The Ministry of Defence has ruled out any extension to the planned withdrawal of the Warrior armoured vehicle, confirming it will leave service in 2027 as scheduled.
In a written response to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, defence minister Luke Pollard said “there are no plans to extend the out-of-service date for Warrior beyond 2027, and as such an extension is not under consideration.”
The answer makes clear that the Army will not revisit the decision to retire the long-serving infantry fighting vehicle, despite ongoing concern about potential armoured capability gaps. Pollard said the department’s focus is now on delivering the ambitions set out in the Strategic Defence Review.
He told Parliament that priority is being given to “achieving the Strategic Defence Review’s vision for a tenfold increase in British Army lethality over the next decade,” with modern armoured fighting vehicles forming part of a wider force structure.
The minister added that future capability will rely on “survivable and lethal platforms” operating alongside “new layered systems of attritable and consumable platforms,” signalling a continued shift away from extending legacy equipment and towards mixed, multi-layered force designs.
Recently, we reported that the government confirmed that Project ATILLA, the Army’s plan to convert retired Warrior infantry fighting vehicles into optionally crewed minefield-breaching platforms, has now advanced beyond its initial concept work and entered the early stages of commercial competition.
Responding to a written question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said ATILLA “has progressed from considering conceptual elements such as evaluating project feasibility” and is now preparing to move into the Invitation to Tender stage. He did not provide a date for the formal end of the concept phase, but the answer makes clear that the programme has already passed that milestone.
The clarification follows earlier disclosures setting out the structure and ambition of ATILLA. As previously reported, the programme aims to turn surplus Warrior hulls into heavy, attritable uncrewed ground vehicles capable of breaching minefields for the Royal Engineers. A Prior Information Notice published in August revealed the MoD’s intention to procure up to six converted Warriors as a Minimum Deployable Capability, fitted with front-end breaching equipment and able to operate either with a crew or remotely.
From the outset, ATILLA has been designed as a spiral-development effort. Phase 1 will deliver the initial six vehicles for operational use and experimentation, while Phase 2 will focus on advancing autonomy and refining requirements for a future purpose-built heavy UGV fleet. Industry bidders must meet a stringent entry test, with only suppliers able to deliver six fully functioning optionally crewed breaching vehicles within the set time limits allowed to progress.
The logic behind the project is straightforward: Warrior’s retirement from frontline service leaves the Army with robust tracked hulls offering the mobility, protection and payload needed for high-risk engineering tasks. Converting them avoids the lengthy timelines and significant expense associated with designing a bespoke platform from scratch, and gives the Royal Engineers a survivable option for clearing minefields without placing crews directly in harm’s way.
According to the Ministry of Defence, by cutting through minefields, the device clears explosives and pushes them aside, opening a safe path for troops to move faster and more securely towards critical enemy positions or key objectives, outpacing current methods in speed and safety.
“The device, called WEEVIL, was developed collaboratively by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and Pearson Engineering Ltd – a British company based in the north-east – using the latest tech. WEEVIL can clear minefields quicker and safer than present capabilities, reducing risk to soldiers on the front line. Current mine-clearing methods include the TROJAN Armoured Vehicle, which requires a three-person crew to operate directly within hazardous areas.”
“The system prototype currently uses the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle, fitted with a full-width mine plough, advanced remote-control system, and vehicle-mounted cameras. This allows it to be operated by a single person from several miles away from danger and is expected to be able to adapt to work with any suitable vehicle platform. The ground-breaking trials are set to continue with the British Army, who will push the robotic system to its limits, providing vital insight to inform future mine-clearing capabilities. The prevalence of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines in modern warfare to slow troop movements has been highlighted by the conflict in Ukraine.”
If Ajax doesn’t materialise, would they have a choice?
Ajax and Warrior are differing areas. Although Warrior is filling in temporarily, I have every confidence they will withdraw even these and leave the Formation Recc Regiments with no assets at all, just the same as the RA and the current Armoured Cavalry who lost their assets in the CVRT vehicle fleet, of which Warrior only provided some cover for.
Chilling stuff, and even an IFV based on the Ajax hull must now be as dead as mutton! Just where is the Government going, other than denuding the British Army of mechanised weapons? The RA is currently a joke with just 14 Archer systems and a pending Boxer-based howitzer that is virtually invisible. Even CH3 won’t get more than 60 Troypy sets! Who is planning the future of the British Army, which can currently only fight on Thursdays due to a lack of interest in Whitehall, so sorry NATO?
Does Starmer if only through a sense of self preservation not see if there is a conflict what the consequences for him and those around him will be when the body bags start returning due to the army’s ill preparedness?
This uncrewed capability sounds wonderful, if only we had some Warriors or equivalent to take advantage of these breaches to enemy minefields. So a couple of years to obtain a fighting vehicle to replace those it has long known are no longer going to be in service. Couldn’t make it up, it’s all looking like Capt Mainwaring and the Home Guard being given broomsticks for rifles as things stand and expected to defend against tanks… except these are our frontline troops.
Spyinthesky, if you have not already watched it, take a look at ‘Ajax procurement crisis v Warrior retirement’ on YouTube. A very interesting viewpoint, and it asks the question of what happens to the UK’s IFV plan after 2027?
I think this reply is dated 15 Dec. The full text is, ‘There are no plans to extend the out-of-service date for Warrior beyond 2027, and as such an extension is not under consideration. The focus remains on achieving the Strategic Defence Review’s vision for a tenfold increase in British Army lethality over the next decade, with survivable and lethal platforms, such as armoured fighting vehicles, playing a central role alongside new layered systems of attritable and consumable platforms.’
So the ‘survivable and lethal’ platforms we will have by 2027 are CR2/3, Ajax and the Boxer, armoured fighting vehicle.
