FRES SV has a contract

After years of hesitations, rethinking, changing of minds, messing of requirements, wasting of money, starts and stops, FRES SV is finally “the thing” after the signing of a production contract worth 3.5 billion pounds and covering the delivery of 589 vehicles in various configurations.

The history of FRES and of the programs that came before is a messy, sorry novel which has cost hundreds of millions and delivered nothing for it, but I want to focus on the good side of the news for this once. FRES SV has undergone the last major changes (to date) behind the scenes following the release of the SDSR 2010 (October 2010) and, moreover, with the three-months additional cutting exercise of 2011, which shredded several pages of the SDSR and generated the Army cuts known as Army 2020.

Prior to the Army cuts, FRES SV was a program meant to develop across three “RECCE” production Blocks plus a “Medium Armour” and “Manoeuvre Support” blocks totaling up to a maximum of 1238 vehicles, 10.000 jobs and with production in the UK. After the cuts of summer 2011, FRES SV has shrunk massively: the Medium Armour and Manoeuvre Support blocks were lost practically right away, and the Block 2 and Block 3 have looked increasingly unlikely, up to the point of being effectively reabsorbed into the sole Block 1. And production in the UK is, at best, highly unlikely, as the reduced quantities to be purchased mean General Dynamics will almost certainly want to keep work in its plants in Spain, or ask for quite a lot of additional money to step up an assembly line in the UK. Jobs realistically sustained in the UK will be no more than 1300 unless an assembly line is indeed started up. 

FRES SV as once envisaged. Quantities and number of variants were much higher.

The good news is that in the last few years the program has remained stable and has worked to reabsorb the main army needs into the sole Block 1, and the result, as it stands today, is reassuring in the sense that the numbers outlined appear perfect for Army 2020, with its three armoured infantry brigades. The variants announced also cover most of the needs, even if a few questions remain, in particular regarding what can be done to replace the Samaritan CVR(T) and the FV430 ambulances.

In fact, the contract calls for the production of:

245 “turreted” vehicles, with the CTA40 mm gun. 245 gun turrets were reportedly ordered months before the contract.

Of these:

-          198 Cavalry vehicles Scout

-          23 Joint Fires Control variant

-          24 Ground Based Surveillance variant

A further 256 vehicles are variants of the turretless Protected Mobility base vehicle, of which:

-          112 Command and Control C2

-          59 Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support troop carriers

-          34 Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch vehicles

-          51 Engineer Reconnaissance vehicles

The final 88 vehicles are for recovery and repair, specifically:

-          38 Recovery

-          50 Repair

Most of these variants haven’t been properly demonstrated yet, as the Block 1 production run was once expected to include 589 vehicles, yet, but coming only in Cavalry Scout, Protected Mobility Reconnaissance Support, Repair and Recovery variants. The other variants have all been pulled forwards from later production blocks, and there have been only some basic feasibility demonstrations done over the course of 2013 to ensure that the Common Base Vehicle Hull could be adapted for the various roles.

Such demonstrations have been made for the ambulance variant as well, but an ambulance variant has not been included in the contract. 

The Scout in the latest CGI

 

There is consequently serious enduring uncertainty about how these variants will be configured. Very early graphics and information dating up to 2011 suggested, for example, that the Ground Based Surveillance and Joint Fires Control variants would be based on the turretless hull, but this has now changed entirely. I’m particularly impressed by the change of heart regarding the Joint Fires Control variant, since up to at least 2011 the Royal Artillery was planning to have this vehicle able not just to designate targets for artillery and air attacks from under armour, but also to carry a full 6-man dismountable Joint Fires Support Team. The use of the turreted variant appears to me to suggest that this second requirement has been dropped, because for what has been seen so far, despite deriving from an IFV, the Scout vehicle won’t be able to carry that many, if any, dismounts (early prototypes showcased only had a couple of seats in the back).  

The work done by the Royal Artillery to shape a way forwards for the FV514 variant of the Warrior will no doubt feed into the design of the FRES Joint Fires Control variant. One question waiting for an answer is also how many FV514s will be upgraded for Joint Fires Control for use in Armoured Infantry Formations. Will these vehicles also be permanently attached to AS90 artillery regiments, like once happened? And when will the RA be able to launch a formal upgrade program for the FV514? The Warrior CSP will only deliver mechanical, electric and protection upgrades to these Warriors, but the complex mission equipment will have to be selected and fitted separately under RA responsibility. Originally, FRES Joint Fires would come from the Block 2 production lot and would replace all Spartan vehicles used for Fire Control tasks: current situation is unclear.

The Ground Surveillance vehicle was also shown as a turretless vehicle variant with a very evident mast-mounted radar and, possibly and desirably, an electro-optic sight head as well. Currently, the news releases say that the GBS variant will have a “man-portable radar”. One would hope that, like it was for the Warrior artillery observation post with the MSTAR radar, this vehicle will offer the possibility to rise the radar antenna on a mast for use from stationary vehicle, with the possibility to dismount the radar and a number of operators. Again, the relatively small space available observed in the Scout prototype showcased so far suggests that in no way more than four, and more likely just two, dismounts can fit in the back, even without thinking of how to possibly store a man-portable radar set inside the vehicle.

