The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSEI 2017 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warrior numbers  

The original production run of Warrior delivered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Warrior 2” and ABSV

Once upgraded, the vehicles change denomination:

FV510 becomes FV520

FV511 becomes FV521

And so along. The Army has also assigned:

FV525 to the Warrior Ambulance variant

FV526 to the Warrior APC variant

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

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

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

Today's BAE Systems ABSV Mortar Carrier 

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

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

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

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

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

Clear as mud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Active Protection Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new armoured infantry capability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FV524

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battlefield implications

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

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

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

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

WCSP modular mounting frame for WRAP 2 side elements is tested 

The full WRAP 2 and Theatre Entry package 

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

Training implications

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

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

Wild proposals and “MIV for everything”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Warrior was proposed for everything

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

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

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

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

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

SDSR 2015 - What does it say, what does it imply - UPDATES

As was to be expected, plenty of questions remain without an answer at this time, but what we know is:

 

This is the maximum level of detail provided. And it clearly is not much.

Royal Air Force

In manpower terms, the SDSR seems to suggest that the RAF will gain around 300 personnel. That is because the document says that Royal Navy and RAF together will grow by 700, and 400 are expected to be for the Navy.

MPA: P-8 Poseidon purchase. 9 will be acquired, to be based in RAF Lossiemouth. At least three will be delivered quickly, within the current Parliament. The official MOD release affirms the importance of having a proper, ASW- capable aircraft armed with torpedoes and missiles. No detail yet on whether US torpedoes will be acquired or if integration of Stingray will be sought.

Overland surveillance capability is openly mentioned and thought to be in direct connection with eventually replacing Sentinel R1 in providing wide area surveillance and GMTI targeting.

Sentinel R1: will be operated into the early 2020s (was 2018). Around 2022, the P-8 Poseidon should acquire the capability to employ the AAS radar for overland surveillance, and this might be the reason. 

UPDATE: Gareth Jennings of Jane's gives the new OSD as 2021. A RAF article says that 4, not 5, will be extended. Typo or correct information? 

Shadow R1: this secretive asset will be extended out to at least 2030. The graphic showing the “Joint Force 2025” reports 8 Shadow R1: at the moment there is no telling if it is a mistake or an indication of further purchases. Only 5 are in service at the moment: a sixth aircraft was purchased but not fitted with the mission kit in the end and remains in use as a training aid. An expansion of the fleet would thus be a considerable U-turn in its own right. 

UPDATE:  Gareth Jennings of Jane's reports that the MOD has confirmed that 2 extra Shadow R1 are to be procured and that the sixth will now receive the mission suite, giving a fleet of 8.

Sentry:  the AWACS fleet will be extended to 2035, the current NATO out of service date for the type. It is to be assumed that funding will be made available to adopt the same kind of Mid Life Upgrade that NATO is carrying out to achieve that date, but no detail is provided. 

UPDATE:  Gareth Jennings of Jane's reports that the MOD expects to launch the upgrade programme for Sentry in 2020. The number of crews will also be increased, from 9 to 12 in 2021.

Rivet Joint: will operate out to 2035.

Typhoon: the Tranche 1 aircraft will be retained and this will enable the formation of 2 more squadrons, for a total of 7. Basing and timeframe is not detailed yet. Since the manpower increase to the RAF is limited to around 300 men, the only possibility is that the two additional Typhoon squadrons will only come on the back of disbanding Tornado GR4 units. This passage is however complicated by the fact that Tornado remains engaged in operations and cannot be withdrawn, while Typhoon will take several more years to become ready to employ Storm Shadow (August 2018) and Brimstone (in 2019 at the earliest).

F-35: the biggest surprise is the reaffirmation of a procurement plan for a full 138 aircraft in the long term. There is no variant mentioned, keeping the door open to purchase of the F-35A later on. By 2023, 42 aircraft will have been put into service, supporting the formation of the 2 squadrons already planned, 617 RAF and 809 NAS. We also know that an OCU is planned from 2019 in Marham and 17(R) Sqn will carry on in Edwards AFB, USA, as the Operational Evaluation Unit.  

Protector: at least 20, to replace the current 10 Reaper around 2020.

C-130J: another big surprise is that more than half of the Hercules fleet is no longer expected to go out of service in 2022. They will continue out to 2030, probably in 47 Sqn and with a heavy focus on Special Forces support. Whether the increase in funding for the Special Forces also covers addition of weaponry to the Hercules (on the lines of what, for example, French special forces are planning) is not known. They will be “upgraded and extended” to support a “range of operations” out to 2030.

It is possible that the 14 Hercules retained will all be of the -30 variant, with the stretched fuselage and greater cargo space.

A400M and Voyager: numbers unchanged. One Voyager will be refitted with a VVIP compartment allowing secure transport of ministers and of the royal family over long distances.

