Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:Might it be less than four battalions?
Let's take that in isolation
- a bn is the smallest unit (typically smaller than an all-arms BG) capable of independent action
- let's improve on the force generation cycle (1 out of 3 in readiness)... and have 3, somehow
- 3 plus something else (tanks?) could make up a brigade
- a brigade's sphere of influence is a max 70 km (different from a front; I hear they don't exist anymore)

So, in an intensive situation, against a peer, we could hold/ take that sort of patch (not specified where)
... would that be something that would, for instance, help us to maintain all the command postings that we currently hold across NATO? Just one indicator, not a goal in itself
BUT, the bottom line: I don't think so!
So if we only had 2 armoured infantry battalions then it would be 100% strategic failure?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Depends on what else we can throw in, but on the strategic scale, yes.

We have historically had tank rgmnts of 44-58 variety. A typical number (from other countries) would be around 27 in a BG
- so split one rgmnt
- and with the two AI bns we could muster 2! BGs

That number is so small that we should regard them as specialist formations for MOUT
... and funnily enough the number of (Ch2) up-armour kits for such use that we hold fits that scenario

Always look at bright side: the problem with the number of HETs we have would go away :)

Of course this goes back to IFVs on their own not being able to achieve v much. For that kind of use we could just order more of those AJAX family versions that have a couple of dismounts in the back and pair them with the AJAX recce wagons; those make up half of the order total.
- in that sort of constellation the most potent vehicle would be the one for Joint Fires as the punch the formation can deliver would not be enough for anything else than a recce screen, of for monitoring the flanks (almost the same thing)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

if you wanted to construct the smallest/leanest active-duty armour force with value at a strategic scale, what might that look like?

is it only possible with two under-strength brigades, or could it be done with one over-strength brigade?
a) two under-strength = 1x type44 regt (56 with sqdrn from reserve), and 2x MInf battalions (similarly boosted with extra company from reserve formation)
b) one over-strength = 2x type44 regt (as above with reserves), 4x MInf battalions (as above with reserves)

in each case the active service type44 has one squadron of ajax and two of tanks, so looking reserves to supply at least a tank sqdrn to each regt.

fully in the realms of zero-knowledge fantasy fleets here, but i'd like to understand what constitutes a MVP for armour in an expeditionary/art5 british army...

if it's going to survive it needs to be cost effective, and not suck resources away from the gov'ts desire that the army ISR submission must be relevant to her majesty's foreign policy ambitions. i.e. BAOR 2.0 squatting in central europe will be rejected.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote:leanest active-duty armour force with value at a strategic scale, what might that look like?

one "over-strength" = 2x type44 regt (as above with reserves), 4x MInf battalions
Lean, but with strategic value? That makes for an interesting comparison between our procurement plans and the scenario, in which a US ICBT was transformed into an armoured one.
- the unit was already kitted out with al the essentials, so that lets us ignore all that
- manning practically unchanged: " just a slight reduction in its 4,200-Soldier force as it changes to armored vehicles."
- armour inserted: " set to obtain 87 M1A1 Abrams tanks with situational awareness configuration upgrades and 138 Bradley fighting vehicles, along with 18 M109 howitzers."
... now it becomes clear why I have added quotation marks around the over-strength descriptor

Namely, both tank and IFV numbers represent 2/3s of what we are planning for TWO brigades (Ch3s and Warrior2s).

End result: fewer manoeuvre units than the above 6, namely 3 combined arms bns and a recce bn (but 3 strong support bns)
- with the current plans, the 18 arty pieces would only leave 15 for each of the two Strike Bdes; may be in them the compensation could be wheeled & turreted 120 mm mortars (to be added, as there won't be any protected, tank-caliber direct fire weapons in those bdes)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The term "Wide wet gap crossing capability" made me chuckle. Going through the report it clearly shows that there is potential there, but also that the programmes are being drawn out until 2030 manly due to a lack of funding to move any faster, and this is having the adverse effect of actually increasing programme costs. So we have a double whammy, with both longer programme lead times due to lack of money but also increased programme costs because of the lack of money A lot can happen in ten years so it is going to be interesting to see what plan of action is actually laid out in the IR. How will priorities actually change?

