Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »


SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

"The analysis conducted, indicated that the cost of the new Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) is between 1.4 and 2 times the cost of upgrading the existing Warrior vehicle. Therefore the Off the Shelf option was ruled out as a potential approach to meet the Warrior role. "

As a former Cost Accountant in industry I find that statement troubling

The key metric is total cost of ownership divided by some unit of output. The unit of output could be year of service, days of availability whatever. But the bottom line is you're not buying a platform but a capability. And the total cost of ownership needs to include support and maintenance of an ageing piece of equipment, dealing with obsolescence issues, unique logistics chain not shared by allies etc. Acquisition cost is about 30% of it.

end of rant

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Ahhh but then your numbers wouldn’t fit the budget and you’d need to lower your sight or cut numbers were as u don’t until there started and when you have to actually pay for them see a whole host of programs.

Some have argued that’s why some senior official dislike the air tanker contract they are unable to cut its maintenance and support budget to cover other budgets.

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Scrapping of Warrior CSP prototypes


BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

They certainly don't hang around when it comes to scrapping armoured vehicles. Could they not park them up in a shed for spares. The scrap value is peanuts. I assume the cannons and electronics where all removed for storage.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 04 Feb 2022, 09:10 They certainly don't hang around when it comes to scrapping armoured vehicles. Could they not park them up in a shed for spares. The scrap value is peanuts. I assume the cannons and electronics where all removed for storage.
They're legally obliged to place them in the WEEE bin.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

So interesting today Lord Dannaatt has said given the war in Ukraine the Warrior upgrade should be revisited and replacing tracked IFV's with wheeled ones wont fly
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 11:44 So interesting today Lord Dannaatt has said given the war in Ukraine the Warrior upgrade should be revisited and replacing tracked IFV's with wheeled ones wont fly
We're not replacing tracked IFV with wheeled one.

So a big chunk of change will need to come from somewhere. Perhaps worth getting artillery, MRV-P, CR3, AJAX sorted first...

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Armys

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 12:00 We're not replacing tracked IFV with wheeled one.
Indeed, we’re replacing some tracked IFVs with a wheeled APC

The remaining tracked IFVs aren’t being replaced.

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Little J »

I still think they could have developed a tracked chassis that could take Boxer mission modules. Then saved money from the common modules (and then have access to modules developed by other countries that fit more niche requirements).

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I remain to be convinced as to the utility of the Boxer module concept, so forcing a tracked vehicle to use it sounds even more expensive.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 12:00
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 11:44 So interesting today Lord Dannaatt has said given the war in Ukraine the Warrior upgrade should be revisited and replacing tracked IFV's with wheeled ones wont fly
We're not replacing tracked IFV with wheeled one.

So a big chunk of change will need to come from somewhere. Perhaps worth getting artillery, MRV-P, CR3, AJAX sorted first...
He also said that the Army needs to be given a large boost due to the two decades of under spending and that defence spending needs to go up to 2.5 or 3 % of GDP

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Depending on how calculate it were already at 2.5% spending on defence. % of gdp may make for a snappy dumbed down newspaper headline. But it’s a poor way to express defence capability funding.


We will only having 2 armoured brigades going fwd we already have 600 odd boxers and 150 challenger tanks not to mention the possibility of another 500 Ajax spread across the 2 brigades and formation recon unit. Even an American armoured brigade only has around 300 armoured vehicles do we need any more vehicles.

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 15:06 We will only having 2 armoured brigades going fwd we already have 600 odd boxers and 150 challenger tanks not to mention the possibility of another 500 Ajax spread across the 2 brigades and formation recon unit. Even an American armoured brigade only has around 300 armoured vehicles do we need any more vehicles.
Except not all those vehicles will be in those two armoured brigades and one deep recce brigade (which should have two regiments equipped with Ajax). Only 116 CR3 will be in two tank regiments. so only 58 per brigade, 100 to 120 Boxers and 48 Ajax with number of other variants, which is less than US ABCT. And realistically, UK will probably be able to deploy just one at any time as there would be enough APS and add-armour packages for only one tank regiment. Plus Boxers are very lightly armed with just .50 cal a seemingly no intention to give them anything stronger than some Javelins here and there.

