Military Review

British army transferred the first upgraded BMP Warrior 2

Corporation Lockheed Martin announced the transfer to the British military department of the upgraded BMP Warrior 2 in the number of 8 units, reports bmpd with reference to Jane's Defense Weekly.

British army transferred the first upgraded BMP Warrior 2

It is reported that "all eight vehicles entered the testing program at the armored test center of the British Army Armored Trials and Development Unit (ATDU) in Dorset."

In total, it is planned to upgrade 380 units from those received by the British army from 1987 to 1995 year.

"Of this number 245 linear and command vehicle will be upgraded to the level of Warrior 2 for routine Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Program (WFLIP), providing for the installation of a new tower with 40-mm automatic cannon CTA International CT40 with telescopic ammunition and equipment clock fire control system" - says the material.

The R & D contract for the WFLIP upgrade program worth 200 million pounds was awarded to Lockheed Martin UK on 2011 on a competitive basis, serving as the developer of the tower (which is carried out by capital reworking of the standard Warrior BMP tower).

It is noted that the cost of upgrading 245 machines under the WFLIP program was previously estimated at 642 million pounds, but in fact could exceed 1 billion pounds. Serially upgraded BMP Warrior 2 should begin to arrive in the combat units in the 2020 year.
Photos used:
Lockheed Martin
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 29 January 2018 12: 29
    Here, wept and received. And we will defeat all.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 29 January 2018 12: 37
      It is noted that the cost of upgrading 245 machines under the WFLIP program was previously estimated at 642 million pounds, but in fact may exceed 1 billion pounds.
      Those. from about 3 to 4 million per car. Our saw cutters are resting. New rivet is not cheaper?
      1. LiSiCyn
        LiSiCyn 29 January 2018 12: 49
        4 million pounds for the modernization of one machine? !!!!! Come on.... belay They probably installed a laser gun? And gold-plated armor ...
      2. Redfox3k
        Redfox3k 29 January 2018 12: 58
        Duc, where lokhid, there are non-acidic kickbacks.
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 29 January 2018 13: 02
        Quote: KVU-NSVD
        New rivet not cheaper?
        As a rule, it is not profitable for the "sawners" to engage in modernization, be it a tank or a ship, it is more profitable to make money on the development of a new one. Our “wonder platforms”, “Armata”, “Kurganets-25” and “Boomerang”, from this opera, moreover, according to the doctrine, outdated for us, such as friendship with NATO, a compact army, anti-terrorist operations instead of a real war, readiness to protect the Fatherland from external threats. Got anti-guerrilla, police cars, expensive and complex. Moreover, all their “unification” is only within their “platform”. The harm of the idea is also in the fact that the platform is not assigned a raw, untested technique, not mastered by industry, but becomes when the base is recognized as successful and technological. As a good example, this is the base of the T-72 / T-90, on which a huge amount of various equipment is created, from ACS, TOC, BREM, BMO-T to BMPT. This is a very successful MT-LB, this is the BMD base with its family ("Shell", "Nona", "Sprut", "Birdies"). The British here are more pragmatic, especially for their expeditionary tactics of life-long colonizers, such monsters as the “Warrior” will completely disappear, they are even more elegant and compact now the brainchildren of our capitalism in their “platforms”.
        1. Ber
          Ber 29 January 2018 13: 20
          I completely agree with you, I don’t know at the expense of Boomerang whether it can, like the BTR-90, be deployed first and second, but the BMP-3, BMD, BTR-80 \ 90 scheme is more preferable for amphibious armored vehicles, because allows you to increase the reservation of the frontal projection more than in the scheme with the front-mounted MTO, because afloat the frontal reservation will be balanced by the aft engine.

          Yes, and I want to add immediately in one koment.

          LiSiCyn Today, 12:49 PM ↑ New
          4 million pounds for the modernization of one machine? !!!!! Oh well .... belay Cannon, probably installed a laser? And gold-plated armor ...

          The comrade almost guessed, because a core of depleted uranium of a 40 mm telescopic projectile at a distance of 1000-1500 meters pierces up to 160 mm of homogeneous armor, that is, now the British infantry fighting vehicle is capable of knocking out any tank at least 1000 meters from any angle, Leopard- 2, Abrams, T-14 Armata.

          But the installation on the new T-15 infantry fighting vehicles of 30 mm cannons that do not take the new NATO-BMP into the forehead is very strange.

          1. LiSiCyn
            LiSiCyn 29 January 2018 14: 24
            For a friend, thanks !! laughing Sir, the ear cuts ... And on the T-15, it is necessary to put 57 mm, that's it. And the shells will not be "gold".
            1. Ber
              Ber 31 January 2018 07: 52
              laughing Yes please. fellow
              And at the expense of 57 mm this is a fact, I agree that the high-explosive action is higher than that of 40 mm, the armor-piercing one is still good.