At the International Armoured Vehicles Conference 2025 (IAV), held in Farnborough, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, delivered a keynote speech outlining the critical role of armoured vehicles for the UK’s defence, economy, and NATO commitments.
The remarks underscored the transformative potential of next-generation armoured systems while addressing the necessity of retaining strong armoured formations for modern military challenges.
General Walker highlighted the economic impact of the UK’s armoured vehicle programs, including Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3, which he said would sustain over 6,000 jobs nationwide. “This is also bringing jobs to UK workers, boosting growth and economic return on investment as well as, importantly from our perspective, sovereign strategic resilience,” he stated. Stressing the economic benefits, he added, “Taking only Ajax, Boxer and Challenger 3 combined—will sustain more than 6,000 jobs nationally. And that’s before we get into any opportunities for export.”
The General spoke on the importance of technological advancements and adaptability in modern armoured systems, which contribute to the development of a highly capable fifth-generation Army. “The coming generation of the UK’s armoured vehicles already provide superior survivability, firepower, mobility and networked capabilities,” Walker said.
However, he noted that integrating new technologies would unlock even greater potential. “By integrating advanced technologies and prioritising adaptability, it is our belief that we will be able to make much more of what these offer and, from them, draw a much harder-edged fighting power.”
He underscored the significance of these advancements for the nation, NATO, and soldiers on the ground. “All of that is what underpins the fifth-generation Army that the nation needs, that NATO wants, and that, frankly, our soldiers deserve.”
General Walker reiterated NATO’s explicit requirement for the British Army-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to restore territory in times of conflict, demonstrating the enduring need for armoured formations. “NATO plans are explicit in assigning a task to the British Army-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps: that it must be able to restore territory. For that reason alone, we must retain armoured formations,” he explained.
He acknowledged, however, that the nature of these formations has evolved. “Though, perhaps, not as once they were conceived. There are now many more assets to combine in battle, such as uncrewed, electronic warfare, and information systems,” Walker added, pointing to the modernisation of military operations.
He further stressed the importance of long-range capabilities, stating, “And much more can be done to kill the enemy from a distance.”
I would argue we have reduced firepower, not increased it.
What fighting vehicle has the army introduced with less firepower than its predecessor?
Boxer
Ajax replacing a regiment of MBTs
Took all of one second to think of Boxer. Come on, if you must troll at least put some effort in…
Bulldog lifex program?
Jim, the answer is Boxer. Looking at a fleet, then 148 CR3s have less firepower than 386 CR2s.
Interesting decision to highlight the need for armour and retaking ground at a time when MBT numbers are to be reduced, IFVs will soon be gone and a severe lack of artillery with its replacement moving at a glacial pace with the full capability likely being a decade away.
We can only hope that behind the scenes the plans to add a turret to Ares or Boxer are being made soon to start moving things in the right direction firepower wise.
I’d say we all agree but sadly that’s not true.
I do want to know where AARC sits on regards to ARF though. With 1 UK div aligned to ARF, is the UK contribution to AARC 3xx and the corps level brigades? Is 1XX under AARC unless ARF calls it up?
What NATO formations sit under AARC for now? A single UK division is fine if AARC has say, and Italian and a German armoured division as well.
Or is AARC part of the ARFs 2nd Echlon? Compared to the old Northag/Centag/Landsouth structure NATOs higher echelons are not readily apparent (although even then there was some double hatting).
It would be nice to start looking at permanent Corps and Army formations at NATO and EU level.
Mate, I was flummoxed by this very question on the other ARF article, as it confuses me.
How ARRC relates to it.
Id read our contribution was to be a 2 Division “Corps” so assumed 1 sits with 3.
While the UK’s contribution to NATO is two divisions, is there anything to say that these need to operate together under ARRC HQs? As Dern mentions below, when ARRC last acted as the lead NATO Corp, only 3 division was assigned, along with divisions from other countries.
It’s all a bit odd but essentially the entire British army seems to be committed at least twice..
1xx is has about 3-4 battalions scattered deployments that need sustaining
1xx is now committed to ARF ( while also sustaining all those deployments
3xx is essentially tied down for the foreseeable sustaining OP CABRIT
All the while both 1xx and 3xx are providing the NATO reserve Corps via ARRC
It’s seems the British army has quantum solders and equipment that can be in two places at once… both deployed and in the ARRC…or in the case of 1xx somehow in three places at at the same time.
