Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, recently directed an inquiry towards the Ministry of Defence concerning the status of the Warrior infantry fighting vehicles.
Despite a land war in Europe and previous plans to modernise the fleet, over 80 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles are scheduled for disposal next year, with the remainder set to be scrapped by the middle of the end of the decade.
On 25 April 2024, Lewis inquired about the number of these vehicles currently held by the armed forces and those earmarked for disposal.
James Cartlidge MP, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded to the query on 10 May, offering detailed numbers and future plans.
“There are currently 632 Warrior platforms held by the Armed Forces. 80 platforms are awaiting disposal, with nine more platforms due a decision for disposal during the financial year 2024-25,” Cartlidge stated. He also noted that this aligns with “planned fleet reductions laid out within the Integrated Review 2021.”
It’s pertinent to note the historical efforts made towards modernising these platforms. The British Army had initiated the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) to upgrade 380 Warriors with enhancements such as the Warrior Modular Protection System (WMPS) and Warrior Enhanced Electronic Architecture (WEEA). The programme aimed to equip 245 vehicles with a new turret and weapon system under the Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Programme (WFLIP), extending the service life of the vehicles to 2040.
However, despite these ambitious plans, the WCSP faced numerous challenges including budget constraints and delays. By March 2020, the programme was still in the “demonstration phase” with over £430 million spent and no set in-service date.
In March 2021, the Ministry of Defence ultimately announced the cancellation of the WCSP, deciding instead to replace the Warrior vehicles with the Boxer armoured fighting vehicles by the middle of the decade.
Simple answer is to stop scrapping kit based on a 2021 plan. Store and carry out the upgrades already planned and issue to an enlarged reserve force. 2022 happened ! And reserve forces became fairly important.
Surely they can’t be that expensive to keep in good shape so they can be modenised? They’re built for hardcore combat so they shouldn’t start falling appart just sitting in even something as simple as a shed.
If you just whack a power supply in them they can at least be moble command units for guys with laptops and comms equipment and give them some mobility and protection.
Remember the people scraping these vehicles don’t care about the Ukraine War and the need to stop and think. Putin now has the mandate from the country to do what is necessary to win and we fail to grasp just how hideous the situation has become. The UK need every armoured vehicle it has either to donate to Ukraine or retain for British forces. This current Warrior disposal plan is plain crazy but it will take Putin’s next move to stop the rot and I fear we won’t need to wait too long.
And they want to replace all the Warrior’s with wheeled Boxers only. I can’t see tyres vehicles lasting that long in a full on fight. They should be having a sensible mix of both.
I doubt many sensible people in the army want to replace tracked IFVs with cannons, by wheeled Boxer APCs with just a MG – in the armoured brigades. But high-ranking politicians and Treasury bods rule the roost in that decision.
Our Infantry has always had a mix of vehicles: armoured & tracked (FV432 then Warrior) for the armoured brigades; armoured and wheeled (for medium-weight warfighting brigades and IS); PM vehicles (for COIN); soft-skinned TCVs for admin runs and zero/low threat environments.
The people scrapping these vehicles are owned by the kremlin, they are failing to deliver the promised aid to Ukraine, they got rid of Boris, they are bullshitting us while russia wins
Maurice, did you not know that Warrior IFV is being retired because it is being replaced by Boxer APC?
Having said that, I agree that it is avery bad time to dispose of lots of capable equipment, that still has life in it and could be upgraded.
Our Reserve forces need capable offensive combat equipment.
Peter, No-one is saying that the 80 x WR about to be ‘let go’ are not in good shape – they may be in fine fettle.
They are not being disposed of because they are in bad shape – they, together with many hundred more WRs ie the entire fleet – are being disposed of because WR IFV is being retired and replaced by Boxer APC.
I would say that all hope isn’t lost, the next government will have a defence review next year.
They could ‘possibly’ overturn this decision..
I wouldn’t hold my breath mind you!
Warriors are being disposed of (by gifting, sale or scrapping) because they are being superseded by Boxer. This is SOP – old kit out, new replacement kit in. I don’t think we have ever stored kit declared Obsolete before – but there is a first time for everything. If the decision to retire Warrior was overturned by a new Labour givernment, I would hope that the upgrade plan would be reinstated (WCSP) as Warrior has been very little upgraded over the years – here I am not holding my breath. It would of course mean that the Boxer programme would… Read more »
Morning Graham, you’re quite right, Warrior is dead in the water and on the way out.
I think the very best we can hope for now is a cannon on at least some of the Boxers.
We may as well send all the Warriors to Ukraine, they will put them to good use.
Agreed. We can’t expect a cannon on the first 85 Boxer section carriers as Kongsberg RS4 RWS has been ordered for Tranche 1, which only takes a MG, GMG or AT weapon.
Here hoping other Boxers will have that essential cannon, but I bet it won’t be a stabilised 40mm job as was ordered for Warrior upgrade.
I would have hoped that stabilised is a given these days mate….
Not a lot of use if you have to stop under fire and become a big fat easy target!
