Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Possibly applicable to Ajax too
Do you mean the turreted versions being slow to show up?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
SW1 wrote:Possibly applicable to Ajax too
Do you mean the turreted versions being slow to show up?
Yeah


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Too many cooks spoil the broth
... shall we talk about GFX (again)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by military »

Julian Nettlefold has some inside information on very serious issues with the Warrior CSP programme (and Ajax, which has its own thread). This is in a submission to the parliamentary Defence Committee for its inquiry into AFVs.
Warrior CSP looks to be unaffordable and looks to be the sacrificial lamb for the COVID-19 cuts. Its age and aluminum hull has created huge problems in integrating the CT40 canon given the CT40 recoil force of 20,000 lbs and the power requirements through the exiting slip ring.
(AVF0001)
On inspection by DSG prior to the conversion for the CT40 turret which had had to be redesigned by Lockheed, a number of vehicles were found to have cracks in the hull. These cracks are due to welding steel applique armour kits during the UOR process to the aluminum hull
The Trails programme has not gone well.
The choice of the CT40 canon as GFE equipment on both vehicles is the major cause of problems on Warrior and Ajax. 40mm was chosen by the Army in the first instance as they saw their tank capability disappearing and 40mm was seen as a way of staying in the game. Only France has chosen CT40 given the Joint UK/Franco programme. It has costs over £50 million to get to where it is now but problems still persist:
1. Warrior – Power problems, turret redesign.
It was a brave move to choose Lockheed Martin over BAE Systems to run WCSP. BAE Systems offer was above Lockheed’s due to foreseen complexities in WCSP. In addition, given the liquidated damages it suffered on the Terrier programme, BAE Systems was reluctant to take a being hit on any contract overrun on WCSP.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

given the liquidated damages it suffered on the Terrier programme, BAE Systems was reluctant to
Has anyone ever sued... :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
given the liquidated damages it suffered on the Terrier programme, BAE Systems was reluctant to
Has anyone ever sued... :?:
In fairness I think that was raised looking the other way.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
given the liquidated damages it suffered on the Terrier programme, BAE Systems was reluctant to
Has anyone ever sued... :?:
In fairness I think that was raised looking the other way.
Of course it was: I counter cheap arguments with cheap counters... fair play ;)
- this is different from us discussing whether the Gvmnt's coercive policy for consolidating both the land domain and ship building industries was enlightened
... let's have that discussion as well (some other thread, though?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Just read the Julian Nettlefold paper and it does raise numerous points that are hard to ignore. The fact that are few foundations left of any sovereign capacity to design and manufacture AFVs is an issue many on here wish to be blind to.

The Warrior CIP production contract has still not been signed and if it is unaffordable then the only intelligent option is to cancel it. Many here have the opinion that we have to have an tracked IFV to support any Main Battle Tanks we retain. But will the WCIP unaffordable and the purchase of alternative platforms like the CV-90 or Lynx doubly so the only valid option we have is to use the Boxer.

It has basically the same mobility and protection as the Warrior and has additional capabilities the Warrior lacks but its prime asset is that it is a new platform with plenty of growth potential. The British Army has even specified an improved power train compared to that installed in German And Dutch vehicles to cope with any additional weight.

However as the Boxer can carry eight dismounts compared to the Warriors usual six, we would need fewer Boxers to transport the same number of Infantry or we could increase the size of Infantry Platoons in theory. Yes the Boxer would initially have inferior firepower, with only a 12.7mm M2 Machine Gun but this could easily be supplemented by an ATGW such as Javelin as an interim improvement. The MoD has already purchased a large quantity of CTA40 autocannons which were intended as GFE for both the WCIP and Ajax programmes so those costs have already been absorbed. These would be available for any future growth in the Boxer's capabilities.

Nexter for example has successfully developed and tested an unmanned turret equipped with the CTA40 that would be easily installed on the Boxer Mission Module at a later date. This turret can also accept ATGWs such as the MMP or Spike-LR. Such a turret would if eventually installed give the Boxer superior firepower than that planned for the WCIP. The Boxer, due to its modularity could also provide all the required specialist variants needed for a Mechanised Infantry Battalion, giving the Army a common platform throughout the Battalions with lower running and support costs, and with more flexibility as to how they could be utilised.

