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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Another essay!

Yes I have sort of been preaching and repeating myself I must admit. Regarding the Boxer IFV, the simplest and cheapest route would be to adopt the Boxer with the Lance RC turret, which is the unmanned version. It would involve adopting a second type of auto cannon (35mm) but given the size of the possible fleet this would outnumber the CTA40 but at least three to one as the latter would be restricted to the Ajax.

The more expensive, time consuming, though hopefully without any complications would be to adopt an unmanned turret mounting the CTA40. Nexter already have trialled a prototype, which like the turret on their Jaguar 6x6 Recce vehicle uses the who system developed by CTA rather than a bespoke one aka Lockheed/British Army.

Both turrets are fitted for the addition of a two round launcher for a medium or heavy ATGW, which would use the existing sights with not much more than a software upgrade.

Both would be able to carry 8 people plus the Driver, so with a permanent crew of two and six dismounts it would leave plenty of room for more bulky kit, or reloads for the GW launcher.

Such a platform would be far more than just an IFV. It could perform the cavalry function operating on the flanks or moving rapidly to create a blocking location. It could also be used in the Recce role in a similar way to how the M3 Bradley CFV is used by the US Army giving each Battalion a integral Recce component. As pointed out already having these platforms fitted with ATGWs means their would be no need for a ATGW Platoon, which would allow these personnel to be re rolled to provide local air defence with Starstreak/LMM, or UAV Operators and so on.

Its fast road speed would also give Commanders additional options on how these platforms were to be used, Remember the French "Daget" Division in GW1, operating on the left flank of the 101st Airborne, or the Russians dash to the airport in Kosovo. It would be far simpler of three Battalions of a Heavy Mechanised Brigade to self deploy to Eastern Europe to join up with the in situ Recce Regiment, with the Challenger 3s following on HETS than to move the same number of Warrior units. Even more so if the Army gets it act together and purchases both a wheeled 155mm and HIMARS to provide precision fire support, with the Recce Regiment already having an over watch troop equipped with a weapon system such as Spike NLOS.

If the Warrior 2 was given an integral ATGW launcher it would also be able to do some of these missions but not all. We could of course limit the Boxer IFVs to the Mechanised Brigades, but in doing so the Army would be incurring un-necessary operating costs in my opinion.

Whereas Warrior is at the end of its development journey with the WCSP, Boxer is only just beginning. A well laid out and properly funded ten year procurement plan would ensure that by 2030 all the pieces would be in place for the British Army to once again be a viable, capable, resilient top tier combat force. We have the opportunity and funding, now we must have the will.

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: Nexter already have trialled a prototype, which like the turret on their Jaguar 6x6 Recce vehicle uses the who system developed by CTA rather than a bespoke one aka Lockheed/British Army.
It is amazing how long this story of the "West End" and the "East End" of the two versions being the bottleneck was withheld??
Lord Jim wrote:Both turrets are fitted for the addition of a two round launcher for a medium or heavy ATGW
A good thing
Lord Jim wrote: having these platforms fitted with ATGWs means their would be no need for a ATGW Platoon, which would allow these personnel to be re rolled to provide local air defence with Starstreak/LMM, or UAV Operators and so on.
I think that one :D I've heard before, on here 8-)
Lord Jim wrote:Remember the French "Daget" Division in GW1
Wasn't it a Demi-brigade ( of Foreign Legion)? Too lightly equipped to be committed to anything else than watching over the flank?
Lord Jim wrote: It would be far simpler of three Battalions of a Heavy Mechanised Brigade to self deploy to Eastern Europe to join up with the in situ Recce Regiment, with the Challenger 3s following on HETS than to move the same number of Warrior units
So that would be an AI Bde (heavy-ish), with the recce rgmnt in situ, and the not so heavy mech. bns in it self deploying?
- these labels are just flying al over the place... I have a lot of practice both in badminton and with a :D fly swatter
... let's carry on :lol:
Lord Jim wrote: Even more so if the Army gets it act together and purchases both a wheeled 155mm and HIMARS to provide precision fire support, with the Recce Regiment already having an over watch troop equipped with a weapon system such as Spike NLOS.
:thumbup:
Lord Jim wrote: A well laid out and properly funded ten year procurement plan would ensure that by 2030 all the pieces would be in place for the British Army to once again be a viable, capable, resilient top tier combat force. We have the opportunity and funding, now we must have the will.
Now we really do need to meet with... the alter ego; who is so good with the violin! And owes us a lot of beers, too
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Wasn't it a Demi-brigade ( of Foreign Legion)? Too lightly equipped to be committed to anything else than watching over the flank?
The French have their own way of organising things, and their Divisions are pretty small compared to what would normally be expected of a formation of that type.