Very few stabilised cannons on IFVs in the western world – I can only think of the ASCOD (Ulan/Pizarro) at the moment.
If you don’t have stab you would not necessarily stop in the advance, you could fire on the move with reduced accuracy.
Yep, no one wants to be on the other end of 30mm fire, stab or not. But It is still important because it reduces ammo wasted, meaning less things to replenish logistic wise as quickly, better attrition and less likeliness of being knocked out as you’re more likely to knock out whatever was deemed a threat to begin with.
Fully agree that stab is better than non-stab. But if you don’t have it, you would not refrain from firing your cannon on the move.
Same as small arms fire – sometimes you fire at a clump of bushes or edge of a woodline even if you cannot see a target – it is suppressive fire.
t-55s are considered obsolete but the Russians have reactivated these platforms as fire support, its not stupid to store obsolete equipment. It is stupid to have no equipment to fall back on. How quickly could boxer be delivered or replenished in a war time economy? A pretty long time I’d wager which doesn’t work out for attrition.
It certainly is not stupid to keep Obsolete equipment if you think that your forces would be combat ineffective in a short time in an existential war.
You need to have political will to do it, masses of very high quality storage space with CHE, and buy-in from the Treasury as this is not a cheap undertaking. None of those is in place.
We would never store 1950s origin equipment though – but going back one generation is a sound idea.
An interesting idea. Prepare to do battle with high-powered politicians in Government and the Treasury! They are often harder to fight and win against than the enemy in the field.
Lots of hoops to go through to achieve this, but I agree that our Reserve forces need some highly capable offensive combat equipment…we need strength in depth and the ability to conduct warfighting against a peer opponent for more than a few weeks.
Like the idea but there have been cuts to man training days and there is a lot of time needed to learn to operate it and maintain it.
Not sure how the US National Guard make it happen. Lot’s of full timers I guess
Bang on!
To be fair for that price to upgrade warrior and only get 245 vehicles the army was right to cancel it. Just a shame a more practical solution wasn’t found but if they get donated to Ukraine then some good came out of this I suppose.
With the supposed uplift announcement by both labour and conservatives you’d hope some Ajax ifvs will be announced pretty soon.
245 turreted WR IFVs would have got the full upgrade (turret, armour, electronics) and 135 non-turreted WRs (ie variants) would have got the armour and electronics upgrade. Total 380 vehicles. The total programme was about £1bn, so £2.6m per vehicle on average for an excellent upgrade. Cancelled over 2 years ago. Instead we are spending well over £5m a copy to get Boxer APCs for our Infantry – with reduced mobility (wheels rather than tracks) and no 40mm stabilised cannons, just a MG. Ajax IFVs?? No such thing. Ajax is a recce vehicle. No-one is funding or developing an IFV… Read more »
Well said Graham. We can still live in hope for some tracked IFV separate to Boxer. The people at the top seriously can’t be that stupid can they?
Quentin, I am really not sure why you say that. The MoD clearly announced in March 2021 that Warrior upgrade was cancelled, that Warrior would continue for a few more years unmodified and would then be replaced by Boxer. That is the end of IFVs for at least a generation until Boxer is itself phased out. It is totally mad – Boxer is entirely the wrong vehicle for the Infantry in the armoured brigades. It is not the vehicle the army wanted for the armoured brigades. But this is all about politics and economics. Fair to say the army staff… Read more »
I think Ajax can be converted into a IFV.
No – it can’t. I’ve spent a lot of time on Ajax and the turret bustle is huge, it’s only got space for one extra pax in the back . Originally intended for an interpreter ( Terp) to reflect the wars we were involved in then but now as currently planned for a single operator of a UAV – drone.
An ARES with an unmanned turret is the best idea, less all of the internal racking of course.
Ian, are you serious? This is to create an IFV?
ARES takes 4 dismounts plus 2 crew, well short of an Infantry section of 8 men plus a 2-man crew to drive the wagon to a Zulu Muster etc. What weapon would you put in that unmanned turret – a stabilised 40mm cannon?
Kind of Graham, a load of space inside is taken up with racking for mission stores, the Tac Commander is unnecessary and, if push came to shove, it’s not outside the bounds of possibility to extend the hull by one road wheels length. As for weaponry, I think the CT40, with it’s very small recoil length and relatively miniscule turret volume plus the AHS would lend itself to remote operation. Just the musings of an interested party.
😎
If you’re extending the vehicle why not just buy ASCOD.
Absolutely agree👍
The Tac Commander is unnecessary? That is the section commander who dismounts to command his 8-man section, right?
Get rid of mission stores? How do you then do the mission?
Spend a fortune extending the hull and adding another road wheel?
I am really not sold on this!
Why not just buy an already sorted and much cheaper MOTS IFV.
I agree, ASCOD or CV 90. As I said above, just musings. A sensible purchaser would buy MOTS.
German Puma IFV (Marder replacement) is good too. It is now receiving its first upgrade, just 6-7 years after ISD – that is the way to do things…and was how we used to do things.
Puma has had a few hiccups in the last year but is modern, fast and well armoured. Let’s play fantasy fleet and buy 300😃
True. There have been reliability problems. The Germans are good engineers – they will sort it.