The Army needs to really develop a long term, comprehensive programme, looking to create an effective combat force by the early 2030s. Have a through life development plan for Boxer would allow the initial introduction of Boxer as a replacement for Warrior with a know upgrade path that would deliver a superior platform by the end of that period. The same Battalion organisation should also be used in the Battalions that form the "Strike" Brigade(s).

So the MoD and Army need to bite the bullet, realise the WCIP is dead and shift it attention and limited resources toward Boxer, realising more of its capabilities and benefits.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Lord Jim wrote: Yes the Boxer would initially have inferior firepower, with only a 12.7mm M2 Machine Gun but this could easily be supplemented by an ATGW such as Javelin as an interim improvement.
An interim on what turret? Which one has already been fitted, tested, integrated, and is ready to manuacture en masse?
Nexter for example has successfully developed and tested an unmanned turret equipped with the CTA40 that would be easily installed on the Boxer Mission Module at a later date.
Why do you know it's "easily" installed?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:"easily" installed?
Let's do a U-AE, and put a BMP turret ;) on it. Missile a 'free' extra with that
- would go against what I have advocated for 5 years, though
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

military wrote: https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/
Funnily enough this below link (on the internet) has had a 'sudden death'
... or is it just ;) my PC?
Warrior WCSP In Perspective – Looking Good! By Julian ...
battle-updates.com › warrior-wcsp-in-perspective-looki...
By Julian Nettlefold. June 20, 2019 Julian Nettlefold. The British Army is upgrading Warrior to extend its service life to 2040. The Warrior Capability Sustainment ...

Ish bin auch ein Besser-Wisser, said JFK (not!)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote: An interim on what turret? Which one has already been fitted, tested, integrated, and is ready to manuacture en masse?
Not a turret, Kongsberg Protector RWS.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

All the talk about Boxer is all very entertaining. However if one assumes that the British Army has a requirement to carry out close combat on ground unsuitable for heavy wheeled vehicles, to intimately support MBTs, and with lethality against light to medium armour, then one's driven towards an updated Warrior or an entirely new tacked vehicle.

We could of course go down the French route who have effectively restricted their MBTs to ground suitable for the wheeled VCBI that supports them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A good spot by @military on the Chally thread "leaks" that
FV 432, of which there are still 900 in service, [and] is still in use for Brigade Ops for mortar, Command Post and ambulance variants
- would go altogether
- not a huge jump as two of the three variants exist

Furthermore, Warriors would soldier on in current form to 2025
- except that if the main project is to be canned
- then the ABSV canned "side project" will spring back to life
- and provides the tracked formations with a mortar carrier (to 2025... or possibly longer, as the hulls must, by now, have been thoroughly inspected as for their likely relative longevity)

[The same Battle-space article also includes a budget fixed for Ch3, but numbers pending the final quote]
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: if the main project is to be canned
Except I see absolutely no evidence that it will be.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

"If" is such a powerful word :) ...

The Kremnilogist in me focusses on 2025 in that article; why?
- holding on to the Strike brigades coming into being (2023 and was it 2026, planned, for the second one) as a priority in the review - and the ensuing budgets
= likely

While they have not been fully stood up, keeping the AI bdes in fighting shape must be an interim, connected priority

When we get to hear how far the £ 1.3 bn will go (as for tank numbers) - then we can try to infer more
- one striking thing in the articles from the same source was that an armoured division AND strike brigades has been a confirmed goal
- with the 2+2 overlapping somewhat, you can scrape a somewhat armoured division together (= min. 3 of 4). As per the official goal: a division level formation, capable of manoeuvre warfare
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

RunningStrong wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote: An interim on what turret? Which one has already been fitted, tested, integrated, and is ready to manuacture en masse?
Not a turret, Kongsberg Protector RWS.
So a single missile and a 50 cal.

Not even what most people have had since the 90s...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Drop the .50 cal and double down on missiles (of course not on all vehicles).

If we go with ABSV mortar carrier, re-enacting the Swingfire-like arrangement (of lying in wait, until needing to fire) could look something like this
https://i2.wp.com/esdpa.org/wp-content/ ... .jpg?ssl=1
- apologies for it being on an 8x8 (Red Arrow, from China)
- allegedly in service and the missile reach is 10 km
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

How about the UK cancels Warrior CSP and buy Ajax IFV with Warrior CSP turret instead.

