A public petition calling on the UK Government to transfer surplus Warrior infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) to Ukraine has passed 14,000 signatures, prompting an official government response in the coming days.
The petition argues that the UK’s existing Warrior fleet—due for disposal by 2030—could be sent to bolster Ukraine’s defences without new cost to the taxpayer.
It states:
“We believe Infantry Fighting Vehicles have proved to be an extremely effective tool on the battlefields of Ukraine… this transfer may be beneficial as it comes with no new cost to the taxpayer.”
The proposal follows growing public debate over how best to support Ukraine in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression, particularly as the UK phases out legacy armoured platforms. Warrior IFVs, first introduced in the 1980s, are being replaced by the newer Boxer platform under the Army’s modernisation plans.
According to a written parliamentary response by Defence Minister Maria Eagle MP, the Ministry of Defence currently holds 359 Warrior vehicles in service.
“As the Out of Service date for Warrior is 2027, with all vehicles withdrawn from service by the end of the decade, any that remain held by the Department beyond this will be classed as surplus to requirements,” she said.
“Plans for Warrior beyond its Out of Service Date are yet to be formally agreed.”
Although a previous parliamentary briefing indicated around 80 Warriors are nearing disposal, and the rest expected to follow by 2030, no formal commitment has been made to donate the vehicles to Ukraine.
The petition will be considered for parliamentary debate if it reaches 100,000 signatures before its 4 October 2025 deadline. You can view or sign the petition here.
They need to be retained?
They should only be sent if the British army orders direct replacement IFV. CV90S, ASCOD or tracked boxer with the 40mm canon turret.
Until that is done no keep them here
Someone must be asleep on this tracked IFV requirement for the UK or, just infatuated by the wheeled Boxer for everything? A few more CR3s to top up stocks wouldn’t hurt either!
No more CH3 as 148 vehicles are enough to counter Russia’s huge new tank programmes (joke). Also, the Government ditched the upgraded Warriors due to a botched engineering job, however, a warmed-over version would have been a wise fallback, as no obvious tracked replacement appears to have been seriously considered. That said, giving Ukraine some Warriors does have my support. It’s interesting to note that some UK vehicles have been well received by Ukrainian troops, which is a testament to their enduring quality, and a rebuttal to those who claimed they were no longer relevant on the modern battlefield. Has anyone else noticed the SDR said little about the Army’s future planned tanks, other than Ajax and Boxer?
Maurice, I heard that the problems of integrating the 40mm CTAS cannon with the upgraded WR turret during the WCSP programme were within weeks of a solution. Not sure what this botched engineering job is that you are referring to. Clearly that cannon has been integrated into the Ajax turret successfully.
Beancounters pulled the funding from WCSP and MoD declared that Boxer MIV would equip the inf bns in the ABCTs, even though we all know that it was a nonsense.
The Army staff has been seriously considering tracked IFV to replace WR, and many say that a much-modified ARES (ie cannon-equipped and able to carry a full infantry section) could be suitable, but no money has been earmarked AFAIK.
Ajax and Boxer are not tanks, but I know what you mean. The Defence Command Paper should give the details about future AFV orders.
UKR has found much British equipment to be very useful even if it was never seriously upgraded, including AS-90, CR2 etc. They would be very happy to have Warrior in quantity, if we do not belatedly reinstate any form of upgrade for it.
Graham, the botched job was allegedly, due to not one turret ring being the same, so the all-new turret needed to be bespoked, creating long manufacturing delays. As you will remember the ISD kept being put back and back, a little like the upgraded Nimrod until the MOD gave up on the programme. That’s how I read it, though I will stand to be corrected. The blind spot that puzzles me is the lack of urgency or even delaying the exsit of Warrior considering the horrendous situation Europe finds itself facing up to Russia. I don’t want to see any armoured military vehicle sold for scrap but either gifted to Ukraine or placed in war reserve until Boxer and Ajax available in big numbers.
