Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I see where you are coming from, where as with an APC/Ares you would have 8 dismounts per vehicle therefore needing less to transport a Platoon, you would need additional fire support platforms to accompany them. Alternatively with an IFV with only six dismounts you would require more of these platform but would not need the additional support.

I think in the Armoured Infantry this is moot as regardless as to whether an IFV or APC was issued, the formation would have the support of the Challengers, though probably not as many as would be ideal. There should be around twelve Troops each of four tanks available to the Brigade. This means the Brigade Commander will have to be very creative and careful at the same time as to how and where they are committed. What is obvious though is the Challengers will be acting in a support role the vast majority of the time rather than being an offensive spearhead.

As far as Ajax etc. are concerned, at present it appears there is no plan to retain the integral Recce Troops/Sections in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units, instead consolidating the vehicles in the four Cavalry Regiments in the two Strike Brigades. Individual family members may be used to replace certain versions of the CVR(T) family used in the former units, such as the Sultan Command Platform.

This highlights one of the multitude of issues that exist with the Army's current reorganisation plans, the Armoured Infantry Brigades are going to be too small to be viable combat units in a peer conflict, with very little resilience, being unable to sustain even moderate losses before becoming combat ineffective. They will lack the required firepower concentration and the manpower to hold the size of area expected from them. Like the Strike Brigades they will be heavily reliant on Precision Fires, but unlike the Strike Brigades they lack any Recce capability within the Brigade to be able to direct this onto the Enemy prior to contact, instead having most likely to rely on allies units to provide it.

Both the Warrior 2 and Challenger 3 should be very capable platforms, and a huger step up form their existing configurations, but current plans still leave out capabilities that are urgently needed. The former really needs a turret mounted heavy AGTW such as Spike-LR2 and the latter need a smart 120mm round to allow it to engage none MBT targets more effectively. Hopefully the new open architecture will allow these to be added sooner rather than later.

But the problem still stands the Brigades are too small. Maybe it would be better to pool both Armoured and all four Armoured Infantry units under one Brigade Headquarters. This would certainly give our Heavy force the mass it needs. Alternatively each Brigade could be given a Battalion of Mechanised Infantry mounted in Boxers and each Challenger Regiment provided with an extra Armoured Squadron. A|t a bare minimum both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units should retain their integral Recce Troops/Sections and have them re-equipped with Ajax.

Hopefully the ongoing IR will give the Army a reason and the resources to rethink their future plans and the reorganisation of the Army's main combat formations. The recent cash injection has been called a once in a lifetime opportunity to update our Armed Forces. Let us hope the Army takes this to heart.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

just to clarify - as i'm grasping at the terminology here:

"at present it appears there is no plan to retain the integral Recce Troops/Sections in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units, instead consolidating the vehicles in the four Cavalry Regiments in the two Strike Brigades."

"at a bare minimum both the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units should retain their integral Recce Troops/Sections and have them re-equipped with Ajax."


the two statements seem to jar to me - is the first statement the solution to the problem you mention in the second?

i.e. pull recce squadrons out of the Armour/ArmInf, and form them into their own regiment.
you can then:
1. have a triangular brigage - with Arm/ArmInf being fully stocked with Armour and Infantry
2. have a square brigade - with two ArmInf and two mixed Cavalry Regts composed equally of Tanks and Ajax

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

The first statement is the current plan moving forward, which I would like to see reversed. The options you have put forward would also bring substantial benefits to the Brigade and I had not though of either.

However to form the Integral Recce Troops/Sections it would be necessary to not form two of the Cavalry Regiments that are to be part of the Strike Brigades. I would see these replaced by either an additional Mechanised Battalion or a Cavalry Regiment equipped with a Boxer variant armed with a 105mm or 120mm Main Gun, one can dream.

I actually put forward the idea of moving two of the Recce Regiments to the two Armoured Infantry Brigades a while back to both give them more mass and more flexibility. If you look under "The Future of the British Army", thread you will see a number of my proposals for the reorganisation of 3rd (UK) Division and beyond.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Alternatively with an IFV with only six dismounts you would require more of these platform but would not need the additional support.