I’ve had German cars for decades👍
If Ares takes only 4 dismounts it is because tactics, or some other explanation like a large missile storage.
The volume difference between an Ares and a CV90 is not significant.
Have you been inside an Ares Alex?
ARES only takes 4 dismounts because that is what the Staff Requirement stated was needed. It carries small specialist teams requiring armour protection in transit to/from their task site. It replaces the CVR(T) SPARTAN which also took only a small number of ‘passengers’.
Any comparison to a CV90 IFV that is designed to carry a rifle section is somewhat meaningless.
Maybe can it have different turret?
Alex, How? MoD has paid GDUK £billions to take an IFV (ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro) and turn it into 3-man recce vehicle. If MoD were to change their mind and to reinstate an IFV capability for the 5 Infantry battalions in the armoured brigades, (and Treasury is going to stump up some more £billions) there are several options: a. resurrect the Warrior upgrade programme (WCSP) b. Buy CV90 c. Buy some other very modern MOTS IFV (eg. German Puma which has already received its first upgrade some 7 years after ISD). I am not going into the pros and cons of each… Read more »
In volume i don’t see Ajax small compared to a CV90 for example.
In terms of external dimensions, Ajax is actually the bigger vehicle by quite a large margin – L7.62m x W3.35m x H 3.00m. CV90 IFV is L6.8m x W3.2m x H2.8m. But so what? Ajax is configured internally as a 3-man recce vehicle. CV90 is an IFV and is configured internally to carry an Infantry section. Different roles so different internal layout. Ajax is not a suitable base vehicle to adapt to be an IFV. The Ajax design started from an IFV design. If you want a very roughly Ajax-like IFV, then buy an ASCOD2 Ulan/Pizarro IFV…. or buy another… Read more »
So Graham, there must be some argument way above my pay grade to justify the numbers you quote; £5m for a Boxer vs £2.6m for an upgraded Warrior.. I wonder have we signed in blood for Boxer contract with a ‘no Warrior upgrade’ clause?
You just get the impression it’s far more about business and jobs than what’s actually required to fight a war. I suspect to get even this deal to build them here there simply wasn’t room for a Warrior upgrade be it cost and/or numbers equation so went with what they deemed the longer term build solution with some capacity for design input for certain derivatives ie mortar and Brimstone etc. considering how effective give the Bradley’s are being in Ukraine it has to at least be arguable if this eggs in one basket solution makes sense away from factory/jobs based… Read more »
I think you have it right. We have decided to recapitalise the army vehicles with a limited portfolio of new types: Boxer, Ajax and the new protected mobility vehicle and the budget is spent. Give or take a few ‘Supacat’ style exceptions this explains the program to get rid of all other army vehicles. The only way Warrior upgrade could be resurrected would be as a result of a labour govt defence review and more money. As regards the record of the recent conservative years in office I think its a case of we are where we are. What with… Read more »
Warrior upgrade could only be resurrected if a programme was cut ie Boxer.
I would like to see more detail on that. I imagine there exists somewhere in the MOD a spreadsheet of army vehicle numbers by type – current and future by date. Boxer is replacing more vehicles than just Warrior.
In the public domain is a spreadsheet showing current holdings of all MoD equipment for the 3 services, on the active list. I can send a link. It was last updated sometime last year. Spreadsheet of future equipments and numbers? I have never seen one. I am sure MoD would cite security classification. True that Boxer is replacing more than Warrior. It was never meant to replace Warrior at all prior to the unexpected March 2021 announcement that it would. Going way back when UK originally joined the Boxer programme (but later left), Boxer MRAV (later MIV) was going to… Read more »
So, my understanding is that the army is working hard to simulate how it might be possible to fight in such a way that a combination of Ajax, Boxer variants and Apache make the IFV redundant. If this exercise does not demonstrate satisfactory outcomes then the issue of replacing Warrior with an IFV will have to be addressed: re-instate WCSP or hold a beauty contest for a new IFV.
Thanks Paul for this info – I had not heard it before. I can see snags. This sees Ajax in its Strike role, rather than its Recce role. They would have to be detached from 1DSR Bde and there would be fewer to work with and cue the artillery in that brigade. Apache is only available in small numbers so there may not be enough to support each of the 5 Boxer battalions. It is a very expensive and scarce platform to be doing this job. How much flying time could it give to the Infantry in the Advance and… Read more »
MoD spreadsheet of equipment holdings in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-equipment-and-formations-2023/uk-armed-forces-equipment-and-formations-2023
Thx
Your get no arguments from me especially the last point but in that time, forgetting about party politics, what were the higher ups in the army/MOD doing? It would appear the rot is more severe, extending down into not just the army but all the services.
