Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote: 09 May 2023, 19:49
Tempest414 wrote: 09 May 2023, 19:27 All of this is quite right but JC will have one or two 3030 turrets in hand and the Leopard 1 3105 ( part of the 3030 range) upgrade was just a turret , turret ring adaptor and power cable adaptor

This is just a back up if Ajax falls down again and Warrior needs to carry on in the armoured Recce role for a bit longer
So where are the Bowman radios going in the 3030 Warrior?
Where are fitted now ?. If it is in the small and cramped turret of Warrior then it should fit in the larger 3030 turret but I don't know I only spent one day sat on a Warrior watching Challengers live fire on the range

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 09 May 2023, 19:27 All of this is quite right but JC will have one or two 3030 turrets in hand and the Leopard 1 3105 ( part of the 3030 range) upgrade was just a turret , turret ring adaptor and power cable adaptor

This is just a back up if Ajax falls down again and Warrior needs to carry on in the armoured Recce role for a bit longer
One or two turrets would not cut it, if Ajax fail to deliver, the British Army would require 100+ just for recce units. It would take time to produce all of them, to do all required integrations and complete all necessary tests. And all that if turret fits without any additional work. It would not be before 2025 or 2026 till everything is done, so for a live span of just 4 to 5 years at best, considering that Ajax was supposed to achieve IOC at 2025. So complete waste of money. Not to mention that if turret would be locally produced it would take lot more time and increase costs, and if just bought from factory, UK will just throw money with getting very little in return. And it definitely would not be cheap, it would still probably cost at least £1 million per turret if not more.

And all of this because of assumption that Ajax might not deliver on (new) time which might not even happen. Even if Ajax would struck by further delays for 1 or 2 years it would still not be worth it at all.

Any money spent on Warrior at this time for some major upgrade is just a waste, even if it have to serve till the end of the decade.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

The 1 or 2 turrets were for testing not production sending 2 or 3 hulls to be test fitted and then field tested with a limited budget

But you are right it will not happen

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

Why would the UOR purchases for Iraq and Afghanistan have impacted the warrior lep when the UOR purchases came out of a separate treasury pot?

Would the UOR vehicles have been required if we stayed the course and received boxer back in 2012 like the Germans did?

I'm surprised BAE did not make a much larger song and dance about the state of warrior lep when it became clear GDUK and LM were not capable of delivering it in time it budget. Pretty sure it would have been delivered in 2016 had they won the initial competition.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:14 I'm surprised BAE did not make a much larger song and dance about the state of warrior lep when it became clear GDUK and LM were not capable of delivering it in time it budget. Pretty sure it would have been delivered in 2016 had they won the initial competition.
Warrior CSP was LM only.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

BB85 wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:14 Why would the UOR purchases for Iraq and Afghanistan have impacted the warrior lep when the UOR purchases came out of a separate treasury pot?

Would the UOR vehicles have been required if we stayed the course and received boxer back in 2012 like the Germans did?

I'm surprised BAE did not make a much larger song and dance about the state of warrior lep when it became clear GDUK and LM were not capable of delivering it in time it budget. Pretty sure it would have been delivered in 2016 had they won the initial competition.
Over a billion pounds was spent on 1600 vehicles of the UOR fleet and Bulldog upgrade add to this the time and manpower to bring it all into service meant that there was no money , time or manpower to conduct Warrior & CH2 LEP's between 2006 and 2014

Now the money was said to have come from a different pot but it was more slight of hand money given with one hand was taken by the other

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

RunningStrong wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:57
BB85 wrote: 12 May 2023, 09:14 I'm surprised BAE did not make a much larger song and dance about the state of warrior lep when it became clear GDUK and LM were not capable of delivering it in time it budget. Pretty sure it would have been delivered in 2016 had they won the initial competition.
Warrior CSP was LM only.
Ah yes, so it was. An even more bizarre decision. Whoever signed off on it should face some sort of financial liability to the extent they are sleeping on the streets.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 13 May 2023, 14:16 Ah yes, so it was. An even more bizarre decision.
How so?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

