The Ministry of Defence has outlined its ongoing efforts to modernise the British Army, emphasising investment in advanced platforms like the Ares armoured personnel carrier and the Boxer mechanised vehicle.
In response to recent parliamentary questions, Defence Ministers Maria Eagle and Luke Pollard MP detailed steps being taken to enhance the Army’s lethality, protection, and mobility.
Ares Armoured Personnel Carrier
The Ares platform, a variant of the Ajax Armoured Cavalry Programme, remains on track to achieve Initial Operating Capability by December 2025. Maria Eagle esaid that the Army’s modernisation is guided by a programme of investment worth billions of pounds over the next decade. The upcoming Strategic Defence Review in early 2025 will further refine future capability priorities.
While Ares will provide a critical capability for armoured cavalry, the focus for infantry battalions remains on the Boxer platform. Eagle directed those seeking further clarification to a related answer provided by Luke Pollard, which detailed the structure of future heavy mechanised infantry units.
“The Army is currently undergoing a combined programme of work to ensure our Land Forces will have the lethality, protection and mobility to fight and win against any adversary. Whilst the Army’s modernisation will continue over the next decade with a programme of investment worth billions of pounds, future capability development priorities will be guided by the Strategic Defence Review. The ARES platform is a variant of the Armoured Cavalry Programme (Ajax) and remains on track to deliver Initial Operating Capability by December 2025.
With regards to the current steps being taken to equip infantry battalions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 November 2024 to Question 14825, which explains that planned future operational establishment will see Infantry Battalions equipped and structured around the Boxer platform.”
Pollard had previously said:
“The Army is currently undergoing a combined programme of work to ensure our Land Forces will have the lethality, protection and mobility to fight and win against any adversary. The outcome of the Strategic Defence Review in early 2025 will also guide future capability development priorities. Planned future operational establishment will see the British Army have four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions across two Armoured Brigades. These Battalions will be equipped and structured around the Boxer platform, with the first Battalion due to reach Initial Operating Capability in 2025.”
The British Army is set to establish four Heavy Mechanised Infantry Battalions across two Armoured Brigades. These battalions will be built around the Boxer armoured vehicle platform, which is known for its modular design and operational flexibility.
Luke Pollard explained that the first of these battalions is expected to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2025. This transition reflects a broader shift towards a more agile and survivable mechanised infantry force capable of addressing modern battlefield challenges.
The combined programme of work for the Army encompasses both mechanised and armoured capabilities. The Ares and Boxer platforms represent key investments designed to ensure that the UK’s Land Forces can operate effectively in a range of environments.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Once there were 9 Warrior Bns, plus 6 Bulldog. Then reduced to 6, and 3 HPM Mastiff Bns. Then down to 4, with 4 Boxer planned as well. Then FS detailed 5 Boxer Bns. Now it is only 4, the 5th Bn was a “mistake” and referred to the Bn which will rotate into the Cyprus role, and so not be set up as a Boxer unit. This itself is a new development as 1 Division Bns have taken the role up till now, going forward, one will be drawn each from 1 and 3 Division Infantry Bns. So 4… Read more »
I don’t know why they just don’t go one step further and replace the warrior with an IFV version of ajax, The griffin 3 a ajax variant is in the running for the Bradley replacement and the original base variant of the ajax the ASCOD are both IFV’s, And with everything that’s going on in the world I think we need more than 4 armoured infantry battalions, 6 to 8 would be a better number along with an extra challenger 3 tank regiment.
It’s entirely possible that further in the decade we will see Ares converted into an IFV to replace Warrior, and Boxer reverted back to its original APC role. There have been concepts of Ares with a new unmanned CT40 turret and Moog have been pushing their less capable, but cheaper and more flexible RIwP turret with a 30mm plus missiles in both an IFV and C-UAS configuration and the Army have been paying very close attention to both. Whether or not it materialises will all come down to £££.
Ben, to me the conversion of ARES to an IFV is bizarre. We do of course need an IFV, but this approach seems so flawed. GDUK spent billions converting a perfectly reasonable IFV to AJAX and its variants…and this proposal would require a huge sum of cash and much time to reverse the process. Why not just buy ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro?
Why would it be bizarre? It doesn’t require any major work or redesign of the vehicle itself. In fact, you could quite easily modify already built Ares vehicles into IFVs at the factory. I think you’re overestimating how much work it is. All that needs doing is removing the equipment racks from the right-hand side of the crew compartment and replacing them with 3 extra seats for dismounts and a gunners position, followed by mounting an unmanned turret to the roof which doesn’t require a turret basket and therefore no major hull modifications. A manned turret would be unreasonable and… Read more »
A very useful summary Daniele. The situation is truly shocking. From 15 AI/Mech Inf Bns to just 4. Massive reduction in firepower, as you say. ..and as for the statement that FS had a mistake in it, (which wasn’t spotted for nearly 4 years), namely that the 5th Boxer bn in FS did not really exist…words fail me. Why don’t they just admit that they wanted to make yet another capability cut. Somewhat odd that the press release talks about ARES in the same breath, without stating that it only takes 4 dismounts, and so is not a section carrier…and… Read more »
The mistake comment was made in an interesting FOIA request and reply that I have read, which detailed Boxer distribution going forward.
