The headline is a shameless lift from a recent article in the Telegraph which describes how the 22 Tonne ST Kinetics Warthog vehicle is proving to be a big success in Afghanistan with intercepted radio chatter confirming it’s effectiveness
Click the link and have a read, its a good article from Thomas Harding
Has this anything to do with the vehicle though?
I suspect that vehicle design has its part to play but much more important is the underlying doctrine and resultant tactics, driven through by soldiers who know a thing or two about mounted close combat. It is the Royal Armoured Corps that have delivered this success, the vehicle is merely a tool that lets them get on with their job.
This tells me a few things;
- Its always about the people
- Being mobile on the battlefield is as valuable today as it ever has been
- The shock factor of armoured vehicles, moving at speed and deploying supporting infantry is potent
It would be good to see if this lesson, yet another in a long list we seem to be perpetually relearning. is not forgotten, again.
A fast, light armoured, tracked vehicle able to quickly outflank the enemy and bring down heavy firepower from unexpected directions.
That’s an interesting concept. You could perhaps stick a turreted canon on a small, tracked, armoured vehicle.
It would never catch on.
“The shock factor of armoured vehicles, moving at speed and deploying supporting infantry is potent”
Imagine if we had enough helicopters to move them in dozens…….
“on time and ahead of schedule”
Interesting, interesting.
Also “11 Warthogs were hit in one tour by large IEDs (Improvised Explosive Device) without anyone inside being killed although two were badly wounded.”
If the statistics are correct then perhaps the warthog was a good purchase. Although I’m sure TD is still fretting over not buying vikings to keep vehicle types down, perhaps the warthog is actually armoured enough to at least be mine resistant (unlike the paper mache viking).
Ashley, the final batch of Viking were mark 2 which performed well in Afghanistan. However by this point the warthogs were well on there way and have also done very well. The key issue as TD knows is while the Viking mk2 has come back into ‘core’ the warthogs will probably be disposed.
It’s interesting that low ground pressure and amphibious capability are mentioned here; more grist to the mill of how CVR(T) replacements should have both?
TD – kudos to the RAC for sure (drivers and gunners) but the tankies are not providing the dismounts, this is jointery at the beret badge level.
X – imagine if we had enough helicopters that 11 Warthogs would not have been hit by IEDs in a single 6 month tour, because in an IED strewn battle space we would be able to fly stuff around instead…….
The viking mk2 however might not be that ied proof compared to warthog since we are talking about 16ton max for mk2. Bronco max was 16ton uprated to 19ton and then piled on another 2ton that makes it 21ton. Info is a bit inconsistent. Is it 21ton or 22ton? Whatever it is, 21 – 16ton is 5ton short of warthog for viking mk2. At 19ton the warthog is amphibous but not at 21ton.
Flying around consumes a lot of fuel for short persistent. Also it cant land when enemy fire is too intense. Thus land vehicle is acceptable even at the risk of IEDS for persistent fire support.
It’s not about weight or rather it is for vehicles not designed to be mine/Ied resistant.
The Ocelot/Foxhound is 7 tonnes but is probably better protected than Viking and Bronco?
We need vehicles like these but designed from the outset to be mine resistant, that would make them lighter too!
The Bronco has only moderately better protection due to the added dead weight, this has limits in terms of protection and gas already impacted on performance.
We also need versions fitted with 120mm mortars and CTA40
@ Jed
You win today’s X-prize for taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker………
The stock Bronco has mine protection 12kg of tnt. It is actually designed in. The warthog is not stock Bronco, the frame has been modified a little bit wider, and taller. In short Bronco mk2.
“We also need versions fitted with 120mm mortars and CTA40″
haha agreed!
interesting to hear about the great improvement of the mk2 vikings.
