British Army receive first Ares troop-carrying recon vehicle

The Black Knight proposal has been rejected by the MoD in favor of the RM proposal of a new turret with new gun & sensors. The old rifled gun is in itself not obsolete but its ammunition is. So it needs to be replaced. I assume your suggestion that the army relies on the RAF for tank busting to be a joke. If not, you should study the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Didn’t the air force kill way more tanks than the land based assets in the war?

No, not even close.

Over 4,000 Iraqi tanks where destroyed in the first gulf War. From the limited detailed data puished the number of tanks destroyed through land engagements is in the hundreds. Yet entire armoured divisions where destroyed by air strikes in the desert which triggered a fundamental change in land warfare going forward.

Absolute nonsense BB85. Most Iraqi tanks destroyed by land forces. You do have a vivid imagination.

Sorry Ron, you are incorrect on that point. The air campaign smashed nearly every Iraqi Divisions armoured capability. To be fair after most of the crews legged it and the vehicles were stationary! And Ron, maybe try to answer other posters views with less teeth gnashing, its more social that way! Cheers

So not true airborne, check your history books

Oh dear oh dear…….cheers Ron, have a great day being right!

No mate……the US maybe but not the British, we simply don’t have the numbers of aircraft required or even a designated anti tank aircraft in our toy box to do it.

Bingo

Apache?

It’s a shame about the rejection of the Black Knight upgrades but the M.O.D obviously favours the RM package instead. Is it cost or is there something that we haven’t noticed?…… I don’t know.
The sensors, optics and targeting systems are obviously in need of modernising and I want the 2 piece ammunition issue to be sorted, it’s not compatible with everyone else in NATO. And the cannon? Well………just ask the forces that were on the opposing sides when they faced the Chally 2 how good she was and her younger sister still holds the record of the longest ever tank on tank kill in history.

I don’t disagree the CHARM rifled gun still has legs in it. The problem is the ammunition and specifically the lack of continuous development. When the Royal Ordinance Factories (ROF) were sold off to BAe. BAe being a commercial business quickly saw there was no money in two part ammunition, so promptly closed them down. I believe the two part HESH (three part really) ammunition is made in Belgium these days. BAe have been developing the gun’s APFSDS rounds, but not continuously as would have been done at the ROF.

The HESH round is still devastating, however unlike the newer HE rounds, like the Abrams Advanced Multi-Purpose (AMP) round, it is not programmable thus limiting its use. I’m sure if the ROF stayed within the MoD sector, a multi-purpose HESH round would have been developed.

The next issue is the anti-tank round, the L28A2 APFSDS, specifically the penetrator’s rod length. The Abrams uses the M829A4 APFSDS round, it is supposed to have a rod length around 800mm long, the L28 is quite a bit shorter (about 650mm-ish). For a tungsten Fin round, length and diameter are proportionally linked, as you want to limit as much of the bending force when the round first strikes the armour of your opponent, but still have a rod long enough to penetrate the armour.

This is the part of the problem with the CHARM gun. The rod length is limited to how much is placed in the gun tube and how much charge is placed behind it. Behind the Fin round is a cap that shields the rod’s fins from the blast and pressure wave. This dead space takes up room that in one piece ammunition would be filled by more charge. So compared to the M829A4 APFSDS, the L28A2 will be at a disadvantage.

I am not knocking the Challenger, I have seen first hand what a Fin round does to an Iraqi T72, its not pretty! But that was back in 2003 and tank technology has moved on since then. I would place a bet that the L28 round could defeat the upgraded T90, but would struggle frontally against a T14.

Correct, it’s all about the ammo and the RM 120 smooth bore has ammo types in spades which is why the gun will be fitted to the CH2. Your tinfoil hat theories on private ownership of ROF are irrelevant, developing and producing ammo for the UK’s small and unique needs by anyone would be totally unaffordable. The Challenger upgrade with 120mm L/55 gun plus DU dart & DM11 programmable ammo plus improved armor and Thales Orion sights will produce the Wests most potent tank and will remain so for many years to come.

