Combined Arms Regiments on the way to the Future Combat Team

I’ve already written a first piece about the (limited) options available to the Army for the future in light of the cut of the whole WARRIOR fleet, but it’s time to go a bit more in detail about the topic. The reason to return on this topic is the fact that we have basically been told in no uncertain terms that there is no additional purchase of BOXERs on the way, and that out to at least 2030, AJAX and BOXER in the current numbers and shapes are all there is to work with.

As we try and think of where the Army might go from here, we cannot ignore what the minds of the Armed Forces have indicated, in the Integrated Operating Concept 2025, as the necessary attributes of the future force:

 

Have smaller and faster capabilities to avoid detection

Trade reduced physical protection for increased mobility

Rely more heavily on low-observable and stealth technologies

Depend increasingly on electronic warfare and passive deception measures to gain and maintain information advantage

Include a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous platforms

Be integrated into ever more sophisticated networks of systems through a combat cloud that makes best use of data

Have an open systems architecture that enables the rapid incorporation of new capability

Be markedly less dependent on fossil fuels

Employ non-line-of-sight fires to exploit the advantages we gain from information advantage

Emphasize the non-lethal disabling of enemy capabilities, thereby increasing the range of political and strategic options

 

The Army’s “Conceptual Force 2035”, which very much doubles down on the same kind of design drivers. This study imagines an army of 3 smaller but capable divisions made of lighter, faster, more deployable, largely independent battlegroups, with dispersion being the norm. Conceptual Force 2035 specifies that the disaggregated fighting requires Combined Arms capabilities to be organic at lower level, to ensure the dispersed Battlegroups do not have to wait for a superior echelon to make supports available. This includes having more organic Indirect Fire capability and employing it alongside greater ATGW capability to offset the capability currently delivered by MBTs through “lighter” vehicles.

The BGs will be expected to carry out, and I quote, deeper, more risky and aggressive manoeuvre. Robotic, sacrificial systems will be used to press on reconnaissance, and I quote again, to the point of destruction, in order to enable the BG to use frenetic op-tempo to make up for the lack of mass.

The resulting BGs would be around 500-strong but are supposed to match the current mission set of a 1250-strong armoured BG though the use of robotics and higher op-tempo. The Conceptual Force imagines that, from around 82.000 regulars, the British Army would be able to form some 48 such Combined Arms battlegroups. The organization would work to the Rule of 4, with an Assault Force, Covering Force, Echelon Force and Reserve Force. These BGs would be grouped in Brigades with enough CS and CSS elements to fight, again, largely independently from the Division level.

The key attributes described above, for me, are the key to the whole concept: if you want to fight dispersed and be lighter but still capable, you must pack a serious punch and have far more capability pushed down the levels of command. This is something that in STRIKE we are just not seeing in any meaningful way. Firepower has been dead last in the list of priorities so far, and that makes the whole thing not credible.

In fact, what is most striking about the Conceptual Force 2035 is that it is so entirely alien to what the British Army actually looks like today, in structure, “culture” and programmes. For example, Permanent Combined Arms Battlegroups are anathema in today’s British Army and among the purists of capbadges and specialty separations. CS and CSS are a scarce resource completely out of balance with the number of infantry battalions. Indirect Fires and ATGWs are weaknesses, not strengths. The Rule of 4 is nowhere to be seen, and indeed resources in multiple areas are spread so thin than even the Rule of 3 is dubious.

Future Combat Team

2035 is not that far away, especially in terms of defence procurement timelines. The current BOXER procurement effort will end in 2030, for example (having been accelerated, as we know: it was 2032 until a short while back). It is not clear if the Integrated Review has actually done anything to accelerate the Mobile Fires Platform program to replace AS90, which had once aimed at 2026 but then had IOC moved to 2029. For all the hints dropped so far, the Review has not changed the 2029 target. CHALLENGER 3 itself starts going operational only in 2027, and so on.

The Conceptual Force 2035 is not a far flung future: is the immediate future that is being slowly built right now. The glacial pace of Defence procurement means that this decade plus equals to a virtual “tomorrow”.

We have to face one painful reality: BOXER and AJAX are what the Army must work with. Before 2030 there is little to no possibility of seeing any major addition, such as a second batch of BOXERs being ordered.  

Trying to reconcile the equipment available and the current army structure with the above described aims is thus the most urgent undertaking facing the Army.

The STRIKE brigade is dead, but many of the underlying concepts live. This is not a bad thing in itself: the British Army is small and does need to try and fight in a different, more “insurgent” way. So long as it doesn’t lie to itself about what is achievable, and the means it would take to fight in that different way, the drive for innovation is commendable.

My readers know that I’ve opposed the STRIKE brigades relentlessly over the years. I did it because, the more the project “progressed”, the clearer it became that it did not deliver a formation that matched the idea. Moreover, it was clear that it would bring about disaster in an already overheated modernization plan. And sadly, the cancellation of WCSP followed, as was entirely predictable.

My readers already know that I do not believe that wheels in themselves are key to adopting a more dispersed kind of fighting, and certainly I will never side with the British Army in pretending that having wheels is sufficient to change battle dynamics. Fighting dispersed is complex, dangerous and demanding. It requires more capability, not less. It requires capabilities currently relegated at higher command levels to be distributed far more widely, at far lower level. One such example is air defence: dispersion alone, in the age of the UAV and airpower in general, cannot possibly be a solution to anything if the dispersed groups have little to no ability to defend themselves from threats from the air.

I also do not agree with the Army’s latest apparent pretention that it can just decide to “fight the deep” with less care for the “close”. It started with STRIKE itself, of course: depending on the day and on who you talked to, STRIKE sounded exactly like a force pushing deep into a disorganized enemy rear line, but without an earlier phase of combat to punch a breach in the enemy’s positions. And as I’ve written many, many times, I just don’t see how you could do that: having BOXER riding on wheels is definitely not enough to think that, however fluid the battlespace might be, your battlegroups can just infiltrate unseen and always pick their targets at leisure in an imaginary rear area where you get to target A2AD platforms without the enemy picking you apart.