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: but also that the programmes are being drawn out until 2030 manly due to a lack of funding to move any faster, and this is having the adverse effect of actually increasing programme costs
This phenomena goes well beyond this capability. So for example the treasury might make an in year cut to the defence budget which falls upon the equipment plan. This draws out timeframes and increases their costs. The MoD then gets criticised for a cost increase that's beyond their control.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes one of many constants, short term savings always cause problems down the line, but they are someone else's to deal with. I used to think that if we got in a shooting war and started seeing casualties bring returned home, the cycle may have been broken, but alas even then there was no ground swell that could worry the Politicians into changing there ways.

If people want the money spent on the Health Service and Education then fine. But the Politicians must then realise we are not going to be able to project power and as a result not be a global player in anything but providing aid. In principal this is not a bad thing, but with up to one pound in three ending up in the back pocket of some country's corrupt leader and his cronies, as has been shown in countries like Mali, aid works about as well as military intervention. It can be a sticking plaster but not provide a long term solution.

But back towards Warrior. If we stick with the WCSP then we are going to end up with two Armoured Infantry Brigades that are basically going to be our contribution to NATO, be it in eastern Europe of the the north. In no way will they even be considered a readily deployable force on a global scale, to think otherwise is simply deceiving ourselves. IF we do deploy forces outside NATO in future, such a force will be built around our high readiness formations and units from the "Strike" Brigades, mainly the four Boxer Battalions, and their supporting units. Deploying the Ajax Regiments outside of Europe will be as problematic as deploying the Armoured Infantry. So this will probably limited the UK to a force no larger than a reinforced Brigade.

In addition if we pursue the WCSP the Armoured Infantry unless they retain the FV432 series indefinitely, will need to purchase a large number of vehicles to replace these as well as fill a growing number of capability gaps, and few if any programmes to do so have been funded under the current equipment plan. So we will end up with two Armoured Infantry Brigades that will be extremely fragile with little combat persistence. If the shooting were to start, it will not matter that the Challenger 3 or Warrior 2 are far superior to the opposition, each one lost would be irreplaceable. We used to and still do worry that our Navy is too small and cannot afford to lose any ships, well the same will apply to the Army with its AFVs as well as the RAF and its aircraft.

Unless the Interim Review realises the importance of the Army's re equipment plans and gives it the priority it deserves, unless we are willing to accept high casualties in any peer conflict, we are going to be out of the ground combat game in anything but the lowest levels. Fine we can have a stronger Navy to Patrol the World, and an Air Force able to bombs any target it can find, with luck, but we will have to rely on other to defend our non UK territory or take and hold another's.

Thought I would start the New Year off with a positive note.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The year ended, appropriately :) , with a bang as UKLandPower posted a third answer to this/ similar question. With an emphasis on Strike structures, only one AI bde 'survived' and I will attach a summary of that to the end of this post, for comparison.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: jedibeeftrix wrote:
leanest active-duty armour force with value at a strategic scale, what might that look like?

one "over-strength" = 2x type44 regt (as above with reserves), 4x MInf battalions



Lean, but with strategic value? That makes for an interesting comparison between our procurement plans and the scenario, in which a US ICBT was transformed into an armoured one.
- the unit was already kitted out with al the essentials, so that lets us ignore all that
- manning practically unchanged: " just a slight reduction in its 4,200-Soldier force as it changes to armored vehicles."
- armour inserted: " set to obtain 87 M1A1 Abrams tanks with situational awareness configuration upgrades and 138 Bradley fighting vehicles, along with 18 M109 howitzers."
... now it becomes clear why I have added quotation marks around the over-strength descriptor

Namely, both tank and IFV numbers represent 2/3s of what we are planning for TWO brigades (Ch3s and Warrior2s).