Woah, there’s no need to be demeaning. I merely stated that if the ROF was still government owned the ammunition for Ch2 may have been progressively developed over the years rather than what has being going on in the last 20 years.

If we use DM63 fired from the Rh120/L55, it will definitely be an improvement over the L28A2 as currently used in the Ch2 L30 gun. However it uses a Tungsten two part long rod penetrator. Fired from the L55 gun it is on par with the US M829A4 fired from the L44 gun. If the M829A4 is fired from the L55 gun, its results will be better still due to the increased muzzle velocity. It is a sad fact that a depleted uranium (DU) round is still more effective that an equivalent tungsten (WA) round. Whether we will be constrained by politics in not using a DU round is debatable.

If the Ch2 life extension program did stretch to introduce the Rh130/L51 gun with the new turret, it would be a game changer. Especially if Rheinmetall’s claims are correct on the massive increase in kinetic energy imparted to the penetrator.

I have no idea what politics you are referring to, the l/55 120mm gun in the upgraded ch2 will be using American du darts. No debate. The program will not be using a developmental 130mm gun with zero proven available ammunition and zero user base. Thar would would be like jumping from the frying pan into a very expensive fire. Even the MoD procurement isn’t that stupid.

Right.

1. At the last general election both the Labour party and the Greens stated that they would ban the UK’s armed forces from using depleted uranium ammunition, amongst other barmy suggestions.

2. I agree the combination of the Rh120/L55 and the US M829A4 APFSDS depleted uranium round will be awesome, but will it be enough to beat the frontal armour of the T14 Armata?

3. The Rh130mm/51 has been designed by Rheinmetall as part of the requirement for the main ground combat system (MGCS). This will the next MBT that replaces the French Leclerc and the German Leopard. One of the stated requirements was that it required a main gun more powerful than the current Rh120mm/L55.

4. Both Giat/Nexter and Rheinmetall had been developing the 140mm tank gun. The Giat/Nexter gun has a length of 55 calibres or 7700mm. Both company’s weapons have been tested and proved to be very good. Giat/Nexter stated that their’s was 70% more effective than the Leclerc’s 120mm/L51 gun. Except the 40kg one piece ammunition was now a minimum of 1500mm long and substantially larger in diameter. This meant that the ready rounds in the auto loader would be reduced. Giat trialled an early prototype in the Leclerc turret and only 14 rounds could be carried compared to the normal 22 for the 120 gun.

5. Rheinmetall also understood the problem so developed the 130mm gun. It is seen as the best compromise for the number of ready rounds an auto loader could hold against the required kinetic energy. They have stated that the 130/L51 gun using 30kg, 1300mm long, one piece ammunition, has 50% more kinetic energy than the 120/L55, which is in-line with the MCGS requirement. So if the DM63 is fired from the 120/L55 with a muzzle velocity of 1,800 m/s (5,900 ft/s), could the new 130 APFSDS reach or surpass 2000 m/s?

6. NATO will be releasing a new armour penetration standard hopefully before the end of 2020. Which is based around countering the T14 Armata. Rheinmetall have said that the 130/L51 is ready for production and it significantly improves on the 120/L55’s capabilities. Rheinmetall have designed two initial rounds for the 130/L51 gun, an APFSDS round based on the DM63 and a multi-purpose HE round based on the DM12.

7. Both France and Germany have said they will agree on a new standard main gun for the MGCS. There are two other countries who have also stated that they will replace their MBTs with the MCGS, which are Spain and Italy. It will be more than likely that other Leopard 2 tank and Leclerc users may also wish to upgrade to the MCGS.

8. The Challenger 2 will require a new turret for the Rh120/L55 gun anyway. So why not make the turret future proof and ready for the 130 gun? There will be a significant requirement for ammunition for the new gun just from France and Germany alone, not to mention the other interested countries. Does it not make sense to up-gun our MBT with the best option available? With the 130 main gun it will be a game changer.