It always irked me anyway, being an ordered type, that one Armd Bde would have 3 Boxer and the other 2!! Both should be at 3, like the 3 Armoured Brigades of A2020 that General Carter tore up, which had 2 Warrior and 1 Mastiff each.
And to add, the 6 Bulldog Bns may actually have been 3 Bulldog and 3 Saxon, that was early to mid 2000s, and I’m starting to forget as the ORBAT changes constantly with the cuts. Certainly before that time in 1,12,19 Mech Bdes in 3 Division, which was the UK based Division at that time ( as you know ) the 3 Infantry Bns in each were 1 Warrior, 2 Saxon, and thinking deeper Bulldog only replaced half of them, not the lot, I think. Whatever, a shocking state of affairs and one which not a single General, minister, Defence… Read more »
Hi D, I always appreciate your posts. Although I served throughout the period (to 2009 anyway) I was not keeping close tabs on the entirety of this. Such a mess – Orbats being chopped and changed very frequently and often without underpinning doctrine or logic…combined with massive gaffes on AFV procurements, and very poor political decisions and defence cuts over many years.
Certainly the RN and RAF has experienced much of the above, but seemed to have fewer ‘own goals’.
I had assumed that the 5th AI battalion was for the battle group in Estonia. That is how 12 and 20 brigades look just now on paper, one has three Warrior bns, one has two. But one bn is in Estonia, so they both have 2.
If there are only now going to 4 Boxer infantry battalions in total, I wonder what the plan is for the Estonia BG. Run on the Warrior for an extended period? I sincerely hope that this does not mean another cut, with one of the 2 bdes reduced to just one infantry bn.
Cripes, surely each armd bde will have 2 x Boxer battalions. Estonia BG will surely be one of those 4 battalions and will so one day will swap Warriors for Boxers? Simples!
So had I until I read otherwise.
I don’t think turning Ares into an IFV is all that bizarre of a plan. The reason why the current Ares only carries 4 dismounts is because the right-hand side of the crew compartment is all equipment racks, leaving only 4 seats on the left for dismounts. The IFV drawings that have emerged essentially remove the racks, add another 3 seats to the right for 7 dismounts, a gunner’s position, and an unmanned turret mounted to the roof. Both dedicated CT40 turrets and Moog RIwP RWS with a 30mm and missiles have been shown. An increased Ares order, and cut… Read more »
Nice post. I think a lot of us here like the sound of an Ares plus turret/RWS! The wheeled vs tracked numbers seem very out of balance (pardon the pun) and the survivability of too much wheeled and their current lack of lethality are at least out there and being discussed.
Nice post. I think a lot of us here like the sound of an Ares plus turret/RWS! The wheeled vs tracked numbers seem very out of balance (pardon the pun) and the survivability of too much wheeled and their current lack of lethality are big issues. I don’t think anyone wants the Army to go too “lite”!
Sorry, double post. Last one is the right one.
I’ve read this is exactly what the Army are looking at.
Ben, you have seen IFV drawings for this ARES to IFV conversion? How was that? I appreciate that it should be possible to convert ARES. But you have to buy a hugely large number of this expensive vehicle, go through all the Design and Development work, not to mention Trials, Testing and Evaluation…all of which costs a huge amount and will take years and years. Why do you say ‘relatively quickly’? Most AFV projects take many, many years from Concept to FOC. You end up with an IFV, but in the most laborious way possible. If you did not get… Read more »
I think we’re conversing in two separate threads here which is getting rather confusing. GDLS UK and the Army have publicly shown their IFV drawings alongside other potential variants such as the MCCO Brimstone carrier and the bridge layer, both of which they’ve actually built prototypes of. They’ve also spoken at defence shows about ambulances, C-UAS, mortar carriers, and a whole host of other potential variants. And yes, of course IFVs are expensive, whether it’s Ares, Bradley, CV90, Puma, or whatever. That’s the price you pay for modern armour, weapons, optics, sensors, and survivability. There is no cheap option for… Read more »
I agree. The internal dimensions of Ares are large enough to carry 7 dismounts once the specialists storage is removed and extra seating installed. So conversion into a tracked APC should be fairly straightforward. Turning it into an IFV is trickier. The obvious weapon would be CTA, giving commonality with Ajax. But CTA takes up a lot of space so the choice might be limited to an RWS. Perhaps adopting whatever is finally installed on Boxer would make sense.
Any turret fitted would by necessity be an unmanned one. Options are basically a more conventional unmanned turret from GDLS, LM, or Nexter. Or Moog’s RIwP which is basically an RWS on steroids. Cheaper, lighter, and more flexible, but less capable 1:1 and probably not able to handle the whole ammunition handling system for CT40 so limited to the Bushmaster 30mm or any belt-fed weapon.
Isn’t part of the point of CTA that the gun and ammunition take up less space in the turret?
That’s why it has the funny side loading breech, and the rounds are shorter.
