A total of £430m had been spent on the Warrior upgrade programme.
The Defence Command Paper released today, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, states:
“We will no longer upgrade Warrior but it will remain in service until replaced by Boxer, which we expect to happen by the middle of this decade.”
Under the upgrade programme, the present turret mounting the RARDEN cannon, which lacks stabilisation and is manually loaded with three-round clips, was to be replaced by a turret that would have mounted a stabilised 40mm weapon.
In 2020, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee described the project as running over three years late and £227 million over budget.
A total of £430m has been spent so far.
This defence review was previously described by Boris Johnson as the largest review of its kind since the Cold War.
What a utter waste of money.
Chinook Hanger Queens
Nimrod
Fire Shadow
Warrior
There is a long list!
I’d agree with all of those, except chinook.
Some Chinooks were Hanger queens for quite some time though…..
The Chinooks bought to support SF Harry. Sat useless in a hanger at Boscombe Down for years. Eventually updated at great cost.
Yup……
there were fitted with software at the RAFs request that didn’t work with the aircraft, so couldn’t fly.
Again some idiot interfering to get work for his local bozos, and finding out it doesn’t work.
Army are the best @ this kind of thing
hopefully the tempest won’t be in the list or the 3 frigate programmes (t26,t31,t32) or the UAVS (vixen and mosquito) or the sea viper upgrade.
Yep. On the bright side the turret and its 40mm may be used on Boxer if it’s set to replace Warrior by the middle of this decade. looks like the army is going wheeled as far as its future IFV is concerned.
Nightmare if Boxer replaces Warrior and does not carry an effective stabilised cannon – I am afraid I could see that happen on cost grounds. Then Infantry will have a worse capability than with ageing Warrior.
I agree.
Yes I just wondered about the 250 40mm we ordered. God please yes upgun boxer that would at least combined with a few modern missles give them some teeth
Choice of CTA 40 gun with 20,000 lbs of recoil was a mistake for an age hardened hull. Delamination, corrosion and weld cracking occurs over time with aluminium, this is also a problem with boats. The cheaper bushmaster 30 mm gun would have been a suitable choice with 6,500 lbs of recoil. Hard to understand how the American 1996 defence department review of CTA weapons was ignored !
Embarrassing but sensible decision. Boxer mentioned as ‘armoured infantry carrier’.
It’s only sensible if Boxer has the same (or better) firepower, protection and mobility compared to the current unmodernised Warrior – otherwise its a step or two backwards.
Sensible on the basis of there’s been a screw up but we are where we are.
Boxer with 40mm will tick all the boxes except mobility.
Mobility matters in Northern/eastern Europe.
Protection is the same all-round NATO level, so that’s OK. If they get the CTA turret that Warrior was supposed to get (or something similar) then that would be a box tick too. Mobility, I think it depends a lot on terrain; wheels are pretty good these days except over the very worst ground, but they’re quicker and longer-legged over everything else, by my understanding. On the flip side, a Boxer can get a puncture in more than one wheel and still keep going, a Warrior only needs to lose one track link/throw a track and it’s immobile. Again, by… Read more »
What about air defence from drones?
good decision
it has a role if nothing else in training, a good clear decision that saves money.
What is cheaper – upgrading Warrior (when all the design and development has been done and paid for) or buying Boxers with a turret and cannon to replace the Warrior fleet.
I don’t care what is cheaper Graham, I care about what is better. but as you asked Boxer and ajax use the same engine, so lots of commonality. CTA turret has been inserted onto a Boxer already – so can be done. Warrior is 40 years old, at some point it becomes a “triggers broom”. Boxer can be configured by module – warrior cannot / nor can Ajax. they have a decent cannon, good armour and as long as they can be maintained we should run them into the ground. why spend £4m upgrading something that can be replaced by… Read more »
WR is tired, no sense trying to upgrade it when you’ve new Ajax and Boxer platforms available.
End of cannon supported in though as no way a CTA40 on Boxer has much space for dismounts. Back to FV432 days with an APC.