A long reply. Prolly more than I deserve.

Anyhow, the RBSL are up to their ears in designing and costing in great detail the Challenger upgrade package for presentation to MoD main gate later this year. It’s based on an in production/in service gun (RM L/55 120) & in production/in service ammo set with a new turret, new armor, and in production sensor set with FFBNW APS. The plan is to get MG approval 4Q20, contracts 1H21 and in service 2H25. I don’t know service life but I assume 2035+.

Rheinmetall & Nexter/KMW are competitors fighting over who will supply the gun for a German French tank program that may or may not happen with other countries that may or may not join in using a caliber that may or may not be 130 or 140 or any number you can think of.

All 130/140/? guns you have seen pretty pictures/videos are developmental using developmental ammo years away from production or service.

And then there’s the US sitting there with the worlds biggest inventory of tanks who happens to be the UK’s #1 ally.

Now are you really suggesting the RBSL team throw their design away and with the MoD’s concurrence plonk all the marbles down on designing a Challenger upgrade based around an undeveloped 130/140/? gun for an unsure program that might just might deliver half a decade after the Challenger upgrade is supposed to be in service?

Srlsy?

And did I mention the US?

You are correct, there are literally two elephants in the room! Firstly, do we follow France and Germany and go with the larger calibre being either the 130 favoured by Germany or the 140 favoured by France? Regardless both will necessitate an autoloader due to the size and weight of the one piece ammo, which are 30 and 40 kg respectively. Secondly, what route will the US go down?

The Abrams M1A3 being the latest version, still uses the Rh120/L44 gun. The turret mantlet restricts the overall length that the turret can accompany as it was originally designed for the 105 gun, hence the M829A4 APFSDS that compensates for the loss of muzzle velocity when compared to the L55 barrel. The US must have acknowledged that the L44 barrel is probably nearing the maximum amount of pressure it can handle. So they must be looking at a new turret in the future that can take the longer L55 barrel or a larger calibre. The US has also faffed around with replacing the Abrams, but have yet to come up with anything workable. We tried and failed with MBT80, perhaps the time is right to look at a joint effort of replacing the Abrams and Challenger?

Perhaps when NATO publish the new armour penetration standard, the requirement may become clearer. The current one is based on the performance of the 120/L44 gun. With the increasing development of hybrid armour and unless electrothermal-chemical technology becomes mature in the next ten years, the future will be larger calibre main guns, using existing scaled up technology. It really isn’t practical extending the length of the 120 gun past 55 calibres. Both Giat/Nexter and Rheinmetall have shown what is feasible and granted they are not productionised just prototypes. Rheinmetall have stated that the 130/L51 is ready to go into production. The ammunition will be at the start of development, but it will be based on the 120 guns ammunition. So in theory, by scaling up the DM63 it will be a good foundation for moving forward.

If the RBSL design is now finalised, it will sadly be too late to start thinking about changing the spec’s of the gun and how the Challenger 2’s turret will be operated, i.e. choosing to keep the loader or going with an autoloader. Both have their pros and cons, but with the larger ammunition, required for the 130 and 140 guns, you can’t get rid of the fact that you have to use an autoloader. I really don’t want to delay the procurement any longer than it already is. Based simply on cost and the time frame for getting the upgrade, using the Rh120/L55 in combination with the M829A4 APFSDS ammunition is the best available option.

Dammit, nothing for me to disagree or be disagreeable about there, your politeness puts me to shame. But can a leopard changes his spots (see what I did there?). Anyhoo, nothing would please me better than a future Anglo-American tank but I’m just not that sure the US thinks there will be be one (a next tank that is). I wonder if the BA thinks there will be one either?

I think there will always be a need for a Main Battle Tank, whether that is in the same mould as the current 65ton behemoths is debatable. The MBT is still the go-to option for holding or taking ground. The combination of armour and firepower gives it the punch and more importantly the durability to last out a fight.

