fully agree with the 'pitiful' count for the bn of what amounts to 'any' kind of longer-ranged direct fire. At the same time LMUK can offer, off the shelf, the same kind of turret that went onto the Qatari order of half a thousand French 8x8s:
"The VBCI 2 is motorized with a more powerful engine Volvo D13 turbocharged diesel developing 600 hp.

The CTA 40 turret is armed with the CTA International 40 mm Cased Telescoped Cannon System (CTCS). A 40mm CTA APFSDS round penetrates more than 140mm of armoured steel. Second armament includes a remotely operated weapon station armed with a 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun. Two launchers for anti-tank guided missiles can be mounted on each side of the turret."
- my old hobby horse is that one in four should be of this kind... at the platoon level, in Boxer-equipped Bns. That would alleviate the 'sticker shock' that mr. fred was referring to, while making these Bns much more capable on their own, without needing the forming of a 'BG' every time, from assets held at the next level-up formation (= Bde)... just think of which part of a (Strike) bde is likely to arrive first on "the scene", whichever way the bde or the lead element of it might be deployed: on wheels/ rail/ plane/ C17 cum A400M/ ship

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Feb 2019, 09:42

Lord Jim wrote:A demonstrator of the latest ASCOD IFV which is in reality a IFV based on the Ajax already exists, and being a simpler vehicle compared to the Recce version it would also be cheaper. We have a contact of around 580 of the Ajax family and if we followed such a fictional route these would be new build vehicle not conversions of vehicles already delivered. They would replace them in the contract. Only a few dozen Ajax have been built as yet so nothing is literally set in stone as deliveries are destined to take years.

Does it? I’ve only seen models, built for the Australian competition, that have a 30mm bushmaster in an updated Delco turret. If it existed it may well be cheaper than the Ajax variant, but it will be more expensive than the turretless variants. While the vehicles may not yet have been built, the price and mix have been determined, so changing less expensive models for more expensive ones would incur greater cost
.
Lord Jim wrote:
The option I was suggesting was one where he Army would get a totally new vehicle that is part of one family covering a multitude of roles within the Armoured Infantry and armoured units. This mean common training, maintenance and running costs, and these would produce saving through out the life of the Ajax family fleet. By putting money currently earmarked for the Warrior CSP into the Ajax programme the would be a negligible need for new money.

Savings that may be realised eventually. Your proposal might break even (or it might not) but it would also delay provision of a new vehicle for the AI battalions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Feb 2019, 10:08

The US 'ABSV' prgrm going slightly better than ours (from armyrecognition):
"the AMPV program is exciting because it brings soldiers one step closer to deploying this critical capability for completing their missions and coming home safely,” said Bill Sheehy, AMPV program director for BAE Systems’ combat vehicles business. “We have been preparing for this moment and are ready to take this program to the next stage.”

Previously awarded funding to support production planning, combined with the $128 million January award allowed BAE Systems to start production. A second award in February for $447 million brings the total LRIP funding so far to $873 million.

The AMPV program provides the Army with a more survivable and mobile fleet of vehicles that addresses a critical need to replace the Vietnam War-era M113s. Production will include five variants of the AMPV: command and control, general purpose, medical evacuation, medical treatment, and mortar carrier.

The AMPV is a mature, cost-effective solution that leverages the most modern and proven combat vehicle designs. It meets the Army’s force protection and all-terrain mobility requirements, enabling the AMPV to maneuver with the rest of the ABCT. Commonality within the ABCT also reduces developmental risk and streamlines maintenance, providing significant cost savings to the Army."

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Feb 2019, 02:03

If I remember rightly the US Army has wanted to replace the M113 series with a platform based on the M2 Bradley for quite some time. To say this programme is low risk is an understatement. But then again their support vehicle programme is just that a well thought out and funded one. Spot the difference between this and our Warrior ABSV idea.

As for the ASCOD/Ajax IFV well it has the same drivetrain, transmission, armour package and so one as the Ajax family already in the works. The development work has been done for the LM turret for the Warrior CSP and so would make a good choice for the IFV. We basically have the support variants already on the way so another box ticked. And I could go one and on.

However I would prefer a clean slate and both dispose of the Warrior and at least half the Ajax order. Instead I would double down on the Boxer and JLTV families to equip our units going forward utilising their inherent adaptability, larger customer base and greater support infrastructure.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Feb 2019, 02:52

Ok so my brain is starting to get into gear on this. Let us assume the Warrior programme(s) as dead with no further investment and so he Infantry have to make do for ne near future with what they have got. Accelerate the Boxer programme and initially replace the FV432 and CVR(T) variants in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units. Whilst this is going on work with the Boxer manufacturers to install either the Ajax or LM Warrior turret in a IFV module for the platform, with room left for six dismounts.