The prototype seen in earlier shows, while not fully representative of the final Scout, is likely indicative of what kind of space is available, and it only had two blast-protected seats on the left side, with the right side occupied by a white box presumably containing some of the electronics.

 

Mast-mounted sensor heads combining radar and EO/IR are becoming increasingly common. One would hope that the future primary ISTAR platform of the British Army, at least in its Ground Surveillance variant, will be equipped with something resembling this combination offered by Blighter

Another variant which can only attract curiosity is the Overwatch variant for the Guided Weapon Troops within Armoured Cavalry regiments. Heirs of the GW Troops armed with the Striker vehicle, CVR(T) family, armed with Swingfire anti-tank missiles capable of 4000 meters engagements, the Guided Weapon Troops (3 in each Army 2020 Armoured Cavalry Regiment) are now making do with Javelin teams capable of 2500 meters engagements, moving around on simple APCs.

It will be very interesting to see if the Overwatch FRES SV variant is just a Protected Mobility vehicle with Javelin racks and slightly different seats arrangement, or if it finally restore a longer-range, vehicle-launch precision strike capability. In years past, particularly with the TRACER program, which came before FRES but was ultimately cancelled, the Overwatch variant had to have a turret with .machine gun and boxes of ready-to-fire Brimstone missiles (at least 4), giving it quite a formidable reach and punch. In more recent times, the MOD funded a 2-year study and demonstration for a lightweight multipurpose missile turret capable to employ both anti-tank and anti-air missiles, the Multi Mission System Technical Demonstrator Programme (MMS TDP), which might come handy for the Overwatch variant. Some experience in dual-role missile turrets comes through the 2011 capability sustainment programme of the Stormer HVM vehicles, which received integration of the LMM missile as well as the latest variant of Starstreak, and a sensors and thermal imaging upgrade to enable surveillance and engagement of ground targets as well as of airborne targets.

The LMM, while not a main battle tank killing missile, could have lots of uses against lighter armored vehicles and other targets. The anti-tank capability proper could come from Brimstone (but it is perhaps unlikely due to cost) or from Javelin, which has been demonstrated as a vehicle launched weapon and also proved to an extended range of 4700 meters.  

MBDA's Multi Purpose Combat Vehicle turret could be indicative of a possible solution for a vehicle-mounted launcher for the Overwatch variant. Here in "french" sauce, the MPCV is shown being used with MMP anti-tank missiles or with Mistral surface to air rounds. 

Worth of mention is also the high number of C2 vehicles to be acquired. 112 is a big number, and seem to confirm my expectation that, due to the high complexity of wiring the electronic and comms of a modern command post, new-build FRES SV platforms have been preferred over the rebuilding of Warriors or other as yet unspecified solutions within Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle programme, which should take a step forwards over the end of this year and early in 2015. Thanks to its greater capacity, the FRES Command vehicle should do more than just replace Sultan, also considering that some Sultan roles have actually already been taken up by Panther. The FRES Command post variant will be seen well beyond the confines of the Cavalry regiments: it can be expected to feature in tank, armoured infantry and armoured engineer formations as well, and perhaps in armoured REME units too, replacing Sultan and also, I would guess, at least a part of the FV432s and 436. 

The most recent CGI of the C2 variant.

 

Conversely, the absence of a FRES Ambulance variant suggest that there might be greater confidence in turning out a suitable vehicle from the ABSV programme, most likely by rebuilding surplus Warriors into new variants. The MOD, however, retains the option of purchasing a second block of FRES SV vehicles if it was to become necessary, and ambulances might enter the frame in this (very unlikely) case.

It will also be interesting to see how Engineer formations will reorganize if the Engineer Recce vehicle variant really carries no dismounts. I’m quite surprised by this, honestly, since the recce troop has always had dismounted teams moving around in Spartan or other armoured vehicles. I don’t see why the Engineer Recce would be unable to carry dismounts, being a derivative of the APC hull. What is the “specialist equipment” to be carried? At the moment, I honestly have no idea.

I’m left to wonder if the deletion of the counter mobility variant carrying Remote Delivery Mine System for the replacement of Shielder (which was silently withdrawn from service without replacement as part of SDSR cuts) has something to do with it. If not, it would be nice to understand if and how the army plans to recover a counter-mobility capability, which seems to me to be very important. 

Engineer reconnaissance variant. Reportedly, it will not carry any dismount: what will be carried in their place?

There is also an enduring need for medium-weight bridgelayers to support the independent manoeuvre of the new recce cavalry regiments. The british army is set to retain the 10 to 12 sets of truck-mounted Rapidly Emplaced Bridge Systems (REBS) purchased as UOR for Afghanistan, but this solution seems no more than a stopgap, besides with some serious limitations.

