A look at the Equipment Programme and an ear for the Secretary of State's speech

Equipment Programme 2017: Category A and B projects

The MOD has published a FOI answer in which it details the names of the projects of category A (value exceeding 400 million pounds) and B (from 100 million to 400). The list does not provide any additional detail, but even so it is simply invaluable to better understand the 10 Years Equipment Programme.

The fact that the MOD is fine with revealing this list if specifically asked to do so, but does not include anything comparable in the EP document itself, is extremely irritating, and it proves once again that there is no security reason whatsoever for publishing such a vague EP document. As I’ve fully embraced the cause of greater accountability and transparence by the MOD in the handling of the defence budget, I will remark that in the future it should no longer be necessary to use FOIs to get this level of information. It would be very helpful to include it in the EP document itself.

Getting to the document, in addition to the really big programmes that are well known and expected to figure, the list does contain a number of voices worth touching upon. 

Complex Weapons

There are several voices here that are of enormous interest. One is the Category A project unimaginatively named “Battlefield Weapon”. It is hard to guess what this is, exactly. With the JAVELIN anti-tank missile having a notional OSD of 2025, the development of a new, more multi-role missile for the infantry might well be what’s hiding under this name. The British Army also has (or had?) a requirement for a “Reusable Multi-Role Medium Range Shoulder Launcher (MRSLs)” to introduce into the platoon to increase anti-structure and anti-infantry firepower and, effectively, replace the outgoing 60mm mortar. The expected date for contract award has however passed months ago without a selection being announced. The contenders were (are?) the Carl Gustav, which is enjoying a major renaissance being selected by both US Army and USMC as new Squad weapon; and the C90 Reusable.

MRSL might be hiding behind “Battlefield Weapon” as well, in theory, but it is not likely, also because even an Army-wide purchase of Carl Gustav would still not get anywhere near the 400 million mark.

There is also a “Tactical Guided Munition – Indirect”, which appears as a voice both under Procurement and under Support. This could hide the decade-old requirement for a guided 155mm shell solution for the Royal Artillery’s AS90 howitzers.

We also have, however, “Land Precision Strike”, which, if I had to guess, would be related to the GMLRS rockets. Again, there is no way to tell for sure. These are both Category A procurement programmes, so we are talking about sizeable projects for new capability. It would be hugely beneficial for the Army to procure the new GMLRS “Alternative Warhead” which restores area-effects lost with the demise of traditional sub-munitions, but I’m not sure an area-effect weapon would fit very well within the project name.

Finally, we have the “Deep Fire Rocket System”, again a Category A project. To comment on this one we have to note that for well over a decade the Royal Artillery has wanted a long range weapon, namely the ATACMS large rocket for the M270B1 launchers. 
We must also go back to the end of last year, when 16 RA Bty went into suspended animation, but with a most unusual promise of a relatively swift return to active service to operate a new Deep Fires capability. In the occasion it was said:

 “There is a plan in the middle of the 2020s around 2024 when we develop a new capability for the British Army and enhance some of our deep fire capabilities as part of a divisional fires regiment.”

While there is no way to confirm it, it seems very likely that the British Army intends to procure the new missile that the US Army is developing to replace ATACMS, the Long Range Precision Strike munition for GMLRS launchers. The standing up of a new battery for it, however, suggests that the launcher vehicle might also be new, and it is relatively easy to imagine that the army might be thinking of the wheeled HIMARS launcher, which would complement the tracked, heavier (but with more rockets ready for launch) M270. This solution would deliver wheeled GMLRS capability for the Strike Brigades and introduce a 500 km precision strike capability (or maybe even more than that if the INF treaty collapses for good. The LRPF is a prime candidate for quick range extension in that case).

HIMARS and LRPF for the Royal Artillery in the early 2020s? 

Curiously, the integration of Meteor on the F-35 also appears in the “Complex Weapons” budget rather than in the “Combat Air” one, as happens instead for weapons integration on the Typhoon. This might be due to the fact that the missile is to receive a new set of “clipped” wings as part of the integration. It might also have to do with its further development (GaN AESA radar seeker) under the name “Joint New Air to Air Missile”, a bi-national programme with Japan. JNAAM does not appear in the FOI: it is either part of “LII (Lightning II) Meteor integration” or is too small a budget to enter in category A and B.

There is a “Next Generation SPEAR” voice as well, which is not readily identified. Brimstone 2 Capability Sustainment Progamme (also known as Brimstone 3), SPEAR Cap 3 and Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon are all listed separately, so this might revolve around the Paveway IV spiral development, or represent a whole new system.

In the Category B list it is worth noting two large purchases of Paveway IV bombs for arsenal replenishment: 1200 and 3500 bombs respectively.

There are also a “Javelin follow-on buy” voice, which might or might not include the purchase of the latest, multi-role Javelin F with improved blast-fragmentation effect for roles other than anti-tank.

The 4^th Tranche of High Velocity Missiles (Starstreak) is also listed as Category B.

There is a Category A “Future Systems” which is as vague as it could be but no doubt covers all sort of studies.

The Storm Shadow Mid Life Refit is a Category A equipment support project. There is a “Future Ground Based Air Defence contingency” voice which is probably connected to FLAADS Land Ceptor (now Sky Sabre).

Complex Weapons budget includes also a “Medium Range Radar” voice which is probably ARTISAN. The inclusion of this and most of the Sea Ceptor costs in the Weapons budget explain why the Type 23 CSP appears so cheap.

Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon is quoted as two programmes: FLRDFC is (probably) the replacement for Storm Shadow, but the exact meaning of the horrible acronym is uncertain. FC/ASW FOSUW should be the Future Offensive anti-Surface Weapon, the replacement for Harpoon on ships.

Brimstone 2 CSP is worth a mention as this programme should deliver a "Brimstone 3" round which is expected to replace Hellfire on the British Army's Apache Block III helicopters in the 2020s. By then the US Army will be transitioning to JAGM, and while Hellfire will remain a plenty big player for many more years, it will become progressively harder to support as the main customer moves on to the new system. Brimstone, on the british side, is the obvious solution. Brimstone 3 is also offered to France for the TIGER attack helicopter modernisation, but it is pretty easy to imagine that Paris will go with a MMP development or some other non-british solution, especially since a british purchase of VBCI has well and truly gone with the wind. 

