New Warriors in Afghanistan

Although they have been in Afghanistan for some time, 70 Warriors have received a range of modifications called Theatre Entry Standard (Herrick) or TES(H). The total upgrade package has cost £30m and obtained under an Urgen Operational Requirement. BAE Systems has previously developed and produced over 70 UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) modifications for Warrior to prepare them for operations in Kosovo, Iraq and now Afghanistan. These were designed mainly to enhance protection to the vehicle crews and to better meet local environmental conditions.

TES(H) updates and brings these together in a single package;

  • A flexible modular armour system that can be adapted to meet changing threats and reduce vehicle weight
  • Enhanced seating design and cushioning to further improve mine protection and comfort
  • An improved driver vision system with an increase from one to three periscopes, providing a wider field of vision and a night-vision capability
  • Increased low-speed mobility and climbing performance, enabling the vehicle to tackle tough terrain and get closer to a target or destination
  • Motorsport-derived carbon fibre brakes, providing significantly reduced stopping distance
  • Improved air conditioning for troop comfort in hot and harsh environments
  • Wire cutters to protect the driver, commander and equipment on the vehicle from obstacles.

The roll-call of British sub-contractors on the programme includes Allen Vanguard (Tewkesbury), Astrum, Remown (both Co Durham), Caterpillar Defence Products (Shrewsbury), Dana Spicer (Birmingham), GKN Driveline (Telford), Icon Plymer (Nottingham), MTL (Rotherham) Thales Optronics (Glasgow), Thyssen Krupp (Birmingham), Tinsley Bridge (Sheffield) and W A Lewis (Shrewsbury)

The additional weight of the upgrades puts the Warrior into the 40 tonne plus bracket so many of the modifications are designed to improve reliability and mobility. 

The new vehicles have been transported to theatre in RAF C17’s, note the load spreading planks to protect the floor of the aircraft

C17 at Brize Norton is loaded with Warrior TES(H)_1.  BEEFED UP WARRIOR SAVES LIVES UPON AFGHAN ARRIVAL   Newly upgraded warrior vehicles have saved the lives of British soldiers within weeks of arriving in Afghanistan.   Warrior is the only tracked infantry vehicle in theatre and so can get to places that wheeled vehicles cannot, enabling the infantry to engage the enemy more effectively in difficult terrain.    Just a short time after receiving their modified Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles, troops from the Mercian regiment on patrol in the Durai East region of Afghanistan’s Helmand Province survived a serious IED blast thanks to the vehicle’s improved protection.
C17 at Brize Norton is loaded with Warrior TES(H)_1. Newly upgraded warrior vehicles have saved the lives of British soldiers within weeks of arriving in Afghanistan. Warrior is the only tracked infantry vehicle in theatre and so can get to places that wheeled vehicles cannot, enabling the infantry to engage the enemy more effectively in difficult terrain.
Just a short time after receiving their modified Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles, troops from the Mercian regiment on patrol in the Durai East region of Afghanistan’s Helmand Province survived a serious IED blast thanks to the vehicle’s improved protection.
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 28, 2011 7:45 am

So,ASCOD isn’t of such monster weight, after all
“The additional weight of the upgrades puts the Warrior into the 40 tonne plus bracket so many of the modifications are designed to improve reliability and mobility” [and mine protection]

Rupert Fiennes
Rupert Fiennes
June 28, 2011 7:58 am

At this weight the Warrior really needs a new engine and gearbox, so wouldn’t we be better off just buying ASCOD/CV90 now, rather than institute another special mod programme that ensures the fleet is about as common as a motor museum?

Pete Arundel
Pete Arundel
June 28, 2011 9:57 am

or, to put it another way, why buy ASCOD since it’s just Warrior by another name. The Bulldog upgrades to the 432 fleet prove that cost effective upgrading is possible. Just upgrade Warrior’s running gear and scrap FRES. . .