What I want to avoid is the Army making the same mistake it did with Ajax. By the time it was mature enough to given a production contract, the role it was intended for had moved on and the army was desperate to bring it into service after so many disastrous AFV programmes delivering nothing that it went looking for a new role. The Army needs to get the right equipment to replace its legacy AFVs, to meet the threats that exist today and may exist tomorrow. In my mind a combination of variants from both the Boxer and JLTV families more that meets this need. Both are capable of operating in high intensity Peer level warfare and everything that comes below it. Both these platforms are highly adaptable and make it far easier to update their capabilities to meet emerging threats. The logistics tail needed to support and deploy such units would be far less than a traditional Armoured Infantry unit.

The Warrior CSP has taken the platform to its maximum state of evolution whereas both the Boxer and JLTV are just beginning. The former could even replace the AS-90 being just one example. Adopting the Warrior CSP is equipping the Army to fight as it did in the 1980s and 90s in Germany. In future units will have to change location rapidly to counter enemy action, over far larger areas than the tracked Warrior can. We will still have an issue with the movement of out CR2s over similar distances but as the Boxer and JLTV can self deploy easily, the resources can be concentrated on moving these and the support vehicles based on the platform.

We are at a critical crossroads for the re-equipment of the British Army and still ahve time to change direction. It would still be possible to retain three CR2 Regiments, possibly slight smaller for example. We could then have a triangular three Brigade Division with each Brigade containing an Armoured Regiment, three Mechanised/Armoured Infantry Battalions and supported by two indepandant Ajax eqiopped Recce Regiments and a Division Artillery Brigade of Three RA Regiments with SP 155mm guns and one with GMLRS, all based on wheeled chassis. The Air Defence Regiments would also be equiped with wheeled paltforms as would the Engineers and signals with the exception of the Heavy unit witht he CR2 based engineering platforms.

Yes there will be further delay to the re-equipping of the Infantry but the Boxer and jltv can be brought into service pretty quickly and the associated support infrastructure brought on line at the same time. I could be feasible to have everything in place withing six to ten years including the CR2 CSP. Funding will obviously be needed up front but ith funds from the now cancelled Warrior CSP and from the reduction inthe Ajax programme, ther should be enough to get the ball rolling. The MoD will have to make the case for greatly reduced support costs down the line as part of it pitch to gain the balance of what is needed to push this reorganisation through.

I can see the Army getting one shot at getting this right for once, so they had better make sure they do even if they have to take a step back and re think a few things. If they get it right the Army will be equipped to meet almost any challenge for decades to come.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Feb 2019, 05:29

Lord Jim wrote:If I remember rightly the US Army has wanted to replace the M113 series with a platform based on the M2 Bradley for quite some time.


No comment on wanting, but what they are doing is remanufacturing (some; not a small number) recce Bradleys into an IFV config and in parallel filling the support vehicle gap with these M-113 based versions
- two gaps, two interim solutions

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Feb 2019, 05:49

Lord Jim wrote:Boxer and JLTV are just beginning. The former could even replace the AS-90 being just one example.
True. Just spotted that for two RHA/RA rgmnts the re-equipping with Joint Fires vehicles is noted as Ajax/ MIV, so that would indicate a Boxer version being considered that has not been announced yet
- would it not be funny (not!) if we got the wheeled artillery/ rocket artillery and the spotting/ control vehicles for them had a much slower transit speed
Lord Jim wrote: It would still be possible to retain three CR2 Regiments
Well, we will have the third one in Yeomanry - a formed unit, instead of the earlier "replacement crews". Subject to CR2 LEP numbers (not decided/ announced yet)
Lord Jim wrote:supported by two indepandant Ajax eqiopped Recce Regiments
Looked into the 245 guns for the Ajax side of things, and the other two version aside (that will get such turrets), the pure-bred recce one will number 198. Makes for 16 squadrons; where would you use those 16... remembering the fire-support role for (any?) Strike formations?
Lord Jim wrote: Infantry have to make do for ne near future with what they have got.

That would be a v near future indeed; this was the leading-in sentence to your long text. Namely
- before the Warrior prgrm now running (but not "production ordered" yet) the OSD was 2025... we are cutting it fine under all scenarios!
- and, the Boxer ISD 2023


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests