In a recent appearance before the Defence Select Committee, General Sir Nick Carter, the former Chief of the General Staff, laid bare the challenges that the British Army has faced in its efforts to modernise its armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) programmes.

The candid discussion painted a picture of an institution grappling with evolving warfare requirements, internal divisions, and procurement difficulties.

Mark Francois, a member of the Defence Committee, initiated the discussion by referring to a 2021 report titled “Obsolescent and outgunned.” This report examined in fine detail the Army’s AFV programmes, noting that there hadn’t been a major new AFV brought into service for 20 years leading up to 2021. Francois posited, “Is it not true that one of the problems was that the Army kept changing its mind about what it wanted?”

General Sir Nick Carter responded by acknowledging the Army’s part in the issue. He agreed that the constantly changing requirements, in particular, posed a major challenge. He used the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) as an example to illustrate his point: “FRES was a classic example of the Army as a service vacillating between requirements. Did we want a bit of kit that you could stick on the back of a C-130? Did we want a bit of kit that could go head to head?” he asked rhetorically.

In addition to changing requirements, General Sir Nick Carter also pointed to internal divisions within the Army as a contributing factor. He explained, “I felt that some of the tribal dynamics that underpinned the way the Army did its thinking were at the heart of an argument between the armoured corps and the infantry about what the requirement was.”

General Sir Nick Carter went on to discuss his efforts to resolve these issues during his tenure as the Chief of the General Staff (CGS). He attempted to recreate the general staff to unify the divergent views and create a more focused, efficient decision-making body. “The one thing I really remember being proud of was the fact that we got the requirement for Boxer over the line,” he noted.

However, the General also pointed out the necessity of setting and adhering to clear requirements. “When I took over as CGS, I remember looking at the requirement for the attack helicopter—the echo version to replace the delta version—with the then chief executive of the DE&S. The Army had put 22 additional requirements into it. He said to me, ‘This is ridiculous.’ We removed the other 21,” Carter said.

His words serve as a warning for future procurement projects. “If you keep endlessly fiddling with requirements, the risk is that you end up with nothing,” concluded Francois, summing up the potential repercussions of such behaviour.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

181 COMMENTS

  1. Almost spat my tea out when I read the second line…..Carter…
    He has some nerve coming out with some of that.

    “Got Boxer over the line….”

    It was not meant to be coming anyway to the late 2020s as the MRV to replace just 3 Mastiff HPM Battalions until he turned A2020, of 3 properly equipped Armoured Brigades, with CH LEP, Ajax, WCSP, 3 Armoured Regiments, 3 AS90 Regiments, and 6 Warrior Battalions, included, on its head.

    The result was not enough money to finish what was started and WCSP ended.
    I won’t expand more into the ORBAT impacts in other areas, like 1 (UK Div ) in A2020 Refine, I have done that to death here too many times. I will just say other CS CSS was lost in that review and other deployable Bdes were hamstrung.

    The damage that Carter inflicted on the British Army with his Strike fantasies will take many, many years to fix, if ever.

    • A fix of sorts. Lots of noise about Boxer variants and numbers. All we know for sure is that CR3 will be working with a mix of wheeled and tracked support. Lords knows how that will pan out.

      • I’m hoping the imminent DCP will make things clearer. Sorry, just spotted another classic at the end of that report…I’d missed it as was already foaming at the mouth by then in indignation! 😳

        “His words serve as a warning for future procurement projects…… “If you keep endlessly fiddling with requirements, the risk is that you end up with nothing,”

        That could be Carters epitaph on his headstone. The Irony, that they wheel out the very man who as CGS then CDS presided over this self inflicted mutilation…. 🙄

      • Probably fine like it always does with the army, they constantly moan they don’t have the kit then manage to achieve the objectives. It’s been like that since the army started working with vehicles.

    • Hi Daniele,

      The one thing he did say was that changing requirements was a major issue and I totally agree with him on that. If you want a specific piece of kit on time and on budget don’t muck around with the requirements. Write them once, get on contract ASAP and then hold the contractors feet to the coals until they deliver the requirements on time and on budget. Simples… Oh, yes and don’t forget to add in growth potential as a standard part of the require set.

      I do of course yield to your much more in depth knowledge with regards to the Army’s structure etc. and the points you raise above highlight another issue that others and, I believe, your good self, have raised often enough. Namely, the Army has struggled to understand its role in the post Cold War period. This requires clear political input but should be something that is thrashed out between senior officers and ministers. It is core to all other decisions. It shapes the level of risk we as a nation are prepared to take on in various circumstances, it drives the scale of forces we wish to pay for and it definately drives equipment requirements.

      It seems to me that the Army has been left with no clear guidance in part because everyone has been focused on two long running wars for which we were apparently unprepared and ill equipped to fight. While this is clearly a complicating set of factors they are no excuse and the current situation speaks to a clear failure of leadership, including political failures.

      Our politicians couldn’t lead their way out of a wet paper bag – any of them.

      With my blood preasure in mind I’ll leave it at that.

      Cheers CR

      • Morning CR.

        Yes, I can agree on the changing requirements issue. So T31 as an example a way to go, and add growth later.

        On the question on what is the army for, and politicians need to input on that. Yes, you’re right. But….they did…and already have.

        A2020 was that direction given – be able to deploy 1 Armoured Division for high intensity war fighting. That you could say, goes right back to 2010, as Afghan and Iraq COIN ended and A2020 was defined.

        3 UK Div was at the core of that directive, 3 Armoured Brigades, to be used to form 1 Deployable Division, of which 2 would be used and the 3rd made from a mix of 16AA and 3 Cdo. In a situation where a single Bde was required they would rotate, and look what a mess has been made as that was thrown away as they decided Boxer must take precedence over all else. Which was not the plan.

        Now, we manage a BG in an enduring operation, not a Bde. And even that is stretching things and required BATUS reduced to a TA and armoured vehicles reassigned.

        Equipment wise, eventually, no IFV, only 2 Regiments of Tanks, and the most expensive wheeled APC you can buy being utilised as the replacement! With as yet no stabilised cannon. ( Graham breathe….)

        It is all chop and change, musical chairs, and smoke and mirrors, and that man who is making great efforts to distance himself from it ( just as Lord West does in the RN ) was at the heart of it.

        They have a directive. 1 Division.

        Poland has 4, with less people.

        • Danielle. Most of the requirements definition should surely fall at the feet of the armed forces. Government should be specifying what they might want to defend against. A particular type of enemy in what timescale & at what distance. It is then for the armed forces to size up what is needed and cost it. If the Government can’t afford it the RD needs to be changed. The average politician is not going to understand what can be achieved with one division & what might be needed to deploy it to the other side of the world.

          • Yes, and they do, I didn’t suggest it was HMG to define how, only at what scale.

            My understanding is, politically, HMG wish to be able to deploy at scale of 1 Division max effort for a one shot major war, in concert with allies, with no enduring commitment as back up. ( That extra went out the window in 2015 as CS and CSS for other Bdes was lost as the army lost its rule of 5 Bde wise.)

            That set up was the point of A2020, which Carter then tore up to get Boxer, and damaging the rest in the process.

            The army also now says a Division is 2 Brigades, which is also cobblers.

        • Completely agree, we are an island the requirements around what our army needs deliver and to look like is not rock science or even that difficult. Be able to deploy 1 armoured division to help secure peace in Europe..and have an air mobile brigade for stabilisation ops across the globe….they don’t even need to think about amphibious stabilisation ops or the northern flank as the RN/RM sort that out for them and the RAF sort out their own forward base security when undertaking air ops.

          It does seem that a decade of low intensity conflicts in the arse end of the world has made it hard for the army to keep the correct shape.

      • Indeed hteavy engineering procurement 101.

        Price the base case. Price a small handful of potential functionality enablers (options)….place the orders and progress to delivery. Build in future Price option mechanisms de-risking for the supplier future cost movements and, if relevant, forex risk. Seperate out engineering, design and any integration costs.

        • It is a lot easier now that everything is using 1/10Gb networking either fibre or ethernet.

          All you need is power and space – the interfacing is, relatively, trivial. As is upgrading processing power / disk storage to cope with growth. The old days of developing a big heavy power hungry computer system are long gone with tiny blade servers the way forwards.

