The British Army has outlined projected retirement dates for several of its armoured fighting vehicles, according to a recent response from the Ministry of Defence.

In a written question, James Cartlidge MP inquired about the out of service dates (OSD) for the Jackal 2 reconnaissance vehicle and the Viking personnel armoured vehicle. Responding on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, Minister of State Maria Eagle provided a table detailing the expected withdrawal dates for several key vehicles.

The Jackal 2 reconnaissance vehicle is set to remain in service until 2030, while the Viking personnel armoured vehicle is expected to be retired a year earlier, in 2029. Other vehicles listed include the Bulldog Armoured Personnel Carrier, with an OSD of 2030, and the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV), which is expected to leave service in 2027.

These dates indicate that the British Army will continue to rely on a mixed fleet of legacy armoured vehicles over the next decade, even as modernisation efforts continue. The phased retirement of these vehicles, say the MOD, will align with the introduction of newer platforms, ensuring ‘continuity of capability as the Army adapts to evolving operational requirements’.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

  1. Most Warriors should be retained in the war reserve for at least ten years. This would provide a useful fallback in case of a serious national emergency, and the vehicle would be a solid and dependable asset. To scrap such an asset would be crass.

    • Maurice, we never keep equipment in war reserve once it has been declared Obsolete and then superseded by a replacement. Many reasons.
      There is no spare space in the only UK vehicle depot we have left (MoD Ashchurch is quite small), there is not enough depot staff to maintain obsolete vehicles in addition to in-service depot stock, there is no money to keep obsolete equipment ‘on the books’ (happy to explain all the various elements), and if ever issued there would not be crews and maintainers who would be ‘current’ on that old equipment.

      In the case of Warrior, shamefully it was never seriously upgraded in service (the only piecemeal uogrades I can think of in nearly 40 years was Bowmanisation and fitting of BGTI many moons ago). So you are suggesting keeping in storage an essentially unmodernised late-1980s vehicle far into the future – if issued out in time of war in many years time they would lack modern capability (protection, mobility, firepower would be low and digitisation non-existent)…and would be very difficult to support, many spares being unobtainable and possibly 30mm ammo might be hard to source?

      Of course policies can change, and the current policy has been debated internally within MoD. But some seriously big cash would have to be found to keep superseded vehicles on the books in our small vehicle depot for use in General War. That might mean less money for new equipment.

      • The key issue Graham is the high attrition rates of armoured vehicles being witnessed in Ukraine due to modern technology, especially from small and relatively cheap drones. The current planned procurement for Boxer and the Ajax family only amounts to around 1300 vehicles, which in terms of combat losses would quickly require considerable replacement numbers. Warrior would enable some options to stem losses as brand-new vehicles are built. I understand the nature of Warriors’ long-term future but having them in reserve is better than nothing. The MOD needs to review the loss factor illustrated in Ukraine by requesting a 50% increase in the afm new fleets to give anything close to realistic assets in a similar battlefield scenario as Ukraine.

        • There are some caveats you need to take though Maurice. The high losses are often compared to the size of the British Army as if the British Army was holding similar frontages to the Ukranian or Russian armies, which it won’t. Ukraine vs Russia is not analagous to NATO vs Russia due to the air force factor, which needs to be considered. And most importantly: retaining vehicles in reserve in a condition that they can be reactivated in any sort of timely manner is expensive, which means costs get cut elsewhere.

          • Dern, you have hit the nail on the head, not enough attention has been spent on the UK’s war reserves, hence my suggestion that good kit should not be cast but placed in humid free storage and yes, it will cost money. The ragged situation NATO finds itself could result in an imbalance of effort by members, and without the US’s full support, the UK could be landed with the lion’s share in any land conflict.
            Our planned fleet of Boxer and Ajax is simply not enough to cover the AFM scenario, and a meaningful reserve would help underwrite the risks.

          • Okay: What would you cut to maintain said meaningful reserve? Because I’d cut the reserve before cutting anything else.