It is licit to wonder if the proposed Warrior Bridgelayer vehicle could find a place in the ABSV budget, and come to the rescue.

Warrior CSP and ABSV

As I’ve written several times in the past, with the way the armour programs of the british army have evolved, FRES SV can’t be considered in isolation from ABSV, as this second programme is needed to hopefully complete the replacement of FV430 in addition to CVR(T). Controversial reports have emerged in the public domain about the number of vehicles to be upgraded, and further confusion is generated by the recent decision to formally separate Warrior CSP and ABSV.

The NAO Major Projects report 2013 reported that the affordable fleet of Warrior vehicles numbers 565 machines, with 445 planned to undergo CSP, including 65 to be upgraded to ABSV. This was prior to the division of the two programs, and anyway always made little sense: 65 ABSV are far too few to respond to the ABSV requirement.

Press reports in more recent times have suggested that the MOD is looking at upgrading a minimum of 381 vehicles, of which 250 would be IFVs, with the turret and 40 mm gun.

Again, the numbers don’t quite add up, in my opinion: 131 recovery, repair and artillery observation post (the FV514 variant has the turret, but the gun is a dummy) appear too many, and yet too few to assume ABSV variants are counted in.

Originally, 788 Warrior vehicles entered service. An Armoured Infantry Battalion of the old ORBAT needed some 63 Warrior vehicles of which 7 between recovery and repair variants and 56 “turreted” ones, with gun. Even assuming a reduced allocation of vehicles to the Anti-Tank platoon, it is fair to assume that over 50 turreted Warriors are still needed for each battalion, and this makes it instantly clear that 250 such vehicles would totally insufficient for the 6 armoured infantry battalions that are supposed to be the hard core of Army 2020. At 56 turreted vehicles for battalion, and excluding reserve and training fleet needs, 336 turreted Warriors are required.

Compare the numbers with FRES Scout, where the 198 Cavalry vehicles slot in quite nicely with the requirement (estimate requirement 3 squadrons of 12 in each Cavalry regiment, plus one recce troop of 8 in each Tank and armoured infantry battalion = 180 versus 198 ordered, not including Radar and Joint Fires subvariants).

I would not want to invest in having all the recce vehicles I need, if then the main core of my brigades is insufficient and I can only scrub together 4 out of 6 battalions at maximum effort.  I would expect the Warrior CSP to deliver numbers more closely matching the requirement. 

Note that 380 + 65 gives 445: I’ve long suspected that the NAO and the press have been reporting their numbers and types the wrong way. 380 turreted Warriors and 65 between recovery and repair vehicles would much more closely match the requirement, and would still leave some 120 surplus Warriors available for conversion under ABSV. More, potentially, since the fleet is supposed to still include at least 643 vehicles, the original number planned for CSP upgrades.

120 vehicles could potentially suffice (albeit barely) to replace the around 20 FV430 vehicles in ambulance, APC, mortar carrier and command variants found in each armoured infantry battalion. The new ABSV programme is expected to generate an invitation to tender before this year ends, with Initial Gate hopefully to come next year, and entry in service desired starting in 2019 to keep the pace with Warrior CSP. An APC, C2, Ambulance and Mortar variant are envisaged, with the Army keeping open the door for the option of a vehicle-mounted anti-tank guided weapon system. If an ATGW vehicle was included in ABSV, the number of Warrior IFVs to be upgraded with the new turret and gun could decrease due to the vanishing need to provide a battle wagon for the Javelin teams.

Another way to reduce the number of turreted Warrior vehicles to be acquired would be to build sections including turretless APC vehicles coming out of ABSV: this could have some merit due to the fact that the number of dismounts on Warrior is to drop from 7 to 6 as part of the CSP upgrade. Replacing one or two of the four IFV in the Platoon with a simpler APC would restore the dismounted strength of the platoon, while potentially also saving money. It might be an option with enough merit to be considered.  

The clear implication is that the requirements are closely connected, and a change in one area can have impacts elsewhere.

Now that there is a signed FRES SV contract, it is fundamental to arrive to a final decision on the number of Warrior to be upgraded, and on the way forwards for ABSV: the use of surplus Warrior hulls is no longer described as the automatic way forward for the programme, but I continue to believe that it remains the most likely and most promising option. 

 

The Warrior Mortar Carrier demonstrator was shown with L16 81mm mortar, ENFORCER lightweight RWS and full suite of 360° situational awareness cameras

BAE systems seem to think the same, as it showed a notional Warrior mortar carrier variant at DVD earlier this year.

