Defence Vehicle Dynamics (DVD) 2024 brought together the British Army’s latest armoured platforms—Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank—demonstrating the modernisation of the UK’s land forces.
Held at the UTAC vehicle test facility in Millbrook, Bedfordshire, the event showcased the Army’s commitment to enhancing its land capabilities, ensuring the UK is equipped to face the evolving challenges of 21st-century warfare.
Major General Lizzie Faithfull-Davies, Director Land Equipment at Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), highlighted the importance of the event, saying, “The role of DVD has always been crucial to defence procurement, encouraging collaboration between industry, our customers in the Army, and ourselves in DE&S as we collectively build a more modern and lethal Army.”
She added that having the core of the modernised Armoured Brigade Combat Teams in one place felt like a significant turning point in the delivery of the Army’s modernisation agenda.
The two-day event was an opportunity for stakeholders from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and industry to engage in discussions, briefings, and demonstrations of the latest military technologies. These discussions focused on resilience, innovation, and enhancing capability to maintain the Army’s competitive edge. For many attendees, it was the first chance to see these state-of-the-art vehicles up close, each developed in collaboration with industry to equip the Army for current and future threats.
Colonel Jamie Hayward, Programme Director for Ajax, spoke of the vehicle’s importance in the Army’s modernisation plan: “Ajax is at the forefront of the Army’s Modernisation agenda. Alongside Boxer and Challenger 3, we’ll provide digitally enabled capability that allows the Army to face current threats.”
He highlighted Ajax’s six variants, which will help the UK maintain its role within NATO and address future challenges.
The Boxer armoured vehicle was also a key feature at DVD 2024, with Programme Director Colonel Iain Fake describing it as a “gamechanger” for the British Army. “The key selling point is its mobility,” he said, noting Boxer’s ability to self-deploy over 1,000 kilometres. Available in four configurations—including infantry carrier, command-and-control variant, specialist carrier, and ambulance—the Boxer offers unprecedented flexibility and operational reach for Army units.
The most anticipated platform at the event was the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank, billed as the most lethal tank ever operated by the British Army.
Colonel Will Waugh, Programme Director for Challenger 3, described it as a “world-class main battle tank” and a “step-change in terms of lethality and survivability” compared to its predecessor. Waugh noted that alongside Ajax and Boxer, Challenger 3 will form the backbone of the Army’s future Brigade Combat Teams, a critical component of the UK’s warfighting capability and its contribution to NATO deterrence.
The modernised fleet of Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3 ensures that the British Army can operate across diverse terrains and weather conditions, using next-generation sensors to provide real-time reconnaissance and rapid response to threats.
Ajax will not obviously be able to make the most of its digital capability as GD have totally failed on MORPHEUS so Ajax advantages such as we are told they are – Omniscient, omnipresent real god like ISTAR capability will be lost. On top of all its other problems this doesn’t bode well for the most expensive vehicle of its type does it?
When did this come to light – I was under the impression (from those in the know on here) that it was still going to be a class leading piece of kit regards ISTAR – although that was a while ago.
In a statement to the House of Commons on 14 December 2023 the defence procurement minister, James Cartlidge, wrote, “We have been open that progress on the Morpheus project has fallen short of what was expected and since December 2020 we have been working closely with General Dynamics to agree the best way ahead. The MoD can today confirm that, as a result of these discussions, this contract has now been concluded.”
On 5 December 2023, in answering written questions from Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey, Cartlidge stated that, as of 27 November 2023, the Morpheus project had already cost the MoD around GBP 690 M and that, despite this outlay, the IOC for the Evolve to Open system was yet to be defined.
READ we have no idea what we are doing next….
Grizzler, don’t confuse the capabilities of the AJAX platform with the ability to disseminate that data across the wider Army, that’s what the Morpheus system was supposed to enable.
Surely there is linkage. Ajax is diminished if it can’t get its data disseminated.
Yes there is Graham, using the current Bowman system it’s just not as capable.
Yes, of course. I should have used better wording.
Main issue is lack of active defences or any form of anti air capability, meaning it would be taken apart by drones in any modern battlefield.
Absolutely! Also ATGW or drone launch and recce system – By the time it reaches FOC which is likely to be 2030, half the kit will be borderline obsolete. A £13,000,000 vehicle sitting at the FEBA with no anti drone protection (Other than CTA40 which is of limited efficacy) being taken out by £1,000 drone?
Not even £1k for the drones and those costs are going ever down, by the 2030s would guess a few hundred. Although the anti tank munition they carry must have a cost to it.
CTA40 rounds are (compared to standard rounds) massively expensive. It is difficult to actually gain any sourced data as it seems MoD don’t want anyone to know. But, I’ve heard ten times the cost of a standard round!
I heard that CTA 40mm were 5 times more than a 30mm round. Hopefully you don’t need to use as many!
hopefully, we won’t have to use any.
By 2030 the kit will be borderline obsolete only if it has not been upgraded.
Why do you think we will not have any anti-drone systems in place in the near future? UK has an anti-drone programme in being.
Yes, if the drone operator spots the Ajax, then it is at risk, as is everything else on the battlefield.
You think the answer is to fit an antidrone system on each Ajax, and no doubt to everything else that is potentially threatened by drones?
We have never fitted an anti-aircraft system to literally everything on the battlefield.
There are other ways to deal with drones. UK has launched an anti-drone programme.
The world has changed, just because it hasnt happened in the past isnt justification for not in the future.
The idea of only relying on battlefield level air defence batteries are over. They are still needed for dealing with combat aircraft and larger drones but something at a much more localised level is now needed. Ideally yes every vehicle needs something and that’s what Ukraine and Russia are attempting but not wholly successfully.
It is not just vehicles that are threatened by drones. It will be interesting to see what emerges from the UK programme . I am sure many vehicles will have a TES kit that includes an anti-drone element.
I was thinking the other day it’s interesting that naval and airforce tech has changed completely since ww2 and yet ground forces still mainly operate the same way, as seen in Ukraine.
I think we are in danger of identifying a little too closely with the war in Ukraine as a surefire indicator as to our next major conflict for the army.
The Russian Army has been surprisingly inept and it is amazing that they have failed to use their armoured forces correctly ie using manouevre warfare with combined arms. they have been obsessed with terror tactics such as shelling housing and infrastructure sometimes more so than focussing on defeating UKR forces.
Our next war may not have so many static defence aspects.
Whilst I think your right, equally Ukraine trained with nato tactics completely failed with their spring offensive. I suspect partially over estimating what western forces would achieve in a similar war.
The US has started to fundamentally change how to trains, so it is worried about tactics.
Ukraine counter-offensive planned for Spring or Summer 2023 was hugely delayed due to slowness in getting enough Western equipment into service. During this time the Russians beefed up their defences to strong triple layer around border with Crimea.
Ukraine still lacked air superiority, a pre-requisite for a swift and successful offensive.
So I am not surprised their 2023 offensive was a damp squib.
Many such issues remained for 2024. This may have prompted alternative thinking ie drone strikes on distant targets such as Moscow and airfields inside Russia, as well as the Kursk operation.
Interesting that the US is changing training methods, despite the fact that they do not lack western equipment or air superiority!
Not saying the next big way will be identical buy it will share lessons.
Drones have changed the game, total air superiority will be impossible unlike wars of old. No matter how advanced your gear or air power is, you end up relying on ground forces dislodging defensive positions and nato doctrine relies on speed and movability of armour which just won’t work as that armour is taken apart by drones, anti tank missiles and mines. Look at Iraq war 1 it wasn’t air assets that won it was ground forces with massive technological advantages in range of fire.
Overwatch by apache and the other slow moving assets will be easily wiped out by man portable air defences as has happened to both side.
Ukraine biggest advantage has been nato surveillance assets are off the board for Russia but if it was a nato war then they would be easily taken out like the Russian ones have been.
A war would certainly be different as there would be much more air combat and mobility in artillery but equally any opponent we come across is also watching this war and learning.
Whilst if you switch Russia with nato, with roughly the same level of force of Russia but equal level of external suppprt for urkain, I have no doubt nato would have done way better but I’m not convinced Ukraine would have fallen.
I agree with some but not all of that. Drones have massively changed things but drones can be defeated or impaired, and that has happened in the Ukraine war. The Russians are more vulnerable to drone attacks by their poor tactics than we ever would be.