Two issues here are that if Boxer is replacing Warrior it need stronger weapon and if not and is just a temporary solution, there is a need for new IFV which will replace Warrior. After all, if you can only deploy one brigade, it needs to have quite a punch.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 16:16
SW1 wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 15:06 We will only having 2 armoured brigades going fwd we already have 600 odd boxers and 150 challenger tanks not to mention the possibility of another 500 Ajax spread across the 2 brigades and formation recon unit. Even an American armoured brigade only has around 300 armoured vehicles do we need any more vehicles.
Except not all those vehicles will be in those two armoured brigades and one deep recce brigade (which should have two regiments equipped with Ajax). Only 116 CR3 will be in two tank regiments. so only 58 per brigade, 100 to 120 Boxers and 48 Ajax with number of other variants, which is less than US ABCT. And realistically, UK will probably be able to deploy just one at any time as there would be enough APS and add-armour packages for only one tank regiment. Plus Boxers are very lightly armed with just .50 cal a seemingly no intention to give them anything stronger than some Javelins here and there.

Two issues here are that if Boxer is replacing Warrior it need stronger weapon and if not and is just a temporary solution, there is a need for new IFV which will replace Warrior. After all, if you can only deploy one brigade, it needs to have quite a punch.
Well indeed so why are we seeking to buy more than what’s already on order there isn’t any other units using what is already on order.

I know it maybe against recent historical precedent to have the infantry in apcs supporting tanks but is having the cannon on tanks and infantry in an apc that bad an idea, the Israelis continue on that path today.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Just so I am clear isn't a Armoured Infantry Battalion made up of about 90 vehicles 57 Warrior , 21 Bulldogs & 8 CVR(T) so a new Boxer Unit would need around 80 Boxers each as Boxer would replace both Warrior and Bulldog so by the time you add Signals , Engineer , Medic , REME also in Boxer we are looking at about 210 to 220 Boxers per Brigade

sol
Member
Posts: 526
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Apr 2022, 17:27 Just so I am clear isn't a Armoured Infantry Battalion made up of about 90 vehicles 57 Warrior , 21 Bulldogs & 8 CVR(T) so a new Boxer Unit would need around 80 Boxers each as Boxer would replace both Warrior and Bulldog so by the time you add Signals , Engineer , Medic , REME also in Boxer we are looking at about 210 to 220 Boxers per Brigade
Assuming that Boxer will replace all battalion vehicles, it will have some 80 to 90 Boxers. But some of those roles might be taken by other vehicles tho, for example by vehicle that will eventually replace FV430 which might be decided in 2025.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The statement that Boxer will not be replacing Warrior as an IFV seems to me to be based on Boxer as it stands with only a .50cal RWS rather then something with more punch. That makes perfect sense if that is the case, but to say Boxer with an unmanned turret like those operated by Lithuania cannot carry out the IFV role is more a prejudice against Wheeled AFVs and ignoring the fact that a number of nations do just that.

It also seems to ignore the facts that Boxer has equal the protection as a Warrior and very nearly matched it when both fit their add on armour packs. Boxer is faster on road and there is very little difference in the off road speed. Wheeled vehicles as a whole are more resistant to mines than their tracked brethren as a damaged track immobilised a tracked IFV, whilst Boxer can lose at least two wheels and still be mobile.

If money were available then it would make sense to purchase a replacement for Warrior but even then there are a multitude of higher priorities for the Army. Ideally we need around 100 Boxers per Mechanised Infantry Battalion, with the additional numbers coming from having an under armour ATGW, air defence, Recce and an increased number of Mortar carrying variants. The Five or again ideally six Battalions would therefore require around 600 and to that we would need to add those vehicles needed for training, those in other non Infantry units and a number in reserve as attrition replacements, the latter becoming more important. In additional the current idea of having only a certain number of TES sets needs to be revisited, with the real need being for all units to be equipped to that standard even if they do not fit the equipment during peacetime. This is because in future we need to look at the need to deploy all our available units in an emergency in addition to the high readiness forces.

It would be nice if we could salvage some of the equipment we have already purchased for teh Warrior CSP, and the obvious one would be to utilise one of the already developed unmanned turrets that use the CT40 as an upgrade for a number of the infantry carrying versions of the Boxer. It might even be possible to utilise some fo the optics as well.