End result: fewer manoeuvre units than the above 6, namely 3 combined arms bns and a recce bn (but 3 strong support bns)
- with the current plans, the 18 arty pieces would only leave 15 for each of the two Strike Bdes; may be in them the compensation could be wheeled & turreted 120 mm mortars (to be added, as there won't be any protected, tank-caliber direct fire weapons in those bdes)
++++++++++++++
ENTER the UKLandPower recommendation:

1 " division will be configured around two Strike Brigades and one Armoured Infantry Brigade. That means one Armoured Infantry Brigade will be lost. The remaining Armoured Infantry Brigade will likely have two MBT regiments, two IFV battalions, plus a reconnaissance regiment." 2+2 MBT/ IFV bns, instead of the 3 combined arms bns, as envisaged in my post
... vehicle/ AFV counts may or may not emerge for further comparison

2 whereas on the Strike bde side of things the structure is exactly as what I was sketching for the AI bde (why not have the same modularity?)
"one cavalry regiment plus three infantry battalions. The latter is the structure used by US Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and is preferred.

The four manoeuvre units are supported by three primary Combat Support (CS) units: these will include an Artillery Regiment with 155 mm guns, an Engineer Regiment with integral assault gap-crossing capabilities, a Signals Regiment (rather than just a squadron) that will not only support the Brigade HQ , but also provide offensive and defensive Cyber / Electronic Warfare capabilities."

3. The idea of configuring 1 Division into a deployable, out-of-area force is much to my liking. As I seem to remember that 22 Streetfighter kits were procured, having that many tanks - to make their deployment a realistic rather than a Herculean task -to support FIBUA MOUT operations that cannot always be avoided (Hitler skipped entering Leningrad, but taking Stalin's grad was too much of a temptation, and thus became a strategic blunder), then one could conceive a parallel development line as... outlined here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... rban-fight
- 87 Ch3s deploying with the AI bde, 22 with 1 Div, add 10% in depot and some for training grounds (BATUS included)
- a parallel M1 Abrams line for the USMC lived on for decades, where the optimisation pursued was not for tank-on-tank kill matches, but for tank/ dismounted infantry co-operation

Summa summarum:
Warrior lives on :thumbup:
Strike becomes central (as a concept, and then as reality in the force mix)
1 Div (7! administrative bdes in it) becomes deployable
... what's in that not to like :idea: Might even copy this post to the Strike Brigades thread - But it does seem that Warrior has been greenlighted, and Ch3 is viewed (in the IR?) as a worthwhile investment, in the bigger, evolving picture.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The year ended, appropriately :) , with a bang as UKLandPower posted a third answer to this/ similar question. With an emphasis on Strike structures, only one AI bde 'survived' and I will attach a summary of that to the end of this post, for comparison.
ArmChairCivvy wrote: jedibeeftrix wrote:
leanest active-duty armour force with value at a strategic scale, what might that look like?

one "over-strength" = 2x type44 regt (as above with reserves), 4x MInf battalions



Lean, but with strategic value? That makes for an interesting comparison between our procurement plans and the scenario, in which a US ICBT was transformed into an armoured one.
- the unit was already kitted out with al the essentials, so that lets us ignore all that
- manning practically unchanged: " just a slight reduction in its 4,200-Soldier force as it changes to armored vehicles."
- armour inserted: " set to obtain 87 M1A1 Abrams tanks with situational awareness configuration upgrades and 138 Bradley fighting vehicles, along with 18 M109 howitzers."
... now it becomes clear why I have added quotation marks around the over-strength descriptor

Namely, both tank and IFV numbers represent 2/3s of what we are planning for TWO brigades (Ch3s and Warrior2s).

End result: fewer manoeuvre units than the above 6, namely 3 combined arms bns and a recce bn (but 3 strong support bns)
- with the current plans, the 18 arty pieces would only leave 15 for each of the two Strike Bdes; may be in them the compensation could be wheeled & turreted 120 mm mortars (to be added, as there won't be any protected, tank-caliber direct fire weapons in those bdes)
++++++++++++++
ENTER the UKLandPower recommendation:

1 " division will be configured around two Strike Brigades and one Armoured Infantry Brigade. That means one Armoured Infantry Brigade will be lost. The remaining Armoured Infantry Brigade will likely have two MBT regiments, two IFV battalions, plus a reconnaissance regiment." 2+2 MBT/ IFV bns, instead of the 3 combined arms bns, as envisaged in my post
... vehicle/ AFV counts may or may not emerge for further comparison

2 whereas on the Strike bde side of things the structure is exactly as what I was sketching for the AI bde (why not have the same modularity?)
"one cavalry regiment plus three infantry battalions. The latter is the structure used by US Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and is preferred.

