Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I am more than happy to be proven wrong, especially during my traditional January "Glass half full phase". Regarding "Spiral" modification and update programmes, they do work most of the time. The F-35 is really a specially case where the rush to get it past IOC went beyond all logic, and the planes ended up basically back in the trials phase straight after with the aircraft in squadrons severely limited in what they could do until it was signed off in the trials units first. Programmes like the RAF's Jaguars evolving from the GR1 to the GR3 as a good example how a spiral programme can work, as was Project Centurion on the Typhoon where the programme was broken down into manageable phases over a period of time, rather than trying to do everything in one go.

With Warrior and the WCSP, I still believe they have been too cautious, placing too much risk on the contractor and refusing to accept the platform and place a manufacturing order until the platform meets 100% of the requirements to 100% satisfaction levels. Now part of this could be that the funding was not available for the production phase so the programme has been kept trading water at the trials and assessment phase. But nothing is ever 100% reliable, 100% of the time, so conducting trials with the aim of achieving this is too extensive. The end user, in this case the units, will always find faults, or end up making alteration to make the platform more serviceable in their eyes, as they have to use it day to day.

Has the MoD raise the bar too high for the trails to completed in a reasonable amount of time?

As for the Warrior being dotted around the UK, I was out of date on that, as I was sure there were a couple of units up north at one time. Whether the Army's current plans dovetail into the Governments plans for the service going forward, I believe that is quite a large gap between the rhetoric and reality, currently covered by spin and power point presentations. With tracked vehicles still destined to dominate 3rd (UK) Division, the Army's deployable force will end up being based around 16 Air Assault Brigade and the four Mechanised Battalions from the "Strike" Brigades. The Ajax will be no different from the Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry Battalions to deploy and in fact the latter would be a better choice. But the logistical and support needs of both these formations hinder both their rapid deployment and utility once they arrive in theatre, requiring a Het for every two vehicles being transported as well a good example.

The Warrior 2 will provide the Army with an up to date IFV though its lack of an integral ATGW is a sad omission. But the Army's planned future structure will tie the bulk of its front line assets to NATO and Europe, making it far from the deployable global force the Government really wants.

For the Army's new 2+2 configured Division, to produce a viable combat force a lot more needs to be done between now and 2030, with a substantial number of capability gaps needing filling as a matter or urgency, including many basic capabilities that should already have been fully funded and the platforms already development at the very least, if not already undergoing trials.

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 »

I agree both with the 'general' theory and how the case is quoted, but the BUT comes after the quote
Lord Jim wrote: "Spiral" modification and update programmes, they do work most of the time. The F-35 is really a specially case where the rush to get it past IOC went beyond all logic, and the planes ended up basically back in the trials phase straight after with the aircraft in squadrons severely limited in what they could do
, namely Spiral Development does not assume concurrent testing and production.
- Rather: that you get something stable and delivered first, and then do the next iteration. When you have enough (for whatever need), then you start to 'recall' the early batches for pre-planned retrofits. E.g. the Puma is being produced in this latter way.
Lord Jim wrote: many basic capabilities that should already have been fully funded and the platforms already development at the very least
- at least their development should have been (part)funded; in part as we should not fund the manufacturer's profits from exports. Called 'skin in the game' ;)
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)

SD67
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by SD67 »

Luke jones wrote:
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?
Luke jones wrote: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?
4 billion had been spent on Ajax to date, that’s the answer. Real cash actually spent - it’s in the government accounts been reported on by the defence select committee. Twice the entire Tempest budget out to 2035, twice the Type 31 program.

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 »

SD67 wrote:4 billion had been spent on Ajax to date, that’s the answer. Real cash actually spent - it’s in the government accounts been reported on by the defence select committee.
Spent, contract is for more (see below).
SD67 wrote:Twice the entire Tempest budget out to 2035, twice the Type 31 program.
Not spent, budgeted (and for Tempest, will be just the down payment, of the total, if it is to be brought into service - rather than ending up as modules for upgrades, on our own or somebody else's a/c).

The Committee Chair was absolutely delighted, for once, for getting a straight answer:

" Understood, much hangs on the IR giving green lights, but we would like you to hypothesise: if the green light were given, what is your timetable to getting these things on the frontline? In the case of Warrior, let us go back to ask another question: how many Warriors are operational now?

Lieutenant General Tickell: Two brigades’ worth, so four battle groups. It is in the region of 600.

Q88 Chair: I hope someone has the numbers somewhere. But we can then assume that you would want to upgrade every single one, or around that number, in order to have your two brigades’ worth as well. [A leap of faith, I would say, as a comment]

Let us move on to Ajax. Can you confirm that the intention is to purchase 589—[Interruption.]

Jeremy Quin: Could you repeat the question in a second, please? We have an announcement going on in the MoD, for which I apologise.