Considerations on FRES SV

There has been criticism in some areas about the weight and size of the FRES SV, which supposedly make it a vehicle unsuited for its role. I personally disagree. FRES Scout is a big vehicle, but this is only fair in view of its role, which is scouting for armoured brigades made of Challenger 2s, Warriors, Mastiff and heavy trucks and artillery. While there is some merit to equipping the reconnaissance unit with a small, nimble vehicle which can move on very soft ground and in very tight places, it must also be noted that this kind of mobility is not excessively beneficial in broad terms. The current Scimitar is an excellent, agile and easily deployable light scout which can move on bridges and routes that heavier vehicles won’t be able to use. But the question is: how much of a gain actually comes from this? The Scimitar is scouting ahead of a brigade made of Warriors and Challenger 2s, and these are the vehicles that determine where the brigade can and cannot go, in the end.

It is their weight and size that dictates how long the brigade takes to deploy, and how it moves on the battlefield. The Scimitars might get some benefit from being able to use alternative routes and gain positions precluded to heavier vehicles, but the benefit will be limited, as in the end the action will need Challenger 2 routes.

The FRES SV comes with excellent soft ground mobility thanks to large tracks and to the additional road wheel, giving it a ground pressure not distant from that of the latest Scimitar MK2: this despite being 38 tons in combat weight, versus 12. Tactical mobility will still be pretty good, even if tight routes and bridges that would be perfectly good for Scimitar won’t be acceptable for the Scout.

On the other hand, the Scout comes with much greater protection, much better sensors and communications, much improved armament and with a whole different level of comfort for the crew. All these are crucial factors in modern operations, as the Scimitar MK2, with its rebuilt hull, testimonies.

Despite the upgrades they received, the CVR(T) are well past their time as primary armour reconnaissance platforms of the british army. It is definitely time to see them replaced: an APC for four dismounts which struggles to actually fit two with how much kit soldiers carry today, and a recce vehicle at the end of its evolutionary path are not going to meet the long term army requirements.

There would be, however, still use for an armoured, tracked vehicle with excellent tactical mobility and the incredible ease of deployment of CVR(T). Something that can be loaded on a cargo plane with a full load of weapons and consumables, and roll out on the runway during Air Landing assaults. Something that can be airlifted by helicopters and that can go over almost any terrain. There would very much still be uses for it, even if the gun is the old RARDEN with all its limits. I do see this usefulness more as a niche role, however: an option to keep alive on a small scale, as a complement to heavier capabilities and as a support to air manoeuvre and special forces operations. 

The Scimitar MK2 offers increased protection and more decent spaces for the crew thanks to the use of remanufactured Spartan APC hulls mated to Scimitar turrets. Weight grows to over 12 tons from the original 8, though.

Under Army 2020, the Household Cavalry saw its connection to 16 Air Assault Brigade severed. The brigade no longer has a direct affiliation to a squadron of light armour, and despite the entrance into the brigade of other kind of capabilities as replacement (namely one STA battery from 5 Regiment RA, and one UAV battery from 47 Regiment RA) the truth is that some armour protection capable to go in from the air would very much still be needed. 

 

Air Landing assault: an A400 can carry a combat ready Scimitar, a WMIK with trailer and 60 troops onto a tactical landing zone. The Scout appears likely to only be A400 capable if in air transport configuration, requiring filling up for combat after landing.

That’s where CVR(T) could and should still have a role. In an ideal world, 16 Air Assault brigade would have a reconnaissance squadron riding the CVR(T) Mk 2 vehicles coming back from Afghanistan, and ideally, in the future, a more modern platform with similar perks. 

Army 2020: unit structures and equipment

This extremely interesting document offers some insight into the plans of the British Army for its Army 2020 structure and equipment. It finally provides a scheme of the intended organisation of tank regiments; armoured, air assault, protected and light infantry battalions and cavalry units.

UK Army Combat Capability for the Future - an overview of ARMY 2020 units

The document also provides some interesting indications in terms of equipment programs. One interesting snippet confirms that the Army hopes to convert a significant number of Warrior vehicles into "turrettless" Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicles to provide protected mobility to CSMs, medics, Mortar and Antitank platoons, as well as Battlegroup Headquarters, in other words an as full as possible replacement for the many FV430s still in service in these roles. The big concern remains on numbers: even if ABSV finally moves on from the concept phase, money will be needed to convert quite a lot of vehicles.

It is confirmed that the Warrior IFV, as part of the WCSP, will have its troop carrying capability reduced from 7 to 6, as the old seats are replaced with blast-resistant ones. 

Regarding Challenger 2, the CSP is described, unsurprisingly, as being by now reduced to "just" upgrading sights, situational awareness and electronics.

FRES SV is described as providing an ambulance capability as well, which until now had been "left for later", among other vehicle variants to eventually emerge in the Block 2 of vehicle development.
This mention could imply a confirmation of the bringing forwards of the Ambulance variant, which has been in the rumors for over one year.