      • He is a liar, it was never a changing requirement. We Knew land rovers would never resist IED and we knew anything that could would fit in a C130. Short of a change in the rules of physics or magic plastic armour. Carter is just a liar blaming everyone else and try to make it look like he fixed a problem.

    • Agreed Carter ensured the Army became a disorganised cluster fuck in regard to ORBATS, future expectations and planning! It has taken Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine to make him, and others stand up and realise (though never admit publicly) what he/they have done to the Army is not only criminal but has put peoples lives in danger, both in and out of uniform!

  2. A couple of interns with a Janes catalogue would have done a better job of Army procurement, than the mess the top brass have caused.

  3. I think the new labour SDR98 missed a golden opportunity to buy, say 70 Vickers MK3M, 39.9 ton tanks + 200-300 Warrior 2000. That would have given us modern expeditionary capability for Iraq & Afghanistan. It would also have kept British armoured vehicle factories open.
    I still say the 42 ton Ajax is too heavy foe easy deployment. Something lighter, off the shelf, like the Polish Borsuk or Korean K21. Both amphibious & air transportable by A400M. You don’t need to buy thousands. Just enough for fast mobile units such as Royal Marines & 16 Air Assault.
    Oh & NATO needs to adopt a new cartridge in the 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm category.

    • Agree. Retaining British tank production would have been great but it’s now in the past.
      The Army does need vehicles under 30 tons that are truly air deployable or rapid reaction roles. Ajax is far to heavy, complicated even for its intended reconnaissance or scout role. A modern CRT design is what’s needed.
      Also have to state on record any armoured vehicle being designed now has to have APS fitted as standard, the war in Ukraine and Russia’s massive vehicle and troop loses proves that fact beyond any doubt.
      French AMX 10-RCs aren’t doing well in Ukraine, lots of reports they are too weakly armoured and succumbing to artillery and mines, whereas British supplied mastiffs are well liked as troops inside are genuinely protected from all but the most direct hit from a heavy weapon system.
      Effective armour and an APS seems to be the way forward. I’m sure British material science could combine the 2 into a sub 30 ton vehicle that is air transportable. Something like the CV90 🤔

      • Apart from the Defence Select Committee concerns, nothing appears to be coming out of Whitehall about addressing the demise of the British Army. The government appears to be happy to tell us about CH3, Ajax and Boxer being a radical boost to the Army’s power when we all know it’s much more than that.

      • Puzzling to equate AMX 10-RC with Mastiff, the former being a 40-year old recce vehicle-cum-tank destroyer (an odd combo) and the latter being a PM APC for Infantry carriage.

        However I agree that Ajax signature is too high (physically large, noisy and heavy) to be confident that it can do a good job of conducting recce by stealth in the armoured brigades and the DSR bde.

        I think it is a pipe dream to think that all AFVs will get funded to have APS.

    • or perhaps go through WCSP for a limited number of Warrior? They’ll say the money isn’t there but will happily buy more Boxer at £4m+ a pop.

      • It would have been much cheaper to give the AI (the five bns in the two armoured bdes) the WCSP Warrior rather than Boxer.

    • I served in Afghanistan – tanks were of limited value against the Taliban who moved mainly on foot, on motorcycles and in ‘technicals’. ISAF tanks deployed only in show-of-force flourishes – we chose not to deploy any, as did most of the 41 other nations.
      In Iraq, we were up against MBTs – I would not have liked to ‘rock up’ to oppose them in a dated 40t Vickers tank, with just a 105mm gun, and lacking Chobham armour.

      The Borsuk and K21 are IFVs, not recce vehicles.

      You mention needing light recce vehicles for the RM and 16AA Bde – they have them – they were never of course getting Ajax.

      • Iraq was not just the 2003 invasion. It was the 6 years? in Basra afterwards. Having 39.9 ton Vickers tanks to take on militias & stop weapons coming in from Iran, would have been useful.
        In Afghanistan, I read of allied columns of tanks able to drive down roads without incident, while British Land Rover columns were attacked on the same road (at different times).

        • John, Tanks deliver shock action (the use of sudden, violent force to overwhelm and destroy a well armed and well protected enemy), doing this alongside armoured infantry.
           Tanks, even the lighter 40 tonne ones, are wasted on taking on militias who by and large operate on foot, on motorbikes or in ‘technicals’.

          In Afghanistan, there were relatively few tanks – where were the allied columns of tanks operating? In the whole of Helmand we had just one sqn of Danish Leo2s (based at Bastion) and they were only used occasionally at no more than Troop level for Show of Force demonstrations.

          British Land Rover columns? I didn’t see any of those – in fact I don’t recall seeing any soft-skinned Land Rovers at all – the lightly armoured Snatch/Vixen Land Rovers were quite soon replaced by better protected vehicles, such as Ridgback, Mastiff etc

          We had over 1900 Protected Mobility Vehicles and a number of armoured vehicles including Warrior.

          https://www.gov.uk/government/news/afghanistan-the-changing-nature-of-equipment
          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275172/Britain-leave-3-000-military-vehicles-worth-2BILLION-frontline-pulls-Afghanistan.html

          • Agreed, however mate my second trip in 2006 (first to Helmand obviously) there was less than 20 of us, first patrol into Sangin was in the back of 4 Afghan Army 4x4s lol! After that things got better, we got WMIKS! 2008 WMIKs once more though tried to palm off a couple of Vectors on us, told them to fuck off and we would prefer to fly than be splattered in one of those shite abortion bodges! Then short half tour in 2009 WMIKs, then 2010 a PMV hooray lol……

          • I remember seeing WMIKs or RWMIKs in Bastion with TFH Recce Pl (if that is the right term) – just opposite my office in Bastion HQ (I was there as an individual augmentee Nov 08-May 09).
            Sangin patrol in a ANA truck! You’re a brave man!

          • Not from choice mate 😂! But WMIKs did the job, jackal was better but beggars can’t be choosers mate can we lol👍

  4. Always been an obsession with what vehicles fit into a C-130 or A400m.

    I mean please!!! Even before the recent contractions in the transport fleet the idea of shifting any meaningful number of heavy wheeled or tracked units was always fanciful.

    If you’re looking to deploy anything above a large company / light battalion with all the bells and whistles then the kit needs to be shifted into theatre via shipping and/or rails.

    • Yes, that is what the Points are for.

      Last airlift of any number of vehicles would a handful of CVRT of the Sqn assigned to 5 Airborne from the HCR.

    • Yes, but the lessons of Yugoslavia & Afghanistan, show that driving a column of armoured vehicles from a friendly port, through hostile territory, to get to your peacekeeping objective, risks starting the war, you were trying to avoid. Sure, do the long part by ship, but the last 100/200/300 miles, might have to be done by air.

        • Did you not read it? If you ram an armoured column through hostile territory, you will start a war, you were sent to prevent. Fly over the hostiles to the friendlies.

          • Seriously? There happens to be a well secured airport available on either side of that 200 mile hop and nothing hostile in the middle? And what has this to do with Afghanistan – are you saying we flew over Pakistan when landing armor in Kabul?

          • Look at Pakistan. We could unload ships safely in the South, but once the NATO convoys got to the tribal North, they were often ambushed. If we had to go back into Afghanistan, we could not now ask to use the Russian rail network.
            Likewise Yugoslavia. To get to the Bosnians, you had to go through Serb areas, who did not want any help going to the Bosnians.
            Also, the airmobile 30 ton approx limit, is also true for forest, mountain, jungle tracks , tight urban streets & weak bridges. Its not just getting them there. They have to be able to operate there as well.

          • That’s what the Paras and RAF reg are for isn’t it? Making sure there’s a nice airfield for everyone else to use.

      • Depends what you want to move and how far I guess. Shifting armoured or mechanized battalions with a full compliment of vehicles would take a serious amount of airlift!

        • True. Assuming that we have four C-17s available for an op, it would take 14 x 4-ship sorties to fly 56 tanks – and then you have the myriad of other vehicles in an armoured regiment to fly in.
          It’s really not ‘an act of war’.

          • Why you would deploy to a near local port and then build your force via the Air Bridge. this way has worked for decades. Russia transferred its bulk to Belarus. Nato Partners would swing in with there airlift

          • I was not endorsing the sea shipment then short-hop airbridge plan advocated by John Hartley.