The four manoeuvre units are supported by three primary Combat Support (CS) units: these will include an Artillery Regiment with 155 mm guns, an Engineer Regiment with integral assault gap-crossing capabilities, a Signals Regiment (rather than just a squadron) that will not only support the Brigade HQ , but also provide offensive and defensive Cyber / Electronic Warfare capabilities."

3. The idea of configuring 1 Division into a deployable, out-of-area force is much to my liking. As I seem to remember that 22 Streetfighter kits were procured, having that many tanks - to make their deployment a realistic rather than a Herculean task -to support FIBUA MOUT operations that cannot always be avoided (Hitler skipped entering Leningrad, but taking Stalin's grad was too much of a temptation, and thus became a strategic blunder), then one could conceive a parallel development line as... outlined here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... rban-fight
- 87 Ch3s deploying with the AI bde, 22 with 1 Div, add 10% in depot and some for training grounds (BATUS included)
- a parallel M1 Abrams line for the USMC lived on for decades, where the optimisation pursued was not for tank-on-tank kill matches, but for tank/ dismounted infantry co-operation

Summa summarum:
Warrior lives on :thumbup:
Strike becomes central (as a concept, and then as reality in the force mix)
1 Div (7! administrative bdes in it) becomes deployable
... what's in that not to like :idea: Might even copy this post to the Strike Brigades thread - But it does seem that Warrior has been greenlighted, and Ch3 is viewed (in the IR?) as a worthwhile investment, in the bigger, evolving picture.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Somehow (the system said 'time out') the first posting was rejected - but then was not?
- apologies for double posting. Surely :clap: the Kremlins will get purged as the year wears on
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:The term "Wide wet gap crossing capability" made me chuckle.
I wonder what makes you say that? After Iraq our M3s went into storage, but some have been taken out for a joint UK/ German engineer bn to keep the practices/ doctrine uptodate.

To keep this in the Warrior context, I picked up some US Army analysis of Russian capabilities (and doctrine) for a motorised rifle bn. As they have tanks at their disposal, so let's not get way-laid by their wheeled transport (and take a Boxer formation - which we do not even have), but rather an AI bn as the benchmark or equivalent.

As historical background, in the Soviet days there were river-crossing regiments, assigned to divisions, and as divisions fell by the road side (post-Soviet), the longest surviving such regiment was stood down in Russian Karelia decades ago. So let's fast forward to the present:

"Crossing on a wide front at a quick tempo using a forward detachment or advanced guard is usually preferred.
Specialized Russian Water-Crossing Equipment Russian engineer battalions (organic to maneuver brigades) have many assets to overcome water obstacles and support river- crossing operations. These assets usually include truck-launched bridges for narrow waterways or TMM-6 vehicle- launched bridge sets. To overcome wide bodies of water such as large rivers and lakes, the battalion has a PP-91 pontoon bridge company that can emplace the bridge in under 1 hour. (A 268-meter-long bridge can carry 60 **) tons, a 165-meter- -long bridge can carry 90 tons, and a 141-meter-long bridge can carry 120 tons.) The pontoon bridge company has six BMK-255-1 cutter vessels to help assemble and maintain the position of the pontoon bridge. The vessels can also function as tugboats to allow the pontoon bridge to function as a ferry if needed. The battalion also has six PTS-2 tracked, amphibious transports that can haul loads of up to 20 tons on land and 12 tons across bodies of water."

_______________
**) Though Russian tanks are not that heavy, a 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV (their SPG) can weigh up to 55 tons [my edit]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Maybe off topic slightly but my question but Warrior is part of it.

