The Czech Republic, Sweden, and BAE Systems have signed a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that provides a framework for negotiations to deliver CV90 combat vehicles to the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic.
Contract negotiations are set to take place in the first half of 2023.
Under the terms of the MoU, the governments of Sweden and the Czech Republic will cooperate on military affairs, including training, support, and ongoing education for troops and equipment operators, as well as collaboration on the acquisition and support of CV90 combat vehicles.
The agreement also lays out the possibility of future collaboration between the two nations on the development of upgrades, new technology, and ongoing support for the CV90.
The MoU specifies that negotiations with BAE Systems will include: reaching an agreement for the purchase of 210 infantry fighting vehicles; meeting the need for indigenous long-term support for the vehicles; and delivering on a requirement for a robust Czech industrial participation program.
The Czech Republic will receive the newest iteration of the CV90, known as the CV90MkIV, with the latest advanced capabilities and new digital technology. BAE say that the vehicle combines “improved battlefield speed and handling with an upgraded electronic architecture to support future growth and meet the needs of the evolving battlefield”.
The Czech Republic will become the ninth member of the CV90 User Club, which includes countries that have CV90s in service with their armed forces.
The user club already consists of eight countries, five of them members of NATO: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, as well as the newest member, Slovakia.
It seems that there is still a requirement for heavy(tracked) IFVs throughout. Makes you wonder if the UK will ever attempt to rebuild this capability for the army when Warrior reaches its OSD, even if its towards the end of the decade before they try?
From previous threads (many) on the topic I think Boxer is our MODs answer to your question.
Something along these lines…
http://fighting-vehicles.com/vilkas-infantry-fighting-vehicle/
You presume that the MoD has ordered Boxer versions equipped with stabilised cannons for the armoured infantry battalions. Yet I hear only of RWS with an MG, being ordered, for fitting to the vehicle, so far.
Yes, indeed. I should have phrased my comment as suggestion or perhaps a question. I think we have ordered the Kongsberg RS4, which can be fitted a mortar OR a brace of ATgm but short of a turret they also sell a RS6 model which will take a 30mm cannon.
I read that we ordered the Kongsberg RS4 for the Boxers in the MIV role (was FRES UV back in the day). Don’t think RS4 can include a mortar, but it can take ATGMs or MGs or GMGs, and possibly a 30mm Chain Gun.
Not sure if we have ordered armaments for those Boxers that are to replace Warrior – hopefully they will each have a beefy stabilised cannon.
My error: no mortar but 40mm grenade launcher. Wiki documents that US troops think highly of the Stryker, which seems to me to be a Boxer analogue, though lighter.
I was attached to the Canada Army and was familiar with the Canadian LAV from which the Stryker was developed – good kit, and I am sure cheaper than Boxer.
Couple of additional points: I’ve read press reports that the US is thinking of supplying Stryker to Ukraine and the CROWS remote weapon station is an RS4 with Javelin. Makes sense to standardize with uncle Sam. As regards cost vs Boxer I guess modularity doesn’t come cheap?
https://armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/new_stryker_armored_with_crows-j_javelin_missile_turret_for_us_troops_in_europe.amp.html
Thanks Paul, Looks like the 30mm cannon is a Chain Gun? Are you advocating buying Stryker instead of Boxer? We have already rdered well over 500 Boxers.
You are right that modularity doesn’t come cheap – Boxer is a very expensive vehicle – about £5.5m a pop for the version with a MG in RWS, I think.
Yeh, I think that’s right. I believe it’s a chain gun. Not saying we should change from Boxer. It’s the RR offering in the wheeled IFV market – one of better decisions to rejoin the program.It’s German – bound to work; think Bosch electrics, Neff ovens, Mercedes, Aspirin, V2 rockets….Maybe Stryker was an option when we were evaluating VBCI.
Boxer is certainly offered at RR prices. I wonder if todays armoured infantrymen are looking forward to forego upgraded Warrior and trading in ‘standard’ Warrior for Boxer – they won’t be if their Boxer comes with anything less than a hefty stabilised cannon – and if the mobility proves to be a tad worse.
Boxers not required to work with the tanks is a different story.
Stryker may have been as good as Boxer and may have been a lot more affordable.
I understand your concerns re successor to Warrior. Although the RS4 will not take a cannon Kongsberg sell the RS6 model which sports the same M230 30mm used on the Apache. If that was considered good enough you might avoid the expense of going to a remote turret ..which I would guess would take longer to get into service and might also affect how many troops you could carry…don’t know enough about that to say.