You can fit a cannon to a RWS. Should be no reason why that would exclude a 40mm CTAS cannon.
Also, I have heard nothing definite about Boxer carrying more than a MG.
Disagree on the space a CT40 takes up, there is a very small volume of turret intrusion, the AHS is necessarily large but is almost non crew interfacing so can be mounted in various configurations.
Workable plan with the RWS and the 30mm as a minimum! The 40mm may be a bridge to far but a 30mm is so much better than a 7.62 or a 50 cal! Many of us have been saying the same for at least 2 years mate 👍
I believe the CTA 40 upgrade of Warrior led to a reduction in the number of dismounts to 5/6. I assume the same would happen with Ares which has similar internal dimensions. If the army was happy to accept that reduction with one vehicle, why not with its successor?
What happened to the CTA turrets LM manufactured for Warrior? Could they be fitted to Ares?
The issue is converting them will cost a fortune. Not because it’s complex or costly to do but because the MOD will dither and change things ending up in the change costing more than a new build. Putting aside the amount of back handers that would be involved.
Hard to see how organisationally they could justify not putting CTA on. Not only do we have a shed full of them somewhere, but its use would standardise the ammunition requirements in units with Ajax and Ares IFV.
Steve, the ARES conversion to IFV will cost a lot. Probably more than buying a proper IFV in the first place. It will also take several years from Concept to FOC, whether or not the MoD messes about. I am rather shocked by your allegation of backhanders. There has been very little history of bribery and corruption between Industry and MoD over the years. I can only think of one or two examples in the last 40 years.
I don’t really know how to comment Daniele, although I want to. You have summed up so well what we have left after successive governments fiddling. Bit like Nero and Rome…
I can only contribute so much to this site Geoff, as I have no actual experience or tech, performance knowledge. I know the ORBATS….which are constantly cut!
Sorry for the woe. It is how I know, as you also do, that Labour are no shrinking violets in this shambles either, and actually instigated it, where the Tories have finished it.
Both are dead to me.
Trouble is its not just the Govt in this case its Army – who cannot come up with a simple ORBAT and stick to it. That and constantly wanting gold-plated bespoke small run ( and so incredibly expensive) options. ARES as an IFV fits the same horrible storyline. Just buy more Boxer forget armoured inf and move on. Army needs mass and tbh a good combo of options is more important than a single weapon system. With money saved from not going ARES IFV they could do other things with Boxer…..get some supporting heavy weapon variants ( Aus army should… Read more »
Now, now, chin up for another punch.
You just know it’s going to happen.
I know, mate.
Couldn’t agree more. Lethality? No cannon is ridiculous.
Bill, Very true. It would almost be like going back to the days of the Alvis Saracen, except in a modern ‘wrapper’.
Alvis Saracen or GKN Saxon with a bit more mobility. The thinking just seems to be totally disjointed for a lot of the equipment on order
It’s just shocking how UK Armed Forces has been allowed to decline , and without any accountability from Parliament or the public thst can hold govt accountable . I think the only way to improve the situation is legislation to go through parliament to ring fence spending and minimum numbers in Armed Forces , be it frigates, fighters , ifv, soldiers. From what I have read even the Boxer program seems to be going at a snails pace with development ,despite the boxer already in service with other nations ? . I dont see how 1 Battalion will be fully… Read more »
There has been plenty of oversight from parliament and that is part of the problem. We have gone through how many def sec in the last 20 years, each wanting to announce new stuff and changes.
Steve, the ARES conversion to IFV will cost a lot. Probably more than buying a proper IFV in the first place. It will also take several years from Concept to FOC, whether or not the MoD messes about. I am rather shocked by your allegation of backhanders. There has been very little history of bribery and corruption between Industry and MoD over the years. I can only think of one or two examples in the last 40 years.
It’s totally crap essentially the heavy end of the British army will end up as 2 armoured brigades each with 1 MBT regiment, 2 mech infantry battalions based on a wheeled APC and an armoured cavalry regiment…supported by a brigade of armoured cav regiments and artillery…that is I’m afraid pathetic, we are talking the 70,000 strong army of the the fifth richest nation on the planet and that’s it’s heavy formations. I always thought essentially a core requirement of the British army post Cold War was to be able to provide a sustained armoured brigade or in dire times surge… Read more »
I’m pretty much in agreement with this.
Then you’d be wrong.
There is no support- go hang your head in shame!
Mate I think you will find Daniele is one of the biggest advocates of getting both CS and CSS back to pre 2010 levels! The support which is not there at this moment could and should be if the Divisional level formations are back to real combat strength!
Of course the CS CSS are not there for formations that no longer exist… Using that argument means you will never get what you need and can only decay..a cut is for ever no matter the change or new need. That is like saying I need an accident and emergency department in this town but I don’t have an X-ray department so I cannot have the ED where it’s needed. It’s a crappy negative cycle argument . Of course the CS and CSS are not there. You develop those at that same time as the deployable brigade ..if I’m planning… Read more »
Do you really hand on heart believe that an army with a head count of close to 75,000 could not have 6 deployable brigades with full CS, CCS ?