The hulls are knackered. It was a money pit. It’s a disgrace we managed to spend £400m and only managed to upgrade 6 hulls for testing. I’d love to know how much Reinmettal ttal invested to privately develop the Lynx 41.
I cannot find the thing to read but from monitoring Twitter Boxers will also go to Light BCT as well as heavy.
So expect a bigger order of Boxer, hopefully with extra variants.
So no tracked IFV. Means they’ve got to get that 40mm and anti-tank missiles on that Boxer.
Wegman Rheinmetall must have integrating turrets and Spike off to a fine art by now.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/07/15/lithuanias-new-boxer-combat-vehicle-packs-a-punch/
I don’t think IFV is going to be needed in future wars – much better to spend on a vairant with long range precsision fires and give Ajax UAVs and ATGMs.
James, If we don’t need an IFV, then we don’t need CR2s.
Personally I think we need both to counter an armour-heavy peer, and to seize and hold ground of vital importance.
You counter them with F35 and Spear 3 from over 100 miles away. Boxer and Ajax can then be used to hold ground once the enemies heavy armour has been obliterated in the first two weeks of the conflict.
That’s assuming air superiority which is fine in sand box but not against peer, you need certain level of armour (ie 140 tanks) to spice up IFV. Especially against countries with hundreds or 1000 of surplus tanks. We would run out of modern guided weapons before they run out of tanks.
If we have enough F35 and radar 2 equipped Typhoon, then, they will kill and electronically blind any air or ground threat from a considerable distance.
Spear3 will be networked and launched from many miles away…
The point of this review is to equip the forces with sufficient high tech weapons.
We need to stock thousands of Spear 3 and Brimstone 2 weapons.
I think it’s going to take an armoured confrontation in 5 years or so, for people to realise that tanks are rapidly becoming obsolete iron coffins.
Uk will not have the inventory of spear 3 to obliterate huge volumes of massed heavy armour from the east. Indeed I’m sure Ivan would park up many older generation MBTs in formation in early days to consume the inventory held.
Have to say the concept of likes of Germany and Poland etc focusing on heavy land and airforces (with lighter naval forces) while UK and likes of NL focus on strong airforce and navy plus home defence and expeditionary land forces is probably sound.
P
I think Spear 3 which has a range of 80 miles is more likely to be targetted at mobile long range SAM batteries. To make the skies safe for Typhoon and Brimstone to engage advancing columns at a stand off range of up to 60km. A Typhoon carries 12-18 Brimstone; a swarm of networked missile which can recognize their targets and communicate with each other so each missile has its own target. Bad news if you are in a tank formation. The Russians would have to take out the Typhoon airfields before any tank advance.
It seems the cost of flying an F35 is $36,000 per hour, it may have risen due to engine life being found to be shorter than expected. LM has a program to try and bring down costs!
Absolutely, 8 held internally on F35, or Typhoon toting 16 Spear3!
The combination will turn trundling armour into smoking wrecks, killings scores of tanks with every attack.
I’m struggling to understand why we are bothering with Challenger 3, tanks are on the verge of obsolescence against peer enemies.
It doesn’t matter how advanced the tank, weapons like Spear3 will be launched as a swarm, from miles away, each weapon looking for it’s own high value target and hitting it vertically. It doesn’t need to destroy it, just knock it out of the fight!
James, that comment appears to be at odds with what some of our NATO partners and allies futher afield are procuring!!!
That said, the reason may well be their proximity to potential enemies, whereas we are futher removed since our withdrawal from mainland Europe.
Or are we doing without anti tank missles due to cuts????
even Magic grandpa wasn’t this pathetic.
my god what a waste of money, and they complain when the axe falls, that amount of money could have paid for what keeping the 10,000 troops or towards other stuff, the MOD really need shafting for this wastage, and people shout and moan about Boris and co giving money to there mates on so called covid contracts…
Tories= decline.