Chair: Was that announcement “all operational leave cancelled”? [Laughter.] Could you confirm the cost and the number projection for Ajax, and while we’re at it, for Boxer?

Lieutenant General Christopher Tickell: For Ajax, there was a contract placed for £5.5 billion back in 2014. That is for 589 vehicles of six different variants. For Boxer, there was a contract placed for £2.6 billion in November last year, and that is for 508 vehicles.

Q89 Chair: Good. Is the progress of that subject to the IR as well, or is that in the bag?

Chris Bushell: No. The Ajax vehicles have an initial operating capability date that has just recently been delayed from July this year until June next year. I am very happy to go into more detail around that.

The Boxer vehicles have an IOC at the moment of—[Interruption.] We just lost the sound. [not fielding a complete brigade in 2026, regardless of what the IOC might be... glacial. Another comment ;) ]

Chair: Shall I repeat the question? Can you hear me now?

Jeremy Quin: We can hear you now.

Q90 Chair: Right. I suggest that we need to invest some money in comms at the MoD.

Is it fair to say that none of the projects—Challenger 2 upgrade, Warrior, Boxer and Ajax—has the green light yet and that they are subject to the integrated review?

Chris Bushell: No, that is not correct. Ajax and Boxer are currently under contract, and we have a delivery schedule and plans for introduction to service. It is just Challenger and Warrior that are subject to the integrated review.

Chair: Right. Can I congratulate you on giving me an answer? That is absolutely fantastic."

Now, as BGs are the unit of account for fielding anything useful - other than SF-style raids -everyone can draw their own conclusions where we will be at in 2025/26
- I have maintained that full delivery will match Putin's term (ending; and that was just extended :) , btw)
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: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

With Warrior, trails and testing have either been overly cautious wanting to reduce any risk to the MoD to as near to zero as possible, glacial due to funding issues or both. I understand he need for a stable platform but the level of stability being demanded by the MoD has meant the trail and testing phase seems to have covered everything up and including the tolerances for the padding in the Commanders seat! If the requirements had been set at a minimum for the platform to be accepted into service, not the same as the minimum the Army would like, then although the platform would not initially enter service with all the bells and whistles the Army may have wanted it would be in service. Then a spiral development programme could be initiated for the platform.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Before we continue down this rabbit hole, can someone remind me what is the timeline for the WCSP, when did it actually begin and when is it due to end, in theory.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

I would say the problem is not so much the testing but the age old problem of mission creep the longer a program goes on the more gets added which in tune gets tested which in turn adds time

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:Before we continue down this rabbit hole
Project (WCSP)Expected cost to completion at approval(£m) [1] Current Forecast cost to completion(£m)[2] Expected In-Service Date at approval [3] Current Forecast In-Service Date[4] (KURs) to be met = ALL
1. 1,319
2. 1,546
3. Nov-18
4. Mar-23

While the discussion has been interesting, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Namely,this testing that takes so long is (mainly, KURs are of course there to be 'ticked') about technical reliability (old hulls and all that). The worst case was at some point 1.8 bn (much more than just the cost of manufacture in that)... and it looks like the number is coming in at the mid point of that and the original.

The number remains unknown (as for units) and I strongly suspect that is is being used as a way to balance the programme's cost share in the total portfolio (rather than eating into other projects, save for ABSV that fell as a victim of fracticide).
- so we never get to hear about the number
- it won't be the 600 EQUALS 4 BGs (or if it is, there will be an awful lot in those BGs riding in (on :) ) other mounts than Warrior.

Like I said upthread 2 BG's worth by 2026 (ISD 2.5 yrs or so earlier = 1 BG)... and that long gap let's me suspect that not much more will be arriving after 2026.

Nov-18 to Mar-23 sounds like an awful long time (and it is), but what would be the value of that investment without Ch3 going ahead?
- you might be tired, by now, hearing the analogy with Matildas (perfectly fine infantry support tanks. That's what Sherman was designed to be... but it grew to further incarnations. Israeli upgunned specimen served for long and in Latin America they even got the-then super-modern Italian-Israeli hi-velocity gun, to serve even longer)
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: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Thanks for the info. For some reason I thought the programme started wat before 2018, I must have got my rant streams mixed up with Ajax on that one.

I think we are going to get no where near the 600 mark especially of you look at each battalion having 75 vehicles on average that only adds up to around half of the 600 and even if you add in training vehicles and BATUS, if it survives, then I would say you are approaching at most 400 being retained and I may be wrong but only the turreted Warriors are getting the full make over with the extent of that to be carried out on the remained outside of the WCSP.

If there is a rethink and both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units get their Recce Troop/Section equipped with Ajax then we could see Warrior variants like the recovery vehicle replaced by the equivalent Ajax family member, and as for the Mortar Carrier, I think that unless we go for a turreted solution, w common vehicle will equip both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry, and this will be based on the Boxer.

