Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, requested information on the status of the FV107 Scimitar armoured vehicles this week.

The question sought clarity on how many of these vehicles were still in use and how many were awaiting disposal.

James Cartlidge, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded on May 10, providing specific details regarding the operational status of these vehicles.

“The British Army’s fleet of Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) totals 114 as at May 2024, 97 of which are FV107 Scimitar platforms,” Cartlidge explained. He further noted that, “As the Army’s entire CVR(T) active fleet has been withdrawn from service, all 114 are currently in the disposal process.”

The FV107 Scimitar, part of the CVR(T) series, was retired from active service in 2023 and is being replaced by newer Ajax vehicles.

This response confirms that none of the FV107 Scimitar vehicles remains in active service, signalling the end of their operational lifecycle within the British Army.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

147 COMMENTS

  1. Give them to Ukraine.
    Although it might be wise to retain say 50 as a light cavalry reserve force Doesn’t cost much/ anything to hold hardware in storage. Might actually prove useful if we get embroiled in a war with an expanionistic empire building Russia

    • I would agree, just donate them and the Spares to Ukraine.

      They are making very good use of the fast nimble little Simitar!

      These no point keeping obsolete gear here in the UK, the AR is no longer a hand me down force like the TA once was.

      Today AR units and individuals operate seamlessly with the regular Army, with the same equipment.

      As much as ‘we’ can see the value in retaining such equipment in reserve, the powers that be, don’t and certainly won’t.

      So off to Ukraine I say, where they will actually be employed with effect against the Orcs.

      • It’s vehicles of this nature that certainly seem to be doing quite well in Ukraine at least when used properly.

        • 👍, riding shotgun for pickup based shoot and scoot anti armour units…..

          If the Russians manage a breakthrough, then such units will be front and center again, putting the ‘manoeuvre’ into warfare….

          They will put the Scimitars to excellent use…

          • The CVRT’s have a very low ground contact pressure and as such are excellent across terrain other tracked vehicles would get bogged down in. In the Falklands the CVRT came into their own, able to traverse ground wheeled land rovers and even tractors couldn’t pass over.
            I think retaining some as a reserve hardware store would be a sensible idea, keep 50- give the rest to Ukraine. The Ukrainian military I am sure will be grateful for the 60+ additional units we will then be supplying.

      • I whole heartedly agree with your comments, it will help Ukraine against the Russian invasion. But, remember that what we British armed forces loose, will need replacing with new equipment, and spares, that will mean increasing taxes to pay for the replacements. Is everyone in agreement to pay for the additional taxation for the next say 25 years? High at first, the slowly becoming a stable rates of taxes.

      • I do worry that the UK will no longer operate such light vehicles, something armoured against small arms, with a 30mm cannon that can deal with infantry fighting vehicles…yet only weights 8-12 tons..I specifically think there should be a place for retaining the 50 scimitar mark 2 as they have specifically been fitted out for an armoured support role In stability operations and would give 16 brigade some good high mobility armoured support. That is capable of engaging the older MBTs that the brigade may find itself coming up against In stability operations. The problem we have is the replacement is essentially 40 tones and does not have the same mobility as the scimitar MR 2 and is huge ( 2.5 meters longer, a meter wider and a meter higher..as well as 30 tones heavier)

        But I agree anything that is not a Mark 2 should be handed strait to Ukraine.

    • Agreed.

      Embarrassing that small private concerns in the UK (e.g. TanksALot) are having to refurb a few from the open market and get them to Ukraine. My understanding is that that they are ideally suited to the muddy situation there. What are the British Army’s contracted, much heavier, replacement recce vehicles going to do in that sort of warfare?

  2. And have we given them to Ukraine? No. Have we kept some back for when we need them… No. The russian supporting British civil service will have scrapped them – probably abroad.

      • Yes there is the scimitar mk 2 is a 12 ton vehicle that can Ben deployed via a heavy rotor…Ajax is almost 30 tons heavier and needs strategic air lift…very different beasts…we should keep the 50 Mk2 for 16 brigade.

        • That seems very sensible. Not sure if it’ll happen. If the Warrior’s are going I imagine they’ll want to clear out all the Rarden based vehicles inventory too?