        • Maurice, it is right to note the high level of attrition of AFVs experienced in the Ukraine war, particulalry on the Russian side. As Dern says we have to be cautious about assuming that fate would certainly be experienced in a conflict involving the British Army. Our AFVs, especially tanks, have better protection than the T-series tanks used by both sides. Of the 14 CR2s sent to UKR, one has certainly been destroyed and a second, possibly. That quite low attrition rate is possibly indicative of our better armour. British TTP too is very different. Russian handling of armour is abysmal and we would not make the TTP mistakes the Russians make. However, on the flip side of the coin, I am not complacent.
          What I have stated is the current MoD position – that we do not keep equipment that has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’ and has been superseded – for sound reasons. Other nations, especially USA store an incredible amount of obsolete equipment – they have the space and the money to do so. It used to be that their NG were familiar with and used equipment that the Active Duty army no longer used ie M60 tanks, so experience of operating and maintaining this old kit was available. [Not sure if that is the case now].

          MoD is re-evaluating their ‘classic’ position, but it would need some huge sums spending to adopt a system of holding Obsolete kit in war reserve. There would still be the question of their suitability for a future combat situation (given that their protection, mobility, firepower and digitisation capability would be decades behind the in-service kit) and the lack of manpower who knew how to operate and maintain them.

          Finally, drones are not totally ‘wonder weapons’. They have their drawbacks and can be defeated and/or their effect mitigated. Much effort and spend is going on anti-drone solutions.

          • Graham, generally that’s no longer the case for the NG using obsolete equipment like the M60, as since the end of the Cold War the drawdown of US forces has meant that there is enough active duty kit that the National Guard just uses old M1’s etc that the Regular US Army doesn’t want anymore.

      • May I ask a question? And for transparency I work in a time Critical Solutions based industry, I just happen to have a deep interest in Military matters.
        We have a small amount of good stuff, it’s probably very good, but who knows, it untested in the primary role for what it was intended. I do believe in british innovation and doggedness, But! If the so called shit hits the proverbial fan What happens when all the ‘good stuff’ runs out there is literally nothing left, not even the so called obsolete shit stuff, surely in the time of need, us brits could get a whole lot out of something out of it and do a whole Lot of good, for example, warrior is an armoured vehicle for god sake (that cost a shit ton to make I add) , I am pretty sure if parts were needed they could Be made, yes Electronics have moved on, but there is a replacement for everything and in a time of crisis is brits are pretty innovative and tenacious. Could You imagine trying to make these now, from my pov it’s laughable, they would be delivered 10 years after they were needed, at least we would have the hulls. We don’t have the production capacity to do fast build in quantity in the UK, it’s been squandered, Also digital Isn’t everything, Sometimes simple works We’ll Enough, is less susceptible and is more robust. Any way, as I say, I’m just a civie, so no in depth knowledge and these are just my thoughts. Bored of throwing stuff away that may have a use, and cost us all a lot of money at some Point.

        • The problem isn’t that nobody is saying you’d never need to unmothball vehicles, or that once you burn through your original stock you have an issue. The problem is that mothballed fleets cost a lot of money to keep, and the vast majority of them will never be used. Since 1945 there hasn’t really been a time that we’ve had to pull anything out of mothballs, despite several wars occurring in that time. So reserve fleets are a very niche thing that requires actually a considerable amount of money to retain.

          But we aren’t in a cash flush military position at the moment. As it stands the army is actually quite crippled by having several large gaps (Enablers for 4th and 19th Brigade, no 3rd Brigade for 3 UK Division, very low numbers of fires and GBAD, the list goes on). So the issue then becomes, we are talking about keeping a low use, niche capability, while the Army is lacking basic assets that it requires to preform it’s core roles.

          Next: A few things you say here are pretty off the mark and dunning krueger-y. Most vehicles now take a decade to deliver because Industrial strategy needs to be considered, and the forces needs need to be balanced in favour of cost and keeping production lines running. Additionally without much of a time crunch the design periods can be allowed to run for longer, as UOR requirements show, during wartime, with time crunches, kit and equipment can be procured to theatre standards at very short notice. Again, cost and industrial strategy requirements become less important during war time.