It would be very interesting if Brimstone 3 added a launch mode that sees the missile dropped before the rocket ignites: this modification would enable integration of the 3 inside the F-35's bays. Currently, Brimstone is rail launched so is not compatible with confined spaces... 

LAND

In the Land Sector the big disappointment is the disappearance of the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle which brings the issue of replacing FV432 in armoured formations back to square one. It had been present up to the 2016 edition. Not for the first time I’m left wondering how the “Armoured Infantry 2026” overarching programme is supposed to ever deliver full operational capability if the Warrior CSP is not supported by a replacement for FV432. If they are looking at having MIV covering the role, I can only repeat my suggestion: bin WCSP and put the new turret on MIV. It would be absurd to have, say, the mortar team in support to a battalion of Warriors traveling on a wheeled AFV larger and heavier than the IFV itself… 

MITER and NAV-P are both present, however. MITER is a large Category A programme which aims to unify, in the 2020s, the provisions of the current C Fleet, Protected Plant fleet and Mechanical Handling Fleet.

The C Fleet comprises of engineering, construction and plant equipment to enable manoeuvre, construction, logistics, force protection engineering and life support. It is currently provided under a Private Finance Initiative contract which will end in 2021. The current small protected construction plant fleet is owned by the MOD and is mainly the result of UORs. It is now supported by industry under a contract also ending in 2021. The Defence Mechanical Handling Equipment is currently almost entirely provided under the DMHE contract, ending in 2020. The equipment fleet, composed of pure Commercial Off The Shelf kit, is owned by the contractor and provided to MOD on a period lease basis. Under MITER, the future contractor will manage and sustain the combined construction and mechanical handling equipment fleet in the United Kingdom, on deployed operations and overseas environments.

The Non Articulated Vehicle Programme is the replacement of DROPS. In July 2018 the MOD ordered the conversion of 382 of its MAN SV HX-77 trucks to be converted into Enhanced Pallized Load Systems EPLS, including 33 winterised/waterproofed for Royal Marines operations. 40 deliveries are planned early this year with final deliveries by the end of march 2021. Around 180 had been procured earlier on. NAVP will build on this interim solution to hopefully finally complete the DROPS replacement.

One notable absence, not easily explained, is the Multi Role Vehicle - Protected voice. The Foreign Military Sale authorization for up to 2,747 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles is dated 10 July 2017, so the programme was definitely ongoing already. But, up to that point it might, for internal accounting reasons, have been reported as a smaller-budget project? After all, no MRV-P candidate, not even the JLTV, is still fully and definitively selected. 
JLTV should cover the Group 1 requirement, while Bushmaster and Eagle 6x6 are still battling it out for the Group 2 requirement for a larger vehicle (selection might take place this year). Group 3 should cover the Light Recovery Vehicle. 
The absence of MRVP from the list is curious, but not necessarily concerning. However, MRVP does seem a remarkably vulnerable programme which might well be delayed once again in the near future as far too many priorities battle over a far too tight budget. 

Worth a mention is the Category B project TYRO for the upgrade or replacement of BR90 equipment, both Close Support (Titan-launched scissor bridges) and General Support (the ABLE system.

The latest variant of contract notice published for TYRO – Close Support adds a new vehicle requirement: a Wheeled Close Support Launch Vehicle that must be able to launch the same bridges as operated by Titan.

As of today, the Close Support bridge does not have anything like this: the supporting vehicle is a Unipower trucks that carries spare bridges but is not meant to launch them.

Up to 36 Wheeled Close Support Launch Vehicles are requested, and the inclusion of “Close Support” is significant because, keeping pace with army doctrine and definitions, it requires a vehicle that can operate in the Direct Fire zone. In other words, something offering a decent level of protection, because it is expected that there will be a fight going on while launching the bridge.

Not just Tank Bridge Transporters anymore. Under TYRO, a wheeled close support launch vehicle is now requested. The number of ABLE General Support bridges, on the other hand, shrinks to compensate. 

It is pretty evident that such a vehicle would deliver greatly enhanced bridging support to the Strike Brigades when compared to the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System (REBS) which spans a smaller gap, is launched by a lightly protected MAN SV EPLS and has a Military Load Class limited to 50.

TYRO requests that all bridge elements are certified at least for MLC 100 (Tracked), which means that pretty much everything has to be able to cross.

There is no Project TRITON in sight yet, but it might just be because of timelines. The TRITON project for the procurement by 2027 of a replacement for the M3 rigs for Wide Wet Gap Crossing has been unveiled in late 2018 in the new Army’s newsletter. It probably hadn’t been firmed up yet in the 2017 plan.

ISTAR

ISTAR big projects are dominated by communications, and in particular Future Beyond Line of Sight, or SKYNET 6, the successor to the current constellation of comms satellites. As is know, a first “transitional” satellite, SKYNET 6A, has been ordered in summer 2017.

Many of the other voices are part of the Land Environment Tactical Communication Information Systems mega-programme for the renewal of comms at pretty much all levels. FALCON 2 EXPLOIT and EVOLVE both figure in the Category A programmes, and it is meant to expand on the capabilities of the current FALCON, which is the deployable High Bandwidth Backbone Network for the joint force, and primarily for the army.

Importantly, Dismounted Situational Awareness appears as a Cat A programme. It is part of the MORPHEUS communication system (data and voice radios and display for situational awareness) meant to progressively replace BOWMAN.

PICASSO also figures, and in this case we are talking of the national capability for strategic Imagery Intelligence (IMINT) and GEOInt, which provides commanders with information obtained from the analysis of date coming from national and multi-national collectors.

The Increment 1 and 2 of the Aliied Systems for GEOINT (AGS) are also included.

Combat Air

The elephant in the room, due to the current uncertainty surrounding it, is the UK-France Future Combat Air System, aka the UCAV for the 2030s. If we believe the press reports, France was ready to progress into a funded Demonstration phase and proceed with the building of prototypes, but the UK has refused to commit funding to that. Whether the programme survives, and in which form, is currently hard to say.

Then we have, of course, the national FCAS, better known in public as Project TEMPEST. Connected to it is also project PYRAMID, which is meant to develop the solutions for the MOD’s Mission System Reference Architecture for future Air Systems.