By the way I am pretty good at badminton as well though I can't seem to find my fly swatter. If "Strike" is actually a Mechanised Brigade then what is a Mechanised Brigade plus a Tank Regiment. The poor people at Land Forces HQ are going to go nuts trying to find the appropriate labels for what we are discussing . We could go all Russian and call them Motor Rifle Brigades :D

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:We could go all Russian and call them Motor Rifle Brigades
No can do as I have been tracking the 4 (some say 5) divisions that Russia declared re-established
... so far only two have any confirmed establishment strength; which is! two brigades

How anemic. Just a propaganda coup.

I've had the same difficulty with theirfour arctic brigades: only two have surfaced, so far.

This does mot mean that WE can put two bdes (if that is all we have) together and call them an armoured division
- I don't think the Defence Committee had that in mind, either, when they asked that the 2015 SDSR lay plans for "a" division that would be capable of 'manoeuvre warfare'
- they must have felt that "it" was something that we had lost in the course of things (What things? someone might ask. Well, all of those that happened after the decision to sell our desert uniforms - as 'never to be needed' again - to the future adversary!).
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

With all this talk of ditching Warrior for all Boxer in the 2030/35 time frame I don't think this is wise it would be gearing up to building Boxer then nothing for me we should be looking to replace Warrior from 2035 and feel if we could get to this by 2030

3rd (UK) Division

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 Mechanised Infantry 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 (UK) Division

3 x Mobile Protected 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 )[/quote]

With one Armoured infantry brigade stationed on the North coast of Poland able to be resupplied and re-enforced by air , sea and land and one Mobile Protected infantry Brigade stationed on the Romanian / Ukraine border. This would leave the 2 x Mechanised and 2 remaining Mobile Protected infantry brigades to deploy and re-enforce as needed

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

2 x Armoured Infantry Brigades each with
1 x Artillery regt ( AS-90 or Ajax 120mm and air defence )

2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigades each with
1 x Artillery regt ( Boxer 105mm DFS and air defence )

3 x Mobile Protected infantry Brigades
1 x Artillery regt ( Bushmaster towed 105 mm gun )

That 7x regt's of artillary on three entirely new platforms (presuming old 105mm towed guns are replaced by new 105mm towed guns).
Yes Minister would have described that as "ambitious", he might even have suggested such a plan was "brave".

I really don't see that kind of cash being available given all the other pressures on the army procurement budget.

I wonder if it wouldn't be a hell of a lot cheaper to procure (and to support and upgrade!!!) 7x regt's of Archer...?
I wonder also whether it wouldn't end up a more effective solution fifteen years down the line when the first(!) LEP is in place versus the growing obsolescence of our three putative bespoke and penny-packet fleets?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote:presuming old 105mm towed guns are replaced by new 105mm towed guns
The one we have is the best available (and thx to US adoption of it, has the best supply of varieties of rounds)
... there was the Denel 105 that was even better, but...
jedibeeftrix wrote: be a hell of a lot cheaper to procure (and to support and upgrade!!!) 7x regt's of Archer...?
We just keep what we've got, get 4 out of those 7 (on MAN trucks), then stop, and evaluate
- the wonder 50+ km US gun may or may not work
- if it does, our good old 105 will then be retained as the 'specialty' for RM and 16X
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Bit of an artillery themed bit this? Maybe better viewtopic.php?t=710&start=375#p121185

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

so far only two have any confirmed establishment strength; which is! two brigades

How anemic. Just a propaganda coup.
Ohh, the Ruskies doing badly?

But, wait for it: According to the IISS, the UK's declared division will be just about "half" of everything, compared to the 3D as of now.