The UK spends 40bl plus each year on defence.
That gets split between the three services.

Out of that split each service has a chunk for new equipment and support.

I'll say first i have no idea what each split comes to.
So, the question is, what is the British army actually buying this year in new equipment?
What did the army buy last year?
The year before?
The year before that?

We seem to have this never ending cycle of writing about WCSP/CH3/ Ajax/ new Arty etc etc etc.
Nothing ever seems to get done.

If the army gets a third of the defence budget each year a decent chunk surely should get spent on new gear. The army budget most be over 10billion each year.

The issue i have is year after year after year nothing comes into service. It seems nothing has come into service since the UORs for Afghan/ Iraq.
Most of that spending was a decade ago.
Where is all the money going every year?

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by inch »

Camouflage paint schemes

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Luke jones wrote:The issue i have is year after year after year nothing comes into service.
Actually an awful lot comes into service each year, e.g. SSNs, River class OPVs, QEC, F35, A400M, P8 etc. You are right however that the army does seem notably absent in the list of successes for big ticket items. A lot of this comes down to its legacy force structure, which has been downsized but not fundamentally rethought since Options for Change in the 1990s. This has limited its ability to both define its needs (e.g. What does the army do? Everything that navy and air force don't!) and make decisions on how to spend its money, e.g. trading manpower for equipment.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:rethought since Options for Change in the 1990s
I would start counting from 1998 (though the good thinking only got half implemented).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

J. Tattersall wrote: You are right however that the army does seem notably absent in the list of successes for big ticket items.
AJAX, Apache and MIV. The army has hardly been short of big ticket items.

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Luke jones wrote:The issue i have is year after year after year nothing comes into service.
Actually an awful lot comes into service each year, e.g. SSNs, River class OPVs, QEC, F35, A400M, P8 etc. You are right however that the army does seem notably absent in the list of successes for big ticket items. A lot of this comes down to its legacy force structure, which has been downsized but not fundamentally rethought since Options for Change in the 1990s. This has limited its ability to both define its needs (e.g. What does the army do? Everything that navy and air force don't!) and make decisions on how to spend its money, e.g. trading manpower for equipment.
J. Tattersall wrote:
Luke jones wrote:The issue i have is year after year after year nothing comes into service.
Actually an awful lot comes into service each year, e.g. SSNs, River class OPVs, QEC, F35, A400M, P8 etc. You are right however that the army does seem notably absent in the list of successes for big ticket items. A lot of this comes down to its legacy force structure, which has been downsized but not fundamentally rethought since Options for Change in the 1990s. This has limited its ability to both define its needs (e.g. What does the army do? Everything that navy and air force don't!) and make decisions on how to spend its money, e.g. trading manpower for equipment.
I get the other services but yes what about the army?
Much was made afew years back about 178 billion for new equipment and support over 10 years.
I get that it split (maybe unevenly) between the three services.
I also get that support to existing platforms is a large proportion.
However you look at it there should a chunk for new gear.
MIV is hardly started
Apache fair enough
Ajax hardly anything has arrived.

What else has been bought in the last decade??
It looks like naff all to me besides Man trucks
They were on about Warrior upgrade when i was sat in the back of one in Basra in 07!
Nothing ever happens.
Where is all the money going?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Luke jones wrote:However you look at it there should a chunk for new gear.
MIV is hardly started
Apache fair enough
Ajax hardly anything has arrived.

What else has been bought in the last decade??
It looks like naff all to me besides Man trucks
They were on about Warrior upgrade when i was sat in the back of one in Basra in 07!
You are quite right, makes a dozen years of not much progress. Top of p. 35 here (Figure 12 that is) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ficial.pdf
suggests a bit of a spurt (' get your skates on'?) from now, out to 2025
- we are promised a half-hearted division in 2026 for that
- even if we actually were to get 'there' it is not very impressive
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Luke jones
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Luke jones »