However dispersed notional Russian battlegroups might be in a region, after all, they have access to such amounts of artillery that they will have a much easier time closing up “gaps” than the British Army in trying to exploit them. Not to mention that most, if not all peers and near peers have wheeled formations of their own, invariably more heavily armed by far, which can at least match, if not exceed, any perceived mobility advantage given by BOXER.

Wheels, however, do have unquestioned merits in making a ground force element more readily capable to move independently over long distances without depending on semi-trailers and trucks. Wheeled armour also tends to be less thirsty, which means it can do with a smaller logistic train. For a small Army with a (relatively) small budget, wheels can represent a serious advantage.

I have not changed my mind: ideally, tracks go with tracks and wheels go with wheels, so that each formation can maximize its best characteristics. I’ve always criticized the STRIKE brigade’s half-track nature, and I continue to think it is a mistake.

Yet I’m about to call for the permanent, organic mixing of AJAX and BOXER.

I do it purely because I don’t think there is a better alternative possible with what the Army has and will have in the future. If there is no chance to get any significant new purchase of combat vehicles of either kind before 2030 at the earliest, then I don’t think there is a way to keep AJAX and BOXER apart, because taken in isolation they are both inadequate.

One could envisage an effort to maintain separate tracked, heavy formations, but not without tweaking and probably expanding the AJAX order. If AJAX was an IFV, it could replace Warrior. But AJAX has no room to carry infantry and there is no real way to change this fact. The structure of the vehicle and the vast turret ring (specified in part because there once was to also be a Medium Armour variant with 120mm smoothbore gun) prevent any conversion to an IFV. It is also probably next to impossible to pursue a “rewriting” of the contract that de-scopes some of the AJAX to make room for a new IFV variant, which General Dynamics is ready to offer and has tried (and failed) to sell to Australia.

However, the ARES APC already on order could easily be delivered with internal arrangements for carrying 7-8 dismounts. If more ARES were ordered and configured accordingly, it would be possible to create Combined Arms Battlegroups by mixing AJAX and ARES. Such BGs of AJAX and ARES carrying infantry could become a prototype for the Future Combat Team of 2035, adopting the Rule of 4 and beginning to develop true “Find, Fix and Strike” mechanisms by adding in organic Indirect Fires.

If more ARES could be squeezed in to make this happen, it would be possible to hang on to the superior all-terrain mobility of tracks and ensure that the remaining CHALLENGER 2s have appropriate intimate support. The two Heavy brigades could thus consist each of a single tank regiment and 2/3 AJAX/ARES BGs.

FRES SV could have been a true engine of evolution for the armoured component, but that ship has now sailed and the Army has jumped into the wheels camp 

But sadly every evidence at the moment suggest that this is not going to happen.

And even if that option was to materialize, it would be very difficult to create wheel-only battlegroups out of the current BOXER purchase because plenty of key variants are not included (above all, nobody seems to have thought about what happens with the mortars, for example). The Army has quickly killed off any hope that a significant change might be on the cards. While heavier weapons on some of the APCs are likely (alleluia!), we have been told in no uncertain terms that there will be no big turret and cannon retrofit.

The BOXER battalion will in other words continue to lack the means to support the infantry fight directly onto the target; and will also lack the superior sensors and communications fitted to the AJAX. While it is to be hoped that MORPHEUS and LeTacCIS will upgrade army comms and make it much easier to coordinate indirect fires from just about any combat vehicle, the BOXER battalion will continue to have limited capabilities in this sense.

I can’t imagine BOXER fighting “on its own”, organized in battalions of extremely lightly armed APCs. The resulting formation is way too weak, and BOXER takes the place of WARRIOR but does not replace it, as the Army insists it can’t be an equivalent IFV.

As for the tracked counterpart, the AJAX “cavalry” regiment with little to no dismounts is not a credible formation, in my mind. We have to face the truth: AJAX has been purchased as a like for like CRV(T) replacement, only much larger and heavier. ARES is just a supersized SPARTAN, with the same number of dismounts. The regiments have been planning to essentially keep the Sabre squadron structure unchanged, with a tiny number of dismounts in ARES/SPARTAN APCs supporting the Troops of AJAX/SCIMITAR. For all the talk of innovation, the AJAX project is one of the most conservative ones in history.

The difference with what the US Army is doing, to make just one example, is stark: the cavalry variant of the BRADLEY, the M3 with only 2 dismounts, has been progressively abandoned and the Squadrons are moving to the 6-36 model with 6 BRADLEY IFVs each with 6 dismounts in the back.

AJAX looks even more retrograde if compared with plans for Italian cavalry formations combining a squadron of CENTAURO 2 8x8 tank destroyers with 120/44 supported by a combination of FRECCIA 8x8 in Far and Close variants, the first equipped with battlefield surveillance radar and optics for use dismounted or on telescopic mast, the latter with UGV and SPIKE anti-tank missiles.

The STRIKE designers had already realized that, given the characteristics of the two purchases, AJAX and BOXER would have to operate together. Sadly, while this remains suboptimal in many ways, it remains in my opinion true. Neither of the two fleets can go far on its own.

Where I diverge from the Army on this point is on the belief that, once we have accepted this is the reality, we should not insist in keeping the units apart during “peacetime”. Especially since, as we have been told in no uncertain terms in the Review, there no longer is a peacetime. We are in the age of constant competition: if we accept this is true, then we need to adapt.

The increasingly artificial separation of “cavalry” and “infantry” in the British Army causes all sorts of historical limitations that really have no reason to exist. During the whole STRIKE brigade experience, to make but one example, it was tacitly understood that the Battlegroup to be formed on the base of the single Cavalry regiment on AJAX would have no Support company with mortars, snipers etcetera. Why? Because it is not needed? No, of course not. Because infantry battalions have those things; cavalry doesn’t.

