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.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3292
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Feb 2019, 07:10

If we went with retaining three CR2 Regiments, the simplest option would be to not convert one into a Recce Regiment, which as I am suggests at least halving the Ajax programme would not be an issue. When I said slightly smaller, this would entail reducing each of the three squadrons to 14 CR2 plus the 2 at Regimental Headquarters. These would go to forming the majority of two of the three Squadrons in the third Regiment leaving a balance of an additional 20 CR2 to form the unit.

Even with three Mechanised Brigades, my thoughts have turned to BATUS, and to whether there could be a more effective and efficient alternative? What would people think if we requested a permanent present at the US Army's training facilities moving a Battalion Battlegroups worth of kit there and adding complimentary simulators to their complex. This would again be a case of money up front, but the increased training opportunities and reduced support costs would once again be realised down the road.

With this alternative organisation, there would be no "Strike Brigades". In addition to the nine Mechanised Infantry Battalions in the Mechanised Brigades I would stand up between two and three Motorised Infantry Brigades, using various versions of the JLTV as their protected transport. This is available is variants too numerous to mention, basically you come up with a role and the manufacturers has a vehicle to meet it. One is a Patrol Vehicle bale to carry six dismounts. Another is a SP Mortar Carrier, another a Command Vehicle and so on. These Brigades would be supported by two RA Regiments equipped with the M777A2 towed gun and a RH Air Defence Regiment equipped with pedestal Starstreak and yet again mounted in a JLTV variant. Finally in each Brigade at least one battalion would also be trained for airmobile operations, ideally two, giving these formation great flexibility.

Together with the three Parachute Battalions tasked as Rangers to perform spearhead operations as well as supporting the SF, the Army will have 24 Infantry Battalions all of which would the at mounted in at least protected vehicles or in the case of the Para's partially equipped.

This is a reduction of five regular Battalions, though I would go further and have one battalion in each Motorised Brigade be composed of mainly reservists increase the reduction of Regular Infantry to eight. However each of these Battalions would be far better equipped than they are now and at full strength including the Reserve units.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Feb 2019, 08:15

Lord Jim wrote: the Army will have 24 Infantry Battalions all of which would the at mounted in at least protected vehicles or in the case of the Para's partially equipped.

This is a reduction of five regular Battalions, though I would go further and have one battalion in each Motorised Brigade be composed of mainly reservists increase the reduction of Regular Infantry to eight


I think you are down from 32 to 24, and then go further (down by three more)?

Much better in my view to have the reservists as companies (that is a formed unit, and can 'easily' practise/ exercise at that 'formed unit' level) to be added to Rglr Bns, should there be a need.
- the original reserves plan was thinking of 1/8th at any given time, and we are approaching on the army's part 30k
- 32 x 550 to 700 (some slack) = 22 400 (= abt 4 bns, spread across Rglr Bns as the 4th Companies, and about 16 bns could be augmented without an all-out mobilisation)
- which is a tall order, as reservists are especially needed to beef up CS & CSS (that, thru the successive rounds of cuts, have born the brunt of them)... I've got no idea of how much of the trained reserves strength is in infantry, actually :)

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Qwerty » 25 Feb 2019, 08:38

JLTV is not yet a certainty...

Trials are not going smoothly.

Discussion better off in the correct thread.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Feb 2019, 08:52

Qwerty wrote:Trials are not going smoothly.

Discussion better off in the correct thread.


Agree. Warrior (CSP) & Ajax/ Boxer, with their various versions have formed such an "iron triangle" with strong (potential) substitution amongst them that in any force mix (present or planned) they tend to (one or all) butt in. But JLTV is not an AFV, as the programme title of old stated, too.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 25 Feb 2019, 18:12

Lord Jim wrote: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.

Given that this is the thread on the Warrior, how about we assume that some other Programme (Ajax?) is dead and roll our fantasy fleets from there.