The Command and Support squadron of the Heavy Cavalry regiments are described as containing three Guided Weapons troops and a Surveillance Troop. It will be very interesting to see how these will be structured and equipped. A FRES "Overwatch" vehicle variant is notionally present in long term development, in future Blocks to provide (finally) a replacement for the Striker vehicles and their Swingfire missiles, which were used extensively in Operation Telic before being withdrawn from service in 2005. It is more realistic, however, to assume that cost constaints will leave the guided weapon troops equipped with Javelin and embarked on pretty standard protected mobility FRES SV vehicles.
No indication, for now, of the shape and equipment of the surveillance troop. A FRES SV ground based surveillance vehicle is, again, envisaged in the long term, possibly equipped with mast-mounted EO/IR sensors and radar.



The SA80 will be upgraded and possibly given a suppressor capability, and there is no mention of a replacement, originally expected in the early 2020s. Unsurprisingly, it seems that the replacement is being pushed well to the right.
The new VIRTUS body armour and load carrying equipment is expected to start appearing in 2015. The L129A1 sharpshooter rifle is not mentioned: earlier information suggests that all L129A1 will be roled as Sniper No2 weapon for sniper pairs, while the line infantry is being re-issued with the L86A2 for the sharpshooter role.
There is a very welcome indication that the Black Hornet micro-UAV will be taken into core.
A curious news is the planned procurement of a fighting knife for 2015.



The air assault battalions (2 and 3 PARA) are reforming companies that were put in suspended animation to re-organize for operation Herrick. The reorganization of ISTAR / Reconnaissance companies, with recce patrols, is particularly important since it has now been confirmed that 16 Air Assault brigade will no longer be supported by D Sqn Household Cavalry regiment. The brigade will employ Jackal instead. The Army plans to have the Jackal improved with greater under-belly blast protection.
In cooperation with the RAF, it is to be hoped that the planned introduction of a new heavy load airdrop platform for use on the A400M Atlas for launch of Jackal vehicles will indeed go ahead.

The evolving equipment budget situation: land forces

 1: Of aircraft carriers and OPVs 
 2: Land Forces
 3: Helicopters 

FRES SV

FRES SV hit trouble in the last few months, and the prototypes are struggling with weight management and other issues, including an internal spat between General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. The FRES SV Scout variant, the most complex and heavy of the platforms under development in the program, must deliver a vehicle which is 27 tons in weight for air transport, around 32 tons in combat ready configuration and with a growth margin stretching well beyond the 40 tons, up to 42 or even 45. The superior promise in terms of weight growth margin was a decisive factor in GD’s victory over the rival proposal of BAE Systems with the CV90, so weight issues are not promising.

It is to be hoped that the very generous planned length of the demonstration phases for the programme will contain any slip and reduce its effect on the wider defence programme. In fact, already months ago it became evident that FRES SV would not substantially appear in the Army before the 2020s, and IOC might be as far away as 2023, with the last of the CVR(T) family of vehicles not expected to bow out before 2026. The time it is taking to deliver this capability is seriously depressing, and not for the first time I’m left to wonder why the “paper project” of GD was preferred over the more mature CV90 solution. We have no certainty that the second would deliver without issues either, of course, but it sure looked promising back then.

Warthog into core; what about TALISMAN?

One good news comes from the UOR to Core front, with Warthog securing itself a future in the Army beyond Afghanistan. Around half of the one hundred Warthogs available will be refitted and reconfigured for use in the 1st Intelligence and Surveillance brigade. They will have two main roles: they will give mobility to the Desert Hawk III detachments and to the five MAMBA artillery-locating radars, currently installed on older, unprotected BV206 platforms. 

The fifth MAMBA was only delivered this year, and the OSD for the system is now given as 2026: it seems that the ambition to replace both COBRA (already gone out of service) and MAMBA with a dozen new surveillance and artillery locating radars under the Future Weapon Locating Radar program is dead, leaving the Army far away from the level of capability it hoped to have and from the capability it had before the COBRA went out of the window. COBRA was going to be hardly sustainable as, despite impressive performances, had a huge obsolescence bill mounting up and would have needed several serious measures taken, but now it is gone and the promised replacement is nowhere in sight. Unfortunately, this kind of situation ceased to be surprising quite a while ago.     

The 21 Watchkeeper TacGroup vehicles (on Viking hulls) recently purchased will be kept as they are, denying a full commonality in terms of armor platforms used by the Royal Artillery UAV regiments, with Viking and Warthog forced to coexist.