FCAS and Complex Weapons: again, no details, but the promise is to continue working on FCAS with France and progressing collaboration on Complex Weapons as well. Important decisions are expected already in December regarding the shape of the FCAS unmanned aircraft, while there is expectation for Storm Shadow mid-life upgrade and launch of Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon work during 2016.

Royal Navy

Manpower: an increase of around 400 men.

Carriers: both will enter service and both will be crewed. The document mentions that one of the two will receive enhancements specifically thought for better supporting the amphibious assault mission, since HMS Ocean will retire without a dedicate replacement.

This opens the possibility that we will see both at sea together, covering different roles. But a more realistic settlement would still appear to refit the “amphibious” bits to the other as well, at the first major refit period, to allow each ship to act in both roles and, indeed, in a mixed role. The assured availability is for only one carrier at a time, after all.

Frigates: BAE was unable to keep the Type 26’s cost down, and sure enough the axe hit home. The Type 26 building phase is being further delayed and the first ship will only enter service around 2025 now. Only 8, all in ASW configuration, will be built.

The MOD is reverting to the “C1 and C2” approach it abandoned at the beginning of the Type 26 project, and is now seeking the design for a smaller and cheaper frigate to be built in at least 5 examples, and ideally more, after the Type 26 production ends. The target remains for 13 frigates, of which 8 ASW and 5 GP, with the hope of possibly building more of the GP ones by virtue of them being cheaper.

In the old days, C1 was to deliver 10 “high-end” ASW frigates and C2 was to deliver 8 cheaper general purpose frigates.

A shipbuilding strategy detailing dates and targets will be crafted in 2016. At the moment, it is hard to express a judgment of the decision: much will depend on the shape of the “light frigate”, which is, anyway, years away into the future. The Type 26 procurement was always going to be a long-term affair, and plenty of questions will remain with us for years to come. For all we know, by the time the first series of 8 is almost complete, a decision will have been made to build more of the same to complete the replacement of the Type 23s.

Type 45 BMD: studies and "investigation" about the capability of the Type 45s to detect, track and one day counter ballistic missiles will continue. The UK remains involved in the NATO BMD projects and will "invest in a land-based BMD radar". Not clear if it refers to RAF Fylingdales, to a whole new installation or a NATO project outside of the UK entirely. 

OPVs: a further two OPVs (almost certainly other River Batch 2s) will be ordered to keep the yards busy as Type 26 is delayed.

The Royal Navy is to have “up to 6 OPVs”. Initially, we have to assume that they will be the 3 new River Batch 2s plus two of the existing River Batch 1s plus HMS Clyde in the Falklands.

In a few years time, the 2 River batch 1 would be replaced by the two new OPVs to be ordered.

HMS Clyde could continue to serve as, unlike the 3 Batch 1s in UK waters, she has a flight deck.

Depending on her fate, the Royal Navy will have 5 or 6 OPVs.

There is no detail about perhaps forward basing 2 of the OPVs abroad, as I continue to suggest, but it is a possibility. Use of the OPVs to support british interests “abroad” gets a mention.

MCM: there is no mention of cuts, but only 12 MCM vessels appear in the graphic showing “Joint Force 2025”. This suggests a reduction of 3 vessels from the current fleet, with the Sandowns being most exposed due to the Hunt having an open stern area which is more readily converted to a mothership arrangement in support of the new MHC unmanned vehicles expected to be procured over the coming years.

MARS Fleet Solid Support Ship: the SDSR promises that three new Solid Support vessels will be procured to add to the six fleet tankers (2 Waves and the 4 new Tides). Plenty of questions remain on the capabilities that these ships will have and the timeframe for their purchase as well as about where they will be built. The news is to be welcomed, but now begins the sentry duty, scanning the horizon for finding the details.

  

Army

Manpower: unchanged.

Structure: the two new “Strike Brigades” represent the upgrade of one of the Adaptable Force brigades planned so far and the downgrade of one of the three armoured infantry brigades.

Beyond the fancy “strike” title, the very few words offered by the SDSR suggest that these will be medium-weight, mechanized brigades equipped with the Ajax tracked vehicle and with the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV), an 8x8 to be procured in the coming years. Once, we called it FRES Utility Vehicle.

The time needed to procure the MIV is the most evident cause for the long time expected to be required to bring these brigades into operation: they are planned to be ready only by 2025, and even that seems ambitious.

Once again, the SDSR provides no detail about the changes connected.

One hypothesis is that one Challenger 2 regiment will be re-roled to become a fourth cavalry regiment on Ajax, so that each armoured and each mechanized brigade has its own recce formation.

The number of armoured infantry battalions could in theory remain the same, but spread on only two brigades, each comprising also a single tank regiment. The Warrior CSP remains in the plan, as is the Challenger 2 LEP and, hopefully, ABSV.

