At the International Armoured Vehicles Conference 2025 (IAV), held in Farnborough, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, delivered a keynote speech outlining the critical role of armoured vehicles for the UK’s defence, economy, and NATO commitments.
The remarks underscored the transformative potential of next-generation armoured systems while addressing the necessity of retaining strong armoured formations for modern military challenges.
General Walker highlighted the economic impact of the UK’s armoured vehicle programs, including Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3, which he said would sustain over 6,000 jobs nationwide. “This is also bringing jobs to UK workers, boosting growth and economic return on investment as well as, importantly from our perspective, sovereign strategic resilience,” he stated. Stressing the economic benefits, he added, “Taking only Ajax, Boxer and Challenger 3 combined—will sustain more than 6,000 jobs nationally. And that’s before we get into any opportunities for export.”
The General spoke on the importance of technological advancements and adaptability in modern armoured systems, which contribute to the development of a highly capable fifth-generation Army. “The coming generation of the UK’s armoured vehicles already provide superior survivability, firepower, mobility and networked capabilities,” Walker said.
However, he noted that integrating new technologies would unlock even greater potential. “By integrating advanced technologies and prioritising adaptability, it is our belief that we will be able to make much more of what these offer and, from them, draw a much harder-edged fighting power.”
He underscored the significance of these advancements for the nation, NATO, and soldiers on the ground. “All of that is what underpins the fifth-generation Army that the nation needs, that NATO wants, and that, frankly, our soldiers deserve.”
General Walker reiterated NATO’s explicit requirement for the British Army-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps to restore territory in times of conflict, demonstrating the enduring need for armoured formations. “NATO plans are explicit in assigning a task to the British Army-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps: that it must be able to restore territory. For that reason alone, we must retain armoured formations,” he explained.
He acknowledged, however, that the nature of these formations has evolved. “Though, perhaps, not as once they were conceived. There are now many more assets to combine in battle, such as uncrewed, electronic warfare, and information systems,” Walker added, pointing to the modernisation of military operations.
He further stressed the importance of long-range capabilities, stating, “And much more can be done to kill the enemy from a distance.”
I would argue we have reduced firepower, not increased it.
What fighting vehicle has the army introduced with less firepower than its predecessor?
Boxer
Ajax replacing a regiment of MBTs
Yup! IMO this is why so much effort was put into making sure Ajax did not fail.
Took all of one second to think of Boxer. Come on, if you must troll at least put some effort in…
Bulldog lifex program?
Jim, the answer is Boxer. Looking at a fleet, then 148 CR3s have less firepower than 386 CR2s.
Interesting decision to highlight the need for armour and retaking ground at a time when MBT numbers are to be reduced, IFVs will soon be gone and a severe lack of artillery with its replacement moving at a glacial pace with the full capability likely being a decade away.
We can only hope that behind the scenes the plans to add a turret to Ares or Boxer are being made soon to start moving things in the right direction firepower wise.
I’d say we all agree but sadly that’s not true.
I do want to know where AARC sits on regards to ARF though. With 1 UK div aligned to ARF, is the UK contribution to AARC 3xx and the corps level brigades? Is 1XX under AARC unless ARF calls it up?
What NATO formations sit under AARC for now? A single UK division is fine if AARC has say, and Italian and a German armoured division as well.
Or is AARC part of the ARFs 2nd Echlon? Compared to the old Northag/Centag/Landsouth structure NATOs higher echelons are not readily apparent (although even then there was some double hatting).
It would be nice to start looking at permanent Corps and Army formations at NATO and EU level.
Mate, I was flummoxed by this very question on the other ARF article, as it confuses me.
How ARRC relates to it.
Id read our contribution was to be a 2 Division “Corps” so assumed 1 sits with 3.
While the UK’s contribution to NATO is two divisions, is there anything to say that these need to operate together under ARRC HQs? As Dern mentions below, when ARRC last acted as the lead NATO Corp, only 3 division was assigned, along with divisions from other countries.
It’s all a bit odd but essentially the entire British army seems to be committed at least twice..