          • Warrior is going to be with us for a long time yet..out of service is not until the 2030 at the earliest..but I suspect it will be delayed further depending on the speed of boxer delivery and or what happens in Europe and the world over the next 6 years…not sure we will be disposing of anything if it comes time we end up in a long draw out peer conflict with a china, Russia, Iran, North Korea power block.

    • I couldn’t agree more. It would probably even cost less than having to despose of them in the correct PC manner everything is done these days?

  4. Ukraine for these, and anything else we are withdrawing from service if the Ukranians have a use for it. All agreed here I think.

    • On your theme, read an article/tweet the other day saying that the army had fired it’s last shells from AS90s in the UK, that the entire remaining fleet would be withdrawn and gifted to Ukraine in the next 9 months!!
      Unfortunately it’s replacement (RCH 155?) won’t be ready in that timeframe, so if true another capability gap coming to us real soon.

      • Do they take a standard NATO 155mm shell which could be supplied from other NATO compliant countries?

        • Yes I believe they take standard 155mm shells as per the majority of Western 155mm howitzers.
          Supplying Ukraine with our surplus kit is a good move for them, but, the issue is when are we getting the replacements? The 14 Archers we received late last year aren’t enough to compensate. You have to wonder what the thinking in the MOD actually is!!

          • They take the same shells but not the propellant archer and rch use modular charge bags because of the auto load system that’s not standard with the rest of nato

          • The MoD thinking seems to be twin track:

            1. Keep the politicos happy by offering up tons of kit for Ukraine.
            2. Keep the Treasury happy by selling off kit ASAP, even though the replacement kit is not in service.

        • Why the capability gap with the RCH 155? Can’t they mitigate that with some more Archer? Seems a bit bonkers going all in with wheeled RCH. Maybe they’ve got to use some of all the Boxer fleet on order? You’d think a mixed fleet with some K9 Thunder’s to back up the tank fleet would more sensible and even more survivable? I think the US and Aus are still going with tracked SPGs. I guess it’s horses for courses and no two allies are completely alike in their choices.

          • There are no more archers available..they would have to be new builds and would probably take the same timeframe…re survivable I think the RCH 155 is probably the most survivable heavy fires available…it’s armour is pretty good, but more than anything it’s the only system that can fire on the move and engage a new target while on the move…essentially it never has to stop while engaging..all other systems do..which is the point of highest risk.

          • Yes, I do remember that that was mentioned here before. Is the UK going to purchase HIMARS or just stick to the tracked? I remember seeing a Supacat type HIMARS developed ages ago. Seems like UK industry missed some opportunities there. Maybe time to bring it out again!?

          • Believe what you are referring to is LIMAWS R. It was something that was developed along with the G (Gun) version back in the early naughties, but never got accepted into service.
            I believe we should have our own wheeled version of HIMARS, based on a Supacat chassis for Light brigades. I also like the PULS version that the Dutch are buying, very versatile payloads.

          • Yes the old LIMAWS (R) programs LIMAWS(R) that was cancelled by the old Labour administration in 2008 I think…but for long range precision fires they are doubling down on MLRS…increasing the fleet to 85 and ensuring they are all upgraded…but the number deployed will remain the same I believe ( it’s got one regulator regiment with 3 batteries of MLRS 26 regiment and then the 101 regiment ( reserves, which I believe has 3 batteries of MLRS and is rerolling its last battery to MLRS as welll for 4 batteries).

          • I’m unsure. 26 RA had 3 Fire Batteries but thought I learned somewhere that it now reduced to 2 Batteries as 3 RHA converted from LG to MLRS. 3 RHA also has 2 Batteries, and 101 apparently also has 2 Batteries, unsure if they are converting more.
            So 4 plus 2.
            I expect, and so do others here when we discussed this a few weeks back, that each regular Reg may stand up a 3rd Fire Battery with the expansion underway.

          • Believe the gap with bringing RCH 155 into service is that’s it’s still a prototype, and setting to work for production will take time. Then we need to take out place in the delivery line. Germany afaik has an order for some 100+ units already on the books, so, we will come sometime after that.

