The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) completed a significant programme milestone last week as Lockheed Martin UK jointly with British Army and Armoured Trials and Development Unit crew completed 59 Battlefield Missions (BFMs), bringing the development programme successfully through the first half of reliability growth tests.

BFMs are a key element of the enduring Reliability Growth Tests, which are made up of a combination of Qualification and Verification activities and representative BFMs. By the time the development programme comes to a conclusion, the vehicles will have travelled the equivalent distance of a return journey from the North to the South Pole.

The firm say that WCSP trials, which started in 2019, are now at a significant point in the development programme.

“There have been a number of successful first-time events that have demonstrated the game-changing enhancements made to the platform. Once in-service, the updated and modernised platform will provide the British Army with the Armoured Fighting Capability it needs and it will serve for several decades to come.”

Keren Wilkins, Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme Director at Lockheed Martin said:

“This is a tremendous achievement – the programme is at an exciting and equally critical point. With half of the trials successfully behind us, we’re now preparing for the second and final phase of Reliability Growth Tests. The Programme has turned a real corner, it continues to run to schedule and has demonstrated a number of successful first-time events. Despite some of the challenges presented by COVID-19, the joint team has pulled out all the stops to complete this significant milestone. The trust, transparency and partnership across the team truly underpins the progress that is being made on the programme.”

Col Howard Pritchard, Assistant Head Combat Programmes Deliver for the British Army, said:

“I am delighted to see that Warrior CSP remains on target to successfully reach its reliability growth targets. Achieving the 59th BFM against the backdrop of COVID-19 social distancing measures and Government guidelines has been a challenge for all but overcome through excellent team work and collaboration between the Army, DE&S and Lockheed Martin joint team.”

The key upgrade being delivered by Lockheed Martin say the firm is the ability to fire-on-the-move with the new CT40 stabilised cannon.

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

63 COMMENTS

  1. about time i used to be a driver and gunner in these in the late 80,s and 90,s,and for all they were brilliant back then,times have moved on,but saying that it took a long time for warrior to come in and replace the old bulldog 432,s,it was just a shame they never got the mortar or anti tank variants..but i do remember 2LI anti tank platoon getting infantry versions for op grapple 7..

      • I got attached to 2RGJ who were posted at padderborn which was a warrior regiment (I came from a airmobile regiment) and the guys seemed to really like the warrior I assume they would have been the same warriors u used this was in 1999/2000 when u think about it these AFV have definitely earnt there money and they might be old but they seem to still be viable which shows it was a good design

        • 2RGJ took over from us after op grapple 7 (Bosnia) would have been around 96/97 so they would have been 2LI warriors,as we went to Palace bks Northern Ireland,we had been in Paderborn since 89 so nearly 10 years posted to Paderborn,with major ops and exercises from there..they were good days with good lads and lasses

        • I was also attached to a Warrior Regiment in Paderborn around that time 97-99, 1 D&D then 1 RRW at Barker Bks. My first posting and many happy memories. The Army still had a respectable armoured force and spent tons of cash on training and play. Working on Warrior was a pleasure compared to 432 and CVRT (although driving CVRT with the Jag petrol engine was more fun.

    • Yeah, that is a shame really. I spent a few years with an army family and the dad was in the heavy mortar platoon, they used the old workhorse 432 and it worked brilliantly in that role.
      I half expected to see some Warriors in that role but they never did it, maybe some of these Ajax will be converted. I’ve seen some with a BFG on but at the moment the M.O.D have publicly ruled it out. It may even be an option on these Boxer vehicles the army are looking to buy, we’ll have to wait and see…

  2. Recently, WCSP completed its 59th Battlefield Mission (BFM) marking the halfway point between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the vehicle’s Reliability Growth Trials. Phase 2 of the trials consisting of a further 60 BFMs – is slated to begin on 10 August and are set to be completed by mid-2021.

    The company anticipates a contract award by the end of next year

  4. How on earth did this programme take so long? Was it due to the lack of skills, which I doubt, or simply misguided objectives? Whatever the reason this kit is needed to work alongside the Ajax family and Boxer. I’d hate to know the real cost of this project, I bet it wasn’t far short of the original complete Warrior development?