I think in the Armoured Infantry this is moot as regardless as to whether an IFV or APC was issued, the formation would have the support of the Challengers
IFVs and APCs have different modalities, and hence we will have IFVs only in AI bdes
- fighting also on the move, and not just when dismounts err, dismount
Lord Jim wrote: obvious though is the Challengers will be acting in a support role the vast majority of the time rather than being an offensive spearhead.
The reason why the US is creating a light tank for those BCTs that do not have MBTs
- they have the luxury of numbers
- in our case, as you suggest, this function should be seen to with a turreted Boxer
Lord Jim wrote:Individual family members may be used to replace certain versions of the CVR(T) family used in the former units, such as the Sultan Command Platform.
- another good example of how (with current equipment plans) we are bound to create mixed Warrior/ Ajx-family formations, with the close support logs challenges then coming 'on the deal'
Lord Jim wrote: need a smart 120mm round to allow it to engage none MBT targets more effectively.
Absolutely, but with the re-gunning now taken (?) for granted though no MG decision has been aired yet, such a round is available from both 'Europe' and the US
Lord Jim wrote: the Brigades are too small. Maybe it would be better to pool both Armoured and all four Armoured Infantry units under one Brigade Headquarters
Agree with the premise. However
- normally such a unit would be called a division
- in our case 'the' warfighting or manoeuvre-warfare capable division
- for it not to be too small, as a division, round it up with either a Strike Bde, 16X or both
- thus inserting the quick manoeuvre that will enable and shield our "HET movements" for the heavier units

We would still have the other Strike bde (and RM) available for 'the flanks' with early sea entry or littoral hopping capability... or alternatively, for simultaneous 'contingencies' arising elsewhere
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: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I would like to see things made simpler

3rd Division

2 x Armoured brigades with Challenger 3 , Warrior 2 , Ajax and AS-90 plus supporting units

2 x Strike brigades with Boxer APC , Boxer Scout , and Boxer 105mm plus supporting units

1 x Protected Infantry Brigade with Jackal & Bushmaster in Troop carrying , Command , Mortar and towed 105 mm Artillery

1st Division

5 x Protected infantry Brigades with Fox Hound & Bushmaster in Troop carrying , Command , Mortar ,and towed 105mm Artillery

6th Division

16 AA brigade

1 x light infantry Brigade

SF units

Signals

Intelligence

Logistics

Engineers

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Agree with the premise. However
- normally such a unit would be called a division
- in our case 'the' warfighting or manoeuvre-warfare capable division
- for it not to be too small, as a division, round it up with either a Strike Bde, 16X or both
- thus inserting the quick manoeuvre that will enable and shield our "HET movements" for the heavier units
Agreed, and I believe that is roughly the size of a French "Armoured" Division or at least it was back in the 1990s.

With the pooling of the Armoured and Armoured Infantry under one Brigade HQ, it should allow us to deploy an effective formation with the mass and hence resilience to do the job, with flexibility on its composition, 2x Arm, 2x Arm Inf or 1xArm, 3xArm Inf for example. I believe this is more in tune with the way the US Army organises its Brigades, with each Division having a number of Brigade Headquarters, but these have few if any permanently assigned units. Rather the Regiments within the Division are assigned as required for operations.

If we, as has been discussed moved two Recce/Cavalry Regiments from the "Strike" Brigades to the Armoured Infantry, we could still maintain two Brigades that would be far more effective than currently planned, but that would also require a major rethink on the shape of the former.

Of course all of this discussion relies on Warrior surviving he Integrated Review, which is not certain. If the new turret were transplanted onto the Boxer, yes delaying introduction somewhat, w would still have a IFV platform able to do at least 80% of what the Warrior can but with substantially reduced running costs. Whilst the Warrior 2 should be a good platform even though it is missing an ATGW, the desire of the Government to have more deployable Armed Forces may see them look to a larger pool of Armoured and Mechanised Infantry units, equipped with the same core platform as offering too many advantages over the tracked platform moving forward. The fact that the French have done just this may or may not be seen as a positive. But when pennies count and global influence is desired, A wheeled platform with its greater ability to move distances under its own power, and the reduced maintenance, training and general support costs may not bode well for teh Warrior and the WCSP.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Warrior will have to stay in some form due to mass even if we were to go all boxer in the mec infantry / IFV role Warrior would need to hang around until the 2035 ish I could live with Boxer IFV replacing Warrior down the line in a second batch but we need to just get on with the first batch as is

