UK Defence Forum

The BvS 10 is an All Terrain Armoured Vehicle produced by BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds of Sweden. This vehicle, referred to as the All Terrain Vehicle (protected) - ATV(P) or Viking by the UK forces, was originally developed as a collaboration between industry - Hägglunds Vehicle AB - and the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on behalf of the Royal Marines.

The UK currently operates four variants of the vehicle: The Troop Carrying Variant (TCV) capable of carrying 2 crew plus 10 passengers; the Command Variant (CV), which carries 2 crew plus up to 8 passengers with the rear cab being designed as an enhanced digital communications platform, the Repair and Recovery Variant (RRV), carrying 4 specialist maintenance vehicle mechanic crewmen and the Ambulance Variant (AV).

Under Joint as it is also operated by the Royal Artillery with Watchkeeper.



You can see it "swimming" here:

Let me check here what I've read elsewhere:
- only 59 came back from refurb (may be not all needed it?)
- the bigger Singapore variant was chosen over Viking for use with Watchkeeper. That number (100-ish) seems excessive for the purpose. However, with the Afghanistan level up-armouring it was not amphibious anymore, so in that sense quite a sensible allocation.

This may not be the "big picture", but someone will be in the know?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Let me check here what I've read elsewhere:
- only 59 came back from refurb (may be not all needed it?)
- the bigger Singapore variant was chosen over Viking for use with Watchkeeper. That number (100-ish) seems excessive for the purpose. However, with the Afghanistan level up-armouring it was not amphibious anymore, so in that sense quite a sensible allocation.

This may not be the "big picture", but someone will be in the know?

About 125 Warthog purchased, 100 to be kept on. They say for UAV support, but it's perhaps better to read it as "involves supporting UAVs in its role". With Warthogs astounding performance in Afghanistan for safety, there's no way they won't use it for APC roles again.

There are 99 Vikings being upgraded to Mk2 for the Royal Marines, and depending on which reports you read and how you read them, there may or may not be another 21 Vikings for the Army too.

Thx, makes sense.

What will the army be using the Vikings for? Would make nice (helo-transportable) platforms for mortars and tripod-ded HVMs, to take to places where everything else would be impractical (or immobilised to the point where the taxi service ends).
- armour support group for the 16X, the same way the RM have theirs? Add a few new-build Scimitar 2s, to round it off.

Always wondered why the Marines never employed CVR(T). A Sqn or Regt attached to 3 Cdo Brigade would have been an ideal compliment, being light mobile with good firepower.

............

Versatile Vikings' £37 million upgrade completed

The Royal Navy’s fleet of amphibious all-terrain vehicles – Vikings – have reached full operational capability (FOC) after a 3.5 year journey.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) announced in September 2012 that 99 Viking vehicles, used extensively by the Royal Marines, would be regenerated under a new £37 million contract with BAE Systems.

The revamp of the Viking Fleet has seen the vehicles fitted with new mine blast protected Hulls designed to offer additional defence should they encounter an explosive device. In addition the entire fleet has had improvements made to its braking and suspension systems.The project has been managed by the MOD’s Defence Equipment and Support organistion based in Bristol.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vers ... -completed

............

............

Must be a top contender for the Bv206 replacement programme.

............

BAE are pushing for it.
Its an evolution of a proven design.
Commercial probably means cheaper.

Marines seem keen on the hyper mobility of an tracked articulated vehicle, which leaves the Bronco or the Beowulf, with the Bronco possibly being a little on the heavy side.

............

Am I wrong in remembering an article stating they had changed their minds about using the Warthogs for UAV support. If so then why not just use the Warthogs for the BV206 replacement as they already have them.

............

arfah wrote:Warthog has been withdrawn from use.

Exactly my point. So instead of buying new from BAE/Haaglands user the stored Warthogs.

I think that something that should be considered. A mixture of the Army's warthogs, some new build warthogs, and some upgraded BV206 for the logistics element could be cheaper.

If it is possible, and the saving are enough, use them to finally invest in PASCAT and CB90.

If that's still affordable, scrap the idea.

-<>-<>-<>-

Pretty certain that Warthog is not amphibious in anyway shape or form. The additional armour added put paid to that. If we started adapting and removing armour etc. you basically end up with an inferior Viking. The additional armour was Warthogs raison d'etre over Viking. The cost of all the additional work would probably be the same as buying new Beowulf, plus I don't think that the Warthog fleet have been regenerated post Afghan withdrawal.

Do the RM need more than 100 armoured vehicles anyway? Could they actually use 100 Warthog?

-<>-<>-<>-

-<>-<>-<>-

All of the CAMM(L) images or discussion I've seen have been around it's carriage on MAN SV. It's a pity we're not looking at a similar set up to the photo as the link below. I mean it's not like 3 Commando don't need air defence as well....particularly of a bridgehead like San Carlos Water was...

http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/aktuell ... arvisades/

It's worth noting that IRIS-T is 2.9m long. CAMM-ER in canister is 4.4m. Given the difference between CAMM and CAMM-ER length it seems reasonable to assume that the CAMM canister would be around the 3.6m mark. By the looks of it by eye it would fit easily. You could even use some Warthog for the task....

A nice find... these A2A derived missiles seem to be making good headway as the next layer, over and above manpads (and vehicle mounted multiple manpad missile launchers losing ground ).
- UK: HVM & CAMM-L
- Sweden: RBS70 & Iris
- Finland : RBS70, Stinger & Amraam (Nasams2); the Asrad-R having been rejected
... not to mention Israel who mix lock-on before and after launch missiles, to ensure that defences cant be saturated by incoming salvo-launched missiles/ rockets

The MAN SV as an unprotected mobility platform is ill suited for the purpose of providing cover for units already engaging or on the move, so seen from that point of view we will be moving backwards (albeit with more performant missiles).

It strikes me that for once with Starstreak and CAMM that we're not in a bad position weapons wise for air defence. There are clearly issues with the platforms, the numbers (as ever) and onward development, with LMM taking the funds for Starstreak 2 and if we're honest we'll probably not see CAMM-ER in Army or Navy service, even though it appears to be a no-brainer with marginal cost for huge gain. A little bit of money and some commitment and for the first time in decades we could have half way decent ground to air protection for fixed sites and mobile units. We still need a gun system, particularly with the proliferation of cheap UAV's, again the answer is staring us in the face with the Thales Rapidfire system. The 40mm CTA will have a good range and altitude capability, either that or we need to dig the GDF out again, or a Marksmans system. Given the number of UAV's fielded it won't be cost effective to kill them off with CAMM or Starstreak, AA guns need to return. Short of a 57mm Bofors or a OTO 76mm land system (and they did make one) 40mm CTA would be a good calibre. It's a pity we didn't have the nouse to get a couple of Patriot batteries from the Germans when they were near giving them away..

But we'll probably blow it and assume the RAF will be there always.....

Well the Marksman turret fits on Challenger hulls and we're gonna have a whole bunch of them left over soon...



Directly need something that isn't just SHORAD though. Get some SAMP/T on a MAN SV already.