    • Pretty sure it was more than the original warrior development. Most of the delays where caused by LM trying to refurbish the original turret which BAE already said wouldn’t be possible. LM should have been forced to absorb that cost as they have deep pockets. The time it took to realise the refurbished turret wouldn’t work then design and build a new one added over 3 years to the project.

        • The original contract for warrior was worth £1bn. The LEP contract started at 1.27bn grown to at least 1.5bn it has also been cut by 145 units or there abouts as they will not be upgrading the battle field ambulance variant. So not sure what I’m making up.
          Don’t get me wrong I think it will be a great vehicle once upgraded but the delay and cost increase should be paid for by LM

          • One always starts by thinking, ‘why upgrade a 30yo design?’ …… but then I take some comfort by thinking, ‘well, there is the B52 and U2 in the US.’ Not sure they’ll ever get Warrior to fly, though.

          • Indeed – a slightly more relevent example. Perhaps we should be a little easier on ourselves over upgrades. If incremental improvements work for the Americans, then why not?

          • Personally, I would’ve gone for the Stryker instead of wasting a bloody fortune on this WCSP. I bet the Warrior will still have its flaws after all this, one of them being it’s distinct lack of proper ventilation and air con in the back……this is something that comes up a lot.
            The Stryker is fast, manoeuvrable, well armoured, well armed…..everything that the Warrior isn’t. The one major upgrade that does make a huge difference on the new super duper Warrior is the larger 40mm stabilised gun.

          • I have seen and witnessed Strykers in combat and I wasn’t impressed. They struggled in Iraq when the rains came. This was probably due to their massively increased weight from the additional bar armour. What made me laugh was that we saw a platoon (four) of Strykers stuck outside Nasiriyah in the sticks. One got stuck sinking up to its axles, then the others got stuck trying to tow him out. They were eventually dragged back to firmer ground by a pair of Warriors (tracks 1 – wheels 0).

            In Afghan they didn’t have very good mine protection initially, later they had additional belly armour added. They suffered a lot of casualties, but to be brutally honest so did the Canadians with their LAVs. Mind you I didn’t see many of the Australian ASLAVs, so couldn’t compare how they performed, as its based on the LAV. By comparison the Germans who were operating their Boxers, had a couple loose some wheels due to IEDs, but suffered no casualties.

            We did loose a couple of Warriors to IEDs in Afghan with a number of fatalities and injuries, not sure if they had the extra belly armour by that stage. Part of the upgrade program is to add suspended seats, which should help reduce the shock trauma of an explosion going off underneath or next to the vehicle.

            The problem that the Strykers had, was that the majority of them were only armed with either a 50 cal or a 40mm GMG. There were a few with the 25mm bushmaster and it wasn’t until much later that the fire support version with the 105mm gun was introduced.

            We had a similar problem. The main weapon we had for fire support was the 30mm rarden fitted to the CVRTs and Warriors. They are an excellent weapon against other light vehicles, but hopeless for making doorways in mudbrick walls. The CTAS 40 HE round is said to contain 3 times the explosive of a 30 HE round and is programmable. So it should be more useful in similar situations.

            Both the Danish and Canadian operated their Leopard 2s in Afghan. They were great at making doorways, even having one turn up quietened down a contact. I am sure the Challenger would have been fine in Afghan.

          • I’m more at home with the RN than Army, but would not Stryker be treading on Boxer toes, potentially?
            Certainly a/c is vital to comfort, and hence importantly efficiency, but thought the ‘new’ Warrior had addressed that by and large (21st century?).
            Furthermore, from an outsider view, the Army’s incredible changes of direction over the last couple of decades does seem astounding, even if they are not completely to blame – to the point where you just want to see a fielded unit! Seems you could have spent your entire career thinking up non-progressed versions of this one vehicle alone – and, as of now, retired with still no result in the can.

      • I see the daily mail is spreading the usual stories about the Mod proposing to cut both the C2 and Warrior. If the result of retaining them means we only receive 150 tanks and 250 warrior as an example, would we be better off just ordering additional boxer and replace the as90 with a wheeled artilary system?