You say that NATO doctrine of moving armour rapidly won’t work. We have always faced and dealt with antitank weapons and mines – they are nothing new. The drones are the new thing and they can be mitigated or defeated even if the Russians haven’t worked out how.
In Gulf War 1, you play down the initial air campaign before the ground offensive started. It was devastating and no wonder the US President described it as ‘shock and awe’. It set up a swift and succesful ground campaign. It is always ground forces that finish a war but all is made easier and casualties lighter with massive air power preceeding ground ops and during ground ops. The ground phase lasted just 9 days and we lost only 47 soldiers killed.
Apache does far more than overwatch. We use AH far more carefully than Russia does. Ours are exposed for much shorter periods of time. I am not convinced we would lose that many. MANPADS are not new and not unique to the Ukraine war.
I am not saying we learn nothing from the Ukraine war. Certainly a big lesson is that of drone use. So we have a huge antidrone programme in being. I am not convinced that manouevre warfare in CA groupings and use of AH is a thing of the past. If it was, we would be back to the attritional warfare of WW1, which means a long war with huge casualties. We do not have the amount of men and materiel for attritional warfare, or the political and public acceptance of that.
NATO armour doctrine only worked with overmatch in numbers and aerial supremacy. against a non peer adversary and in desert. That lesson don’t tall us what will happen if some of those circumstances change.
Hi Graham, I was proposing a a deployable recce drone to extend the reach of the recce team to me it is just. a logical development. I worked on a project called VERDI 2 years ago, Ajax is basically a super tech version of that rather than employing evolving technologies more – From reports from friends serving in the Ukraine there is no hiding place on the battlefield particularly at FEBA and Ajax will need something other than CTA40 for protection from airborne threats. I am aware of UK initiatives on drones which actually have gained momentum since they have been studying the use of drones in Ukraine. Prior contracts indicate over reliance on big ticket items from General Atomics.
The British army vehicle programs have been a disaster over the last 35 years. As someone who has worked on virtually all initiatives. I have to say the Army have been slow to recognise and adopt emerging technologies preferring instead to try to develop silver bullet omniscient solutions sold by primarily US contractors – You just have to look at Ajax and Morpheus and pretty much any other GD project (Other than Force Protection which GD bought) to see the difference between the vision sold and the reality delivered (or not in the case of MORPHEUS) Personally I believe Ajax is a busted flush. But no one is going to admit that. The problems are not resolved and reliability and through life costs will be prohibitive. It will need an MLU shortly after FOC which frankly is ridiculous.
Andover have now spent £25Billion on primarily vehicle programs since 2012 and the only substantial fleet they have fielded has been Panther which was so crap they sold the whole fleet – Next up Ajax… Really time Army MoD faced some accountability.
I think the 40mm CTA mount should be modified to be able to provide AA. They have good rounds for that and the calibre is ideal.
It is a huge waste if that is not possible.
Good to see the three new vehicles together for the first time. In some recent pictures Ajax appeared to be fitted with additional armour? Will this be fitted as standard or like CH2 have to capability of adding armour as and when? I was impressed to note that a package had already been designed so early in the life of the machine. I’ve yet to see a similar upgrade on boxer, so this may also follow. Additional armour is already designed for CH3 as I’ve seen some pictures but I would imagine this is very similar to CH2 as the hull is carried over, it looks like the Megatron package.
Additional armour requires a crane to remove it for track maintenance and increases wear and tear on on transmission and running gear. Only used when required.
Not true – bolt on bolt off. It’s ceramic. Can be done manually by the crew. Done it many times with Warrior TES.
So crew can easily lift off this armour and fit it back on, without crane assistance?
WellI I can only speak for Warrior where each ‘block’ weighed about 40lbs so less than half the weight of your bergan . For practical purposes it usually required a two man lift to hold it in place while a third bloke bolted it on. Yes it was a bit fiddly and time consuming bit no more so than changing links in a track something which at Section level we did and practised all of the time. Can’t see actually how a crane would have helped as the blocks come individually packed, in fact would prob have complicated the job no end.
Thanks mate. Good info.
See my reply to Pete
See my reply to Pete.
AJAX comes in 3 different armour configurations:
Changing types of armour is a fairly major 2nd line operation. For track bashing, depending on armour type there is a small lift asset to lift the skirts to gain access.
How many ordered?
148 CR3s, 589 Ajax (all variants), 623 Boxer (but many more are required).
That list of Boxer type does not state an IFV/ICV, am i missing some thing or has that type not even been ordered yet let alone trialed?. I ask as Warrior is on its last legs and doe not have long to its full out of service date.
No over watch, or SP Mortar or AD Boxer yet, and still no ordered for RCH155. The Army showing off kit thats not even finished trials, or been built in numbers to issue to users.
I believe the boxer is replacing warrior and it’s only having a 50cal on it which is nuts I’m hoping they will see sense and realise it needs a canon ideally the 40mm that’s going on Ajax or if we have to order more Ajax and have them replace warrior I like the look of the mortar boxer that is something we need in our military
who bright idea is a Boxer with 50 cal? that will next to use less, Ajax as an IFV is good option just not sure it can carry an infantry section. As always we will something crap thats cost loads to fix we always do. Wheeled IFV bad idea.
Not really a fan of Boxer ,do think track would be better than wheels and to go from warrior to boxer isn’t really given the Army a better deal .Sorry to say it but best IFV for our troops should of been CV90 but to late now.
umm i bet we have buy some tracked IFV’s in the next 5 years when we find Boxer its not all its made out to be and cross country a tracked vehicle is better by far.
Boxer is a MIV for mech inf. It is OK for that but massively overpriced. I doubt we will make much use of the modularity feature.
We do of course need an IFV for our AI, and upgraded Warrior would have been very good, and very affordable in isolation.
Crazy for politicians to replace an IFV with a MIV.
Nope Ajax only has room for one dismount in the back which for such a large vehicle is pants. Apparently the one dismount seat in the back was designed for an interpreter or so I was told and which showed the sort of theatres we expected to operate in then. Apparently it’s now used by a drone operator and a quad copter drone ( UAS) which makes more sense .
Can Ajax which is heavy modded ASCod not be streched to fit an section, not idea but doable
ARES is the “troop carrier” but it is not an APC. It carries 4 dismounts to perform specific tasks (VCP, ATGW etc)
Ajax is a recce vehicle, so it is not replacing Warrior, which is an infantry vehicle. Totally different.
Boxer is replacing Warrior, but then you know that. It is clearly a political/monetary decision. Anyone in the Infantry, and probably the wider army too will be very disappointed to lose the chance of having a stabilised 40mm cannon per section in the AI.
The army staff was supposed to propose enhanced lethality options for Boxer back in 2021 but it all went quiet.
Mounted mortar is no new thing. We have mounted 81mm mortar in adapted FV 432 for as long as I can remember.
I’m aware Ajax is a replacement for CVRT however I’m pretty sure it can be adapted to be a armoured fighting vehicle like warrior and would help with maintenance having similar vehicles as to our mortar carrier it’s 432 and it’s a 81mm we need 120mm like the rest of nato watch Ukrainian videos they are claiming there 82mm are not powerful enough and you need 120mm minimum plus 432 has been in service since the 60s it’s old as hell the new mortar carriers out are so much more capable there more like small self propelled guns
Tim, GDUK has expended thousands of manhours of design and development work and £££billions turning an Austrian-Spanish IFV into a high tech recce vehicle with 3-man crew.
Are you suggesting we cancel all or most of the Boxer order, then order a load more Ajax and then pay more for them to be converted to something like Ulan/Pizarro IFVs? I don’t see that happening!
The army is getting Boxer MIV which is now going to replace Warrior IFV, a totally different vehicle type. The world has gone crazy but the decision was made well over 3 years ago. Any different decision to get IFVs back will cost a fortune and would never be funded. Having said that the WCSP programme if implemented without so many other expensive programmes running at the same time would have been very affordable. The timing just went wrong.
My understanding is that 432 mortar wagons will be replaced by Boxer mortar wagons.
Boxer can go to light mechanised units and a tracked vehicle can go to the heavy mechanised regiments like it should do stretching Ajax would be no more costly than what other people claim where they want to buy a completely different vehicle cv90 and set up a new logistics chain with a whole new vehicle and I’ve not seen any orders for boxer mortar carriers
Boxer, a MIV, was always meant to go to the mech inf. The AI was meant to have upgraded Warrior, an IFV.
Everything has changed mainly due to money. No more will be spent on infantry except that more Boxers are needed.