It certainly looks that way, but you can’t but help wonder!
There will always be a need but then the question is does that need out weight the logistical consideration of getting the vehicle there in the first place. The MOD seems to think 8X8 is sufficient for the job. I would tend to agree. However if I was a European military bordering Russia I would probably still favour tracks.
Even having a useful mix of tracked as well as wheeled IFVs to work with Ajax, Challenger, artillery. Is the newer artillery going to be tracked or wheeled or both?
No one knows the answer to the artillery question yet. For me we need a number of tracked IFVs to make sense of our armour. Ch3 needs to be supported, with Ajax providing recce and additional fire support.
The Boxer battalion is all good, if they get the necessary SHORAD, mortar and stabilised 40mm cannon variants. But it won’t be able to support our armour effectively in all terrains, not without some tracked examples. From what I understand the tracked variant is still a prototype though. We may be biding our time to see how that pans out.
Hi Rob, it would make sense to me if the MOD were to ask for a stretched AJAX to carry a full section armed with an unmanned 40mm CTAS turret. Given that the CT40 requires no manual input once rounds are loaded into the magazine, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to incorporate some of the 250 CT40’s going spare into such a turret. Minimal intrusion into the crew spaces, maximum firepower.
Imagine the meltdown on here if we ordered more Ajax! Makes sense though, Ajax becoming our recce and IFV platform. Boxer for everything else.
There was an element of mischief I admit but in the cold light of day a modded ARES plus turret would bring commonality for support, spares etc.
😁👍
God, Ian, please nothing to do with stretching Ajax! I predict that a revolution would happen in such an event.
Stretched Ajax has not been developed yet and it would take time and money to do so. The army cannot afford to lose any more time in getting modern AFVs. Stretched Ajax would have a high unit price. Where would your vehicle commander sit if turret is unmanned? Could he easily debus to command the dismounted section?
Hi Graham, I should have been more precise and called it a stretched ARES. Crew and Tactical commanders would remain as before.
Hi Ian, OK, yes. Big difference between AJAX and ARES. My points still stand.
I believe GD were trying to offer a stretched ARES to Australia for the Land 400 programme. As I’m sure you’re aware, the vehicle commander and Tactical commander in an ARES are below any “turret” level if fitted. They both currently are capable of controlling the SDW, so why not a 40mm turret? As per current doctrine, the Tactical commander will debus along with his section, leaving the crew commander and his trusty 40mm (and probably a L94 chain gun) to provide fire support.
cheers
Thanks Ian. I did not think that ARES had a turret – looks like it just has a RWS. I was also not aware that there was both a tactical commander and a seperate vehicle commander – that is a break from usual British doctrine. Interesting that both commanders sit below ‘turret level’ or RWS level, I suppose, and that both can control the SDW, Why not a 40mm turret on a stretched ARES (and make it our new IFV, rather than Boxer IFV?) The stretched wagon must be able to take and ‘eject’ 8 dismounts ie Tac Commander and… Read more »
Hi Graham, if you read my previous posts you’ll that is exactly what I was proposing: a stretched ARES with a 40mm unmanned turret. You are correct in that the current ARES has no turret but a SDW (Kongsberg 151), controlled by the veh commander or Tac commander.
Cheers
Sorry Ian, I was not suggesting a stretched ARES – I was just replaying your own words, before I applied my comment. I don’t think it a good idea. Too much money and time to develop – and the Boxers to replace Warrior are possibly already on order – just hope MoD has ordered a version with a beefy stabilised cannon.
Well, we’re back to the idea of using some of the 250 odd CT40’s lying around?
Yes, thats an interesting point. Hopefully they (w/turret) can be ‘bolted on’ to the Boxers that are specifically replacing Warriors.
The way a CT40 works lends itself to an unmanned turret so integrating it into an available MOTS job would not be rocket science.
Thanks Ian. Would ammo feed come from inside the vehicle or be carried in an external hopper?
Without straying too far from Ajax, Ascod 2 would meet your suggestion would it not ?.
In essence you’re right but it doesn’t have the same protection levels, modularity or advanced electronics of ARES.
You might enjoy this video! Good to see Ben Wallace attending.
New boxer variants with Brimstone missiles and mortars.
Lots of options available, we just need to commit to something and start purchasing them.