          Like it or not, Digital and modern communications are incredibly important. You *need* the ability to communicate on the modern battlefield without huge EM emissions, and have to deal with modern EW efforts, just having a radio doesn’t cut it. Coms are vital to operating. (I’ll also point out the irony that you think that we can suddenly improvise modern coms at incredibly short notice but you don’t think we could develop and produce a tracked box if we needed it at short notice).

          Lastly you can be bored of disposing of old stuff all you like, but the other option is throwing more money at old stuff to keep it in serviceable condition without getting any use out of it.

    • Virtually all of the economically serviceable ones will be converted. The rest won’t be of much use.

      • I know CH2 is the basis of the upgraded CH3, but only 148 hulls are required, and at least 50+ CH2 will still be complete and capable vehicles and being stored at Ashchurch would allow for at least five years of war reserve value.

        • Once the 148 are complete it would seem sensible to simply upgrade all the remaining CH2s to CH3.

          It would also seem sensible to start work on CH4 (or whatever is next). We need a next generation tank and in suitable numbers to deter any aggressor.

          • Mark, Our MoD has observer status on the next gen Franco-German tank, MGCS ie Main Ground Combat System which was launched in 2017 by Germany and France, and aims to replace their current Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks. It remains to be seen if it will be sufficiently advanced enough to replace CR3 from 2040 or later.
            I think we need a few other approaches, such as partnering with Korea or USA or Japan on Concept studies.

    • C2 is being used as the base for c3 however I be,Eve they will keep some for parts namely the hull the rest isn’t much use as to warrior I wish they would have followed through with the new turret every single conflict in the past 30 years has shown how useful warrior type vehicles are be it Bradley or even the ancient German one but knowing our government they will melt them or sell them for way below value just like the 2 assault ships that apparently 9 million a year to mothball is far to much money but 4 million A DAY for hotels for boat people is ok

        • Agreed, we’ve just shipped the last of our AS90 systems to them(perhaps a little prematurely, at least wait until the boxer 155 comes into service…), so the Warriors that are still operational should be sent to them too.

          I’d rather see them being damaged/destroyed fighting the Russian aggressors and saving Ukranians than sitting in some depot waiting to be scrapped!

      • I know CH2 is the basis of the upgraded CH3, but only 148 hulls are required, and at least 50+ CH2 will still be complete and capable vehicles and being stored at Ashchurch would allow for at least five years of war reserve value.

      • In war I really doubt the MOD will be fit for purpose if 80 years peace is anything to go by.
        Certainly sensible to start making some key components for the day when we need to press the Emergency button. All the key parts for maintenance and damage should be doubled up. Apparently the CH2’s we sent to Ukraine are short on spares.
        I really admire the way the Ukrainians improvise.
        Sad we have to talk like this.

  3. I know that they updated the FV430 series and called it Bulldog, but when it’s OSD comes around iit will be able to retire to a shed in Ashchurch and immediately start drawing its old age pension 😀😀😀

    • Mark, my first posting was to the LAD of a mech inf bn with FV432 in 1975 and it was only 13 years since ISD.
      When OSD comes around it will have been 68 years since the introduction of the Mk1s!! No point sending them to Ashchurch – the knackers yard has been waiting for some years now.

      • No, they’ll go to the ZSU in all probability. They already operate 432s, and will happily take delivery of any that have had one careful owner.

  5. As the latest OSD is 2030, and it’s currently 2025, the army is only going to rely on this mixed fleet for 5 more years and not “the next decade” as stated in the article.

  6. If Bulldog is being end of serviced by 2030 what are they being replaced with? They are extensively used by the support arms, Ambulances, recovery, signals? (still?), command and control, and such activities as mortar platforms. According to Wiki we have 744 bulldogs and are replacing them with 200 Ajax variants. Seems a bit underwhelming.

  8. ‘The phased retirement of these vehicles, say the MOD, will align with the introduction of newer platforms, ensuring ‘continuity of capability as the Army adapts to evolving operational requirements’.