1xx is has about 3-4 battalions scattered deployments that need sustaining
1xx is now committed to ARF ( while also sustaining all those deployments
3xx is essentially tied down for the foreseeable sustaining OP CABRIT
All the while both 1xx and 3xx are providing the NATO reserve Corps via ARRC
It’s seems the British army has quantum solders and equipment that can be in two places at once… both deployed and in the ARRC…or in the case of 1xx somehow in three places at at the same time.
Schrödinger British army?
1XX’s “lost Battalions” are fine. 4X and 7X are too large otherwise (there’s a finite number of units a brigade HQ can handle and both HQ exceeded that). I’d say think of it as “the brigade administers 7 infantry battalions, but it’s fighting formation is 4” (numbers are illustrative, they’re in the ballpark but I don’t have a moment to double check).
The greater issue is that above the division level NATO and the EU are unwilling to commit to permanent formations. VJTF had the same issue. These formations are comprised of whatever member states are willing to commit in that budget year, and next year the common will rotate to another member state, someone else will foot the high readiness units etc.
It’s why I bring up “Well if this anx that foreign division is in ARRC” Because a few years ago ARRC consisted of 3XX, and Italian Division, a Canadian Division, a Danish Division, and the American 4tĥ ID. (You can tell how out of dare this is because Denmark disbanded it’s Division and reallocated it’s XX Hq staff to found Multinational Division North.)
If that’s the level of force in ARRC then a light UK infantry division being in ARF doesn’t really matter…but because these assignments aren’t permanent we don’t know.
FWIW I’d want to see at least 3 permanent armoured corps in the EU and 2 Infantry Corps, with a further two Corps made from peripheral non-US NATO and EU states (Norway, Canada, UK, Portugal, Sweden, spring to mind).
@Dern
Whilst I appreciate what you have posted, we have to learn from the full-on major conflict in Ukraine. Drones are wreaking all sorts of havoc on armoured formations – on both sides. Electronic jamming and other countermeasures are forcing Ukraine to fit their drones with fibre-optic spools, they weigh up to a kg, are reducing range and payload and the Russians are splicing captured fibre-optics into their systems and learning a great deal from the data sending units. It will not be long before the Russians implement fibre-optics on their drones too.
Armoured formations are susceptible to drone attack and there are lots of YouTube videos to prove it. If we are to field Boxer, CH3 or Ajax anywhere near the enemy, we have to find a solution to the drone problem. Lasers maybe?
There is a need to be careful about what lessons to draw from Ukraine however. Yes drones are important, and there is a need to take on board drone training and drone units, but it’s also worth remembering that a lot of the reason for drone use by both sides is the inability of either side to achieve air superiority. The Russian airforce can’t beat the Ukrainian AD network, and the Ukranian Airforce is so outmatched that even if there wasn’t a Russian AD network it wouldn’t be able to defeat it. So both sides are using drones as an alternative. 5th and 4.5 Gen fighters with PGM’s preform a very similar anti-armour role in NATO countries, so while drones should be looked at for low level tactical awareness, I don’t see NATO armies relying on FPV anti-armour drones to the same extend (I also always caution against taking drone footage on the internet at face value for their effectiveness, by it’s very nature all Drone footage is captured and it’s in the operators interest to broadcast anything that can be sold as “good effect on target” (even if it just makes a nice bang of era going off) and to discard misses and the like. By comparison a tanker or an infantry man is less likely to be caring about switching his go-pro on and recording his actions (it happens, but with drones every strike is recorded, with almost ever other system it requires a conscious thought).
I was under the impression that the fiber optic idea started on the Russian side because the Ukrainain EW was better, but never mind. It goes to show that EW has been effective (or counter battery fire on emissions has been accurate enough to force adaptation). I don’t know how we’ll react to fibre optic controlled drones (besides noting that we’ve essentially reinvented the wire-guided atgm) but I suspect before the war is over we’ll start seeing adaption to that threat as well (honestly I suspect a NATO reaction to wire guided drones will be using ISTAR to find and air power to delete operators, but I don’t know what the ukranian and russian responses will be).