We’ve ordered 623 Boxers so far with funding in place for 1,000 and an aspiration for up to 1,300. Plenty of room for variants such as these.
👍I always thought these would make a good fit.
We should have persevered with Warrior upgrade, to see us through the next 10 years, then bought a MOTS replacement, tracked IFV of course.
A recent article on UKLandPower suggests it’s expected to be wheeled.
I’m willing to bet we’ll go with wheeled, given the apparent success of CEASAR in Ukraine. But then, we’re keeping our M270s and upgrading them, so maybe they’ll try and do the same with AS90? All it really needs to keep it relevant is the longer cannon and maybe a refresh of the fire control, as far as I’m aware?
Whatever we end up with, it’ll be pretty messy because of our commitment to Ajax, but I’d guess that the army will try and capitalise on Boxer’s modularity at every opportunity.
And yet the Ukrainians said that part of the reason for slow progress in Kherson Oblast was not enough tracked vehicles
Interesting, I haven’t seen that reporting before, I must admit. They’ve been asking for tanks and heavy armour for ages, but not specifically tracks as opposed to other AFVs from what I’d seen. After all, they’re in love with their HIMARS and CEASAR is popular from what I understand. I know that’s different from actual assault/manouevre forces though. I guess the question is, what is the reason they’re giving for needing more tracked vehicles? If it’s because of protection and armament levels, then Boxer is way better protected than the tracked IFVs that Ukraine are currently operating, and that French… Read more »
Some more good news it seems.
“The UK is considering supplying Ukraine with British tanks for the first time to fight Russia’s invading forces, Sky News understands.
Discussions have been taking place “for a few weeks” about delivering a number of the British Army’s Challenger 2 main battle tank to the Ukrainian armed forces, a Western source with knowledge of the conversations said.
Such a move would mark a significant step-up in Western support to Ukraine and could help prompt other NATO allies, in particular Germany, to follow suit.”
LINK
Wow, that’s pretty major! Would that be out of the ones that aren’t slated for upgrade to CR3 I presume? 227 – 150 (CR3 numbers, if I recall?) leaves 77 available, and Sky says 10 could be heading to Ukraine as part of a first batch. I’m a little surprised that the Army isn’t re-evaluating their numbers, given the Ukrainian war. But then, I suppose, giving them to Ukraine increases the likelihood that we won’t need to field a proper armoured division until the next generation MBT is introduced. As the least upgraded of the 3 NATO MBTs (or 4… Read more »
& pity the logistics chain for the Ukrainians of a new combat vehicle for only ~10 hulls … I fear the impact on their fighting strength could actually be negative rather than positive 🙄
True, it’ll certainly make things more coplex! I imagine they’ll be used as a single unit wherever Ukraine’s main point of effort will be, to at least try and make it more manageable.
Honestly, I don’t think it’ll make things worse, but it’ll certainly create headaches. I imagine they’ll go back to British maintenance crews in Poland for any work.
They will need to do Level 1 ie User maintenance and Level 2 ie LAD support in-country, plus recovery. Probably more, as it would not be realistic to transport a Chally to Poland for an E&MA change.
The fact that Russia has gone to war with Ukraine, for a unique set of reasons, does not of course mean that we, with NATO allies, is likely to also go to war with Russia, so there will probably be no re-evaluation of the 148 CR3 number.
I don’t think it follows that we can be sure we are unlikely to need to field a warfighting Division until all the CR3s are built ( 2030 is earliest for FOC).
I’d argue that we can be pretty sure we won’t need a heavy division (Tanks and tracked IFVs) until further into the 2030s to be honest, when whatever comes after CR3 gets fielded. I’m not an expert on everything, so I could be miles off, but here’s my tuppence worth of justification for my position: I agree with you, that Russia invading Ukraine doesn’t mean we’re at greater risk of having to go to war with Russia. In fact, I see that risk as rapidly diminishing towards zero. Russian conventional capability has been shown to be a bit of a… Read more »
Thanks Joe. I might add to your scenarios list a possibility of UN/NATO involvement in a flare up in the Balkans, which would require heavy and medium armour. I was in the army 1975-2009. We have used our armour (heavy, medium and light) a lot on kinetic operations since my early service in the army. Warfighting is something the army has done a lot in the last 40 years. The single armoured or mechanised division (3 (UK) Div) is the army’s warfighting building block but I agree that the whole division is unlikely to deploy much if anything this decade… Read more »
This is all so late in the day. I hear just a single sqn of Challys is being considered. It will still take much time to prepare these tanks and train UA crews and maintainers. They will need a reinforced REME fitter section too and some Attrition Reserve tanks. Not sure how they will do second line maintenance.