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:only the turreted Warriors are getting the full make over with the extent of that to be carried out on the remained outside of the WCSP.
Yep, we have lost visibility of what is happening - if anything - with the two underlying layers of updates, to a wider fleet:
1. GVA
2. Better protection
3. Then. For some the turret
Lord Jim wrote: I thought the programme started wat before 2018
Indeed, the '18 date indicated was the ISD target, by now 'well shifted/ shafted'
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 »

Back on the subject of this:
jedibeeftrix wrote:if you wanted to construct the smallest/leanest active-duty armour force with value at a strategic scale, what might that look like?

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.
There was an interesting suggestion on twitter that quite intrigued me:
It doesn't even need to be an IFV. Convert Ajax numbers to Ares variants. Two small triangular tracked "heavy" brigades based on upgraded Chally Regt, Ajax recce regiment and armoured infantry on Ares APC (Protector RWS 40mm GMG) - it will be in close spprt of MBT, no IFV reqd?
It does not lose an enormous amount of medium calibre firepower compared the current ArmInf vision, and allows valuable personnel budget to be redeployed to more FP friendly units.... i.e. Medium-Wheeled formations that are far more likely to be used.
If a light RWS is good enough for boxer why isn't it good enough** for a heavy tracked APC?
** accepting of course it is sufficiently protected by both a tank Regt and a cav Regt.
We can then talk about if 30x113mm wouldn't make a good light RWS
Also happily consolidates medium-tracked on a single modern platform - Ajax.
Reserves might be a single tank battalion (to provide replacement crews) and two Arm-Inf Battalions (to bulk up the Arm-Inf Brigades).

Any thoughts vis-a-vis the opening question above?

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:If a light RWS is good enough for boxer why isn't it good enough** for a heavy tracked APC?
You hit it on the head, namely takes us back to the crux of the matter:
"Ian Nicholson
@IanNicholsonIP

Looking at the UPC of Ajax, this would not be cost affective. A real need is coming back to what is the requirement for an IFV."
I don't even know what UPC (unit cost of production, after the already-incurred prgrm costs have been taken off the top?) is but, regardless, the argument is valid
- APCs won't, in any shape of format, be IFVs
- they take infantry to where they are needed, to fight dismounted
- IFVs cover tanks, can keep up with them, as they "fight" with the dismounts whether in the back or, err dismounted

Less tanks, less IFVs required (though the proportions vary greatly; 1 to 1 seems to be quite usual, but in concentrated use of armour even thinner cover could be feasible, whereas in dispersed battle - the flavour of the day, and a scenario with Boxers coming in handy - the ratio would be reversed.
- how lucky as with the training days allocated to reserves, a unit of AI is a much more feasible proposition than a whole rgmnt of tanks

So, who pulled these rumoured quantities (150 MBTs and 215 IFVs) from the hat?
- going by that we would have 1:1 and a fully formed (trained?) reserve AI rgmnt, going fwrd. Which means that a rglr unit could be attached to the higher readiness Bde, and be backfilled from reserves
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 »

these rumoured quantities (150 MBTs and 215 IFVs)
Forgot to say that their OSDs will match; and, are only a dozen years or so away from getting the two Strike bdes up and running
... gives plenty of time to figure out the 'next step'
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Dose this still stand or is it wrong or has it changed

Armoured infantry battalion

57 x Warrior , 21 AFV , 8 CRV(T) , 12 Javelin ATGW and 6 81mm Mortars plus 729 all ranks

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:57 x Warrior , 21 AFV , 8 CRV(T)
AFV?

That ie. what AFVs are
aside, a check sum 215 minus 150 EQT 57 W2 plus more of the same (8) or Ajax in the close recce role (as the CVR(T)s are on their way out)
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

fv 432 or bulldog

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 »

Interesting that when ABSV was still planned, the number was never much over 60 (for the-then 6 AI bns);
6 x 21 (plus reserve bns) gives a figure twice that many (needing replacements)

... well, let's first see if the IFVs will materialise
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: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Why are people calling the Ares a "Heavy Armoured APC"? That is like saying Warrior is a Heavy IFV in the same class as the Israeli Namer! Ares is a tracked APC just as Boxer is a wheeled APC.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

mainly because i don't know what i'm talking about - as an outsider - and thus prone to misusing the terminology.

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 »

MBT like protection drives the weight up (hence the IFV and APC divergence is re-emerging as only having IFVs is unaffordable).

