UK Defence Forum

The lack of ATGWs and masts in almost certainly a MoD decision. As mentioned above the former appears to be their preference for standalone platforms equipped with ATGWs rather than giving individual vehicles multiple options including the ability to engage heavy armour. As to the latter, we again as pointed out the planned replacement for the CVR(T) way back when, had a mast as one of the options that were being evaluated. In addition just because the MoD decides it does need something doesn't mean that thing is not useful and effective, improving the capabilities of a plat form so equipped. Masts seem to have become more common om platforms developed at the very end of the Cold War or after it, and those that have them find them worth having. The BA does not for its own reasons.

Already in the frontlines of Ukraine

I forget which one, but one of the Baltics now has ex British Army CVR(T)s and has installed Javelin launcher brackets on some of them on the Commanders cupola.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑16 Jun 2022, 17:48 I forget which one, but one of the Baltics now has ex British Army CVR(T)s

Latvia; Lithuania went a step 'up' and bought Boxers (under a different name, of course).

The maintenance logistics of having all these different armoured platforms suddenly dropped into your inventory must be of nightmare proportions..

Beggars can't be choosers if you talking about Ukraine

Lord Jim wrote: ↑16 Jun 2022, 17:48 I forget which one, but one of the Baltics now has ex British Army CVR(T)s and has installed Javelin launcher brackets on some of them on the Commanders cupola.

I believe Spike missiles were the end solution.

Cooper wrote: ↑19 Jul 2022, 11:49 The maintenance logistics of having all these different armoured platforms suddenly dropped into your inventory must be of nightmare proportions..

For sure. But at least the CVR(T) aren't still running on petrol...

Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:27

RunningStrong wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for

In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.

BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework"

Been thinking / reflecting on this with the benefit of 20/20hindsight googles, and I think we should have gone for a high / low mix of :

CV90 mk 3 - to replace Warrior and CVRT -> proven and in use with several allies
Patria AMV 8x8 - to replace everything else (incl FV432) -> half the price of Boxer, does 90% of the job, could be procured in quantity

BAE Systems have partnered with AMV previously.
The MOD could invest in upgrades at Telford to assemble everything on one site, then move seamlessly into CH3

Job done.

SD67 wrote: ↑20 Jul 2022, 11:54

Ron5 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2021, 17:27

RunningStrong wrote: ↑06 Dec 2021, 17:40
Yes it "hasn't managed to deliver" something the user hasn't ever asked for

In many cases features are not requested because the manufacturer has said they cannot be accommodated within the budget. With GD profligacy, that would seem to be a reasonable guess. The fact that the army is currently fitting masts to its recce vehicles suggests a need.

BTW your repeated defense of GD failings based on "the army never asked for it" is extremely thin. Kinda like "my dog ate my homework"

Been thinking / reflecting on this with the benefit of 20/20hindsight googles, and I think we should have gone for a high / low mix of :

CV90 mk 3 - to replace Warrior and CVRT -> proven and in use with several allies
Patria AMV 8x8 - to replace everything else (incl FV432) -> half the price of Boxer, does 90% of the job, could be procured in quantity

BAE Systems have partnered with AMV previously.
The MOD could invest in upgrades at Telford to assemble everything on one site, then move seamlessly into CH3

Job done.

CV90 Mk3 would be obsolete before it even entered service with the British Army. Why waste the money?

I’m talking 10 years ago

Vs unmodernised Warrior to be shortly replace by nothing

If we’re playing hindsight procurement, I’d have recommended going back a few more years for Warrior 2000 as the IFV and Stormer for Combat reconnaissance, with the option to fit out some WR for recce tasks in support of Stormer and some Stormer for utility tasks in support of Warrior.
Maybe also some more variants of each, too.

I agree on AMV though.

How much grief would that have saved.. I understand Warrior 2000 used basically a CV90 turret so it was probably low risk.

SD67 wrote: ↑21 Jul 2022, 10:11 How much grief would that have saved.. I understand Warrior 2000 used basically a CV90 turret so it was probably low risk.

That or a Delco30. The Stormer Light Tank was that or an OTO Melara turret as seen on the Dardo.
Whichever, it would have made sense to use the same one on both chassis.