Little J
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Little J » 14 Mar 2019, 15:30

Jon Hawkes, Associate Director, Jane's Land Warfare Platforms talks to the UK’s Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme Directors Lee Fellows (Lockheed Martin) and Marcus Bruton (DE&S) about the significantly transformed Warrior IFV, its new capabilities, the experiences of users to date and remaining plans and milestones for the programme.


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3292
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Mar 2019, 15:50

The mention of greater capability in the pipeline makes me think that one, an active protection system is really on the cards and two, that there may be the possibility that the Army will take up the ability of the LM turret being able to mount and control the Javelin in either its current or ER form. What firing option the CTA40 has now and going forward could also factor into this.

What I didn't like was that it will be at least another 18 months until the go ahead is going to begin the production phase assuming the next set of trail go smoothly. So it looking like the Armoured Infantry will not see the Warrior CSP until 2022 at the earliest. When did this programme start?!

Although I have come across as not being a fan of the Warrior CSP, preferring other options (Boxer IFV), there is no doubting that this platform will be a very capable one and able to partner the CR2 CSP though both their OSDs in the mid to late 2030s.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 17 Mar 2019, 20:13

Little J wrote:
Jon Hawkes, Associate Director, Jane's Land Warfare Platforms talks to the UK’s Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme Directors Lee Fellows (Lockheed Martin) and Marcus Bruton (DE&S) about the significantly transformed Warrior IFV, its new capabilities, the experiences of users to date and remaining plans and milestones for the programme.


Did anyone else think it a bit odd that the DE&S guy was very keen to distance himself from the Army and future development?
Or that the Lockheed guy was very specific about keeping to requirements. That could be read positively or negatively: "We will provide what the customer has asked of us" vs "we will provide only what the customer has asked of us."

Lord Jim wrote:What I didn't like was that it will be at least another 18 months until the go ahead is going to begin the production phase assuming the next set of trail go smoothly. So it looking like the Armoured Infantry will not see the Warrior CSP until 2022 at the earliest. When did this programme start?!
Late 2011, according to google-fu.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Mar 2019, 20:41

Did anyone else think it a bit odd that the DE&S guy was very keen to distance himself from the Army and future development?
Or that the Lockheed guy was very specific about keeping to requirements.

Not at all, even the Head of DE&S speaks in the same terms: the customer orders (and funds!) and we deliver to cost and schedule.

What they were hinting at is the 1.5 yrs for RGT, which is that long as the key thing to establish is mean time between failure. The money will be unchanged. with a MTBF figure the Warrior will be over-the-life costed... and voi la: out comes the number of units to be delivered
- if there will be enough (how many is that? 4 AI rgmnts + a half in BATUS), then perhaps some money is left there for those xtra goodies that the PM from LM was alluding to... APS anyone? The Dutch have already placed an order, for their CV90s

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 19 Mar 2019, 19:17

https://www.forces.net/news/technology/ ... pktaJFGUjA

"The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has admitted "some initial challenges to overcome" with the Warrior armoured vehicle programme after it was revealed the upgrade is delayed and £227 million over budget.

The upgrade was first announced in 2011, at a cost of £1.3 billion, to extend the vehicles' service by at least 15 years."

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby bobp » 19 Mar 2019, 20:18

That's a lot of pennies, no doubt the cost will increase further when deliveries begin (If they ever do).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Mar 2019, 08:53

£227 million over budget.
of £1.3 billion, to extend the vehicles' service by at least 15 years.

That's £100 mln per year, for 4 AI bns (plus training plus if there is a similarly [to be] equipped reserve bn)
- Germany went for a new build, I wonder how far that money would have gone with them (I seem to remember the unit cost was not too far removed from what we have for Ajax, laden with costed-in technology whereas an IFV is loaded with dismounts, not costed in the purchase)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3292
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Mar 2019, 15:13

At least the Germans were willing to accept that their all singing and dancing Marder 2 was going to be unaffordable in the number required and went for what was basically an off the shelf purchase of a vehicle industry had done most of the work on with their own funds. That's what is possible when you have a true AFV manufacturing capacity in house. Ours has become like the often joked about building sports cars in a shed.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 20 Mar 2019, 18:51