As I understand it the terrain was pretty much impassible off road without tracks, forcing the UA to use the roads much of the time. This may be less of a proble now that the ground is starting to freeze. I think the bottom line is that the UA just needs armour etc and it doesn’t care tracked/wheeled.
Ah, I see- although some of the videos I’ve seen suggest that even tracks didn’t guarantee progress in the mud!
I agree, they just want armour- don’t care how it moves along the ground, or at least it’s a secondary or tertiary consideration.
Having been in a position where a pair of Warriors under my command rescued 4 US Strykers. I would hold back on the wheels being better than tracks debate. The scenario was that a Stryker went off-road near Al Faw (Iraq). However, there had been heavy rain the previous two days. So the sand looked solid, but was actually soft, almost mud like in consistency below the surface. Another Stryker tried pulling it out, got stuck. Another tried pushing that one out and got stuck. Each of the three vehicles were beached and we’re going nowhere. The fourth was having… Read more »
I take your point, and a very good lived example of the benefits of tracks over wheels! Band tracks sound like an interesting opportunity to make tracked vehicles more maintenance friendly and deployable- hopefully something that the British Army looks at for their existing and future fleets. I wasn’t suggesting that tracks weren’t relevant or desirable, just that our budget and the acquisition choices Army have made over the last 5-10 years may necessitate a gap in some capabilities. Tracked IFVs may be one of them, with Boxer filling a gap as “not as good, but good enough” until a… Read more »
Boxer filling a gap until a decent solution is found – I like that!
We still have 60-year-old 432s running around in roles such as 81mm mortar carriage and armoured ambulance for the Armd Inf Bns.
I hope we don’t keep those Boxers as an interim measure for 60 years!
“I hope we don’t keep those Boxers as an interim measure for 60 years!”
You and me both, but I think we can both be pretty sure that it’s going to happen…!
We need truck mounted arty (in addition to tracked SPGs and lighter towed arty) but Caesar gun and crew has no protection ie no turret.
We need truck mounted arty but with crew protection, SPG, and towed 155. Plus wheeled and tracked rocket arty.
Simple answer is to remove the man from the gun crew and make it automated. Such a system exists in BAE-Bofors Archer system. Plus zBAe have shown the “turret” fitted to a MAN 8×8 truck as used by the Army.
Thanks Davey. Thats a weird looking thing, but I am sure it does the job. Add it to our shopping list!
The US Army are currently triaing the Archer mounted on the Volvo chassis. If you watch any of the vids on the system. It’s can be operated by a crew of two, though usually has three. It does requires a support vehicle for reloading, which is semi-automated. It has a very fast set up, fire and scoot time. My issue with it is the Volvo articulated truck, as it limits the barrel to L39 calibre. This is because after firing the barrel is lowered and stored in protective box behind the cab. However, the version fitted to the MAN truck… Read more »
Good additional point. L52 is the way to go.
I’d concur. We’ve got a completely expeditionary requirement for our army, so I think we need to think far more like the French than Poland or one of the other central European countries that really only need to consider defence of a land invasion as the primary purpose of their armies. For that, Boxer and variants make a lot more sense. I’m not saying IFVs wouldn’t be nice, but if we’re talking priorities then long range fires and wheels would be further up my list. Who’s to say though, seeing as we’re committed to Ajax and the rest of the… Read more »
Our army has always been expeditionary and we have deployed armour of all weight categories overseas since 1916. We are very used to doing that and so don’t have an imperative to drop tracked vehicles. IFVs aren’t just nice, they are essential for working alongside tanks.