Phil Darley
June 28, 2011 4:33 pm

Peter Arundel, you are of course right, the problem us we need more if them and as the production has long since ceased, we either re-open to produce an old design or buy new.

My thoughts are move Warriors and Bulldog to TA and buy PUMA or CV90 for the reg’s

S O
S O
June 28, 2011 9:00 pm

It’s amazing again and again how really obvious (and often times almost ancient) improvements are still lacking on many, many in-service vehicles.

The wire cutter dates back to the First World War.
Air conditioning should have been addressed properly long before TELIC.
A wide field of view for drivers was an obvious requirement ever since the First World War (even though widely neglected because of an over-emphasis on TC directions and TC competence in driving).

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 28, 2011 9:22 pm

Arguably, Air-con should have been retrofitted before GRANBY.

The optimum solution with the benefit of hindsight would have been to replace Warrior RARDEN with Warrior 2000 in the early 2000s, de-turret the Warrior chassis and use it to replace the FV430 series.

Pete Arundel
Pete Arundel
June 28, 2011 10:58 pm

Hang on, ASCOD to replace CVR(t) is a crap idea and using it to replace Warrior is unnecessary?

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 28, 2011 11:23 pm

Using ASCOD to replace CVR(T) is only a bad idea if you look at it though some very specific lenses. Looking at it from a different point of view it could be a very good idea.
|
You could say that you are replacing vehicle A, which has:
* a limited sensor fit,
* scarce internal space
* a protection package that takes it 50% over it’s design weight
* an unstabilised and obsolescent weapon fit
|
With vehicle B, one that has
* better protection as standard,
* enough growth weight that it could carry the other vehicle in baseline config
* Much better sensors
* Space enough to carry an organic UAS or other sensor fit
* Fire on the move capability (albeit with an unnecessarily expensive weapon and ammunition)

jed
jed
June 29, 2011 12:23 am

Pete

Your two comments appear contradictory:

At 9.57 you said “upgrade Warrior and scrap FRES”

Then at 10.58 you seem to be questioning the logic that says using ASCOD to replace CVR(T) is a bad idea but using it to replace Warrior is unnecessary.

I have to admit I am confused, sorry :(

What point are you making?

Pete Arundel
Pete Arundel
June 29, 2011 2:49 am

Misplaced question mark, Jed. I have no idea why I put it in. Incompetence, it strikes at all ages.
As it exists currently, ASCOD weighs four tons more than Warrior but is armoured to the same basic standard (ie stops 14.5mm AP over the frontal arc) but uses steel rather than aluminium armour. This probably explains the four ton difference in weight. Any FRES-SV varient that can be loaded to 40-ish tons will need a new engine, transmission and running gear. Just like a 40 ton warrior would and so I favour re-engining Warrior, forgetting FRES-SV, getting A FRES-UV of some kind (BV10S or Bronco/Warthog wouldn’t be a bad idea) into service pronto and designing a replacement for CVR(t) – and not an 8 ton one, Mr. Fred. A REPLACEMENT doesn’t have to be the same size. Nor does it have to be ASCOD sized.

RW
RW
June 29, 2011 7:01 am

Arundel

new engine yes but running gear and transmission are rated for 42 tons – that I think was the point in choosing ASCOD- the weight development that was available in the basic model

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 29, 2011 7:15 am

Hi RW,

This “ASCOD- the weight development that was available in the basic model” explains a lot.
– I wonder how far it will stretch; like bridge layers that most of the time have been converted from MBTs?

Wstr
Wstr
June 29, 2011 8:32 am

And to think when the Germans first pitched the Puma IFV there were people saying (excluding limited special tank conversions) “who on earth is going to field a ‘standard’ IFV fleet at 43 tonnes!”