IR Refresh 23 and associated DCP Refresh 23 are post-war. ie they were meant totake into account lessons from the Russo-Ukraine war. I doubt it did so, as no expansion of our forces (manpower and equipment) was proposed
Ask General Sir Nick Carter. Boxer now as No1 priority with WCSP is his baby. WCSP, Ajax and CH3 should have been completed, incrementaly, before Boxer, which was MIV due to happen in 2027 after the other 3 had happened. The Army is all over the place and needs to decide what it wants to be and stick to it. Ultimately, a large slice of the blame for this mess sits with Labour from early to mid 2000s when the warfighting side of the army withered as we fought 2 wars of choice in COIN scenarios. No armoured vehicle or… Read more »
So, I agree it would be good not to be starting from here but we are. How the US ( Bush and Blair) reacted to the 9/11 attacks, did determine defence operations and army equipment spend for a long time. Trump did the deal that pulled the US out of Afghanistan and Biden implemented it. The period of COIN ( forever wars) is finished and we are getting rid of the inventory of army vehicles that were procured for that role. As you point out, Boxer has leapfrogged over CR3, WCSP etc. The reason I suspect is that the situation… Read more »
I would not call the CR3 programme a minimum upgrade!
The WCSP programme was very good VfM when looked at stand-alone. Just £2.6m per vehicle to upgrade each Warrior comprehensively and effectively.
I was a bit unclear there. By minimum I was referring to the number of tanks being converted to CR3, not the character of the upgrade.
Ah, OK. Thanks
True but puzzling. UOR procurements and operational costs for the Iraq and Afghan wars was borne by the Treasury, not the MoD. So why did the MoD budget for core equipment procurement and upgrade not get spent on those areas?
Either way, the money saved Vs upgrading warrior surely knocks a million or two off boxer?
Maybe, but the time frame must enter into the financial equation. Not sure the MOD does depreciation calculations but it must do cost of ownership. Over a longer time frame large numbers of a single new type will win out over smaller numbers of smaller older fleets. I assume the MOD has learned something from the T23 lifex experience:-)
MoD saved about £800m in cancelling the Warrior upgrade production contract, but would have had to pay cancellation charges and lawyers fees.
£430m had been spent on the design, development and testing up to the point of cancellation.
Another way of looking at it is that MoD spent £430m without getting a single upgraded Warrior vehicle.
Paul, welcome to the wonderful world of AFV procurement. It is all about politics and money and trying to get UK jobs – it is only a bit about what the army actually wants/needs. No procurement option for AFVs is inexpensive – most are not even good VfM. For example, the MoD final Business Case of 9th Sep 2019 was for procurement of Tranche 1 (Tr1) of 508 Boxers at £1.2bn. Incredibly MoD signed a contract with ARTEC barely 2 months later for 523 vehicles for £2.3bn. How did the unit price go up so much in 2 months? I… Read more »
Morning Graham, helpful context. It’s unclear where we go from here without more money and more industrial capacity. A foreign buy of a new IFV is an appealing solution. I can understand the temptation to buy CV90 etc. But there’s an IVF version of ASCOD so it ought to be possible to make an IVF version of Ajax, no?
No money now for an IFV. So all talk is academic. ASCOD2 is an IFV called Ulan (in Austria) or Pizarro in Spain. Much easier to buy that – a well-engineered, readily available IFV – than fiddle about massively with Ajax to create one. But…no money.
I’m guessing the army punched the numbers and the cost of upgrading warrior far exceeded the return, £1 billion for a few hundred vehicles is a poor show really and for a vehicle pushing +30 years would’ve been crazy to see it through. The only regret for me was the spend before deciding to cancel should’ve been done a decade earlier but as they was deep in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time the army was far too distracted financially for upgrades. The point being with a possible Ajax ifv (hypothetical) a turreted Athena I believe is you get to… Read more »
Turreted Athena or turreted Ares?
ATHENA is an ARES but with a slightly raised roof. ARES with an unmanned turret is the way ahead.
Isn’t the turret on Ajax the Kongsberg RT60?
Rheinmetal Lynx derivative
The army wanted upgraded Warrior (a very well-spec’d IFV with 40mm stabilised cannon, digitisation and better armour) to replace in-service Warrior (a much-loved and impressive IFV) but the wrong contractor was selected as the Prime and the programme was very poorly run by MoD and the contractor. Cancellation was clearly a political and financial decision rather than one made freely by the Army Staff. No sensible member of the Army Staff would want a wheeled APC with a mere MG to replace a modernised tracked IFV with a 40mm stabilised cannon, in the armoured brigades – Boxer is the wrong… Read more »
The MoD and the Treasury have decided that the army is not going to have an IFV, so why waste any time discussing options?
Have not MoD & Treasury just decided we won’t bother with a viable Army!
It often looks that way.
We cannot currently deploy a digitised warfighting division with three manouevre brigades (each including Infantry), and with sufficient artillery and with modern equipment throughout.
We cannot deploy a Brigade group on enduring operations (such as HERRICK, TELIC) without assistance from the Army Reserve and/or RM.
We have insufficient war stocks of everything (probably).
We should look to keep a couple of hundred that are in the best material state as a reserve force/ 2nd tier armoured reserve and then give the rest to Ukraine. Remove all sensitive hardware first so the orcs dont get anything out of them should they fall into the Russian fascist state hands.