Schrödinger British army?
1XX’s “lost Battalions” are fine. 4X and 7X are too large otherwise (there’s a finite number of units a brigade HQ can handle and both HQ exceeded that). I’d say think of it as “the brigade administers 7 infantry battalions, but it’s fighting formation is 4” (numbers are illustrative, they’re in the ballpark but I don’t have a moment to double check).
The greater issue is that above the division level NATO and the EU are unwilling to commit to permanent formations. VJTF had the same issue. These formations are comprised of whatever member states are willing to commit in that budget year, and next year the common will rotate to another member state, someone else will foot the high readiness units etc.
It’s why I bring up “Well if this anx that foreign division is in ARRC” Because a few years ago ARRC consisted of 3XX, and Italian Division, a Canadian Division, a Danish Division, and the American 4tĥ ID. (You can tell how out of dare this is because Denmark disbanded it’s Division and reallocated it’s XX Hq staff to found Multinational Division North.)
If that’s the level of force in ARRC then a light UK infantry division being in ARF doesn’t really matter…but because these assignments aren’t permanent we don’t know.
FWIW I’d want to see at least 3 permanent armoured corps in the EU and 2 Infantry Corps, with a further two Corps made from peripheral non-US NATO and EU states (Norway, Canada, UK, Portugal, Sweden, spring to mind).
@Dern
Whilst I appreciate what you have posted, we have to learn from the full-on major conflict in Ukraine. Drones are wreaking all sorts of havoc on armoured formations – on both sides. Electronic jamming and other countermeasures are forcing Ukraine to fit their drones with fibre-optic spools, they weigh up to a kg, are reducing range and payload and the Russians are splicing captured fibre-optics into their systems and learning a great deal from the data sending units. It will not be long before the Russians implement fibre-optics on their drones too.
Armoured formations are susceptible to drone attack and there are lots of YouTube videos to prove it. If we are to field Boxer, CH3 or Ajax anywhere near the enemy, we have to find a solution to the drone problem. Lasers maybe?
There is a need to be careful about what lessons to draw from Ukraine however. Yes drones are important, and there is a need to take on board drone training and drone units, but it’s also worth remembering that a lot of the reason for drone use by both sides is the inability of either side to achieve air superiority. The Russian airforce can’t beat the Ukrainian AD network, and the Ukranian Airforce is so outmatched that even if there wasn’t a Russian AD network it wouldn’t be able to defeat it. So both sides are using drones as an alternative. 5th and 4.5 Gen fighters with PGM’s preform a very similar anti-armour role in NATO countries, so while drones should be looked at for low level tactical awareness, I don’t see NATO armies relying on FPV anti-armour drones to the same extend (I also always caution against taking drone footage on the internet at face value for their effectiveness, by it’s very nature all Drone footage is captured and it’s in the operators interest to broadcast anything that can be sold as “good effect on target” (even if it just makes a nice bang of era going off) and to discard misses and the like. By comparison a tanker or an infantry man is less likely to be caring about switching his go-pro on and recording his actions (it happens, but with drones every strike is recorded, with almost ever other system it requires a conscious thought).
I was under the impression that the fiber optic idea started on the Russian side because the Ukrainain EW was better, but never mind. It goes to show that EW has been effective (or counter battery fire on emissions has been accurate enough to force adaptation). I don’t know how we’ll react to fibre optic controlled drones (besides noting that we’ve essentially reinvented the wire-guided atgm) but I suspect before the war is over we’ll start seeing adaption to that threat as well (honestly I suspect a NATO reaction to wire guided drones will be using ISTAR to find and air power to delete operators, but I don’t know what the ukranian and russian responses will be).
The greater issue is that drones can in the right circumstances threaten armour (just like ATGMs, Artillery and Airpower), but they can’t replace it. As long as you can’t replace armour with something else, you’ll need Boxer, CR3 and Ajax.