KS – you could be right, but as far as I am aware the Warthog is exactly the same “frame” as the Bronco mk 1 as you put it. It’s wider if it has the anti-RPG cage, and it may well be taller due to kit on the roof, but I believe the base vehicle is identical in dimensions. Happy to be proved wrong if you can provide a reference
if we didn’t keep the bronco and went to viking Mk2 then i would ship one over to ST kinetics and say “work your magic” As they were the ones who built a recovery rear unit, a open top cargo carrier, a drops style trailer, mortar and a refueling trailer which carries 2,700 litres of fuel. All these on a first attempt, I’m sure the tankies would something could follow them anywhere to refuel.
Paul g,
Does IPR mean anything to you?
If you want to upgrade the Viking you would need to get BAE Hagglunds to do it.
yeah, bugger!! still if they only modded the rear bit, are they not just attachments, or i am wishful thinking. (ha it’s BAe WHAT am i thinking)
The french have bought viking mk2, so we may see some variants arrive from their investment. Understand that it was won in competition with warthog/bronco.
Can anyone explain how we can buy 115 of these for GBP 150 million (1.3 million each). But FRES SV will cost GBP 500 million (100 million each which was in the 1990′s not so long ago the price of an entire type 23 frigate for just 5 prototypes which we have already deduced on think defence are not actually new vehicles. Can anyone explain this? Please tell me its a typo.
UOR vs. Core programme would seem to be the key difference. Still doesn’t justify it, but may indicate where the additional money might be going.
Hi Fred,
Suerly a UOR bought in small numbers would be more expensive than a core program buying large numbers and paying for development.. In the real world outside the MOD this is how things would be. FRES if I am not wrong is looking to deliver 3000 units for GBP 16 billion or some GBP 5 million a piece. I know that the MOD is looking for something that is lighter than air that can withstand a direct hit from a Nuclear Warhead but still. Surley the Warthog is a high end vehicle.
That is the frustrating thing. Every time combat vehicles are discussed here a workable sensible plan evolves within a few days. But the MoD can’t achieve that even after many years of reports and discussion and spending 100s of millions. Sad.
@ x
Perhaps it is because typing a few pie in the sky ideas on the internet is actually much easier than doing something in real life.
I imagine that if you took a random sample of people on this blog and tried to develop one common post on vehicle policy in the Army you’d find that far more difficult – let alone actually conceive, design, develop and field a vehicle or family of vehicles with Christ knows how many stakeholders. I am no defender of MoD procurement but I do acknowledge that it is a far more difficult thing to get right than most people give credit for.
Phil
I grant you its hard.
But by no criteria can the last 30 years of UK vehicle procurement be considerd successful.
To err is human, but to really screw things up requires MOD/armed forces/ BAE opperating in conjunction..
Its a good point Phil, we can’t begin to appreciate the complexities of defence standards, European legilslation, user requirements, ergonomics, industrial and research components that make up any vehicle requirements statement and over arching strategy but I don’t think anyone is advocating that the MoD listens to what we say in a few hundred words. Saying is always easier than doing and it is the objective of Think Defence to get people talking and try and offer an informed debate, there are no campaigns here.
As IXION quite rightly says though, the current situation is hardly an advert for sound strategic thinking and technical follow through is it?
So that is what we can do, highlight where we think things are wrong, make a few suggestions for the future, look at current kit and in general, ask a few questions
&Martin
I think the £16billion budget for FRES Is long gone! Most of it went to plug the £38 billion procurement gap!!
With the future size if our Army, the 7 Ascod SV prototypes is all we need!!
That’s only s slight exageration?
To add to my last! I can actually see the 7 Ascod SV’S being used fir training!!!
I can see it now….
“When we used to have an army capable of armoured combat and a government that gave a shit…. These would have been the vehicles we would have used”
I never said the present system was any good. Or that discussion is a bad thing. I was just reminding x that despite his glib comment, in the real world things are far harder to pull off.
@ Phil
Whatever.
@ x
Go girl!
@ Phil
Well I was tempted to tell you to take one of those bandages you are so fond of and to insert it at a high velocity into your aft end…………
Just for a little perspective on the “aint just our MoD” front, this comes from the Ares blog under the heading of “Army budget issues” (that being the US Army):
“the Army burned $18 billion on the scuttled Future Combat Systems program, from which it learned more about technologies it didn’t want, and capabilities that didn’t work, than anything else.”