    That should be the policy for all vehicles, and every other type of equipment.

    Why then did the MOD retire all the AS-90s before the introduction of its successor, Boxer RCH-155?

    • So Sunak could grandstand that we’d given them to Ukraine.
      Politics trumps all.
      Of course, much of the fleet had already been cut since around 2007 onwards.

    • So that the Ukrainians could kill lots of Orcs for us using them.
      Seems a good deal all round – except for the Orcs of course.

    • Why do our politicians and yes men at the top of the military make any of the dumbass decisions they make. Is there anyone out there who has served or is serving that has any faith.

  9. Politicians know nothing but serving themselves. The same old bullshit comes from thier lips, lethality and agility, that’s fine with quantity which we don’t have, so give it a rest, yawn!!

  10. Viking should go now. It serves no useful purpose. The initial purchase was a way of the RM getting armour through a backdoor route. The RM high command could not see that as a piece of armour it needed to be treated as just that. So training and crew levels would have to be provided appropriately. So no surprise that training had to be established at Bovington. Basically the RM ate pie and fell in line.
    In my initial report I asked questions about shaped charges from RPG and upwards. Also questioned landmine survivability. That report was binned in front of my eyes. The officer on the other side of the desk said it was not valid criticism. The vehicle could withstand small arms fire and a 155 not closer than 30 Metres. That was good enough.
    That was in 95 when two vehicles were delivered to 40 Cdo in Norway direct from Haglands for trials. There was nothing good about it. As with any tracked vehicle it was a nightmare on iced roads.
    If I had to find one redeeming feature it could cut a path through silver birch, which the standard 206 could not being fibreglass.

    • The Vikings were only regenerated <5years ago. ASG being the newest unit in the corps. What are their plans? Disband the unit or use different vehicles?
      I served 8 years in the corps with that unit. The vehicles are fantastic bits of it.. although the amphibious capability lacked somewhat, ship to shore speed was a missing capability.

  11. The ssue with all these legacy vehicles will be adequate protection against overhead attach. The provision of spares and repair will be so problematic as well.

  12. Keep them, we need to increase our armed forcess so keep them and add to them. Better an out of date vehicle than nothing, better an out of date ship than swimming, better some defence than what we currently have

    • That’s not exactly true. The older a vehicle is the more it costs to keep it running, the more maintenance hours it needs. This can, and does, result in death spirals where more and more money is devoted to keeping old kit going, and that eats up money that can be spend on replacements.

  13. New poster so please be kind! In terms of Warrior it would be a shame to see platform that is numerous and present simply go to waste. My preference would be to undertake a low cost upgrade/conversion program and retain it as an asset. Perhaps a conversion for close in air defense against drones ect. , SPAAG, Starstreak/LMM platform, laser/direct energy weapon carrier as these are the present threats. It would just seem a shame to simply dispose of valuable hulls that have residual value and utility.

    • The idea was to do something similar, it was to upgrade Warrior with a modern comms suite and a 40mm cannon, but the budget of several projects went over, and the MoD decided that the least painful cut would be the warrior upgrade.

  14. Graham, that’s a very interesting comment. Thank you. I just saw how well received the FV432S have been in Ukraine, which proves that old men can still run with the herd—well, to some extent. This underlines the worth of battle wagons such as Bulldog and Warrior, which were built to last. Interestingly, some MBTs currently in service have not operated as would have been expected, including the Leopard 2 in Ukraine! One thing the Ukraine War has proved is how useful it has been in showing strengths and weaknesses in modern armour and how it will mould the Franco/German MBT programme?

  15. WAR RESERVES: UK has no space?
    There are vast warehouses popping up all over the country – many empty for years. Why does not the MoD purchase a few and ram them with old kit as war reserves. After all the Ukrainians seem to make great use of old UK troop carried, Spartans and the like. Stick the Typhoons, Tornandos in their too. After all they cost a fortune in the first place. While they are at it they could also un-mothball some of the former ordnance storage sites – they are still there.