They must be determined that Ajax will survive this latest crisis and that we are building Boxers fast enough.
Paul, Thanks. Boxer is surely survivable (except for drone attack) but that battle taxi with a mere MG is certainly not very lethal – not 10x its predecessor (Warrior with 30mm cannon) – its probably a quarter the lethality.
Let’s hope we have plenty of reverse gears to engage on all our remaining vehicles.
They will do what they always do. With planes ships and armour. Promise repkacenetrs. Usually years late. Do without. And hope no one starts a war. Its pathetic
Finally someone has admitted to take the step to remove something that makes us a laughing stock worldwide.
Uhhhh, Warrior is the previous armoured vehicle, not Ajax
they’re removing the one that actually works
I thought they were meant to be converting the warrior into an unmanned vehicle, or did I imagine that?
IGNORE. Sorry, I accidentally scrolled over that part, which would have answered my question. Although I thought they were going to be unmanned fighting vehicles rather than mine-clearing.
The concern is whether they use this as an excuse to dispose of Trojan, a far superior vehicle to Attila.
Well if CRE agrees to that nonsense he had better run for the hills now!
As you know Trojan is a LOT more than a target going through a minefield😡
This mad idea will throw up many more problems than it will solve🙄
Exactly. Trojan has multiple capabilities.
It was also suggested the similarly superior Titan would be replaced by the ultra expensive, and inferior, Boxer bridgelayer variant, with a shorter bridge span!
Apparently, neither “can be supported.”
However, I now read on X that someone somewhere has had a light bulb moment and there is the possibility of a MLU for both, so hopefully this Attila thing is an addition, not a direct replacement.
There really is no excuse! As Graham has pointed out multiple times there should be process of updating AFVs on a rolling basis as we used to do! With enough Trojan and Titan sitting doing nothing if the will was there they could have a MLU and operational capability would not be affected! To introduce vehicles that in all probability will just sit on the tank park and rust seems a good way to waste money to me😡
Coll, they are converting just 6 (maybe a few more later) Warriors into the optionally-crewed WEEVIL mine-clearing equipment for the RE.
Someone has obviously done a deal with the MOD for a load of Snatch Land Rovers that they bought a few years ago
Well, well. RIP the Infantry Fighting Vehicle in the British Army?
Another capability gap opened up.
No urgency, no political will to mitigate.
The MOD needs to be renamed to the MOU ….ministry of uselessness.
Why did Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty simply ask if Warrior was being extended in service beyond 2027 (just 2 years away) and that was it?
He should have also asked what plans there were for the Armoured Infantry (AI) to receive a new IFV before that date, so that no capability gap in this wartime era occurred!
He would have been told by Pollard either that: four different studies would first be conducted into how to quickly close out that capability gap; or that the AI would have to use a wheeled APC, Boxer, as per the March 2021 announcement; or that some ARES might be convered into a tracked IFV at great cost and over a lengthy period if HMT and Rachel from Accounts agreed to bung the army a few more £bn.
If he got ‘the Boxer answer’, he could have asked how that would deliver 10x lethality with a machine-gun equipped vehicle compared to having a 40mm stabilised cannon (WCSP) or a 30mm RARDEN (existing Warrior).
Why do we pay backbench MPs over £94k if they cannot ask all the questions required?
Obese -Jecty has served in the British Army so he should be better qualified than many to ask meaningful questions. Not an expert but I can’t see how any alternate IFV can be put in place by 2027 when Warrior goes. The fact that Pollard has given the written answer he has tells me a) that they have done their studies and decided that b) we will fight without an IFV and c) that Ajax will enter service somehow and d) that Boxer manufacturing will deliver a meaningful deployable number in service by 2027.
The only IFV-adjacent capability we could raise for 2027 is probably Boxer with and RS-6 remote weapon mount packing a 30 mm cannon. Possibly the same but with an actual turret could be in the realms of possibility too.
I think the USMC are buying the RS-6.
Yep.
The government get away with murder as MPs questions are not precise enough. And as for spokespeople, the crap they come out with is unchallenged as journalists seem clueless regards the details.
“The answer makes clear that the Army will not revisit the decision to retire the long-serving infantry fighting vehicle, despite ongoing concern about potential armoured capability gaps”.
So what does that mean for the oft-talked about idea (not even a formal Project) of converting a number of ARES vehicles into IFVs? The Army is not looking at that? Were they ever or was it just scuttlebutt?
So far it’s really only been scuttlebut passed around by some internet bloggers on Twitter. Nothing of substance was ever announced, and people here just got excited because they wanted it to be true/like the bloggers in question.
Unbelievable no tracked armoured infantry and no tracked armoured artillery and a reduction in tanks wtf
Add in the binning of Puma2 and the ability to deploy troops tactically is eroded further. Still we’re increasing lethality 10x (by cutting to the bone this is becoming possible!!)
It’s absolutely barking mad retire kit without replacement
Absolutely David – 33 Sqn had some highly experienced pilots and master aircrews – all wasted
So we can always walk, I suppose. Even better why don’t we disband the regiments completely. Save some money for benefits.
Yes cannot keep those… they wptk!
And yet here we are with FV430 series vehicles, original introduced as a Petrol variant in the 60’s, and Diesel in the 70’s still in service. Warrior was originally called MCVI 80, and first appeared in Germany as a trial on LionHeart 84. Another massive disaster from both MOD and Army
Still taking shit about making the army 10x more lethal when in reality it gets 10x less capable year on year. Brutal truth is the British army is now a joke not a credible fighting force.
Slightly off topic, but is the FV432 still in service and was that also expected to be replaced by an Ajax variant?