Replace warrior with the boxer 8×8 heavy combat turret option- 40mm revolver type gun capable of anti helicopter and anti drone function as well as IFV role
The Boxer for Tranche 1 (Qty 523) has a Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 RWS, which can only take a MG, GMG or AT system.
Hi Graham,
Kongsberg have a RS6 version which can carry a low recoil 30mm cannon. There is a hint that it can carry a coaxial 7.62mm and a Hellfire AGM as well.
Cheers CR
Hi CR, Yes I know. But we have ordered RS4 so far for Tranche 1. Who knows if the section carriers in Tr2 will get RS4 too or the RS6.
That low recoil 30mm will probably not be stabilised. Upgraded Warrior with stab 40mm would have been so much better.
May be the RS6 could be an upgrade, as I suspect tranche 2 will get the RS4 as I bet it is the cheaper option!
As for the Warrior upgrade – yup shouldn’t have been cut, or rather it should have been managed better. I believe the Warrior still had (has) potential usefulness and there is a need for a heavy IFV that can keep up with the tanks over rough ground and provide adequate support to the dismounted infantry…
Cheers CR
There comes a point when the cheapest solution is NOT the one that should be selected! To leave our Infantry in the armoured brigades without the intimate cannon support (one per 8-man rifle section) that they have enjoyed for the last 37 years verges on the criminal. Boxer with just an MG can do nothing against the opposition’s BMP series, not even the mid-60s era BMP-1. Very much the Warrior has potential usefulness, which was why the upgrade (WCSP) was conceived. Upgraded Warrior could probably have soldiered on to 2040. We have had an IFV for 37 years. The armoured… Read more »
Let’s hope they can easily engage and tear along in reverse gear then.
Yes, totally, if Ukraine can use them and the UK doesn’t want them.
Like your 40mm Boxer type. I think the Kongsberg RWS can go right up to 50mm.
The biggest calibre weapon that Kongsberg PROTECTOR RS4 can have is 12.7mm. It is a light RWS system. Not weighting even 200kg.
All ideas for the ordered Boxers to have canons are not realistic.
Yes the 12.5mm on the RS4 and the RS6 with the 30mm. I had thought I had read something from Nicholas Hammond that there was a larger 50mm mount but I think it must be a different turret mount, maybe the one for the new US IFV. Not saying all Boxers to have cannons but maybe a fair portion of them pending on their role.
Maybe 30mm for the Marines ACV?
Sorry Alex, it was from Nicholas Drummond (not Hammond) article here: https://uklandpower.com/2023/09/05/can-boxer-repace-warrior-as-an-ifv/
It’s regarding the US OM RM Lynx IFV Bradley replacement. Hope you can access this.
My reply with a linkage has disappeared into the never land. Reposted here. See Bradley replacement IFV with 50mm pm turret. https://uklandpower.com/2023/09/05/can-boxer-repace-warrior-as-an-ifv/
Two of my replies i think are requiring approval maybe due to linkage at Nicholas Drummond, UK Land Power, Boxer as IFV article.
In my view all Boxer section carriers should have cannons, (preferably 40mm stabilised cannons), so as to achieve IFV status and capability – and to actually do the job required of Infantry in the armoured brigades.
However Tr1 Boxer section carriers will have just a MG in the RS4 RWS. Totally hopeless. No more firepower than 432 and Saracen had, wagons that were first fielded in the 1960s and 1950s. A real step back.
Strictly that’s true I guess ‘as ordered’ but there are other options surely. ‘The PROTECTOR family includes the RS4 and RS6 Remote Weapon Stations, – with weapons from light machine guns (5.56mm) to light cannons (30mmx113mm). It also includes the Remote Turrets, – designed for medium caliber cannons like 30mmx173mm and 40mmx180mm’ I notice on their website they have something pretty hefty mounted on a Piranha vehicle. Think we need to start thinking more seriously about what we are mounting on our Boxers if we want them to fight more than pose in parades or sound superficially good to the… Read more »
Without an APS with anti drone or and an anti drone capable RWS a Boxer will be a potential coffin. Issue not specific to the Boxer , this is true to any vehicle now.
As things stand i don’t consider a gun in Boxer a priority, the priority should the RWS being able to fire to drones almost vertically with 12.7 and an APS which it seems only Ironfist is viable.
Alex, I am shocked. You do know what the infantry in an armoured brigade does, right?
You are focussing on defensive counter-measures, not on the offensive role required of Boxer.
Yes, we need to shoot down or disable drones before they release their weaponry. The British Army is addressing that in a comprehensive programme of multiple projects.
First you need to make sure they arrive to the battlefield.