        • Can Boxer mount a 40mm cannon and does it truly have the same cross-county capability as a tracked vehicle such that it can cover the most difficult ground without bogging in and keeping up with tanks?

    • There’s an interesting piece by LM where there is the option of further capabilities. I wonder what those could be?

        • https://battle-updates.com/warrior-wcsp-in-perspective-looking-good-by-julian-nettlefold/

          Here’s some information for you Ron, looks like i was right about Javelin after all.

          Lee Fellows, Lockheed Martin’s Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme Director outlined key programme milestones. These included that in March, the programme team has performed a successful Manned Fire-on-the-Move, the next stage in this important British Army programme. The platform is now certified for live firing and the MOD crews will soon start to add to the hundreds of CT40 and thousands of chain gun rounds already fired by the Lockheed Martin team. Lockheed Martin’s WCSP Turret has also displayed the capability to hold Anti-Tank Guided Missiles, such as the FGM-148 Javelin. Other technology areas addressed in the Lockheed Martin’s solution include better EMC protection and an unmanned variant.

          • @BB85 Nice article, thanks for sharing. Yes, the turret itself has shown an Javelin module for some years now. It’s a rectangular box with 2 missiles mounted on the right hand side. Pictures from 2015 showed the turret export variant mounted on the Patria AMV in a desert setting. But the Warrior WCSP does not have that or the necessary kit to enable javelin to be fired directly from the vehicle. Javelin will be carried tho, by soldiers in the back to be fired by them after dismount.

          • It would be excellent if Warrior had the option of fitting a pair of Javelins as in a “fitted for but not with”. As in in a time of need it would be an easy upgrade. The Javelin as well as being an excellent tank killer, would also prove useful against helicopters.

            The CV90 has used the Soucy “rubber” band tracks that has been mooted for Warrior. Sweden sent a number of CV90s to Afghan and one was trialled with the band tracks very successfully. Much like the tracks on the Vikings they did wear out quite quickly. But the advantages over the steel tracks outweighed this massively. They were significantly quieter and required a lot less maintenance or adjustment. Soucy say they are rated up to 42t, so an up-armoured Warrior is well within their capability.

          • We have mounted ATGW on a host of armoured vehs in the past, from Hornet/Malkara to CVR(T) STRIKER. Whats the problem?

  6. I’m sure they’ve done lots of things inside but from the outside it looks like they’ve bolted on (yes you can see the bolts) extra armour around the turret and fitted a larger gun; rather like the Germans did with the Mk IV Panzer (yes I know the gun is a very different size), the turret even looks like that on the Mk IV Ausf H.

  7. All be sold soon,sorry I meant they will given away in a couple of years that’s how the uk works.Watch the defence review coming up they will tell us its too expensive keeping them after spending quite a bit of cash on them.

    • Why do you think that? What would you replace it with and why do you think Warrior couldn’t be upgraded to that standard for less than purchasing new platforms?

      • Evidence and statements given at the 7 July Defence Committee for one. Comments from the user community stating whilst the turret is great the vehicle itself is old and “worn out” (by user I mean the actual user, not an officer or official worried about their next promotion). Evidence from Australia with regards Project Land 400 Phase 3 which will deliver 450 IFV and 17 manoeuvre support vehicles by 2026 for an estimated cost of AUD10-15Bn, more importantly this Project only has three main requirements: ability to carry six dismounts, ability to be deployed on RAN Canberra Class LHD and the ability to be carried by RAAF C-17.
        I would replace it with AJAX and ARES, new platforms designed and built in the digital age.
        The Warrior CSP shows all that is wrong with UK MoD procurement. CR2 is another platform where its “time is near” (again refer to 7 July Defence Committee evidence). Time to think about how to overcome the adversary, not hold on to something whose shelf life has expired.

        • Ajax and Ares do not meet the ability to carry six (let alone 8 dismounts), so those are out, you’d need an entirely new version of ASCOD (itself a 20 year old vehicle but at least still in production at least). So those are a false start for a Warrior replacement.
          Warrior itself is no longer in production so if the Australians wanted it for Project Land 400 boy would they have a task of it.
          Warrior CSP is probably the best way to go: refurbish the hulls, which yes are old, but there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the design, and new turret is all that’s needed.
          It’s hilarious when people go on about “shelf life” of UK ground systems but then ignore other ground systems;
          CR2 is a perfect example.
          CR2 entered service in 1998
          Leopard 2 entered service in 1979
          M1 Abrams enetered service in 1979…
          Yes Challenger 2 is the one whose shelf life has expired? I doubt it, what it needs is incremental upgrades like the Americans and Germans do, no wholesale replacement.