We are likely to "not meet the aim of the 2015 SDSR. Rather than being able to field a division with three brigades – two armoured infantry brigades and a strike brigade – the division would only consist of two: a single armoured infantry brigade and an ‘interim manoeuvre support brigade’, the latter with some new Ajax vehicles and infantry travelling in Boxer and Foxhound armoured personnel carriers (APCs)."
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
so far only two have any confirmed establishment strength; which is! two brigades

How anemic. Just a propaganda coup.
Ohh, the Ruskies doing badly?

But, wait for it: According to the IISS, the UK's declared division will be just about "half" of everything, compared to the 3D as of now.

We are likely to "not meet the aim of the 2015 SDSR. Rather than being able to field a division with three brigades – two armoured infantry brigades and a strike brigade – the division would only consist of two: a single armoured infantry brigade and an ‘interim manoeuvre support brigade’, the latter with some new Ajax vehicles and infantry travelling in Boxer and Foxhound armoured personnel carriers (APCs)."
Have you got a link to this

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:Have you got a link to this
Just to to IISS and click on Blogs in the top bar
- unlike most of the site (advertisements for their paid content), the blog articles are
A, free
and B, quite current and topical

There's only about 4 people writing them, so don't expect a wide variety of views
... but that's what we are here :lol: for
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BTW, the graphic in that article (cannot copy it for here, without linking the entire article)
is more informative in comparing the proposed (demi-) division with the current 3 Div than doing the same for those two vs. a Russian (full) division
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Where are they getting this from right now the 3rd division is made up of the 1st , 12th and 20th Armoured infantry Brigades and supported by the 101st Logistics brigade and as plans stand one of the Armoured infantry brigades will reform as a Mechanised infantry brigade

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It was a widely publicised army (early) contribution to the IR process. 3 Div we know what it is and consists of
- IISS made a three-way comparison of how the 2025 edition of warfighting division would look like, from the details that they were able to piece together vs. two benchmarks
-- ours, as it stands before the changes
-- a Russian division; though I did (in an earlier contribution) say that not all (if any?) of their newly reconstituted divisions have more than two bdes in them (plenty of CS, though)

Did you look at the graph? Just about everything (exc. the almost non-existent artillery component) due to shrink drastically
- this could be a 'play' by the army for more money... but we don't have a publication date for the 'real thing'

Further: why publish a 'mickey-mouse division composition' for 2025 if a Strike bde (the first one) is still due for 2026?
- perhaps it isn't
- to go ahead with Ajax only (within the FRES concept) included a re-birth date for the FRES UV prgrm of 2016... which of course is the Boxer of today. Despite the big order, why - ten years later - would there not be a single unit (above bn size) fielded? What does ISD actually mean? - that the Strike experimentation Group will get new mounts, with which to experiment further

I agree that this is all very confusing. It isn't the IISS though that has created any
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 Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

Not wrong it is confusing with what we have today it should be as simple as

3rd UK Division = 3 x Armoured Infantry brigades with

1 x Armoured regt = Challenger
1 x Cavalry regt = CRV(T)
2 x Armoured infantry Bn = Warrior
1 x Mechanised infantry Bn = Bulldog
1 x Artillery regt = AS-90 , air defence and UAV
1 x Support regt

1st UK Division = 4 x Mobile infantry Brigades with

1 x Cavalry regt = Jackal
2 x light mobile infantry Bn = Foxhound & Husky
1 x Heavy mobile infantry Bn = Mastiff
1 x Artillery regt = 105mm gun and UAV

As we move on up to 2040 the CRV(T)'s would be replaced by Ajax the Bulldogs by Boxer and Mastiff's by Bushmater and the reshuffle would see the 3 Mechanised Bn's moved to form a Mechanised infantry Brigade leaving the 3rd Division with 2 x Armoured Brigades and a Mechanised Brigade and as time went on one of the mobile brigades could be moved to the 3rd and made a Mechanised brigade with Boxer

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The one we have is the best available (and thx to US adoption of it, has the best supply of varieties of rounds)
We use a different version of the Light Gun to the Americans. Theirs was modified so they could still use their existing stocks of 105mm ammunition, whereas we use ammunition bespoke to our version.