Hence the MoD’s anti-drone Project. Elements include: the SmartShooter SMASH Smart Weapon Sight Fire Control System and possibly DeragonFire (in time). Janes did an on-line report in November:”The UK plans to field a LandGround-Based Air Defence (GBAD) counter-small unmanned aircraft system (C-sUAS) capability starting in December 2023, Squadron Leader Hugo Piers Morris, senior officer 2 (SO2) counter-small uncrewed air systems, Project 6 lead, joint effects, in the British Army Programmes Directorate, said on the first day of SAE Media Group’s Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability (FAVS) 2023 conference being held in London from 13 to 15 November. The capability will consist… Read more »
We should have thought what to mount on Boxers many, many years ago ie before ordering any. We have now ordered 623 vehicles.
ok so lets get the full IFV version of the Ajax, the Spanish use them and reportedly like them. We just need something armoured, modern, reliable and able to fullfil the IFV role, ideally with an APS fitted and anti-drone/ anti-helo capabilities as a RWS mounting/ full turret.
In fact all our armoured vehicles entering a conflict zone now need to have an APS fitted. War in Ukraine has proven this beyond any doubt.
RS4 has been ordered for Infantry section carriers in Tranche 1 – 85 of 523 vehs. Maybe RS6 or something else (ie a turret) that can take a 25-40mm cannon will be ordered for Tr2 or subsequent tranches?
Certainnly the Army staff was tasked over a year ago (March 2023?) to look at incereasing lethality for the Boxer fleet. Why have we not yet heard what they decided?
You would hope that we can leverage the CTA 40mm to make the Boxer into an IFV, tracked or not. Having the same turret as the Ajax will save money, and it is UK designed and made for once (jointly with France).
Hopefully we do not chicken out and use some 30mm recommended by Germany.
Weight of a manned turret added to such a high vehicle as boxer seems the issue, hence why other militaries are buying tracked. The bigger the vehicle the thinner the armour vs small ans comlact and all modern IFVs are being fielded with APS.
A wheeled Boxer with a hashed up turret and no APS being used as an IFV would be criminal IMO and could be fixed by ordering something OTS.
Now that they are finally upgrading the “Defence Storage” capability of Ashchurch, it does seem criminal to dispose of these vehicles, when they could be serviced and put into preservation and storage
The Ashchurch upgrade is several decades overdue. I think it just provides better hangars (some/most with CHE) than went before to store the active (in-service) Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve vehicles. I doubt they will have built extra hangers in addition, to store equipment that has been formally declared ‘Obsolete’ for use in WW3. Ashchurch is a very small site with limited acreage. We used to have a lot of vehicle depots dotted all around the country – and came down to just 2, maybe in the 60s or 70s – Ashchurch was for B Vehs and Ludgershall was for… Read more »
A review in 2021 which did NOT have russia invading Ukraine, isnt it time to understand that the landscape has changed and that those vehicles are required? FFKS the civil service is so pro russia it is unbelievable, they havent in 2 years even manged to give 30% of the promised aid to Ukraine.
One might have thought some urgency and vision just might have entered the equation but until the enemy is at the door that seldom happens here, the modern seemingly contrary words and actions just seem to reflect the opening sequence to Dads Army, with those arrows backing off to this side of the channel and feigning threats from behind from what they see as the safety of the white cliffs of Dover.
Yes, sadly though with an air force as weak as ours now is, a navy which is basically not enough to defend the serpentine even if both carriers were functional at the same time we will be overrun before captain manering has received his trousers
We embarked on rearmament work in 1934, and were just ready from WW2 in Sep 1939. That was in the days of quite simple kit! So we would need 10 years now to properly prepare for General War.
That why we had the 2023 reviews – the IR Refresh 23 and the associated DCP Refresh 23.
Trouble is that the Refresh work did not recommend increasing the size of our armed forces in manpower or equipment terms. Unbelievable.
It never does, its all about spending less and less on something useful so they can spend more and more on diversity managers etc etc and pay rises for MPs and civil servants while (conveniently) leaving us defenceless for their paymasters in the kremlin
The main reason for upgrading Warrior was the unstabilised, manually reloaded Rarden cannon. As BAE warned, the CTA40 needed a new turret and the problems began. The main aim was to produce fire on the move capability. This could have been done with the AEI designed low recoil Viper cannon, a development of Rarden with automatic ammunition feed. Another UK firm offered a cheap stabilisation system. It would still be possible to upgrade some of the remaining fleet, giving us a tracked alternative to Boxer. Or, since we have opted for an APC over an IFV, keep the remaining Warriors… Read more »
Good points…. if only somebody had some sense in the MoD…
This is madness. We need a “strategic reserve” mind-set. So even if we don’t upgrade Warrior, then at least they are in storage somewhere for when the whatsit hits the fan.
Many of those in the know say that the installation of CTAS40 in the new turret of the upgraded Warrior prototype was going well with many issues having been ironed out.
How is a Warrior APC (with MG only) better than a Warrior with a 30mm RARDEN cannon or a Boxer with ony a MG?
But from your description that would have meant the UK civil service spending UK tax payers money on UK produced goods,that won’t happen until we have a political party willing to disband the civil service
I’ll never understand why they couldn’t use the same turret as Ajax.
At 6 tonnes and with a 1.7m turret ring it’s far too large and heavy with a huge intrusion into the hull. A Cockerill style unmanned turret would be a better solution.
I hadn’t thought of that. Perhaps because the LM turret looked so much bigger than the original.