            I was talking about how any use of air transport to shift tanks is impractical – over any distance (strategic or operational distances).

    • Issue became worse as vehicles grew it is another reason the C-130s have been passed out to Grass, Kit fit and the limited girth of a Herc.

  5. You would think by now that lessons have been learnt and they’re also learning from the war in Ukraine. If there’s some good will that they can come up with more solutions and get on with it. The powers that be should stop rubbishing the British Army. It insulting too all those that have died and served in the past and it’s demoralising in the present and it could be too late in the future! What’s it going to take to get a positive shift for the Army!?

    • Thanks Quentin. All need to think positive, including CGS! Ben Wallace really does need to heed the lessons from the latest conflict, even if that means cancelling at least some of the manpower cut and spending more on equipment and munitions.

    • Remove the idiots with no idea from Leadership. educated at Sandhurst doesn’t involve inserting Common fucking sense. Lead times on ships and Aircraft means they spend more time getting it right before they order. not picking a Landrover and then wanting it to be a Range Rover

      • As someone who was trained at Sandhurst, I am slightly offended!
        There you are paid as a Recruit (Pte Class 4, in my day) and your rank of Officer Cadet is same as Pte. You learn the basics of leadership mostly as if you were a Pte in a rifle coy but on occasion in the field you get a command position for a short time.

        Very few officers eventually get a SO2 post as a Requirements Manager but a lot more training and experience has happened before that point – you may have commanded a company and are very likely to have deployed on operations and you will have done some staff training.

        Not sure why you think army officers have less time than RAF and RN officers in ‘the Field Force’. Of coure Req Mgrs don’t work to a clean sheet of paper – they get inputs from combat development staff, Arms Directorates etc.

        Much comment is made of gold plating. A small army needs equipment of greater capability than their enemies to act as a force multiplier. We need world class equipment, not just ‘roughly good enough’. Given the cost of RN and RAF equipment, quality clearly rules there too.

  6. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Read all of your posts, and as ever I’m learning more about military matters!
    I read a piece yesterday about the number of deployable MBTs, an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail. Admiral Sir Tony Radakin states only 40 tanks.
    The article is headed by:
    Fight Russia? Britain has just 40 tanks and around a dozen frigates and destroyers ready to go war – the lowest figures in modern times.
    I do have concerns when we see articles like this and wonder what on earth we spend our defence budget on? The largest in NATO after the US and about 5th in the world. How can such articles be so bleak. And what message does this signal to thise that love to criticize our fantastic military.
    Cheers,
    George

    • Sure hope he’s not proud of all those low numbers! Need to get a mind shift to fix it. The military is a big beast to manage and it has to take its place but in these slightly mad times national borders, resources and people need to be adequately protected. Like many here, like to see stronger ASW resources in particular. An extra T26, a few more P-8s, top up of Merlin’s, subsea drones and MCM mother ships.

    • You see articles written by Jackie Fisher in 1908 saying much the same. You see much the same coming out of the USA as well, the only countries that apparently have everything they need are China, Russia and North Korea 😀

    • George.

      That requires a long, complicated answer, just to say the MoDs huge budget is not all there to fund the conventional military with sufficient kit.

      There are many other variables. Logistics, ability to deploy, professonalim, capability, infrastructure, politics, industry, jobs, nuclear deterrent, much of which people do not see.

      Also, I’d avoid the Daily Mail regards defence matters.

      • Spot on Russia built 1000s of tanks but no trucks so couldn’t resupply the tanks, in the end US supplied them with 1000s of trucks so they could move forward. For every tank you need equipment to move it and keep it supplied.

      • Mail Online (distinguished from the online verison of the Daily Mail newspaper) claims over 200m readers. It’s a global clickbait shop and its articles reflect that. However, the Daily Mail newspaper uses those numbers to push their political agenda in Whitehall and Westminster, appearing more supported than they really are.

    • Britain has 213 CR3s. Mr Cartlidge, MinDP, recently stated that 157 of those tanks were available for operations.
      Why is CDS saying 40?? He is misleading people and damaging morale.

      • It is probably 40 already deployed or 40 ready to go at 1 hours notice or something stupid like that. It would then jump to 80 in 24 hours, 120 in 5 days and so on.
        If it’s not just made up nonsense numbers to start with.

        • OK, that’s different. Senior officers must be clear and let politicians do the ambiguous waffling.
          (with only a few exceptions) that 70% of key equipment had to be operationally ready at all times, with the number rising to 90% after a solid 24hrs of User and REME work.

      • Er…213 CR2. 😉 By 2030, at least 148 CR 3, possibly a few more, if Big Ben is able to prevail in jousting contest w/ Treasury. 🤞

        • Typo, of course! Eagle eyes in the USAF! Fully aware that we get a mere 148 CR3s, just enough for two armoured regiments (tank battalions in US-speak). I don’t give much for Ben’s chances – he has already wheedled two tranches of extra money in the last 2 years (Nov 2020, and Spring 2023) out of Treasury hands.

      • The CDS didn’t say forty he wouldn’t talk numbers at all, the members of the defence committee put forward that the true number of available tanks was 40.

        • CDS seems to only know about naval matters – maybe he was the wrong choice.
          Such a disconnect with Mr Cartlidge’s comment on tank readiness for operations.

      • Some would have been stripped for parts and a number of hulls prepared for the challenger 3 project. Original manufacturer for some parts no longer exists, if part is robbed to fix a tank they loose interest in putting it out to tender to have something made !

        • True. Which explains Mr Cartlidge’s comment that 157 tanks, not the full 213 are operationally ready.
          Still not sure what the comment about 40 is though – as others have suggested that might refer to those actually deployed – 14 in UKR and 28 or so in Estonia.

      • dont forget they are spread around the Globe, with a division in Canada, and they are CR2s UK has no CR3s as yet, 157 is the number of the active list, be it in store or maintenance. 40 is the number ready to roll

        • Jon,
          I made a typo (putting CR3 instead of CR2 against the number 213 but hopefully no-one was misled because everyone knows we have 213 CR2s, not 213 CR3s).

          Not sure what the point is about being ‘spread around the globe’. The point being made is not where they are but whether they are operationally fit to deploy.

          No way do we have a division in Canada (BATUS) – BATUS exists to allow the exercise (live firing and TESEX) of an armoured BG, not a division.
          Not sure how many CR2s in Canada today – three years ago a UKDJ article reported there being 22 tanks there (ie a 14-tk sqn and some spare vehs):
          https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-in-canada-the-british-army-training-unit-suffield-batus/

          213 tanks is the number on the active list (ie tanks with the 3 armd regts, trg org and in depots for various purposes, including Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve). 157 of these is the number James Cartlidge, MinDP, reported as being operationally available.

          The 40 figure is still a mystery to me – it might mean that 14 tanks are deployed to UKR and 28 to Estonia – ie deployed, not deployable. It cannot be the number ready to roll ie operationally available as that is the 157 figure.

    • Radakin ,may of stated that we have 40 tanks and 10 Frigates ready to go too War but in this topzzy turffy world and the west’s inward social destruction all that seems too matter is box ticking and ESG scores and DEI status what has happened in the last 10yrs to the Armed forces The RAF got called out with their blatant racial discrimination for the sake of diversity ,its time too reverse this irrational format and get back too what our Armed forces were World renowned for George

    • Well, yes, I think there are goodies incoming for the army. In the RA area regards GMLRS and AD we know there are.

      • Hopefully! 🤞 Have difficulty understanding MoD’s stance re GBAD; certainly there is an institutional memory of the civilian casualties and infrastructure damage inflicted upon UK during WW II, as well as recent lessons learned from UKR conflict. NATO Article 5 may have some deterrent value, but once the threshold is breached, the casualties will mount rapidly, regardless of what is enshrined by treaty. The same indifferent public sentiment will become markedly different and there will be a thorough search for scapegoats. Entirely predictable scenario…🤔😳

  8. Shades of the 1960’s disputes between the RAF and RN about what aircraft they needed particularly around the Super Harrier and Phantoms from memory.