BAE had already received certification on their manned and unmanned turrets and had decades of experience working with warrior, when they said the turret needed replaced while it was a more expensive option it was significantly less risky.
When LM came along and said they could fit the CTA cannon into the existing turret with no evidence to back it up and no experience even making turrets for armoured vehicles whoever made that selection was fully aware it worked be a cock up from day one and went ahead with it anyway. They likely got a job in LM shortly afterwards which is why they should be investigated and face financial consequences themselves.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

BB85 wrote: 14 May 2023, 12:11 BAE had already received certification on their manned and unmanned turrets
You better tell DOSG that!

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 14 May 2023, 12:11 BAE had already received certification on their manned and unmanned turrets and had decades of experience working with warrior, when they said the turret needed replaced while it was a more expensive option it was significantly less risky.
If that is remotely true, how in the world would it have been more expensive?
When LM came along and said they could fit the CTA cannon into the existing turret with no evidence to back it up and no experience even making turrets for armoured vehicles whoever made that selection was fully aware it worked be a cock up from day one and went ahead with it anyway. They likely got a job in LM shortly afterwards which is why they should be investigated and face financial consequences themselves.
Why do you think it would have been only one person involved?
Surely there would have been dozens of people reviewing the bids.
In any case, such appointments are usually a matter of public record, so shouldn't you be able to name them?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

mr.fred wrote: 14 May 2023, 17:11
BB85 wrote: 14 May 2023, 12:11 BAE had already received certification on their manned and unmanned turrets and had decades of experience working with warrior, when they said the turret needed replaced while it was a more expensive option it was significantly less risky.
If that is remotely true, how in the world would it have been more expensive?
You've read the same think defense article everyone else has.

It was more expensive because BAE proposed building a new turret and submitted a realistic price for it.
LM with no experience working on Warrior or the CTA cannon pulled their figure from thin air and the MOD accepted it on face value.

When it became clear LM could not integrate the cannon inside the existing turret and their costs spiralled, the contract should have been cancelled immediately and awarded back to BAE.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by BB85 »

mr.fred wrote: 14 May 2023, 17:11
Why do you think it would have been only one person involved?
Surely there would have been dozens of people reviewing the bids.
In any case, such appointments are usually a matter of public record, so shouldn't you be able to name them?
The decision was announced by Philip Hammond a week after he took over from Liam Fox as the defence minister.
I doubt Hammond knew the first think about Warrior, while Liam Fox has faced multiple scandals about his links to industry lobby groups.
Very little else about the decision making process is public record which is why the government is spending yet more money on an enquiry to find out who did what.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BB85 wrote: 15 May 2023, 10:11 You've read the same think defense article everyone else has.
Yet I draw vastly different conclusions from it than you do.
BB85 wrote: 15 May 2023, 10:11 It was more expensive because BAE proposed building a new turret and submitted a realistic price for it.
But BAE would have had little to no non-recurring expenses
BB85 wrote: 15 May 2023, 10:11 LM with no experience working on Warrior or the CTA cannon pulled their figure from thin air and the MOD accepted it on face value.
For that to be true everyone involved at the MoD would have to be so grossly incompetent that I can't think of a decent simile.
And everyone at BAE would have to be nearly as incompetent to not mount a successful challenge to the decision.
BB85 wrote: 15 May 2023, 10:11 When it became clear LM could not integrate the cannon inside the existing turret and their costs spiralled, the contract should have been cancelled immediately and awarded back to BAE.
Except they did integrate the cannon into the existing turret. There's a video of the firing trials.