I wholeheartedly agree in principle, but given the current state of the Army’s fleets and finances, I think there are greater priorities than tracked IFVs- especially given the threat profile that I went over in my other response to you. I’d like to see the British Army as a force that can “do it all”, according to scaled ambitions that are realistic for our global interests. But I think that’s realistically a 10+ year plan, just like the RN have done with Carrier Strike. The cold war years of a very large army fixed largely in place (Germany and the… Read more »
Thanks mate. We have to live with the decision that armoured infantry will in future be mounted in Boxer rather than upgraded Warrior – and I doubt we will ever go back to tracked IFVs unless the Boxers in that specific role (working alongside tanks) fail. I was a Cold War warrior and did 4 tours in Germany. I am personally ‘over’ the BAOR/BFG era. What we did (having a Corps of 3-4 armoured divisions in Germany) made sense when we faced the Warsaw Pact eyeball to eyeball. We are down to just a single armoured/mechanised division which will have… Read more »
I realise I should be a bit more careful what I say- yourself and the rest of the BAOR fulfilled a really important role and the mass was required. I’ve no doubt that what is happening in Ukraine now would have happened many times over across Europe if it wasn’t for the BAOR and other allied armies in Europe. As you say it made sense in the context of staring down the 3rd Shock Army! It’s the period after that particular threat had gone that I was talking about them holding onto the same mindset. I don’t think we’re holding… Read more »
Thanks Joe. I think the reason why some think the army retained a BAOR mindset after 1991 was purely because a lot of heavy metal stayed in Germany for a very long time. My Canadian friends said that their formation in Lahr (they only had a single brigade in Germany) moved back home very quickly and they were amazed that we still had a sizaable force level in Germany. The reason – not enough barracks, ranges and training aeas in the UK available in 91/92! Not because the army had a ‘stuck in the past’ mindset. BAOR was in 1991… Read more »
Agree, what happens when you eventually have to face someone with more than a sharpened mango?
Davey, I don’t see how your comment responds to one of my comments? Much as I like mangos!
I guess you didn’t watch Blackadder goes forth?
Oh, I remember now!
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what you have put, my question then is where does Ajax and it’s variants fit in (if it gets the all clear) to our ARMD formations given that we are getting some 580 ish hulls? The force ratio of tracks to wheels looks somewhat lopsided if Boxer is to be our only AFV. The only tracks the French have are their Leclerc MBTs, all else is wheeled, while the Germans/Italians use a greater mix of tracks/wheels in their armies. I was never really impressed with Carter as CDS, but one thing I believe he got… Read more »
I think Carters vision changed every 5 minutes which is one reason for the mess we are in armoured vehicle procurement wise. Do one thing properly before chasing something else. Pre 2015 there were 3 tracked Armoured Brigades, current and planned going forward, with 3 Armoured Regs, 6 AI Bns, and 3 Armoured Recc Regs, plus supporting CS/CSS formations. They also had 3 HPM Battalions, meant to be replaced by MRAV Boxer FROM 2029! Thus way down the road. Post 2015 the funded plan to replace the heavy tracked element of the army CHIII,WCSP, Ajax was shoved aside and Boxer… Read more »
Hi Daniele, Mate, I wouldn’t dispute or disagree with most of what you have posted. I was just looking at it and taking it as a given that the idea was to have all the right ‘enablers’ attached to each brigade. Thus I could see what might be achieved, certainly aligned our capabilities closer to what the French and German armies are set up for. That it became a tool for cuts doesn’t surprise me. We were always going to downsize to a certain degree over the last decade or so, but what is a shame is that it went… Read more »
Funnily enough, it was enablers again that got chopped in A2020R, a brigade sets worth, as they shifted from 5 deployable brigades, 1st, 12th, 20th, and 2 Infantry Bdes from 1 UK Div, 7th and one other, to 4, 12th, 20th Armoured, 1st Strike, and the SEG. And some from 16AA and 3 Cdo at that time. I’m in complete agreement regards C2 Boxer, I know little on vehicles but I believe Patria 8×8 for example is cheap as chips compared to a Boxer. How many could be bought for supporting roles and Boxer concentrated in more than a paltry… Read more »
…and what about getting the tanks there? In truth we have deployed armour overseas since 1916 and its very do-able.
We have to get the tanks to the AO anyway. We have always deployed an expeditionary army with armour, since 1916. This we can do.
Nearly all nations team a tracked IFV, and before that a tracked APC, to operate closely with tanks. There is a reason for that. I do not think that a Boxer will be able to keep up with CR3s in snow, ice, loose sand and deep glutinous mud – and I am concerned that they will not specify a stabilised cannon on each vehicle.
May 2021 MoD announced that Boxer would replace WR IFV following cancellation of Warrior upgrade ie WCSP. Not sure what weapon fit it will have.
I think it a very bad plan- we need a tracked IFV with a stabilised cannon to fight alongside MBTs.
I think only the French have no tracked IFVs to fight alongside tanks and use wheeled vehicles. I wonder what lessons they have learned?