    • There was a plan for a super sea vixen before the phantoms but was dich due to political pressure from our so called American friend’s .Was giving a very old Aircraft magazine some years back with the drawings and plans,would of been much improved over the old sea vixen and if memory servers me it’s performance was just has power full has phantom .Don’t think the yanks like TSR2 eva but that’s another argument. 🇬🇧

      • You just had to mention TSR2 didn’t you Andrew, I hope your pleased with yourself, I’ll have to put bollards up around your post and move rubber neckers along now….

        ” Move along please sir, nothing to see here”

      • Interesting Andrew. I didn’t know about the Super Sea Vixen. There was a prominent South African who served in the RN in the 60’s and rose to the top on his return to SA serving in the campaign against the Cubans in the 70’s. Read his book but forgot his name-Klonkie??😎

    • Now don’t you get me started on P1154 Geoff, hang on a minute, I just need to blow the dust off my soap box👍

        • To be fair Jonno, P1154 might well have been technologically a step too far at the time, it was certainly pushing the boundaries of the day and would have been a bit of an open cheque book with its different FAA and RAF variants.

          The dead ends and false starts caused by the cascade of 1960’s procument disaster’s at least brought about a reasonable force mix…

          The less ambitious Harrier GR1/3 and subsequent Sea Harrier were at least achievable and affordable.

          More by accident than design the RAF got it’s 1970’s fast jet line up right ‘ ish’.

          Phantom K variants (an acknowledged very expensive mistake, typical political industrial interference, no change there then!).

          The UK could have simply license built the F4B with its J79 at Warton, for both the RAF and FAA, it would have been a lot cheaper!

          Lighting ( out of date but just ‘so’ cool).

          Jaguar GR1, capable and affordable in quantity

          Harrier GR3, same again.

          Buccaneer S2, minimum change FAA variant.

          Plenty of affordable mass there….

          • Don’t mean to kick you off again John but at the FAA musem going back many moon’s ago there were even plans for a navy version of a Lighting plus with the model on display ,what could of been 🤔

          • I remember that, based on the export T55 with side by side seating, outer wing pivot,flap blowing etc, I think it was a tad ‘tongue in cheek’ by BAC, probably proposed on April 1st and they would probably have said ‘oh crap’, had the Navy taken them up on the idea!

            Landing a Naval Lightning variant on one of our small carriers would have been a terrifying white knuckle ride, that’s for sure.

            No amount of outer wing sweep or full length flap blowing would have made, slamming down and stopping that heavy weight, fire breathing monster easier, super idea though!

          • Ah Lightning John-my all time best. Jaguar was kind of in the background, Harrier was a brilliant success and deserved to have been further developed, Buccaneer was not a commercial success and from memory only operated by the SA Air Force beside the UK. One of the 16 was lost en route to SA over west Africa and it may have seen action in SWA (Klonkie?) making that the only time it was employed in anger!

          • No Tommo-you are right. Checked on auntie Google. Saw action in the Gulf War and the South African campaign in SWA/Namibia. Fog of Age is however creeping over me(born 1949)😉

          • Lightning? horrible ridiculous aircraft. Like F-104 but that one at least could take a sizable radar and more than 2 missiles…

          • Good Morning Alex. Ah yes-very short range and under-armed but along with the Vulcan howl a Lightning take off has to be one of the most thrilling sights to stir the heart and soul of any patriotic Brit!

      • Your comment reminds me of Fawlty Towers “Don’t mention the War “. We will get into big trouble if we keep talking about TSR2, Supersonic Harrier and how many languages Enoch Powell could speak😂 and if my friend Daniele gets sight of this and I ask about the time me and my pal nearly got arrested in Durban Harbour by the local fuzz for approaching to close to HMS Echo docked alongside at T jetty…😁

  9. As a inexperienced average Joe can someone explain the difference between warrior and ajax and boxer are they not all armoured vehicles

    • Yes. They are all armoured vehicles. I’m not an expert but have been hanging around on this forum long enough to have a crack at an answer.

      Warrior is an old design infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). It’s a tracked vehicle that carries infantry and a biggish gun. Not a big enough gun, perhaps, and a new turret and gun system was planned then cancelled. It’s much lighter than the other two. Warrior is to be phased out.

      Boxer is a new design, at a base level it’s an armoured personnel carrier (APC). It’s a wheeled 8×8, carries infantry, but has no turret and only a small gun.

      Ajax is a new design, at base level it’s an armoured reconnaissance vehicle. It’s tracked, doesn’t carry infantry, but it has a turret and a biggish gun.

      The last two are very broad simplifications, because each is really a family of vehicles that can do many roles. I probably should add that there are no plans to make Ajax fulfil the combination IFV role, but there are Boxer variants that can fulfil the IFV and the recon roles. However, we haven’t ordered any. Boxer has an international custumer base, whereas so far Ajax is only for the British Army.

        • Yes. Boxer is really the system rather than the base per se. I was wondering whether to talk about modularity and the tracked Boxer base, but I thought I’d keep it simple.

          • Well bugger me I didn’t know there was a tracked Boxer variant….is there a decent gun platform planned as well?
            Are we getting any …anyone know… does this make it any good..

          • I understand that tracked Boxer is a Private Venture – it may not yet be fully developedor tested by Industry and certainly no-one has ordered any yet.

          • It’s KMW hawking the prototype around shows looking for a bite. They (through their WFEL subsid) are building our wheeled chasses and are one of the two prime movers behind Boxer design.

            I’d be testing it if I were the Army. But we can’t just say it’ll cost a few million to test and might save us billions in the long run. We need to identify a requirement, have a competition and…. oh look, we’re already buying Ajax so we don’t need it.

          • Tracked Boxer is an IFV. Ajax does something totally different – it is a recce vehicle. Chalk and cheese.

            A problem with our evaluating tracked Boxer is that we have already ordered 623 wheeled Boxer, and these are being built right now. Perhaps a bit late to change horses – we are in mid-stream.

          • Tracked Boxer is intended to take all wheeled Boxer modules. So it potentially is whatever you want it to be, provided you can buy/build or design/build a module to do the job. UK has only gone with a very limited list of available modules. Ajax might have been special if it had arrived & worked as expected. If they redid it now, I doubt it would get a look in.

          • DJ,
            I am sure you are not mixing up Ajax recce vehicle with Boxer (which is primarily an Infantry vehicle)?

            I am no Ajax fan as I think it is the wrong recce vehicle (too big, too heavy, no mast), made by the wrong company and is late and pricey. When it is delivered en masse it should be OK in terms of reliability as the Reliability Growth Trial will iron out any remaining bugs – and I am sure it will meet the army’s requirement as set out in the Requirement documents.

            I am surpised that our army has only gone with a limited range of Boxer modules – Wikipedia says MoD is procuring 4 types: ‘These are the baseline protected mobility (PM) variant (MIV-PM), a command and control (MIV-CC), an ambulance (MIV-A), and a repair/recovery (MIV-REP) variant’. 
            These 4 types will meet a large number of roles (see below).

            What types/mission modules do you think we should also have bought?

            Wiki goes on to say:”In terms of numbers, 285 personnel-carrying variants are on order, divided into 85 infantry carriers, 60 engineer section vehicles, 62 recce/fire support vehicles, and 28 mortar carriers. Another 50 of the APC variants are to be configured for equipment support as repair vehicles (MIV-REP) and these are dependent on source presented as the fourth variant. A total of 177 Boxer are ordered in the C4I configurations, again divided into 123 command-and-control (C2) and C2 utility vehicles, 19 observation post vehicles, 24 beyond-line-of-sight observation platforms, and 11 EW and SIGINT platforms. The remaining 61 are to be ambulances. A further 100 with no variant breakdown were announced in April 2022, bringing overall totals to 623.

          • Graham

            My point being the whole idea behind Boxer & the recent tracked Boxer is to stop buying dedicated vehicles unless that dedication can get you something worthwhile. The idea is we should be shifting from gold plated to good enough but in volume, unless you have the gold to spare (or put some of the gold into a world class module). Yes, the likes of Redback or Lynx heavy IFV are world class front line units. But Ajax is not in their class while sort of pretending it is while in the meantime it’s become too heavy, too noisy etc to do what is supposed to be its primary job. A tracked Boxer version would probably come in around the same weight, but is more likely to work & you could go lighter & wheeled if you want.

