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.
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
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
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.
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
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?]
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.