Worth of mention is Typhoon RADAR 1, a category A project meant to deliver a workable AESA radar for Typhoon Tranche 3 (and hopefully Tranche 2 too). The radar 1, or R1, is the baseline AESA in development for the consortium, but the UK’s intention is to eventually use a more ambitious R2 standard, with Electronic Warfare capability. R2 does not appear in the list, but this might simply be because the additional investment so far authorized over and above R1 funding does not yet qualify into Cat B. Some 60 millions were given to BAE Systems. A more recent version of the list might or might not display R2 since the Secretary of State for defence, speaking at RUSI on February 11, mentioned that the Transformation Fund includes another 60 million for the Typhoon radar. The 100 million mark, in other words, might now have been passed.

One notable Cat A project is the Watchkeeper Mid Life Update. Given the pricetag, it should include some serious improvements and additions. The Army has finally declared Full Operational Capability for Watchkeeper, but it is actually still struggling to secure the certifications needed to operate it from Boscombe Down as intended. Training on Salisbury Plain, in non-segregated air space, was the big promise of Watchkeeper and on this one point there isn't yet a happy ending. 

Air Support 

One surprising absence is ASDOT, which should more than qualify as Category A. It might, however, have been included into the rather incomprehensible “DCS+S - DOTC-A- Core System + Services”, which stands for Defence Operational Training Capability – Air. Its core component is the development of a Common Synthetic Environment that enables the connectivity between different simulators, in different locations, to enable articulate, large-scale simulations.

Another byzantine acronym is MSHATF PFI, but this is the well known 40-years Private Financing Initiative with CAE for the delivery of the Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility in RAF Benson.

The Sentry CSP makes an appearance, but as we know the MOD’s preferred approach is not so much a Capability Sustainment Programme anymore, but rather replacement with new build E-7 Wedgetail.

Sentinel R1 capability and its “project team” are both Cat A programmes. Its mid-life update, with the addition of maritime radar mode and other upgrades, might be the explanation.

The Secretary of State for defence’s speech at RUSI

While it is clear that the uncertainty around the budget has not gone away, the Secretary’s speech should be welcomed as it signals that the armed forces have finally found a champion who truly has a vision for the UK’s role in the world.

For one, I was particularly pleased with it because it attempts to change a narrative of decline into a rather happier one in which the armed forces return to the center of the UK’s visibility in the world. I was of course particularly happy also because, in the last few months, defence policy has been heading in a direction which I had identified years ago and for which I’ve been campaigning as relentlessly as I could, while admittedly having a lot less time for blogging than in the past.

I was incredibly pleased to see the removal from service of the River Batch 1s being pushed to the right. My readers will known that ever since the River Batch 2s were ordered earlier than necessary, I’ve been saying that the only way to make them into a genuinely good story was to also keep in service the earlier ships. While at the moment it is a short-term promise only (a couple of years), the Royal Navy has confirmed that it will try to man them with the help of the Reserve, and if the scheme can be made to work successfully it will prove to be a massive force-multiplier. I believe that there are good chances that the three vessels will stay into service well beyond the next two years if the experiment is successful. In turn, this will allow some of the newer Batch 2 to be employed in constabulary tasks far away from home. You might have noticed that, following the experimental deployments of two River Batch 1s in the Caribbean in the last couple of years, the North Atlantic Patrol tasking is regularly quoted as part of the Batch 2’s missions. This is all the more likely to become routine if the Secretary’s “ambition” of restoring a more permanent and sizeable presence (or a “base”, even) in the Caribbean is realized.

The other massively welcome development, which I’ve also auspicated for a very long time, is the announcement of two “Littoral Strike Ships”. The image released on Twitter by the 1^st Sea Lord is virtually identical to the American MV Ocean Trader, and so very, very similar to my proposal for aconverted Point-class RoRo vessel. However, at this stage the programme is still in concept phase and the exact look of the ship, as well as the decision for whether it will be newly built or perhaps converted from an existing vessel, is still up in the air.

While the announcement came a little “out of the blue” after months of gloomy reports of cuts, it was actually in the air from a while. Back in 2017, Jane’s reported that a concept study for a Multi Role Support Ship had been launched, to firm up options for a vessel with utility for amphibious, forward repair, and medical capability work.

More recently, during a hearing in front of the Defence Committee, the MOD’s deputy chief of staff for Military Capability, Lieutenant General Sir Mark William Poffley, said that a new programme for “support ships” was being considered for launch ahead of the Solid Support Ships, something i discussed in depth here.

Finally, reports emerged of two “hospital ships” to be jointly funded with DFID.

The Secretary’s speech, most evidently, is just the culmination of a quiet but determined campaign which has been progressing within the MOD for at least a couple of years.

It is pretty likely that these new vessels will cost the Navy the “optional” third Fleet Solid Support ship, but this is not a bad trade-off. Two supply vessels are enough to support the single large task group that the Royal Navy is able to generate, while these two new vessels will greatly help in a number of areas which would otherwise be very problematic. The loss of RFA Diligence without replacement, the lack of a realistic plan for replacing RFA Argus in 2024 and the fact that up to two thirds of the Landing Ship Dock hulls are actually unavailable for amphibious operations at any one time are 3 major concerns which I’ve been highlighting constantly over the years.

The Littoral Strike Ship's first concept art as posted by the 1st Sea Lord on Twitter. The MV Ocean Trader vibes are evident. 

 

All the way back in 2016 i made my very own "mad" suggestion for something similar to the MV Ocean Trader, but a bit more ambitious and even more flexible. If the Littoral Strike Ship was newly built rather than a conversion of an existing ship, it would not be impossible to incorporate all of these changes. 

The name “Littoral Strike Ships” is kind of misleading, as we are most likely looking at something which will be done on the cheap and will thus not be quite adequate for the more “fighty” operations that “strike” suggests. Multi Role Support Ship, while far less pyrotechnic, is probably still the best definition for these units.

The “new” Littoral Strike Groups announced by the Secretary, in fact, might not be based on the new ships, but rather on the existing Bay-class LSDs that these new hulls might end up releasing from the Caribbean and the Gulf respectively.

The Littoral Strike Groups will, realistically, be the continuation of the semi-experimental “Special Purpose Task Groups” that the Royal Marines have been sending out at sea in the last couple of years. These formations, normally of Company-group size and embarked on a single amphibious vessel, have been sent all the way to Pacific (HMS Albion’s tour of last year) and have repeatedly traveled in and out of Mediterranean and Indian Ocean (RFA Lyme Bay, most recently). The Littoral Strike Group should be a more capable evolution of the SPTG, hopefully enabled by the availability of extra supports, including escort vessels.