            Australia is going for a wheeled Boxer based CRV. It appears Germany is going to do the same thing, but buying from the Australian factory of all things (Ukraine is definitely focusing minds & showing up manufacturing constraints). Tracked Boxer gives the option of wheeled, tracked or both. Now a Boxer based 155 howitzer is not at the top end like K9 etc, but it beats M777 hands down.

            I actually think the Nemo 120mm mortar is a Boxer module worth looking at. There is even a Boxer module that supports the CTA gun (hardly surprising, if you can build Boxer modules that can support 30mm, 40mm, 105mm, 120mm & 155mm). A Boxer based AA module is a must have. Programable 30mm ammunition is now coming available to add to existing 35mm & 40mm (some available as a RWS, complete with radar – eg EOS Slinger). Add in the various short range missile types already available. This is something Ukraine is highlighting big time. Cheap UAV needs a cheap response, expensive missile / helicopter / plane can afford an expensive response).

            I don’t see anything special about Ajax that can’t be delivered better by something else. It’s biggest problem is not the payload, it’s the ability to support the payload & due to the design, shifting the payload is not cheap or easy. While I don’t know what’s been done to fix Ajax, I worry that down the track, the fix will bite in the proverbial. It simply took to long to build confidence that it is not a fudge. In ten years time will we be back here again?

          • Graham

            I would add that I would like to see the MIV RWS go from 12.7mm to LW 30mm gun with ATGM.

          • I don’t yet wish to accept that the armoured infantry will have less than a 40mm stabilised cannon, as that is what the army requirement enshrined in WCSP (yes, I know project is cancelled, but the Requirement hasn’t gone away) states for infantry operating with tanks in the two armoured brigades.

            Interesting point about the ATGM – the Germans had ATGM (Milan) on Marder (ISD – 1971), integrating it in 1975. It was fired by the veh commander from his open hatch; 4 missiles were carried inside. This capability lasted until 1979. I can imagine the reasons for its decommissioning – probably more disadvantages than advantages.

          • The question I have is, is there really any need for a heavy APC? Is it the idea that these won’t be used for the last mile, or that they’ll go to the front without a peer-capable gun? Surely the latter would mean we need to buy more AFVs to support them.

            Other than being cheaper, what do we gain by buying heavily armoured APCs rather than wheeled IFVs? We’ve already seen turreted solutions that allow the same number of dismounts. Can what we lose in flexibility possibly be worth the money saved?

          • Our last multi-wheeled (more than 4×4) APC for the infantry in support of tanks was the 1950s Saracen – we then moved on to tracked APCs (FV432) then tracked IFVs (Warrior), which we sought to upgrade (WCSP programme).

            With WCSP scrapped, the MoD has decided to replace Warrior with Boxer – if it comes with just an MG (Kongsberg RS4 Protector RS4 has been ordered so far for Boxer which cannot take a cannon) it will simply be a multi-wheeled APC.

            If our Boxers have just MGs they will not be able to take out enemy medium AFVs (recce vehs, APCs or IFVs) and will not be able to deliver a great weight of suppressive fire in general.

            ‘Won’t be used for the last mile’?? Not sure what that means. Ultimately the embarked rifle section dismount either to attack or to go into defensive postions – the wagon takes them all the way there.
            These Boxers will be in the armoured brigades so will work with tanks.

            Cheaper? Would have been far cheaper to have upgraded the Warriors than buy very expensive Boxers for the armoured infantry.

          • With a small army (and many would also say a small RN and RAF), you need force multipliers such as very much better training, morale, enablers and equipment than the opposition. ‘Good enough’ often won’t be good enough to guarantee to ‘win the war’ quickly and with minimal casualties.
            Our equipment quality has to be little short of world-beating and superb.
            Not sure why you are comparing Ajax to IFVs?
            We have always had recce or reccce/liaison vehicles that are bespoke and not adapted from an entirely different vehicle – it has worked well in the past – Ferret, arguably Saladin (recce with a punch), CVR(T) – all worked well. They fitted with our philosophy of recce by stealth where a vehicle had to be low signature (small and quite light), high mobility, hada 2-3 man crew, a self defence weapon and good sensors and comms.
            In contrast other nations have done recce by fighting with stealthiness being a low priority and have favoured a larger vehicle – the fact that the Americans used the term Cavalry Fighting Vehicle to describe their armoured recce vehicle said it all.
            I think we have got it wrong with Ajax in so many ways, but ‘we are where we are’. The fixes were done last Autumn, so hopefully the problems are behind us, RGT will go well and the vehicle will be fielded with few if any issues.
            Not sure what you mean by shifting the payload in Ajax – why would you do that?

            In terms of Boxer, too late to buy the CRV (quite a new offering) as we are getting Ajax for recce. I agree that a 120mm mortar version is a good idea. I hope also that the AI will get a beefy stabilised cannon on each of their infantry carriers – too late to order a tranche of tracked Boxer to take the full order up to c.1500? If we did we would have both wheeled and tracked Boxers – that would be a mess.

          • I don’t see why it would be a mess to have wheeled and tracked Boxer, at least no more of a mess than wheeled Boxer and tracked Ajax. Perhaps you can enlarge on that.

          • When we were going to have General Carter’s two Strike brigades, they were essentially a mix of wheeled Boxer and tracked Ajax.

            Seems like the Ajax would provide 40mm cannon support for the Boxers – some say a platoon would have had 4 Boxer and 2 Ajax – that is certainly a mess. Those Ajax would not have been able to do their recce job optimally if they were providing such fire support to platoons. 6 x AFVs would have been a handful for a Pl Comdr to command. Logistically and maintenance-wise it would be difficult supporting tracks and wheels mixed at plaoon level.

            With a mix of tracked and wheeled Boxer, your section carriers, Pl HQ, Coy HQ (and REME fitter section) could be tracked Boxer and work with tanks – all other Boxers in an Inf Bn could be wheeled (Ambulance, Mortar carrier, etc). I say a mess, because it would be yet another complex equipment type to support. Also could the wheeled Boxers keep up with the tracked ones?

          • As I see it, as the Boxer APCs are currently expected to work on the front line without a peer-capable gun, they will still have to mix with tracked vehicles in the same way as the Strike brigades were proposed. Something has to support the infantry in the APCs, and I doubt if it’s all going to be done with deep strike artillery and close air support. The same issue of mixing tracked and wheeled Boxer pertains to Ajax and wheeled Boxer. To me, that is where the mess lies. So I agree with you that I’d rather see Boxer IFVs than APCs, so they can at least in part support themsleves.

            However I view Boxer differently to you. You write about it as though tracked Boxer is like Ajax and Warrior: that is a separate set of tracked vehicles. That’s not how I see it. The functionality is given by the payload module and that can sit on either a wheeled or tracked base. These are field swappable (I understand it takes a couple of hours), so a C2 could arrive on wheels on day one and swap to tracked on day two of the fight. You don’t need to decide up front for the whole campaign. This could help the nature of a brigade to flex along with need, and perhaps what’s primarily wheeled mechanised infantry in part of the campaign, shifts to a heavier mix at a later time, with more tanks, combat recce, and an increased proportion of tracked Boxer vehicles. I expect the training required to take advantage of this kind of thinking would be non-traditional.

            I don’t see tracked Boxer as another complex equipment type to maintain (unlike Ajax). The payload modules are the same whether sat on tracked or wheeled bases, and only the extra base type would need extra maintenance. This is why I’d want to ditch Ajax if tracked Boxer is viable. The £5bn we’ll pay up front for Ajax is just an indicator of how much extra money it will suck out of the Army budget over the next twenty years. I think we can get better value for money, faster (providing we can increase Boxer build speed), and with a greater potential fighting flexibilty.

            I admit I’m no expert and could well be wrong. Modularity has its own costs and is an easily target for cheese paring. Laziness and lack of time or engineering capability might mean bases would never be swapped and we’d end up with battalions and wider formations remaining fixed anyway.

            I agree with the thrust of the views on here, that politically the die is cast, and we’ll have to stick with Ajax, whether or not tracked Boxer bases would have been a better bet. The discussion is almost hypothetical. Perhaps it will rear its head again when planning the number balance between Ajax and Boxer. We shall see.