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:more in tune with the way the US Army organises its Brigades, with each Division having a number of Brigade Headquarters, but these have few if any permanently assigned units. Rather the Regiments within the Division are assigned as required for operations.
It used to be more like that, when bdes (BCTs) in the main did not have their own support units, but rather these were assigned at deployment time.
- what they did was sensible, namely
- cut down on the nominal number of 'bdes', but with that sacrifice made the rest fully rounded

Outside the 3rd Div and RM, our Bdes are administrative. E.g. the Gurkhas will be in 16 Air Assault, but because of geography, until that is needed, they are under 11 Bde
- the gurkha light infantry bn is an example of 'playing with duplos': it is self contained, you give the training for the role, switch the command arrangements... and off we go
- DOES NOT work like that when you put together armoured/ AI BGs. The assets are more specific and support is more specialises (not just with training, but with what they need to have to hand). Hence keeping 3rd Div or the 'old' response force well formed and mainly self contained (with all of our Challies and Warriors) is not a bad idea, but rather a practical one

I am not sure that naming the pool of CS/ CSS units into a Div (6th) is useful (exc. prestige wise) as now the function of 1st Div looks increasingly like what Bde HQs do
- however, for a long time we clung onto ARRC (whatever letters in it, a deployable HQ for us+allies contributing the troops... whether it was easier to say that we needed two deployable HQs when WE had two divisions, or what - hard to tell
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me about pooling the Chally and Warrior units with a single Brig HQ or saying it is a bad idea. I would also suggest that the RA have a similar idea with a single Brig HQ, though units could still be attached to combat brigades as well.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: saying it is a bad idea. I would also suggest that the RA have a similar idea with a single Brig HQ, though units could still be attached to combat brigades as well
Well,(a bad idea, or under-optimal) under many scenarios re: how they will be initially deployed, and perhaps later even divided between separate battle spaces
... one only needs to go back to the race for Berlin: East-to West direct, or creeping up towards North-West/ North along the Donau "valley". An example of interrelated, but physically separated battle spaces. Current 'parlance' would make them the same 'theatre' though

The single Arty Bde HQ does not play as an example supporting the case as
1. CS is always (in whatever quantities) assigned to operational HQ, and
2. the single peace time HQ exists for efficiently organising training, husbanding the resources and then mobilising them in suitable packets, for various (perhaps simultaneous) allocations
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding the Armoured Infantry Brigade, I would suggest it would deploy as either a 2+2 or a 1+3, using the units at the highest readiness and if necessary borrowing kit for the remaining units that would be held in reserve. I believe this is a more realistic option for being able to deploy a viable Brigade rather than two that are far to fragile, lacking both mass and resilience.

Regarding the Artillery, my suggestion of forming a Brigade was a bit tongue in cheek, but any Armoured Infantry or Strike Brigade deploying on combat operations, especially against a high end opponent will need to be accompanied by more then the traditional Regiment of Guns with a battery of GMLRS being tagged on. I can see the need for at least twice that as well as far more GBAD units which also come under the Artillery as does many of the Army's UAV capabilities. Would the Combat Brigade HQ be able to manage all these additional units? Add a Strike Brigade to the deployment and a Divisional HQ and it might be better to have a centralised Artillery formation supporting Both Brigades, and connected and integrated by the wonders of modern military communications.

