The British Army did not purchase new armored vehicles in the fourth century

How incompetent are the officers in charge of major British Army equipment programs? Despite spending billions of dollars since 1997, the military has delivered zero – that’s right, zero– new armored combat vehicles to front units.

A quarter of a year of waste effort has left the army with a declining and declining fleet of remaining tanks, combat and reconnaissance vehicles and weapons carriers. A new government-wide “Integrated Review”, due to be released this week, threatens further cuts to an already inappropriate military force.

Now imagine a war with Russia on the eastern border of NATO. The alliance expected the British Army to take part in the fighting. But it’s not clear the Brits would have had much with their declining stocks of ancient vehicles.

A House of Commons committee summarized the plight of British Army heavy forces in a report on 9 March.

“We are surprised that the region between 1997 and the end of 2020 (with the exception of a small number or Viking armaments and defense moving vehicles) has not delivered a single new armored vehicle from the main procurement program to military operational service,” the committee’s auditors wrote.

The problems began as the Cold War ended. “Given the perceived but perceived threat in the form of the Soviet Union’s armed forces and the Warsaw Pact, the British Army struggled to redefine its role,” the committee explained.

“Since at least the 1990s, they have sought to move to more heavily armed forces, which are well-suited to fight against unforeseen opponents. However, a lack of information on requirements, a desire for state-of-the-art technology (imminent), operational experience and a lack of sustainable funding for its programs means the British Army [armored fighting vehicle] It currently has a large fleet and is in need of major funding for refurbishment. ”

Each major type of vehicle suffers its own particular crisis. But the UK Ministry of Defense put down the problems. “The [Integrated Review] provide resources to deliver a reformed military force and network to meet future threats, ”the ministry’s press office tweet.

The Challenger 2 tank is the heaviest and most powerful vehicle in the army. After several rounds of force reduction since the end of the Cold War, only 227 of the 70-ton tanks are in service.

The Challenger 2 with its 120-millimeter rifle cannon was a world-class tank when it expired in 1998. But the military has not never major vehicle upgrade. To illustrate that, in the 23 years since the Challenger 2 entered service, the U.S. Army has developed several new versions of their own M-1 tank.

The British Army has for years been embracing a number of innovative concepts, including new sensors, electronics, fire control and automotive systems. The most advanced upgrade would completely replace the existing turret.

Officials were supposed to cut the contract for the billion-dollar effort last year. But the date came and he left without signing.

Viewers expect the Integrated Review to reduce the Challenger 2 fleet to around 150 tanks. It is an open question whether these remaining tanks will get the long update.

The army’s 759 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles transport infantry to battle. The 28-ton vehicle, with a track sports a turret with an unstable 30-millimeter cannon. The lack of stability means that a hero cannot shoot properly while on the move.

Like the Challenger 2, the Warrior has not been updated at all in the 37 years in service. The lack of durability for his gun is rare. Twelve years ago, the military launched an extensive upgrade program aimed at adding a completely new turret with a special 40-millimeter cannon.

But that program has cost half a billion dollars without updating one vehicle yet. Critics blame the army’s strange approach to developing a new gun instead of responding to a modern off-the-shelf gun.

The Integrated Review could abruptly end the effort to modernize and scrape the entire Warrior fleet, leaving the army without an infantry combat vehicle.

Army Fighting Vehicle Inspection Vehicles (captured) are 50 years old, on average. Another puts it in the way – albeit friendly and with the usual confusion and mismanagement. The new Ajax track recycling vehicle comes in a number of modifications for scouting, engineering and other tasks.

The army has ordered 598 of the 40-ton vehicles. They were due to enter service in 2019. Two years later, the troops are still waiting. “It is not at all clear what caused this delay,” said the House of Commons committee. But there are hints that Ajax’s 40-millimeter gun – the only shop gun the army wanted to fit the hero – is at the heart of the trouble.

There is no plan in place to replace the 1960-vintage FV432 500 armored carriers, but a concerted effort to introduce APC wheels in the short term could result in a combat-ready vehicle .

After a decade of delay, two years ago the UK defense ministry cut a $ 3-billion contract for 508 APC Boxer wheels. The first batch should go into service in 2023.

The 40-ton Boxers are a bright spot in the army vehicle package. “We welcome the decision to acquire the Boxer,” the committee said, noting that the APCs would have been ready ten years earlier if the bureaucrats had not dragged their heels.

One successful program – albeit a late one – cannot save the British Army’s military, in the committee’s assessment. The tanks are too old and too small. The infantry fighting vehicles appear to be on the way out. The tracked APCs are older than everyone who rides them and there is no clear plan to replace them. New reconnaissance vehicles and wheeled APCs are overdue and too small.

The defense ministry went down from the committee’s report. “Renewing military capabilities does not replace ‘like for like’ but it does unite [sic] new technologies and ways of working, ”the ministry’s press office said.

It is not difficult to predict this final outcome. If some war is imminent in the future the British Army can still have a combat division with at least one armed brigade – and that is far from a difficult decision – that division could be uneven in equipment and design. .

There may be some fairly new vehicles. But the balance of its AFVs could be incapable of matching more Russian one-for-one vehicles.