The hand-launched Desert Hawk III UAV, in itself a UOR, will be brought into core budget, and so will the dozen of Tarantula Hawk UAVs used as part of the TALISMAN route-clearance convoys. The fate of the TALISMAN convoys themselves is not yet clear: the Buffalo rummaging-arm vehicle, the remotely controlled PANAMA (Land Rover Snatch converted as unmanned vehicles fitted with ground-penetrating sensors) and the High Mobility Engineer Excavator HMEE are all UORs, and their fate is not year clear. Hard to say if the composite route-clearance convoys will be maintained in their current general arrangement. The HMEE was a stop-gap solution between the retirement of the old Combat Engineer Tractor (CET) and the entry into service of the new Terrier, so it might be very low on the list of priorities, as Terrier by now is in service. Buffalo and PANAMA; on the other hand, are much harder to replace in the respective roles and there are no alternatives immediately available, unless the army replaces them with the impressive Pearson Engineering PEROCC, but this appears very unlikely. The fear is, of course, that not unlike what has already happened with other route clearance solutions of the past, the Army will divest the precious TALISMAN system and the knowledge connected to it, only to have to come up with a new solution during the next deployment.

The Mastiff Protected Eyes vehicle, regardless of the fate of the rest of TALISMAN, would instead most likely be kept and used as a combat ISTAR platform or converted for another role within the planned Mastiff-mounted mechanized infantry battalions.   

A Desert Hawk detachment with a Husky vehicle. 12 DHIII detachments are routinely active in Afghanistan

 

Some 115 Warthog vehicles were procured as UOR, to replace the Viking in Afghanistan

Warrior CSP and ABSV

Jane’s reported on November 5 that the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme has hit issues with the CTA 40mm gun which have caused a slip in the schedule, with unmanned firings from a static platform now not planned before next year. However, the news piece has been taken down and can no longer be read: it is rather surprising, and makes me wonder if the report wasn’t wrong somehow. After all, the CTA gun cleared in July a long and comprehensive campaign of test firings, during which the problem should, at least in theory, have surfaced. We will have to wait for further reports to understand what is actually happening on this front. 

Promising news have filtered out of the Army about the conversion of Warriors surplus to the CSP numbers into new support variants. Considerable confusion was caused by early press reports about what DE&S head of Armoured Vehicles Programmes, Brigadier Robert Talbot Rice, said in his conference at the DVD show held in the summer of 2013.

In particular, a report by Shephard News suggested that the Warrior Capability Sustainment programme only plans to fit the renewed turret with 40mm gun to a mere 65 vehicles, with aspirations to modify another 300. However, a report by Army Recognition puts things straight and explains that while most Warrior vehicles interested by the CSP are in the IFV variant and will get the new turret, 65 are in the Repair and Recovery variants (FV512 and FV513) and are also getting enhancements. The CSP should also deliver protection, mechanical and electronic upgrades to the FV514 variant, the Artillery Observation vehicle for the Royal Artillery. According to the NAO Major Projects Report 2012, some 445 vehicles will be interested by the CSP. I believe 65 of these are the mentioned repair and recovery platforms (a reduction from over 130, proportionate to the reduction in the number of armoured infantry and tank formations) while a further 40 to 50 might be in the FV514 variant (which only has a dummy gun, so is not getting it replaced with the CTA 40mm). This would leave some 330 vehicles in the Section and Infantry Command variants (FV510 and FV511), which is a value consistent with the planned six armoured infantry battalions.

There are, however, more than 700 Warrior vehicles in the Army’s inventory, and while as of NAO report 2012 the affordable fleet has been already cut back to just 565 as the army closes down whole battalions, the Army is (thankfully) aware that the 300 (more or less) fine vehicles left out of the CSP could and should be put to better use than being just cannibalized and scrapped.

"Why would you not make use of these pretty good armoured vehicles? If you could sort these out, you could save money on Bulldogs and have better command and control elements based on Warrior."

This is where the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle (ABSV) steps in. This programme has been around, notionally, for years, but it now seems that the Army is determined to breathe new life into it. ABSV is currently still in the Concept Phase, but it is reassuring to know that it has the Army’s attention as a possible solution for the replacement of, mainly, the old Bulldog.

Each armoured infantry battalion is not only made up by Warrior vehicles, but by a substantial number of Bulldog vehicles (the latest incarnation of the ancient FV432) as well. This is a consequence of the management of the Warrior procurement back at the time. The Army was never able to purchase as many Warrior as it had initially planned, and any ambition to completely replace the FV432 was abandoned, with many Warrior variants never seeing the light of day.

Basically, ABSV is a bit of a time machine to go back in time and fix that problem, but much will depend on what variants eventually emerge during the concept phase. As said, ABSV is a programme which has born and died many times. Once known as M1P1 (in opposition to M2P2, the 8x8 wheeled platform which initially had to be the MRAV Boxer and then became FRES UV), it then became ABSV, it was first planned to encompass some 125 vehicles, and there was a contract signed with Alvis Vickers for it, with some prototyping work completed. ABSV was then supposed to deliver Command Post, Ambulance and General Purpose variants. 

ALVIS produced a prototype of the "turretless Warrior" ABSV Ambulance

An armoured infantry battalion can have as many as 20 between FV432 and FV434 (the recovery variant), in Mortar Carrier, General Purpose APC, Ambulance and Command variants. All these need to be replaced at some point, either through FRES SV or, where possible, via ABSV. There is also a new requirement for up to 35 engineering and bridgelaying vehicles to support the FRES Scout equipped formations. This was once part of FRES but has been descoped in a money saving review of the program, while a Warrior bridgelayer variant has been showcased.