Something along the lines of the fire support Stryker with the 105mm gun, just can’t compete, even the CV90 equipped with the 120mm gun is just the same, they both lack the armour, so they don’t have the durability to withstand a number of hits. The Challenger 2 during the last Gulf war showed how rugged it was, even taking lots of damage, they were soon repaired and back in service. Would a Boxer fire support vehicle or a support vehicle based on an Ajax chassis do the same?

As a concept I have always liked the layout of the Merkava series of tanks. Placing the engine in front significantly adds to the armour protection of the crew and the rear door is simple genius. perhaps our next MBT could follow this concept. It would allow the tank to use an autoloader, but allows the space in the back to be used for other options, e.g. UAV plus UAV operator etc thus keeping the fourth crew member for the all important tank maintenance, oh and making the brews!

Used to say that about the horse.

6.2 mm or 6.8 mm is the future

Not really, very unlikely to be any depleted uranium dart ammo made for the 130 because Germany cannot use it by law. The US makes excellent DU darts for the 120 which would make the Challenger gun the most effective anti tank gun in western service because as well as having DU it will be longer than the US tank guns.

Youtube

That would be a good option; we have expertise that we could bring to the party, and a setup similar to the F-35 construction share would be awesome. We’d probably not quite get a full 15% of every unit made though…
I just wonder whether we’d want to go US or Germany, from the perspective that the Americans are likely to want to go turbine powerplant again. They’re way more efficient these days, so that’s not really as much of a concern as trying to bring in a whole new technology into the maintenance and training regime. I’d go for diesel, or maybe even hybrid if something can be developed in time.

Thanks Ron, yes I had heard of the powerpack upgrade- either a new caterpillar engine or some modifications to the existing one I believe? Either way bringing it up to about 1,500 hp- which is about on par with the Abrams and Leopard 2s if I recall. I’m glad it’s still an active project (at elast for the time being!).
I fully accept that the MBT wars are always going to rage, but I think it’s fair to say that the latest production models of the Abrams (SEPv3 is already with US army units) take some beating.
I know that armour protection is always a bit tricky to compare, but I understand it’s a step up from before and about on par with CR2. With a higher speed, commonality in armament (I know also that the rifled/smoothbore debate will continue for some time, but I think we can agree that the 120 mm smoothbore is sufficient at all reasonable engagement distances against the current opposition?), an APS, and improved comms etc.
I’m not knocking the Chally 2, I think it’s a great tank. But it has suffered from chronic lack of development- that’s the real killer. This is the first major upgrade of the platform that I’m aware of, and we’re doing it on such a small budget that we’re not even sure we’ll be able to add all the stuff we want to it.

Some folks are talking 10 to 12 million per upgraded Challenger. They will be substantially improved. However I think we will all be very disappointed with the total upgraded.

That’s the truth, I don’t see the full number being upgraded. That said, I have some reservations about whether we should put too much money into MBTs at this point and would rather get Strike in a combat effective place first. Even if it means gapping the capability until the next gen one comes around or running with dated gear…
For perspective, and I know there are big savings when buying in bulk, brand new M1A2Cs, with Trophy APS and all the bells and whistles, come in at $11.1M a pop. That’s cheaper than a reconditioned CR2 LEP without the powerpack upgrade.
I am all for spending a bit more money to keep things domestic and maintain our own industry, but do we really have a heavy armoured vehicle industry anymore? I would be very happy to be corrected.

Buying “new” tanks off the lot can be a bit misleading. Look at the Australians for example, they bought Abrams at those low low prices and then had to pay the same per tank again to get them up to fighting trim. Even at 10-12 mill pounds per tank, Challenger will still be cheaper than a “new” Leopard or Abrams to comparable standard. And they will be a shedload more effective. Most of the Ch2 upgrade work will be done in the UK at Telford.