Really after Blair brown and banking farce. We are reaping results of there years now so please don’t get political. We will be paying from their choices for long time. The whole 2010 review was to balance books after labour
I dont buy 2008 recession excuse, the french like most western nation come that just as bad as the UK and yet the french are so far not cutting its capability as bad as we are.
go live there PLEASE with have enough stupid
*come out
But the French as a rule don’t have the varied capacity we have (a little of everything) when people compare our frigate numbers they forget that. Our amphib, mine clearance, attack choppers, MBT, 2 carriers, RAF , there is no country with such a balanced capacity in nearly all areas (even if is a little small in some areas)
old red dave Tony Blair did you proud, spent the budget on a lie, And Gordan brown had 10 people to do one job. like the Labour party, your old news because those retards with never get back in power, because your racist leaders ignore the public. up the workers
Tories = decline, oh dear, oh dear …. I heard Labour still had a supporter, I thought it was myth like big foot, yet here you are Dave. Had Labour been in charge when BREXIT was being finalised, then the UK would have rolled over, run up the white flag and become a hollowed out EU subordinate.. Labour = weak / woke government, populist and quite incapable of making difficult decisions… You don’t need to believe me, ask the electorate, who didn’t vote for Labour again and again and again and again etc . Still, with potential candidates like (look… Read more »
I’ve replied to to others who accuse of being a lefty john ,I voted tories last election because of corbyn ,my politics are purely center.
I’m just making the point that under the tories the army is at its smallest in history ,that did not happen under labour.
…or is it a politician, rather than the Generals and MoD employees who have made the decisions?
Think it’s really a cut of some 4,000 personnel, Andy
Yep – it’s disappointing that this site talks about a cut of 10,000 troops, when the army hasn’t been at full strength for years. We have to deal with reality, and the reality is that the army’s current strength is about 75,500, so the cut isn’t actually as “savage” as some people like to make out. As for Warrior, how long were we going to carry on throwing good money after bad? Better to buy new than mess around trying to upgrade old vehicles.
Exactly let’s have a superb, lethal army/raf/navy fit for purpose and future. There is lot of work needed
One British general has admitted if the falklands was invaded and now we will not be able to retake them.
Well that ‘retired’ general should keep his trap shut! Even IF the Argies could somehow get across the water there is a very capable force waiting for them.
No need for old Vulcans to risk life and limb to bomb them either,a few Tomahawks landing on their airfields will really ruin their day.
Who’s to say China or Russia might find suppling the Argies with the means to invade beneficial, or any other players or just invade themselves ,Britain has just left the big boys table.
Somehow I think that with the distances involved we might just get an idea they are coming. Still on with the real world.
Exactly. JSSU is on the Falklands and there are other assets too.
Daniele, why do you highlight JSSU?
Hi Graham.
Not sure in the thrust of your question. Why am I talking of or what is JSSU?
Or Israel. They have been offering fighter jets and other military hardware to the Argentinians for years, luckily they were too broke to buy.
Scenario that spooks me is China offering equipment or support in exchange for extended fishing rights. 1.3 billion mouths to provide protein for and regional grounds in East Asia are increasingly fished out with Chinese fishing fleets already working deep into Pacific Antarctic and off Africa etc.
its late you will miss your zoom lesson in the morning, or you worked for procurement of the British army. and thats why its wasted money
Wow I take it you’ve had few tonight Johan as you are quite consistent with abusive labour bashing tonight and you seem to forgot my reply to you about my politics, which is purely center and I voted the tories last time round because Corbyn was far to left for my taste’s .
Drink a pint of water before you go to bed it does help with the
hangover.
You can bash Blair for the Panther command vehicle, bought to keep his Italian teflon chum happy. More expensive than better vehicles and unreliable !
Danatt, retired – and he did not say we would not be able to retake them. He said we couldn’t generate the same force. We could not generate the same force of cavalry we sent to the Crimea in 1854 either.
I don’t know how a general can say something like that. Argentinians are worse than in 1982.
That used to be said decades ago by retired admirals about the navy. From an army point of view, we could re-run the Falklands conflict – we only sent one army brigade on light scales. (I haven’t forgotton about 3 Cdo Bde as well, but they are from the naval Service).