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 29, 2011 8:52 am

Puma turned out so expensive that can we really talk about ” field a ‘standard’ IFV fleet at 43 tonnes” with the numbers in use
– I agree with the drift of the comment; excellent piece of kit and perhaps ahead of its time (utility of unmanned turret, though?)
– did the ‘West’ actually have any proper IFVs before the Germans came up with the Marder?

Wstr
Wstr
June 29, 2011 9:15 am


To warm the hearts of the CV90 fans here I’m calling it for those crazy Swedes again, with (allowing for conversion of an existing vehicle) the Pansarbandvagn (Pbv) 301
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansarbandvagn_301

ISD 1961 – which predates the 1966 BMP-1 !!. Often described as simply an APC (probably due to predating the IFV moniker) it nether the less held a section of 8 instead of the usual 9-12 guys in tracked APCs of the time and instead of a machine gun, held a 20mm Bofors cannon in a throughly modern overhead weapon station.
For a clean-sheet design the similarly cannon armed Pbv 302 replacement was in production from 1966 and stopped in 1971 the same year Marder 1 was delivered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pbv_302

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 29, 2011 10:00 am

Warmed my heart,too! Didn’t count neutral Sweden into the ‘West’. Those were the days; they had, then, more front line fighters than the RAF
– now they are going down to just over a hundred (and only 16 manoeuvre battalions, over and above the territorial defence)

Sven Ortmann
Sven Ortmann
June 29, 2011 10:52 am

Sweden ain’t neutral afaik. It ratified the Lisbon Treaty and is thus now in the EU alliance. Few people know that the EU turned into a defensive alliance, but it did.

I may have missed some exception for Sweden or Austria in the treaty, but don’t think so.

“- did the ‘West’ actually have any proper IFVs before the Germans came up with the Marder?”

There was a defective design, the “Hotchkiss HS 30” or “Schützenpanzer lang”, and its fine tiny recce brother, the HS 30 kurz.
Both met the requirement for a true SPz (IFV) about as poorly as Marder (none of the three was able to stop an anti-armour hit from the front, but Marder had at least a chance of bouncing HEAT if the latter’s fuse was ill-designed).

Wstr
Wstr
June 29, 2011 12:02 pm

@Sven
Darn! got me by three years (deployed 1958 vs 61). Good call. Only carries half a squad though; almost a grandson to the short Sd.Kfz 250 half-track.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 29, 2011 6:48 pm

Pete Arundel,

A cursory search puts a basic ASCOD at a combat weight of 25-28t, with Warrior weighing 24-26t
Warrior at the basic level:
has less firepower (manually elevated RARDEN vs. stabilised Mauser),
carries fewer dismounts (7 vs. 8),
has a less powerful engine (550hp vs. 600hp)
is shorter (6340 vs. 6836)

So there isn’t a 4t difference in weight, unless you are being extremely uncharitable, and what there is can be explained by more than just armour.

Weight for weight, steel and aluminium are about as protective as one another, but aluminium is stiffer and can often save weight in terms of bracing.

According to the manufacturer, the SV variants will have transmission rated to 45t and the rest of the vehicle rated to 42t without modification.

On the subject of replacements, as I said, Specific Lenses.

Sven,
No IFV in service with anyone, except possibly the Puma, can stop an RPG or bigger from any aspect without upgrades to the protection system.

Pete Arundel
Pete Arundel
June 29, 2011 8:38 pm

So, ASCOD-SV is an ASCOD hull with uprated engine, transmission and suspension (ie, stiffer torsion bars)

As I have already pointed out, uprate Warrior’s engine, transmission and fit stiffer torsion bars. I have just saved the MOD a few million quid on new vehicles. There is so little to choose between Warrior and ASCOD that buying ASCOD makes no sense whatsoever – especially since both will be armed with the same 40mm CTA gun.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 29, 2011 8:59 pm

Numbers.
Structure.
Age.
FRES SV represents a family of vehicles as well, beyond the Scout variant.