(Also, and thanks George for removing edit, when I say the EU should have 3 permanent Armoured Corps that doesn’t actually represent an increase in armoured units on the ground. Allow me to demonstrate:
EU Armoured Corps #1:
11th Cavalry Divsion (polish)
16th Mechanised Division (polish)
18th Mechanised Division (polish)
EU Armoured Corps 2
1st Panzer Division (German/Dutch)
10th Panzer Division (German/Dutch)
45th Panzer Brigade (German)
Belgian Motorised Brigade
EU Armoured Coprs 3
Division “Acqui” (Italian)
Divison “Castillejios (Spanish)
1re Division (French)
That’s three strong Armoured Corps (okay the Italians, French and Spanish would need to re-orbat their divisions slightly because complicated reasons, and the Germans need more artillery, but in principle that’s three srong armorued corps) created without any uplift in armoured formations on the continent. Just requires a standing NATO command that has those forces aligned to them as NORTHAG and CENTAG did in the cold war.
Equally for Infantry Corps, you could easily create a Mechanised Corps out of the remaining Polish Division, the two Romanian Divisions and a few Bulgarian indipendent brigades, Italy, France and Germany all have light infantry formations with mountain warfare and airborne specialties, so there’s synergy there for a rapid light infantry corps. Point being, nothing I suggested represents an increase in on the ground formations, but a sensible allocation of units to specific roles as we saw in the cold war.
As I highlighted the other week with HMG Grandstanding of our Estonia commitment while the forces that draws from are SACEUR “Reserve”
Double hatting seems to be SOP until reality strikes.
Italy’s NRDC is going to be acting as NATO’s interim ARF HQ for the next 3 years while it gets itself fully sorted. What is interesting is that NRDC-Ita lists the U.K. 3rd division as one of its affiliated divisions, along with Italy’s two divisions and a Greek division. Seems 3XX has another hat to wear.
Do you think that the ARF is just simply putting the 8 NATO rapid deployment corps under a single title.
Increased Firepower?
With WHAT?
You’re cutting Armoured Regiments to 2.
You’ve dismantled or gifted most of the RAs 155mm.
Expansion of Deep Fires to 75 does not seem to be happening yet.
You’ve replaced an IFV with cannon with an APC with an MG on the roof.
There is still no 120mm news.
What am I missing General?
They have not hit their recruitment and retention/manpower for years, stole all the 60mm mortars, reduced the medical regiments, reduced the mechanical engineering regimens, reduced the armoured infantry regiments, reduced the Mec infantry regiments.
Don’t I know it mate.
The enablers are the worst, for me. I know many here prefer their Tanks!
Totally agree all armoured 155 has now been gifted we just have 14 archer so no armoured close support artillery
It appears to me that tanks and Drones are the new cavalry and heavy mgs, tanks are being decimated by Drones on all the battlefields on which they appear.
Tank = £100m
Drone = £50k
I don’t know exact prices but you get my drift.
Peace not war ❤️☮️
Well you’ve long ago proved you know fuck all about anything except sucking putins cock so…
Ewww
Nice one lol
They are? A Drone cannot hold ground for starters, you’ll still need heavy armour.
Every weapon has a counter then a counter counter. So I’d disagree there.
No point. Aurelius is not here for discussion, this isn’t an individual who cares about facts. He wants to spew his “the west is doomed we need to make peace” message and run along.
Whatever facts you point out will be forgotten next time they post.
I would suggest an additional 50 CH3’s could be achieved without too much trouble and at modest costs. There are enough CH2’s to convert, thus achieving a reserve for general maintenance and damage repair. I doubt many senior Army staff support just 148 CH3, this woefully small fleet is hardly man enough considering the UK is a principal military power.
Rheinmetall have stated they can build brand new , from scratch C3’s , as many as the MOD want
Poland will have 1500 MBT by end 2026 from what I read in a report yesterday. It’s only two thirds the size of the UK. Even 450 MBT for the UK looks light. Even if the view is that UKs main role is defence of the sea and air a MBT force of 450 would make sense with half operated by full time soldiers and half by reservists. That would allow a permanent deployment of one tank battalion to Estonia.
Putin needs to know that a quick nock out of front line forces won’t be a way to win for him.
Things like armour should have been shifted to the reserves instead of destroying them
But we only have forty viable tanks at the moment so they haven’t been doing a very good job of it.
Dave, where do you get your info from? There must be more than 40 viable tanks.