          • The Orbat in FS has the Infantry in Boxers in the Armoured BCTs working with tanks and there will be some Ajax well forward doing recce. So far a large number of the Kongsberg RS4 PROTECTOR RWS has been ordered and that takes MGs/GMGs etc, not a cannon. There may be a re-think – who knows?
            Something has to support the infantry in the Boxers, you say. The answer is the tanks, well as far as close/intimate support is concerned. Other arms support such as artillery, combat engineers, aviation, air etc.

            Ajax and wheeled Boxer no longer operate in close proximity in a brigade as the Strike brigades in which this ahhappened were cancelled.

            I would rather see upgraded Warriors carrying armoured infantry in the armoured brigades, but they were dropped. Boxer replaces Warrior, and I would rather we had Boxer IFV. To have Boxer APC (without cannon) seems to be moving us back to the 1950s when we had Saracen multi-wheel APCs with just a MG on the roof. The fact that you can play musical chairs with the Boxer APC’s payload module does not disguise the fact that you have lost the cannon.

            I do see that tracked Boxer differs from other tracked vehicles in having a swappable mission module – great – I was wondering what our £5.4m was giving us! You suggest that instead of Ajax recce vehicles we could have had a tracked Boxer with a CRV module. True. But the Ajax project was launched in earnest in 2010 when GDUK was awarded the contract – we cannot now undo 13 years work and stand to lose over £2bn design, development and testing money.

            Not sure what you mean in your last line about planning the number balance. We know the precise number of Ajax. So far 623 Boxers have been ordered and further orders will follow.

          • Thanks for the reply. If Boxers are only to be supported by tanks, not only does that sound very inflexible, but surely the small Ch3 numbers will be limiting even in the planned for formations as the number of available tanks drops ever further.

            I think it’s time for me to reread Future Soldier to try and get a better handle on it.

          • Tanks and Boxers are in intimate support in an armoured brigade – they work together – I’ve never heard that being called inflexible. But round about there is other support.

            Picture the scene – you are a Cpl in 1RRF commanding your Boxer in the advance – you are in Box formation with the 3 other Boxers of your Platoon. Attached to your rifle company of three platoons is a Troop of 4 x CR2s, the whole BG having been assigned a sqn of 14 tanks. 1RRF BG has been assigned the role of the uncommitted Reserve for the Brigade.

            Way ahead of you STA assets from 5 Regt RA are active, behind them the Ajax of RDG (a full regiment or armoured recce) are providing a recce screen for your brigade – 20 Armoured BCT.
            Sappers from a squadron of 22 Engr Regt have been assigned from the Engr Bde and are up front breaching minefields and providing armoured bridging with their Trojan and Titan tank based vehicles.

            Then comes QRH BG, with two sqns of CR2 and one company of Boxer-mounted infantry from 1 PWRR, the BG being preceeded by its Recce Tp of 8 Ajax.

            Then your 1RRF BG of which you are a part, with its sqn of 14 tanks attached – leading the BG is the Recce Platoon in Boxer CRV. In support of the BG are its own 8 x 81mm mortars in their Boxer mortar variants.

            To the left of 1RRF BG and protecting your left flank is 5RIFLES BG in their Boxers.
            To the right of your 1RRF BG and protecting your right flank is 1PWRR also with a squadron of 14 tanks attached.

            Your brigade has been assigned in Direct Support one battery of AS90/Archer from 1 RHA from the Deep Strike Recce Brigade, and SHORAD cover from 12 Regt RA and Medium Range AD cover from 16 Regt RA, both gunner units from 7 AD Gp, a Div asset.

            To the rear (and protecting that rear area) of the three BGs, there are three infantry battalions from the Army Reserve – 5RRF, 7RIFLES, 3PWRR.

            Of course your BG and the brigade as a whole have use of CSS from REME and RLC.

            Where exactly is the inflexibility or lack of support?

            Back to your other point – each armoured brigade (and there are two in 3 Div) gets one regiment of 56 tanks.

          • I appreciate the detailed breakdown of a formation and found it interesting and helpful.

            I didn’t mean that the armoured formation seemed inflexible, but that it seems to be the only type of formation you can use the Boxers in, without getting more heavily armoured Boxer variants (putting aside the Boxer CRVs you mention that we won’t have). For example, if the Boxers could self-deploy quickly on appropriate terrain, being wheeled, you couldn’t take advantage and would have to wait for the tanks anyway. (I’m now also conjuring up Boxer CRVs and mortars and wheeled howitzers and deep fire artillery as the alternative.) Perhaps, in practise, this isn’t possible anyway even if we did have enough medium-weight elements, but I thought it was the approach the French were taking, and I’d like us to have options.

            I’m sure we’ll discuss this again, and hopefully with more facts after the defence command paper refresh comes out in a couple of weeks or so.

          • Thanks. Of course 3 Div is established and organised for warfighting against a peer or near-peer opponent who has heavy armoured equipment. Thats not all it can do. If the opponent is more lightly armed then you don’t need to deploy the tanks and it may just be an Infantry operation, so the Boxers could deploy without tanks but with whatever other arms and services were required. Afghanistan was primarily infantry operating when moving in armoured vehs or PM vehs. Plenty of other occasions when Infantry in armoured or PM vehicles operate without tanks – Op Banner (Northern Ireland), much of the Balkans conflicts of the 1990s.

          • Graham

            I forget the numbers, but it’s getting to the last 10% to get you to gold plated standard that burns through the gold at an exponential rate. So are you better at 1 x 100% or 3 x 90%?

            The reason I mentioned IFV when referring to Ajax is the later added ‘strike’ ability on top of CR. I gather, that would be either IFV or Armoured Gun type vehicle normally? The like of Redback & Lynx come in at a similar weight, but appear much more survivable, including armour, APS, ATGM & OH&S. CV90 is normally considered an IFV, but a CRV version exists & has been fielded.

            Shifting Ajax payload was in reference to it being designed around the Ajax hull. It was not designed to be modular (to the best of my knowledge), which allows it to be rehoused elsewhere (like a Boxer module). Even the navy is starting to get onboard with modules (bad pun I know).

            Stabilised RWS cannon tend to be either light or heavy 30mm (as I am sure you know) depending on weight of RWS, but a number of them can handle ATGM like Javelin or Spike. Which would you prefer, a 40mm you can hardly afford to fire or 30mm & modern ATGM? Some can also handle AA & other missiles etc eg EOS R600MC & MOOG RlwP

            I wonder how relevant a tracked CRV is nowadays. Ukraine has shown an isolate armoured vehicle won’t last long unless it can handle UAV’s or has the speed most tracked vehicles lack or can avoid notice. I have yet to see a quite tracked armoured vehicle other than the M1 (which at 60-70t is not exactly unnoticeable otherwise). Can a UAV or robotic vehicle do the job with data link back to a command vehicle?

            A boxer module I appeared to miss is Overwatch with Brimstone https://rbsl.com/news-and-events/news/rbsl-unveils-brimstone-equipped-boxer-overwatch-concept-demonstrator

            Yes, agree it’s now too late for UK. Money has been spent. Time though has moved on & for too long, Ajax didn’t. Perhaps it could still be a reasonable IFV or get rid of the 40mm turret & replace with 105 or Nemo?

          • DJ, Very true that it costs a lot for the ultimate of the gold plated equipments – I owuld be happy with the 99% perfect equipment if that saved a ton of money compared to the 100% model – but I doubt I would be happy with the 80% kit, as some advocate.
            One issue is that our army is small – we are no longer buying 900 tanks as we did with Chieftain. If we are only able to fund 2 armoured regiments and 148 tanks is what is required then let us have 148 exceptional tanks etc.
            It is true that Ajax was too simply be a replacement for the CVR(T) Scimitar recce vehicle – then General Carter invented the Strike concept and that would put many Ajax into Strike brigades alongside the Infantry’s Boxer MIVs. Seemingly they would provide the firepower that Boxer with its little MG couldn’t. Plenty of problems with this concept and it was scrapped. I still don’t really get your point. Are you saying that instead of the Ajax/Boxer mix in the Strike brigades we should have had just one type of vehicle – ie an IFV with a cannon, be it wheeled or tracked? If so, then I get your point. The Ajax would be released to go back to doing medium recce (ie recce for the bde or div). Not sure that Boxer is under-armoured as you suggest.