I know but I believe it’s a mistake we need tracked vehicles and the infantry need a cash injection from light drones to new rifles and new machine guns u name it the infantry needs it I saw a body armour cover the other day with made in China written on it this is crazy
I agree. The infantry especially need more lethality. Boxer drastically reduces their lethality. Time for a 120mm mounted mortar too…and good antidrone kit.
100% them modern mortar systems that many euro country’s use now are fantastic there more like small SP guns 81mm isn’t cutting it anymore and boxer with a 50 cal on it would not penetrate the frontal armour of any BMP1/2/3 we need a true fighting vehicle
Because Boxer was fast tracked from 2027 as MIV for just 3 Battalions to spending money in 2019,20 while the other expenditures were under way.
Doing things incrementally, Ajax, CH3, WCSP, Boxer, spreads the costs.
Who made this decision to put Boxer front and centre rather than at the back? As was the A2020 plan from 2010.
Carter?
I am sure I read a quote by Carter saying he was proud of having expedited Boxer. I once posted to UKDJ how each and every legacy AFV equipment should have been upgraded and later replaced and when.
If big programmes collide then one or more will be slipped or dropped. Carter was no Programme Manager!
👍
The only change is them eventually putting a turret on Boxer.
They aren’t going to upgrade Warrior and they aren’t going to re re design Ajax.
*The only possible change.
All very true. Certainly need a cannon on the infantry section carriers ASAP, preferably a 40mm stabilised job.
It definitely does. There is a really interesting discussion of this over on UK Land Power if anyone is interested.
There was an IFV version of Boxer shown at DVD.It was using the RCT30 unmanned turret; the same as Puma.
Currently there are no plans to purchase a cannon armed Boxer variant. Boxer is going to the armoured infantry brigades with an RWS that takes either 50mm or (contrary to what Tim has said) 30mm GMG.
Ajax can’t replace warrior, it’s turret ring is too big, so there’s no room for dismounts in the back (even if you redesigned the interior to get rid of the electronics in that have been installed).
As ever the question is where would the money come from. WCSP was cancelled because we couldn’t fund it, so Boxer has to step into the role.
cost over what is really needed as always. Boxer has already been fitted with a full turret for other nations, so its easy enough to do. just not sure two diffirent ammo types and sizes is wise for Ajax/Boxer not a smart idea.
Cost will always be important, and it can’t be factored out. The reason the British Army went with the Sten over the Thompson was cost.
in war we got the cheap stuff as always which costs us more in the long run and wears out quicker, we just do not get it
Rage all you want, but you can’t move away from the fact that cost is a factor, and it’s not just in the UK. If you want to live in a fantasy world where the armed forces have every bit of budget ever conceived of go for it, just don’t expect me not to point out what you are doing.
Not raging just seeing how badly its run, let down by the top brass, who every time say nothing, and let it slip in to the shambles it is, We do have the money we just spend it on pipe dreams and over spec one off’s
We do not buy off the shelf but love bespoke over priced kit.
Why are you so sure the top brass say nothing to oppose poor political decisions? Every senior officer I ever served under was very forthright with stating their military judgement to a politico.
Forthright, umm i can not really see that. I have low trust in some officers who put them selves before the job. So the top brass stood up and did their best to stop the shit show that is now our Army? seems the Navy and Raf though smaller are in a way more better state than the Army.
No you’re clearly raging.
And no, we don’t have the money. But hey, go ahead and shake your fist at the sky old has been. The rest of us will crack on defending the country.
You’ve been throwing insults like a child, that’s pretty clearly raging Martin.
Really how interesting, and what job do you in the QMs dept? or are you a Slop Jocky you do seem to know more than me about every thing. I await your enlighten reply.
Now now guys. Let’s keep it civil.
ok agreed, np
😀 That is an ongoing bit of fun I have with Dern. As is his/her right, Dern might not want to say.
I’d told Dern my thoughts based on clues given over many years.
I’m unsure if Derns response to my suggestion was incredulous laughter or not! 😆
he/she/them/they seems a bit self important, good luck to them if they are serving but i hope not to hear from he/she/them/they again.
Dern is a valued and regular poster here,so I don’t think you’ll get your wish.
I think if you talk sense, you’ll get a positive response. If you talk bollocks you’ll get it back with interest.
Just Derns style, don’t take it personally.
Ease of manufacture too,.
The army has many different ammo types. It really is not an issue.
may be,
More importantly do ajax and boxer variants have a BV
Yes.
👍 sure do!
Can’t find links but I think tranche 1 Boxer provides for some Boxers to carry 80mm dismount mortars and that the next tranche will contain some 120mm turreted mortars, some of which have a direct fire capability. Could AD and Overwatch be done with Jackals? RCH155 is in development in Germany I think. My understanding is that IFV effect will be delivered a different way, using combinations of Ajax and Boxer variants.
A lot of what ifs and may be’s just like the Army top brass bluffers
Ok, so following cancellation of WCSP it is understood, even by the top brass bluffers, that there is a problem. Got to believe there are people working on it.
Well i do not, i think its shut up and put up and just be quite. That is what seems our top brass are like. Its never their fault, never their bad choices its always blame the government.
\Be nice for one or more to admit they got things wrong, made crap choices or did not speak up, but no its bluff, shift blame buy crap kit and not enough of it. Every time
,Hopefully not but….if so then 🙏 is your best bet. Take it easy 🙂
You forget who runs the MoD, Martin. Who cancelled WCSP? It wasn’t the army top brass.
No , but you can not say the shambles of an army is on to just Civil servants and the CDS etc of the time must take some of the blame. That is my whole point be nice for one to admit it or at least say he went along with it. Never going to happen but would mean a lot
The army staff and several of its most senior officers have made some very bad decisions across decades regarding Organisation (Orbat) and grandiose equipment programmes that got out of control.
But major decisons on Equipment, such as cancellations, as well as new orders and their quantities are made by ministers. I was not criticising Civil Servants at all. CDS has little interest or time to be interfering in army business so I was not criticising him either.
i agree on that the Orbat mistake have been very damaging and ill thought out, yes its a mix of both to ruin the Army which does seem the worst of service and has been since Options for Change.
Every review ended up in down sizing, less new equipment and no major kit up dates.
The focus on Irag/Afghan also has made some at the top wrongly remove large Armoured units and replace them with light easier to deploy ones. A big error for an army that should be set up to fight in Eastern Europe.
Yep. The army has been cut once or twice each decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
We now cannot this year deliver just one warfighting div to NATO, fully manned, with new or upgraded kit and sufficient combat supplies for a sustained campaign. It is criminal. The hope is that we can do that by 2030.
Agreed but an enemy is not likely to give use 5 years grace, the Army should be better by 2030 but its a long time off and we look like slackers in NATO we can not fill our commitments no matter how any one spins it, very, very sad state to get in to. Can be fixed but i’m always put of by Defence Reviews not one ever says grow the Army, spend more its always buy less with less and keep the same commitments.
I had not heard about 80mm mortars. In-service type is 81mm. A number of specialist carriers, about 50, from Boxer Tr1 will carry mortar of unspecified type but probably the 81mm. Tr2 does not have any 120mm mortar carriers, but mzybe later tranches might.
RCH155 has had a lot of development work done in Germany and Bundeswehr trialled it a few years ago. MoD said that further development work would be done by a UK-Germany project team.
Your last comment harks back to the concept of ops for the Strike brigades, a thing of the past. No intent now for Ajax to work intimately with Boxer to deliver 40mm cannon fire.
Probably my typo with the 81mm. The reference to turreted 120mm was indeed a future TR3. Concept ops for Strike are beyond my competence. Just an observation that Boxer mobility seems to be the thing; the ability to self deploy over significant distances. It’s encouraging to see these DVD 2024 images. The army is making a statement about the future – moving on – change is happening. More positive reporting can only be good for recruitment.
Forget the two Strike brigades as they are history. They would have teamed Boxers for the Mech Inf with Ajax for firepower. The armoured inf would have been in upgraded Warriors alongside tanks inthe two armoured brigades.
Mobility is but one feature of an Inf carrier, be it an APC or IFV. Also need protection, capacity and enough firepower to do the job.
Martin, you raise a very, very old point that has been debated to death on these pages.
MoD very clearly announced in March 2021 that WCSP was cancelled, and that Warrior (as is) would stay in service until being replaced from the middle of this decade by Boxer.
Several of the Boxer specialist carriers (about 50 as I recall) have been earmarked to carry a mortar.
