Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

And still the majority weapon system on the US Army's Strykers, until the successor to the interim "Dragoon" turret is selected. As I motioned for the British Army this would be an interim solution, allowing the two Mechanised (Heavy) Brigades to be formed, with the plan being to up gun the Boxers at a alter date.

Whilst delaying the standing up of the second "Strike" Brigade the initial order for Boxers would allow the Army to form three Brigades, replacing the remaining FV432 series and CVR(T) platforms, and the money from cancelling the WCSP would allow the purchase of a turreted mortar systems for all Mechanised Infantry Battalions.

The Army is in such a mess it needs to stand back and look at a ten year re equipment plan built around a greater number of Boxers (800), around 150 Challenger 2 CIP, a reduced Ajax purchase to around 150 and a modernised Precision Fires Capability. The reduction in the Ajax programme should free up around £!.5Bn and what is left from the WCSP budget after buying the initial 70 Nemo Turrets, to get things started.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by military »

RunningStrong wrote: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.
Makes sense. We'll see if Warrior CSP gets cancelled and replaced by a Boxer IFV variant. At that point, it is probably best to give up on the CT40 and go with a likely cheaper solution with anti-tank missile possibilities, like the Lithuanians picked.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:How about the UK cancels Warrior CSP and buy Ajax IFV with Warrior CSP turret instead.
Image
Been wondering similar things, specifically about the 'ASCOD 42' being pitched to Czechia, which has eight rather than six dismounts in the back, and a sizeable manned turret:

Image

Image

How about turning the the 205 PMRS variants (Ares/Athena) on order into a turreted 'Ares IFV', along the lines of the ASCOD 42 and using now redundant Warrior hulls to meet those requirements? Maybe with a need for up to 80 additional turreted 'Ares IFV' hulls depending on how many turreted 'Ajax' are already ordered and how many current 'Ares' and 'Athena' could be converted.

Would also allow remaining FV430 or CVR variants (still expected to be knocking about in 2030) to be replaced by a common, albeit middle aged, fleet that's already in service. Without a huge new turret, and the need for so many dismounts you'd expect Warrior could have substantial growth potential for C4, sensors and additional protection.

I'm sure there's a very good reason why this seemingly logical solution is actually akin to armoured vehicle heresy but I can't quite see it...

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Jensy wrote: How about turning the the 205 PMRS variants (Ares/Athena) on order into a turreted 'Ares IFV',
Athena (C2) has a higher roofline.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

military wrote: We'll see if Warrior CSP gets cancelled and replaced by a Boxer IFV variant.
Why on earth would one cancel Warrior to replace it with a heavy wheeled vehicle that can't accompany and support Challenger over difficult retain?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

J. Tattersall wrote:
military wrote: We'll see if Warrior CSP gets cancelled and replaced by a Boxer IFV variant.
Why on earth would one cancel Warrior to replace it with a heavy wheeled vehicle that can't accompany and support Challenger over difficult retain?
The French have done it. The assumed mobility of Boxer is that it will be capable of following a MBT over the majority of terrains.

I agree that we should have a tracked IFV, but I just don't see WCSP winning the political argument.

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 »

Jensy wrote: the 'ASCOD 42' being pitched to Czechia, which has eight rather than six dismounts in the back
Those seats don't seem to be suspended... so we would immediately lose 2 (may be an 'air hostess' seat could be added in the back, a lecture seat for the visiting company commander?)
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 »

J. Tattersall wrote:Why on earth would one cancel Warrior to replace it with a heavy wheeled vehicle that can't accompany and support Challenger over difficult retain?
It would be only over the most extreme types of terrain that the Boxer could not keep up with a Challenger 2, and in those areas even a Challenger 2 would be having a certain degree of difficulty. Than again a Challenger 2 will struggle to keep up with a Boxer on good terrain.

But that aside, Boxer has plenty of growth potential the WCSP has little or non. The Boxer will be cheaper to operate and maintain. The Boxer is less susceptible to mine damage and less susceptible to mobility damage. And finally the Boxer is more easily deployed and reduced the need for heavy and medium transporters. So with funding a serious issue the Boxer has a lot going for it, whereas the WCSP really only has the fact it uses track.

I am sure my cheque from Rheinmetall is in the post as we speak. :D

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: So with funding a serious issue the Boxer has a lot going for it, whereas the WCSP really only has the fact it uses track.
Or, to look at it another way, WCSP has track, lower silhouette and doesn’t require as much funding.
If you have funding spare, you could look at band tracks for Warrior and gain several tonnes capacity, which over a smaller vehicle goes a bit further.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: It would be only over the most extreme types of terrain that the Boxer could not keep up with a Challenger 2
Really ! Have the basic physics of pressure equals force divided by area magically changed and rendered soft ground suddenly accessible to heavy wheeled vehicles ? Oh and if it's only the most extreme terrain why isn't Germany using Boxers for its IFV role supporting Leopard? And why is the US looking to replace Bradley with a tasked vehicle and not a wheeled one? Oh and BTW this 'most extreme type of terrain' is the one Russian armoured forces will take advantage of to manoeuvre over and outflank !

In amongst all the hype about wheeled vehicles over the past few years, a reality check its certainly needed. If NATO shifts away from the ability to operate over difficult terrain the Russia will use this to its advantage.