Maurice – Yes there were variations in tolerances on the Warrior fleet when inspected ala the Nimrod MR4 fiasco, plus LM needed a couple of attempts to make a new Turret that was acceptable.
Quentin, no-one in the Army is asleep on the lack of a tracked IFV replacement for Warrior. Just there is no money.
Morning Graham, I was bromg slightly tongue in cheek. I can believe you and I do. There’s always money just in other places. Hope the Army truly gets what it wants and needs especially before any next big crisis. If Latvia can order the Ascod I am not sure why the UK can’t?! Too.much money going into Boxer and RCH155 perhaps?
And no money with the increase in Defence spending? Where’s it all going? Is the Army getting a lesser share?
The British Army simply placing an order for a MOTS platform without first attempting to gold plate it? Don’t be ridiculous sir!
*being
The government will have found another Black Hole to use as an excuse for all the funds vanishing.
Hi Quentin, Boxer is hideously expensive and RCH-155, being Boxer based, is likely to also be pricey. Also money going into CR3 and Ajax programmes. I doubt the army can get more (ie new) money out of HMT for an IFV project. WCSP should have been hustled along by a determined leadership team – it was good VfM. The phasing of these programmes has been disastrous.
I mean if they hadn’t spent a decade messing around with boxer and Ajax then perhaps….
Hey, dont undersell MoD, we were buikding Bixer 30 years ago, till MoD declared peace in our time. Tge feeble excuse was Boxer was too big and too heavy…which has obviously not altered.. But Britain had 45% stake in Boxer then. So trulyit wasnt so expensive. Now with the Hull being assembled here, and virtually no UK owned parts used, if we get back 20% it will be a miracle. We gifted all the jigs, the prototype hulls and vehicles, and all parts and drawings to the Germans..in a master stroke similar to giving away Harriers. WARRIOR 2000 was superior to CV90 on inception, and in most trials was the clear winner, but Alvis Vickers also owned Hagglunds..so wanted CV90 to win, so Warrior wasnt offered after the Swiss trials, and was priced out of the Swiss contract
Interestingly AVL later spent milliins more on CV90 upgrades for Switzerland before it met the contracted targets. Meaning nil profiton the deal.
The same AVL management that virtualy closed the Telford site to keep the Newcadtle factory open, ripped out milliins of pounds worth of machinery, and moved all manufacturing to Newcastle…later as BAES closed its Golden site, and Telford, albeit now changed hands again..again..is struggling to build CR3, which originated in Leeds/Newcastle..both if which are history.
Warriors fall in tge serviceability stakes, which mitigated against its upgrade, were caused primarily by the DSG spares ecinomy drive. Which meant parts supposedly serviced to standard, were shoddily checked, and rebuilt with substandard bearings, amongst other shoddy practuces wheel nuts were gritblasted on removal, meaning the threads were damaged..computer driven testing machines were short circuited to run long after their retest life, and Chinese bearings were bought via middlemen in Florida to the wrong strength, to reduce cost while giving the appearance of compliance. The quality department was toothless, lacking the will to actually check what was being supplied
Several serious incudents led to Warrior being blocked from any transit on public roads. This non compliant ethos also affected Cr2, Titan, Trijan and Bulldog and the CVRT fleet
I don’t believe there are any plans for a tracked replacement for warrior as far as I know we are getting a very nice metal box with a machine gun on the top
Mr Bell, the British Army cannot order a replacement IFV for Warrior. It was stated in March 2021 that there was no funding for Warrior upgrade so it was cancelled. It was also stated at the same time that Boxer would replace Warrior (although we all know that it is a MIV and not an IFV). No money for a new IFV, very sadly.
Blimey, March 2021 was 4 years ago! Time has marched on (pardon the pun) and surely there must be some spare new money in the recent promises of an uplift in defence spending?
Quentin, I read that the uplift from 2.33 to 2.5% amounts to another £5bn or £6bn, which is not a lot in Defence procurement – and we don’t get to 2.5% until April 2027. There will be much in-fighting for the extra money and an army IFV programme, if buying new MOTS kit will be expensive.