Link to article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a499a451d-8708-4f3c-b622-ba1cfd7bd8b9
“But by no criteria can the last 30 years of UK vehicle procurement be considerd successful.”
Which is odd because vehicle procurement between 1945 and 1985 wasn’t too bad (leaving aside the Hornet and the Champ . . .).
The wider point is often missed and in this case proves exactly why you have to maintain and develop your skills base. It wasn’t the light role infantry that developed the Warthog into such an effective tool, it was the mounted close combat fellas of the RAC, you know, those Cold War Relics TM
As soon as the RAC started driving Mastiffs there were developing their use and with the Warthog they have an even more flexible bit of kit
There is a lesson in there I think
martin,
A UOR is a purchase of off-the-shelf equipment. Perhaps with some modifications but mostly off-the-shelf and as such the contract will be lacking certain amounts of logistics support, some requirements that are not relevant to the theatre in question (UORs tend to be theatre specific) will be ignored. As such the requirement (and cost) to test these requirements goes away too.
Most often, the MoD will accept the 80% solution for a UOR while insisting on the final 20% for a core programme (which will contain 80% of the cost, more than likely). This is somewhat understandable as core equipment must last longer. Mastiff has been through three marks in less than five years. Warrior is still in service with only one significant upgrade in the best part of three decades
@ x
Yes thank you. Forgive me for pointing out the complexities of the real world.
@ Phil
Whatever
The BvS10 Viking from BAe Systems has now been uparmoured to a MkII version which the French ordered over the Warthong/Bronco being offered by Thales as it now has comparable armour but is more easily transportable.
Peter Arundel
The last good set of vehicles were CVRT and Warrior.
After that it gets completly Tits up Leyland Daf for chrisakes. RB44 (stop laughing at the back).
There were some good ones- Pinzgaur for example but as for armour….
I would contend that CR2 was pretty good and with plenty of (still unused) potential.
Mr Fred
CR 2 is good, (if you like that sort of thing). but the development line traces back to Chieftan.
In terms of truly ‘new’ chassis the record is lamentable.
@ Fred. I accept there are difference about a UOR and core purchase. However a buy of prototypes won’t have any logistics attached. Yes there is R&D cost but as has been pointed out the vehicle selected is far from new. Military vehicle procurment should be a piece of p**s in comparison with aircraft or ship procurment. We are not talking about a one of piece of kit like an aircraft carrier or even a bespoke piece of technology and the edge of human understanding and technoligy like a fighter or submarine. We are talking about a big steel box on track or wheels. There are a mirriad of producers as has been shown with boxer produced in Singapore and there are a mirriad of users. The British Army has basically the same requirments as every other western army. It should be relativley easy for the army to look at whats the best product avilable and buy it in bulk. Indeed this seems what they have gone and done with the new FRES SV. A sensible strategy I just can’t understand the 500 million price tag.
martin,
Granted that logistics won’t be such a big issue for the prototypes, but this is the stage when the manufacturers work out what they will need for the logistics over the life of the vehicle.
A big box on tracks chock full of rather costly electronics that must be resistant to all manner of hostile and environmental attacks, not to mention be squaddy-resistant (-proof is, as we all know, impossible.) It isn’t as simple as building a car. Then, once you have built it, the first five or so prototypes must be tested to prove that it meets all the requirements.
SV at £500m does seem very costly, but I was disagreeing with your assertion that a UOR would be the more costly procurement path, not specific instances.
Isn’t Warthog awesome for what we want to achieve in A’stan. Maybe my statement a while ago that other Militaries must be a bit envious and would love to have a Warthog type, will be supported with purchases and interest shown. I’ll keep my eye on ST Kinetics, the good manufacturer of 90% of the finished product that is the Warthog.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/FightingSeasonSuppressedInHelmandSaysUkCommander.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/WarthogsCoverDistanceOfAroundWorldIn80DaysOnHelmandOperations.htm
Corporal David Toughill, Warthog Vehicle Commander, said:
“Phileas Fogg did it in 80 days using loads of different modes of transport, we’ve done it in one. There have been a few hairy moments, but so far [it has been] a good tour. The vehicles are very agile and can carry a lot, which means we can stay in the desert for weeks – it’s a bit like camping at times.”
