Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Considering this new IFV is based on the Ajax which is designed to operate the CT40 changing the design from the Aus turret back to a CT40 would not cost an arm and a leg.
Is it based on the Ajax or the Ares? Given the hull shape, I'd think the latter, which may result in limitations that preclude the CT40
Is that turret a two-man recce turret, like the Ajax, or a more lightly featured two man turret built around a 30mm? What's the hull intrusion of the different turrets?
When reading in to the Australian proposal it's based on the ascod 2 the same as Ajax is but fitted with a 2 man 30mm.
It's reasonable to assume that in this case the CT40 could be fitted just like with Ajax

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote:When reading in to the Australian proposal it's based on the ascod 2 the same as Ajax is but fitted with a 2 man 30mm.
It's reasonable to assume that in this case the CT40 could be fitted just like with Ajax
If you compare the hull shown in the IFV picture to the hulls of Ajax and Ares, it is very much closer to that of Ares than it is to Ajax. This suggests that the turret interface may well differ from Ajax's 40mm turret. At the very least, it isn't going to be "just like Ajax" and it is entirely possible that the Ajax turret restricts or even precludes use of the vehicle as an IFV, hence the reason they developed an entirely new turret rather than using the Ajax one?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:When reading in to the Australian proposal it's based on the ascod 2 the same as Ajax is but fitted with a 2 man 30mm.
It's reasonable to assume that in this case the CT40 could be fitted just like with Ajax
If you compare the hull shown in the IFV picture to the hulls of Ajax and Ares, it is very much closer to that of Ares than it is to Ajax. This suggests that the turret interface may well differ from Ajax's 40mm turret. At the very least, it isn't going to be "just like Ajax" and it is entirely possible that the Ajax turret restricts or even precludes use of the vehicle as an IFV, hence the reason they developed an entirely new turret rather than using the Ajax one?
If you look at the Ajax and ares hulls there it's not much difference other than on the ares the hull rises up where the turret would be on the Ajax
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote: If you look at the Ajax and ares hulls there it's not much difference other than on the ares the hull rises up where the turret would be on the Ajax
You mean that the hull roof, where the turret is attached, on the IFV/Ares is different from the Ajax? Yes, that is what I was getting at.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: If you look at the Ajax and ares hulls there it's not much difference other than on the ares the hull rises up where the turret would be on the Ajax
You mean that the hull roof, where the turret is attached, on the IFV/Ares is different from the Ajax? Yes, that is what I was getting at.
I do see what you mean now but I can't see this being a great difficulty to over come.
Wasn't the CT40 developed by a different corporation to ascod ? If so could this be a reason why it hasn't been used on the Aus bid ? Or is it that the Aus bid asked for a 30mm not a 40mm

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

The Ajax turret with the 40mm is being provided by Lockheed Martin, so it could be something to do with that, or a requirement, as you say. Or the large recce turret wouldn’t fit so well with the space you need in the hull.
Either way, it would be risky to assume that you could just chuck a larger gun on it with minimal cost.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:The Ajax turret with the 40mm is being provided by Lockheed Martin, so it could be something to do with that, or a requirement, as you say. Or the large recce turret wouldn’t fit so well with the space you need in the hull.
Either way, it would be risky to assume that you could just chuck a larger gun on it with minimal cost.
Could all be true but I'd be very surprised if any redesign needed for the CT40 cost much at all

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I wouldn't

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:I wouldn't
A CGI concept from GD for the Ajax IFV with the CT40.

From what Iv been reading up today it does seem like it is quiet possible for the Ajax IFV to be fitted with the CT40
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

The turret Nexter uses is in existence, and the inside and outside views
here show that it is quite streamlined without the recce gubbins.
- the gun & feed system has been put on display also separately, to show the compactness of it
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: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Given enough time and money, anything is possible. That is not the same as it being cheap.
You may be able to design and build a new turret or adapt an existing one. It might even be quite cost effective. Or it might not.
What you can’t do is assume that it’ll be cheap and easy because there is some relation between the Ajax recce vehicle and the ASCOD 2 IFV.

Is there a higher resolution image of the supposed CT40 armed IFV? The one shown doesn’t look right but there isn’t enough detail to work out why.

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 »

The turret looks like the unmanned one used on the Stryker Dragoon only a bit larger.