I do not think revisiting the WCSP is a good idea personally as there are, as already mentioned many more higher priority needs for funding. The amount of work required to upgrade a platform that was already near the end of its useful life and which pushes the platform to the extremes of its abilities if not past them is a problem for me. The fact that the platform could only carry six dismounts and even these were crowded inside, and that the platform lacked a ATGW only confirmed this. Warrior was on the small size to start with and most current IFVs are considerably larger. It is interesting to remember that the WCSP was to be a cheap and simple upgrade to an existing platform, where have we heard that before!

Looking at recent events the priority for the Army must be the upgrade and expansion of its precision fires capabilities as well as their capacity. This needs to be for the whole sensor to shooter chain, which all needs to be delivered over the same time frame, which needs to be completed by 2030 at the very latest.

As far as I am concerned, Boxer can be made to be a capable replacement for Warrior and effeots should be made to make it so, at least for part of the fleet if not all.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 It also seems to ignore the facts that Boxer has equal the protection as a Warrior and very nearly matched it when both fit their add on armour packs.
I don't think that's true. Boxer is bigger than Warrior and of similar weight so it can't be as well protected
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 The fact that the platform could only carry six dismounts and even these were crowded inside
That's not a fact.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 and that the platform lacked a ATGW only confirmed this.
That was a decision, not a limitation.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 WCSP was to be a cheap and simple upgrade to an existing platform, where have we heard that before!
It was. They were talking about £5m each at the time of cancellation, which would get you half a new IFV based on other procurements of new IFVs.

I think around the time that the cancellation was being considered, I opined that it was a choice between WCSP as an IFV or no IFV.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 Wheeled vehicles as a whole are more resistant to mines than their tracked brethren as a damaged track immobilised a tracked IFV, whilst Boxer can lose at least two wheels and still be mobile.
Also they tend to be taller and higher off the ground to accommodate the drive train, so are more vulnerable to direct fire.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 It would be nice if we could salvage some of the equipment we have already purchased for teh Warrior CSP, and the obvious one would be to utilise one of the already developed unmanned turrets that use the CT40 as an upgrade for a number of the infantry carrying versions of the Boxer. It might even be possible to utilise some fo the optics as well.
So the cannons? I don't think that anything else was purchased in bulk. Unless you are referring to the increasingly obsolescent optics on the current Warrior fleet.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The protection level for the Boxer is best in class in its basic form. I will admit I do not have full information on the exact composition of its add on packs, but from what I have read they bring it protection levels almost up to that of the Warrior so fitted.

Warrior CSP is not exactly roomy inside. Yes you might be able to squeeze in a seventh Infantryman but will all the additional kit also wanting to be stored it is going to be cosy. Boxer with a RWS like the Nexter designed one, even though it is equipped with a CT40 and two MMP ATGW has very little effect on the internal space of the vehicle allowing it to still easily carry eight dismounts.

Yes it was a decision and that decision probably had as much to do with cost as it did with the capability wanted from the vehicle.

Agreed, lack of funding, and other priorities meant the Army was left looking for programmes it though it could manage without and so chose the WCSP. However simply moving the Boxer APC to fill it role was another square peg being rammed into a round hole. There was no other option.

The height of a vehicle nowadays is less of a factor than it was. Most modern AFV are taller than previous platforms simple because they are required to do more. You could argue that a taller vehicle has superior lines of sight to a lower one, and these days it is more a case of who sees first shoots forst and lives longest.

Yes the CT40 plus and optics already purchased by LM for the WCSP, if enough are available.

Anyway here is a little video on the Lithuanian military and their "Wolf (Boxer) IFVs.

Not 100% accurate but it make some good points.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 The statement that Boxer will not be replacing Warrior as an IFV seems to me to be based on Boxer as it stands with only a .50cal RWS rather then something with more punch. That makes perfect sense if that is the case,
That's the obvious reality today.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 but to say Boxer with an unmanned turret like those operated by Lithuania cannot carry out the IFV role is more a prejudice against Wheeled AFVs and ignoring the fact that a number of nations do just that.
There's no prejudice against wheeled AFV. A BOXER IFV would not the the equivalent protection of a tracked IFV for the same SWAP budget.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 10:28 It also seems to ignore the facts that Boxer has equal the protection as a Warrior and very nearly matched it when both fit their add on armour packs.
Not if you're comparing current BOXER to the WCSP baseline. Obviously if you're comparing BOXER to a 30 yr old baseline...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok, prejudice may be the wrong word. I have a feeling the Army is not fully accepting of what wheeled AFVs c an do through lack of experience. I am sure they have followed other nations use of such vehicles but, as an example, they didn't follow the US Army's idea of how a Stryker/Mechanised Battalions is organised when looking at establishing its "Strike" Battalions.