The Household Cavalry regiment, truth be told, has been laboring for several years now to “experiment” with an added Sniper troop and, incredible innovation, a mortar troop that it was “trying” to stand up back in 2019. Reading of these “groundbreaking” innovation measures, year after year, has been frankly incredibly depressing. It gives a sense of an army that really, really struggled to move on past deeply ingrained but often utterly stupid habits.

I can already hear the many voices that will insist that we keep the infantry battalion and cavalry regiment well separated, and rely on battlegrouping to mix the pieces together only “in time of need”. But I personally insist on saying that this practice is no longer acceptable, as it seems to only ever perpetuate bad army habits and tribalism between capbadges.

I don’t see a single genuinely good reason why we should continue to keep separate formations that will never deploy on operations without being broken apart and reassembled in combined arms battlegroups.

All too often, when looking back to operations, the post-action analysis contains the passage “the units in the battlegroup had only been together for a short time and didn’t know each other enough”, or similar remarks. Lieutenant M. Dewis, on TANK 2020 (volume 102, No 801) makes a series of recommendations to try and save the Regimental system while enabling the creation of effective Combined Arms Teams.

He stops short of advocating for permanent overarching formations, but he underlines the need for broader, more stable affiliations and more cross-training. At the same time he can’t help but note that Battlegroup level training is expensive and an increasingly rare commodity at a time in which it is more desperately needed than ever. It’s all good to insist on social networking and “forming and storming” by “intruding” in each other’s low level training events as much as possible, and simulation and tabletop wargames obviously help, but I don’t think half-measures are adequate.

The Army’s Conceptual Force 2035 is clear in its working assumption that the future is the combined arms Future Combat Team. It is time for the Army to move in that direction in a serious way, if it believes its own innovative thinking.

 

Combined Arms Regiment: the stepping stone to the Future Combat Team

The main physical problem to overcome in creating a permanent Combined Arms Regiment is the fact that AJAX and BOXER will not be based in the same place.

Or will they…? BOXER was heading to Catterick until WARRIOR was supposed to carry on, but now I’m finding it hard to imagine that the plan won’t change. I’m expecting the WARRIOR barracks in and around Salisbury plain to become the BOXER barracks under the new plans.

If I’m right, the number one problem disappears as BOXER ends up living next door to the AJAX.

The rest is primarily a matter of Regimental tribalism and career management.

Does the Regiment need to vanish to allow the formation of the permanent Combined Arms Team? The US Army experience suggests that it is not necessary, as the Regiment could still connect together elements that are parceled out into the Combined Arms Teams.

Indeed, such parceled elements are smaller than a current, formed regiment/battalion, but not by too terribly much. There should be plenty of options to preserve career options, if not to improve them. The geographical proximity in basing should also alleviate any perceived damage to regimental unit and ethos.

The Combined Arms Regiment I propose bear resemblance to the Combined Arms Battalion of the US Army of a few years back, and are essentially permanent Square battlegroups, immediately familiar to the British Army as well. 2 Squadrons of AJAX supporting 2 infantry companies in BOXERs, with a third AJAX squadron for reconnaissance and screening (borne out of what would have once been the Recce platoons of WARRIOR battalions) and a Fire Support Company.

Since then, the US Army has taken the, debatable, decision to go from Square to Triangular organization in no small part in order to move one company of M1 MBTs into the Brigade’s cavalry Squadron, to beef up its ability to fight for information.

In practice, the Combined Arms Regiment would be composed by 2 closely integrated and aligned “battalions”, one of infantry, one of cavalry. Each battalion could maintain its ties to its own Regimental system, but on the battlefield it would of course be the CAR that would be in control.

JAVELIN missiles would be pushed down to the companies, with at least some of the BOXERs also equipped with the single launcher on the RS4 PROTECTOR RWS. Apparently some 50 such up-armed RWSs are planned, and their number might increase.

About 50% of the BOXER APCs should come equipped with the Grenade Machine Gun, and in Germany they have developed a system that couples the RWS with GMG to a Spexer 2000 3D Mk III AESA radar. Using air-bursting grenades, this combination is able to provide anti-UAV defence, and the British Army should urgently adopt it. It is a very basic solution, pretty limited, but it is at least a first step in the right direction and one that can be brought online with minimal expenditure and impact on the BOXER procurement.

The AESA radar, coupled with the GMG with airburst grenades, offers some protection from incoming drones / loitering munitions 

The Army hopes to “improve” firepower on some of the BOXERs in as-yet undecided ways. The adoption of the M230LF light 30x113 mm gun might be an option; if we are really lucky they will consider going with a Moog modular turret that would open up possibilities to boost not just anti-surface capability, but anti-air as well. The STRYKER for Manoeuvre SHORAD, the “MARAUDER” for the US Army, is an example of what can be achieved with such systems.

The Support Company will ensure that each CAR has its own mortars, snipers, UAVs / UGVs in good time, and missile Overwatch. With JAVELIN pushed forth into the infantry companies, the current anti-tank platoons would instead operate the Mounted Close Combat Overwatch capability which is to come from the Battlegroup Organic Anti-Armour programme.

To ensure the group has access to better organic Indirect Fire capability, the aim would be to acquire a turreted 120mm mortar as well, keeping pace with what is by now a standard pick for mechanized formations.

Like in the STRIKE brigades, the task for AJAX would be in no small part to intimately support the infantry. An IFV without ability to carry infantry, by all means. Its sensor suite, in addition, would have to be exploited to the max to ensure that Indirect Fires, organic and non-organic, can timely be brought to bear.

The “Cavalry battalion” would thus have up to 3 Squadrons, 2 of which aligned with the infantry companies and another “free” to scout ahead and provide screening and targeting.

The “infantry battalion” would have responsibility for the 2 infantry companies and the Support Company.