The greater issue is that drones can in the right circumstances threaten armour (just like ATGMs, Artillery and Airpower), but they can’t replace it. As long as you can’t replace armour with something else, you’ll need Boxer, CR3 and Ajax.
(Also, and thanks George for removing edit, when I say the EU should have 3 permanent Armoured Corps that doesn’t actually represent an increase in armoured units on the ground. Allow me to demonstrate:
EU Armoured Corps #1:
11th Cavalry Divsion (polish)
16th Mechanised Division (polish)
18th Mechanised Division (polish)
EU Armoured Corps 2
1st Panzer Division (German/Dutch)
10th Panzer Division (German/Dutch)
45th Panzer Brigade (German)
Belgian Motorised Brigade
EU Armoured Coprs 3
Division “Acqui” (Italian)
Divison “Castillejios (Spanish)
1re Division (French)
That’s three strong Armoured Corps (okay the Italians, French and Spanish would need to re-orbat their divisions slightly because complicated reasons, and the Germans need more artillery, but in principle that’s three srong armorued corps) created without any uplift in armoured formations on the continent. Just requires a standing NATO command that has those forces aligned to them as NORTHAG and CENTAG did in the cold war.
Equally for Infantry Corps, you could easily create a Mechanised Corps out of the remaining Polish Division, the two Romanian Divisions and a few Bulgarian indipendent brigades, Italy, France and Germany all have light infantry formations with mountain warfare and airborne specialties, so there’s synergy there for a rapid light infantry corps. Point being, nothing I suggested represents an increase in on the ground formations, but a sensible allocation of units to specific roles as we saw in the cold war.
By their nature all drone attacks are recorded, and there all recorded by the user. Have you considered all the untuneful attacks their not posting online?
@Dern
Regarding your comment on the EU having three standing armoured corps, these need these to be deployable. However, I think Poland will want to keep all its divisions for home defence. With so many little countries, Europe needs to form multinational armoured divisions, like what has been done with the Netherlands and Germany. A Spanish/Portuguese Iberian division seems a sensible start.
What I find confusing, is that there are eight European-led Nato rapid deployment corps. When these were set up, surely somebody checked that there are enough divisions for these to function eg 24.
PS like my comment on Poland wanting to keep her forces at home, I believe the German 45th brigade will form up with Lithuania’s two brigades to make a single division for Lithuanian defence, so not deployable.
I have a mad idea that the U.K. could form up its own independent armour brigade permanently garrisoned in Estonia (similar to Germany’s 45) with Estonia forming up an armoured brigade in addition to its mechanised brigade (again similar to Lithuania) – never going to happen though 😄
@Bob for starters neither the EU nor NATO is likely to deploy a European Armoured Corps level commitment for an out of area war. When America comes knocking asking for forces to go play in the sandbox, at you’ll be seeing individual brigade commitments. European Armoured Corps would be for one purpose only, and that is to fight the bear on the Eastern Front.
The relationship would be much the same as the various national corps had with CENTAG and NORTHAG during the cold war (especially in the case of Poland the three German Corps) with defined areas of operations and reinforcement plans. A Polish Armoured Corps would only be deploying outside of Poland if it was pushing the Russians back into Belarus and Kaliningrad. Obviously a German/Low Countries Corps, and a French/Italian/Spanish Corps will need to deploy but those should be sustainable for those nations.
Multinational Divisions: Not armoured ones. For starters there is no need for a Spanish/Portugese Division, Spain easily has enough combat brigades to form it’s own armoured Division, along with a Mechanised Division or two if it so chose (the Spanish Army actually has one armoured brigade, three armoured infantry brigades and three mechanised infantry brigades). While Portugal could probably generate a small division on it’s own (the Portugese Army has three brigades it would probably orbat into a division rather than be a component part of a Spanish division).
The reason I didn’t go into the smaller nations is because their contributions are generally a bit peripheral, or weird and need to be taken case by case. In some cases there are some synergies that could make a division, but as I said not an armoured one. That’s in part because a lot of those forces are actually pretty lightly armed, and in part because the back end to make effective divisions is missing. A few mechanised divisions might be produced this way, but I suspect there’s more utility in using those nations forces a Seperate Brigades available to Corps or even Army Commanders as reserves.