May be we should think about moving this to the "Future of the British Army", thread as we are now talking bigger issues than just Warrior. See you all there.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:would suggest it would deploy as either a 2+2 or a 1+3, using the units at the highest readiness and if necessary borrowing kit for the remaining units that would be held in reserve. I believe this is a more realistic option for being able to deploy a viable Brigade rather than two that are far to fragile, lacking both mass and resilience.
I think I was on the same lines when I suggested that maintaining a fully formed (and trained) AI rgmnt/ bn is a more realistic proposition than doing the same for a tank rgmrnt.
- hence a 1+3 could go ASAP, and with the calling up of the reserves (30d?) the 1+2, ie. the normal set-up, would be ready to roll (on HETs, they should be back by then ;) )
Lord Jim wrote: under the Artillery as does many of the Army's UAV capabilities.
Big UAVs (needing a runway) were too 'hot' to handle even though WK was originally a RA project... so they are now under the wing of JHC (as are what remains of manned fixed-wing army aviation). Combat Air Bde has not answered any roll call... yet :)
Lord Jim wrote:it might be better to have a centralised Artillery formation supporting Both Brigades, and connected and integrated by the wonders of modern military communications.
Now we must modify the song 'oh baby, come back' to :D 'oh DAG, come back!'
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: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

What would we call a well rounded Armoured brigade could it look like

56 x CH-2
100 x Warrior
60 x Ajax
200 x Bulldog
20 x Stormer HVM
16 x AS-90

deployed as

1 x Armoured regt
1 x Cavalry regt
2 x Armoured infantry battalions
1 x Artillery regt

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Roughly like that; I take that the Ajax numbers would include various versions of the family
Tempest414 wrote:56 x CH-2
100 x Warrior
60 x Ajax
200 x Bulldog
I would say that with that many Bulldogs, one can squeeze an xtra inf. bn out of the numbers (one from called up reserves?)
- alternatively, that bn - for flank security and as a mobile reserve - could be riding in Boxers... once we have enough of them
Tempest414 wrote:16 x AS-90
Add long range precision fires,
and while for the units on the move the mobile GBAD looks OK, the HQ and logs nodes would need to be covered by a CAMM battery, with the new, improved Giraffes (that can be also used for deconflictation between airsupport and ground fires)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Or u could aim for

56 challenger and
400 boxer

deployed as

1 x Armoured regt
1 x Cavalry regt
2 x Armoured infantry battalions
1 x Artillery regt

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

any IFVs needed?
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: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote:Or u could aim for

56 challenger and
400 boxer

deployed as

1 x Armoured regt
1 x Cavalry regt
2 x Armoured infantry battalions
1 x Artillery regt
Knock off the Challenger's and that is how I would like to see the Strike brigade's

1 x Cavalry regt in something like the Australian scout Boxer
2 x Mec infantry in standard Boxer
1 x Artillery regt with air defence and 105mm mounts on Boxer

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe we should just bite the bullet, accept two type of medium Autocannon and purchase the Boxer IFV with the Lance RC turret. It can readily be fitted with a ATGW system such as Spike-LR2, carried 6 dismounts, has all the toys you could ever need.

Purchase it initially for the first Strike Brigade (4 Btn), then move onto the Armoured Infantry (4 Btn), and then finally the second Strike Brigade (4 Btn) over a period covering up to 2030.

Ajax still goes to equip four Recce/Cavalry Regiments, one each in the Armoured Infantry Brigades and two independent units that would be used in the traditional manner. One of these would ideally be permanently stations in Eastern Europe to act as part of NATO's forward presence and used as part of its initial screening force if things ever went hot. The other would be UK based as be the Divisional Recce formation for 3rd (UK) Division.

The WCSP would be cancelled and the Ajax purchase reduce by around a third. Part of the additional money allocated to the Army for Procurement would also be used to increase the Boxer budget, with the saving in support and training costs providing additional funding further into the programme

Given that other countries have/are adopting wheeled IFVs including the Boxer, and that the German Army is purchasing the vehicle for its more deployable formations means it has a good pedigree.

The Army is conducting was is a once in a generation transformation and has been given substantial resources to carry it out. Surely it is worth at least investigating.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Ajax still goes to equip four Recce/Cavalry Regiments, one each in the Armoured Infantry Brigades and two independent units that would be used in the traditional manner. One of these would ideally be permanently stations in Eastern Europe to act as part of NATO's forward presence and used as part of its initial screening force if things ever went hot. The other would be UK based as be the Divisional Recce formation for 3rd (UK) Division.
This part of the plan is easy to buy into, under the proviso that long range precision fires to be integral in Strike Bdes would be invested into.