It should be possible, without acquiring any additional BOXER or AJAX, to form at least 6 such CARs. Not “cavalry”, not “infantry”. Permanent, combined arms BGs that will have to deliver that mix of “Find, Fix and Strike” capability by progressively integrating more indirect fire options, and the ability to target them from, if not any soldier, certainly from pretty much any squad and combat vehicle.

These BGs will have to progressively evolve towards those “Future Combat Teams” envisaged by the Conceptual Force 2035. A key capability to bring in as quickly as possible to enable that evolution is the Land Precision Fires system, which is meant to succeed EXACTOR MK2 and eventually expand striking range towards the 60 km mark. Land Precision Strike is an Artillery program, but this should not be allowed to stovepipe it away from the combined arms BGs. Land Precision Strike must become an Army-wide effort to give battlegroups a new and enhanced lethality.

Short Range Air Defence will also need to move forwards to become an organic component of the dispersed battlegroups, because UAVs are going to be everywhere. The SHORAD platform, ideally, must become a more multi-purpose system. Equipment-wise, STORMER HVM already is a multi-purpose system since LMM MARTLET missiles would be plenty good against surface targets as well, but there does not seem to be any real willingness to exploit this possibility. It is no good to claim that air defence is too complex and specialized and must remain stovepiped within specialist formations: if there is one thing we must squeeze out of digital technology and potentially AI is the ability to spread out “complex” mission capabilities across a wider user base. Otherwise there will never be enough to truly pursue dispersion.

The Army has lost mass and has lost many tanks as well; lethality cannot continue to be an afterthought. It is time to seriously approach the problem of how to increase it to compensate the other weaknesses. It is no good to only ever talk about compensating loss of armour with Indirect Fires while doing absolutely nothing to make it a reality. The Army needs to demonstrate that it is doable and that it is committed to a dramatic increase of firepower at lower command levels.

In order to ensure that as much money as possible goes towards the new capabilities, vehicle variants and additional vehicle purchases needed, the Army will have to get better at setting its priorities.

It remains foolish, in my opinion, that the British Army has prioritized ambulance and command post variants for the BOXER over more “fighty” frontline roles. I’ve already asked this question in the past, but I will formulate it again: does the ambulance vehicle really need to be a BOXER…? I fully understand it is desirable, but I don’t think it is necessary.

Again, a priority for me would also be to re-evaluate the variants of MIV to be procured, reducing to the bare minimum the number of ambulances and command posts in favor of instead pursuing, with maximum urgency, a 120mm mortar and an ATGW variants. With a wiser choice of priority on the variants to include in the order, the 508 BOXERs already on order could equip more than just a paltry 4 battalions. I’ve written about this in greater detail in a previous article.  

 The Ambulance role and, wherever possible, the C2 role should be “offloaded” onto much cheaper Multi Role Vehicle Protected (MRV-P) variants.

I understand the allure of having everything on the same vehicle base, and I realize that there is no safe rear echelon when fighting dispersed and dealing with enemies who can contest, if not win control of the air and dominate the Fires battle. But I still don’t see “BOXER-for-everything” being in any way a solution.

Moreover, it is painfully obvious that the money is not and will never be enough for such an approach. Surely it makes sense to be very selective when it comes to what should ride in an extremely expensive BOXER and what can make do with something else. In fact, this is exactly what already happens in other countries: France definitely does not have an ambulance variant for VBCI, but rather for the less expensive GRIFFON. Italy, similarly, has limited its FRECCIA 8x8 almost exclusively to combat, frontline roles, using the Iveco ORSO for the supporting roles.

BOXER and Multi Role Vehicle – Protected should, similarly, ensure they work together to cover all bases, so that the BOXER purchase can be laser-focused on the combat roles, maximizing the mechanization of the army while keeping costs as low as practicable.

In the previous article, already mentioned and linked, I offer a more detailed discussion of what France and Italy are doing, so I won’t repeat the same things here. I will note that, finally, the British Army has last year tested the Elbit RHINO armoured shelter / container kitted out as command post. I’d like to see a lot more effort going in this direction, rather than in hundreds of super-expensive BOXER and ATHENA vehicles.

What practical problem is solved by putting the command post into a BOXER, at the end of the day? The main enemies of the command post in a high intensity scenario are Fires and Air attacks, and BOXER is not really going to give you a relevant survivability boost against those.

Being able to command and communicate on the move by ensuring the new data-radio systems have the relevant capabilities is going to make much more of a difference than BOXER’s armour does.

If the Army truly believes in innovation, it must be ready to truly revolutionize the command post, exploiting modern comms on the move and the possibility to reach back for support. Last year, the Royal Marines had their experimental exercise in Cyprus and their command and control on the ground was both slimmed down and revolutionized, and enabled by reach-back all the way not just to the ships, but to the homeland. The 1^st Sea Lord himself was able to connect directly from his own station.

There are increasingly effective ways to ensure that the command function can be disaggregated, dispersed, handled faster and on the move, and with the support of staff physically located far enough from the battlefield to be safe. Naturally, this opens up new vulnerabilities in broadband, communications, risk of jamming and cyber attacks, but the Army itself is saying they prefer to wrestle in this domain rather than in the physical one. They did so in the moment they wrote down their guidance for the future by claiming that disaggregate operations and indirect fires are to counter the lack of heavy armour. That approach will inexorably mean the ability to communicate and share data and targeting third-part weapons becomes even more crucial than it already is.

Like everything else in life, it’s a compromise, but perfect solutions don’t exist. There are just good and bad compromises.

Combined Arms Regiments are needed to truly drive on this revolution within the Army, by unifying the efforts and ensuring historical, unreasonable divisions are effectively removed. 

The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme

The December issue of SOLDIER, magazine of the British Army, contains a brief article which reports the beginning of field trials with the prototypes of the upgraded Warrior family. This is an important and much awaited milestone, reached after a stormy programme review sparked by the difficulties encountered by Lockheed Martin UK in providing the modern turret with 40mm CTA gun. The programme accumulated a 12 months delay and an unspecified cost growth caused by the decision to fit the vehicle with a whole new turret instead of remanufactured ones.