Our MoD has decided that we should follow the same route as it was announced in May 2021 that Boxer would replace Warrior, following cancellation of Warrior upgrade (WCSP). Not a good decision, in my view.
Hi Graham, Yes I believe only ypu are correct in that currently only the French use wheeled vehicles alongside their tanks. The Germans do have a Jager battalion in Boxers assigned to each ARMD Brigade, but, I believe that they act as a reserve force whilst the actual fighting is done by those in Puma IFVs. As you say, we have binned Warrior for Boxer, yet have kept 148 Challengers. We are trying to get some 580 Ajax tracked vehicles into service. Thats roughly half of what a ARMD Brigade needs, only missing some IFV’s and tracked fires(to use an… Read more »
Based on evidence from Ukraine, having only 148 Challenger 3 MBTs is no longer logical. As it means any losses will severely diminish your fighting power and capability to go on the offensive. Especially as these are refurbished vehicles. As there’s no new production capability, It also means of the 148 at least 12 maybe as many as 20 will need to be kept in reserve, used for training or are in maintenance. Which again reduces the number you field for operations. Will Chally 2s be kept in reserve, as it will be in essence a different tank with the… Read more »
The first of the 148 CR3s is scheduled to be delivered in 2027 (IOC) and all of them by 2030 (FOC) – certainly a very slow programme (the Americans designed (without CAD), tested and built Saturn 5 in less time!). It is a little unfair to dismiss them as refurbished vehicles – they are being remanufactured to a much higher and more modern build standard. Assuming we maintain T56 regiments, then 112 of the 148 will be in the Field Force. We always buy more AFVs than are needed for the Field Force alone. The Delta (ie 36 tanks) comprises:… Read more »
Hi Graham, brilliant reply cheers. I thought my rant would start a good debate. From memory and insights from my cousin, who was REME and supported the Scots Greys (though can’t call them that anymore), said the logistics tail to support the Chally’s in Basra was huge. He did mention having UK Chally’s robbed for spares for the deployed ones, wheels was one of the big demands. The rubber “tyres” on the road wheels was wearing out faster than expected. I do think you hit the nail on the head though regards to crew training. It takes months for the… Read more »
Hi Davey and a great reply from you too. These politicians don’t understand the lead time to deliver and commission a sophisticated capability. Scots Greys – your cousin must be ‘mature’ as they shut up shop in 1971. Someone else has siad that Poland is definitely supplying some Leo2s so they have clealry got German Govt permission. I think we might withdraw the CR2 proposal as Leo2 would be better for the UA – for reason of ammn availability – and a percetin that Leo 2 might be a little more reliable. The last CR2 was built in 2002 –… Read more »
Hi Mate, my cousin was with the Dragoons up to 2012. When he decided (told) being WO2 he had to either go or go commissioned. So he went down the brown shoe route. He always called them the Greys, even though technically they weren’t . I think this one thing the Army gets right. After spending X number of years a a warrant, your next step is commissioned, as it gets a wealth of knowledge within the service. The RAF don’t enforce this and you can stay being a warrant for years. Which then clogs up the promotion ladder for… Read more »
Hiya Davey, I like your ‘brown shoe route’ phrase! I got fed up being called a Rupert – didn’t fit with me being a comprehensive school boy from Crawley. Of course as we know only a %age of WOs get commissioned – not sure how many though. The LE guys were great – so much experience – it made sure the G4 side ran on rails having QM a nd QM (Tech) being ex-rankers. I agree the army has it right providing a 22-year career and then saying up or out at age 40. I experienced ‘greybeard’ RAF WOs in… Read more »
Hi Deep, It remains to be seen if Boxer will be a fully acceptable alternative to upgraded Warrior as an armoured infantry wagon that can keep up with CR3 – and it must have a stabilised cannon too. I have always thought that Ajax was the wrong vehicle for armoured recce – too heavy, too expensive, too large, unproven, too big a signature, possibly not very nimble or agile. It was odd to graft on the Strike role part way through the programme too. Boxer Combat Recce Vehicle (CRV) already exists and was developed for the Australian Land 400 Phase… Read more »
We should have taken CV90 and Boxer eons ago; that cash that has been wasted is criminal.
Observation. Canada uses LAVs in Latvia, with Latvia being 50% forest, and more than one or two bogs…
And an interesting anecdote, America has deployed heel to toe air and artillery platforms to Latvia and Lithuania; have they done the same in Estonia?