Whereas the German case
Lord Jim wrote:that the German Army is purchasing the vehicle [Boxer] for its more deployable formations
omits the fact that these forces are the infantry component to the Pz (or PzGrenadier) Divisions (first to be fully reformed by 2027, assume that it will be 1PzD as it is the one in highest readiness) and then two more to follow...in due course
- leaving little else than Gebirgsjaeger (in Boxers, mainly) and airmobile forces that can be teamed up with the Hungarian or the Romanian heavy mech. bde (both under formation) to make up a "Schnell" D. Translation for that could be either quick-reaction, or 'Light(er)'
- the point being that the sharp end of these 1-3 divisions will be MBTs and Pumas (with plenty of Marder 2s still around for a long time as the Puma IFV is being fielded at a leisurely rate)
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the point being that the sharp end of these 1-3 divisions will be MBTs and Pumas (with plenty of Marder 2s still around for a long time as the Puma IFV is being fielded at a leisurely rate)
Which is fine for the Germans as these formations are all going to stay in Europe and be fairly easy to move east if the situation ever demanded it. Also being picky, I think you mean the Marder 1 A3, A4 and A5 as the Marder 2 was cancelled and replaced by Puma.

For the UK a Boxer IFV will basically do everything we need an IFV to and matching the Warrior in nearly all areas. Tracks no longer have a major advantage over wheels and the latter are less resistant to mine damage, just thought I would get that in. If we ended up with twelve Infantry Battalions in Boxer IFVs, that would definitely meet the Governmental aspiration of having a more deployable Army, as well having one that would be cheaper to run and maintain, with a substantially reduced logistics train.

On mobility tracks only beat wheels over what is really extreme terrain, whilst on levels of protection they are nowadays equal, and firepower, well equal or not by user choice. So does the ability to operate in extreme terrain justify the much greater cost of maintaining and supporting a tracked platform in the IFV class. Over time the savings to the Army will certainly add up. Of course if you take the tracked IFV to the limit such as the Namer and various other platforms with current MBT levels of protection the tracks are the only option.

If we go with Warrior than fine we will have a decent though under armed IFV, equipping two Armoured Infantry Brigades that that have more issues to deal with than whether its IFVs are tracked or wheeled. Add that either of these formations may never deploy outside the UK let alone Europe, that duty being taken up by the Strike Brigades.

On a different track, another worry I have regarding Warrior is will this end up being a once only upgrade in reality. There is lots of talk of spiral development paths but once in service with attention be drawn to all those new trendy capabilities the Army wants, and so we have a repeat of the Challenger 2, with the Warrior 2 receiving little or no updates until its OSD unless the things actually go to war.

Oh well this debate will continue well into the future, maybe we should have a thread aimed at the future of AFVs to cover it.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:this debate will continue well into the future, maybe we should have a thread aimed at the future of AFVs to cover it.
I think we are fine as so far the only one planned, in addition to Ch3, is the upgraded Warrior... let's wait for the 'official word'
Lord Jim wrote:a Boxer IFV will basically do everything
What would the IFV version look like? As we have 'APCs' on order
Lord Jim wrote: If we ended up with twelve Infantry Battalions in Boxer IFVs
12 x 70 plus some specialised support versions, round to a thousand, I think is what the army is aiming for. The question is: by when will that mile post (realistically) be reached?
- and I am all for it! In the meanwhile...
Lord Jim wrote: either of these formations may never deploy outside the UK let alone Europe
That (UK only) would be a major revision of defence planning assumptions. And NATO central front + the Northern flank vs. everything/ anything else has been a debate :idea: raging ever since the 1967 devaluation (IMF and all that; mind you, Russia had to do that in 1998 and one of the fixations in Putin's mind is 'never again' so that fiscal conservatism and budget trickstery has seen static and declining defence budgets for several years by now... will that be noted in the threat assessments of the forthcoming IR :?: )
Lord Jim wrote: worry I have regarding Warrior is will this end up being a once only upgrade in reality.
I believe that is about 100% certain and to me it is not a worry
- rather driven by the fact that neither Ch3 nor W2 are worthwhile investments without the other
- Warrior upgrade was targeting OSD 2035 and only when it is now looking that Chally-Nxt will only be available (in a tried and tested form) c. 2040, suddenly the OSDs for both appear as the same (2040 that is)
Lord Jim wrote:I think you mean the Marder 1 A3, A4 and A5 as the Marder 2 was cancelled and replaced by Puma.
Yes, I meant the upgrades as the world is flush with the original issue that the Bundeswehr got rid of with their 30% cut of everything (S. America, Jordan, for resale) along with many tanks,of which they themselves have now bought 200 back. This 'embarrassment' of having the old in parallel with the new for so long may turn into a blessing in disguise.
- What I mean is that the 'Merc 600' overspecced Puma order may be cut close to the already ordered number and the actual replacement for Marders will turn out to be the Lynx
- Regardless, what is dead-cert is that if the plans hold, the 3 divisions will all have MBTs, tracked IFVs - count in the Dutch CV90s - AND Boxers. And Only the Division 'Schnell' will have the Boxer as their top-end armour