The delay resulted in a 22% in-year saving in 2016/2017 as some activities could simply not progress and shifted to the right. The expected in-year expenditure of 87 million shrunk to 68. There is no indication yet of the extent of the long-term cost increase, however.

The first upgraded Warrior vehicles entered Factory Acceptance Tests earlier this year. In September it was reported that qualification trials were to begin in Bovington by the end of the year, and the schedule seems to have been more or less respected since then.

Lockheed Martin UK manufactures the new turret and also puts together the upgrade “kits” that turn the old Warrior into the new one.

Lockheed leads a team which includes: Ultra Electronics; the Defence Support Group; SCISYS (Electronic architecture); Rheinmetall Defence; Curtiss Wright (they supply the turret-drive servo system for the Ajax Scout turret. Their role with Warrior is the same); Thales UK (optics and Battlegroup Thermal Imaging system); Moog; Meggitt; CTA International (supplying the 40 mm CTA gun); Westwire; TKE; MTL and Caterpillar UK (support to the powerpack).

Rheinmetall is the supplier of the Ajax Scout turret structure, a derivative of their LANCE product, and for WCSP they were meant to rework the existing Warrior turret and adapt it to the new requirements. This is no longer the case, and a whole new turret is produced instead.

The difficulties encountered by the LM team vindicated BAE’s original warning and underline the validity of their offer, which was turned down: BAE had offered a whole new turret along.

DSEI 2017 

As well as manufacturing the new turret for WCSP, LMUK is also responsible for putting together the upgrade ‘kits’ that will refresh the vehicle’s protection as well as the platform’s electronic architecture.

The new turret and main gun are only the most visible of a series of modifications and upgrades. The CSP is the sum of multiple development programmes:

-          WFLIP (Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Programme) to improve turrets and sensors, and add firepower by changing the turret and gun;  

-          WMPS (Warrior Modular Protection System) to add a modular frame that takes note of the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan TES armor fittings and prepares the vehicle, PUMA-like, for easy and rapid installation of existing and future add-on armour packages when needed;

-          WEEA (Warrior Enhanced Electronic Architecture) to add a fully integrated set of modern, expandable electronics and communications gear;

For years, the CSP also included the Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle, a family of “turret-less” variants of the Warrior that should have been developed to finally replace the FV432 within armoured formations.

Warrior numbers  

The original production run of Warrior delivered:

- 489 FV510 Infantry Section Vehicle (105 of which are platforms for the mobility of ATGW teams, once with Milan, now with Javelin)
- 84 FV511 Infantry Command Vehicles
- 105 FV512 Mechanized Combat Repair Vehicles
- 39 FV513 Mechanized Recovery Vehicle (Repair)
- 52 FV514 Mechanized Artillery Observation Vehicles for the RA
- 19 FV515 Battery Command Vehicles for the RA

In the 90s, A standard armoured infantry battalion of the British Army was expected to use some 63 Warriors:

- 47 FV510 Infantry Section Vehicles (including those kitted for ATGW transport role)
- 9 Infantry Command Vehicles (these are turreted and armed but have a completely different arrangement in the back)
- 4 FV513
- 3 FV512

A number of Warrior recovery and repair are found within MBT regiments, REME battalions and AS90 artillery formations. The Battery Command Vehicles are no longer in use and some were hastily converted into ambulances in Afghanistan for the armoured company group.

In its early years, WCSP was meant to upgrade 643 of the original vehicles with WEEA electronics and WMPS modular armoring upgrades. Within that group, 449 vehicles were to get WFIP program’s new turret and weapon system as well.

The SDSR 2010, however, drastically reduced the number of armoured infantry battalions, from 9 to 6, and that number has then been further slashed to just 4 for Army 2020 Refine.

In 2014 the NAO reported that the “affordable fleet” was down to 565 Warrior vehicles, 445 of which would be picked for getting upgrades under WCSP. 65 of those 445 vehicles would have been converted in APCs and Ambulances under ABSV, while the remaining 380 would consist of around 250 Section vehicles with turret and 40mm gun, with the balance made up by Recovery and Repair and Artillery Observation vehicles.

ABSV was ultimately split from WCSP, initially to “become its own Category A (400+ million pounds in value) programme” under the main budget heading “Armoured Infantry 2026”. This happened in the 2014/15 financial year.

The latest Major Project spreadsheet published by the MOD, however, which was released in July this year but is, as customary, current to 30 September of the previous year, shows that the “Armoured Infantry 2026” budget has reduced to 1612,72 million from 2176,45 million in the previous report. A note in the sheet says that ABSV was “removed” in the Annual Budget Cycle 2016, giving no other indication about the future of this vital requirement.

As result of all these passages, WCSP has been almost halved in scope, with 380 vehicles now expected to be upgraded, with 245 of these being in the turreted IFV configuration.

“Warrior 2” and ABSV

Once upgraded, the vehicles change denomination:

FV510 becomes FV520

FV511 becomes FV521

And so along. The Army has also assigned:

FV525 to the Warrior Ambulance variant

FV526 to the Warrior APC variant

Prototypes of such turretless variants have been seen already back in the 90s, when Alvis was still active. In more recent times BAE Systems has showcased a Mortar Carrier sub-variant of the Warrior APC, and an Engineering variant, able to serve as breaching and bridging vehicle has also been developed and trialed.

The ABSV requirement is ancient and its history is one of constant deaths and resurrections and uncertainty and delays. In 1995, the UK MoD had formalized its requirement for a new vehicle called the Multi Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) which was meant to replace the FV432 family; Saxon (4 × 4) armoured personnel carriers and those elements of the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) family which would have not been supplanted by the then Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER). TRACER eventually died, supplanted by FRES, then FRES SV, now Ajax. MRAV is most commonly remembered because in 1999 the MOD joined the Boxer 8x8 programme and then cancelled it.