Jonathan, we have around 20,500 deployable combat troops, whatever that means. Could we pad that out to 6 deployable combat brigades? I think so. The Army website is useless, telling me that 3-5 brigades of 700 troops make up a brigade of 5000 (and that 3 brigades of 5000 make up a division of 10000). They bring a whole new meaning to irrational numbers. So I’m going to make a few irrational assumptions of my own, to see where I get to. Shred it if you like. I might learn something. Let’s say a combat brigade has elements of 10… Read more »
@Jon A combat Brigade with 7 Combat formations is unbelievably huge. 4-5 is much more normal. I know you won’t take any UK orbat, so the US: An American Army Armoured Brigade Combat Team consists of 3 Combined Arms Battalions A Striker Brigade Combat Team is 3 Striker Battalions and 1 Striker Cavalry Battalion Light Brigade Combat Teams have 3 Infantry Battalions. Division then holds Artillery in it’s own brigade but habitually attaches them, so each of those is 4-5 Battalions. The numbers on the army’s website are not irrational, because they’re guidelines. A Brigade will have 3-5 battalions, and… Read more »
@Dern. Thanks. Unfortunately the guidelines as to numbers are very hard to understand when the don’t add up. I’d be very happy for you to reference the UK ORBAT as that’s what I’m failing to understand. (Throwing US formations into the mix is an additional complication.) For example 20th Armoured nominally has – Royal Dragoons – Queens Royal Hussars – 1st Royal Fusiliers – 1st Prince of Wales Royals – 5th Rifles – 1st Regiment RLC – 3rd battalion REME – 1 medical Reg Plus reserves: – 3rd Princess of Wales Royals – 7th Rifles – 5th Royal Regiment of… Read more »
@Jon I’ll try to answer some, hopefully most, of what you’re asking. Guidelines to number: I think the problem is the British Army website is not aimed at someone who is looking to understand the intricacies of what individual Brigades are made of, it’s more just a very general “Oh you’ve never heard of a Brigade, it’s about a 5,000 person formation.” kind of thing. British Orbats: I didn’t want to use a British Orbat because I assumed that you where critiquing it, so I wanted to point out the size of American Brigades as a comparison point. But happy… Read more »
I’d like to see some urgency in the rate of delivery as the current crisis in Ukraine is at a dangerous crossroads.
I can’t see rate of delivery increasing. I don’t think our manufacturer has a surge capability. There is a fair chance the war in Ukraine will end next year.
Barely armed boxer part of a plan to increase lethality? Pull the other one! If that’s the army’s heavy battalions I’d hate to see what firepower the light battalions have!
I am ex green jackets and the boxer is not a good replacement for existing warriers and ajex is too late, and short numbers. It’s sad what’s happening to army numbers, but this was planned years ago, being NATO will pick up what we don’t supply, we are giving NUKES and are new space force, surveillance rather then men on the ground..
Modularity, operability, increased lethality (and where’s the later exactly?), we all get that, but what about survivability in today’s battlefield environments? Focusing so much on the wheeled Boxer and a very underarmed at that (would it survive in an Ukraine environment?) instead of also up armouring with more tracked masse at the front end. Both US and Aus and several European nations are getting new tracked IFVs so it seems very odd that the UK doesn’t see this requirement the same way.
Quentin, As ever a political decision to cancel the upgraded Warrior programme (WCSP). You don’t think the army senior staff wanted to cancel it, surely? The Staff Requirement was for an improved IFV to replace Warrior…and for Boxer to fill the very different Mechanised Infantry Vehicle role.
From the many posters here let’s all hope some good sense comes out from all this and the Boxer is chosen for what it’s good at and not for what it’s not. I’m just an ordinary bloke completely no-military experience and just want to genuinely see the UK forces armed right and in sufficient quantity right across the board. Don’t we all!
Even Latvia has just ordered the Ascod with a cannon RWS! It exists! LOL.
Janes, 22 Nov.
Quentin, how sensible of Latvia. I wonder why they didn’t take an ASCOD with a cannon in a penetrating turret, which is more usual. Still, no matter, the main thing is they have a cannon.
Looks like we’re going to get a real kicking before we finally have the political will to sort ourselves out. Not only are these numbers wafer thin but what we do possess doesn’t have much more than foul language to throw at the enemy. My eldest is keen on joining up – I’m really discouraging him as I really think the best we can hope for is a gallant defeat in this hopelessly muddled situation.
Not sure what the point of the Ares is to be honest. No fire power and only carries 4 troops.
Role and task specific mate, not infantry!
Isn’t it to operate in the same role as your namesake did?
Ares is tasked to do (quoted):
“PMRS (Protected Mobility Recce Support)
The ARES APC will provide safe transportation of fully-equipped soldiers in a well-protected environment. On dismount, troops will be able to conduct a variety of tasks, such as dismounted surveillance (including patrols), observation posts, and close target reconnaissance.”
Spartan, ARES carries small specialist teams under armour, examples being as BoF has said. Also, anti-tank Javelin teams, MANPADS teams, sniper pairs. It can also provide overwatch and support for dismounted operations.
