Having promised some thoughts as someone personally and professionally closely involved over 6y with Warrior, I’d better stand and deliver!

A thread on Warrior, Boxer and the future of Armoured Infantry after the IR, by an Armoured Infanteer.

So what do I know and how do I know it? I spent 2y as the Asst Project Manager for Warrior CSP, am currently the OC of an Armoured Infantry Rifle Coy and I’m going to work in Future Equipment in my next role. I definitely don’t know everything so this is about my own development.

I always wanted to be Armd Inf: I believe it’s a bigger set of cerebral challenges (especially as a Pl Comd), it’s right at the pointy end of warfare and over the last decade it has fulfilled everything I thought it would do. Central to Armd Inf is the Warrior IFV.

An Infantry Fighting Vehicle is a turreted platform able to transport dismounts, making up part of a system of systems to deliver decisive combat power onto the objective 24/7 in all conditions. These people defined it & the Boxers we’re initially getting aren’t IFVs.

WR was designed in the 70s and built in the 80s. @thinkdefence has done the hard yards and you can find all sorts of gen about Warrior, and its Capability Sustainment Programme here. https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/warrior-infantry-fighting-vehicle/

I’m not going to get drawn on the decision to cancel WCSP, but I have been closely involved enough to have my own opinion about cancellation and I’ve done the homework on the realistic options available. The decision is made and it’s important we all accept and engage with that.

Before the IR, my question was “are we deleting the AI cap, or are we taking a capability gap to bring something else in the future” bc Boxer is most assuredly not WR. For me to hear my seniors being clear about that is hugely reassuring.

But Boxer is an outstanding 8x8 Mechanised Infantry platform: proven, modern, resilient, capable, flexible and modular. I am genuinely really pleased that we (finally saw the error of our ways and) are buying it. It is a great investment and we’re going about it the right way.

My Regiment will surely move to BOXER and so 3XX’s focus will move to a different type of warfare, looking at the deep battle: (something our adversaries have become excellent at). This is exciting modernisation.

So what? What are the deductions and what do I hope we will do?

WCSP’s cancellation makes the AJAX the biggest Eqpt headache we have. I’m yet to hear a cohesive argument for its pragmatic employment. It remains an exquisite solution which we’re still looking for the corresponding problem.

Adopt BOXER for what it is (highly capable Mech Inf+) & don’t fall into the AJAX trap. Manage the SQEP transition to Mech and keep the FKSE alive.

We could expand our order. If we include other (turreted) variants then they need to be MOTS: proven, known and minimally modified.

Continue to work with what we have not what we would like. The CONEMP/CONUSE for MCO with the new Big 5 is of huge interest to me and we have to get it right. For me, it’s going to be more flexible, more dispersed and less sledgehammer than before.

Here endeth the lesson. If you have read this far, then congratulations / commiserations depending on how much shouting at your screen you’ve done.

The barest minimum of coloured pencils were consumed in the making of this.

P.S. Things I thought about including here but didn’t:
- ATk-under-armour
- 3XX enablers incl arty
- Inf KSE career mgmt
- the whole CT40 bit and most importantly
- Log & ES!

@harry_lye @FTusa284 @nicholadrummond @FarrenEdward @SRDMaguire @thepagey @icsc_l @UKACSC @pinstripedline @WillJMeddings @ProudFusilier @IBSBrecon @defencewithac @DefenceES @DESLandEqpt @UKDefJournal @Gabriel64869839 @WHearnshaw @The_Real_Watto @beckybeckyb @wavellroom