The MIV was initially about equipping 3 mechanised battalions in the armoured infantry brigades, but could now be about re-equipping a total of 6 battalions, if all the infantry units in the new medium brigades are to be mounted on 8x8.

6 infantry brigades will remain in the Adaptable Force, but “a number” of infantry battalions will be reconfigured for counter-terrorism and defence engagement and mentoring roles. What this likely means is that several battalions will become even smaller, which is a necessity if the mechanized battalions (each requiring more than 700 men) are doubled and if the combat support and combat service support units in the mechanized brigades are to be reinforced.

The Ajax order is not expected to change, but an impact is likely in Challenger 2 and AS90 numbers, potentially even GMLRS as the three heavy artillery regiments will probably become two, and we have no indication of what the “strike” brigades will have in terms of artillery support. Warrior numbers could be severely affected depending on the new shape of the remaining armoured infantry brigades.

Apache: the procurement of upgraded (Block III) capability is confirmed, as are 4 frontline squadrons. Training formations are not counted in the graphic, so there is no certainty about the OCU and the Conversion to Role squadrons, but hopefully there is no change to the plans. 

Nuclear deterrent

Four replacement SSBNs are to be procured. The number of missiles and warheads remains unchanged from the SDSR 2010. The entry in service of the four new submarines will now begin in the “early 2030s”, so a bit later than the 2028 which was the plan until it became evident that HMS Vanguard needs one last nuclear core refueling.

The cost estimate, including inflation, has been revised upwards by six billion, to 31. A large contingency fund of 10 billion is also reserved to absorb any cost growth emerging during the life of the programme. 

The programme will be delivered with staged investments, and will be overseen by a new team within the MOD, headed by an experienced commercial specialist. 

Special Forces 

Despite much noise being made about new equipment for the SF, the SDSR provides no details. Part of the “extra” money for Special Forces is most likely employed to keep the C-130js going. There is mention of investment in high altitude unmanned platforms which are expected to be the Zephyr drone. The purchase of 3 such unmanned air vehicles should soon be authorized, but they will initially be mostly for testing as the Zephyr still has to overcome a big problem: it has a tiny payload available for sensors. Flying at 70.000 feet for 3 months is great, but is only useful if the right payload can be put on the UAV.

Another interesting phrase is “we will upgrade our helicopters and transport aircraft so they can deploy further and faster”. This could mean anything. 9 C-130s have been recently fitted with under-wing fuel tanks, but on the helicopters front the way forwards is less clear.

The Special Forces need to replace the Lynx AH9A used by 657 AAC squadron and if we wanted we could speculate about adding air refueling capability for helicopters using the C-130s. It is unlikely, though. We will have to wait for actual developments.

Satellites

In August 2022, the current Skynet service provision contract will end, and Airbus will hand back to the MOD the full ownership of the ground and space infrastructure, including the constellation of communication satellites.

The way forwards from there is still uncertain. Decisions have yet to be made, but collaboration with France could prove pivotal going forwards.

As from early November news reports, the MOD seems determined to work its way out of the Private Financing Approach. A new satellite, expected to be launched in 2021 / 2022 will extend the life of the current system and begin opening up new and up-to-date capabilities, to be further increased later on with a second. 

A review about the way forwards should be completed next year, though.

Civil servants and defence estate

A major 30% reduction is announced, bringing the total down to 41.000 by the end of this parliament.

A 30% in the built defence estate is also envisioned, releasing vast areas back to civilian use.

The impact of these two cuts is difficult to evaluate at this stage.

A final comment

Until not long ago, defence was facing an abyss: had the 2% of GDP spending target not been confirmed, the armed forces today would have been hit by a dramatically different and far less pleasing review.

Today we have reasons to be quite happy: there are several good news, some expected and others which no one dared to hope for.

But, as was expected, plenty of questions remain. It is also worth remembering that projects stretching in the very long term, such as Type 26, F-35 (beyond 2023 and the first 48 and two squadrons) and indeed the running on of C-130J are promises, not certainties. Much can change in the many years that have yet to come and pass.

What matters is that the MPA hole is finally being plugged, and with the right aircraft. The carriers will enter service and a plan is in place for the initial two squadrons for them; the need to think about amphibious assault capability for the carriers is recognized; extra OPVs will be kept (and hopefully used abroad to ease the workload of actual frigates); the vital ISTAR assets of the RAF are getting air in their lungs and the MARS Solid Support Ship is finally on the radar.

This is a huge, huge improvement. The fact that we are no longer staring at a six squadrons RAF in 2020 is also to be welcomed with enormous relief.

I’m particularly worried by the Army’s position, and I am immensely curious to learn about the impact of the “strike brigades” on the force structure and on heavy, tracked armour capability.

The new structure will also require a rethink of the force generation cycle, since the burden of readiness is now shared by two couples of brigades instead of 3 plus 3-out-of-7-to deploy-2.

Now begins a new quest for details.