Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Well that's one way to get around the manning shortages. Would it work for a T-23?
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Remote operation is not going to reduce personnel requirements, that would need autonomous operation.Lord Jim wrote:Well that's one way to get around the manning shortages. Would it work for a T-23?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
New news!
I think that Warrior 2 must be stealthy, as it seems quite good at staying off the radar.
https://www.janes.com/article/85073/war ... ing-trials
I think that Warrior 2 must be stealthy, as it seems quite good at staying off the radar.
https://www.janes.com/article/85073/war ... ing-trials
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The whole WCSP is moving forward so slowly at times it appears to be going backwards.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Haven't their been videos of Warrior engaged in manned firing trials already? I did look for the videos but they appear to have been taken down!mr.fred wrote:New news!I think that Warrior 2 must be stealthy, as it seems quite good at staying off the radar.
https://www.janes.com/article/85073/war ... ing-trials
Or is my memory playing tricks?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
There was such a video. Some images from it are visible in this other video:
But i believe those trials came before the decision was made (one hopes for good reasons) to NOT proceed with the remafacture of the existing turret and go with fully new build ones. Suppose they have had to run the trials again as the previous round was no longer representative.
When the change of turret was announced, in february 2015, it was not supposed to delay Critical Design Review, expected later the same year. Clearly, that was most definitely not the case.
But with the NAO Major Projects report well and truly cancelled, there is no way in hell to understand what happened.
But i believe those trials came before the decision was made (one hopes for good reasons) to NOT proceed with the remafacture of the existing turret and go with fully new build ones. Suppose they have had to run the trials again as the previous round was no longer representative.
When the change of turret was announced, in february 2015, it was not supposed to delay Critical Design Review, expected later the same year. Clearly, that was most definitely not the case.
But with the NAO Major Projects report well and truly cancelled, there is no way in hell to understand what happened.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.whitelancer wrote:Haven't their been videos of Warrior engaged in manned firing trials already? I did look for the videos but they appear to have been taken down!mr.fred wrote:New news!I think that Warrior 2 must be stealthy, as it seems quite good at staying off the radar.
https://www.janes.com/article/85073/war ... ing-trials
Or is my memory playing tricks?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
How can you be so sure?RunningStrong wrote:
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Thanks. Exactly the video I was thinking about.mr.fred wrote:You guys don’t look very hard:
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Yes, deplorable. Which other ministry gets to mark their own homework?Gabriele wrote:with the NAO Major Projects report well and truly cancelled, there is no way in hell to understand what happened.
I think, though, the turret is being used a s an excuse. Mr. Fallon (when still in the chair) had an exhaustive progress report: The Warrior project is ,errr, complicated
- my reading is that it is actually the hulls (good old aluminium; that's why they planned to refurb the Ticos in two batches of 11... whether that will happen; someone tell me?)
- the testing is happening and the whole of life costing will be revised accordingly... could kill the whole thing
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1355
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Because projects that have already "achieved" manned live firing on the move don't then go back to static unmanned firing unless of course what they evidenced to DOSG in the first place was something completely different i.e. the control system, sighting and structure are all significantly different.mr.fred wrote:How can you be so sure?RunningStrong wrote:
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Well hopefully the WCSP will be cancelled and the whole fleet scrapped. We waited far too long to actually bring the Warrior up to spec. The only thing worthwhile about the upgrades Warrior is the Turret. Use the turret of some of the MIV/Boxers that are planned and move on.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
That doesn’t mean that either test had “no engineering value”, does it?RunningStrong wrote: Because projects that have already "achieved" manned live firing on the move don't then go back to static unmanned firing unless of course what they evidenced to DOSG in the first place was something completely different i.e. the control system, sighting and structure are all significantly different.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
If this was a now platform I would be more in favour of it but in reality it is a rework of a platform over 30 years old. Sort of like not building the T-45s but putting Sampson and Aster onto reworked T-42 hulls.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Or putting CAMM on type 23s rather than waiting for type 26 and 31?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Yes if the whole FSC programme had delivered a platform in to service in the 2000s when it was supposed to. If and it is a big if in my books each Warrior that eventually goes through the WCSP is totally stripped down, everything replaced except the bare hull and chassis and rebuild as basically a new vehicle then I would be happy. But is that the plan?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Hull and chassis? Isn’t that one and the same in most AFVs?
I don’t know what the plan is, but aren’t AFVs stripped down, refurbished and rebuilt very so often anyway?
I don’t know what the plan is, but aren’t AFVs stripped down, refurbished and rebuilt very so often anyway?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Pretty much, the Warrior is perfectly fine once upgraded.
The problem is less the platform, and more the process to make that happen.
The problem is less the platform, and more the process to make that happen.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
I probably used the wrong descriptions, I meant the Hull, Suspension and so on. As long as everything bar the hull is replaced then I will be happy.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
So what stays and goes? Hull structure stays, but what about the running gear ( tracks, road wheels, idler, suspension), drive train ( engine, transmission, sprockets, and associated components) electrical systems, electronic systems, seats, stowage, doors and hatches, vision devices, mechanical controls etc?
Can you justify your choices?
Can you justify your choices?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Directing the discussion in the right, errr, direction - if anyone here has that depth of expertisemr.fred wrote:electrical systems, electronic systems
- let's remember, though, that RE what is in the quote the new MoD Vehicle architecture for electrics, electronics (and if that does not cover all control systems, probably for them , too) there was a prescriptive part (to be costed in)
- wish I could remember the bloody acronym... someone will
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)