The new Littoral Strike Group will probably embark significant amounts of Marines and is likely to beat the Bay-class in aviation facilities (the MV Ocean Trader used as example has a two-bays hangar for medium helicopters and a two-spot flight deck that can take anything up to the gigantic CH-53), but is unlikely to have a dock in the stern. It will still be plenty useful, however, and if a RoRo / container ship hull is used, it will have enormous utility as additional strategic sealift.

With the right people and modular facilities on board it could also do decently as a Forward Repair and Support vessel, and it could be able to replace Argus in the medical role if able to embark a modular Role 3 hospital, for which the Navy could work alongside the Army for maximum efficiency.

The MV Ocean Trader, ex MV Cragside, after being modified for use by the US forces 

MV Cragside undergoing her transformation in Mobile, Alabama

The announcement of a RAF Squadron equipped with Swarming Drones is also a welcome development. The mention of this by the Secretary fueled a lot of comments, especially since he made it sound like the whole system would be ready by the end of the year. The MOD has subsequently clarified that it Is more a three years effort, and at the moment we can only speculate on the final form that this capability will take. The “end of 2019” mentioned by the Secretary might actually be for the formation of the squadron, which I figure could well start out as an experimental unit, much like the Fleet Air Arm’s own 700X NAS.

At the moment it is impossible to say if the LANCA (Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft) low-cost UCAV, which was sought last year in a call for proposals to industry, is part of this effort or a parallel development.

The UK, however, was already experimenting with unmanned loyal wingmen back in 2008, when a modified Tornado took control, in flight, of a BAC 1-11 modified to serve as UAV; plus 3 other simulated unmanned aircraft. There clearly has been an interest in the capability for many years, and this fits into the wider campaign of experimentation ran by UK industry, which includes of course TARANIS, but also the very interesting BAE MAGMA which replaces flaps, ailerons and other moving surfaces with blown air taken from the engine. In other words, there are the capabilities to put together some good capability.

The result might be something like the Kratos XQ-58 Valkyrie intended to be used as part of the Low-Cost, Attritable Strike Unmanned Air System Demonstration for the USAF.

It will also be a step forwards on the way to unmanned companions for FCAS / TEMPEST. Replying to a House of Lords written question by Lord West on 14 february, Earl Howe wrote that “the combat air acquisition programme is looking at the replacement of Typhoon's capabilities and any new combat air system will need to be interoperable with the Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) programme. The concept phase of the acquisition programme will consider QEC basing for any unmanned force multipliers which may form part of the future combat air system.”

This reads as if the TEMPEST will not be carrier-capable (sadly, not a surprise and one of the reasons why the lack of catapults on the QE class remains regrettable) but the unmanned part of the future combat air system might be. This is very interesting, but it’s very early days and I’m somewhat skeptical still.

Williamson also mentioned a non-specified “VENOM kinetic strike capability” which is meant to give an attack capability to “ISTAR platforms”. UK Defence Journal says that, according to MOD sources, the platforms in question are the C-130J and the SHADOW R1 (soon to be R2 after the ongoing mid-life update programme).

The C-130J is not properly an ISTAR platform, but like the SHADOW R1 is commonly used in support to the Special Forces and there are several good options readily available for its armament.

It has now been confirmed that at least one C5 short-fuselage C-130 is being retained as part of the 14 that the RAF is going to keep in the long term. This is important because the tanking kit has only ever been installed on short-fuselage C-130s and might not be adaptable to the stretched ones. The HARVEST HAWK kit has been developed to equip short C-130s in tanker configuration (KC-130J). 

HARVEST HAWK originally swapped out one Air Refueling pod and replaced it with a quadruple launcher for Hellfire missiles. In addition, a palletized console is embarked into the cargo bay and a 10-cell launcher for GRIFFIN lightweight missiles was installed on the ramp. A TSS EO/IR turret is provided thanks to a modified external fuel tank. 

HARVEST HAWK evolution is continuing, however, and the USMC is replacing the TSS with a MX-20 EO/IR turret mounted under the nose, to restore the full fuel load. Moreover, with the Outer Wing Station 430 modification (OWS430), by 2020 they will have added two additional underwing pylons, doubling the capacity for externally-carried missiles while allowing the return of the Air Refueling pod. The new and improved HARVEST HAWK will restore 100% of its tanking potential while doubling its fire power at the same time. 

The missile launcher on the cargo ramp has been replaced by an enclosed launcher in a modified side door ("Derringer Door") which enables the launch of the missiles without requiring decompression and ramp opening. That also ensures that cargo capability is retained and requires less preparations before a mission. 

The USMC is also integrating the INTREPID TIGER II Electronic Warfare pod, while Hellfire will be replaced by JAGM. 

The RAF has only activated two pylons on its C-130J-30s so far, adding external fuel tanks to them in the last few years. 

In an ideal world, at least a second C5 should be retained and HARVEST HAWK kits, including AAR capability, should be procured for the pair. That would deliver a great firepower boost while also introducing in service a couple of tankers able to refuel helicopters. The Merlin HC4 is AAR capable and the Commando Helicopter Force wants to tap into that latent capability since extra range would obviously help a lot in all missions, including Joint Personnel Recovery.

Harvest Hawk in its original configuration. The 30mm gun pallet is on hold. 

The Special Forces are also known to want the capability, ideally on CHINOOK, and the SDSR 2015, in theory, promised them “longer range helicopters”.

Putting a couple of pylons and lightweight munitions such as MBDA’s VIPER-E on SHADOW R1 wouldn’t be difficult, either. But if I was in a position to make the choice, my priority would definitely be converting two C5 into KC-130Js and getting a pair of HARVEST HAWK kits for them at the same time.

PROTECTOR deserves a mention too, because we have recently been given the first official indication that maritime patrol capability could feature in the intended second batch (16 are on order, but there are 10 options as well and the stated intention remains to get to “at least 20”). Leonardo has showcased its SEASPRAY radar, which is ready for adoption on the centerline pylon (PROTECTOR will have 9 pylons overall, up from 5 on REAPER, or 7 counting the low-payload external ones, which in practice have never been used so far but would be good for, say, Sidewinder / ASRAAM). ULTRA is continuing work on its ASW sonobuoy-dispensing pods.