          • Btw my first posting was with an Armoured Infantry unit, so when you say “actual user” I fall into that category.

          • When talking to the MP’s that go and visit the sites and ask about the viability of Warrior, it isn’t that they don’t like it (turret is pretty cool) they do worry about the age of the vehicle that has to carry it and them. If you are in the user category and were as by an MP what you would want I am sure, regardless of platform you were operating from, you would have asked for or mentioned something that could be improved.

          • Apologies for the lateness in reply.
            Leopard 2 is now at A7 and above standard and has been fully modernised along its life cycle.
            M1 Abrams has followed the same (although slightly more stuttered route).
            CR2 hasn’t been touch since about 2006 when we all sat in a room at Andover to discuss what potential the CR2 had, what we could do with what is still a very good vehicle and how we could keep it going for the next 30 years.
            AS90 is another shambles in the making, now outranged and replacement further delayed by 2 years. You only have to go to Barrow In Furness to see the 52cal barrels they had made for it, the new engines that were destined for it and the LRU programme that was all set to deliver, it was that promising even the Polish Army where looking at the turret to mount on their legacy tank platforms.
            I think we are too late for wholesale replacement but we have to have a hard look at what we want to do, how we want to do it and whether we have enough money to invest in the total cost of ownership these systems need, not just the purchase price so we can buy them and store them at Ashchurch.

    • A lot cheaper to refurbish and add new turret than to buy a whole new vehicle.
      And which vehicle would you buy anyway? An IFV version of AJAX was offered to Australia but they were rather unimpressed and it didn’t even get short listed. Lynx? Rather expensive. Bradley? rather long in the tooth. Not a great list to chose from.

      • It’s just another in a series of failing to advance and develop new kit, instead of updating new kit into oblivion. A la Boeing and their 737 fiasco.

      • Ajax was discarded early (to few seats in the back). With regards expense, I think the Australians think protecting their troops is a price worth paying.
        They pay top dollar and get good quality kit (most of the time), more importantly the don’t FAF about for 10 years trying to work out what they want, they just get in with it.
        They are likely for field Boxer before us, it will have Boeing FES, something even Ajax doesn’t have.
        It all gets rather boring after a while, listening to officials, the military and ministers making excuses of why nothing get delivered.
        The only person that suffers is the soldier, sailor, airman and marine who have to wait for late kit, not as much of it as they need and without all the bits that would make it special (fitted for but not with shambles).
        Go back to the user, great turret – vehicle a bit tired and worn out. Try listening to the user for once – you never know, their opinion might even have some value.

          • Tiger – thy are looking to replace but they bought what they believed (and their user believed) was the best in the market at the time that wasn’t ITAR constrained
            Collins class is being replaced by 12 submarines – or an endorsement of the capability

            What they are not doing with either platform is trying to upgrade them.

          • They are following the US modification and upgrade programme and are doing it through TAE which is an Australian company. Abrams is still a relevant platform that has been invested in fully. CR2 could have been the same….which is a shame

          • True, I have lost count as to how many upgrades Abrams has had. CR 2 not upgraded in 22 years, shameful, except to fit Bowman radio?

      • Lynx would work out cheaper in long run due to less modifications required to make it work, re expecting dampers for torsion bars lol

    • The Puma is supposed to be the dogs danglies. The standard ASCOD which ARES etc are based on, has really mediocre protection. The standard Warrior has better protection. ARES etc should be seen as different vehicle to the ASCODS that Spain/Austria operate. There’s no reason why the ARES could not be used as the main IFV to replace Warrior, it will need the manned/unmanned turret with the 40mm CTAS though.

      • Several reasons to reject ARES as WR replacement – does not carry 8 dismounts, does not have 40mm cannon (has only a 12.7mm MG), may have less protection than a WR TES.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here