Uses LAV’s where in Latvia? road network? because if you think they use in the mud…. those often do not even allow tracks.
I should correct myself, strikers.
Moat tracks have crushed stone laid… it’s the Latvian way…
Ok, but the images i saw from Ukraine – even from WW2 – mud are almost oceans of it. Ukraine is a very fertile country so the land tend to be soft.
And I don’t doubt you and share your concerns, however, will raise you one point:
How often do we see manoeuvre warfare in the Ukraine in videos?
Latvian would be torn up by armour, wheeled not so much and although I have not been to the Ukraine, it would be interesting to know what type of roads they have – roads in the UK are all metallised, Latvians have often used compressed stone?
Over 95% of Ukrainain roads are described as ‘hard’ or ‘paved’..
‘The whole network of all automobile roads (roadways) consists of some 172,400 km (107,100 mi) of which 164,100 km (102,000 mi) – have hard surface or 95.19%. The existing road network was mostly built (established) sometime in the 1960s and 1970s. For comparison, in 1940 the highway network of Ukraine consisted of 270,700 kilometers of which only 10.8% contained a paved surface’.
Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_Ukraine
…however combat generally occurs off-road.
Semantics. We have metallised or not.
Your point is?
You asked what type of roads they had in Ukraine. I answered. Don’t bother to thank me for doing the research.
My point? about combat generally occurring off-road, do you mean? I mean that ability to move along roads, depending on their construction, is only one factor relating to success in war – it relates to the ability of an army to move. Combat generally occurs in open country and ‘the going’ is as much of a factor there too ie the mud etc.
Oi! Touchy or what?
Consulting wiki is not research.
Living in the Country – yep, I’ll take it.
Your generalisation that combat normally occurs off road is not reflected in several areas… Solidar, Bakmut, Kherson to name but three.
General mud has a role to play, both sides are fighting around it.
Ukraine needs more fires to interdict orc resupply..
David, You seemed to be very interested in military forces moving on roads, and I was trying to help you with your query about what sort of roads there are in Ukraine.
Whilst some attacks occur against forces on roads most occur when forces are off the roads. That can include urban areas as well as rural areas. I am very well aware of combat in the urban areas you mention.
Manouevre warfare can be conducted in both rural and urban areas.
Agree that Ukraine needs more fires.
Graham, I shall explain, as members of the SAS, this very Ranger was told we were off to Salisbury Plain for APC training; 3 Chieftains appeared out of the morning mist and we were told to chamber… and off we set, I had wisely placed my feet on the gun to get some balance whilst sat on the cupola. Soon, I was bounced off perch, slammed my wedding tackle on the barrel managed to wrap my arms around the barrel b4 going full turtle, with an astonished driver telling me to hang on for my fecking life…. which I was… Read more »
Clamber on – auto correct.
I like the story – most of my travels in army transport were uncomfortable, especially in A Vehs. As a Reg, I had a respect for the TA (later Army Reserve (not a great fan of the name change, BTW)). I remember being on Ex Lionheart (1984) in Germany and seeing a TA RCT unit rock up in the middle of dense German woodland having driven with few breaks from the middle of Scotland – they were exhausted but cammed up and got into defensive routine very quickly. Great lads – very professional. In 2008 I was COS Camp Bastion… Read more »
You mention Abrams, not sure if it is Task and Purpose but the next generation of Abrams will field electric drive for overwatch!
Life has changed for us oldies, and I feel both you and I have been involved in some interesting times.
Electric drive! Whatever next!
Certainly have been interesting times – I am glad I did my bit in the Cold War (which we won) and again in Afghanistan (although that result was somewhat different).
So. whys doesn’t the MOD cancel Ajex and buy the BAe CV90 varients? The AJex is now overdue and out of date yet still not due the clear entry into the British Army until 2025?
Is it a case of oo many underhand deals will be needed to pacify those who will be out of pocket if this happens?
“Col Phil Ingram, a former military intelligence officer, said Ajax should be replaced with a proven design such as the Combat Vehicle 90. He said: “The programme has been a fiasco and it should now be scrapped.” 5 500 000 000£ = 70 221 800 000,00 Swedish krona! For that sum BAe could easily have assembled over 700 CV9040 in UK! “Slovakia Buys 152 CV90 Infantry Vehicles in $1.37B Deal According to the British defence firm, the CV90MkIV features advanced capabilities and is built using the latest digital technologies. They also feature the latest generation of sensors, artificial intelligence, and… Read more »