It is now contractually confirmed that PROTECTOR will be armed with Brimstone and Paveway IV and fitted with the Due Regard Radar, which was initially only going to be Fitted For But Not With. On the other hand, deliveries will happen later, and entry in service will arrive in 2023 rather than 2021, while the RAF is in the process of “decommissioning” one of its 10 Reapers. A curious development, might be because the UAV has suffered damage that is deemed not worthy to try and repair.

In his speech, Williamson briefly touched on the issue of Warrior upgrades, indirectly confirming that WCSP is going ahead. 2017 and 2018 have been tough and unpleasant years for the programme, which was called into serious question over the big delays accumulated (entry in service now to start in 2023 when it had once been 2018, then 2020…), but the ongoing trials at Bovington seem to have been positive enough that cancellation is no longer a possibility.  

A remotely operated, unmanned TERRIER was used to breach anti-tank obstacles during a demonstration ran by the US Army which also included unmanned M113s laying smoke to cover the action. The US Army is already seeking an Optionally Manned IFV for replacing Bradley. 

Also for the army, the Secretary remarked that he supports the fielding not just of unmanned logistic support vehicles, which have so far gotten most of the attention, but unmanned combat vehicles too.

At the latest AWE event, a WarriorIFV was converted into a remotely operated combat vehicle and I thinkt the demonstration opens up interesting possibilities. If I had to put my money on something in this area, it would be on surplus CRV(T) Scimitar to be converted in unmanned combat vehicles. Their insufficient protection would no longer be quite as concerning, while their awesome strategic and all-terrain mobility, as well as air mobility, would make them incredibly flexible in support of manned AFVs and infantry alike. The RARDEN is not a good weapon for an unmanned vehicle due to manual reloading and lack of stabilization, but there a few good options out there for replacing the turret and introduce an autocannon+missile combination that would be enormously capable.

Jordan's KADDB's proposal for upgunning CRV(T). Add remote control. The first British Army unmanned companion for much larger and less deployable manned AFVs? 

The Secretary also announced that funding will go towards equipping all infantry (including Royal Marines and RAF Regiment) with advanced night vision equipment which so far was reserved to Special Forces. This follows on similar decisions in the US and will go a long way in ensuring the Army can truly own the night. It could be argued that night vision is a major asymmetrical advantage over non-peer enemies, but that so far it hasn’t been exploited as much as it should have been. 

Some growth

In the coming months, 23 Amphibious Engineer Troop, in Germany, will be growing into a Squadron. Mothballed M3 rigs are being reactivated and the new ORBAT is being defined. With its M3 rigs, it will remain forward based in Germany, alongside its german counterpart and well positioned to continue training on the river Weser.

M3 rigs, british and german, in action during NATO exercises

This is also the year of the return of 28 Royal Engineer Regiment as a joint C-CBRN regiment is reformed after the idiotic SDSR 2010 cut. 28 RE Regt will take under command 77 Field Squadron, ex armoured squadron, which was part of 35 RE Regt until this converted into an EOD unit.

FALCON Sqn Royal Tank Regiment, with its FUCHS reconnaissance vehicles, will join the regiment in July.

27 Squadron RAF Regiment, the current CBRN specialist, will also join the new unit; 64 Headquarters & Support Squadron will form up this year and 42 Field Squadron will be re-established in 2020. There are also tentative plans for a reserve squadron to follow in 2022.

The Brigade of Gurkhas in particular is growing quickly to fill some gaps and help with the manpower deficit. This too is a U-turn on disastrous 2010 and 2011 choices. The Gurkhas now man Gurkha Company (Tavoleto) in its role of Training Support Company, part of the Specialist Weapons School at the Land Warfare Centre in Warminster.

Moreover, the Queen’s Own Gurkha Logistic Regiment is growing and two additional Gurkha sqns are appearing, one within 9 RLC Regt and one within 4 RLC Regt.

The Queen’s Gurkha Signals are growing by two squadrons as well, with 247 Sqn within 16 Signal Regt and 249 Sqn within 3 Divisional Signal Regiment.

The Queen’s Gurkha Engineers could also see growth in the near future. They have taken up significant roles within the ARRC support battalion, beginning in 2014 with the Close Support Troop and Engineer element.

News from DVD2013 - UPDATE

The DVD event this year at Milbrook made less noise than in other years, partly because the Paris airshow stole the headlines and partly because the focus is shifting away from making big orders under Urgent Requirement procedure to fill gaps evidenced by combat experience in Afghanistan to finding ways to bring the UOR stuff already purchased into the Core Budget.



Jane's has a video feature about DVD2013 which contains a few interesting news. First of all, the Warthog seem to be on the list of the goners. The Army's position seems to be that there is no place for the vehicle in the Core Budget. This is hardly a surprise: who's been following this blog for a while has probably had the chance to hear from me the opinion that, either the Royal Marines are interested and buy in, or the Warthog has not an evident place in Army 2020. Mind you, this does not mean that it is a bad or useless platform, but that it does not fill an evident, prioritary capability slot and is, consequently, not going to see the money.

A Foxhound WMIK is also shown in the video. So far, the army has not ordered the WMIK nor the Utility variants of the Foxhound, since it already has Jackal, Coyote and Husky. Standardizing on a single platform (the Foxhound) would be of course interesting and advantageous, but it would cost a lot of money that the Army simply does not have.
The Foxhound in the images is fitted with an Electronic Warfare package on a telescopic mast.

A more interesting fact quoted in the article regards the exposition of a HDT Storm vehicle, a lightweight high mobility 4x4 developed as a weapon platform with casualty evacuation capability, with complete air transportability. The Storm fits within a Chinook's cargo bay, can be air dropped (including with Joint Precision Air Drop package, JPADS, to ensure high accuracy delivery) and can be airlifted by any tactical cargo aircraft. The Storm has a pintle mount for a medium machine gun near the driver's seat and a ring mount for an additional machine gun on top, giving 360° field of fire. It is meant to carry up to three litters in Roll-Over Protection system (ROP) while retaining its combat capability.