Even cases where you might think it makes sense to combine brigades into a multinational division, eg Estonia Lithuania and Latvia, a closer examination makes that questionable.
A multinational Baltic division commander would have his attention stretched over a 500 mile front, with units from other formations interspersing his command. That’s no good.
To your PS: Again: the German 45th Panzerbrigade will be deployable because the only concievable scenario in any near future that a European NATO Armoured Corps gets deployed is to Poland and the Baltics to fight the Russians. I don’t think you understand how NATO operated during the cold war. It’s well worth looking at the structure of NORTHAG, CENTAG and LANDSOUTH to understand how the Alliance was positioned and how a serious Three star and above organisation to defend Europe should look like.
Dern, thanks for the detailed reply.
By deployable, I simply meant moving east within Europe. The Polish army seems to lack logistical support and therefore seems to be planned around having local civilian infrastructure to support it. This differs from your other two EU corps that need to have their own support structures.
For clarity, are you suggesting that your German/Dutch/Belgium and French/Italian/Spanish corps are forward deployed, as the Cold War Nato corps were?
My proposed integration of portugese forces into Spanish divisions, is based on the model that the Netherlands and German have developed.
I do not suggest they’re being a joint Baltic armoured division. As these countries are on the frontline I would like them each to have their own armoured brigade along with a mechanised brigade. These two brigades would be joined a locally stationed NATO brigade, meaning in each of the Baltic countries would be an armoured division. Local defence forces would provide light forces similar to Finland.
@Bob
I’m not sure why you think the Polish Army lacks logisitcal support; the 16 Terretorial Defence Brigades, sure. But the actual Polish Army? Not so much. Each Brigade has a large multi-role CSS Battalion, and each division has a Logistic Regiment that would give 101 Log brigade a run for it’s money. In addition the Polish Armed Forces maintain 3 large Logistics Brigades and 2 Field Hospitals that do not fall under the command of their field army. The Polish Army is more than capable of deploying a corps anywhere in Europe.
No I’m not suggesting a forward deployed presence, I’m suggesting a Reforger style presence, however the command structure and planning needs to be in place for such a thing to happen.
Spain has currently 2 Divisional HQ’s, it’s main mechanised Divisional HQ has 6 Brigades under it’s command. In order to be a combat formation it would actively have to remove several brigades from it’s orbat. It’s not going to remove an additional brigade to replace it with a weaker Portugese brigade.
With the exception of Latvia, the Baltics all operate multi brigade structures. These are more likely to fight as indipendent brigades, like the Ukrainians, but could concievably become small divisions if a war broke out (unlikely however). NATO detached brigades would probably be absorbed into NATO corps as those moved up, rather than into Estonian Latvian etc Divisions. (Notice how I’m arguing for a organisational reform, not an expansion of capability? In order for the Baltics to have divisions that would mean divisional enablers being formed btw). I also don’t think that the Baltics really need to be spending money on MBT’s to create armoured divisions. Sounds great, but for small armies like theirs that are unlikely to go on to major offensives without a NATO armoured corps on their shoulder they’ll get a lot more bang for their euro spending it on ATGM’s, Mines, and mechanised vehicles.
As I highlighted the other week with HMG Grandstanding of our Estonia commitment while the forces that draws from are SACEUR “Reserve”
Double hatting seems to be SOP until reality strikes.
Daniele, Hilarious that HMG is grandstanding its commitment to Op Cabrit in Estonia. I hear that our BG has been or is soon to be upped to a Brigade, but most of it will be rear-based in the UK! At least that saves some money!
No discredit intended to those in the BG of course, just in case some troll thinks I am slagging them off!
Would a Brigade level roulement have been possible with a pre 2015 3 Division, with 3 identical Brigades?
1 deployed.
1 working up, training.
1 stood down.
Italy’s NRDC is going to be acting as NATO’s interim ARF HQ for the next 3 years while it gets itself fully sorted. What is interesting is that NRDC-Ita lists the U.K. 3rd division as one of its affiliated divisions, along with Italy’s two divisions and a Greek division. Seems 3XX has another hat to wear.