I believe it was 8 battalions in total – 3 RM, 2 Para, 2 Guards and 1 Gurkha. So more of a light division comprised of 2 brigades in the end.
Even without being fully operational , I would suggest that just the sobering thought of a current QE CSG amalgamated with SF, Marines, Paras and Infantry would be enough for Argentina to say …. one day …. one day … but not today …. we’re fine for now ….thanks …. but soon … soon …. maybe …..
think they said the same in 1982 only a difference now the islands has a better defence force. and Argentina cannot put together a strike force. living in the passed
Echo some of the below comments, utter waste of money. However a sensible decision rather throwing good money after bad, and the age/limitations of the chassis involved.
7.39. “The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters”
Really? Are they moving from the RAF SHF to the AAC then? Or does the author not have a clue?
At least it mentioned they would be replaced with new airframes. The 14 mentioned on here in 2018? “The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability.” What caught my eye was this: “Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.” Now, the astute of us may have heard the AW149 has been pitched as a… Read more »
Yep. Saw that too. Not the foggiest mate.
I’m just pleased Puma is still around and a replacement is in the works.
The Dauphin are specialised platforms, cannot see a medium heli replacing them.
The thing with this paper is the almost total lack of detail apart from cuts.
That’s true, and I’m happy to see serious talk of a replacement – even better if it’s built in Yeovil. I’m just curious to know what the current platform types are. Of our helicopter fleet, I would refer to Merlin and Puma as medium lift, rather than the others, which would be light/utility. The section reads like it was written by a rather poor journalist. You know, with no idea who operates what, what the classifications are, etc. The sort who call RNAS Culdrose ‘RAF Culdrose’. Then again, General Sir Nick Carter referred to RFA Argus as HMS Argus recently,… Read more »
Forgot: Agree of course on Dauphin, but you never know with this lot…
CDS Sir N Carter. Another political choice and architect of Strike. Enough said.
Yep! Chinooks in the army! In 1995 FLF it was mooted as a reborn RFC putting the CHF and SHF into the AAC. We had JHC but that’s a different beast.
How about A 149 replaces Puma, old Chinooks and ‘medium lift’ Wildcat AH1 which could go to the FAA who will need more, and the ‘medium lift’ Bells retire.
I believe I read some where it’s talking about couple of odd platforms they use, bell griffin x3 aw109 x1 bell 212 x5 AS365 dauphin x5. That’s from memory when I read transcript of some mp’s who were more concerned with bagging more jobs for constituents
It’s been wasted, we need to get over it, it happens so often, it shouldn’t, but it does and it’s unlikely we will ever change. But decision made, and now what they need to do is do an uplift on Boxer numbers, to include 120mm Mortar variant and ensure there is at least a 30mm on the top of Rifle Coy wagons, be it a manned/unmanned version. Order asp, to ensure as WR goes offline Battalions are issued Boxer. Its easy to cut this, transform that, push out a bit of spin but it will cost more money in the… Read more »
Yes, a 120mm armoured mortar and something over a HMG is needed but I cant see how Boxer can do that and retain its dismount space.
The 120mm is a specific mortar vehicle, no dismounts and the 30mm turret on the IFV(ish) can be unmanned. Plenty of well known, well used and reliable on the market. The Boxer numbers need to be increased but I can’t see that happening as looking at the document, the heavy BCTs have a Boxer icon, and the light BCTs have Foxhound UOR icon and an unknown one. So it seems to me the strike concept has changed and that’s good, but rather than getting new wagons they are recycling and moving assets about.
I cant see buying a 30mm and adding to having the 40mm CTA in the same BCT. A unmanned 40mm might be possible (basis of a naval mount also? and combine with HVM and an ideal anti air/Uav platform)
I suspect Armd Inf will be in APCs. That’ll save a load of PIDs as iirc they have a manpower uplift for WR, and a load of trg (gunnery) costs.