The HDT Storm provides impressive all terrain mobility

The HDT was showcased, according to Jane's, because industry is eyeing a MOD requirement, that could be launched in 2016, for the purchase of a similar platform as part of a program to try and rebuild a complete Joint Personnel Recovery capability (Combat Search and Rescue) to close one of several macro-gaps (Maritime Patrol Aircraft, carrier strike, Joint Personnel Recovery and Supression of Enemy Air Defence, SEAD)  in capability identified by Permanent Joint HQ (PJHQ).
The british army, in theory, already has a vehicle that fits inside a Chinook, and that is the Supacat HMT400, better known as the Jackal. However, fitting a Jackal inside a Chinook is a challenge: there really is no space to spare, the weapon mount on the ring on top of the vehicle must be removed and then re-fitted following disembarkation, and the HMT400, anyway, is not a vehicle thought for casualty evacuation.
While a Jackal with fuel and armor weights 5500 kg, and with crew and payload (kerb weight) can weight well over 7500 kg, with a minimum height (suspensions fully lowered, no weapon mount on top) of 1885 mm and a width of 2050 mm, the Storm only weights 1960 kg (kerb weight) rising to 3651 at full load, and is 1680 mm high and 2030 mm wide. The Storm can launch quickly out of a Chinook, without needing to be re-fitted with any piece, and ride over extremely rough terrain to reach the casualties and evacuate them back to the LZ. The mobility of the Storm is absolutely impressive, and significantly exceed even that of the Jackal, with its approach angle of 74° and capability to overcome a 914 mm high vertical obstacle.

Squeezing a HMT Extenda into a Chinook, with no space to spare @Supacat

The HDT Storm has been selected by the USAF for its Guardian Angel Air Deployable Rescue Vehicle (GAARV), so it is well placed to compete for any possible british order. If Joint Personnel Recovery ever manages to get funding in such a strained budget, that is.

The video also shows what looks like an unmanned, remotely controlled Project PANAMA Land Rover Snatch. These Land Rovers converted in drones are used as part of the Talisman route clearance convoys in Afghanistan. When not used to scout ahead of the other vehicles for mines and IEDs with their large front-mounted detector (ground-penetrating radar?), they are often seen towed by the large Mastiff vehicles.
The Land Rover in the video is shown with a second sensor, a Raytheon SOTERIA laser mine detector. It is not clear if the British Army has shown any interest for this system, which was classified before being shown at DVD. It might already be in use.

A PANAMA Land Rover as seen in Afghanistan, under tow and with the large IED Detector folded up

The Raytheon SOTERIA mounted on top of the Land Rover

The show also provided a perfect occasion for Navistar and Supacat to announce their collaboration agreement to jointly support the 1000-strong combined fleet of Husky, Coyote and Jackal vehicles which the British Army is bringing into core budget.
For the occasion, one of 16 new Husky recovery vehicles was showcased. The Husky Recovery is the MOD's solution to the urgent requirement for a light recovery platform, alternative to the huge, 32 tons MAN Wrecker, which is unsuitable for tight areas and for some tasks. The Husky Recovery seem set to have a good long term future, since the Coyote, Jackal, Husky and even Foxhound fleet are all "clients" for such lightweight recovery service and they all are an important component of Army 2020.
It would appear almost certain that additional Husky recovery vehicles will be required in future. British Forces News has a video from Camp Bastion showing the Husky Recovery.  


WEW also put its focus on long term support of UOR capability, in particular regarding the Fuel Dispensing Racks it provided to the MOD for use in Afghanistan. These containerized 9500 liters tanks, compatible with hook arm and Enhanced Pallet Load System (EPLS) cargo trucks (6x6 or 8x8) are designed as self sufficient fuel stations that can be loaded on a truck, transported to a FOB and dropped on the ground, ready to dispense fuel. 

The FDRs are only one of many deployable, containerized solutions developed in the last few years. CT scanners, workshops, fitter sections and other services have been similarly made "expeditionary" with some brilliant solutions. G3 has provided many of these solutions.
For example, already back in 2008 the MOD took delivery of 13 Combined Instrument Repair Facilities (CIRF’s), container-mounted laboratories for the maintenance of day, night and laser sights used on armored vehicles including Challenger 2, Warrior and FRES SV.
There are also 44 Deployable Machine Shops 

A containerized hospital facility also entered service. A full solution for the support of the Military Working Dog Regiment also followed, with 17 containerized accomodation units having been procured, each comprising environmental control and spaces for the handlers to prepare food for the dogs and do basic admin. 
More recently, the Fitter Section In A Box (FSIAB), was procured: a container with two inflatable shelters, its own generator and all the tools needed for maintenance on Foxhound, Husky and Jackal/Coyote vehicles.
Other solutions and offers also exist.

The look of a container accomodation unit deployed and fitted with external kennels

This year, G3 and Marshall have decided to work together in Team M3 to offer their combined capabilities to the MOD. This year's box solution is the module containing the two-man self-contained, deployable laboratory developed for the Future Deployable Geospatial Intelligence project. The Box is installed on a Mowag DURO II vehicle. The DURO is already in use in the british army in several roles, including as carrier for the deployable REACHER satellite communications terminals.

The DURO on mobility trials.

Marshall Specialist Vehicles is one of several companies composing the Team SOCRATES, comprising SciSYS and Actica Consulting. The team is lead by Lochkeed Martin UK, which won the contract for the Future Deployable GEOINT in January last year.
The Future Deployable GEOINT project is part of a wider program, PICASSO, for the modernisation and sustainment of british GEOINT capability, within the evolution of the armed forces' ISTAR.


Update 24 and 25 June 2013

Shephard adds more news from DVD with some news taken from Brigadier General Robert Talbot Rice, the head of the DE&S Armoured Vehicles Programme. 

Talbot confirms that the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme is taking shape. It is currently still in the concept phase, but it will hit Initial Gate next year. It seems that all decisions that matter have yet to be taken, and the Brigadier General does not provide any real clue about what the Army is planning. The LEP will be mostly about Obsolescence Management, and this was to be expected, but Talbot nonetheless says that there opportunities to do some "really good things".
Accepted that the idea of replacing the rifled cannon with a smoothbore german L55 gun is dead, because of problems in adapting the internal storage spaces for the one-piece ammunition, there are other "opportunities" that were already highlighted by the now defunct Challenger 2E. For example, the replacement of the powerpack with a more modern one: years ago, the diesel Perkins CV 12 TCA 1,200 hp with associated Davis Brown TN-54 transmission and cooling system were replaced on a Challenger 2 used as demonstrator. In what was called Project Exmouth, the powerpack was replaced by a 1,500 hp diesel MTU EuroPowerPack composed by MT 883 V12 engine and Renk HSWL 295 TM transmission.
The improvement was dramatic: more speed, better mobility, and considerable free space obtained aboard, which could be used for storing more fuel or adding other capabilities. Eventually, this solution was adopted by the Challenger 2E that BAE offered, unsuccesfully, on the export market.