We shall see. Useful would be a prioritisation list service-by-service – but that would probably be ‘highly classified’!
How about, restoring WCSP, if that is even possible, and “diverting” them back to the AI Battalions where they belong?
After all, are we not shortly to be awash with money, HMG?
Or is your grandstanding talking of % yet more spin?
Didn’t they eventually prove a prototype Warrior with the CTA turret? UK jobs, good value for money, glacial build of wheeled APCs. WCSP was the army’s preferred option was it not? Lack of funding was the reason WCSP was canned; now the defence budget is increased.
I thought there were two?
I also saw on Twitter a post showing a Warrior being scrapped, supposedly the WCSP Prototype. Don’t know how accurate that was.
Yes, under Strike plan there were to be 4 Battalions of Warrior ( down from 6 under A2020 ) and 4 of Boxer ( up from 3 under A2020 )
A cut of 1 overall. But Strike was always about cuts.
Boxer was then brought forward to priority before Ajax,WCSP, CH3 had run their course, resulting in no funding for all at once.
This was NOT the A2020 plan.
For that, speak to General Carter.
WCSP was binned as a result, leaving the hotch potch mash up we are left with.
Nice work. 👏
I know of at least two surviving. I believe there were more in various modification states and iterations. The one at the Tank Museum at Bovington is one of the early iterations. The other is at the Defence College at Shrivenham. Which I believe was one of the most advanced versions. No idea what happened to the others.
In my current job, I have two colleagues who were part of Lockheed Martin (UK) employed on the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program (WCSP). Both have said the vehicle if given another 6 to 9 months would have had the mechanical/electrical issues sorted. However they also said that their management didn’t know their arse from their elbow. It was mainly down to them burning down the bridges between LM and the MoD. From the gist I get, is that the MoD had by that time had enough.
Thanks, Davey.
Having had the pleasure of working with contractors taking the Michael, I can understand the Army’s sentiment- even if it’s left us without a valuable capability.
I may be drawing the wrong conclusions from Ukraine, but IFVs seem to be more decisive a capability than MBTs, especially if they’re as well protected and kitted as Bradley. This surely is not something that UK top brass can have missed.
To me, ASCOD or this rumoured Ares mod are the most sensible choices for us. Possibly even with one of those unmanned turrets to simplify hull penetrations. I know that a lot of people here like CV90, and I do too. But commonality on parts and drivetrain, plus UK manufacturing in Wales trumps it in my view. Just need to find some cash now, and the troops to put inside them…
Paul, the irony is that WCSP was an exceptionally good VfM programme and would deliver a very capable IFV. Trouble was that the Boxer programme was advanced and affordability became an issue with a collision of WCSP, Boxer and CR3 programmes all requiring funding at the same time. All highly avoidable.
What do I know. Maybe things will turn out. Ukraine has changed things. Apparently the lethality strategy now is 20:30:40: 20% vehicles, 40% single use drones, 40% re-usable drones. A drone can take out an IFV and find you in a dugout. The Ukrainian guys daren’t stock their heads above ground in the daytime.
Sorry 20:40:40
If that is the % mix then surely things like cannon armed Boxers/IFVs and Shorad tracked and wheeled should be an absolute priority. Does the 12.5mm RWS have a counter drone capability? Is the UK looking at getting the Boxer Skyranger?
I think they might just be forced to head towards 3.5% on defence by 2030 mate. The world situation is clearly demanding a serious look at our defence posture and the financing to back it up….
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Army matters, but doing anything right now when the replacement is still years away from being fully in service isn’t a very good idea.
Whats more the entire Defence Apple Cart is being upended due to changing technology, increased budgets, NATO 1st political thinking and whilst all that is going on we still need capability.
Besides which if we think this comes at zero cost then it doesn’t they still will need spares and support, that requires a supply chain, training etc etc and guess who foots the bill ?
I actually think we should take a step back and join our allies to fund purchasing assets that the Ukrainians actually want. The US has vast stocks of surplus Bradleys and will probably never use them, so why not cut a deal with the US to overhaul, support and supply them to the Ukrainians.