            However we have movedon as has Carter, and Strike brigades are dead in the water.

            Shifting payload in Ajax. Ajax is not modular – why does it need to be? It is a purpose built, high tech recce vehicle – we don’t want it doing something else. In your Navy analogy, the Navy don’t reconfigure a frigate to be a minesweeper.

            You are right that the 40mm CTAS rounds are very expensive – partly because they are bigger than 30mm(!) and partly because they are made in smaller batches being CTA (ie unique). Point is army requirement was for a more lethal (and stabilised) cannon than the venerable RARDEN cannon – better kit (and rounds to go with them) costs more money. Recce vehicles don’t fire a lot of rounds as they are being stealthy and its not stealthy firing lots of rounds – they primarily ise cannon if spotted and need to bug out firing a few rounds to cover their withdrawal. Exceptionally recce can be ordered to destroy enemy recce but this exposes their position, so is not always done. My point is that the cost of rounds may not be a great issue if the wagon does not fire that many.
            ATGM – are we still talking Ajax? Now you want a stealthy recce vehicle to destroy tanks as well? ATGM is not a requirement – thats not what recce does.

            You have fallen prey to worshipping the drone! Drones do not mean that all AFVs are obsolete or that tracked recce vehicles are. We have dealt with anti-tank weapons before. Drones are not invulnerable – they can be jammed and shot down quite easily.

            You are mixing up recce vehicles (Boxer CRV, which is actually wheeled not tracked) with M1 tanks – it can get confusing.

            Tracked armoured vehicles are often noisier than wheeled ones but it is not a hard rule. It is as much the ‘engine whine’ as the clatter of tank tracks. You have a point if your trying to be very stealthy, but it doesn’t matter otherwise. Rubber band tracks can help. One way a recce vehicle can be quiet is not to move! Recce vehicles spend a long time not moving.

            We are finally getting there with the Ajax recce vehicle but in your last line you suggest developing some to be an IFV! Why?
            Not sure why you would put a 105mm gun on a recce vehicle, either.

          • Graham

            Not sure I have suggested Boxer is under armoured. UK ones are under armed.The base drive unit is pretty standard. How much armour ends up on the module no doubt depends on what it is intended to be used for.

            Australian Boxer CRV comes with 2 Spike LR 2 ATGM built in. I doubt it’s expected to take on tanks, but if you are discovered by something that otherwise overmatches you, give them something to take their mind off you while you are bugging out. A couple of 30mm won’t impress one of the heavies. A Spike LR2 likely will.

            Some frigates are looking to taking on mine sweeping. T26 & supposedly T32, using automated vessels launched from the ship.

            Boxer modules exist that overmatches Ajax in the strike mode & RWS options for 30mm cannon, MG & ATGM (some can take all three at the same time) also exist. There is only one mechanical type to support.

            UAV’s are relatively cheap & plentiful, but they lack persistence & are relatively easily detected & destroyed if you have the right gear. Most armoured vehicles don’t appear to have the required gear. Have you looked into the EOS Slinger I mentioned?

            If recce does shift to more automated & remote controlled vehicles, then Ajax may need to find another job. Ukraine is going to cause considerable rethink that is going to take a few years to work out.

          • Thanks DJ. If your recce vehicle is spotted by the enemy, especially by a huge MBT, you have not been doing your job properly. However, a Spike will certainly take out your unwelcome surprise.

            As a ex-REME officer it is good to have a reduced number of vehicle types to support, however in the average BG there is a huge range of vehicle types, (could be from motorcycles to tanks and with everything in between) so one more or less type makes relatively little difference.

            EOS Slinger sounds good. ‘The Slinger incorporates a radar, a 30mm cannon with specifically designed ammunition, and EOS’ proprietary stabilisation and pointing technology for counter-drone operations’. Sounds like a specialised vehicle is required, which can of course be on any base platform.

            I worked in RARDE on unmanned vehicles in 1989-90; the army then was not interested in unmanned recce vehicles, and clearly still wasn’t in 2009/10 when the Requirement for FRES SV (Scout) was written. I wonder if the Ukraine war has changed the thinking on that – and why. People keep going on about drones changing the face of warfare as if they are a new idea – our army first got drones in c.1969 (CL-89 Midge).
            I doubt that operation of drones by the enemy will force us to do recce by UGVs, but they could be a ‘Loyal Wingman’ to a manned system.

        • Thanks for the reminder to recheck ‘thinkdefence’ . I have read it before but he (assumption) keeps updating & it’s changed since last I looked.

    • I can only speak as an interested taxpayer. Hopefully one of the professionals on the site will give you chapter and verse. I’m sure they will correct me. They have different fighting roles. Boxer is referred to as a mechanised infantry vehicle, an evolution of the armoured personnel carrier – battle field taxis – traditionally tracked and armed with a machine gun and a mortar. Boxer is wheeled – faster but needing firmer ground perhaps. It is much better armoured than previous generations, and therefore heavier. Ajax is tracked armoured reconnaissance vehicle, fitted with a cannon which is capable of defeating most APC and even some early generation tanks. It is full of sensors and computers – a kind of starship enterprise feeding information to other networked vehicles in the battle. Warrior is an infantry fighting vehicle. It transports a section of troops who disembark to fight, and because it is armed with a cannon provides the fire power to protect that section and enable them to achieve the objective. The history of Warrior is worth a read.
      https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/11/warrior-armoured-fighting-vehicle/

      • Although expensive, I can’t see Bulldog and Warrior being replaced by anything other than Boxer. We have already ordered APC variants. Probably explains why the talk is for a total fleet of between 1,000 and 1,500. A mixed fleet of tracked and wheeled would be better IMO.

        • 432, including the Bulldog uparmoured version (the so-called Mk3), always was going to be replaced by Boxer (although there was a plan for a short while for 432 to be replaced by ABSV, a de-turreted Warrior, in parallel with the WCSP programme).

          Warrior was to have been updated by WCSP but it was announced in March 2021, that WCSP would be scrapped, Warrior would run on unmodified until the mid 2020s and then be replaced by Boxer – we have known that for over 2 years. It is an established fact that WR will be replaced by Boxer. In Tranche 1 of Boxer (the 523 order) there are only 85 Infantry carriers, just enough for the 18 platoons within the two battalions, whereas we have five battalions in the two armoured brigades, ergo the full order needs to be ‘well North’ of 1,000 units. Not sure what the mix of types in Tranche 2 (100 units) is – and have no details of further tranches.

          There is a mix of tracked and wheeled vehicles in the two armoured brigades (Ajax, CR2/CR3, Boxer and wheeled support vehs) and in the Deep Strike Recce brigade (Ajax, AS90/wheeled Archer and wheeled support vehs).

          Where I have difficulty is in CR2/CR3 being supported by accompanying Infantry in lower mobility wheeled Boxer (which may only have a MG, rather than a 40mm stabilised cannon).

          • They? Ukraine Army? British politicians?
            Bulldog is fine if you are happy with an old hull and ‘mechanicals’ – and no cannon.

          • Ben Wallace has said a few times that options are being explored to increase the Boxer production rate. Until that is done there seems little point putting in another order.

            Build rate is just 3 a month. That will need to be at least doubled, or the Germans will end up building the majority.

            We’ll see on variants, but it seems inconceivable that the army will not order IFV types.

          • If build remains at a mere 3/month, there is a massive problem as it would take decades to equip the army.
            I am sure it is just an initial low rate and would be stepped up by the company anyway – that is usual in mass production.
            The first batch were being built in Germany anyway, but UK production has started since, of course.

            I wait with interest to see how Boxers destined for the Infantry in the ABCTs will be made ‘more IFV like’. Of course the army requirement was for each Section vehicle to be an IFV with a stabilised 40mm CTAS cannon, and I have heard no justification for anything less lethal or accurate then that.

      • Positive points. we have 182 HETs in service and a reasonable number of engineering vehicles. Shame about the minimi and a whole host of other stuff that has gone

      • Getting worse for the Russians, here is a video of a T90M getting taken out by a 155mm Bonus shell (A 47-kilogram (104 lb) top attack artillery projectile containing two autonomous, sensor-fused, fire-and-forget submunitions.) from the looks of things both hit the T90M.