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:the supposed CT40 armed IFV? The one shown doesn’t look right
To me it looks like the Matilda infantry tank
... this one would be worthy of the name as it actually carries some infantry :D
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)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

Lord Jim wrote:The turret looks like the unmanned one used on the Stryker Dragoon only a bit larger.
It's a two man turret, scroll down to the ascod 2 area

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/lan ... the-making

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 »

I know, it was just the shape. Mind you a RWS like the Dragoon would give more room inside and be useful on the Boxer if the UK went down that route.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

From the linked article:
“A rear compartment will accommodate up to eight dismounts, but only when an unmanned turret or Remote Weapons Station is fitted”

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:eight dismounts, but only when an unmanned turret or Remote Weapons Station is fitted”
That's the first trade-off.

The next one is the number of ready rounds (suppressive fire eating them up like candy).

Which then gives (often) a smaller calibre cannon than what would be desirable in encounters with OpFor IFVs
... which, in turn brings the ATGW (which the BA has been detesting, for an unknown reason, for long) back into the picture
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Jake1992 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:I wouldn't
A CGI concept from GD for the Ajax IFV with the CT40.

From what Iv been reading up today it does seem like it is quiet possible for the Ajax IFV to be fitted with the CT40
Google tells me this is a Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret on an ASCOD chassis from mid 2016 drawn for the Australian competition.

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 »

I thought so!

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:Is there a higher resolution image of the supposed CT40 armed IFV? The one shown doesn’t look right but there isn’t enough detail to work out why.

Finally found I higher res images
This is there modal for the Aus Land 400 bid.
It's fitted with a 30mm to meat the requirements of the compatition.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote: Finally found I higher res images
This is there modal for the Aus Land 400 bid.
It's fitted with a 30mm to meat the requirements of the compatition.
So no CT40 variant without significant development cost? Especially considering that 8 dismounts requires a remote turret.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: Finally found I higher res images
This is there modal for the Aus Land 400 bid.
It's fitted with a 30mm to meat the requirements of the compatition.
So no CT40 variant without significant development cost? Especially considering that 8 dismounts requires a remote turret.
Why do you assume the cost would be significant ?
They have the CT40 on the Ajax yes the body for the IFV is slightly different but not to the extent that it would requir a major redesign

Where do you get the 8 dismounts from ?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Jake1992 wrote:Why do you assume the cost would be significant ?
Because it usually is.
Jake1992 wrote:They have the CT40 on the Ajax yes the body for the IFV is slightly different but not to the extent that it would requir a major redesign
So the interfacing region is different, which you'd have to account for. Which is more that minimal cost if it needs a major redesign or not, which it may well do considering that they apparently have to go unmanned to get 8 dismounts.
Jake1992 wrote:Where do you get the 8 dismounts from ?
The link you posted in this post:
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php ... 586#p75528
contains the following statement regarding the ASCOD 2:
A rear compartment will accommodate up to eight dismounts, but only when an unmanned turret or Remote Weapons Station is fitted.
And remembering that "up to" includes all the numbers smaller than the number stated.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Jake1992 »

mr.fred wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Why do you assume the cost would be significant ?
Because it usually is.
Jake1992 wrote:They have the CT40 on the Ajax yes the body for the IFV is slightly different but not to the extent that it would requir a major redesign
So the interfacing region is different, which you'd have to account for. Which is more that minimal cost if it needs a major redesign or not, which it may well do considering that they apparently have to go unmanned to get 8 dismounts.
Jake1992 wrote:Where do you get the 8 dismounts from ?
The link you posted in this post:
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php ... 586#p75528
contains the following statement regarding the ASCOD 2:
A rear compartment will accommodate up to eight dismounts, but only when an unmanned turret or Remote Weapons Station is fitted.
And remembering that "up to" includes all the numbers smaller than the number stated.
From what Iv read the redesign for the Warriors from 30mm to CT40 isn't what most would call high cost, the problem seems to finding the money to purchase all the turrets, why would you assume an Ajax in the same position would cost so much more ?

Ascod 2 states 8 dismount but that does not mean we would require that just because a design states it can carry a certain number does not mea the buyer requires that amount.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

The Warrior upgrade isn’t minimal cost either, nor, it seems, quick and easy.
I’m cautioning against an apparent position that swapping and changing things about is easy and cheap.
I’ve been pointing out all the differences that you would have to account for that would preclude simply changing things like Lego bricks.

Putting a CT40 on an ASCOD 2 IFV might cost the same as Warrior CSP, but then you still have to buy the rest of the IFV up front and you are paying for turret mods on top of the price already paid for Warrior.

Number of dismounts shows the impact of different turrets on the vehicle.

Post Reply