    • Yes, MoD has a vast estate, both built on and ranges.
      Though the military/MoD don’t drop kit off here and there “willy nilly” in what buildings are available, so to speak, stuff tends to be centralised.
      Munitions are in several locations, obviously, in purpose designed facilities. Vehicles mostly at Ashchurch, in CHE, with sone smaller vehicle parks elsewhere, mainly training, with another site in Germany. General stores in three main locations, recently augmented by the new building at Longtown, again with smaller satellite locations.
      The RAFs meagure reserve have CHE hangers on the fringes of RAF Shawbury.
      MoD has indeed bought warehouses elsewhere direct from market like you describe, but they’re not used for war reserves.
      Reserve kit needs maintaining, so it’s also a cost thing.
      Which ordnance storage sites did you have in mind?

      • Hi Daniele. Yeah, thanks. I get that there are maintenance costs. My Dad used to work for the Air Ministry post-war. Spent his days warming up Lancs and Mosquitos at Hullavington just in case they were ever needed again. My point is that in this current world situation, and how expensive and the time-scale to produce anything, keeping hold of war reserves is now a viable option.

        For ordnance storage: what about sites like Yardley Chase in Northamptonshire? OK, it would take a lot of work but still quite isolated.

        • Hi Albert.
          I dont see the need ordnance wise, but what do I know? As you say, It would I suspect cost a lot of money to reopen such sites with the specialised buildings these storage areas require, especially if they’re to hold more than dumb ammunition stocks.
          I know Yardley does have the infrastructilure used for such, it’s similar to others that remain, but was closed long ago so I don’t know the
          We downsized a lot in this area too post Cold War, places like Chilmark, Crombie, Dean Hill all closing or downsizing, but what is left is still considerable to hold our hopefully expanding stocks.
          For interest, there are 7 primary Defence Munitions sites remaining used by MoD in the UK.
          Glen Douglas: Northern Bomb stock. ( Which is why the likes of the QEC go to Glen Mallen next door.)
          Coulport: Trident and Torpedoes.
          Beith: “Complex weapons” so we are talking missiles.
          Longtown. Army Ordnance.
          Kineton. Southern Bomb Stock, plus Army Ordnance. Huge, spread over 2 sites.
          Ernsettle: The location used by the RN at Devonport.
          Gosport: As above, but for Portsmouth.
          In addition there are several smaller satellite locations, such as at Larkhill and Sennybridge for local army stocks.
          There is another location at Welford used by the US.
          Finally, Porton Down has similar facilities after Project Helios transfered DSTLs capability in this area from Fort Halstead.
          On the vehicle front, the Army like the rest is shedding kit like there’s no tomorrow, as it “rationalises” it’s vehicle types. Ashchurch, like Graham has mentioned above, is quite a small site, even though it can hold thousands of vehicles.
          On keeping war reserves, it was a Cold War thing, I suspect the costs of doing so now, when money is so tight, would impact the front line too much.
          Maybe if we were at 3%!
          Also on war reserves, ever heard of the “Strategic Reserve”? One source told me some very interesting stories about what It contained.

          • I don’t know anything about “UL “strategic Reserves” other than supposed to be former service personnel that can be recalled in time of extreme crisis?

            My concern is for everything from basic small calibre stuff to missiles, and armour, ships and aircraft. Given that we can no longer rely on the USA (or French/Germans), and the rate of consumption that Ukraine is suffering, we need shed loads of everything to last even a couple of weeks. OK, it might even have to come down to a “Dads Army” using the stuff.

      • Not flyable, no, without a lot of money spent.
        I’d guess sevetal, as ground instructional frames at 1 SOTT at Cosford, for example, as the Jags I believe were finally scrapped. Or, as Gate Guards, trials frames, or targets.
        For example I saw a Tornado on Google Earth a few years ago. Where? Of all places, Porton Down.

        • There’s one intact at RAF Syerston that’s used for ground maintenance training.
          A friend in my CCF had a residential camp there and sent me some pictures with it.