RCH-155 has not been ordered yet as MoD has declared that more development work is required.
I have no problem with the army showing off kit that is not yet in service. Why is that an issue?
show kit it has not got to work yet, has not got operational, and most are not even built its like look what we are getting some day to distract from the shit show that the Army is. Always the same it never changes forget the now live in the future, bluff smoke and mirrors with no set in stone in service dates as they keep changing no set in stone on how many we will buy and wishy washy about what types we might get.
You should work in the MOD Pr dept where every story is fantasy.
I worked for the MoD for 34 years. I am not peddling PR fantasy. It is perfectly reasonable to showcase new upcoming equipment at such an event. ISD dates do slip as crap happens, that is reality, not fantasy.
Tell that to soldier in 40/60 year old vehicles, under armoured under gunned. Give it all away or retire it with out replacing it. What clown thought that works, great kit in 5 years does not fix the now, i hope any enemy waits 5 years.
We can not even fill our full NATO Div commitment we turn up it looks like the Antic Road show its embrassing
so if its old news do we just not bother with it and pretend all is good? easy if your not the men who have man this new lack luster kit.
Did you serve in the Army Martin?
yes, my full 22, i miss it but am so angry at the state it is in, how did get to the wreck it is? how could those in charge let it go so down hill.
shame on them
I am not pretending all is good in the army. Perhaps you have never read any of my posts. The troops trialling Ajax do not consider it lacklustre, take a look at the Forces News website. Have you spoken to anyone in HCR or 6 Bn REME who are trialling it?
I am also fairly sure that CR3 will be one of the best tanks in the world, but accept that it is later than desired and in low number. It has its faults but will not be lacklustre.
its bespoke that always cause issue i was weapons trial team, its a bad idea to want one off vehicle type and Ajax has issue with Morphuas if i spelt that right? ie its not all its meant to be.
Great vehicles a bit big for recce but well armed and armoured just very very late. C3 will be the best tank in world when enters service, Boxer is very good but not as IVF, great apc yes carrier yes AFV no, RCH-155 an add no, not built from the start as Arty, Any one can see a few issues with that one its wheeled try that in soft sand or heavy mud,
RCH-155 was no doubt a sunak deal ,is it what the Army want ? When we’ve give most of our AS90s to Ukraine and bought 14 Archer artillery platform’s . Makes sense to stick with Archer platforms has was designed and built Artillery platform . RCH -155 looks like a quick fix.
RCH-155 looks like a sales ploy, nothing more. Looks top heavy, unstable and just there to flog Boxer.
I suspect it’s the usual smoke and mirrors that sold it. You can double or triple count boxers units by using different modules hiding cuts. The fact you can’t use two or three etc modules at once on the same platform is glossed over. Same as the old trick of saying newer units had the capability of x times the units they were replacing and therefore not a cut.
It’s the same with CAMM all well and good them being shared and therefore cutting down costs required in having larger volumes of them as required if different missiles for different roles, but them savings fall apart if all 3 services are required to deploy at same time and there isn’t enough missiles to go around.
RCH-155 on Boxer is certainly a Sunak pick. He did a political deal with the timid little German Chancellor, to burnish his Euro credentials.
It’s as I have said here many times. Politicians make the key procurement decisions, not the ‘top brass’.
Is it what the army wants? The army had a programme to replace AS-90 as it was old and unmodified (a politician cancelled the Braveheart upgrade many years ago).
The programme was at an early stage and many considered that the Korean SPG would be evaluated along with several other options including I think the German PzH2000, hopefully a greatly upgraded version.
Army did not get the chance to try all this kit out. Sunak leapt in with a decision before an evaluation of options could be made.
It has now been said that RCH155 needs to undergo further development by an Anglo-German team, even though a well developed prototype was tested by the Bundeswehr 2-3 years ago. So all this will take many years. Then there is the issue that the Boxer build line is not freely available to build it. Goodness knows when this thing will be fielded. I think 2030 might be optimistic. RCH is no quick fix. Koreans could have supplied SPGs almost immediately.
Hence very few 155mm artillery in service in the interim just 14 secondhand Archers and a few rather ancient unmodernised AS-90.
28 Mortar carriers ordered thus far.
Thanks. Yes. I remember now. We need about 50.
You are right. Plus a bit more on top would be healthy. I was quite impressed with the 120 they showed at DVD.
5 Boxer battalions need 8 each. Then there are those for the Trg Org and for the Attrition Reserve.
So 50 seems about right then.
Supposedly going to see more orders next year based on the info they shared at DVD.
Hope so. Only ordered 623 Boxers so far and the army need twice as many. That is not including RCH-155, those would be additional.
Yep and with the glacial build rates, all bets are off.
Without a tracked or wheeled IFV the British army has a huge great big warrior sized hole, simply put losing the armoured infantry battalions from the heavy combined arms brigades is not really acceptable. Boxer is not a replacement for warrior, yes it’s a great vehicle for mechanised infantry, it’s not a vehicle for the armoured infantry…if they cannot order a new IFV they need to do a life extension on the warriors…then order a few less boxers at the end.
why no tracked ifv? what clown thought that was a good idea, we will have to buy one wheeled APC with a 50cal does not cut it.
Boris the buffoon scrapped the Warrior upgrade after a mere £450m had been spent on it
Were there not issues with Warrior armour and hulls conditions and that a lot things in the new turret did not work? been better to have fixed it that get a wheeled under gunned Boxer and its limits to it being wheeled. Is the Army rum by weak yes men with no balls? as its seems it is.
The Warrior Hull is Aluminum Armour based which is prone to Cracking. The number that were to be upgraded were less than the total inventory so enough good one’s to use as Donors shouldn’t have been a problem. LM had issues with the New Turret but these had been overcome I believe. The decision to cancel the programme was purely a financial one.
It strikes me that the result of that approach could be limited lifetime and a steadily declining number of available units as hulls which were ok on conversion started to fail.
As I recall cracking in aluminium armour is at the welded seams and is checked at Base Overhaul and made good.
I blame General Carter, not Johnson
So wasteful, appalling. That’s the price of a T31, 2/3rds of a T26 and maybe a 1/3rd of an Astute. Maybe more time with AUKUS, the UK might be influenced by the US and Aus to get a tracked IFV like the Lynx, Ascod 2 or Redback. Use the Boxer chassis’ for other things and or cutback on the order. Good sense needs to prevail.
The clown would have been the SofS for Defence in early 2021.
And top brass that went along with it, weak men
Just a job protection ‘cartel’.
its always the same when you get to that level in public service jobs you are a politician at that point.
Sad but true, They forget their job or ignore things for a quite life, disgusting
Really? Gen Sanders was very forthright and outspoken against army cuts etc. Many consider he did not advance from CGS to CDS as a consequence and had to retire after only a short stint as CGS.
Can you really call 148 tanks as showing off? Then, when HMG halve that number to save money; as they usually do. God help us.
Given that we bought 386 CR2s for the post-Cold War army, I would say that the halving activity for its successor has already happened!
then why can we not find 148 hulls then? or it that a miss story we should be able to convert about 250/300 C2 to C3 if we wanted to including those in service yet we can not even do half that with out struggling.
148 CR3 not enough. 50 cal on boxer ? Not good enough either. How can that be making army more lethal? If they insist on only 148 CR3 , then at least deck boxer out with 40mm plus an option to add brimstone etc to give them a chance??? Boxer is not going to face up to even aging old soviet tanks with a 50 cal . It’s embarrassing to hear they making statements about lethality when they are literally putting the crews and infantry in danger by not letting them defend themselves. Never mind the drone attacks as well?
agreed but not sure a Boxer IVF would have just a 50Cal, it would i think be fully turreted. Other wise its just a wheeled APC. Tank numbers no sure on we do not have 148 fully working C2 at the best of times so not really sure how we do the same with less C3’s
IVF? Isn’t that to make babies?
The number of 148 CR3s is based on FS having only 2 armoured regiments.
yes it is, and gain to the second point, yes it is.
You wouldn’t put an IFV or APC up against a tank willingly!
True words
We can. We’ve been through the numbers a few times here before. 213 are in service with the Army, 14 are in Ukraine, 70 odd are rusting away in storage, 22 are driver training tanks that won’t be upgraded either way, and a few more where scrapped in the early 2000’s.