      • That would be madness if true..it would leave the army with very few heavy fires at a point of very high risk of war in Europe…

        • Totally agree utter madness which ever way you look at it.
          IOC for AS90 replacement is 2027 I believe, bought forward from 2028/9 I think. If correct it will only leave us with LG units and GMLRS for several years. Not a good position to be in is it!

          • Especially when you consider the geopolitical significance of the 2027-2030 period…this is the highest risk timeframe for a major war..Russia will one way or another have ended the Ukraine war and will have probably re-armed and will be looking for its next victim, china will be deciding if it’s going to war over Taiwan..and Iran and North Korea will like jump on the back of anything china does to take advantage of the chaos… at present everything should be focused on maximising the force levels available for the 2027-2030 period..sunsetting and gapping is for the heady years of the draw down from the Cold War…not for a world in a new Cold War and heading for a known conflict point…( we were in a steadier state during the late Cold war).

          • The whole thing is absolutely barking mad next march the only tube artillery we will have is 14 archers and a hundred odd light guns scattered around various places

          • I find the actions at present more and more bizarre…the government are going full belt at “we are in a deadly world…2.5% GDP…ra ra” at the same time they are decommissioning a perfectly good frigate that was only lifexed 2 years ago and could have run on to 2028…started the process of decommissioning 75%+ of our 155mm self propelled fires…years before the replacement will be ready..and getting rid of the last scimitars MK2s..which are all very good rehulled tracked light recce…that could be vital for our quick reaction forces…16 brigade if it had to do something globally or supporting the marines in strengthing the northern flank…

            It all seems insanely bad decision making to me…it’s almost like they are talking up how vital it is to increase our nations defence capabilities..while making it more difficult to achieve that in the short term.

          • Agreed. I’d also suggest the military themselves sign off in this.
            Let’s hope they know we have some wonder weapons tucked away.
            On certain things, I suspect this is true.

      • To be honest though, in this case I don’t see much of a problem. Better Ukraine has it and puts them to good use smashing Russian forces than us having them to sit in warehouses and sheds gathering dust.

        I just hope that they get on with ordering these asap, order in decent numbers and get them delivered asap.

        • I agree, but Ukraine is in an attritional war. So once the units sent are damaged/destroyed, where are the replacements? It’s all well and good sending our assets to Ukraine. But if it’s taking over 5 years to get replacements, then both Ukraine and us could be without effective heavy artillery.

  5. Perhaps they could protest outside the Iranian embassy and tell them to stop supplying Hamas with weapons as well!
    Free Palestine,what does that mean? Iran was freed from the Shah,Afghanistan was freed from its govt,now what do we have two countries that are taking them back to the Middle Ages. Is this what free Palestine means as well?

  6. I just read another capability gap from our ultra pro-defence Government; who would have thunk it?

    Can’t be true, can it?

  7. These vehicles have 2 outstanding features: 1
    Their ‘ footprint’ is lighter than an infantryman (unlike Ajax) so they do not set off anti-personnel mines and 2: They are powered by Jaguar E-Type engines, each worth around £10,000 second hand. As a bonus, they can do 60 mph in forward or reverse over rough ground. The Ukrainians would love them.

    • They engines might be a 4.2 XK engine but it’s in a much lower state of tune. It has different piston, different camshaft and different size valves to an E Type engine. Externally it might have other differences, it doesn’t have any real value as plenty are available secondhand. The vehicles need to be in Ukraine now as you say. I did think they had been re-engined in the past to diesels? But maybe not. I did drive one of these in the 70s, it wasn’t in anger it was to dispose of them to the railway to get rid of them

  8. The Ukrainians might well take them – but only because of their desperate situation I think. I’m aware it was intended to be a reconnaissance vehicle and not a proper tank, nevertheless the old 30mm Rarden L21 cannon – with its hopelessly inadequate three round clip feed – would I suggest be a poor match if this vehicle was ever pitted against any of the many more modern autocannon armed vehicles commonly found on the battlefield today – such as the BMP 2 and its fearsomely effective 30mm weapon.

    It is a nothing less than a scandal that our soldiers were until very recently expected to go to war in this outdated vehicle.