The vastly improved Challenger 2E failed to win the export orders BAE had hoped for, and it was eventually abandoned @Image courtesy of JW Boer

The replacement of the powerpack and the addition of an Auxiliary Power Unit to provide the tank's systems with energy while the main engine is off, would rank, in my opinion, as not just "really good things" but as extremely good things.

The Challenger 2 at the latest Theatre Entry Standard for Iraq operations. A true mobile fortress, it could certainly use a more powerful engine

On the Warrior CSP, the read is less pleasant. Apparently, so far the MOD has placed a firm contract for just 65 vehicles to be fully upgraded (including the much improved turret with the CT40 gun). The aspiration is to upgrade 300 more, but the Brigadier General specifies that discussions are still ongoing at Army HQ to decide exactly how many Warriors should get the upgrade. The Brigadier says that, if it so was decided, higher numbers of Warriors could be upgraded, but taking the money away from the pot currently reserved for FRES UV.

The last solid info we were given on the Warrior upgrade came from the NAO Major Projects Report 2012. The document allowed us to learn that:

The affordable fleet is made up by 565 Warrior vehicles (all variants, we have to assume)
The Warrior CSP was planned to be done on 445 vehicles

It is worth remembering that the Warrior upgrade is made up by several different components. In the words of the NAO:

1. Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Programme
(A new turret incorporating a fully stabilised automatic 40mm cannon)
The 40 mm Cased Telescopic Cannon and Ammunition System has been mandated as the weapon system for Warrior and procured by a joint Anglo-French project. The project is currently part way through qualification of the ammunition and cannon, concurrently the weapon system is being integrated into Warrior by Lockheed Martin UK, who will qualify the new turret.
2. Enhanced Electronic Architecture
(Power generation and distribution enhancement and the introduction of a modern electronic architecture)
3. Modular Protection System
(Applique Armour fixing points, enabling a 'tailored' armour solution to counter specific threats)
4. Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle
(A new variant, replacing obsolescent platforms, that has equal protection and mobility to the core fighting platforms). Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle is currently in the Concept Phase and is subject to future approval.

The "full upgrade" comprising modular protection system, enhanced electronic architecture and WFLIP is destined to the frontline IFV variants (FV510 Section vehicle, including those modified for anti-tank section carriage, and FV511 infantry command vehicle), while the "turretless" variants, only get the EEA and MPS improvements for obvious reasons. (NOTE: the turretless variants include the FV512 recovery and the FV513 repair variants, but also the FV514 artillery observation post, which has the turret but only a dummy gun due to the need for space for the electronics).

The Warrior CSP full package @Lochkeed Martin UK

 
The Warrior CSP programme is still in its Demonstration Phase, so that justifies the low number of full upgrades so far ordered. Final decisions on the exact numbers are evidently yet to be made. If Shephard's report is correct and the 300 further vehicles are to be intended as "turreted", that would mean a maximum of 365 vehicles armed  vehicles upgraded from a total of (if the NAO data is still up to date) 445 vehicles interested by the CSP. 
This would leave 80 repair, recovery and artillery observation vehicles. The numbers should be about right for the planned force of 6 armoured infantry battalions.

A Warrior CSP prototype, seen during trials with the Modular Protection System

Where exactly the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle sits, is hard to say. Until the release of the NAO 2012 report, many (certainly i had) had assumed that ABSV was dead, since nothing had been heard about it from as far back as 2005, when, while in the concept phase, it was merged with the Warrior CSP upgrade in the Labour mandated Defence Industrial Strategy (page 79, paragraph B3.8)


The ABSV requirement can be traced back to at least 1995, so it is rather scary to see it still as just a concept. Three prototypes were built in the early 2000s, when the conversion of 125 Warrior vehicles was envisaged, with ISD in 2007. There was to be a Command Post variant, an ambulance and a personnel carrier / general support variant, which perhaps would have included a mortar carrier development.  The objective was (and still is, at the end of the day) the replacement of a large number of FV430-series vehicles.

Today's shape of the ABSV is not yet clear. FRES SV is supposed to deliver an armoured personnel carrier, so that developing one from old Warrior vehicles does not appear necessary. FRES SV (albeit in a later phase, RECCE BLOCK 2) should also deliver ambulance and command variants.
On the other hand, there is no clear replacement in sight for the FV430 mortar carrier, and a medium weight bridgelayer requirement, for 35 vehicles, which was to be part of FRES SV, was descoped while a Warrior bridgelayer prototype was showcased.

The situation is especially complex because early this year the press reported that FRES SV, having been delayed with an extension to the demonstration phase, could be expanded to include vehicles originally planned for later RECCE Blocks: specifically the ambulance (from Block 3) and the Command Post and Engineer Recce Vehicle from Block 2.

However, i have not heard any news on wheter the decision was effectively made or not.

FRES SV as it was a few years ago, from a BAE presentation

The evolving shape of FRES SV. The Medium Armour and Manoeuvre Support parts of the programme are dead. Medium Armour was officially removed in Plannint Round 11. The red arrows show the proposed changes, which would bring forward the demonstration of Engineer Recce, Command Post and Ambulance variants. At the moment i don't know if the proposal was given the go ahead or not.

Planning Round 11 confirmed that FRES SV remains a fundamental part of the future army, but pushed entry into service to the right by 9 months while extending the scope of the demonstration phase. The ISD date is not disclosed (it is classified in the NAO report), but we are possibly looking at 2018, if not later. I've read that CVR(T) vehicles will not be entirely gone before 2026.

The FRES SV has been broken down into multiple parts, all with their own decision Gates. So far, activity has focused on RECCE Block 1 (Scout vehicle, Armoured Personnel Carrier, Repair, Recovery and Common Base Platform) but if other vehicles types are brough forwards, the whole strategy of the Blocks could be in for a rethink.

Part of the Block 2 is the Joint Fires direction vehicle, destined to carry a full six-man Fire Support Team of the Royal Artillery, with full equipment for the direction, under-armor or dismounted, of mortar, artillery and air attacks. However, in the Army 2020 structure, there might now be a direct overlap between the Warrior FV514 and the FRES FST: with the centralization of the tracked armoured vehicles in three brigades, instead of having such elements in five multi role brigades, means that, basically, the FV514 and FRES FST seem to now be in direct competition for supporting the tracked heavy armour, while there is not a planned FST vehicle for the wheeled mechanized battalions planned in the force structure.