Now, the work being done at home is certainly something I can get behind! Do we still have the capability to build new though, or is that something we’ll have to go international for when it comes to Ch2’s final replacement?
You make a fair point, there are other costs that aren’t considered in the driveaway price. That said, we’d have to get every single thing on the LEP wishlist, plus the powerpack upgrade, to be toe to toe with the latest Abrams, surely? That’s kind of what I meant; we’ve got a big “maybe” hanging over what a Ch2LEP+powerpack will look like, whereas the US Army already has at least a brigade of M1A2Cs operational.

The Ch2 power pack upgrade is as far as I’m aware still going ahead. Its part of a different budget so isn’t part of the life extension program. The Perkins V12 will be getting common rail diesel injection, new turbos and an uprated gearbox. I have also heard the primary drives will also be updated. This will put the engine in the same ballpark as the Leopard’s MTU at 1500bhp. However, this will the extent of the engine upgrade. The engine being 26 litres compared to the Leopard’s 47 litre one, will not have an easy life trying to shift near 70 tons of up-armoured tank. This is where the development has gone in making the engine more responsive so it can accelerate the tank quicker.

Not heard that level of detail, thanks.

So we have a new turret, gun, armor, primary drive, transmission, uprated engine, common rail new turbos. Why not just make it a new tank? 20% more power moving 20% weight will likely mean 20% more stress on every component some of which are getting old and have already been hard worked. I really don’t understand the UK aversion to new build, especially when you’re already building a brand new turret.

Then you would be mistaken. There is existing depleted uranium dart and programmable ammunition for the 120 mm gun. Nothing comparable or on the horizon for the 130.

Good point, but why couldn’t the UK develop depleted uranium darts for the 130mm? Would it not be wise to swing over to the new gun, as it will become the standard fit for future European tanks? Or, start a development programme to retrofit the 130mm on the LEP at some future date?

Making DU anything is a very expensive and rather dangerous business. I suggest you do some research on the last times it was attempted. Best leave it to the US.

As for the 130mm, once again why not wait and see which way the UK’s #1 ally, the US leans before deciding which way to go on the next tank?

Now added d) MoD wants to make “same mistakes” with challenger 2 lep.

Just cut it out dude

Here you go from the same article
https://battle-updates.com/warrior-wcsp-in-perspective-looking-good-by-julian-nettlefold/

BAE owning up to the barrel life issues which was a major cause of the delay. Hopefully now fixed.

The representative from CTAI the joint BAE Systems, Nexter company told BATTLESPACE that the CT40 Programme was back on trac and that the original teething problems related to weight and barrel wear had been solved with 515 canons required for the UK, 270 have been supplied to the UK and 120 to France, with a rate of 14 per month now achieved. 100 of the original spec barrels, supplied to the UK MoD have been replaced with the new specification; 299 barrels have now been proofed.

Also I never said the Ajax was glued together, I was simply asking if the delayed acceptance was comparable to the River 2 vessels.

If you look at the US defence department report, think it was 1996. They spent over $200 million developing the CTA and had the same issues and binned it. That said 200 rds to 700 rds per barrel could be seen as a big improvement although the bushmaster 50 mm seems to be their thinking?

The CTA 40 round does not seal in the barrel till it has travelled down a tapered section, the blow-by strips away barrel. you can’t change the laws of physics?

Sorry my inside source from some one in the industry and involved so I dont want to say to much,I don’t know if it would be made public or not in the future.

Industry gossip.

That’s fine. I understand.

Apollo and Argus maybe for the respective vehicles but I’ve not seen any indications of 432’s being replaced by the (lets face it) rather small Ares buy.

Would it be worth replacing the 432s with upgraded warriors, but lacking the turret as they are not needed for a 432-role? We should have lots of spare warriors that could be used.

There have been several attempts at doing just that, I think there’s a Warrior ambulance variant that a few examples where made of.
Problem is 432 isn’t very sexy, and works “okay” in the role of being a protected box people sit in, and honestly there are more important things to fix, so nobody does.