    • Actually the scimitar always did very very well in every single theatre it was ever engaged in from the deserts of the Middle East to the boggy cold south Atlantic…it’s probably the best armour available that can be slung under a helicopter….the 30mm cannon was able to engage and destroy even MBTs…it’s a very solid platform for something that is 12 tons…it’s also very small and very quick….can go over almost all terrain and bridges…..where as a 40 ton monster cannot…..recce should be very light and very fast and very small….everything this vehicle was infact.

    • I believe (my view) that most AFVs should have a roughly 25 year service life and should be upgraded 2 or 3 times during their service life. Thus Scimitar should have left service about 1997!

      Even more bizarre, its successor should have been retired two years ago!!!

    • We have traditionally conducted ‘recce by stealth’, not ‘recce by fighting’. The Scimitar cannon is for emergency self-defence – fire a few rounds and bug out at speed. Scimitars should not ordinarily be ‘mixing it’ with IFVs who will be behind their recce screen.

  9. Rather than scrap them give them all to Ukraine end of the day we are getting rid of them makes sense to give them to Ukraine who can put them to some use.

  10. If you want stealthy reconnaissance it’s better to use a drone, if you need to fight for information you need a better AFV with a better gun and more room for surveillance equipment. Scimitar had it’s day and giving it to Ukraine would just get a lot of good people killed. A bit like giving them Saxon.

    • Just to say that Saxon was brought in as an armoured taxi to get troops to and from contact battles,it was never intended as a fighting vehicle.
      I cringed at the TV footage of Ukrainians using them as such .
      WE should not be giving them the dregs of our obsolete war stock.
      Mind you,mine had a mean BV and a leak proof roof.👍😁.

    • Drones cannot generally see under trees..that cannot stay hidden in a few bushes for many hours.. they cannot proved direct fire support…drones have a great place..they do not in any way replace light armoured reconnaissance.

        • Can they sit in a bush for 48 hours ? IR signatures can be hidden. Not taking away from drones…but on the ground recce does stuff drones cannot as drones do things only drones can do.

          • ^ Drones are a tool in a Recce commanders tool box. They do not completely replace the tool box.
            Also: Do you think you can fit a better IR camera onto a drone or a armoured vehicle? One of the scary things about trying to ambush modern armour is the sensor packages they carry means it can actually be pretty hard to hide from them.

    • It’s not our doctrine to fight for information – we have traditionally done recce by stealth = covert.
      Different story when you switch to using Ajax as a Strike asset – that will be very overt.

  11. I am not sure how or what I think about this. I do in general like the CVR (T), there size, hitting power and speed. I do wonder if the Ajax family or Boxer family are good replacements. For recon, airborne and sea borne you need something small, fast and that if need be can hit. Ajax and Boxer are not small, not easily transportable, can’t hide very well. I really do think that we the UK should look at the CVR(T) again keep the same concept, dimensions and just improve it, e.g a more modern armour, digital rather than analogue and a modern drive train.

    • I totally agree with your comment.
      Also have the problems with Ajax actually been solved, or has money changed hands and the army will have to put up with another flawed vehicle?

    • Ron, the CVRT equipped with M-SPIRE, Bowman is/was already digital, modern armour would increase size and weight beyond what the already upgraded drive train could handle.

    • Ajax will be a great platform, but it’s a very large 40 tonne vehicle..that will be limited to strategic air and sea lift, will have problems with a lot of bridges and cannot really be considered a replacement for a 12 tone recce vehicle that can be slung under a helicopter….Ajax is 2.5 meters wider, 1 meter taller, and 1 meter wider…with an extra 30 tones…it’s for combined arms work with heavy armour battle groups…what it cannot do is the same level of global deployability ..we should keep the 50 scimitars for 16 brigade.

  12. Less worried about our own stock for a possible war…when a war rages on!

    Putin’s legacy of pain and misery on his own nation needs to echo into the 22nd century with an attached message: Democracy will never lose to tyranny!

    We should send everything we’ve got that isn’t recent, as part of our own longterm security. Not scrapping it.

    • I’m wondering what vehicles we’ll actually be using next few years, with Scimitar scrapped and Warrior starting to be. The build rate of Boxers is glacial.