It will be very important to see where ABSV goes, and how it integrates with FRES SV.

The US Army is facing much the same situation with its need to replace the M113 and its countless variants, and unsurprisingly one of the solutions offered (in my opinion, the most realistic) is the “turretless Bradley” family put forwards by BAE Systems. 

The Turretless Bradley proposal gives a good idea of what ABSV should be about. A turretless Warrior family would be very precious for the british army

 

The ABSV vehicle is closely connected to FRES UV and Mastiff, as well. The Bulldog that ABSV would replace has also been, in these years, the APC for the mechanized infantry battalions of the Army. Three such battalions, as for Army 2020 plan, are now going to transit on Mastiff and Ridgback wheeled vehicles, with the aim of receiving, finally a 6x6 or 8x8 armoured vehicle under FRES UV, around the middle of the next decade.

The FRES UV (Utility Vehicle) was also meant to replace various variants of FV432 vehicles, mainly in the mechanized infantry battalions, but not only in them. The Army seems to now be more aware of the need to keep tactical wheeled platforms and tracked platforms separated: an 8x8 command post in a Warrior-mounted battalion would not make much sense, and one of the recommendations of the Agile Warrior experimentations has been to ensure that all main platforms in a formation have, as much as possible, the same mobility characteristics. As a consequence, the focus on ABSV has returned, and Rice has gone on record suggesting that ABSV, FRES SV and even wheeled platforms such as Foxhound all have a part to play in covering the various requirements in the various formations. The 8x8 or 6x6 vehicle to come will be ordered to cover a specific requirement which can be assumed to be almost wholly confined in the mechanized infantry area.  

The opening to a 6x6 vehicle is very significant as it can be read as an opening for possible collaboration with France, which plans such a platform as solution for its VBMR requirement. VBMR is supposed to replace the countless 4x4 VAB vehicles of the French army, coming in many variants and with as many as 1000 to be procured, so it could become very attractive for the british army to follow this path. 

One of 124 specially up-armoured Bulldog APCs used in Iraq. Command, Ambulance, General Purpose and Mortar Carrier variants of the FV432 are still serving in the army, but growing more and more ancient

Returning to the Warrior Section Vehicle, RUSI wrote an analysis reporting that the upgrade, which replaces the seats for the soldiers with new, blast-resistant seating, reduces the number of dismounts carried by 1, from 7 to 6. In a platoon this means a reduction of at least 3 men, and while the 40mm gun with its new ammunition boosts the battalion's firepower massively, losing a significant number of dismounts is not such a good thing.
RUSI observes, with some merit, that the Army might want to reduce the number of Warrior IFVs fitted with the turret and 40mm guns, delivering instead a greater number of Warrior "APC" via the ABSV conversion programme, to restore somewhat the number of dismounts. If a platoon of four Warriors included one Infantry Command, two Section vehicles and one such Warrior APC (which would realistically carry 8 men if not 9 or 10), the number of dismounts would remain unchanged. It might be something worth considering, even though the reduction in manpower of the Army and in the establishment figures for every kind of battalion are there to remind us all that it is personnel that has the greatest impact on costs.
The Army might not be concerned with the reduction in the number of dismounts, at this point...

Viking

Under the 38 million contract for the refurbishment of 99 Viking vehicles for the Royal Marines, the Vikings are sent to the Örnsköldsvik plant in Sweden, where they were conceived and built, to be re-lifed after the heavy usage in Afghanistan and to be upgraded with greater protection, bringing them all to MK2 standard.

The Royal Marines have gone through three different Marks of Viking, the original MK 1, the improved MK 1A with modifications due to Afghanistan needs and the MK2.

The vehicles of all variants (Command, APC, Recovery & Repair) are being given V-shaped hull and improved protection on both front and rear cars (the exception is the rear car of the Repair and Recovery variant as it carries no personnel). All variants have also been by now fitted with a ring for a protected weapon station.

An underbelly mine-protection kit has also been purchased and has already been delivered, back in April. These will not be a normal fit, but will be kept ready for installation when greater protection is needed (and amphibious capability is not, as the weight is likely to become excessive for floating).  

Greater work is required on a total of 28 vehicles as they are being turned into two new variants: Crew Served Weapon carrier (19) and Mortar Carrier (9). BAE showcased both of these new variants in defence shows, before the UK made an order for them. However, it is far from certain whether the Royal Marines are going to get the “full optional” platforms seen in the shows. The Crew Served Weapon carrier, in particular, was showcased not only with a protected, manned weapon station on the rear car (which gives the name to the variant), but with a Selex Enforcer RWS with .50 machine gun on the front car, plus Boomerang III acoustic fire detector system and mast-mounted ROTAS EO/IR unit with laser designator. Boomerang, RWS and ROTAS might or might not figure on the Royal Marines vehicles: at the moment, it is not known.