It replaces CVR(T) SPARTAN.
Shocking, shambolic and shabbadelic! Having finally admitted that UK forces and the British Army in particular, are haemorrhaging personnel at a criminal rate, there wont be anyone left to fill Boxers, Shmoxers, Ajaxes or anything else. I think the 2025 defence review needs to focus for once on personnel. Why are they leaving, what would prevent those wanting to leave, from leaving? A Military career has to be ‘sold’ differently to the current generation/s. It has too appeal more, it has to be worth more it must offer a career, and not just a couple of years at 100mph, before… Read more »
Tom, it is very well known why service personnel leave (certainly in the army anyway). When you PVR you have to state reason(s) for leaving on the PVR form. Also many serving personnel complete a Continuous Attitude Survey which is done every year – grouses are well documented.
Best we can hope for is a more ‘righty’ Boxer.
They’re buying more modules for that based on recent expos etc and won’t have money for that plus this back updated Ares.
No matter how fighty or none fighty the kit and Battalions are, without CS and CSS they will last 72 hours at best! Since 2010 we have been quietly losing these essential units while keeping unnecessary, un equipped and un manned infantry Battalions due to the various cap badge mafia! We can easily lose 4 Bns and not notice, and use the PIDs to man the support units. Then, let’s look at the real battle winners which are the RA and get them some more depth fire missile, mobile 155mm, UAVs and anti UAV systems, then some more AD, both… Read more »
Check out recent article on Army Recognition.
They are in the process of ordering the Mortar variant, as well as looking at a Brimstone Overwatch version of Boxer.
There is also supposed to be an Overwatch version of Jackal in the pipeline based upon lessons from Ukraine, know as Wolfram.
I also read that they intend to order more modules than chassis, and that the additional batch of Boxer has been quietly reduced.
Not much help when your modules are stored at Ashcurch as there are too few Chassis to actually operate them.
Nukes, GCAP, AUKUS, Pensions, Ukraine, all the other stuff in the budget is slowly destroying conventional defence.
It seems like it mate.
I saw the part about the modules and chassis too.
And when you run out of chassis’ the modules sit on the shelf? Why not have enough chassis’ in the first place and even some spare as they’re probably going to get worn out first? Sounds like treating Boxer parts like Lego.
Agree, personally I think they need to remove the 11th brigade entirely, it’s essentially a parking lot for 4 light role battalions and nothing else, and us it’s head count for CS CSS to allow for 6 fully supported brigades 3 armoured brigades, 16 air assault, 7th light mec and 4th light brigade. A 70,000 head count should allow for 6 fully deployable and supported brigades.
Remember though, only a partial help. Those 4 Bns are below the usual establishment of a Light role Infantry Battalion.
More re rolling will be needed for the much needed CS CSS. It’s needed for both DRSB if it was to revert and 4 Bde in 1 Div.
2 Divisions each of 3 proper Bdes is possible, with a bit of sorting.
I have no confidence at all the Army will implement it given the CBM, Treasury, and the politicians.
Those light role battalions will of course have REME Attached doing First Line work, the REME posts being in the Battalion’s Establishment Table (used to be called an AF C7005).
Second Line REME is a different story.
Hi Graham.
Of course, in all these CS CSS discussions I so enjoy having, regards REME, I always have the second line in mind, not the attendant REME LAD integral to the parent formation.
For some reason could not reply to your reply to me regarding CS and CSS! Not quite sure why you went a bit caffeine crazy to me in your reply? I was not saying as the CSS is not there, no new formations should be developed! I’m saying as at this moment, for the formations in being, their is NOT enough CSS to fully support what we have! Not many people give a hoot about the enablers, I never really did until I grew up and gained promotion, as many of these formations are in name only or rely on… Read more »
It’s the new shitty comment system (that’s largely driven me from this site as it’s practically unusable.) After the fourth reply in a thread the reply function gets removed.
Well I hope you persevere, mate.
I ( finally ) caught up to the reality yesterday that 6 Div is no more, and 77 and ASOB are “now with FA” so I assume that means they are part of FAT.
So whatever happened to the LSOF. I know you hinted all this but could not say several months back.
The changes make sense, I did not see the need for 6 Div to oversee a few specialist Brigades?
@ Daniele
Yes, it’s a bit of a complicated situation and if I where to draw an orbat of it there’d be a lot of dotted lines. I think the easiest way to put it is that ASOB is part of Field Army Troops, but doesn’t work for Field Army Troops.
6 Div was less about overseeing the Brigades and giving Divisional HQ assets to those brigades tbh. As far as I understand it from my lowly position LSOF still exists.