That may sound a bit daft but NATO is going to insist on 1.5% to be spent on “security related” spending. I’d argue that in the short term using some of that to pay for surplus weapons to support someone who is fighting our main possible foe is probably a damn good idea.
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend”
That’s if the US would ever release Bradley stock for Ukraine.
The US has provided Bradley IFV’s to Ukraine, but more can certainly be sent.
I was thinking more of additional Bradley’s the way Trump is talking about aid to Ukraine. I reckon a trip there might do him some good. Wake him right up!
They were supplied before Putin’s buddy became President.
What is the replacement for Warrior? There is no IFV on order I’m afraid. We need to retain these until there are proper plans to replace them. The current trajectory is alarming.
Boxer is the replacement believe it or not the government thinks replacing a IFV with a 30mm canon for a metal box with a machine gun on top is acceptable we will at that point not have overmatch with any possible enemy the .50 browning no matter how good it is , is not capable of going through the armour on any possible enemy vehicle built since ww2 but here we are I guess
Rob, It was stated in March 2021 that the Warrior upgrade was cancelled, that WR would soldier on unmodified until the mid 2020s and would then be progressively withdrawn, being replaced in the ABCTs by Boxer MIV. Due to funding issues. Mad, of course.
The pursuit of madness with badness sounds like idiocy. Decisions can be changed, improved on, money can be found and managed better. Having said that I’d better check my own finances…
Oh yes I am fully aware that Boxer MIV is the slated replacement, the only problem is it shouldn’t. It is no replacement at all. Lets hope that the equipment plan starts to make sense of it all.
Lol, every surplus Bradley going to Ukraine is one less to invade Canada, Greenland or Mexico or wherever Trumps mania takes him next. He may even donate them to his mate Vlad Putin.
We should have a Petition on here, gather up the results and send them to Rachael in accounts.
Maybe something on the lines of “We want to see you put your (our) money where your mouth is.
“I’m going to spend spend spend”
Good to see others are embracing the importance and significance of historical quotes BTW.
Keep em coming.
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
George W. Bush
Although comments like this seemed odd at the time. Maybe he had a point…
And it would be utterly pointless.
Raise the petition on the Parliament website if you at least want it to be discussed.
The focus of our help to Ukraine has moved from vehicles and artillery to air defence and drones. They have German Marders, US Bradleys and UK Bulldogs.
We have to see what Orbat changes emerge from the SDR and the NATO summit, what the spending review funds and what the Defence Industrial Strategy comes up with. I don’t think lose the Warriors; they are still a credible IFV. Some sort of WCSP lite program might be the way to go.
Need to keep them and all the C2’s not being upgraded if the sh!t does hit the fan then all the lads/lassess who have left in last 10 years are going to get recalled under the reserves call up, having kit the they used for years will make them more effective out the gate, rather then having to learn new kit. That would be the only way we could generate any credible mass. Same goes for Typhoon T1’s etc
The clowns in MoD Main building will never see this level of common sense. Don’t forget they’ve just binned off an entire fleet of Puma2 as well as selling off Albion/ Bulwark.
The “clowns” in Main Building have to deal with ever increasing ringfenced nuclear budgets, ringfenced R&D, hypothecated money on accommodation, etc etc. Political judgements that they have to abide by and which necessitate cutting into conventional capability, as there’s never sufficient budget to pay for it all. So I’ll ask you what I’ve asked military leadership when I’ve had the chance: what would you cut to pay for whatever you are arguing in favour of? For what it’s worth I’ve never heard a choherent reponse beyond soundbites like “prioritisation” and “efficiency”, so I don’t expect you to have detailed proposals to hand.