Do you think that the ARF is just simply putting the 8 NATO rapid deployment corps under a single title.
Increased Firepower?
With WHAT?
You’re cutting Armoured Regiments to 2.
You’ve dismantled or gifted most of the RAs 155mm.
Expansion of Deep Fires to 75 does not seem to be happening yet.
You’ve replaced an IFV with cannon with an APC with an MG on the roof.
There is still no 120mm news.
What am I missing General?
They have not hit their recruitment and retention/manpower for years, stole all the 60mm mortars, reduced the medical regiments, reduced the mechanical engineering regimens, reduced the armoured infantry regiments, reduced the Mec infantry regiments.
Don’t I know it mate.
The enablers are the worst, for me. I know many here prefer their Tanks!
Totally agree all armoured 155 has now been gifted we just have 14 archer so no armoured close support artillery
Got it in one 👍
It appears to me that tanks and Drones are the new cavalry and heavy mgs, tanks are being decimated by Drones on all the battlefields on which they appear.
Tank = £100m
Drone = £50k
I don’t know exact prices but you get my drift.
Peace not war ❤️☮️
Well you’ve long ago proved you know fuck all about anything except sucking putins cock so…
Ewww
Nice one lol
The arguments half won when you resort to name calling and you sound like a pornbot, what I do know is opinions lay between knowledge and ignorance, if you follow basic battlefield reports nothing can move because of Drones.
The American Emperor wants peace anyways so peace it is kamarad. 😁 ♾️❤️☮️
It’s not an argument, you’re not here to have an informed discussion, you’re here to blurt out Putin proganda. So I stoop to your level Putinist stooge.
They are? A Drone cannot hold ground for starters, you’ll still need heavy armour.
Every weapon has a counter then a counter counter. So I’d disagree there.
No point. Aurelius is not here for discussion, this isn’t an individual who cares about facts. He wants to spew his “the west is doomed we need to make peace” message and run along.
Whatever facts you point out will be forgotten next time they post.
Hiya Dern
That’s a nice Amazonian Monica, you seem like a very emotional young lady, why don’t you run along and leave war to the boys, ain’t you heard the DEI days are over bye bye woke etc. etc.
I’m not very tech minded but I do understand people and can read maps, whatever that’s worth.
Peace over war everytime gorgeous ❤️✌️
Thanks for proving my point moron.
Ohh look a misogynist as well as a Political warfare operator for unpleasant authoritarian regimes….well done you.
Again agreed . Very few drones have a big enough shaped charge warhead to even dent an MBT. IFV or APC perhaps and there is some good footage of FPV being flown into the back doors of BMP where for some crazy reason the fuel is stored. Read a very interesting report by 🇺🇦 82 Air Assault Bde ( who incidentally ‘own’ all their Chally 2 ) that most of their drone kills are on arty or logistic vehicles and when it comes to MBT to act as spotters for ATGM mostly Javelin with a much larger shaped charge who clock up the kills.
I’m sorry you are very wrong, there is plenty of footage from Ukraine where Drones have completely destroyed MBT’s, some have resulted in mission kills for sure, but Lancet is capable of taking out a Tank, even a CR2.
I think soldiers hold ground and armour conquers it, Guderian and Von Manstein would be horrified by this logic.
I ain’t read any Liddle Hart and his mob for many years but it does appear I have forgotten more than most people know.
It does appear Common sense ain’t so Common.
I would suggest an additional 50 CH3’s could be achieved without too much trouble and at modest costs. There are enough CH2’s to convert, thus achieving a reserve for general maintenance and damage repair. I doubt many senior Army staff support just 148 CH3, this woefully small fleet is hardly man enough considering the UK is a principal military power.
Rheinmetall have stated they can build brand new , from scratch C3’s , as many as the MOD want
Poland will have 1500 MBT by end 2026 from what I read in a report yesterday. It’s only two thirds the size of the UK. Even 450 MBT for the UK looks light. Even if the view is that UKs main role is defence of the sea and air a MBT force of 450 would make sense with half operated by full time soldiers and half by reservists. That would allow a permanent deployment of one tank battalion to Estonia.