Not so good if they actually need to shoot back…
Is the 40mm CTA going to continue? Poss not, therefore off the shelf 30mm to bungee to the top of the Boxers? The Boxers need some kinetic effect as well as other varient to make the concept useable and viable. And an ATGW essential mate.
Id assume yes surely given the investment and 100s of Ajax.
I agree Armd Inf need more – ideally a full blown Ajax development into an IFV.
No surprise that Warrior is going. But is anything going to replace it in the ifv role? Ajax carries too few dismounts and doesn’t get much of a mention. Boxer to replace Warrior which must mean speeding up the current rate of delivery of 1 per week.
Despite the extra time taken to produce this review, there is a lot of detail missing.
I’m was surprised at how few dismounts Ares carried. They really must be packed with electronics, which make me wonder what they have that Lynx 41 and Ascod 2 don’t have.
Ares is Starship Enterprise of sensors and comms. I can only conclude that the idea is you don’t dismount until you know you can deal with what you confront. The Ajax family is vehicles is networked. Maybe an Ares can send a requisition to an Ajax to deal with a threat? Lone Ranger and Tonto, Batman and Robin? Seems to me that when Warrior goes we might have to do things differently….any proposed 40mm Boxer IVF will have fewer dismounts or might be stuck in the mud somewhere.
Exactly right Paul P. Ares/Ajax are capable of uploading data to each other and higher formation. The whole vehicle (all variants) is a network(s).
Also, I believe Apache and C2 have systems which mean they are part of this network. Don’t know about Boxer
Finally warrior is gone, such a waste of money to upgrade such old vehicles when the UK is acquiring state of the art boxer and Ajax vehicles as alternatives.
Exactly we need to move with the times, to many people here want to keep fighting the cold war
Whilst the istar package is state of the art the Ajax hull is an old Ascod which has gone from 25 to 38-42 tons with old school torsion bar suspension. Rumours of track and suspension problems, often the case when upscaling weight. The Australians rejected Ascod from their land 400 program! CV90 would have been a better choice as hydro-gas suspension used which is, easy to change and better performance and more stable! Seems Cameron signed CT40 and Ajax off and it seems influenced by chum’s rather than budget responsibility !
I guess Ajax will be the infantry tank a la Matilda…
Ajax isn’t a tank.
British Army will need some gun to protect the Boxers with only MG’s since it is only thing at hand….
It does even have a gun in 2pdr caliber 🙂
So the Brits are stuck with a gun they cannot fire accurately on the move for years longer!? Ugh
£430m has already been spent on NRE (Design, Development, Testing) for WR CSP. It would require a further £797m (Production contract) to upgrade 275 WRs, which would serve out to 2040.
It seems that the WCSP is scrapped and the WRs soldier on unmodified until replaced by Boxer. To keep the numbers the same for comparative purposes, it would cost £1.54Bn to buy 275 standard Boxers and a lot more for a cannon-equipped Boxer fleet, say £2Bn?
So to go for cannon-equipped Boxers rather than upgrade WR will cost an additional £1.203Bn. Has anyone told the Treasury?
I don’t believe the “command paper” said that we’d be getting a cannon-equipped Boxer variant. In fact I don’t believe the “command paper” was particularly detailed on many new procurement/replacement programmes. Not sure what to read into that.
The adjective ‘cannon-equipped’ was mine, as that is what is needed if the Boxer is to be a credible repalcement for a WR. Command Papers are never that detailed.
I still can’t get my head around it. When the entire LEP was supposed to cost £1bn for 450 vehicles at what point did the MOD not realise they where being diddled and just pull the plug, the army should have swallowed its pride and switched to boxer 5 years ago.