Why were 70 rusting away and no good? after all its the hull that is needed nothing else, we can not even do that right. The Army is joke a total mess with no real bite to it. How did end up like this and yes those in charge of the Army are to blame standards have dropped, the kit looks neglected, soldiers are scruffy. We can not even looked after stored vehicles
As part of the 2010 budget cuts the British Army went from 5 Armoured Regiments to 3, some of those Challenger 2’s got parked in an empty lot and have been sitting outside being rained on for the past 14 years. Whether or not it’s even possible to restore them to a state that’s useful, there are the issues that A) they’ll cost much more to restore than the 213 in service vehicles, and B) even if we upgraded the 70 in storage, the army is not configured to return to a 5 tank regiment structure.
As for the rest, if you’re so upset why not join and change it. Personally I think, outside of armour, our kit is markedly better than it was, and as for standards and scruffyness, such is the cry of every old dinosaur that can’t deal with the fact that his ancient traditions have been abandoned in favour of more sensible policies.
i did join and left at 40, and yes standards are shit, spares are impossible to get, ammo is in short supply for training, units are up to 150 undermanned, training areas out of bounds for Ukraine training only, etc etc, but if think its just us old farts moaning them your very wrong we hate the shambles the Army has come its very sad
You didn’t even know the equipment plan and needed to be told about what the plans where for Challenger and Boxer, yet you think you know the state of spares and ammo stocks lol.
Thank you for confirming that you are in fact a “back in my day” Dinosaur who is bitter and frankly doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. Meanwhile, as an actively serving soldier, I’ll just continue ignoring you old farts, or bitter has beens as I prefer to think of you, and go on actually serving in an army that is anything but a shambles.
But we could convert enough to keep the three regiments up, that could be done.
Yes we could do that but the manpower for the third tank regiment won’t be there. So what would be the point?
Ashchurch and lack of CHE.
Yep poor care of stored stock, that is costing a lot to fix now. No held to account though. As always
We can find 148 hulls! RBSL is building 148 CR3s from donor CR2s. There is no struggle.
Do you mean why is it only 148? Because Future Soldier cuts the number of armoured regiments from 3 to 2.
Ok, look like i got hung up on misleading story from last year saying they struggling to find 148 hulls, with out using any that were inservice
They will be using some/many that are in -service for the conversion. Impossible otherwise.
O I think I miss read a story on here last year about they did not want reduce the number in service by using operational hulls, my fault, So in theory we could have more than 148 C’s if we wanted more? A lot more.
We could have many more than 148 CR3s, maybe 213 plus or minus. Just there wouldn’t be a third armoured regiment of manpower to crew them.
Be wise to have more for reserve, training, trials but not sure f that has been thought out. Pity we do not have the money or the man power C3 will be a great tank but the numbers are a bit tiny. Best modify more while the production is all set up.
We will not be able to do it later if we want or need more.
When I joined the army in 1978 we had 900 chieftains in service
Yes mate and we had a Navy and Air force back in the day .That’s not disrespectful to the guy’s now, stating numbers and Equipment 😟
I joined in 1975. I remember those days. We had a Corps of four armoured divisions in Germany, an infantry division-equivalent in NI (including UDR), several light role brigades in GB, and a garrison in Hong Kong.
But why dwell on all that? I don’t want Dern to call me an old fart!
I had the privilege of being on parade for the boss in 1984 at her reveiw of the royal artillery in Germany the amount of kit we had in baor then was vast and now I look at what we have now it’s very worrying 14 archer some L118 and a dozen mlrs
Inevitable that the heavy metal side was reduced after The Cold War and I had no difficulty with the Options for Change defence review.
Since then cuts have been unjustified set against global threats. RA has been very severely affected.
The MLRS situation is set to improve but the 155mm tube arty situation is dire and I am unhappy with the politically forced solution.
Now that Ukraine are buildingtheir own 155 at a rate of I believe 17 per month you would think someone in the mod would put the brakes on before our final as90 are shipped from Marchwood
Politics gets in the way of prudent Defence decisions for our own forces….every time.
I was following a previous pattern from Tornado IDS, which goes something like:
232 GR1s were upgraded to …
150 GR4s, which were reduced to …
80 GR4s, which were withdrawn without replacement.
Following this rule we should expect about 75 CR3s to last about 5 to 10 years. 😂
P.S. I think one extra Typhoon squadron was added to counter the Tornado withdrawal; which doesn’t count as replacement in my book.
2 extra Sqns mate.
5 Typhoon, 3 GR4 became
7 Typhoon, 1 F35.
It was to artificially keep the 8 Fast Jet Sqns.
If they’d not done that that ridiculous number would have reduced to 6.
Ah, yes, but…
Isn’t 12 squadron the joint cooperation unit with Oman. So doesn’t really count. We can’t really send the Oman’ies to war. The F35s get loaned to the RN. So the net effect due to the Tornado loss (in my book) was -80 +12 =-68. Either way it’s not a good outlook going forward if the current trends remain.
Oh I agree, it’s utter crap mate.
The MoD way of screwing everything totally is to then balls up flight training. If there aren’t many pilots, who needs expensive jets? Successive CAS should have put service before self and stopped the rot, but didn’t. LMF!
There are 6 full front line squadrons + IX bomber squadron, which is also able to fully deploy and makes the 7..12 makes an 8th but as you say is not deployable.
I would say we will loss 12 squadron very soon.
The army numbers game goes without considering driver training tanks, and other variants;
–900 Chieftains fielded from 1966. Which were virtually all regularly upgraded during their service and given new Mk number.
–435 CR1s introduced from 1983 together with retention of about 460 of the newer mark Chieftains to maintain a c.900 tank fleet. No hugely significant or regular upgrades done.
–386 CR2s fielded from 1998 to replace the CH/CR1 mixed fleet. Not significantly upgraded.
–148 CR3s (really a major CR2 upgrade) to be fielded this decade to replace CR2s.
Not sure where you get the 75 figure! FS gives us two Type 58 armoured regiments.
Colonel Fake (is he giving us fake news!) says that Boxer’s mobility is a game-changer.
Good, because its firepower isn’t, and CGS is trying to double, then triple the army’s lethality.
indeed I’m not sure what they plan to do when engaged by enemy IFVs or they need to provide direct fire support to their dismounts.
I read somewhere that the Dutch are upgunning their Boxer APCs from the 12.5m to 30mm RWS, something the UK can surely do and afford. Might even help in the Shorad dept. Even quite a few countries adopting the Boxer Skyranger 30 at the moment.
They’ll end up buying the Skyranger or putting the RapidRanger system on Boxer.
I think Rapid Ranger is a separate vehicle (Vamtec?) in itself with a 4x Martlet RWS. The Boxer Skyranger 30mm with 4-8 Starstreak/ LMM sounds like a very useful purchase for the Army. I’d also like to see the Bofors Tridon 40mm Shorad for airfield-base defence get a look in and common ammo with the Navy. Mobile, affordable, programmable munitions.
Likely, yes. A combination of arms on a Skyranger would be a very good purchase.
That should read…12.5mm
That’s what I am worried about.
Hopefully the regimental tailor has issued some white material to each Boxer APC crew so they can run up a white flag before sadly getting annihalated.
One has to laugh 🤗 I find a stiff drink helps mate 🍺
Glad I am not in today’s Armoured Infantry who will soon give up their section cannon.
I know. Funny isn’t it. I’ve read these SF types are like that.
I assume he means trippling lethality by ISTAR advances and not actual firepower.
The problem is that enablers can only increase your lethality so far, in the end you still have to hit something with something..and if you can find every target but only hit half…you have gone beyond the limit of you ISTAR and are then limited by your kinetic capabilities…
Yes. These brass are like politicians. As slippery as an eel, and never around to be put on the spot and explain their grandstanding.
I assume a FOIA wouldn’t be appropriate here.
Yes. I am sure I must have tripled the performance of my car a few years ago by putting in a better radio!
Well he is correct in that particular mobility = 1000km a day in roads. It is not possible to do that with a tracked vehicle.
It might matter or not depending on war characteristics.
The question is why there are no reconnaissance Boxers.
A good question. The Boxer battalions will need their recce platoons to have suitable vehicles.
That’s why you have the mec and armoured infantry mix, the mec gives you that strategic mobility, the armoured infantry are there to fight as part of a heavy brigade..strategic mobility is not the issue when you are doing combined arms with MBT regiments.
Yep. As I said mobility is but one factor. But how good is Boxer at doing the hard side of mobility. Keeping up with very fast tanks cross country, crossing ditches. In deep, gloopy mud and in the snow?