Putin needs to know that a quick nock out of front line forces won’t be a way to win for him.
Poland has different needs and vulnerabilities from us here,to compare MBT numbers is not really an accurate measure.Successive cuts from Options For Change onwards render 450 Tanks for the BA unrealistic short of being at War.
In a previous article mentioned the UK is expanding its strategic lift ship capacity from 4 to 6 which is quite substantial. I wonder why the increase and to carry what to where? Building additional CR3s out of the leftovers should be doable, affordable and sensible.
If RM built new CR3s would they have an increased shell munitions capacity, wasn’t it down to 31 from nearly 50 with the CR2? Like to see the CR3 have an anti drone capacity on its 7.62 pintle(?) mount.
Things like armour should have been shifted to the reserves instead of destroying them
But we only have forty viable tanks at the moment so they haven’t been doing a very good job of it.
Dave, where do you get your info from? There must be more than 40 viable tanks.
Surprised no one commenting on all the talk of the Patria 6×6.
What talk? I have suggested that vehicle before as the “cheap” 432 replacement.
When Warrior came in they did not order enough and 432s remained for other roles.
Patria and Babcock have signed a MoR to produce Patria 6×6 in UK, supposedly for British Army.
Reported on Army Technology, Army Recognition, plus various other places.
No, Patria and Babcock have signed a MOU to develop a Patria 6×6 to pitch to the British Army. That’s very different to “produce”
Pedantry.
It really isn’t. One means that a factory is being set up and the vehicles are being delivered to the army, the other means they are looking at adapting a vehicle to the Army’s requirements but not setting up a factory or delivering vehicles.
@Daniele Looks like it’s being pitched as a LMP candidate for 4 and 7 X rather than a 432 replacement (shouldn’t be many 432’s left after Boxer comes into service anyway).
Thanks mate.
4 and 7 on Patria, give Foxhound to the reserves? Seems good to me?
I would not get to enthusiastic mate, from what I’ve read they have only just started very early market engagement on the light mobility vehicle element ( 3500kg) of the LMP programme and even that’s probably 4-5 years away. The light and meduim protected elements ( 10ton and 20ton) have not had an official mention in a very long time…so we are long looking at anything before 2030 in reality.
I would be a bit surprised to be honest I don’t think the army would want a vehicle with a STANAG level 2 ballistic and blast protection as standard, I’m pretty sure level three would be a minimum it looks for, I could be wrong.
Reading the articles, Sam’s kind of misinterpreted what they say. Babcock and Patria are not making 6×6’s for the British Army, they’ve signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UK government to develop a version of the 6×6 that might be acceptable to the British Army’s needs. I suspect that means a better engine (to cope with) and Stanag level 3 ballistic protection.
That would make sense.
I think the British Army needs a GBAD Boxer variant, if its armoured units are to survive drone/helicopter attack.
15 years too late to say this.
CH2 and tracked artillery should have been excluded from the 2010 SDR.
BofF, little was spared in that SDSR, which was in response to the global financial crisis. Terrible though that 159 out of 386 CR2s that were all under 12 years old, were struck off strength and mothballed, meaning they received zero maintenance in storage at Ashchurch and mostly degraded very badly due to very poor storage conditions. Same with 35% of the AS90s.
Yes, that famous note from Liam Byrne to the incoming Tory in the Treasury underlined how bare the cupboard was. When a party takes power in a country that had a fiscal surplus from 1997 to 2001, to one that’s over 8.3 percent of our annual GDP.
He should stick to soldiering.
What ‘export’ potential do you get from having no tank production facilities and importing Ajax and Boxer? Is he really a clown?
Graham will be unhappy but, some Braid get overpromoted.
DB, fair point.
Sadly I never got over-promoted! Would have liked the higher pay!
Appears the Italians are ordering a stack of KF51 Panthers and Lynx various variants..£10bn + worth…Sensible methinks with Europe’s situation…