How much do you think changing horses in mid stream would have cost?
BB85 wrote: 15 May 2023, 10:27 The decision was announced by Philip Hammond a week after he took over from Liam Fox as the defence minister.
I doubt Hammond knew the first think about Warrior, while Liam Fox has faced multiple scandals about his links to industry lobby groups.
Very little else about the decision making process is public record which is why the government is spending yet more money on an enquiry to find out who did what.
You think it was Liam Fox?
While the decision making process isn't public record, if it was one person making the decision, overruling anyone else, who then jumped across to a senior position at LM, it should be fairly easy to identify them.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by sol »

Warrior is getting a rear camera


new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by new guy »

sol wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 14:26 Warrior is getting a rear camera

for 55k per vehicle.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by new guy »

sol wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 14:26 Warrior is getting a rear camera

for 55k per vehicle.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Tempest414 »

new guy wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 15:49
sol wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 14:26 Warrior is getting a rear camera

for 55k per vehicle.
On the Plus side we still have 359 Warriors to put them on

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Jensy »

Interesting piece in Saturday's Times (£).
The army could end up paying hundreds of millions of pounds more for a worse-protected armoured vehicle after a botched cost-cutting exercise at the Ministry of Defence.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/army ... -pbm3mqm0c
As part of the original decision, the Boxer armoured vehicle, which runs on wheels and is unable to travel across all terrains, was set to replace the Warrior from 2025. Now the Warrior’s life could be extended until as late as 2032 — but without the upgrade that would have improved its protection.

The Times has been told it will cost £136 million to extend the vehicle’s life by just one more year and an estimated £200 million every year thereafter to keep it going until 2032.

“We are paying more to get a vehicle that will go out of service in ten years when we could have paid less to get [an upgraded] vehicle that would have lasted another 30-40 years,” one defence source said.

MoD figures disputed the amounts and suggested it would cost just £81 million to extend the Warrior’s life until later in the decade.

An army spokesman said: “These claims are wrong and misleading. The army made clear in 2021 that Warrior would leave service this decade and the first Boxer vehicles would enter initial service from 2025, which is still the case. There are no plans to extend Warrior to 2030.”

However, The Times understands that the costs for a partial U-turn on the future of Warrior are being worked through internally by the MoD, contrary to public assertions.
These users liked the author Jensy for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jensy wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 01:51 ….The Times understands that the costs for a partial U-turn on the future of Warrior are being worked through internally by the MoD, contrary to public assertions.
Is there any plausible alternative to eventually reversing the warrior decision unless £Bns of extra funding is secured?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

Is this not really a function of the fact that Ajax has gone about so far right now and boxer is only slowly coming in that if warrior doesn’t soldier on the alternative is walking rather than some dramatic u-turn

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 09:51 Is this not really a function of the fact that Ajax has gone about so far right now and boxer is only slowly coming in that if warrior doesn’t soldier on the alternative is walking rather than some dramatic u-turn
Or the more obvious outcome of cancelling WCSP and the painfully obvious outcome of Ukraine being that IFV are still necessary...
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
sol

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 10:08
SW1 wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 09:51 Is this not really a function of the fact that Ajax has gone about so far right now and boxer is only slowly coming in that if warrior doesn’t soldier on the alternative is walking rather than some dramatic u-turn
Or the more obvious outcome of cancelling WCSP and the painfully obvious outcome of Ukraine being that IFV are still necessary...
Is that an outcome of Ukraine?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

SW1 wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 10:10
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 10:08
SW1 wrote: 22 Jul 2023, 09:51 Is this not really a function of the fact that Ajax has gone about so far right now and boxer is only slowly coming in that if warrior doesn’t soldier on the alternative is walking rather than some dramatic u-turn
Or the more obvious outcome of cancelling WCSP and the painfully obvious outcome of Ukraine being that IFV are still necessary...
Is that an outcome of Ukraine?
Maybe to some people it is, it was certainly obvious to many before that.

The only logical way out of this I can see is to commit to Boxer with medium calibre turret. That takes variety of flavours from uncrewed OTS 30mm to crewed CT40, and anything in-between, IMO.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 17:21 On the Plus side we still have 359 Warriors to put them on
About £2.5bn to replace them like for like with CV90?

Post Reply