Lol we can’t even beat Latvia.
How’s Moscow right now?
A quick look at your posts shows a somewhat unsurprising pattern…
This. There are a few. Endless put downs.
It’s been a day, angry old dinosaurs who can’t accept that the army has forgotten them and moved on, sexists who think me pointing out I’ve seen women take the gun on patrol means that I’m saying all women are as strong as men, and Vatnik trolls.
Honestly the comments section here is really going downhill these days.
Well don’t lose heart like you told me you were some time back. You’re needed.
They are in NATO. I don’t get the comment?
Why can Ares only carry 4 dismounts when the similar length Austrian version of ASCOD can carry 8?
One solution to the lack of an IFV is to recognize that combining APC carrying capability with a turreted cannon imposes serious design challenges. Separating the functions into MPF and troop carrying allows a wider choice of weapon. In operation, you might have 1 in 3 vehicles providing fire support, with 2 in the APC role.
Because Ares was designed as a replacement for Spartan, and so is fitted to fullfill that role: carry small teams of specialists (4 men) with lots of equipment (ATGM’s, Demolitions, Repair kit etc), while ASCOD was designed to carry a full infantry section.
What happens to your third section in reserve if you have 2 vehicles in APC role and 1 in a supporting fire role? Or, more accurately, “What happens when you need your third section.”
The kit for Ares to carry isn’t fixed, unlike the gun and ISTAR on Ajax. So there ought to be sufficient room for Ares to carry 7/8 dismounts.
We are not going to be operating either Boxer or Ajax as singletons. Up-arming a proportion of them to provide firepower is, at least, a way of mitigating the lack of a designed IFV.
It is interesting that US and UK have only ever procured one tracked IFV, with the US failing several times to finalise a replacement design. Neither Bradley nor Warrior allows the infantry to fight from inside the vehicle as the BMP that inspired them did. They are, in reality, APCs with a gun.
The French army, having chosen wheels over tracks, has produced on the same base platform a family of vehicles – Jaguar to provide firepower, Griffon to carry the dismounts, Serval in the light role. So there is precedence for separating fire support from troop carriers. Since we are unlikely to afford a direct replacement for Warrior, this may be the only way of, partially, making good their loss.
No Peter. WR is not an APC with a cannon. It is an IFV. IFV us not defined by troops firing from ports. It is all about the cannon.
WCSP was very affordable but clashing it with the Boxer programme wasn’t.
You discussed the French army, yes they have gone wheeled but they are very Clear what an IFV is for and their armoured infantry equivalent battalions are equipped with IFVs not APCs. That’s why the have 600 VBCIs (IFV) The French do not put APCs in the armoured brigade’s, a French armoured brigade consists of 2 armoured regiments ( 60 MBTs each) and 3 armoured infantry battalions ( the French version) each mounted on VBCIs..their APC Mechanised infantry ( mounted on VAB APCs) are part of light armoured brigades..which consist of AMX10 Cavalry regiments, 2 mechanised battalions (APC) and possibly one armoured infantry battalion ( VBCI).
the French army do not have separate APC and IFV armed sections in the same battalion…a battalion is either Mec mounted on APC or armoured infantry on IFVs.
as for fighting inside the vehicle..that’s a proven to be bad idea, the point of an IFV is to get the infantry to a point of dismount so they can assault ( or defend ) using cover and mobility.the IFV helps by providing direct fire or screening against other armour. But having infantry assault and fight inside the vehicle using firing ports is not a good idea at all..they will all be dead. Firing ports were put in for armoured infantry to fight very very light poorly armed enemies and it soon went out of use as an idea with every army…only the Egyptian army ever tried using them in a shooting war and it did not go well..in a modern battlefield full of light antitank weapons…
as for a direct replacement for warrior costing a lot..per vehicle the warrior upgrade was a lot cheaper than boxer…and you can by a lot of new IFVs for close to the cost of a boxer..a French VBCI is cheaper..
TBF: The VAB and AMX 10 are going out of service to be replaced by Jaguar and Griffon. But otherwise spot on.
yes that’s true, I tried not to complicate.
I do find the French armies continued attachment to very light armoured vehicles very interesting as well as the British armies obsession with protection. Jaguar and Griffon vs Ajax and boxer is a profoundly different paradigm for two sets of vehicles to do the same thing..With the French essentially having everything from their recce vehicle, APC and IFV at 25tons with protection to only STANAG 4569 level 4, which is let’s be honest profoundly compromised and the British Army essentially moving everything to close on 40 tons and protected to STANAG 4569 level 6 ( which is essentially close to a lot of the lighter MBTs rolling around)..
I think it will leave both armies with interesting strengths and weakness in their armoured formations. The tactical mobility of the British army heavy brigades is likely to be not the best ( with a 40 ton recce vehicle, 70+ ton MBT and 40 ton wheeled APC)….Eastern European mud and bridges are going to slow things down..but will they be able to take punishment ( not sure about give it out so much via direct fire when each armoured infantry section loses a cannon) where as the French will be bombing around (and have plenty of direct fire) but will be profoundly at risk from artillery and direct fire (An IFV that is not protected on the front against cannon fire ?) I wonder who has the right balance or if they are both a bit off ?
Pax Americana is a YouTube channel discussion the military. He had a really great comparison of the British and French armies recently. You could look it up if interested.
Obsession with protection? When you have a tiny army you can’t afford to lose too many Toms.
Um….. well for starters;
The Bradley did allow the infantry to fight from inside it, that’s why it had gun ports. But.. an APC with a canon is an IFV mate. IFV’s are not meant to have infantry fight from within them, they are transport that drops infantry off and then supports them with a cannon (as opposed to an APC that just drops them off and withdraws).
Jaguar does not “provide firepower.” It’s an armoured recce vehicle that’s in the same role as Ajax, it inhabits a different space from Griffon, deploying ahead of the main force as an ISTAR asset, not supporting the infantry. (Serval the same, it exists in a different battlespace to Griffon and Jaguar). The British Army operates in EXACTLY the same way: Ajax out front as ISTAR, Boxer carrying infantry, and Foxhound in Light Role.
The thing is, I understand how platoons, companies and battlegroups work (and also the layout of Ajax). You want to “up gun” Ares, you end up with a vehicle that can’t carry dismounts. Which means that your platoon looses a section, in favour of a gun armed Ares (aka Ajax). At which point my question, and that of every platoon commander in the British Army will be: What happens when I need my third section?
I can see this time on the resilience and BRITISH empire Pax Veritas resurgence with these new super efficient and heavy lethal tank platforms of the British Empire government industry which in collusion with the MINISTRY OF DEFENSE will answer the rising challenges on the field and learn lessons from Ukraine scenarios. Germany needs British Empire help now in routing out malicious online Chinese and North Korean hacking and phishing. God bless British Empire government and Admiralty.God save our King Charles III and illumine him to guide well the nation
I have been reading many of the comments posted and in many ways I agree with all of them. My point of view is this in an Army there are three types of infantry the scouting/recce type which should be the job of the Rangers. They need small light fast transport, with very quite engines for four to six man teams. Mech Infantry which would be with the Boxer they do require something more than a 50 cal, possibly a 30-35mm and the full Boxer Module range such as Brimestone, Mortar, RCH 155 etc, possibly even the 105mm variant. This is the job of the Light Infantry. We need to remember that it is the modules we need for Boxer not the drive units. So if in the future we have say 1000 drive units we need about 2000 modules of diffrent configurations. Then the Heavy Infantry which would fight along side the MBTs with Ajax, Ares, M270s and a new tracked 155mm such as the K9. This should or could be the Guards Division.
In this way we could have two to three fighting divisions, one armoured based on the MBTs, Ajax, Ares, M270s and a tracked 155mm. The second with possibly a core third based on Boxer. Both types of division would have a battilion of Rangers attached for deep recce.
This should be possible, yes I know that there are other arms to be attached such as air defence, UAVs, Engs, REME Sigs etc but if you have the core divisions the other units would fit in where and when needed. So if the Signals units REME units etc are attached to the tracked division their equipment should also be tracked, if to the Mech division then it should be wheel based.
I also have this gut feeling that we need to bring back the Pioneer Corp with specilised units for trench/fortification construction in the field.
That is pretty standard anyway. The RE Regs attached to the 2 ABCTs have Titan, Trojan, Terrier for example. REME Bns attached have armoured vehicles, as do the RS.