        • A sobering piece of film Farouk, I think that poor sod would have been better off dying like his fellow tankers straight away…

          Still, their deaths are 100% squarely on Putin’s blood stained hands, just wait for the Leapord and Chally 2 breakout in depth, many more T90’s will be joining the auspicious and exclusive ranks of the turret flying club….

  12. “I felt that some of the tribal dynamics that underpinned the way the Army did its thinking were at the heart of an argument between the armoured corps and the infantry about what the requirement was.” Gen Nick Carter.

    Carter’s comment baffles me. The Infantry have their requirements for their equipment and the RAC have theirs. There should not need to be an argument between ‘capbadges’.
    Of course there is occasionally some cross-over. Ajax will serve in large numbers with the RAC and in smaller numbers with the Infantry (in an armoured battalion’s recce platoon). No matter – the RAC as the majority user should have the lead in setting the Requirement. I saw many Requirements documents and knew many Requirements Managers – I did not come across the arguments that Carter describes in the process of generating a Requirement.
    However in his role as DG Land Warfare he would have heard many points of view about future structures, land equipment capability, TTPs etc – that is somewhat different. He seems to be blowing smoke.

    • Have you noticed how much of the thread has vanished? I think someone somewhere did not like the general criticism of General Carter.

      • Yes mate – very strange. Also I find myself occasionally criticising CDS, Adm Radakin – he seems very disinterested in anything apart from the Navy!

          • I was wondering what had changed for the better in the last eighteen months? Like him or not (and I mostly do), the CDS put in changes in his tenure as 1SL to make the most of what he had: reducing numbers of brass, moving onshore to offshore, rearranging OOS dates for T23s to minimise the capability gap, Royal reforms, roving base OPVs etc, etc.

            I haven’t heard about similar thinking in the Army being actioned, just the same old problems hitting the headlines (I won’t list this time). Steady as she goes, keep on keeping on. However, I don’t always pick up Army matters and perhaps Gen Sanders has done things and I just haven’t heard about them. So I asked what?

          • I met Sandersas CGS and worked with him on Ex Saif Sareea II in Oman in 2001.
            Sanders has been in post for 12 months.
            But what has he done in the year?
            He has certainly made some vivid speeches, which were often deemed controversial, however I did not find it controversial for him to liken the unmodernised CR2, first fielded in 1998, to a rotary dial telephone in an era of smartphones.
            He famously cancelled 3 PARA’s overseas deployment last June due to much poor behaviour.
            He said that he would look at Structures in light of the Russo-Ukraine war but I haven’t heard the outcome.
            He said he would look at the deployability of the army’s vehicles but I have heard nothing.

            He is charismatic, very bright and speaks very well – but I have ‘heard more words’ than ‘seen actions’.

            An aside – in one of his speeches CGS mentioned that 9,000 of the army is serving overseas of which 6,000 are in Europe. a somewhat higher figure than I might have guessed.

  14. Finally someone who was responsible for changing there mind constantly admits its there fault. not Procurement or Civil servants watching the arse clowns constantly change what they want. Army should be stripped of any input on what they need. as they have all proved they lack common sense when Buying anything on the company credit card.

  15. I think any further delivery of ajax mini tanks should be halted immediately. What use or need we have for them and boxer, frankly escapes me now.

    British Infantry numbers are at an all time low, and are destined to get lower. I think the Ukraine conflict has clearly demonstrated that we do not need slow heavy mini tanks any more.

    • mini tanks! That’s very ‘Daily Mail’.
      BTW, Ajax are not slow. Top speed is 43mph, which is F1 performance in terms of AFVs. I agree that they are heavy for the role.

      Why do you think the Army has no need for armoured reconnnaissance vehicles (Ajax) or Infantry carriers (Boxer)?

      How does the reduced Infantry numbers relate to your dislike for the above vehicles.

      Which major platforms do you think the RN and RAF should give up?

        • Because politicians are generally clueless and might actually think of them as Tanks instead of real Tanks. Which the Strike Brigade fiasco was partially implementing when 2 of the 4 Ajax Regiments were to be in a “Medium Armour” role.

          They are also Armoured Rec vehicles, not Tanks. A vastly different role.

          Those Strike Brigades were once Mechanized Brigades with a real regiment of Tanks, a Regiment of AS90 SPGs, 1 Warrior Bn, and 2 Bns of Bulldogs. Proper Brigades with serious firepower.

        • Because this is not 1939?

          Tanks have a different role to recce vehicles. Classically we do recce by stealth not recce by fighting – the gun on a recce veh was primarily for self-defence, but could take out enemy recce if it was authorised to be somewhat less stealthy once in a while. Recce operate forward of our main forces and alone.

          Tanks are mainly to deliver shock action in the offensive using their cannon, and operate with infantry and other arms.

      • “How does the reduced Infantry numbers relate to your dislike for the above vehicles”.

        The world and Warfare are changing almost on a weekly basis. Reconnaissance missions require stealth. The Ajax things and stealth, are two words that have no place in the same sentence. Reduced Infantry = less need of noisy clanky armoured vehicles.

        Such armoured vehicles, are now susceptible to drone attacks, let alone the plethora of rockets and missiles. So the Ajax could be deemed as obsolete, even before the poor unfortunate British soldier gets put into one.

        Regarding the Boxer piece of kit, personally I would go for them, and stuff the Ajax rubbish.

    • ISTAR for starters.

      It is bad enough that so many of our Infantry Battalions are in effect “regiments of foot” or going round in 4 tonners ( do they still exist? ) without getting rid of the Boxer order!

      I’m quite happy to see infantry numbers reduce, IF that headcount goes into an expanded RA and IC.

      • I do just recall that vehicle provision for Lt Role Inf bns was very sparse and very soft-skinned. This article in link (only written in Sep 21)
        says that there are no organic trucks for such Inf at the Platoon or Coy level, but that Quad bikes help to carry Bergens etc long-distance:
        https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2021/09/light-role-infantry-platoon-load-carriage/

        I roughly recall that a small pool of Leyland DAF 4-tonners (they replaced Bedford 4-tonners) was held at Bn level, but this knowledge is hazy and relates to many years ago. This 4t wagon ISD was 1990 and was supposed to be replaced in 2014 by MAN SV HX-60, 6-tonner trucks, but article says that some DAFs remained in service in specialist roles (mortar carriers and 105mm Light Gun tractors).

        I guess if tpt was required in large number in a short space of time then a bid would be made to RLC to provide many TCVs??

          • I think they once did, but then Quad bikes were invented!
            Take that with a pinch of salt – I’m really not sure how many TCVs Type B battalions once had – small pool or enough for all.
            It is shocking if the modern lt role bn canot move itself on wheels, unless they all get in a bunch of civvy coaches!

    • Tom no mini tanks mate! Also we have enough infantry formations, they need to be equipped correctly. We need to be concentrating on OS, CS and CSS.

  16. The Warrior upgrade should have gone through to fruition. The CR2 and AS90 are by no means obsolescent but overdue for replacement but hardly a panic stage. Less infantry, less armour, less artillery.
    Who runs an army with those aims? Not fit for purpose. The MOD, the procurement office, the defence secretary – good luck in finding a seat for the next parliament if you want to – the chiefs of staff. It’ a shambles. Foreign aid not cut. A proposed 500 MILLION POUNDS to the insufferable French to only let half the illegals across the English Channel than they do now. It’s a flaming p*** take!!

    • Warrior would have worked with the warrior 2000 prototype fire on the move design turret and gun instead of the under developed CTA 40!

    • I had my first one deleted as spam a few days ago. Irritating having to remember what I wrote and rewrite it. How can I now be a spammer? I have been on this site for years.

        • Strykers were US versions of a Canadian LAV-III, with which I am familiar as I did a 2-year exchange posting with the Canadians. Good vehicles. Guess you are suggesting this instead of Boxer for the Infantry. They are bound to be much cheaper than the £5.3m Boxer and later versions of Stryker had a V-hull to provide greater IED protection.

          They can take a 30mmm Bushmaster but not sure if that is stabilised.

          Canada made a good wheeled recce LAV too, Coyote (not to be confused with the other Coyote AFV), which had mast mounted sensors.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here