Puma max 43 tons and Ajax (Ares specs are somewhere...) max 42 - both with a turret, though. If a modern tank (MBTs will need to become lighter) is @55 (Armata, naturally with a turret), so the quarter difference in weight is not much.
- though still markedly different from the mere 5 tons that separates a Namer (60t) from a Merkava4 (65t)

While Russia has opted for a similar family (T14 & T15), they also produce light IFVs in quantity for their kick-the-door-down forces (airborne/-landed and marine infantry)
... so that they can go places
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: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Very funny. No seriously I wouldn't consider Warrior a Heavy APC and neither would I call Ajax a Heavy Recce Vehicle. Weights have gone up across all classes of AFVs, look at what top tier MBTs weigh these days.

What I was underhandedly trying to make the point of was if you are happy to have the Warrior as an APC with a 40mm AGL or .50 Cal M2 then you might as well use a Boxer. Both have advantages over the other in certain areas but the Boxer has more on the Warrior moving forward, at least in my opinion.

Saying that I often forget to add that last bit, coming across as stating absolute facts which I am not.

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: if you are happy to have the Warrior as an APC with a 40mm AGL or .50 Cal M2 then you might as well use a Boxer.
Or Bulldog for that matter. After Iraq, 500+ are new as for automotive parts,little used, have the Israeli add-on armour and some have the .50 cal... let's buy some GMG/AGL RWS combos for the rest ;) , rather than "the guy" operating the .50 cal from behind a shield
- even better, get the Namer weapon station where the movement of the vehicle is compensated for by three pixels on the sight aligning... and then the rounds go off
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: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

An issue it appears with reverting to the use of APCs as against IFV is that additional platforms have to be delegated to provide fire support, beyond simply trying to supress enemy infantry, for the former as they advance to deploy their infantry, whereas the latter can provide this themselves. this equates to providing a troop of Tanks to each Infantry Patton for this purpose. Things get worse if you want to take into account the possibility of being encountered by the APCs that cannot be seen form the position providing covering fire. In this case you need to have capable vehicles such as Tanks accompanying the APCs, whereas again an IFV maybe able to look after itself except against the heaviest of opposition.

This argument applies not only to our Armoured Infantry Battalions but also the Mechanised Infantry in the "Strike" Brigades. In this role it is currently planned to use the Ajax with its CTS40 40mm Auto cannon, but this seems a very inefficient solution and more a case of we will use them because we have them rather than a well thought out doctrine. If the Ajax came with a long range ATGW then it would be better suited for the fire support role at least.

Current plans though are going to put too much responsibility for providing support for the Warrior IFVs on our very finite numbers of Challenger Main Battel Tanks. It will be a case that the latter will nearly always be in support of the former and not the other way around, which will impose limitations on how our Heavy formations operate. If we were to revert to using APC versions of either or both Warrior and Ajax the situation would be worse.

Even installing Javelin alongside and .50 cal on the RWS would only slight alleviate the problem. Of greater utility would be the adoption of a very long range ATGW with a man in the loop function such as Extractor, but deploying it within Infantry Battalions as a integral support weapon, that could be called upon and controlled by any vehicle in the unit, quite possible with current technology. The firing units launches the round into the vicinity of the enemy and the unit requiring support provides terminal targeting.

What is certain is that both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry are currently lacking the mobile firepower integral to their main platforms and integral to their units to be truly viable in a future peer level conflict, or in out of area operations where they would be deployed rapidly without heavy fire support.

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:Even installing Javelin alongside and .50 cal on the RWS would only slight alleviate the problem. Of greater utility would be the adoption of a very long range ATGW with a man in the loop function such as Extractor, but deploying it within Infantry Battalions as a integral support weapon, that could be called upon and controlled by any vehicle in the unit, quite possible with current technology. The firing units launches the round into the vicinity of the enemy and the unit requiring support provides terminal targeting.

What is certain is that both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry are currently lacking the mobile firepower integral to their main platforms and integral to their units
And just for that reason, if we can only afford 1:1 between MBTs and IFVs (plus a fully kitted reserve AI bn to 'call up') then , despite the short quote, it all goes back to
1. Boxers effectively being APCs
2. MMP like (does not require a dedicated launch platform) BLOS weapon can be rolled down to platoon level
... no MBTs. Though I've always said that the ones we won't upgrade should be kept as Infantry (mech. that is) support tanks. Deployed in penny-packets (Rommel & Co will turn :) in their graves)
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote:An issue it appears with reverting to the use of APCs as against IFV is that additional platforms have to be delegated to provide fire support, beyond simply trying to supress enemy infantry, for the former as they advance to deploy their infantry, whereas the latter can provide this themselves.
Just to play this out further...

Does the equation change if:
1. You want those additional platforms regardless, i.e. we just really love the idea of a brace of ajax Formation Reconaissance Regts
2. The number of PAX in a Ajax/Warrior derived IFV is so drastically reduced vis-a-vis a turret-less Ares, that you aren't seeing much advantage

Combination of the two [could] militate in favour for dedicated cavalry recon platforms and dedicated PAX transports, rather than hybrid shooty IFV vehicles...

Post Reply