£8m apiece for Puma, so you’d get just shy of 190. That’d do you for three battalions with a few spares.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Mar 2019, 19:00

mr.fred wrote:£8m apiece for Puma, so you’d get three battalions


If they included prgrm costs (rather than unit costs, off the hot production line), then that would stretch to 4
... how many bns was it that we plan to have?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 20 Mar 2019, 22:56

If, maybe and contingent on a bunch of undefined parameters.
You could stretch it to four. In the mean time the Army needs four and change for a sustainable force plus support, spares and training.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Mar 2019, 23:12

I was just looking for a cost benchmark: old for new, or the other way round.

As long as they get the reliability right, I think it will be a good choice. And I hope ABSV and a bridging version will follow... not just money, but hulls in good condition permitting
- and what ever else might be needed, to keep the flora&fauna that REME has to keep up with even somewhat manageable

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3292
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Mar 2019, 13:24

Personally I hope we end up with a combination of Ajax and Boxer based support platforms covering everything from Mortar carrier to ARV to Bridging platform, with more emphasis on those based on the latter.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 23 Mar 2019, 18:55

The things is, losing WCSP would be a huge blow to British AFV manufacturing.

The turrets are completely fabricated in the UK (unlike AJAX) and I would be surprised if Boxer was structurally welded in the UK (has there been any commitment?).

Several components are shared between AJAX and WCSP so there's a potential impact to those suppliers too. The facility is there. The only saving grace is if the turret is integrated into say Boxer, but I think RLS would consider that a big bite from their pie.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3292
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Mar 2019, 19:42

WCSP is probably the only affordable option at the moment for the AI but I do not think the ABSV should be taken any further. AS for AFV manufacturing, well the UK has only really a final assembly capability unless n or more sites are dusted off and heavily invested in.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 23 Mar 2019, 19:54

Lord Jim wrote:. AS for AFV manufacturing, well the UK has only really a final assembly capability unless n or more sites are dusted off and heavily invested in.

I contend that you are wrong in that regard. There are manufacturers who can build all the various parts of an AFV in the U.K.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Mar 2019, 20:17

RunningStrong wrote:Several components are shared between AJAX and WCSP so there's a potential impact to those suppliers too.


Interesting, other than gun & sights?
- drive train still being an option(subject to keeping within the already upped cost envelope)
- I must say that I've lost sight of details as it has been going on for so long

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10419
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Mar 2019, 00:16

ArmChairCivvy wrote:was just looking for a cost benchmark: old for new, or the other way round.

As long as they get the reliability right, I think it will be a good choice.


At the time Janes wrote "[as of last year's] September, contenders to supply the Australian Army with up to 450 modern infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) as part of Project Land 400 Phase 3 had been whittled down to three definites, one possible, one barely possible, and one withdrawal.

Confirmed competitors for the AUD10–15 billion (USD7.4–11 billion) project comprise Rheinmetall Defence’s Lynx IFV, General Dynamics Land Systems’ (GDLS’) Ajax armoured fighting vehicle, and the Hanwha Group’s AS21 Redback IFV."

So for 1.5 bn of our own £... soon to be at parity with the USD so buying at home will make even more sense... we will see our AI component of the army through to 2035
- not bad?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 24 Mar 2019, 07:32

Lord Jim wrote: AS for AFV manufacturing, well the UK has only really a final assembly capability unless n or more sites are dusted off and heavily invested in.

Which is entirely wrong.

Not only has Lockheed Martin demonstrated the ability to manufacture welded turrets in the UK, but AFV hulls are no longer made from thick welded plate. As applique armour is now the norm hulls are increasingly easy to weld.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 24 Mar 2019, 07:36

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Several components are shared between AJAX and WCSP so there's a potential impact to those suppliers too.


Interesting, other than gun & sights?
- drive train still being an option(subject to keeping within the already upped cost envelope)
- I must say that I've lost sight of details as it has been going on for so long

There are elements of power and control sub-system assemblies shared across the two turrets.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Voldemort and 15 guests