I believe the Rangers operate separately as more strategic troops as part of the Grey Zone. For Recc infantry I think Inf Bns still have a Recc Platoon.
Light Infantry currently do not have many vehicles but may get a MRVP type in the future.( 4 Bde ) Those in 7 Bde have Foxhound.
Your 3 Divisions are not possible in that format mate.
A Division usually has 3 Brigades.
And each Bde needs a set or 5 CS CSS units.
RA Reg. RE Reg. RLC Reg. RAMC Reg. REME Bn. Some also have their own RS Reg.
For completeness and to not offend David, add in a RMP Provost Coy.
These added to armour and infantry make an all arms deployable Brigade.
The Army no longer has enough CS CSS for the Brigades it has, never mind 3 Divisions!!!
The Guards number 5 Battalions, a number of incremental Companies, and the attached London Regiment of the Army Reserve.
That does not a Guards Division make.
Did you serve in the Guards yourself? You have mentioned such a formation before in your fantasy proposed ORBAT.
No Royal Signals. I know that I have mentioned this type of formation before. Yes I know the issues of terminology. All I am trying to point out is that tracked formations should be tracked and not a mix of wheel and track. Also there is a diffrence of fighting on the open plains of Poland to what is needed in Norway or the deserts of Arabia. All three terrains I know very well spending many years in each, the only terrain I have not been in was jungle and thank god for that. I also understand the issue with the Guards and numbers. Again all I am trying to get across is that there are diffrent types of infantry depending on how they go into battle and what is their task when in formation an example is to protect the MBT formations or to fight a Infantry-infantry battle. You don’t really want a MBT formation fighting in urban warfare or heavy forested areas, or a Light Infanty unit on open ground. Historically the Guards was always heavy infantry whilst the Rifle Regts such as the old Royal Green Jackets were light infantry. So I used those historical use for simplicity.
Also the concept or at least my concept of a ‘division’ is as you say based on three brigades however, the brigade the way I see them would be built around three battlegroups each of about 800 troops all arm. So an armoured battlegroup would be built around 14-16 MBTs and with the supporting armoured Inf based on Ajax/Ares etc. The Mech Inf would be built in the same manner but based on the Boxer drive unit. Then as the battlegroups join together to make larger formations additional forces such as air defence, brigade strength artillery, Intel etc are added. Due to the problems of numbers I also think that one battlegroup from the three could be reserve forces. Here is where I will get some stick but I also think that each battlegroup should be based together, train together deploy together. So then you could have the armoured battlegroup pressing an attack bypassing strong points that would be dealt with by the Mech Inf. Or Mech Inf could clear a urban area with the armoured group acting as over watch. So yes they would work together but each would be with distinct tasking, training and equipment.
By using this concept I can see an armoured division built up of 9 armoured battlegroups, a mech Inf division with 9 battlegroups using the Boxer drive train and the the third division made up of the Brigade of Gurkhas, Air Assault Brigade and my pet wishful thinking of a Sea Assault Brigade (not Royal Marines).
Also I do have the experiance of wheeled stuff being used that was not suitable. An example was my Comm Cen in the forset in the middle of German winter. We always operated with two troops, one up and running, one on the move-set up whilst the first would drop comms and move out. We had to move out to relocate ripped the front axle of one of the comm cen trucks the complete comm cen could not get up and running again until the front axle of one part of the center was replaced in the field. Try jacking up a heavy truck in soft snowy ground, it took about ten hours a lot of tree choping and a lot of blue air, thank god we had no vicar around. If that was in a war then then the field comms NORTHAG would have been either out of operation for several hours or we would have been taken out as a whole because we could not move as one and the other troop had to stay in location. Really not a good idea.
Thanks for the extra explanation Ron. I understand the RS always operated HQs from BG to Brigade to Division with one up and operational, one backup and dark to avoid being DF’d?
Sort of. In my era a Div HQ had a dedicated Sigs Regt to provide trunk comms and life support for div staff.
Think you had Div fwd or Div Tac HQ, very small and far forward where GOC, CRE and CRA could operate from as required. Further back Div Main HQ where Dep Comd, COS and all but CSS operated from, and further back Div Rear HQ run by DCOS with the CSS staff.
Similar ethos at Bde level. A RS Sigs Sqn dedicated to providing trunk comms and life support for bde staff. Bde Comd had a fwd Tac HQ and often had his RE and RA adviser with him. Bde Main HQ further back with COS and all staff. No Bde Rear HQ though.
Re the Jungle,
That’s a shame. I’ve been to the Jungle multiple times, and it’s always a cracking good exercise. Hard, but really rewarding, and a great learning experience.
Belize, Brunei, or neither?
I assumed that the Guards Division he is talking about is the Administrative Division (now known as the Guards and Para Division) not Field Division consisting of Guards Regiments.
Still too small though.
Evening mate. I assumed the opposite, so maybe my error.
Guards and Para Division, that is something I was unaware of? I still refer to the Admin Division as the Household Division. How many years out of date am I?😁
Probably.
Currently the Infantry is organised into:
Guards and Para Division
-5 Guards Regiments
-4 Para Battalions
-London Guards
-1 Battalion Rangers
Queens Division
-2 Battalions PWRR
-3 Battalions R. Anglians
-2 Battalions RRF
-1 Battalion R. Gib Regiment
-1 Battalion Rangers
Union Division
-5 Battalions R. Scots
-3 Battalions R Yorks
-2 Battalions R Welsh
-2 Battalions R Irish
-1 Battalion Rangers
Light Division
-7 Battalions Rifles
-2 Battalions R. Gurkha Rifles
-1 Battalion Rangers
Thanks. I’m well out of date with my administrative Divisions, I still think of the Kings Division and P of W Division.
Some points that come to mind:
Interesting that the Yorks were put in with the Scots, Irish and Welsh.
I also find it interesting that 1 and 2 RGR are with the Light Division while having the Bde of Gurkhas Admin Org too.
Rangers, 1 per Division, why? I’d have assumed all with the Light Division.
Sorry, being picky, where is 1 DLR I don’t see them? I know 2 DLR is now a Ranger formation.
Maybe my count is off, but I count 33 regular Bns there we have 31.
Ah I forgot DLR, and I think I left the Mexicans out too. So add 2 DLR Battalions and 2 Mexican Battalions to Queens division (I also forgot PWRR has 2 Reserve Battalions so that should read 3 not 2 next to PWRR).
But my list is supposed to be including regular and reserve, so if you’re counting 33 regular btns, it’s because your counting some reserve units.
Ranger are aligned per Division for career and recruiting purposes. Effectively there’s cap badge politics at work, but in brief, each Ranger Battalion recruits primarily from the Division it’s aligned too. So 4 Ranger mostly recruits from the Rifles, 2 Ranger from the Guards and Paras and so forth. In theory by being spread through the divisions you can then have various Rangers return to the field army and spread their experience evenly (eg every Division can benefit from Rangers returning to teach at Catterick or Brecon). The whole thing is complicated by people joining from non-infantry cap badges though, and there are issues with the wider idea anyway.
Sorry, the Mexicans??? 🤔
Ah! The Mercians!
Ok, that makes a lot of sense with the 4 Ranger Bns.
Yes, I must be with the 33.
Well… at least it makes sense to someone.
Yes. I say that as it reminded me of the Future Army Strutures set up, way back whenever, 2005? When the single Battalion Regiments merged into “super Regiments.”
The Army stated at the time the benefit, apart from continuity of basing with the ending of the arms plot ( never seems to have happened with all the moves and rotations still ongoing? ) that multi Battalion Regiments with a mix of Armour, Mech, Light meant individuals could rotate through the units to get experience rather than being in just one role.
It seemed to make sense to me then and, by my understanding of your explanation, it seems the same set up here with the 4 RR Battalions.
I’d say with Rangers there’s the wrinkle of selection.Which isn’t so much of an issue if you are going from Armour to Mech.
edit: To illustrate. Imagine if the Paras or Royal where organised as one Battalion for each Administrative division, and the issues that would cause.
I see.
The Koreans offered to build k9 in the uk with a full support package sunk kicked it into the long grass in favour of rch boxer no trials or any sort of evaluation the advantages of k9 and also cv90 is other nato countries already use them so pinching spares in the battlefield would be perfectly acceptable, my M109 had a pack fail in gulf war 1 the reme took one from a Kuwaiti gun and fitted it . Rch boxer not even on the horizon yet
Worrying. I wonder how the costs vary too.