One possible scenario is the cancellation of either the FV514 or of the FRES FTS, in my opinion. If i had to choose, i'd prefer developing the FRES FTS, which would offer much more advanced and future proof electronics as well as more space. It would cost more up front, probably, but it would be a better investment for the future.
Eventually, a FRES UV FST would be needed in future for the wheeled mechanised battalions, instead. Two tracked, medium weight FST vehicles are redundant, while there's a clear gap waiting to happen in the wheeled formations.

The FRES SV programme was expected to also include a larger, rear-echelon command post and a larger Unit Aid Post vehicle (ambulance variant for the evacuation of  casualties to the rear echelon, towards the UAP vehicle that is equipped for treatment), but even this might well change.
Finally, the RECCE Block 3 was also meant to include a Ground Based Surveillance vehicle, shown with mast-mounted long range sensors; a Shielder (retired from service early as part of cuts) replacement fitted with mine dispensers but also other means of area denial, including non-lethal solutions, and an Overwatch vehicle armed with long range missiles.
All three these variants appear, to my eyes, to be exposed at particularly high risk of never happening, despite being immensely interesting. The Shielder replacement vehicle would have a flatbed fitted with the systems selected under the ongoing Counter Mobility studies.  

In practice, a whole rethink of FRES SV appears necessary (again). The tightness of the budget, the overlap with Warrior in some niche areas and the gaps emerging because of the changing face of the Army suggest that a 3 Blocks FRES SV is no longer desirable.



One would expect the Warrior ABSV variant to go and fill the roles left uncovered by FRES SV. But the brigadier does not provide hints, and actually adds confusion when he says that part of the requirement for FRES UV could be perhaps covered by "more ABSV vehicles".
I hope he has clear ideas himself, because he admittedly lost me along the way: i'm finding it hard to guess what the line of thought is. Especially since it is not even clear from where the ABSVs will come from: there is no real room in the 445 vehicles highlighted for the CSP: perhaps ABSV would be about conversion of the remaining 120 vehicles (565 affordable fleet - 445 for CSP).

The Royal Artillery is trying to find ways (and funds) to implement its own specific system upgrade on the FV514, to turn it into a modern Fire Support Team armoured carrier. Below you can see the prototype, and read about the main features. The images and data are from Gunner, the Royal Artillery's magazine.

Report from Gunner magazine, showing the trials done by the Royal Artillery to shape the way forwards for the FV514

As we saw earlier in the article, there is now reason to believe that two tracked FST platforms are not needed nor desirable. If i was the one taking the decisions, i'd:

- Restructure ABSV to deliver a Warrior Mortar Carrier and the Warrior Bridgelayer. FV514 would be abandoned.

The US Army is having its own ABSV problem as it tries to replace the countleass support variants of the ancient M113. BAE systems is offering them the "turretless Bradley" family. Above, the proposed 120mm mortar carrier. Simple and relatively inexpensive, it is the kind of proposal i'd want to see as part of ABSV.

The turretless Bradley proposal: mortar carrier, medical evacuation vehicle, medical treatment vehicle, Command Post and General Purpose/APC. A programme of this scale was not viable for the Warrior, so long gone out of production, but nonetheless a number of hulls should be converted under ABSV to replace FV430 vehicles in some roles. The ABSV, however, should not overlap with FRES SV. It is not desirable to have two different tracked APCs, command posts and ambulances. In my opinion, ABSV and FRES SV should collaborate to replace, together, the FV430 and CVR(T)s in all roles. While adding a medium weight bridgelayer.

- FRES SV restructured to deliver Scout, Recovery, Repair, Armoured Personnel Carrier, Command Post and communications, Ambulance/Treatment, Fire Support Team vehicles and Countermobility platform.

Long range sensors and overwatch missiles, which are by definition meant to stay away from the fighting and observe / strike from long range and concealed positions, could be installed on cheaper platforms than a fully grown FRES SV hull. An example of this approach is the Sandcat 4x4 fitted with a battery of SPIKE NLOS missiles, which could be a very powerful solution to the Overwatch requirement. I'm pretty sure that Foxhound could be kitted in a similar way.   

Regarding FRES UV itself, it is in concept phase with a team of just one, for now, working on writing the list of requirements. Talbot Rice says that funding for FRES UV is available in the core budget from fiscal year 2015/16 onwards. The entry into service is expected in 2022 according to the MOD, but the Brigadies suggests that there is still a lot of thought to be put into the programme before final decisions are made. The army will see if other platforms (from Foxhound to ABSV) can help cover the needs of the force, but he anticipates that there is an irreducible requirement that will have to be met with a wheeled protected mobility platform. The new bit of info here is that it is no longer restricted to 8x8 only: Talbot mentions specifically a 6x6 as a possible solution.

FRES UV, judging from the road described in the Army 2020 plan, will very much return to the general requirements that were of the MRAV programme, years and years ago, when the UK hadn't yet left the Boxer 8x8 programme and FRES was yet to come.
Back then, the requirement was for a 8x8 vehicle which would come in APC variant (for 8 to 10 dismounts), Ambulance and Treatment, Mortar vehicle and Anti-Tank Platoon variant, with supports.
If Army 2020 wants to mechanized and put on wheels a minimum of three infantry battalions, FRES UV will need to deliver the same kind of variants, plus FST vehicle and Infantry Command variant. 
Either on 8x8 or 6x6 architecture.

At the mention of 6x6, the mind races to the VBMR 6x6 vehicle that the french army wants to replace a thousand or more VABs. I've been saying at least since 2011 that it would make sense to work as much as possible together on this one, and perhaps someone at DE&S agrees with me.
It would appear fair and advantageous for both to rub each other's back where possible: for example, it now seems likely that the french army will order 30 Watchkeeper drones to fullfill its requirement, as outlined in the recent White Paper. If this interview is real, french minister Le Drian says it is already decided that Watchkeeper will be the chosen sysyem.
In addition, Shephard reports that french army personnel is in the UK from over two months and has been trained on the Terrier, since the Armee de Terre has an incoming requirement for such an engineer vehicle. 
Interesting scenario, isn't it...?