The Australians got around this by buying both types of Barrel/breach for their Light guns so they could train with the cheaper American ammunition they already had but use the longer range and more accurate UK ammunition in wartime.

We still only have the basic ammunition types for the Light Gun, HE, Smoke, Illumination and at one time a HESH round for direct fire. This is one of the reasons I keep proposing the rifled Brandt 120mm Mortar to replace the light gun as it does have more advanced ammunition types, is lighter and has a range in the same region of the Light Gun with Rocket assisted rounds. It can be towed by quite light vehicles and definitely by the JLTV or Viking. it is also easily moved by Helicopter, can be carried internally by the Chinook.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:The one we have is the best available (and thx to US adoption of it, has the best supply of varieties of rounds)
We use a different version of the Light Gun to the Americans. Theirs was modified so they could still use their existing stocks of 105mm ammunition, whereas we use ammunition bespoke to our version.

The Australians got around this by buying both types of Barrel/breach for their Light guns so they could train with the cheaper American ammunition they already had but use the longer range and more accurate UK ammunition in wartime.

We still only have the basic ammunition types for the Light Gun, HE, Smoke, Illumination and at one time a HESH round for direct fire. This is one of the reasons I keep proposing the rifled Brandt 120mm Mortar to replace the light gun as it does have more advanced ammunition types, is lighter and has a range in the same region of the Light Gun with Rocket assisted rounds. It can be towed by quite light vehicles and definitely by the JLTV or Viking. it is also easily moved by Helicopter, can be carried internally by the Chinook.
The mortar has about half the range as the gun. Regardless, why change to a mortar that doesn't seem (to me at least) to offer any advantages?

[edited: please ignore, I see that Mr Fred has moved the conversation to another thread and made the same point]

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

According to Defence News, Lockheed Martin are very worried that the WCSP will be cancelled in the up coming Review. I wonder if this is just recycled rumour or if they have been in discussions with MoD, and have been notified that this is a serious possibility though not 100% certain?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

DefenceNews seems to be quite clued up on the going-ons with the prgrm. The most definitive figure on the quantity I've seen was from them (again from an interview): 275
- OK, add: if any
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I think that you are amplifying the story, which is likely to have been amplified from the original comment.
Lockheed probably are concerned that there is a risk to the programme and are taking steps against it, but they clearly believe that its not certain.
We don’t know the context of the original statement though.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by bobp »

Lord Jim wrote:According to Defence News, Lockheed Martin are very worried that the WCSP will be cancelled in the up coming Review.
Just read the article I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens in the review.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

The Times reporting 758 Warriors may be getting retired and replaced by 500 Boxers ahead of schedule: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doze ... -70j09mdnh (paywalled)

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Cooper »

Lord Jim wrote:According to Defence News, Lockheed Martin are very worried that the WCSP will be cancelled in the up coming Review.
They should be, The whole sorry affair has been nothing but a lipstick on a (near) 40yr old pig waste of time & money...

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2546
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by dmereifield »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:The Times reporting 758 Warriors may be getting retired and replaced by 500 Boxers ahead of schedule: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doze ... -70j09mdnh (paywalled)
If the 500 Boxers were already planned, is that not just Warrior being canned without replacement? Or are we talking about 500 additional boxers on top of the originally planned 500?

Speeding up the procurement of the original batch by a year or two isn't really a replacement

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Jensy »

dmereifield wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:The Times reporting 758 Warriors may be getting retired and replaced by 500 Boxers ahead of schedule: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doze ... -70j09mdnh (paywalled)
If the 500 Boxers were already planned, is that not just Warrior being canned without replacement? Or are we talking about 500 additional boxers on top of the originally planned 500?

Speeding up the procurement of the original batch by a year or two isn't really a replacement
Have been wondering the same.

When I first read the Times article late last night I took it as being the 500 already ordered. However some have taken it as being an additional 500, with the initial order brought forward.

Also curious if it is Warrior CSP potentially being scrapped, and there's a chance the existing vehicles might be converted to the almost forgotten Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle requirement, or else binning the entire fleet?

Post Reply