The Ajax IFV offered to Australia was, I believe, based on the Apollo hull with a crap GD turret on top. Surely an Apollo with a Warrior CT40 turret wouldn't require huge amounts of development and would do the job nicely. And last a lot longer. And share spares, training etc.

I wonder how the finances would compare. Might be a case of spend now and save later.

Ignore turret ..

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:double down on missiles
You know the bad guys have APS too right? :D

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: bad guys have APS too right?
There we come to the steepness (angle) of top attack; many of those systems have lots to do to get that covered
- cfr. Armata, starting to look like a Xmas trees with all those sensors

Let's see what West Point has to say:
"The Russian hard-kill system, developed in the 1990s, is called Arena (Арена). It consists of a sensor suite that uses radar to detect incoming projectiles and uses an arsenal of twenty-six small explosives. It is designed to defeat the full range of antitank rockets and missiles—from recoilless rifles to fly-over, shoot-down munitions. Its protection extends over a 310-degree arc, protecting everywhere except for a section on the back on the turret. Infantry can operate outside without becoming casualties of the system. This system can defeat the Carl Gustaf and TOW, except for the TOW 2B Aero with Gen 1, Gen 2 and Gen 3a missiles. The Javelin can defeat Arena while in top-attack mode, due to the missile descending from too steep an angle for the system to engage properly.

The 1980s-era Shtora (Штора) system consists of a laser detection system, a laser decoy system, and aerosol smoke-grenade launchers. The system can detect a laser-based targeting system. Shtora deploys countermeasures, dispersing a cloud of forward-looking infrared–blocking smoke. Shtora also activates laser decoys to disrupt laser targeting by providing false signatures. Finally, it gives the tank commander the ability to automatically slew the turret to face the direction of the threat targeting system. This system reduces TOW effectiveness and increases the risk to antitank platforms utilizing them, and necessitates the use of Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 3a missiles. Shtora has no effect on Javelins or recoilless rifles. When targeting a vehicle with Shtora, gunners using the ITAS (improved target acquisition system) should never directly laser the tank with the range finder, instead targeting a patch of ground three vehicle lengths away. This will allow the gunner to avoid being detected by Shtora."

- that Aero modification defeats Trophy as well (with radar jamming)... wasn't that the system the US bought?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by military »

Julian Nettlefold has claimed "WCSP would be replaced by another variant of Boxer with a Rafael CT40 or 30mm customised turret as chosen by Lithuania."

This Israeli turret is unmanned so it wouldn't impact the number of dismounts in the Boxer infantry version. See the brochure below.

https://battle-updates.com/battlespace- ... apability/

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/upl ... rated1.pdf

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Not Warrior specific (other than a possible, but farfetched explanation to pruning the numbers of that prgrm... did it not start with 640 or so?), but nonetheless an interesting point (made in the first of the two linked):
"new requirements being built around the Strike Brigades suffer from the fact that the legacy fleet cannot meet the Mean Time Between Failure Requirements for the new Strike Brigades due to old running gear and the extra weight requirements."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

military wrote:Julian Nettlefold has claimed "WCSP would be replaced by another variant of Boxer with a Rafael CT40 or 30mm customised turret as chosen by Lithuania."

This Israeli turret is unmanned so it wouldn't impact the number of dismounts in the Boxer infantry version. See the brochure below.

https://battle-updates.com/battlespace- ... apability/

https://www.rafael.co.il/wp-content/upl ... rated1.pdf
Is Julian just making **** up for giggles?

The CT40 while compact has a very unique setup, the idea you could quickly shoe-horn it into an existing turret architecture, that isn't designed to accept it, is day dreaming.

Nexter have at least made a start on a remote CT40 turret.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... et-family/

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote: An interim on what turret? Which one has already been fitted, tested, integrated, and is ready to manuacture en masse?
Not a turret, Kongsberg Protector RWS.
So a single missile and a 50 cal.

Not even what most people have had since the 90s...
To be fair, the idea that a medium weight vehicle would want to fire a missile (likely at a high value target) and stick around to shoot another is a bit far fetched.

You'd definitely want to have a few stowed under armour.

Post Reply