I agree, my suggestion was not to Make new formations, infact I think they should get rid of one formation, that being 11 brigade as it literally has no CS or CSS at all and move from 7 to 6 brigades ( 3 armoured, 1 air mobile, 1 light mec, 1 light role all of which exist at present although one of the armoured brigades has been sabotaged and turned into a CS brigade ) to do it would just need a jiggle and in some cases extra CSS. Some of the CSS does need to be completely new because… Read more »
Hi J Good post, and an enjoyable read. I support the overall 6 Bde plan as you know, but I don’t recognise all of those figures as accurate. A few observations: “11 brigade, because a brigade with Four 500 establishment light infantry bns” I believe the Battalions of 11 SFAB are far smaller than that figure, more like 250, but I am not certain. “You can then move one of the 4 cav regiments from 1st to 12 armoured brigade as well as an armoured fires regiment ( which has no cav or fires at present, bit of a CS… Read more »
Hi Daniele, sorry I could not reply directly for some reason..yes the spread sheet figures are interesting…more interesting is that’ it’s directly from the MODs HMG government portal published in 2023 Uk armed forces equipment and formations 2023. It’s actually got some remarkably interesting stuff on it including a complete breakdown of type and number of merchant hull’s available to to the military for strategic sea lift, diver and seabed support etc…it’s a brilliant spreadsheet and gives you in some cases the picture since 2010.. To be honest I’m not clear on the OBAT of some of the brigades as… Read more »
@Jonathan The Army has gone back to largely keeping Artillery under Artillery formations and detaching them to support Manuever Brigades as required or directed by higher. It tends to give the divisional HQ more flexibility with regards to fires. SFAB might have the full funding for a Light Role Battalion, but they are not light role battalions, they operate in a very different space and a very different role (which is why they don’t have CS or CSS, it’s not required for their current role, and generally supplied by host nation or contractor support). I really caution against arguing for… Read more »
& Dern, to be honest I think this is where we will probably disagree on the whole paradigm that supports the idea of 11 brigade. I simply believe the entire concept behind the security force assistant brigade is flawed and not something we want our regular forces to be engaged in. I understand the why, I just don’t agree with it, some of the very worst mistakes first world militaries have made in the modern age involves using and deploying regular troops to support stability and security in second and third word nations. It almost invariably feeds escalation of tension… Read more »
@ Jonathan, This tells me you don’t really get what they are doing. I think you think you know what they are doing, but the second paragraph gives away that you don’t get it. “It almost invariably feeds escalation of tension and increased instability.” Except it doesn’t. The general public gets whatever the opposite of confirmation bias is with these kinds of things because the times that security assistance works, you never hear about it (it literally doesn’t make the news). When it goes wrong it ends up all over the news (all the more reason why it should be… Read more »
@ Dern I Dern my point is these major western interventions in third and second world countries that end in geostrategic failure generally start as a small security intervention, generally training. The French intervention in the Central African Republic is a classic example. Pre Operation Sangaris the French army had a couple of training companies in the CAR to provide long term training and support, this had been a pretty standard security intervention, but as the security situation deteriorated so the French launched op Sangaris, they got the job because essentially the French army was a Ready in place with… Read more »
@ Jonathan. True, but as I said: That’s because there is a selection bias. You only hear about the interventions that grow legs and become strategic failures. The interventions that are a small number of advisors go in, the problem gets resolved (or even there never is a problem and it just means closer ties are built between host nation and the UK instead of host nation and Russia) will always be forgotten and never remembered. (And frankly I’d argue that for every Operation Sangaris that becomes a huge deployment and ultimately ends in failure, there are 10 operations that… Read more »
Remember a while ago when we said job 4) was deterring Russia and China in Africa?
11 SFAB is one of the few tools that the Army has for that role. Just saying.
Also you’d need 7-9 CS and CSS Battalions to support 1X, 12X, 20X, 4X, 7X and 16X. As Daniele said, you’re not getting that headcount from 4 SFABs.
12,20,7, and 16 are accounted for, to my eye, in that they all have their full set of CS CSS.
4x could, as we have discussed before, take 29 and 24 to fill some gaps. Do the RM really need entire Regs of RA and RE to support their raids role? Fine if they do, I would not know. Assume a light role Bde does not need an entire REME Bn currently, maybe if it ends up getting LPPV it would. Still requires a RAMS Reg.
1x is the problem, with only 6 REME available in its current DRSB role.
1 Armoured Infantry would need: A new RLC reg, a New AMS Regiment, a 155 Regiment and a Divisional MLRS regiment to cover the increased frontage for deep fires (4 new regiments) 4 would require a new RLC and new AMS Regiment (6 new Regiments) and ideally an REME Regiment if it ever will be mobile (7) You then would probably want 2nd Line RLC regiments for the increased supply burden if you where deploying the 2 divisions, (9). You’d need more if you wanted to leave the Cmdo Units with UK CF. The reason I accounted for 12,20,7 and… Read more »
Spot on.
Did you read that this has already started in 16RA?
*fighty
With no cannon what do they do if they come across an enemy IVF who has one? run away or just have a bad day? Boxer/Aries would fine behind our lines or peace keeping but not sure a machine gun cuts it in fire fight?
AFAIK, Ares is tasked for recce missions. Apparently, its advanced sensors will aid such missions. it is not meant to get into slug it outs with IFVs, so yeah hide or run if operating solo.