Here’s a few ideas for efficiency:
– cutting back on day rate contractors who’s sole aim is to delay projects so they get paid high rates for longer
– Single mess dining (why across the entire mil estate do we have separate dining for ranks, SNECs, officers
– Try driving a military vehicle – the annual driving competency test across every base is prohibitive
– The paperwork needed for health and safety for training/ exercises is prohibitive
– Modnet is junk
– We’re not need in Juffair – the costs of those bases should be reinvested here in capabilities
– River B2s swanning in the far east is a nice to have and a waste of money, personnel and assets
– Legads have grown in MoD exponentially and are a hinderance (they’re a self licking lollipop)
– Recruitment costs a bomb and should be brought back to unit level same goes for fast jet training.
Binning frontline capabilities eg Puma2, Albion all whilst fragging what too few assets we have left (Typhoon/t23).
The main building clowns are too focussed on group think and buzzword bingo PowerPoints to see the real cost opportunities (afterall they’re part of the gravy train)
Let’s be honest the warrior is ancient now I don’t even think it has a stabilised canon on it so them hit and run tactics the Ukrainians do with the Bradley’s would a lot more difficult I wonder if it’s possible to put the Ajax turret on the warrior ?
Tim, all AFVs should be constantly upgraded in a major way every 7-10 years. That was not done for Warrior but WCSP would have provided a very large improvement in capability if enacted, albeit late in its service. It would have had an armour upgrade, firepower upgrade and digitisation fit. The firepower upgrade would have provided a 40mm CTAS stabilised cannon in a new turret, far better than Bradley with its small 25mm cannon.
Warrior is coming out of service as there is currently no money for an upgrade or replacement. That was declared in March 2021.
You can’t put the actual Ajax turret on a Warrior as the rings are different sizes, Ajax has a much bigger turret ring than Warrior does. But as Graham said, the 40mm that’s in the Ajax turret was being put onto Warrior.
Why try. LM built different CTA40 turrets for Warrior and Ajax. I don’t think they were interchangeable. Not sure what happened to the turrets when Warrior upgrade was stopped.
Yes brilliant idea..let’s donate our only IFV..for FS, those 359 vehicles would cost around 3 billion to replace.. instead lets lifex ex them for say 700 million.
Err, given the glacial build rate of wye wateringly expensive Boxers, the urgency, that we have a lot of unused 40mm CTA cannons, that we now ought to have the budget whose shortfall caused WCSP cancellation in the first place and that we want to create UK jobs…..I would take a lot of convincing that we shouldn’t reinstate some version of WCSP.
Jonathan, yes, donating WRs to Ukraine is pretty much the same as giving away all of our 155mm SPGs before its replacement in quantity.
Agree a revamp and update with a new turret, reconditioned or new engines, gear box and maybe an updated reactive armour package and ideally an APS would be great. If we can do that for around £1 billion to keep warrior effective and in active service for another 20 years then that is money well spent.
The loss of IFV is really worrying.
As much as I would like Ukraine to have sufficient equipment to repel Russia, UK armed forces need a replacement plan before they are given a way. Wheeled boxer with rws, whilst enabling rapid on road movement, just doesn’t tick all the boxes.
Surplus to current peace time requirements perhaps. But, what would we field in the event of losses in a future conflict? We need to be building up stocks and old equipment is better than no equipment! They need to be retained as war reserve, or and this will not be liked by the bean counters at MoD and Treasury we massively ramp up our manufacturing capability to cope with future action losses. Just-in-time peace time manufacturing and minimal warehouse stocking doesn’t cut it for large scale replacements in times of dire need! I suppose we could commandeer all the old Ford Rangers and other 4 wheel drive pickups and mount a GPMG (if we’ve got enough and the ammunition) as alternatives.
We don’t want a Ford Ranger, they break down all the time. Better off with a Toyota Hilux or a Nissan D21. They last forever and are a doddle to fix. They’re recommended by most terrorist organizations after all.
I’d forgotten about the HiLux!
Transits are in the cross hairs.
“It’s true gov, honest”.
The more modern Rangers are better built. Anything post 2020 will be reliable.
Depends on the engine the 2.0 diesel ranger engine has the wet belt which is atrocious
Ford Ranger is already a very common vehicle in the Army. Baisically Ford Rangers and Mitsubishi Barbarians seem to be the interim replacement for Landrover at the moment (although I think they’re leased rather than owned by the Army).