Thanks for that ACC. I'll take a good look.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Luke jones wrote:[
What else has been bought in the last decade??
It looks like naff all to me besides Man trucks
They were on about Warrior upgrade when i was sat in the back of one in Basra in 07!
Nothing ever happens.
Where is all the money going?
Let's not forget that Land have been trying to make sense of the money they spent in the previous decade. That has included hundred of millions on uplifting those fleets into Core and disposing of vehicles with huge cost losses.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2324
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by bobp »

A lot of money has been spent on IT systems, communications and Cyber, not so visible as say a Tank, but essential in a modern battlefield.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I see the main problem the Army is having, and the WCSP is a prime example, is that it is trying to keep too many plates spinning in sticks (remember the Generation Game) and unless lore resources are made available some are going the fall and break. The delivery timescales for many of their programmes are too cautious and this has already been pointed out to them when their initial submission to the Interim Review was rejected as such.

Programmes like the WCSP and Ajax need to be reviewed and speeded up. The fact that no turreted Ajax have been delivered is a serious failing. You can bet that is any had been delivered to the Household Cavalry after the initial six Ares it would have been all over the media. The Army seems to be far too risk adverse, wanting its new platforms to be 100% before agreeing to their manufacture.

Obviously we would not want platforms that are dangerous to their user to be introduced, but the overly extensive testing has seriously delayed the entry into service of both these platforms and the same will likely happen to both Boxer and Challenge 3. This extensive testing is also placing an additional financial burden on all these programmes, one the Army can ill afford especially if it will now have to find funding for additional capability programmes now deemed a priority. The Army should look to accepting platforms that meet say 80% of the programme requirements and aim to meet the remainder in service through a spiral modification and upgrade programme.

If these programmes cannot be speeded up then the opportunity should be taken to increase their capability, but providing additional funding to expand the testing envelope over the same time frame, condensing the process. The installation of a ATGW such as Spike-LR into the Warrior turret should be seen as a priority. Such work should also be seen as a priority within any spiral pathway.

But concentrating on the WCSP, the platform an definitely be split into two halves, its hull and its turret. The majority of the investment has been in the turrets which is self contained and has little dependency on the hull. It should therefore be viable to install said turret on other platforms should be requirement arise, and therefore said investment would not be wasted nor would the trials and tests carried out on just the turret and its systems.

As often stated, the WCSP will provide a step change for the Armoured Infantry Battalions and the Armoured Infantry Brigades as a whole. But whilst there is a strong desire to retain the latter formations to counter similar ones of any opponent how do they fir into the Governments desire to have a more flexible and deployable Army? Can anyone actually see us being able to rapidly deploy such a formation out to the far east, say in a few weeks form the deployment order being given? This sort of target will he hard enough for our planned medium formations. So in all likelihood the Warriors will remain in Europe, and that will mean that half of the Army's planned fighting capability will still be tied to its traditional NATO roles, may be expanding its area of responsibility to the northern flank. This therefore means that the Army will only be able to deploy its planned "Division" into Europe or Scandinavia realistically.

This brings up the issue as to whether the Army should reverse its programme of bringing units back from Germany and may be instead look to forward deploying then further east or even north. It makes sense to have the Warriors, Challengers and other heavy platforms and the units so equipped to be nearer to the possible threat to become more of a deterrent. Armoured Infantry Regiments dotted around the UK and requiring weeks to get into their planned forward position are hardly a deterrent are they, and yes it would take weeks unless the readiness of such forces is increased, which would also require additional funding.

the IR is the last chance for the WCSP and the Army's whole modernisation and procurement plans to avoid a perfect storm of extended delays and rising unaffordability that could leave the Army in such a state it will take at least a further decade to undo the damage. After CASD, the Army should come number two on the MoD's priority list followed by the fine tuning of Carrier strike. In theory the money is there but is the leadership and Management skill to deliver what is needed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: That has included hundred of millions on uplifting those fleets into Core and disposing of vehicles with huge cost losses.
The £ 2 bm spent on UOR vehicles was (to a degree not disclosed?) mainly covered by the net settlement (on UOR expenditure) between the Mod and the Treasury - so the same goes for those losses. Whereas the hundreds of millions in uplift is 'real' budget money and I have been aghast at the speed and breadth of the disposals, theough some will go all the way to 2030 or so.
bobp wrote:A lot of money has been spent on IT systems, communications and Cyber
Yes, but a good deal of that is covered by the JFC (now Strat. Command) budget:
"JFC is responsible for four major sectors:•C4ISR, which covers Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems and capabilities in both operational and business environments"

JFC budgets (by the year, over the first half of the 10-yr EP horizon) are , along with the Army's with the strongest growth (Air Command has a short, two year spike and then tapers off).