      • May be their could be a few afv 432s sitting around in storage 😂 be about has much use has a one legged man in an arse kicking contest .seriously though give them to ukraine government probably don’t to pay transport costs

      • Well, Warrior is to be replaced by the Boxer variant which doesn’t feature a turret so we will be loosing the ability to deploy about 800 auto canons on the front, a weapon type that has consistently proven to be one of the most effective on the modern battlefield. As well as this the 600 odd Scimitars are being replaced with just 350 turreted Ajax, so again we are loosing another 250 potential gun carriers.

        It is pretty abysmal when the attrition of even the modern types of IFV (CV-90, BMP-3 and Bradley) is high. We are going to be seriously outgunned against pretty much every other country very soon. Orders need to increase many times over, I hate to play online make believe armies but we really should be following the Germans and French by ordering around 1200 new IFV/AFV armed with automatic guns instead of naked Boxers – not that they don’t have a place of course.

        • Quite a few of us here have been saying the same or similar for a while. Hopefully the US IFV choice may have some necessary influence on the minds of those who procure equipment for the Army. The Aus have chosen the Hanwah Redback tracked IFV, not too many, I think 147, but at least it is modern and looks capable and beat the RM Lynx. Aus is also getting the Huntsman K9 Thunder. The AUKUS allies must be looking at what each other purchases.

          • How does the US IFV choice influence our procurers? Politicians, aided by HMT, have decided that we will not have an IFV for a generation at least.

          • Take one Scimitar turret and one Bulldog, one plasma cutter, a mig welder and gaffer tape for the gaps….

            Next, give it a fancy patriotic name “Project Britannias shield” perhaps, give the prototype a union flag wrap paint job, talk up it’s combat proven British technology and the all important 100% British manufacturing base

            Add the periscope from decommissioned Swiftsure and Trafalgar class boats for the recon variant….

            Put in a bill for billions, job done……

          • Easuer and cheaper than WCSP; I think the Bulldogs have Warror level armour and rhe Rarden turret is already removed. Can’t think why we didn’t think of it earlier. 🙂

  15. Donate to Ukraine cheaper than sitting in a warehouse for years. And morally right thing to do same with the warriors we getting rid of send them.all over with all the spare parts and upgrades

  16. I bet that the ingenuity of Ukraine could turn them into something more than useful so get them over there toute suite.

    • I believe the Ukrainians have been using them mainly as overwatch for mobile anti armour teams, able to put down some suppressing fire when needed and get out of dodge ‘very quickly’…

      It’s 1970’s tech and clip loaded Rardan are compensated for by it’s relatively simple mechanicals and it’s speed….

  17. Served our Army well ,so now I guess it’s time for the Ukraine. But do wish we’d wait till replacement was in place .And would it be such be a bad idea to keep some in reserve 🤔 but HMG don’t really do that. Or make a new Army reserve unite ? I’ll go for a walk 🚶🤗

  19. This useless and incompetent government and it’s equally useless and incompetent MoD continue to decimate and debase the Armed Forces and their equipment inventory. Ajax has been shown to be deeply flawed despite costing £5bn, to damage those riding in it and not to be fit for purpose. Why do we have so much incompetence in Government and the Civil Service? Why is nothing ever done properly?

  20. I would like to see the 50 scimitar mark 2s retained..as these are essentially very well designed and modern light armour for stability operations…they would be perfect for 16 brigade..providing some armour with a 30mm cannon, with armour that can manage blast frag, light Heat and small arms..that can engage old MBTs or give direct fire support and only weights in at 12 tons…remember its replacement is 30 tones heavier..2.5 meters longer, a meter wider and a meter taller…it may be an eminently better platform for a peer engagement involved heavy brigades/battle groups and combined arms in Europe..but it’s to big and heavy for quick air deployment and stability ops across the globe..after all a scimitar can be deployed via heavy lift rotor…an Ajax can only be deployed via sea lift or strategic airlift.

    so why are we getting rid of the 50 scimitar mark 2s they are only a decade old and don’t have a replacement ( the 40 ton Ajax is not a direct replacement for a 12 ton scimitar…it’s a AFV with a different paradigm even if some of the functions cross over).

    All the older scimitars should go to Ukraine.