So, do we have a customer in mind for the 80 we are disposing of in the coming year? Are they being sold as is or are they being upgraded?
You’d hope they head to Ukraine, but haven’t heard that.
That’s what I would of thought , has Ukraine will just about use anything on the Battlefield .
I hope we gift them to Ukraine – they like our old kit.
The upgrade project (WCSP) was cancelled over 3 years ago. Anyway, why would we upgrade kit then immediately dispose of it?
Agreed. Ukraine is where the shooting is happening!
Surely these vehicles are better kept moth balled just incase of any pending conflict. To me getting rid of a tool then going in back and wishing you hadn’t when you needed it because the new tool hasn’t turned up or isn’t fully operational yet seems crazy? And what if you run out of new tools? At least the old tool is there to fall back on.. by keeping the old tool in your toolbox isn’t eating any meat so why get rid when it still can serve a purpose?? Just a waste of taxpayers money in my eyes… and… Read more »
They kept the fv430 series of vehicles for bloody years and they had done their job ,to a point upgrade all the warriors, so many per year but looking at the Ukraine war ,the things that you could do with this kit is unbelievable and upgraded into eg mortar carrier,mini version of the gephard 35mm maybe 30mm twin cannons ,open up Mr putins tanks and leave them like cheese graters full of holes or 20mm old variant phalanx gun,the list is endless ,having insight 😉
The only reason we ran on the FV430s was because a mean Treasury did not fund full replacement of the series by Warrior back in the late-80s.
It was a nightmare – 432 Ambulances and Mortar carriers in an infantry battalion struggling to keep up with the Warriors. An extra equipment type for REME to support. Mounting maintenance costs on a very old vehicle. FV430s still in service after over 60 years – it’s a joke – can you imagine the RN and RAF putting up with running on 60-year-old ships, submarines and aircraft?
The navy used to, indeed Hermes went to the Falklands when she was already one of the older ships around, but the yanks sent old battleships from ww2 out to the gulf and used them to fire cruise missilez
Fun thing with how our minds play with time:
The “Old Battleships” that went to the gulf where only 48 years old when they left service. Hermes was only 30 years old. Meanwhile FV432 has just celebrated it’s 61st birthday this year.
And I have a number of functional vehicles in my garage older, its not like you cant replace broken bits or even replace whole drive trains if needed with more modern ones, they were doing that with routemasters most of their lives and indeed TfL were running them on service until 2021 and they are now coming back again with another company. Frankly we need everything we can get our hands on and everyone who will serve regardless of age because stopping russia in Ukraine will not happen given pro russian republicans
How many of those vehicles in your garage would you want to bet your life on? There’s a difference between a classic car that’s someones passion project and a battlefield vehicle that needs to work reliably off road and provide protection against modern weapon systems.
Also having worked with 432s I can tell you the amount of time taken up keeping a 60+year old vehicle running is ludicrous.
I would rather turn up in my old car than on a pushbike, especially if I have a lot of kit to carry with me. And actually I dont find it does take that much to keep an old car going, yes its more than keeping a new one going but if it stops the route to fixing it is quicker and easier.
Cool well done for trying to ignore the point and then conceding to it.
Dave, thanks for the single RN example of a 22 year old ship going to war! HMS Hermes (R12) was commissioned on 25 November 1959.
Away from joshing…Of course her keel had been laid down on 21 Jun 44 but WW2 and post-war austerity delayed her build and launch was not until 16 Feb 53, she was then fitted out.
However in the army we are talking about entire fleets of battle winning equipment being very old. The youngest A Vehs are the 20-year-old Titan and Trojan, which are niche, specialist equipment. Every other A veh is 30/40/50/60 years old.
Yes, they are all ancient, probably better than nothing but the UK needs to up its defence spending to around 20% of GDP for the next few years to get back to something sensible, after all we have also just been told we dont have any air defence capability left thats worth the effort. We have for too long failed to spend and it is going to take an awful lot to get us to a point where we pose a real thorn for russia so they dont attack. Relying on the USA is clearly out of the question, months… Read more »
It’s sad to hear the phrase its ‘better than nothing’ about our defence equipment, but it is true about much of the army’s vehicles and artillery. A very small army needs superlative equipment to offset lack of mass and make a difference. I agree too that much of our defence industry has atrophied. We had 5 proud independent British owned AFV manufacturers at the start of my military service. BAE has now to be helped by a German company, Rheinmetall, to modernise our tanks. A US (parent) company is making Ajax. We buy second-hand artillery (Archer) made in Sweden. It… Read more »
Absolutely, but this has been a deliberate government policy, and as we know government policy is very largely shaped and delivered by the civil service. The civil service got rid of Boris because he was a thorn in putins side, they have destroyed our military, our industry and actually pretty much our entire way of life over the last 50 years. Personally I would take every single civil servant in this country and send them to russia, if they get a job there they will destroy russia far more effectively than any nuclear bomb
Best to get it off your chest Dave!