And on Warrior, specifically, the EP says:
"The intent is to deliver a Warrior 2 Battle Group at readiness by Q1 2024 and Brigade of Warrior 2 by Q1 2026."
- what is does not say is whether the latter date is also the prgrm end point. I.e. what is the target number for the Warrior2 IFVs
... will there be CT40s left over, for other types of turret 'applications' - for instance, unmanned ones, to beef up some of the Boxers

Ohh, a 'book' by LJ just appeared. Will post this one anyway and see if there is further comment to be made, based on that one.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: The delivery timescales for many of their programmes are too cautious and this has already been pointed out to them when their initial submission to the Interim Review was rejected as such
. Good point; forgot about that... so reading the latest EP should be qualified by that intention
Lord Jim wrote:The fact that no turreted Ajax have been delivered is a serious failing
Why? Do we know if it may be something else than the turret that is holding back deliveries. Wld speculation is spinning as the MoD is so cay about status and roll-out.
Lord Jim wrote: The Army should look to accepting platforms that meet say 80% of the programme requirements and aim to meet the remainder in service through a spiral modification and upgrade programme.
JSF was done in that sort of way**) - and look at the crticism ( :angel: :) ) the prgrm has come in for, for the extra costs.
Lord Jim wrote: It should therefore be viable to install said turret on other platforms
A great idea, but perhaps an unmanned turret might fit the bill better - with the same CT40 gun. Such a turret does exist.
Lord Jim wrote: how do they fir into the Governments desire to have a more flexible and deployable Army?
I was outlining this in my post of... today!
Lord Jim wrote: the Army will only be able to deploy its planned "Division" into Europe or Scandinavia realistically.
I would think that that - and only that - is the planning assumption?
Lord Jim wrote: Armoured Infantry Regiments dotted around the UK
If you read MoD Estate strats/ plans, theyy were concentrated around the Salisbury Plain - I would presume not just for the training grounds, but also for easier mustering and 'shipping'. Check up the relative location of the port used for any such
Lord Jim wrote:. After CASD, the Army should come number two on the MoD's priority
Looking at the trajectories of the planned yearly budgets, it would seem to be so (along with the JFC).
Lord Jim wrote: the leadership and Management skill to deliver
The MoD has been talking about investing in better Prgrm Mgt skills for a decade... I hope they have invested in the right people. And career soldiers taking up such an assignment (after some 'schooling') should be given a hired-gun (a Civvy with deep expertise) for the first year, to have as a 'shadow' on big (expensive!) rgrms, while getting the hang of it. Domain expertise is important, but so is learning by doing - while avoiding any easy-to-avoid errors.

No suitable quote for this, but the idea was expressed. Salisbury Plain is restrictive (as for realistic training). BATUS is expensive.
=> rotate BG group sized units through Poland, for 1-2 month duration, where there is space... and even the topography displays 'high fidelity'. The prairie is almost as flat as the Salisbury area.

______________
**) and as I was writing this, timmymagic posted on the JSF thread: decision on whether or not to ramp up the manufacture of Joint Strike Fighters had been due in or before March 2021, but has now been on hold pending completion of the final phase of operational testing of the F-35. --- still on hold, when should have followed the initial testing that was completed in 2018; after 10 years!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: but the overly extensive testing has seriously delayed the entry into service of both these platforms and the same will likely happen to both Boxer and Challenge 3
Surely if the testing is identifying problems that need to be fixed before.entry into service then it's inaccurate to describe them as 'overly extensive'.

Post Reply