I think additional boxer will end up replacing warrior for the troop carrying role.
I is strange how ascod could carry 8 infantry soldiers but Ajax is 3/4. You would think if the dimensions where the same ares wouldn’t have an issue

Ajax is designed as an ISTAR asset, equipped with a panoramic Primary Sight, digital networks (note the plural), video recording, transmission, CBRN detection etc etc and a 40mm cannon for aggressive reconnaissance. It was never intended to carry troops. The ARES was called PMRS (Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support) carrying a sub section of 4 troops. If you compare an ASCOD with an AJAX (as I have) you will notice the absolute lack of internal equipment in the Spanish vehicle and its lack of protection. It is just a mobile metal box. The Ajax family of vehicles offer huge layers of protection for the crew, I know which I’d rather be in if the odium hits the rotating object.

Thank you, I have been wondering for some time why a vehicle roughly the same size as a Warrior can’t carry an infantry section and a turret!
Are we saying that the Ajax family of vehicles have greater armour protection than a warrior as well, then, given the size constraints?
I’ve been looking at the Warrior CSP for some time thinking that replacing it with an Ajax variant would be a better way of spending our money, but if there’s no way of fitting a section in then I guess it’s not going to be. I heard somewhere that Ajax was a lowered hull, due to its reconaissance mission; could we get some normal height hulls to replace Warrior?

The Ajax family of vehicles all have a common hull, with minor variations to accommodate special to role equipment (cranes, winches, turrets etc). The platforms haven’t been lowered, it is a tall beast, in fact the underside of the hull is shaped to mitigate blast. The vehicle have applique armour as standard giving excellent protection against peer weapons. As DaveyB mentions below, the ARES can carry up to 4 dismounts for snap VCPs or dropping off some snoops. GD have experimented with fitting an Abrams turret and gun to an AJAX for the fire support role!

Ah, fair enough, I hadn’t realised it was so big. Anything that can take an MBT turret is some size!
What I don’t really get, then, is why is it so big, yet still can’t take that many dismounts? It’s supposed to be level IV STANAG protection, which is the same as Warrior (and Boxer, for that matter), from what I can make out: both offer ballistic protection to 14.5 mm AP rounds all around, 155 mm arty rounds, and 10 kg mines. Unless the standard aplique armour you mention improves on that STANAG level IV, but the stuff published online doesn’t mention that. I realise they’re going to have undisclosed better performance in the same way that missiles do, but it’s difficult to know what that would be!
It is physically bigger in every dimension, weighs significantly more, yet carries fewer troops for the same level of protection. Or am I missing something…?

The Boxers we’re getting are built to Stanag 4569 Level 6 similar to the ones Australia are getting.

Wow, reallly?! That I didn’t realise. Aside from the mobility question regarding wheels then, why are we bothering with a warrior upgrade at all- 40 mm CTA turreted Boxer would seem to be the way forward?
I can still see the benefit of tracked recon in the form of Ajax, as it’s smaller overall than Boxer I believe. But it becomes a harder sell, doesn’t it?

Design philosophy isn’t it.
Ajax was designed to replace Scimitar like for like in the same role, so a Light reconnaisance tank. For that role it doesn’t need to carry a dismounted infantry section, so why design for it? Instead you can use all that lovely space for other things (no idea what they did use it for, but it removes a lot of design restraints).

The space is for a couple of dismounts to do sneaky “quiet” reconnaissance, such as a sniper team. Although it probably wasn’t designed for it when the Ajax concept was first put together. There is just enough space for a pair of guys and a UAV such a folded up Desert Hawk.

You need to do some research about what Ajax is for and what it is not for.

Hasn’t an Ajax derived IFV been proposed as a replacement for the US Bradley, but I think it can only carry 6 dismounts. Ajax was also a development of the Spanish/Austrian IFV which carries 8 dismounts, so an IFV version of the Ajax should be possible.

You mean besides Ajax and Boxer?

Yes. If the UK did had not cancelled boxer back in 2003, it would have come into service around 2008 (maybe that’s a bit early but still 10 years ago). That would have saved us purchasing a lot of the MRAPs which will soon be scrapped.