Yes, sadly though the average Brit will trot off to the polling station and elect either Labour or Conservative and the rot will continue unchecked. If only the people of the country actually read or thought we wouldnt be in the mess
Graham, thanks for keeping me right ,I take it you must have known these vehicles or sorry driven ,it is a joke and God knows what will happen ,thank you 😀 😉 😊
Hi David, I passed my Gp H driving test on a FV432 at Bordon sometime in the late 70s.
I joined the army in 1975 – never in my wildest dreams did I expect so much of that kit from that era to still be in army service today.
Old school soldier, god bless all the men and women who served,all the best Graham, keep up what your doing mate ,TELL IT AS IT ,HAVE A GREAT DAY 👍 👌 👏 😀
Thanks David. Much appreciated!
Scrapping kit right now is short sighted beyond belief but at the very least offer them to Ukraine before chopping them up.
Out civil service won’t do that, every single action they take is to help Russia, has been for the last century
Unfortunately it certainly seems that way
We scrap very little kit. Obsolete vehicles are mainly gifted (to Ukraine, to museums, to units as gate guards) or sold. Very little has to be chopped up.
That is not the impression I get especially as a lot of kit I am sure the Ukraine forces would jump at is not heading their way. Light tanks for instance.
I am puzzled – it is well published in Open Source media that we have gifted a huge amount of vehicles and other kit that has been declared Obsolete (as well as some kit that is still in active service with the British Army).
See UKDJ article – I think we have gifted UKR more military vehicles (and other kit) than any other European country.
Apr 30th ‘What has Britain donated to Ukraine?’
We don’t have any light tanks to gift but we supplied 23 Scimitars in October and there will be a further tranche sent very soon.
I must be reading the wrong media. Do you have a link?
As I said see the UKDJ article of Apr 30th. Just click on the Land tab and look for the Apr 30th article entitled: “ ‘What has Britain donated to Ukraine?’.
If I send a link it gets stalled by the UKDJ police.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what-has-britain-donated-to-ukraine/
All ready made decision to replace with multi-modular boxer…so Ajax must be replaced by CV-90s from sweden..a very good modern platform, C3sorted…job done move on with TA enlargement programme.urgent recruiting..
Another appalling example of defence attrition in the UK.These vehicles should be stored, upgraded where necessary and kept in a fully functional state in a secure storage facility for issuing should the need arise. We all know that Ajax is rubbish, so why retire a vehicle that actually works? A point missed by the Army Hierarchy is that cheap and efficient drones are now a part of the future battlefield, so why can’t they be modified and deploy as armoured drone carriers? Put as many on as they can carry and train troops up to use the efficiently and effectively… Read more »
We never keep equipment once it has been declared Obsolete – no money and no hangar space – and Treasury needs to get an income from sold-off old kit. How is Ajax still rubbish? Tech fixes on noise and vibration etc were done ages ago; it completed its User Acceptance Test; is doing well on Reliability Growth Trials and staged payments to GDUK were resumed. Why retire Warrior? Were you suggesting that Warrior IFV should be retained long-term as a recce vehicle (after some sort of conversion) instead of taking Ajax? Warrior is being retired because the powers that be… Read more »
BAE’s Warrior upgrade (WCSP) would have been in service by now……. if the Government had chosen it!
It could also have been a cheaper solution – Upgraded WRs (WCSP) IFVs and non-turreted variants for the 5 AI Bns etc in the two armd bdes requiring a Production contract of about £800m and cut the current Boxer order in half (and equip 7 Lt Mech Bde, but rename them 7 Medium Mech Bde!).
Well the present incumbent (useless)government will soon be disposed off,try selling that useless lot off but they have already sold themselves to private rich businesses and foreign individuals who are crooked to be very honest with the readers ,the tory government sold itself like a prostitute, no disrespect to these kind of people ,they make no bones about what they are ,tory government on the other hand will be selling their backsides for big bucks jobs 🙄 🤔 😴 😉 🤣 😜
I find it hard to understand how Boxer can replace Warrior in the Heavy Division requirement? Warrior Struggled to keep up with Challenger in GW1 and GW2 with CH2. Removing 30mm with .50 Cal. removes any sense of Over Match with near peer enemy IFV’s. Surely keeping tracked IFV’s is a must from what has been seen in Ukraine with the great performance of the Bradley. You would have thought the 2.5% of GDP increase would ensure a Warrior replacement. We have already purchased the CTIA 40mm cannons that was supposed to be used in WSCP program, they are just… Read more »
I never heard that WR struggled to keep up with CR1 in GW1 and CR2 in GW2. Where does that come from? P/W of WR is much higher than both tank types (22hp/ton vs 17.4 and 16 for CR1 and CR2 respectively). WR top speed X-C is just shy of 50kph compared to 40kph at best from CR2 – standard armour figures not those with TES add-on. Fully agree that Boxer with MG cannot overmatch anything. It cannot take out any form of BMP including the ancient BMP-1. That is very, very worrying. Instead BMPs will take out our (big… Read more »
I always understood it was FV432 based vehicles that could not keep up with CR2? WR was fine
FV432 Ambulances and Mortar variants had trouble keeping up with the Warriors in their battalion.