The Warthog Group is constantly in demand, and every day is different for them – this is because their vehicles are multi-terrain and can operate anywhere, from the dense vegetation of the Green Zone to the arid plains of the Afghan desert – where the Group recently spent over six weeks on one operation.
The vehicle’s mobility allows Task Force Helmand to reach previously inaccessible areas of enemy activity and deny insurgents safe havens from which to regroup and launch operations.
….
From seeking out insurgents in their secret hide-outs, to providing security for protected communities, the Warthog Group continues to build and extend security in support….
“We use Warthog exactly as we would Challenger 2 tank or Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or CVR(T). Firepower, mobility, and protection allow us to close with the enemy in areas where he previously moved with impunity.
So..we all agree that Warthog is a top bit of kit, which now seems to be delivering to effect, despite some negative press and early teething problems when first in theater (Yes – it did.) The question now therefor is what of life post Afghan. Do we take it into the core future fleet (hope’s and prays..) and if so where do we place it. There would be some logic in placing it with the five light rolled battalions in each of the ‘new’ Multi-rolled Brigades. At present whilst each of the five AI battalions and five Mech battalions will have both protected mobility and firepower in the form of Warrior and Bulldog/FRES UV respectively, the current intent is that the light battalion will ride in trucks. Cheap, cheerful, and VERY British – but very Neanderthal to me! Prob of course in giving Warthog to the light role battalions would be that we only have 115 or so, enough for two battalions at most, but with whole fleet management it might be made to work. Another solution (and pos my preferred?) might be to group them in 16 Air assault Brigade with the two remaining non Para Inf Battalions, giving 16 Bde a similar protected mobility capability to 3 Cdo Bde, our other out of area rapid reaction formation, as found in Viking 2. You might also want to place them within 16 Bde, but perhaps retain them with the RAC. 2 RTR would seem sensible as having lost their NBC task to the RAF Regt, they would appear currently without a role? Your thoughts Gentlemen please!
Pongolo
Make the Warthog in effect FRES Utility, buy a thousand of them, replace all FV4xx/Boxer, Sultan, Samaritan, etc etc !!!
Forget giving armour to 16 AAB, instead think about getting rid of that bastardized formation all together
As for trucks and light role, see the article on RG35
Using Warthog more extensively sounds pretty progressive to me.
ST Kinetics did a good service to us with the manufacture of them.
I’m glad for our boys and girls out there to have Warthog, it’s utilisation has obviously been an big factor in the recent success we’ve had.
RE “Does IPR mean anything to you?
If you want to upgrade the Viking you would need to get BAE Hagglunds to do it.”
- ST were actually sued for copying the design, but they got out of it with reference to some Russian design that has never been seen outside their borders
Hi Martin,
RE “Surley the Warthog is a high end vehicle.”
- sort of, very good for many jobs and very good value at £1.3m a piece (included the extras?)
- I was appalled when Gabby presented the figure for Freccia which was above the rumoured price for Puma and on par with the £5m for FRES if and when produced at the quantity of 3000 (well done, Freccia, in this comparison as we are talking about a few hundred, fully costed for the programme expenditure, too)
Anyone more on the ball in these VFM combat vehicle comparisons? For aircraft (100m a piece) the costs are in the public domain
Hi Phil,
The procurement organisation gets the flak (most of the time), but you put it in a more balanced way “field a vehicle or family of vehicles with Christ knows how many stakeholders. I am no defender of MoD procurement but I do acknowledge…”
- I read these new Capability Directorates as being an attempt by the customer to get their own house in order (i.e speaking with one voice)
RE “As IXION quite rightly says though, the current situation is hardly an advert for sound strategic thinking and technical follow through is it?”
- the taller we stand, the harder we fall?
- 30 years back was bang on
- think of the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s – the international interest in the fiascos derives from the interest in the once-world-leader