Lots about WCSP this week, a few thoughts on whats wrong and will it survive? (spolier: lots, but yes it likely will). WCSP is upgrading the ageing UK Warrior fleet with all new turret and digital architecture to extend service life past the 2025 OSD. 
At a broad level, its going very poorly. 15 years in we still have no vehicles in service and no immediate prospect sign of them. Cost overrun and schedule delays have frequented the programme and it has a pretty poor reputation as a result.
You upgrade a vehicle because its quicker and/or faster than buying a new one. WCSP ticks neither box. The Germans brought Puma into service quicker even with its own big issues, and several European users brought new IFVs (mostly CV90s) into service in broadly the same timeframe
Why is it taking so long? A genuine and clear answer is never forthcoming. Certainly the usual financial pressures of approving any large programme and the UKs excessive acquisition process causing contract renegotiation have caused delays, but there is clearly a lot more to it.
Lockheed have given me a range of causes over the years, from Army and DE&S constantly moving requirements, a lack of maturity and resultant shifting design of the (GFE) CT40, issues designing the feed mechanism, and a range of electrical and stabilisation issues.
Other parties have cited a range of reasons, incl. LMs lack of experience in anything AFV related, problems with Warrior hulls that require new hulls (untrue), and a wide range of usual gripes. The true core reason remains elusive.
Worth noting LM, a company with no experience of AFV design, an area not listed as a capability and without any mature AFV products in their catalogue were selected over BAE, the OEM for Warrior and the CT40 gun, and a very experienced supplier of AFV and associated upgrades.
The reasoning for that decision is oft discussed but has never been definitively stated. Looks likely their bid costs and schedules were the winning elements despite risks rather than the technical design being significantly better.
Beyond this, there is the issue of whether WCSP is even the right solution anymore. As above, upgrades should be quick and cheap, you can allow incremental enhancements on the basis you will do another improvement later as required.
Examples like German Leopard 2 show how constant small to moderate upgrades can ensure competitive capability at reasonable cost and protect domestic industrial capabilities between major new platform acquisitions.
But WCSP is a larger one-off MLU type upgrade, necessitated because a gradual upgrade strategy is not something the UK has ever really pursued for AFV, preferring one off major buys every few decades (at detriment to the now near non-existent UK AFV industry)
Whilst its a great step change vs old Warrior, and in 2014 was a move to a solid high-end capability, its now 2020, and it lacks many of the standard capabilities one expects of a contemporary IFV. Is it still better? Yes, but it lags behind peers even before its even in service
There is no APS, there is no panoramic sight for hunter-killer capability, no ATGM or other long range PGM for engagement of EN armour at range. Many NATO allies have some or all of these entering service, yet this latest UK vehicle fields none of them.
CT40 has three combat natures, but the UK is not at present adopting the airburst one that provides the biggest capabiltiy change. Moreover Im told UK cant currently fire the APFSDS round on domestic ranges, so must go to Germany to use it.
Ammo capacity is low. The efficient CT ammo design theoretically allows a vehicle to carry more rounds and more stowed kills. But final designs we have carry 70 rds (WCSP) & 65 rds (Ajax). Reloads are fed individually into the magazine under armour.
Compare though with peers. German Puma carries 200 30mm ready rounds. Russian 57mm has 80 rds in Kinzhal turret, and 148 in Derivatsiya-PVO. Even CV9035 with a less space efficient round carries a peer 70 rds capacity.
But heres the most important bit of the thread (so logically I hid it in the middle where no-one reads it) Despite logical assumption that all this makes it a very high risk for the chopping block, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱
Why? Primarily because someone in the DE&S/Army/MoD labyrinth allowed the facility that manufactures Warrior's Rarden L21A2 cannon barrels to be permanently closed, and the L13A2/L14A3/L18A2/L15A1 ammunition facility to be mothballed.
Extending Warrior to allow a new solution (upgrade or new veh) to be procured instead would require two new facilities to be constructed to provide for these items in the interim, which will be prohibitively expensive and realistically never happen.
This decision put a counting clock on the ability to operate Warrior at all, and a cynic could suggest rather conveniently made WCSP impossible to cancel and increases the pressure to approve it over time. The tipping point for a credible alternative is in the past.
Other issue is time. Procuring new vehicle or turreted Boxer module would be a new programme. In an ideal world this would take <5 years for a COTS/MOTS solution, but this is UK procurement - WCSP has taken >15 years for context. Even 5 years is risky with the barrel/ammo issue
Ignoring all of that. what could be bought? IFV market is healthy with plenty of mature offerings. CV90 is an obvious choice: Mk IV can be bought off the shelf and is a well proven vehicle with a large user community to leverage for cheap support costs and shared R&D upgrades.
So we find ourselves in a sticky spot. WCSP is taking too long and not delivering enough for the time & money involved. But we critically need a capability lift on Warrior and there is a finite life left in it that cant be extended, any alternative wont come in time.
Do we forgo armoured infantry for a period to acquire something properly now, or do we crack on with WCSP and get it done so we can refocus on a new platform for the 2040+ period? What that could/should be is another thread for another day.
No easy decisions, and those making decisions today are bound by previous post holders choices. Nothing is ever perfect, but WCSP sits in a different bracket that warrants reference for any future efforts to avoid repetition. /end
Nod to some great (and very throrough) backgrounders on CT40, WCSP and Ajax on @thinkdefence site here: CT40(bit.ly/2w3AaFp) Medium weight capability incl. Ajax, MIV, Strike and a bit of CSP (thinkdefence.co.uk/british-army-m…)