Yes, ARES is a recce variant. Role being carriage of small specialist dismount teams, plus can do overwatch and support dismounted ops. ARES should not fight anyone or anything, ideally!
Hi mate, that’s always the problem, Murphy always gets a vote too!
I find it curious that the USA and UK have only deployed a single type of tracked IFV each and struggled to replace them. The original purpose of an IFV was to allow infantry to fight from the vehicle. That doctrine changed: Bradley firing ports were welded shut, the slightly later Warrior never had them. Trying to combine protection, dismount numbers and firepower in a single vehicle has scuppered every attempt by the USA to design a satisfactory replacement. The better solution is to separate the firepower and the infantry transport into two platforms. The USA seems to be moving… Read more »
Doctrine was never for infantry to fight from the vehicle. Doctrine was always for them to dismount. The firing ports thing was always a “nice to have optional extra” that was quickly found to be not worth the investment as the scenarios where infantry would fight from the vehicle where basically non-existent.
Indeed and I believe the concept of infantry fighting from IFVs using ports was roundly debunked by the Arab armies using the concept when fighting Israel in the 1960s and 1970s conflicts ..bizarrely the US army still held love for the concept into the late 1970s and stuck ports all over their M2 Bradley IFV, with a whole concept and set of tests that they thankfully saw sense and dropped.
Peter, The full APC is Boxer, which is obviously fine for the Mech Inf. Our AI need an IFV to replace the current Warrior.
I know and sorry if I wasn’t clear. One of the concerns widely expressed is that wheeled Boxer won’t match Ch3 cross country ability and that we need a tracked vehicle. On current plans, we won’t have either tracked IFVs or tracked infantry APCs.Combining a squad level dismount capacity with a powerful cannon isn’t easy which is why I suggested that separating the 2 functions might be a more cost effective option. The Wavell Room article I mentioned rejected the whole idea of an IFV. But if we do want a vehicle that combines the functions, the tracked solution has… Read more »
Read the Wavell article a few years back and tbh agreed. The IFV concept is flawed I think. It was meant to be fire on move and debus on objective if required – but the priliferation of AT weapons and lethality really ended thst years back except if yoy can tske enemy by surprise or they have a disorganised defence. As I’ve said above – better to get more fire-support 35mm Boxer and use some for supporting more lightly armed Boxers carrying inf and back it with Brimstone overwatch and 120mm mortar ( with allocation of smart munitions and lots… Read more »
OS, Boxer will never be cheaper than £5.4m a copy, even the standard APC ones.
GM. Not saying they’re not expensive but so is ARES and everything else in that space ( and changing ARES to an IFV/APC to carry more dismounts is just not worth the cost – it will be overspend again). Personsally I’d have been happy to have retained Mastiff to carry a 3rd inf brigade in a division ( other two would each be made up of Chally and Boxer) but they’ve been gifted to Ukraine I gather.
A warrior lifex would be a lot cheaper than boxer.
The Warrior LIFEX was of course the WCSP programme; that was for the armoured infnatry.
The Boxer was for Mech Inf.
It was never one or the other.
The problem was bringing the hugely expensive Boxer programme forward, so the army had to fund CR3, Boxer, WCSP and MFP all at about the same time. There was not the money to do it all at once.
There is no difference between how the infantry section delivered by an APC and an IFV would fight, both would dismount and fight at the same distance place..the only difference would be that after dismount the APC leaves the section to its own devices, but the IFV stays around and provides direct fire support with its cannon as well as engaging any armour that many be attempting direct fire against the infantry section. Those two actions could save lives in the infantry section or allow it to achieve its objective. I’ve read the Wavell room article and it somehow suggests… Read more »
I read the Wavell room article and had to disagree. The Ukraine war has shown their conclusion is not valid. The war in Ukraine has shown that you do need a vehicle that can get troops close to the action but also provide suppressing fire to allow them to maneuver and overcome their target. An APC is fine to get the troops between A and B. But it can’t provide support once those troops have debussed or are under contact and are trying to get away. Ukraine has shown that the gifted Marders, CV90s and Bradley’s have punched above their… Read more »
Exactly and that is why tracked APCs were replaced by tracked IFVs some time ago.
In fact in Ukraine APC’s have actually been used as IFV’s as well, just using DShK’s and the like in the fire support role instead of cannons.
Maybe considering the ongoing Ukraine conflict that the “Wavell report” is now what’s out of date as the USA, many European countries, Australia, Ukraine!, all still adopting tracked IFVs. There should be room for a sensible mix of wheeled and tracked. It can’t be that difficult to figure out. Experience is a hard teacher.
Not sure that the British Army,, that struggled for years to define its needs, is even now clear about what it wants. France has gone all wheeled with Jaguar and Griffon. If we follow suit, then up-arming a Boxer variant is the obvious solution. As I said, on present plans , by 2030 Britain will have no IFV and no tracked IFV or APC. It’s hard to know what lessons to draw from Ukraine. The early phases showed poor use of mobile assets by Russia with heavy losses to both artillery and PGMs. Perhaps, if better handled, Russian armoured forces… Read more »
Peter, absolutely everything on the battlefield from the tank to the truck to the dismounted soldier is vulnerable to a counter or counters. Does not mean we scrap the tank or that shoot and scoot SPGs or IFVs no longer make sense.