If we were to have a future AFV thread, I would note that in top positions in the EU there is not just the German ex-DefSec but also a French counterpart... into whose wider portfolio developing defence industrial base and co-operation also falls. Like the next tank, the future artillery system etc - no agreement on an IFV, tough :?: A tough nut that one :idea:
- carving out all of the following from the Industry DG for his nominee for a totally new Directorate was quite a coup for Macron (and giving the top job to a German (U. VDL) would potentially just enhance the influence of that new Commissioner):
- The Deputy Director-General DDG 3 (Defence and Space) and the services under his responsibility, namely unit 02 (Financial Management of Space Programmes), and Directorates I (Space Policy, Copernicus and Defence) and J (EU Satellite Navigation Programmes) move to the new DG for Defence Industry and Space
- The part of Unit GROW G3 (Procurement legislation and enforcement) dealing with defence procurement moves to the new DG for Defence Industry and Space
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What would the IFV version look like? As we have 'APCs' on order
Well there are the Lithuanian Boxers in service at present and the German ones on order, plus the Australian ARV can carry dismounts if required. Below is Rheinmetall's web page on the subject.

http://fighting-vehicles.com/rheinmetal ... ust%202016.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me right now we need a solid plan that will take us out to 2040 and for me this would be

1) 220 challenger upgraded
2) 430 Warrior upgraded ( 300 with the new turret)
3) 1000 Boxer ordered ( 500 x APC , 120 x CRV , 120 x 105mm DFS , 100 x air Defence , 160 x others types needed
4) 700 Ajax ( 160 x turreted Scout , 240 x APC , 100 x 120mm DFS , 100 x air Defence , 100 x other types needed
5) 1000 Bushmaster ( 600 troop carrier , 100 mortar , 100 artillery towed 105mm , 200 other types as needed

This could allow for the 3rd Division to look this

2 x Armoured Infantry Brigades each with

1 x Armoured regt (Challenger 3 )
1 x Cavalry regt ( Ajax scout )
3 x Armoured infantry Bn ( Warrior 2 & Ares )
1 x Artillery regt ( AS-90 or Ajax 120mm and air defence )
1 x Support regt

2 x Strike Brigades each with

1 x Cavalry regt ( Boxer CRV )
2 x Mec infantry Bn ( Boxer APC )
1 x Artillery regt ( Boxer 105mm DFS and air defence )
1 x Support regt ( Boxer types )

1st Division

3 x Mobile infantry Brigades

1 x Cavalry regt ( Jackal )
3 x mobile infantry ( Foxhound and Bushmaster )
1 x Artillery regt ( Bushmaster towed 105 mm gun )
1 x Support regt ( Bushmaster )

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding when and where the Armoured Infantry Brigades could end up being used, NATO's central front is by far the most logical, and actually retaining one Brigade in Germany or even moving it east would be a reasonable idea in my mind, for that exact purpose.

That would leave the Second Brigade together with the Mechanised Brigades (can we call them what they are rather than the "Spin" infused Strike moniker please) would be available for deployment up North but do we have the facilities and resources to move an Armoured Infantry Brigade in a matter of weeks and have it in country and combat ready in that time frame?