How well protected a non MBT AFV can and should be is relevant here. A Boxer with its add on armour kit and APS is protected sufficiently for the IFV role in my opinion. To armour an IFV to proterct it from MBTs and heavy auto cannon would make the vehicle far too heavy and expensive. You would be looking at a vehicle in the class of the Israeli Namer IFV in this case.

To all of this you have to add the greatly reduced operating and training costs of a platform like Boxer over a tracked IFV, and this is on top of the reduce purchase price. Yes WCSP was to have been a much cheaper alternative to buying a new vehicle but its costs were increasing and issues with using the old, nearly forty year old chassis were also affecting the programme. Don't get me wrong the Warrior gave sterling service, twice in Iraq and in Afghanistan, not forgetting its earlier roles in Bosnia and Kosovo.

But I stand by my argument that a properly configured Boxer would more than adequately fulfil the role of an IFV for the British Army, but the versions currently being purchased will not.

MAybe I should continue this in the Boxer thread as the emphasis is moving in that direction?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 14:08 Ok, prejudice may be the wrong word. I have a feeling the Army is not fully accepting of what wheeled AFVs c an do through lack of experience.
You're feeling is wrong. WCSP was an extension of an existing platform already in role.

BOXER was intended to be a more permanent replacement for the MRAP UOR vehicles and better prepared for peer conflict, as well as some other ancient legacy platforms. Hence there's no requirement at this time for a cannon.

ETA just like the base AJAX only replaced existing capabilities, and didn't include all the extras (direct fire, Overwatch, bridge etc)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

What I have been commenting on is the blanket statement by serving and retired Army Officers that Boxer cannot be an IFV or carry out the role currently carried out by Warrior. These statement were made after WCSP was cancelled.

Boxer or FRES UV or MRAV was a requirement long before the MRAP UOR vehicles. Originally it would have been used in the APC roles amongst others and that is still the version we are getting. If anything the Boxer was replacing the long gone Saxon 4x4 APCs in the Army's Mechanised Infantry Battalions.

Yes the CT40 Ajax is replacing the Scimitar like for like but the Scimitar was purchased as part of a family that provided the capabilities to produce a number of well rounded and effective Recce Regiments. By not purchasing the additional variants the Ajax equipped Recce Regiments will be at a disadvantage if either or both Air Support and Artillery are not readily available. Given our issues with the latter and over confidence with the former when looking at possible peer level conflicts This situation may not improve and could get worse if the Army tries to use its Ajax as light Armour in a similar way to how the US Army sometimes does with its M3 Bradleys, but at least these are equipped with the latest version of TOW which can be fired under armour.

The Ajax units need to be supported by additional variants like a Bridgelayer, other wise their ability to roam ahead of other units to provide targeting data is gong to be limited whenever it meets a river. Yes Bridges exist but these are choke points and will be under enemy observation. And having seen how effective UAS are these same units will need a highly mobile SPAA system that can keep up with the Recce Troops. The list goes on and on and I am sure they are on a Wish List files somewhere in Andover. The CVR(T) family was amphibious with screens when it entered service for just this reason.

Oh dear now we are moving into the Ajax thread, at this rate we might as well go to the Future Army thread as nothing is happening for at least ten years anyway.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 22:21 What I have been commenting on is the blanket statement by serving and retired Army Officers that Boxer cannot be an IFV or carry out the role currently carried out by Warrior. These statement were made after WCSP was cancelled.
Which is entirely correct based on the BOXER variants the UK is purchasing. They're being careful with their words, any hint that BOXER would be acceptable today as an IFV will be misconstrued as an endorsement for the current capability on contract to replace Warrior.

You've done the complete opposite, and ignored the context of those statements.
Lord Jim wrote: 16 Apr 2022, 22:21 Boxer or FRES UV or MRAV was a requirement long before the MRAP UOR vehicles. Originally it would have been used in the APC roles amongst others and that is still the version we are getting. If anything the Boxer was replacing the long gone Saxon 4x4 APCs in the Army's Mechanised Infantry Battalions.
You might have said something about the SLR for all its relevance. 15 years of MRAPs and Billions spent is the history.

Post Reply