I think the British Army has always been clear about what kit it needs, just not clear about the Orbat.
Quentin, it always used to be very clear. Recce vehicles, the F Echelons of armoured regiments and AI Bns in the armoured brigades, and supporting artillery were tracked. Mostly everything else was wheeled. However it was quite reasonable for wheeled APCs/wheeled PM vehicles to be found in such brigades to add Mech Infantry to the mix, a tactical bound behind the tracked vehicles.
Peter, yes I am very aware of the concerns that Boxer may not keep up with CR3 on challenging terrain cross-country and in bad weather. I have raised this many times in these pages since the March 2021 decision to abandon IFVs.I don’t consider it hard to package a rifle section and a cannon into a tracked vehicle; IFVs do this and have been around for a very long time. Don’t need to split thefunctions out to 2 vehicles. No advantages and there are numerous disadvantages. It certainly can’t be cost effective to have twice as many vehs than you… Read more »
Completely agree, I simply don’t understand why they don’t do a cost effective lifex on the warriors..if you can rebuild a challenger 2 into a Challenger 3 MBT for 5.5million a pop ( the same price as a boxer) , with new smooth bore 120mm, new turrret with advanced armour,sensors, fire control system, digitally enabled and able to take trophy..it’s not beyond the realms of possibility to rebuild quite a good warrior for a couple of million a pop. it’s utterly bonkers scraping the warrior fleet to replace it with a 5million per pop APC. Keep the present boxer order… Read more »
Warrior won’t be upgraded. It will cost@ £200m to keep some in service until @2030 when Boxer replaces it. The timing of the decision to abandon the upgrade at the very point when it seemed the technical challenges had been solved was odd, especially after £400+m had been spent. I understand that continuing to full production would have cost £1.5b or around £4m per unit. That is about the same price as a brand new Boxer. Whilst cost was a factor, I believe the key driver was a change to a wheeled vehicle to better fit with first Strike then… Read more »
The cost-effective LIFEX to Warrior for the AI Bns was of course the WCSP. Boxer was for the Mech Inf.
Trouble is that there was not enough money to do those 2 programmes plus CR3 plus MFP, more or less at the same time.
Perhaps Mastiff could have been kept and upgraded, and fewer Boxer ordered.
Just a quick one..if I’ve not replied to anyone on the interesting discussions, sorry, but I’m finding this new system hard track around who’s answering who…
You’re not the only one, it’s hard work.
Are you getting any notifications? I’m not.
Daniele, I’ve had no notifications for 4 months. It’s a software glitch. Also no indication who I am replying to…so have taken to starting my post with the name of the person I am replying to.
Replying here as the thread further up only allows 4 posts! Re 20 Bde and no CS CSS. 20 Bde has a Close Support logistic Regiment and an Armoured REME Battalion. If they’ve been cut, I give up. The CS Artillery Regiment for it is brigaded under DRSB. The Signal Regiment is part of 7 Signal Group, a 3 Div divisional formation. The CS Engineer Regiment is part of 25 Engineer Group, another divisional formation. It also has an Armoured Medical Regiment at Tidworth. You mentioned trying to follow the ORBAT and individual Bde formations. Which ones? I have the… Read more »
Very interesting discussion on this thread. I was interested in Dern’s comments about Bde orbats and the number of bns/regts that a Bde can realistically handle. I have always thought that 7 should be the standard, whether the bde is armoured, MRAP, light mechanised or light infantry. In every case, 4 infantry and armoured regts. In the AI bdes, 2 infantry and 2 armoured, the latter being one tank and one armoured recon. In the other bdes, 3 infantry and 1 reconnaissance. Then we have three other component parts. First is a close support field artillery regt. The current trend… Read more »
I would like to edit my posts but can no longer see the edit symbol. Is anyone else having this problem?
So a few things: First of all the conversation was about Brigades having 7 Maneuver (ie Cavalry, Armoured and Infantry) elements. Not including CS and CSS elements. 3-4 Manuever elements appears to be the standard that can be managed by a Brigade HQ (perhaps coincidentally 3-4 combat elements exist under most HQ’s, be it a Platoon, a Company, a Battalion etc). Now as for the “standard” that’s more complicated. There are plenty of forces that when Brigades are not “Independent” (or separate if you’re Ukrainian) leave Brigades as basically just the combat formations, and focus ALL the supporting assets under… Read more »
Most of you seem to know what you are talking about but in a nutshell, turgid, almost constipated ‘UK Ltd.’ a) can’t make a decision – making the right one is even more protracted…and apparently it still isn’t the correct pick (and the ‘fighting occupants’ get splitting headaches…couldn’t make it up!!) b) is unable to effectively provide raw materials, manufacturing resources nor the finished product that the non-decision ‘conclusion’ comes up with c) doesn’t have the military personnel to use the non-event finished product It’s a very sobering fact that the whole British Army couldn’t even fill the new Everton… Read more »