This is why I believe the Ch3s are going to be targeted squarely at the Central Front. It is also why the planned Mechanised formations need to have their organisation and planned equipment heavily revised now before we start taking delivery of actual vehicle. The Army has already identified the need for a Mortar Carrier, but as to whether this will be a basic fire from a hatch variety or something more advanced nothing has been said.

The need for a recovery platform with a heavy crane able to lift a Boxers Power Unit has also been identified and ideally it should be able to lift a Mission Module to allow the changing of module to be conducted in the field. Luckily such a variant already exists.

There is also a need for a SPAA platform to supplement our existing Stormer/HMV platforms, though I would like to see the weapon system form the latter transferred to a Boxer Mission Module as well. Fortunately a SPAA version of the Boxer already exists in the form of the SP Sky Ranger which used a 35mm autocannon and a fully integrate FCS including optical and radar sensors. It is able to use AHEAD style ammunition and is designed to engage everything from UAVs to fast jets.

With Boxer we will have a great advantage when it comes to upgrading or re rolling the platform due to its Mission Modules. In the majority of cases development will only be necessary on the module itself, as is exemplified by the large number of variants Rheinmetall has already developed in house and to meet customer requirement rapidly. The IFV version for the Lithuanian Army went from drawing board to in service in less than two years for example. This is where investing heavily in the Boxer as against the WCSP should pay dividends for the British Army. It would also greatly benefit industry as will such a large fleet the UK could become the main manufacturing centre of the Boxer at Rheinmetall's plant being developed in Telford. With an in house design and engineering department at the same site, we would be well serviced to incorporate emerging technologies into the platform and develop new variant for the Army when the need arises.

The same cannot be said for Warrior which is really a dead end programme. Even if the BASV programme resurfaces, it would probably be cheaper or at least more efficient to build variants of the Boxer or even the Ajax to carry out the roles envisaged.

To sum up my opinion, we gain little by adopting the Warrior 2 as against an Boxer IFV except maintain the tradition of using a track Infantry Carrier to accompany Tanks, simply because that is what has been done since the 1960s.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Below is Rheinmetall's web page on the subject.
I guess I've seen all of those a couple of dozen times; I was rather inviting your personal opinion
Tempest414 wrote:500 x APC , 120 x CRV , 120 x 105mm DFS
Oy! That is one in three... we would be wasting money from the public purse... by having more than one in four. However, the latter is taking into consideration the effective platoon size (minus drivers, and those displaced by a manned rather than an unmanned turret).

But, but :D
- assume that the direct fire variants are only 50% embedded at the rgmnt/ bn level and the other half is kept for allocation from the brigade level as artillery that will arrive faster than any other - save for Apaches - and now we are right on the money :)
Lord Jim wrote:central front is by far the most logical, and actually retaining one Brigade in Germany or even moving it east
I think it was today when I signed on your proposal of having the recce rgment in-situ... that makes it Poland, where we have 250 or so in that role already
- a trebling :!: ... is nothing enough :)
Lord Jim wrote:the Ch3s are going to be targeted squarely at the Central Front
- a tick in the box, as per upthread
Lord Jim wrote:a SPAA version of the Boxer already exists in the form of the SP Sky Ranger which used a 35mm autocannon and [,,,] is able to use AHEAD style ammunition and is designed to engage everything from UAVs to fast jets.
Yeah, a single shot will bring those modern-day mozzies down. I used to promote - in the good old days on TD - s shotgun latched right outside the commander's hatch, for the purpose. The range was a minus, but all of them have trained for accuracy in their 8-) private lives.
Lord Jim wrote: This is where investing heavily in the Boxer as against the WCSP should pay dividends for the British Army.
I know someone who promotes the idea. You, I and him would need to seek a more balanced approach... but these days it can only be done over a virtual :oops: pint.
Lord Jim wrote: incorporate emerging technologies into the platform and develop new variant for the Army when the need arises.
:clap: :clap: , yes, we need at least that level of "in-shored" capability. The capacity will be there from the leading-in license builds.
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)

Post Reply