If we were still at a stage to be logical, you could use Warrior 2000 and the old Warrior hull as the basis for a medium-weight family of vehicles, but that opportunity has passed. You want more than the 700 odd Warrior chassis of all variants? You can’t have it.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 30, 2011 1:06 am

Can we please talk about the latest variants, or the ones selected/ have taken part in trials, as for both we know they are near 40 t (Puma 43 t):

RE “A cursory search puts a basic ASCOD at a combat weight of 25-28t, with Warrior weighing 24-26t
Warrior at the basic level:
has less firepower (manually elevated RARDEN vs. stabilised Mauser),
carries fewer dismounts (7 vs. 8),
has a less powerful engine (550hp vs. 600hp)
is shorter (6340 vs. 6836)

Once the recce and IFV requirement has been sorted (ordered, new or as upgrades), then some of the units at that level will be available for the other (important) roles, and some standardisation can prodeed further

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 30, 2011 7:27 am

ArmChairCivvy,
Comparing at current combat weights would not be relevant for the point I was trying to make.
For a start, we don’t know what the combat weight of FRES SV is, we just know that it can be as much as 42 tonnes without over-stressing the vehicle.
Secondly, we don’t know how well protected either the FRES SV or Warrior is in the upgraded configuration.

I was using the numbers to refute Pete Arundel’s assertion that ASCOD was significantly heavier than Warrior and that it was all down to protection.

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
June 30, 2011 4:03 pm

Many of the suggestions in this thread seem to tally with my train of thought though it is bound to raise a few red flags.

Warrior has many years ahead of it but I will put forward the idea of the Warrior post capability improvement programme being used to replace the CVR(T) fleet. There are sufficient chassis available to meet this need both for the main CTA 40 armed variant and also Command, Recovery, APC with the turret replace with a RWS, GW overwatch etc. This programme could be implements far faster than the ASCOD and the support infrastructure is already in place.

I would then order the Boxer to replace the Warrior, bulldog etc in both the Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Battalions.

THe reasoning behind this is the CVR(T) repacement is urgently needed but improvements have been identified and hence the larger ASCOD platform was chosen. The Warrior can mmet these same requirements and would be a much lower risk programme. The CVR(T) repalcement does not need to be transportable by Helicopter as some have suggested, but if the capability is deemed essential then another platform should be purchased to meet this requirement.

The Boxer is an ideal platform for the role envisioned with levels of protection and mobility that meet th emajority of the Army’s needs unles we are going to fight in the swampland of the arctic but those areas require specialist platforms to start with.

The Warrior chassis as always been regarded as one of the best there is and it makes sence to finally get the most out of it.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 30, 2011 4:17 pm

The joker in this pack of cards is the MRB
– what is it; one of everything…
1 FRR
1 Armoured
1 AI
1 MI
1 LI
1 RA

… surely not? (Not even discussing the Intervention Bde’s)

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
June 30, 2011 8:09 pm

Lord Jim,

By taking IFVs out of the armoured formations, per your suggestion, you lose the long-range capability to engage light vehicles and ATGW positions from your armoured battlegroup.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
June 30, 2011 8:22 pm

As per Mr Fred:

1 FRR = question mark; may be W’ improved / ASCOD2
1 Armoured= Ch2, may be some ASCOD2 riding along
1 AI= cannot be anything else than Warrior, surely
1 MI= Boxer would do it; so would many others

We’ve seen the ‘billions’ attached to FRES fleet
– there are gaps; decide what they are
– there is a lot of good kit; modify for new roles?
– there is a reduction in heavy formations; make 40 years in service a mandatory retirement age?

Just some ideas (at the fleet level)

Lord Jim
Lord Jim
July 1, 2011 2:20 am

Light armour and ATGW positions would be engaged either by the MBT using a version of APAMS or by the attached light armour which in my case would be the re-roled Warrior. The MBTs still have integral infatry support and the Boxers would be armed with either a 12.7mm HMG or 40mm AGL so would also be able to add supporting fire. IF you are talking about long range heavy ATGWs then even a 40mm cannon cannot engage them at the ranges they operate and that would be a job for the MBT, Artillery or air support.