It would always have been better to upgrade every 7 years or so, as we used to do, rather than do almost nothing for over 30 years then have to plan and fund a major LEP very late in the service life of the vehicle. As an example, the Wiki entry for Chieftain is illuminating as to the many and frequent upgrades that vehicle had, a new Mk number being assigned each time. The army probably did not think that the Boxer, being wheeled and possibly lacking a modern, stabilised 35-40mm cannon (due to penny pinching) was a viable replacement… Read more »
I’m pretty sure the lance turret is stabilised. It’s a lot less complex than the CTA firing mechanism so it will probably end up being more reliable and cheaper to run long term as well. With the issues being reported on Ajax this week it really looks like Britain’s armoured vehicle procurement has been nothing but screw up after screw up for the last 30 years. It would be criminal to send our troops into a war zone in cvrts and warrior.
Seems they spent a lot of time developing a turret when CMI defence in Belgium already had a suitable turret which has been adapted to take different guns?
800 million for ten years of service max max from an ageing high maintenance vehicle vs 2 billion for thirty years of service from brand new best in class – I know which gets my vote But let’s be honest We don’t actually know the value of the Warrior production contract as it was never signed. Refurb programs tend to increase in cost over time as you discover issues that have been swept under the carpet. New builds tend to reduce in cost over time due to the learning curve. A second batch of Boxer should be significantly cheaper than… Read more »
I hope that Boxer is a worthy successor to Warrior and has at least as good armour & mobility (can keep up with CR3 and can negotiate complex terrain given its ‘up to’ 38.5t combat weight) and has a modern, stabilised 35-40mm cannon, preferably CTA (to save internal volume). I also hope we buy enough and buy a full suite of capable variants. I hope that production costs do come down, going forward. I hope that they are introduced into service swiftly ie before WR ‘falls over’. I hope this 1990s-designed vehicle has good service life. Am I being too… Read more »
Not surprised the Warrior Upgrade Contract is being cancelled. What have Lockheed Martin been doing for 10 years? How can a design/development/RGT contract be 4 years late and £220m overspent and survive. Maybe the BAE bid was a realistic one? The MoD made the wrong choice at the beginning.
LM has been burning taxpayers money, as defence contractors are wont to do.
These army vehicle upgrade projects take far too long. CR2 LEP/CR3 will take a further 9 years to reach FOC – I worked on that project in 2016. Can you imagine the RN and RAF accepting such long upgrade times for their platforms?
We have enough Warriors to use a proportion for training and let them get run into the ground, while maintaining a core war fighting fleet which is used sparingly to maintain reliability. Surely an un-stabilised 30mm is better than a 50 cal?
Best decision ever, I’ve said it before, it took GKN 8 years from concept to completion on the original warrior, it’s taken Lockhead 10 years since they were awarded the turret upgrade programme and we have nothing but £430m loss and a few vehicle with the new turret
Turret to heavy for hull, gun not suitable due to excessive recoil (20,000 lbs)! It would be expensive to pay all that money and the hulls to crack forcing them to be retired early from service. Seems turret wobble was another reported issue! CTA40 is the emperors new clothes -small turret intrusion seems to have blinded them to short barrel life, jamming and expensive rounds. At least the American Airforce Lab’s had the sense to ditch it after spending over $200 million dollars and 30 to 40 years development which failed to produce a viable product. It is reported that… Read more »
Why can we not just buy off the shelf, and produce in the UK under license. We wrap ourselves in knots and waste so much money, and shock we still have no new vehicles. A 75% solution now is better than a 100% solution when it’s too late!
Isn’t that what we are doing with Boxer?
It was a struggle to get the .5 inch onto Boxer you have no chance of putting the 40mm or missiles on there, no enthusiasm from the military and no money from the MoD.
Out of curiosity, didn’t the government already buy 500 plus CT40 cannons back in 2015?
Where will these go now?
Today I am not a Tory Voter & served in uniform back in the cold war days, when young and ill-informed as far as my politics goes I did vote Tory back then.I want a strong well armed conventional military. Any new APC should be armed with Turret mounted modern Gun but also armed with modern anti tank missile weapons. line Infantry platoons & sections should should also have large numbers of anti tank weapons. IMO UK line infantry & APC-Tanks etc, need kit that cuts out heat signature. The Tory Party/Government is not the Party of & for defence.Thatcher… Read more »