The original turretless Warrior, when Alvis Vickers was still a thing. 

Today's BAE Systems ABSV Mortar Carrier 

The Engineer Warrior, which could also fullfil the requirement for a medium weight assault engineering capability which used to be part of FRES SV but did not make it into Ajax 

MRAV, however, was not meant to result in a single vehicle family, but in two: M1P1 was tracked and also known as ABSV; M2P2 was the wheeled element, which became Boxer, then FRES UV and now is attempting to come back under the name MIV.

More than 20 years completely wasted, and the solution to the problem is still not in sight. ABSV, following the unclear ABC2016 decision, is in a particularly worrisome position while MIV might end up being Boxer all over again.

For the development trials, LM must deliver seven FV520s (section vehicle); two FV521s (infantry command vehicles); one FV522 (repair); one FV523 (recovery); and one FV524 (artillery observation vehicle).

The first company group equipped with the upgraded Warrior was expected to achieve IOC during 2020, but this might now have slipped to the right by as much as a further year.

Clear as mud

British Armed forces management is clear as mud. It is not a new discovery, but the sheer complexity and intricacy of the story of every programme never fails to amaze. It would take ages to follow all the name-changes and chair-shifting that have happened over the decades, and this is not the aim of this article.

It is however instructive to try and track the evolution of the budget allocation for the main armoured vehicles programmes in just the last few years to see how dishonest and murky the whole process is. Since the MOD refuses to reveal numbers or even detail exactly what requirements are included in the Equipment Programme, it is pretty much impossible to ensure any form of true accountability. I’ll go back just four years in this brief travel through the dishonesty of a government which wants to murk the waters so that cuts can not only be ordered, but hidden away in the countless folds of the programme.

In 2014 the Army had a massive overarching programme known as “Mounted Close Combat” which covered everything from Challenger 2 to Warrior and from Ajax to Mechanized Infantry Vehicle. That monster programme had a budget of 17.251 billion, spread out to the project end date of 31/12/2033.

Obviously, as a single programme its scope was way too vast and so it was split into four separate components going into 2015.

“Armoured Cavalry 2025” chiefly covers the acquisition and entry into service of the Ajax family of vehicles, to culminate by 30/04/2025 in a completely renewed Armoured Cavalry capability.

“Armoured Infantry 2026” includes chiefly the Warrior CSP, but not only that. There is the enduring problem of replacing FV432 as well, with the ancient vehicle having a notional OSD of 2026.

“Armour MBT 2025” covers the delivery of life-extended MBT capability to be fully operational by 2025.

“Mechanized Infantry 2029” covers the renewal of this other area, with FOC in 2029 and with the main focus being MIV.

In 2015 the MOD included only Armoured Cavalry and Armoured Infantry in the list of the major active programmes, so no detail at all was available about the other components. The Cavalry component had a budget of 6831,53 million; the armoured infantry a budget of 2176,45 million. Thanks to the NAO’s own report, the last one of its kind, unfortunately, we learn that Warrior CSP aimed for 445 vehicles in total, including 65 “Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicles”, aka converted, turret-less hulls to replace FV432 with. The report, however, noted that the ABSV requirement is larger than 65 vehicles and the army envisaged a greater procurement effort, including more variants. A delay of two years to the ABSV element was anticipated, and once implemented it was decided that ABSV will be its own Category A (aka, worth over 400 million) project, separated from WCSP proper.

The report published this year, and which actually details the year 2016, has the Armoured Cavalry pricetag reduced to 6248 million thanks to vaguely described “cost saving measures” including an extended Initial In-Service Support Contract for Ajax. Good news, in theory. In practice, we don’t know what elements of capability were traded out to make it happen.

Armoured Infantry also drops, all the way down to 1612,72 million, to be expended out to 31/12/2026. In this case, the budget has shrunk because ABSV was “removed as a direct cost-saving measure in the Annual Budget Cycle (ABC) 2016”. There is no way to tell whether the removal is permanent or not, and if, when and how we can expect ABSV to reappear. Is the 2015 plan of making it its own programme later on still on the cards? The FV432 still definitely needs replacement, but we are given no clue of what’s happening.

Together, these two changes amount to almost 1150 million which have shifted around / vanished. With no fanfare, no real way to assess how bad the damage is.

Armour MBT 2025 gets finally reported, with a budget line of 744,79 million to be expended between 04/12/2014, start date, and 01/06/2026, current end date.

Mechanized Infantry 2029 remains unreported as it is still in very early stages, with little to no money allocated to it yet. A Written Answer to Parliament has since disclosed that MIV is now in the assessment phase, with a budget of 9 million, for “confirming the optimum fleet mix and delivery sequence”.

I’m tempted to offer a comment about the need for 9 million to determine what should be, really, the very basis of the requirement, but it wouldn’t be kindly worded.

There is still a lot of money left to get to the over 17 billion originally attached to the MCC, but tracking all movements is difficult if not impossible. It is not even possible to determine whether the Multi Role Vehicle – Protected budget is included within this macro budget area or whether it sits under another heading. We might get some information about it, but probably not before July 2018, when a new spreadsheet will make it possible to track the changes enacted during the year that is now ending.

Active Protection Systems

APS technologies can include ‘soft-kill’ defences that jam or decoy the seeker of incoming missiles; and ‘hard-kill’ solutions that intercept an incoming projective with an effector fired from the vehicle itself.

The Army has two ongoing programmes that aim to have pan-fleet applicability: one is MEDUSA, and is looking at how Soft Kill defences could be adopted on british armoured vehicles. The other is ICARUS, which is examining Hard Kill defences.

The studies will run out to 2019, and include equipment trials, some of them already ongoing on Challenger 2. ICARUS should eventually lead to a UK sovereign Modular, Integrated Protection System (MIPS) electronic architecture (EA) that will enable the installation of sensors and effectors (both soft and hard) as required.