Not related but has anyone seen the combination of the Reaction Engines administration.
The administrators are valuing the IP at a whopping £840,000 from a total investment of over £160 million in the company.
So very much looks like it didn’t work, it’s not the next TSR 2.
£160 million is not a lot on aerospace R&D but clearly if it generated just £840k in value there is no conspiracy, it just didn’t work.
We need to see what the reaction is.
Indeed, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Sounds like a good Idea for an Engine.
Yeh, what goes around comes around.
I’m not loving this comment hierarchy limit. To answer Quentin’s question above. The Mod are looking at two streams for countering the smaller drones, such as the FPV suicide drone carrying a HEAT grenade.
The first to be delivered is the Smart Shooter SMASH sight. Which enables an “infantryman” with the sight mounted to a GPMG, or their personal weapon to engage drones. The sight uses visual moving target recognition software. To place an aiming dot that predicts where to shoot and take out the drone.
The second phase is looking at vehicle protection. Where I believe the MoD are looking at exploiting remotely operated weapon systems (RWS) to take out drones. The bit that remains uncertain is how they detect the drone? As if you’re all buttoned up in a vehicle you definitely won’t hear it coming and pretty unlikely to see it. Ones controlled via radio data-link or through direct line of sight as per the typical DJI quadcopter. Should be detected via their RF transmissions. However the ones that use a fibre-optic give off no transmissions. Which may be the same for autonomous drones as in RF quiet.
Drones do have a particular audio signature, that could be used to cue the RWS. However, it’s very unlikely that the drone will be detected at distances greater than 150m. As you really can’t to engage the drone as far out as possible in case there’s more than 1. Thereby giving you time to engage multiple drones consecutively.
Something like the air defence alerting device (ADAD), which is an infrared search sensor might be able to detect a small quadcopter drone. They don’t give off a lot of heat. Unless the motors and battery is working overtime to lift a heavy munitions. So it might be detected beyond 100m, but not by much more.
I think there may be a need for an active sensor , such as radar. As that will give an all weather detection capability. Plus provide direct guidance to the RWS, along with tracking the outgoing rounds to the target. Thereby allowing adjustment to meet the target. The radar does not need a massive range, perhaps 2km max. Which for this distance a very high frequency such as W-band (75 to 110GHz) would be ideal. This is a millimetric wavelength of 4 to 2.73mm. It has the capability of producing high definition images of objects. Which means very small objects with tiny radar cross sections (RCS), will stand a much better chance of being detected. As these drones still contain metal motors, wiring, circuit board tracks/components and fasteners. Not to mention the munition they could be carrying.
This frequency band uses very small antenna., where for an active electronically scanned array, can be made as small as an inch square. Though having coming closer to 2 inches square will allow for more elements to help produce a very narrow beam. Cost wise they can be very cheap as those used in cars. Or pretty expensive as the ones to measure and analyses cloud formations. But building a fixed four panel system, to give 360 degrees field of view. Can be done for not a lot of money. Along with a good enough signal processing. To allow the radar to search for and track small drones. Give targeting data to the RWS and allow the rounds to be tracked on to the target. In regards to susceptibility of the radar being detected. If there was funding the radar could use techniques such as frequency hopping, using a random scan pattern. Which will make detection harder.
Given that they have final invested in proper storage building at Ashchurch, all the Warriors should be put through a repair programme and then prepared and stored in the CHE facilities at Ashchurch, because as sure as the sun will rise above the horizon every day, we will probably need them within the next 5 or 10 years for our own soldiers to operate on the battlefield. You could even have a “small” training fleet for use by the reserves.
In the same way we had the Saxon (basically an armoured vehicle on a 8 tonne bedford drive train) to transport them to the front, the Warrior variants would be perfect for them.
I thought Saxon Warriors used carts ?
“One wheel on my wagon and i’m still rolling around on the floor laughing my a–e off”
RAOTFLMAO.