Armoured infantry are no longer essential. All armoured vehicle borne infantry would be trained to operate with MBTs and other AFVs. It would be more like the USMC model, with Challanger 2s for M1A1s, Boxers for AA7VA1a and Recce Warrior for LAV. Also remember the French are replacing their AMX-10P fleet with the new Wheeled VBCI, i know they often do things differently but they could be onto a winner.

Chris.B.
July 1, 2011 6:57 am

“Armoured infantry are no longer essential”

I wouldn’t count on that.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
July 1, 2011 7:23 am

The French are going for wheeled troop carriers, but those troop carriers are still IFVs with a turreted automatic cannon.

Rommel
Rommel
July 1, 2011 5:26 pm

Serve in warrior, best bit of kit army own! When 40mm Turret comes in will be awesome no need for light role battalions

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 2, 2011 12:38 pm

We should have ordered Warrior 2000 a decade ago. What we need now is an updated, new, Warrior 2012 design. All the anti IED thinking & electronic updates, but still light enough to be carried by an A400M.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
July 3, 2011 7:38 pm

I think that Warrior 2012 is called ASCOD.

It would be nice if we could use FRES SV as an interim solution while we build on some of the work that has been done over the past two decades, such as discussed over on the “Future of the British Army 08” thread. I doubt that it would be possible to make that business case though.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 3, 2011 9:36 pm

MrF
There is something about Ascod that smells. The rumoured dodgy property deal, the determination to shut down British industry, replacing with screwdriver assembly of foreign parts. If this version of Ascod is so great, who else are they selling it to?
Why do we shut down our tank, train, car, tv, computer factories & export the jobs abroad? The Germans would not do this.

Mr.fred
Mr.fred
July 3, 2011 10:13 pm

John Hartley,

Are you aware that the opposing contract was also a foreign-build with assembly in the UK?

I think you are being a bit premature looking for export sales.

On-shore manufacturing needs to be competitive to survive. If it isn’t it doesn’t.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 3, 2011 10:22 pm

RE “On-shore manufacturing needs to be competitive to survive. If it isn’t it doesn’t.”
– BAE is doing good business having someone else build the platforms ( Spain, for Australia, and the fitting them out there, by a subsidiary)… I believe two thirds of contract value was with Oz/ UK parts of the business

That is in ships, as platforms

In IFVs (note, tanks don’t even get a mention) all the new models, in the running in foreign competitions, are now out of foreign subsidiaries
… and GD is very British?

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 4, 2011 9:29 pm

Yes UK manufacturing needs to be competitive to survive. It also needs investment. German workers have eight times the value of machinery, a British worker is stuck with.
UK banks only lend 2 to 3% of available funds to UK industry.
Police are whinging they face cutbacks, yet it is rare to see UK police drive UK built cars. Yet German police drive German cars. French police buy French cars, Spanish police drive Spanish.
We have a £30 billion a year trade gap, rarely mentioned, but slowly leading to national suicide.

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
July 6, 2011 8:17 am

Public sector bodies are bound by EU rules that above a certain amount civilian contracts have to be advertised in the EU journal and be open to vendors in all EU countries. A few years ago someone came up with the idea of mounting a gun on Scottish fishery protection vessels so they didn’t end up being built in Poland. Nothing came of the idea.

John Hartley
John Hartley
July 6, 2011 8:00 pm

EU rules demand you consider products from other EU nations. A French official buying police cars say, would get brochures from BMW, Vauxhall,Seat, Skoda, Fiat, then go & buy Renaults or Citroens. If anyone challenges, he will pull out the brochures to prove he looked at EU alternatives. Our officials are such cowards, they buy anything but British. This is why an axe needs to be taken to the anti British public sector.