MEDUSA trials have already seen Rheinmetall’s ROSY rapid obscurant system tested on a Challenger 2, while a wider test campaign revolves around the integration of the soft-kill Multifunction Self-Protection System (MUSS), manufactured by Hensoldt and already installed on the german PUMA IFVs.

In November this year the Israeli IMI company revealed that a Challenger 2 has also been fitted with the Iron Fist Heavy: this APS is a hard-kill system that destroys incoming missiles before they can hit the tank. It uses "mini-missiles" that are fired against the incoming threat and that should be safer for accompanying allied infantry than the well know Trophy, which uses blasts of pellets. 

Obviously, both programmes could have a major impact on the future of Warrior’s survivability.

The new armoured infantry capability

As of August 2016 the Army was still expecting to get an ABSV to support the “new” Warrior. The importance of this supporting vehicle cannot be overstated. In particular, the Army hopes that ABSV will finally remedy to a capability gap which is rarely mentioned yet is particularly damaging: the complete absence at present of a mobile, fire-under-armour anti-tank missile capability. An ATGW sub-variant of the ABSV APC is a desire the Army has had for years. The last time it dared mentioning it in public was in 2014 when, with remarkable and sadly misplaced optimism, the colonel in charge for armoured vehicles procurement envisaged a 2019/20 entry in service for ABSV. This now seems very unrealistic, and we don’t even know whether ABSV is still alive at all.

Capability-wise, WCSP will deliver a vehicle which is far more lethal and far more aware of its surroundings.

A new Main Engine Generator will provide 1200 amps for the various on-board systems and all variants will be fitted with Auxiliary Power Units to enable silent running. A new battery management system is meant to prevent increased demand from draining batteries dry while a Health and Usage monitoring System (HUMS) should make maintenance easier.

Renewed environmental control makes the vehicle more suited to extreme climates, and the adoption of mine-blast resistant seats improves survivability for the occupants.

Local situational awareness will be provided by six Local Situational Awareness Cameras (LSAS) distributed around the vehicle.

The driver will receive improved vision hatches, forward day & Thermal Imaging camera (SELEX ES Driver’s Night Vision System 4 (DNVS4)) and rear day & low light feed to aid manoeuvre.

An Elbit Instro CRONUS Thermal Imager Gunner Sight is provided for the gunner, with an automatic “cue to slew” function for improved target acquisition. The commander has a Thales Catherine BGTI REO/IR system. The new turret for the Warrior is now LM UK’s baseline Export Turret which is being offered for export. Inside it is more spacious and rationally organized and it offers greater survivability thanks to the under-armour storage of ammunition of the CTA gun.

Local Situational Awareness information, from navigation to imagery feed from the CRONUS and LSAS cameras, will be accessible to both the crew and dismounts in the back thanks to new displays.

Lethality sees the most dramatic uplift of all, as the Warrior goes from the non-stabilized RARDEN 30mm to the new 40mm CTA gun in a fully stabilized installation capable of accurate fire on the move.

The existing L94 chain gun remains as coaxial weapon. The cannon fires two ammunition natures; Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) and a dual function General Purpose Round (GPR), with Air Burst (AB) and Point Detonation (PD) settings. The APFSDS round provides penetration of well armoured targets: the most optimist say that the CTA can take out anything less protected than a T-72. The RHA penetration value is given at 140 – 150 mm at 1500 meters.

GPR-AB will provide suppression and neutralisation out to 2000m.

For training purpose there is a Target Practice Tracer Round (TP-T) that does not have terminal explosive effect and associated hazards.

2012 images by LM. They should still be representative of the design, but probably not up to date

There are 70 rounds ready to fire in the ammunition handling system.

Made by Meggitt, it is composed by a translator, which holds 15 rds, and the magazine holding 55. At least 30 more rounds can be loaded internally through the turret, and the AHS identifies the type of round using colour bands on the case. It can cycle up to 400 rounds per minute, so selection of effects is not an issue. The AHS sits outside of the manned spaces of the turret, along the right side, so the crew is protected by a layer of armor and spall liner.

The power train remains the same with an option to upgrade, and this is the one weakness of an otherwise ambitious programme. The upgraded Warrior, at nearly 28 tons in combat order, once fitted with the roughly 10 tons of the WRAP 2 add-on armour package will max out its existing powerpack and will rapidly begin to grow limited in speed and agility.

The armoured infantry section is going down from 10 to 9 men, which actually means from 7 to 6 dismounts, since the others are the Warrior IFV’s crew. The Warrior loses a dismount seat in the upgrade, as new blast-protected seating and situational awareness troop compartment screen take away precious space.

FV524

Another enduring mystery is what exactly will happen with the Artillery Observation Post variant (FV514, to become FV524). The WCSP does not include mission-specific upgrades for this variant, which is by now obsolescent and which has to literally be transformed from an old school vehicle for the observation of the fall of artillery shots into a Joint Fires Control platform capable to direct precision air strikes as well as artillery and mortar fire. The FV514 has a turret, but the 30 mm gun is a dummy. It is not clear if under WCSP it will get the new turret, but without gun, or at least a "make up" to make its existing turret indistinguishable from that of upgraded Warriors IFVs. It is obvious that if it keeps the dummy Rarden gun and the current turret shape, it will stick out like a sore thumb among the upgraded and much different Warriors amongst which it is supposed to hide from enemy attention.

The Royal Artillery is responsible for developing and funding a new, up to date mission package of sensors and communications that will enable the direction of artillery fire and air support from under armour.

The RA has been experimenting possible solutions since 2010 / 11 if not from earlier, but it is not at all clear if it has the money to fund the upgrade.

The Royal Artillery has been working to define the mission equipment for the FV524, but the status of this particular upgrade remains uncertain 

If the upgrade can’t be embodied into the WCSP production phase, it will have to follow it, and this means, at best, that it would happen in the 2020s, and it would come into service near 2030, way too late.