Ron, why should the scouting Recce job fall to the Rangers? Please flesh this idea out for me.
As for modules without drives on Boxer, that’s a bad idea and in practice means you have 1,000 modules you can’t use.
Re guards division: 1) It doesn’t exist anymore, it’s now the Guards and Para Division. 2) It’s too small to take over the Mechanised/Armoured Infantry role, which at present sits at 5 Infantry Battalions.
There seems to be some debate over Ajax (et al) suitability as base for an IFV.
Is the turret ring on Ajax specific to Ajax (et al)? And not the same as the ASCOD IFV? Why do the MoD want a different size turret ring?
I am also struggling to understand how 40-tonne Ajax will be omnipresent. CVR(T) needed replacing with another 8 tonne vehicle, drones, and e-bikes. I have been through the systems specs for Ajax and all those systems are answers to the wrong questions.
The Warrior refurbishment programme was a waste of money in terms of a new turret. Warrior should have been stripped of its turret, the hole plated over with new hatches and a RWS and used for secondary duties. Our senior NCOs deserve a nice ride.
We should have bought Boxer IFV. We need firepower to make up fo a lack of personnel. I would mount calvary in Boxer with canon support of 105mm variants.
I would just outfit two regiments with Chally 3. I would back these with armoured infantry battalions in Boxer tracked.
Things would have been so much simpler if the MoD had just gone for the simpler option CV90 with all its variants. Not hard to imagine British infantry in CV9040. Proven platform. Proven gun with proven cheap(er) and plentiful ammunition.
The ring on Ajax is specific to Ajax, it is not the same as ASCOD. The choice was made because one of the early requirements was for the option for a 120mm armed fire support version of Ajax. Big gun needs a big turret ring, so Ajax was built with a big turret ring. It’s wasn’t a big deal because Ajax was never intended to carry troops, so the odd spaces in the back that where too small for seats where used to fit ISR equipment.
Worth pointing out that ASCOD was a proven platform as well. CV90 is a lot of peoples wet dream these days, but it’s because of issues that only became evident during the build of Ajax, and it’s impossible to say what problems would have crept up between selecting CV90, the modifications for the British Army being implemented, and it’s entry into service.
As for Ajax vs CVRT. Neither Ajax nor CVRT are omnipresent. However the best equipment a CVRT commander has for Recce is his optical sight, while Ajax has a whole suit of ISTAR sensors. The soldiers in the HCR who are taking over Ajax seem very positive and are referring to it as a game changer, so I think the onlooker worries about “answers to the wrong questions” seem pretty unfounded.
(Also most modern Recce AFV’s are in the 25-40t range, and of similar sizes to Ajax).
I see people are still banging on, pun intended, about guns and calibres and how the UK should expand its armoured direct fire platforms. Perhaps it would be constructive to also consider some other aspects that should play into the discussion about what future land forces should look like and perhaps how we might expect them to operate in a peer conflict?
First protection.
As far back as 2017 DSTL started the Icarus technology development project for a sovereign Active Protection System. Initially it was described as being to counter RPG and ATGM threats, by 2021 it also included an anti-UAS capability, perhaps directly as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh war that demonstrated the compelling threat from UAS systems. Today the project is continuing as the Modular Integrated Protection System programme, with Leonardo UK as the Principal System Integrator leading Team Minerva. The war in Ukraine has ably demonstrated the threat even main battle tanks face from inexpensive drones. But its not only MBTs, its also APCs, artillery of all sorts, air defence systems, support vehicles of all sorts, etc, etc. Putting more vehicles into play, especially front line armoured vehicles, without an effective defence against what will be increasingly sophisticated drone platforms and systems is not the answer, as the major losses of such platforms on both sides of the conflict demonstrate. Putting the horse before the cart is to have an affordable APS system that can scale up and down depending on the importance and exposure of the platform. Hopefully the results of the MIPS programme will see the UK able to equipe many more platforms than today’s very expensive options.
Second surveillance.
It still seems like people aren’t appreciating what surveillance will look like in the future, not just from the US but also at some point from China and probably Russia. To get an idea its worth looking at the US Space Development Agency and where that is going wrt pervasive space based surveillance that will mesh with manned aircraft, UAS and even ground based platforms to provide a layered system for battle management. Combine all that data, from all those sources, with modern and improving massive processing power to be able to provide clean, real time actionable data to everyone from the general staff down to squad/section level. It will become difficult to impossible to hide military vehicles, so large calibre, conventionally armoured vehicles are going to struggle to survive without smarter protection, let alone the conventionally lighter armoured artillery and other platforms. Here’s a link to a recent WarZone article on it but this isn’t something new, I posted on this topic here years ago and it wasn’t a new concept then either. https://www.twz.com/space/tracking-ground-air-targets-via-space-force-by-2030-but-aircraft-will-still-play-a-part
As a final comment in this rather long post. I have long considered the 2030’s and 2040’s to be a far more dangerous period than the 2020’s and that’s what we need to prepare UK armed forces for. In other words anticipate the threat don’t rely on reacting to it. I see the war in Ukraine only increasing this threat because if Russia isn’t comprehensively pushed out from Ukraine, then by the mid-2030’s if not sooner Russia may be in a much better position to threaten Eastern Europe, running a continuous war economy funded by continuing oil, gas and raw mineral exports may get them there. They will eventually learn to fight smarter as we have seen already in some cases and we cannot rule out that they may have access to modern military systems from China if they don’t or can’t develop them themselves. Particularly if China sees this as a way to divide a Western response to territorial moves against Taiwan or other South East Asian countries.
In any event carry on! But don’t assume we can fight tomorrow’s wars with yesterday’s equipment and doctrine.
Drones are the new kid on the block and at the moment lethal, but they are universally hated by all sides because they can knock out a tank worth big money for a few thousand if that. All drones are radio controlled and while you can hide your signal to a certain extent there will be a time soon where there signals will be completely jammed and they will not be able to fly on the battlefield, but you might say they will just build them bigger and better able to cope with that problem and yes they will. But sooner rather than later they will become too big too expensive to do the job that they do now. It’s always been this way, so the tanks of tomorrow won’t be afraid of drones. And this will be true for both sides of course!!!
All battlefield kit will become A.I. fodder, in the future wars will be won and lost by economic eco-tech with soldaten only used to occupy real estate after the fact.
I must admit to some confusion over the Boxer program. The British Army rejected the Boxer vehicle as ‘not suitable for its requirements’ after British A vehicle industry had poured decades of knowledge into its design and produced a prototype.
Now we are told that Boxer is exactly right for the British Army? Which then is correct? As the British Army requirements haven’t changed in this period, can we be sure that the Army actually know what they need? Is this just the latest politically correct statement? Are there massive Backhanders involved?
Or was the intention ABBBAE to destroy British A vehicle manufacturing and research & development? And to buy from a German company?
I am genuinely confused! Either the Army has no clue what it is doing. Which the multiple vehicle programs over the last thirty years would actually support. Or we are being driven by purely political considerations? Or is the process driven by the increasing power of the industrial military contractors?
Well that’s a mischaracterisation if ever I saw one.
Britain pulled out of Boxer in 2003 in part to free up funding for the two wars we happened to be fighting at the time, and in part because the choice was between MRAV (Boxer) and FRES (Ajax). The idea that the British Armies requirements didn’t change between the 90’s, 00’s, and then the 2010’s is, frankly, ludicrous.
I’m sorry I can’t agree. Revisit the statement from 2003 by Mr Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence; East Kilbride, Labour). Clearly says the vehicle didn’t meet requirements. That was after the UK had poured decades of knowledge and operational doctrine into the project. Alvis had produced 17 prototypes and some modules. So it didn’t meet requirements then but now – I hesitate to use the latest Army propaganda word ‘transformative’ – but now it’s wonderful and will revolutionize the army who will be able to drive 2,000KM to deploy at pace.
The fact that Andover have spaffed £25,000,000,000 up the wall since 2012 without fielding a major fleet apart from Panther (which I am happy to discuss at length) is verging on criminal- not to mention the destruction of GKN, Alvis , Vickers etc leaving the UK entirely dependent on US, German and French companies with no sovereign capability speaks volumes of the incompetence of successive governments who have no defence industrial plan whatsoever. Other than it appears can I earn something by lobby for foreign companies
Again, you seem very keen to ignore the fact that we fought two wars between 2003 and 2015, which is where your blatant mischaracterization of British Army requirements not changing comes in.