“Scrapping Warrior will be very frustrating due to the amount of money poured down the drain. The numbers they are now talking about ordering (due to the cost over runs) aren’t far off what would have received if we ordered brand new Ajax using the original budget”

Apart from the fact that Ajax cannot do the job that Warrior does. Your comment is SO not true. Refurbishing Warrior is much cheaper than buying a new vehicle which has been proved to the Treasury on many occasions. They do keep asking.

OK so Ajax has not been configured to carry trrops so let’s use boxer. Over 500 vehicles for £2.3 bn vs 245 Warrior for £1.5 bn. What is better value?

You really don’t have a clue do you.

Boxer is not an infantry fighting vehicle, Warrior is. Yes, Boxer is the top of the class for armour protected 8×8 vehicles, but it is a high mobility platform. Therefore, to make it mobile it sacrifices armour protection and is not meant to get in a fight. According to Artec, the Boxer we’re getting has a protection of STANAG 4569 level 6 (same as the Australian ones), which is supposed to be protected against 30mm APFSDS across the front and 14.5×114mm AP along the sides and back.

The Warrior by contrast is supposed to get troops to where they are needed and then provide them with fire support. The initial Warrior was designed to withstand only 14.5×114mm AP rounds, but since the Gulf Wars applique armour is now standard and is effective against 30mm APFSDS all round. The new armour fitted to the enhanced Warrior is “supposed” to be lighter, but maintains the same effectiveness against 30mm rounds and RPGs.

I don’t see a big difference in armour capability especially when the boxer has growth capacity to take on additional armour packages. The Cta 40 is being tested with the other option being the lance turret.
When it comes to IED Boxer offers much better protection, so the question comes down to mobility. The UK prefers tracks because in a conflict with Russia they are expected to deploy to Norway. Boxer has been tested there and performed well.
Any realistic deployment will be in North Africa or the Middle East where boxer is much better suited.
1.5bn for 245 upgraded warrior is not great value for money. The problem is we are so heavily invested in it already, is it right to through it away I think there was an article somewhere that quoted 800m to deliver the 245 units as the rest has already been spent.

It is really disgusting how the MoD are constantly being used as a cash cow by these defence companies. There doesn’t seem to be any recompense to the MoD due to mismanagement from the company. Why should the numbers of upgraded Warriors be cut, when it was the company’s fault of not producing the product on time or to budget? The remaining Warriors that won’t be upgraded should be done at the company’s expense.

The Warrior although built to Stanag 4569 level 4, during the 1st Gulf War proved it offered up better protection than expected (better than the Bradley). It was found that the frontal armour could withstand a number of hits from the BMP2’s 30mm gun. With the newer applique armour it should be better still. Even with the additional armour on Boxer, I’m not sure it will offer the same protection as the upgraded Warrior. As you rightly point out, with the Boxer’s V-hull its mine/IED protection is better than Warrior, even though as part of the upgrade Warrior is getting new suspended seating which will help.

The question still unanswered is, will Boxer get a proper turret that can use the CTA 40mm autocannon? At the moment there doesn’t seem to be any rumours of it getting one. Which is a mistake in my opinion. It puts the whole concept of the strike brigade at risk. As the dismounted infantry don’t have any organic fire support. In an ideal world we could leave the Ajax and Warrior as part of the mechanised brigades. Then have a dedicated Boxer reconnaissance vehicle, fitted out to a similar spec as Ajax. But at moment, we will have to rely on mixing Ajax with the Boxers for any kind of fire support.

No, Javelin is not mountable on either the old or the new Warrior turret at present but many would like the option on the new turret. As John mentioned below one Javelin can be mounted on the Konsberg RWS carried on many ba vehicles.

I didn’t say it was mounted though did I, I said it could be. The Konsberg RWS has so far been tested on Ajax, Boxer and a Range of other vehicles. Warrior is still only half way through its trials which is why it has not been tested yet but we both know it can be so your point is completely irrelevant.

Well you were wrong, it can’t be mounted on a Warrior turret.

Javelin that is.