Worse, if the RA package of upgrades can’t be funded at all, the FV514 risks being close to useless.

Moreover, since one of the Ajax sub-variants is equipped for Joint Fires Control (we don’t yet know exactly how, however), the opportunity of pushing on with the FV524 is questionable. Maybe purchasing more Ajax Joint Fires would provide an easier, more straightforward solution to the problem.

Battlefield implications

Armoured Infantry units are contemplating the possibility of more frequently operating without MBT support. Fire on the move capability, greater range and increased armour penetration coupled with better sensors will enable Warrior to hide less and fight more.

This could become more feasible if ABSV progressed and delivered that much-desired ATGW under-armour variant that would enable Warriors to take a much more aggressive approach in the field.  

The enhanced thermal imaging capability of the vehicle, in addition to local situational awareness and to the infantry’s own improved Night Vision capability (through visors and FIST weapon sights), is likely to also increase the focus on night manoeuvres.

The Warrior coming out of CSP will be a “real” fighting vehicle and can expect an increase in tempo and pace of operations. It will be asked to contribute more.

WCSP modular mounting frame for WRAP 2 side elements is tested 

The full WRAP 2 and Theatre Entry package 

A lot depends on FV524 and on ABSV. The ability to call in and accurately direct supporting Fires from under-armour is obviously of utmost relevance, while the availability of supporting vehicles, from ambulances to mortar carrier and ATGW, will determine the true capabilities of the AI formations.

Training implications

The CTA 40mm gun hits harder and further away. This will complicate training and require upgrades to the current AFV ranges. The new gun has a shorter shelf life, and that is true for ammunition as well. The latter is also considerably more expensive.

When added to the greater complexity of scenarios for which Warrior crews will need to prepare (see “battlefield implications”) means that training will have to change and adapt. The use of simulation will increase even further, both to save money and to give the crews the chance to face complex battle scenarios.

Wild proposals and “MIV for everything”

A proposal that sometimes surfaces in discussions about the future of the British Army is that of using Ajax as an IFV, binning WCSP. This is a rather wild idea, that does not seem to have any root in official thinking, and for good reasons: it is pretty much impossible to convert the existing Ajax into an IFV. The space in the back is more or less nonexistent. Obviously it would be possible to develop an IFV variant with logistical commonality to the Ajax, but that would not save anything. The easiest way to do it would be to adopt an unmanned, remotely operated, non-hull penetrating turret, which would free up all the space needed. That is what the germans did with their PUMA, or the Americans did with the new 30mm gun turret for Stryker.

It is not impossible per se, but would require a new contract, a new development phase, and new vehicles, or at least a complex renegotiation of the contracts for both the hulls and the turrets.

Another proposal revolves around MIV. What if ABSV was cancelled in favor of more MIVs? This one is a far more realistic proposal, and in theory it could well happen. In general I would not recommend mixing wheels and tracks: the Army itself reaffirmed this basic truth in its Agile Warrior studies. On the other hand, though, it seems pacific that modern 8x8 retain excellent off road mobility and it can be assumed that MIV-based variants could support Warrior well enough. It would be a compromise, obviously, but everything tend to be. The closest thing worldwide to a MIV-Warrior combination is seen in the Netherlands, where Boxer was procured specifically (and only) to replace supporting vehicles, including the tracked M577. The Netherlands never acquired the Boxer as APC for their infantry.

The advantage would be that the various sub-variants would only need to be developed once.

Obviously, a Warrior-based ABSV would share the exact same logistic tail and the exact same mobility as Warrior. It is also hard to imagine that converted Warrior hulls, which will be available in the hundreds, could ever cost the same as, or more than, new MIVs. In theory, converting “surplus” Warrior hulls remains the logical and cheap approach.

There is also another option, which is “MIV for everything”, with the Warrior CSP cancelled and MIV used as replacement, with the turrets ordered for Warrior being installed on MIV hulls instead.

 The examples of wheeled IFVs employed within armoured brigades alongside tracked MBTs are much more numerous: Russia and France spring to mind.

It would be embarrassing to end the WCSP now, after spending more than 200 millions and entering deals with multiple companies, but until the Manufacture contract isn’t agreed there is, in theory at least, the chance to go with this radical approach.

Can the existing contracts be renegotiated without huge negative impacts on the budget and on timelines?

Does the money suffice to purchase enough MIVs, and in all the sub-variants that are required?

If the answer to both questions was to be “yes”, the idea would not be insane. As always it would be a compromise, but not a bad one.

When Warrior was proposed for everything

Note that no one knows for sure how many MIVs the Army expects to procure. Four battalions are expected to be equipped with MIV, exactly the same number of units that will be getting Warrior CSP. Unsurprisingly, one estimate of the number of MIVs to be ordered is around 350.

However, much higher numbers have made the news: when the press reported that the army wanted to fast-track a 3 billion pounds deal for Boxer, for example, the number given was 800. That number is far higher than what is required for 4 battalions. It must be said that the expectation is that MIV will include more sub-variants, which in Warrior’s case are covered by FV432 now and by ABSV, assuming it materializes, in the future. MIV could probably include an ambulance for the medical regiments and a mortar carrier used to be part of the requirement.

It is also true, however, that 800 continues to sound too high a number. In addition, the Army 2020 Refine papers suggest that Mastiff will remain in the longer term as a supporting vehicle to MIV, and the variants of the Multi Role Vehicle – Protected might also help in some areas.

The Army still doesn’t seem able to decide where these closely related programmes meet, where they overlap, and where one could replace the other.

But maybe there is a part of the Army that already thinks that MIV should take the place of Warrior. So long as it didn’t result in further battalions being left mounted in nothing but boots, it could be a solution. It is very much time to take decisions and then stick to them, however. 20 years of expensive doubts and rethinks and U-turns have caused more than enough damage already.