“The more medicated, the more dedicated.” Snoop Dogg, 2006
So the MOD still has 359 Warrior IFV’s on it’s ‘book’s. So send 100 to Ukraine, equip the Reserves with 200, which means 59 for spares/repairs, or am I being too simple minded here?
Only God knows, when the Army will get both the Boxer and Ajax vehicles. However, I don’t think even ‘he’ knows, when they will arrive in multiples of more than 5 at a time.
This God of yours, does he comment on here or somewhere else ?
It would be great to get his views on the various wars around his world.
So the petition got set up, and then NAFO and other fundraisers and supporters continue to retweet and boost the hell out of it🫡🤣
And its gained momentum!
If we can get the 80 warriors sent, then they will be a great help. We have Brigades crying out for lists of stuff!
British Army is sat on its arse doing nothing and so it doesn’t need all the Warriors
We could have sorted a replacement a long time ago…and we can do it tomorrow
Poor planning and lack of political \ military willpower to get on with it have been the problem!
Plenty of OTS options out there
We don’t need them now. They’ll only be sitting around getting all rusty now that the Army has been pruned like a privet hedge shaped like a tank.
“Unmanned vehicles are the future of warfare”.
Yes that’s true about drones \ unmanned vehicles; however, we still need vehicles of various types to support the Infantry, for logistics, medEvac, fire support, and reinforcements
A replacement is needed and fast
Those rusty Warriors etc will still make a difference on the front line!
GUCCI gear isn’t needed
I want this petition to be successful 💯
John, you justify contentment on a lack of equipment (IFVs) on the fact that ‘the British Army is sitting on its arse doin nothing’. I suspect Dern may be onto you soon enough.
But what if the BA goes to war in the next few months or years against an opponent with AFVs?
The plan was to upgrade Warrior as a replaement for in-service Warrior but the funding was pulled.
Gotta say my nights out of bed and Op bonuses very much disagree with the “doing nothing” part, although I haven’t yet gotten my Op Cabrit medal (and never will) so, not sure I can speak for the Armoured guys and girls. 😛
they were a good vehicle but outdated now, they were 3 year old when I joined and played with with in Germany. Just a shame they are not getting replaced with something similar or better, but we all new options for change was a good reason for the MOD to become the backup piggy bank for every government failure…Still I would have loved one more blast in my old truck 36 KG 28 She served me and the lads in it well out in Bosnia…
We have surplus military equipment? I could have sworn it was 2025 and the military has been hollowed out ..must be the 1980s still maybe I was dreaming it was 2025…it must be the 80s because that’s when we had spare equipment…pinch me
The cheapest ‘new’ IFV is always going to be an upgraded Warrior.
The 40mm CTAS is probably too much of a gun for it but are already committed to Ajax anyway and is probably sub-optimal for anti-drone work anyway which should now be the priority for all new IFV armament anyway.
CTAS is ideal for Anti – Drone use – there is a Round available specifically for it.
Honestly with all the baltics and other countries buying the CV90 and BAe looking for another place to build a factory we should talk to BAe about the plan for a factory in the North East and if they’re still up for it replace Warrior with CV90.
Has anything being said about turreted IFV to replace warrior?
Thanks for the link, petition signed. 👍🏻
A new IFV is badly needed, but the Army should not be allowed to procure it. Unless billions are to be spent on a handful of bespoke vehicles.
Who should be allowed to procure it then?
A reminder that Boxer 155, one of the most expensive possible artillery solutions was procured by HMG without consulting the Army…
The Navy and at least wheels are in motion to get Boxer 155. The Army can’t procure their way out of a paper bag.
You know we do trials for a reason right?
Come on, give them the Viking funeral they deserve!!
Let them rage against the dying of the light.
Surely if any lesson has been learnt from the conflict in Ukraine, it’s that forces need deep reserves to fall back on. Until Boxer and Ajax variants are available in sufficient numbers to provide that reserve, the Warriors should be stored in viable condition.