The mortar carrier allows the firing of the L16A2 mortar from within the protection of the rear car, and carries 140 rounds. The mortar is mounted on a turntable. 

Warrior Crew Served Weapon carrier as offered by BAE: will the Royal Marines variant be this "full optional"...?

The Crew Served Weapon carrier as showcased would be a major addition to the firepower and ISTAR equipment of the Royal Marines, while the mortar carriers provide a steep improvement over the old, un-armoured BV206 equivalents. Unfortunately, there will be enough to equip just the high readiness RM battalion, part of the Lead Commando Battlegroup. With the Warthog taken up by the Royal Artillery, the Royal Marines remain faced by the problem of funding a replacement for the venerable BV206s.  

Viking mortar carrier as proposed by BAE

 

The entire fleet is being certified for a 14 tonne gross weight, will be fully amphibious and will have improvements to suspensions, brakes and other modifications where necessary. Unfortunately, it wasn’t possible to fund the replacement of the engine on the old MK 1 vehicles: the MK 2s sport a bigger, more powerful and more modern 6.7-litre Cummins engine instead of the original 5.9 unit. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be adopted at this stage on the whole fleet, but the Vikings are being given wiring and adaptations which will make the replacement of the engine easier and cheaper afterwards, when there will be a budget for it.

The programme is going well and meeting its targets. By the end of next year the whole fleet should be back with the Royal Marines. It would be fantastic to replace the old engines on the upgraded MK 1 and 1A vehicles (which would also bring all the fleet to a single mechanical standard, importantly) and it would be even better to be able to purchase more vehicles, to replace the BV206. Other variants, ordered by other countries such as France and Sweden, include load carrying / logistic platform and ambulance variant, and both are likely to have the interest of the Royal Marines. Let’s hope they can get them soon enough. 

Viking variants. The Royal Marines could use at least some ambulances...

  

Mortars and Artillery

Jane’s reports brings both good and bad news about the future plans of the british army for mortars. Once more, the British Army is preparing to remove the light, hand-held mortar from the infantry platoon. The 60 mm mortars procured for this role as UOR for the Afghanistan operations will be put in storage, with only a few of them remaining in routine use, only with the Marines and PARA formations. Removing the handheld platoon mortar has been done and proven wrong already several times since the end of world war two, but evidently it is still not enough of a lesson learned.

The long-barrel, bipod-equipped 60mm light mortars that have complemented the venerable L16A2 81mm mortar on operations in Afghanistan will also all be put into storage, as there is no money to bring them into core.

And of course there is no plan to follow the lead of many NATO allies and procure 120 mm mortars.

The British Army will instead revert fully to the L16 itself. The L16A2 will be life-extended with new barrels, which might receive a Blast Attenuation Device, like the American variant did already in 1984. The BAD is meant to reduce the peak pressure to comply to health and safety normative in terms of hearing protection. The British Army, having no money for a longer range 120mm mortar, wishes to achieve an extension in the useful range of the L16A2, but this will be challenging because it will require either a more powerful launch charge, which would also be, again, noisier, or a longer barrel which would make the mortar heavier, another big no-no. In any case, the current L41 HE bomb is to be replaced with a new bomb, compliant to the Insensitive Munition (IM) regulation.

Improvements are planned for the training and equipment of Mortar Fires Controllers, which will receive a wider training to be better able to direct support fire other than mortars. Mortar Troop Commanders should also receive greater battlespace management training to enhance their contribution to tactical decision making.

During next year, the Mortar Fire Controllers will replace the current Fire Control Application computer with a much lighter solution which will add a meteorological data handling capability while cutting weight to 0.9 kg including battery from 2.4 without battery. This at least looks like a major improvement.   

A programme was also started last year for the selection and acquisition of a lightweight targeting system, which should be delivered by 2018. A laser-designation capability is among the ambitions for MFCs, as well, as it would allow them to designate targets for the EXACTOR missile (SPIKE NLOS) which is being brought into core budget.

An EXACTOR troop should be added to each of the three GMLRS batteries in the “reaction force” artillery regiments, which will so gain a truly formidable and complete spectrum of firepower, from the AS90 to GMLRS to EXACTOR, which will give a precision strike capability even against moving targets.

The EXACTOR should be installed on a new vehicle platform as it is brought into core, but it is not yet clear on which one: as a UOR, it has been sourced urgently from Israel, installed on non-standard M113 vehicles which, in the british army, would be a logistic oddity.    

VIRTUS

A budget of 5 million pounds is allocated to Project VIRTUS in the financial year 2014 – 15, so we should finally see some elements of this new integrated personal load carrying equipment. A contract notice appeared in February this year, specifying the planned programme of trials and the evolutionary plan for the acquisition of the VIRTUS capability with three successive ‘Pulses’.