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 »

J. Tattersall wrote: If NATO shifts away from the ability to operate over difficult terrain the Russia will use this to its advantage
Don't let them get as far as the Ardennes?
- of course you are right (and I'm only joking)
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 »

mr.fred wrote:you could look at band tracks for Warrior and gain several tonnes capacity
Magical powers for band tracks? :D

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:
Jensy wrote: the 'ASCOD 42' being pitched to Czechia, which has eight rather than six dismounts in the back
Those seats don't seem to be suspended... so we would immediately lose 2 (may be an 'air hostess' seat could be added in the back, a lecture seat for the visiting company commander?)
I'm a bit puzzled by this, the as yet unbuilt Ajax IFV variant offered to Australia, had 6 dismounts and the base vehicle (Apollo?) had to be extended by half a meter to accommodate that many. So how can the Czech vehicle carry 8?

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:you could look at band tracks for Warrior and gain several tonnes capacity
Magical powers for band tracks? :D
A tonne and a half or so.
http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/P ... %20IFV.pdf

Which is just the direct mass saving. It also saves fuel mass.
The reduced vibration could also be used as a justification for mass saving, but that assumes that
1) vibration is the driving load case
2) you have the time and resource to lightweight the fixtures and fittings

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

So would Ajax get the same benefit?

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 »

Ajax (weight wise) is half-way to an MBT
... and no band tracks on MBTs?
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 »

I think the current Gross Vehicle Weight is mid-40t range for the Band Tracks, with Soucy working on higher GVWs, so Ajax ought to be possible.

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 »

J. Tattersall wrote:Oh and if it's only the most extreme terrain why isn't Germany using Boxers for its IFV role supporting Leopard?
Because they have the brand new Puma and what is becoming a well thought out modernisation programme for their AFV fleet tat is well managed. But that are using the Boxer to replace the M113 variants, such as Command in use in their Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Battalions instead of a tracked platform.

The USA wants to replace the Bradley as a high priority, but it also has the money to run both heavy and Medium formations that are properly equipped.

We on the other hand are pushing the Warrior platform to its absolute limit with the WCSP, leaving it struggling and with little or no room for growth. I haven't seen any data but it surely is going to struggle, weight vs power wise, when it is fitted with a full TES kit.

The Army has to make some serious decision about where it want to focus its resources moving forward, and also how it organises it force structure to meet whatever doctrine emerges form the Integrated Review. The savings from cancelling the WCSP and those from the reduce through life cost of Boxer would go someway to funding high priority capability requirements that are either partially funded at present or not at all. Remember the WCSR was supposed to be a cheap(ish), low risk, quick turn around upgrade for the Warrior, how many of those points has the WCSP met? It has become high risk, it is long overdue, and unaffordable, and lets not even get started on the BASV which was to support the modernised Warriors, whose job is likely to be taken over by Boxers anyway, so we will have Boxers operating with Challenger 2s anyhow in all likelihood.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: Because they have the brand new Puma
Exactly, heavy wheeled vehicles like Boxer just don't cut the mustard when they have to give infantry support to MBTs over difficult terrain. Wheeled vehicles may well have good operational mobility but limited tactical mobility.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: The Army has to make some serious decision about where it want to focus its resources moving forward, and also how it organises it force structure to meet whatever doctrine emerges form the Integrated Review.
Agreed. However the doctrine does seem to be already in place with the new British Army Land Operating Concept.

J. Tattersall

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote: The savings from cancelling the WCSP and those from the reduce through life cost of Boxer would go someway to funding high priority capability requirements that are either partially funded at present or not at all.
Unless of course one of those highest priority capability requirements involved accompanying tracked MBTs over difficult terrain inaccessible to wheeled vehicles. In which case cancelling WCSP would not seem to make sense, unless its technician challenges became truly insurmountable.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

J. Tattersall wrote: Oh and BTW this 'most extreme type of terrain' is the one Russian armoured forces will take advantage of to manoeuvre over and outflank !
By the same argument, our MBT are strategically slow, so a wheeled vehicle much more capable of strategic lift and self-deploy to the front. Gaining the firm ground to manoeuvre on whilst waiting for the tracked/HET fleet.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote: Oh and BTW this 'most extreme type of terrain' is the one Russian armoured forces will take advantage of to manoeuvre over and outflank !
By the same argument, our MBT are strategically slow, so a wheeled vehicle much more capable of strategic lift and self-deploy to the front. Gaining the firm ground to manoeuvre on whilst waiting for the tracked/HET fleet.
So you are arguing the BA should acquired wheeled APC as well as tracked?

Way to go out on a limb, what's next? recommending the RAF should buy aircraft and the Navy buy ships? :D

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote: Oh and BTW this 'most extreme type of terrain' is the one Russian armoured forces will take advantage of to manoeuvre over and outflank !
By the same argument, our MBT are strategically slow, so a wheeled vehicle much more capable of strategic lift and self-deploy to the front. Gaining the firm ground to manoeuvre on whilst waiting for the tracked/HET fleet.
So you are arguing the BA should acquired wheeled APC as well as tracked?

Way to go out on a limb, what's next? recommending the RAF should buy aircraft and the Navy buy ships? :D
Buy, buy, buy!

Of course all I was doing is adding balance and perspective to the manoeuvrability argument that Tattersall was trying to make for tracked over wheeled. Both have their benefits and weaknesses.

Why we all can't just agree that half-tracks are the best of both world's I don't know.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:d. Both have their benefits and weaknesses.

Why we all can't just agree that half-tracks are the best of both world's
The Israelis made a huge success of/ with them in the Sinai desert
... err, don't think we are going there
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)

Post Reply