    • Pretty sure the only ones we have are the MK2 versions.I also thought there were more then 50 or at least they had the power pack upgrade

      • hi Simon, the full Mk2 , new higher hull shaped for mine blast management, mine/shock resistant seats, better mine IED protection, upgraded protection package, EW package was only for 50….but I think you are right others may have had the power pack upgrade.

        • Yep. from what I could find all the remaining ones had a new power pack, but not the other upgrades or had only a partly upgrade

  21. Give them to Ukraine. Retain 50 in storage and use them for Army Reserve and Territorial Army training purposes.

      • Thx. So it looks as though the Ajax production line is up and running. This contrasts with Boxer. Read a recent report that the first UK manufactured Boxer module has just been delivered. UK Boxer vehicle chassis due later this year.

          • German attention to quality detail I expect: every fault in the first one will be traced back to the process which created it and fixed. So when production starts it can continue.

          • Yeah and with them retiring Scimitar, then Warrior and Bulldog; you really wonder what’s going to be used in the interim.

            It seems the delivery schedule of the Ajax variants has picked up, but not sure it’s enough to plug the gap as they are designed for recce.

          • Scimitar was retired in March 2023, yet Ajax was not available as it was still on Trials and was not available in quantity, so a number of Warriors have been used as our interim recce vehicle.

            Warrior and Bulldog have not yet been withdrawn from service, so no interim is required.

            You are correct in stating that Ajax is a recce vehicle, aka a recce/strike vehicle. It has no remit to be an interim vehicle for anything.

  24. Wait? We are getting rid of Scimiter before that financial black hole abomination of Ajax is ready!??
    Unbelievable….!!

  25. Lots of people saying they should goto Ukraine and I agree so I looked a little harder into the comments about the FV107 in parliament and did come across a question from John McDonnell just last month asking if there were any FV107s included in the PMs recently announced aid package to which the answer was yes, so someone is either lying, got their wires crossed or that removal to Ukraine is to be considered as part of the disposal process.

      • James Cartlidge said that the FV107s were being disposed of yet the PM announced that at least some were going to Ukraine so one could be lying (they are Tories after all), wires could have been crossed or most likely the so called disposal process including getting rid of some to Ukraine, it’s all in that last sentence.

        • No, I’m still not following you. A good number of FV107 Scimtars are being disposed of by gifting them to Ukraine.

          Disposal means taking them out of active service and off UK MOD books and removed from MoD premises and with ownership transferred.

          We dispose of kit declared Obsolete by gifting, sale or scrapping (the last resort).

          No-one is lying.

          • I’m not sure what you don’t get, I haven’t said anyone was lying at any point. Given the last two times that the FV107s were bought up in parliament over just this last month or so and looking at the statements given, out of the three possibly scenarios you literally repeated what I said was likely going to happen, the removal to Ukraine as part of the disposal process but neither statement given said it explicitly hence why so many of the people posting here are asking for them to be sent rather than be sold or scrapped. If it was the latter (unlikely), that would make the PM a liar as he said they or some were going to Ukraine and the second statement just said they were being disposed of, rather than state some would be gifted which I assume is what the MP whose question it was wanted to hear, it’s not like it’s a secret so couldn’t be told. Clear now?

          • OK. Disposal of equipment does not necessarily mean scrapping it – that is one of three options. The other 2 are gifting or selling the kit.

  27. The cvrt is a combat proven platform that should be used by reserve forces,the UK shouldn’t make the mistake like they did with Harriers HMS Ocean and HMS Invincible (?) Keep at least half of them or donate them to Ireland Defense Force Ukraine Estonia or New Zealand Defense Forces either way it’s still can be put to use.

    • Irish Defence Force decommissioned theirs 7 years ago from the Army. They are looking at several purchasing options for this ability currently.

  28. Good to see this thread being mentioned on ATP GEOPOLITICS’ YouTube site yesterday, and the media in general increasingly quoting UK DEFNCE JOURNAL.

    Well done George and the team at UKDJ.

  29. Cut my teeth on these Brill machines when they first entered service. They served well in Germany and I will always respect their abilities. Pity the bean crunchers and tactically inept have decided on their demise. (Ex R.E.M.E artisan)

  30. If they had just refurbished them, with a new fan drive, better gearbox, power trav and a stabiliser it would have been a lot better than binning them.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here