      • …taking me a tad too literally there PaulT. It the idea of storing them (at the time) rather than scrapping. We could do with a good dollop of CH1s & 2s now. Imagine if we had kept a brace of Harriers for running of the carriers on drone patrol…

        • Pity we lack an area of desert like at Davis Monthan!
          With our climate such aircraft would need CHE storage, again a cost. You’d also still need to find current qualified pilots for them, and ground crews, which were needed to stand up Joint Force Lightning.
          We’re too small, basically, money needs to go to the front line, already starved of funding with the DNE elephant.

          • True, but the Ukrainians see able to squeeze out the max from old kit, so why can’t we?

          • Because it costs a fortune to maintain. Ukraine has to make do with a lot of stuff that really hamstrings it, their logistics chain is an absolute nightmare. But they have what they are given.

            I don’t think 432s with some modern comes would be useless, but the cost of keeping them in service or even mothballed would mean cutting frontline funding that already isn’t enough to make ends meet.

  16. Sadly, we talk about the Warrior being scrapped in the near future, rather then mothballed mainly due to cost, spare parts and trained maintainers and drivers being trained to use them if required in the NEAR future if required.

    Something to think about, if we ever go to a tier one/two war in the future, mobilise previously trained drivers and gunners to operate them, after some refresher training not forgetting the maintainers, who would have worked on them.
    The 30mm ammunition tooling and stocks put into storage until required.
    The best working warriors, put into storage and the rest of them, kept as cannibalise spare parts etc, removed when required or needed. Bearing in mind, that the equipment is still in service at the moment, so should in theory have the parts back up required to support it.

    Another option is of course is gifted as foreign aid once replaced

    Finally, the Russian armies still manage to replace from war reserve, replacement old vehicles as and when required, so why cant we?

  17. Let’s be clear – the Bulldog or AFV432 entered service in the early 60s. Not bad for the eco activists, just as good a carbon footprint as the landrover.

  18. It’s a little ironic, that Warrior will be scrapped before Bulldog. Since the guys who built both and survived the collapse of the AFV industry, made great attempts to keep both of them relevant.
    Warrior was hammered in service, but was reliable enough. Till the DSG and DE&S introduced the “Cheapness is best” servicing regime. Spares were sourced from dubious sources, OEM specifications were treated as ambitions, not requirements. The dearth of experienced maintainers allowed some amazingly inept management to castrate an otherwise excellent platform. Desktop reviews replaced actual Quality, Compliance became Elf’N’Safeti..heads of purchasing got massive bonuses for cutting costs..
    Oh and Warriors took sharp Right hand turns on dual carriageways, tracks broke, suspensions collapsed as bearings collapsed.
    The AESP became a Haines manual.
    To the extent that one guy reported the situation to the ModPlod. Fraud, that’s the claim
    Oddly enough..DE&S couldn’t find any information on anything..no one knew anything guv.
    Considering that DES bought a set of Warrior tracks,from a cheaper seller than the OEM…..I mean, where did the track originate.?
    Turned out the track came from MOD, but scrapped in a long running con, from Donnington DSG.
    Who knew each track link had a unique number?
    Or the genius, who wanted to fit Saxon Vision blocks to Warriors, because they were cheaper, who knew Warrior had a higher protection level than Saxon?
    How about a super computerised test rig for suspension units? Save getting it serviced despite contracts, let’s just pretend it’s OK.. so how can we be sure the kits OK…well, let’s assume this random unit is OK, and make sure all the others work like this one?
    Ordering correct bearings too expensive? Why not delete the specification a little, just the bits that define the class of the bearing..after all these Chinese ones are the same size….yes they’re bought through 3 middlemen in different continents..but this Chinese character looks…like a dragon.?
    All the above, and more are true, when a vehicle less than 10 miles after Base overhaul suffers a total failure of a Final Drive gearbox..that’s not good
    When a “Engineer” asks you ‘How do you know it’s wrong to drawing’ and you show him the drawing, and say..”THATS MY Signature”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.