Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Surely high angled guns would be more for urban warfare among high rise buidlings.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Little need for a separate high angle weapon on the Warrior or Ajax really, the CT40 has a +75 degree arc of elevation.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

RunningStrong wrote:Or just use the CT40 Airburst which it is coaxial to....
Different vehicle, this was about the Ajax variant proposed to Aus. The main and co-ax on the Warrior CSP doesn't appear to have that high an elevation.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote: Or just use the CT40 Airburst which it is coaxial to....
This is referring to the machine gun mount on the ASCOD IFV concept for Land400, rather than Scout or Warrior, which is independent of the main armament (so not really coaxial) and has a larger elevation range.
Lord Jim wrote:Have we adopted the programable ammunition for the CTA 40 on the Warrior CSP and Ajax? I know the French have for their new 6x6 recce wagon but I'm not sure we have.
Last I checked, it hadn’t been qualified yet

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 »

We might not have qualified it yet, but he prototypes were developed and tested and I have seen one at Shrivenham. The French have ordered the gun at that spec.

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 »

This probably belongs here more than the Ajax thread:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=162&p=77922#p77920
The aluminium armour construction provides protection against 14.5mm armour piercing rounds, 155mm air burst shell fragments and 9kg anti-tank mines.
This is the statement made for the base Warrior with no appliqué, mine plate or anything else, and comes in between Stanag 4569 level 3 and 4 for mine protection. No indication as to whether that’s ‘a’ or ‘b’, or under wheel or under body respectively, though.

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 »

Good that there is at least one way to do x-thread quotes... helping to move discussions where they belong (if for no other reason, but ease of future reference).

Anyway, more worrying than resistance to mines is that (in basic form) Warrior cannot take hits, from any direction, from one of the most prolific weapons on modern battlefields: the 30 mm autocannon.
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Anyway, more worrying than resistance to mines is that (in basic form) Warrior cannot take hits, from any direction, from one of the most prolific weapons on modern battlefields: the 30 mm autocannon.
Is it? I can’t think of any IFV that can resist 30mm fire. The only ones that can are require appliqué systems to be so, and Warrior can be fitted with appliqué. Warrior base platform is vastly more protected than most other IFVs base platforms, as they require an appliqué fit to get above small arms protection, while Warrior base is proof, all around, from HMG and artillery fragments. Even at base level, there will still be some plates, at some angles, that will stop 30mm, but it’s not something I’d want to rely on.
So what is the problem with needing appliqué to meet 30mm protection?
On top of that, 30mm only appears when you’re fighting someone who can field the vehicles it’s fitted to, at which point you get to use all your high intensity goodies against them as well. And fit appropriate appliqué.

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:So what is the problem with needing appliqué to meet 30mm protection?
Absolutely none (hence the 'basic' was added in brackets). "How" matters far less than the "what".
- having said that SEP (that thing BAE was working on in Sweden) has exactly the same protection spec as in your original quote. For how much less weight than a Warrior?
- ASCOD has been quoted as frontally protected against 30mm. If that was 1st gen, AJAX being 2nd and this new American version (possibly) utilising the Ajax hull for an IFV version... I wonder where we are at (with the 3rd gen; of course, the MoD won't let anything slip even for the 2nd gen; exc. :silent: "comparable to MBTs"... yeah, sure).
mr.fred wrote:30mm only appears when you’re fighting someone who can field the vehicles it’s fitted to, at which point you get to use all your high intensity goodies against them as well. And fit appropriate appliqué.
Absolutely agreed. Except that we forgot to include any :wtf: such 'goodies' in our Strike Bdes?
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:having said that SEP (that thing BAE was working on in Sweden) has exactly the same protection spec as in your original quote. For how much less weight than a Warrior?
Off hand, I don't know. Looking it up via google, gives the base vehicle at 13.5t and protection against small arms and comparable fragments. 15t if you want HMG protection, but that requires applique. Warrior is 25t, but includes a turret and the additional automotive mass required to carry the additional mass of the turret and the additional automotive mass, plus is 10-20 years older. What was your point?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- ASCOD has been quoted as frontally protected against 30mm. If that was 1st gen, AJAX being 2nd and this new American version (possibly) utilising the Ajax hull for an IFV version... I wonder where we are at (with the 3rd gen; of course, the MoD won't let anything slip even for the 2nd gen; exc. "comparable to MBTs"... yeah, sure).
As with anything, it rather depends on what you are measuring. Warriors appliqué is mainly on the sides while an MBTs is mainly to the fore. I could well believe that Warriors side armour is comparable to MBT side armour.
ASCOD requires appliqué for frontal arc protection against HMG, and that only at longer ranges. The bare hull is small arms only if struck flat - the front will be benefiting from slope - i'd expect it to be the same material thicknesses all over.

So the upshot is that all modern AFVs use appliqué armour to meet protection levels
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Absolutely agreed. Except that we forgot to include any such 'goodies' in our Strike Bdes?
Since Warrior is only in the Armoured Brigades, the poor fighting strength of a strike brigade used in isolation is irrelevant, isn't it?

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: 15t if you want HMG protection, but that requires applique. Warrior is 25t, but includes a turret
For the same protection, you can carry a full rather than a truncated section with 10t less. Save half of the upfront procurement price, divvy that money up between buying more units and adding some fire support vehicles?
mr.fred wrote:modern AFVs use appliqué armour to meet protection levels
That's perfectly fine (and has not been disputed) as
1. its the end result that counts, and
2. it is not the only area where modularity is now the name of the game
mr.fred wrote: the poor fighting strength of a strike brigade used in isolation is irrelevant,
I don't think it is irrelevant as all our new acquisitions of highly protected AFVs ( Boxer, even just with a .50 cal will make it into the category, despite not quite being an IFV) are headed into those units. No one has prescribed that they should be used in isolation; on the other hand a Bde is a unit that by definition is capable of conducting combat operations independently.

Others? Ch2 LEP is exactly that, a life extension. Reading between the lines, the Warrior prgrm (in IFV role) is pending confirmation from testing?
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 »

ACC,
Could you have a think, and make it clear what point you are trying to make, because i’m not following.
As far as I can tell, you were worried that Warrior wasn’t protected against 30mm auto cannon in its base configuration. I believe that i’ve shown that it isn’t an issue since Warrior, like all IFVs, only deploys with appliqué fitted.
Now you are going on about SEP, and I’ll come back to that later because it’s interesting and relevant, and Strike Brigades, neither of which have anything to do with the level of protection on Warrior.
???

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 »

OK :) , a lot of choirs to be done.

Can I ask for the same and if you let us know what our options are should the Warrior prgrm, in the form it has been progressing, be cancelled
A) Should we go "French" and have the Challies in AI bdes accompanied by wheeled infantry
B) Remove the turrets from Warriors and upgrade them to an APC config... the much lessened weight should help with longevity and MTBF
- and use some of the margin gained for improving protection... coming back to where we started from?
C) Do something else; and what might that be?

Not trying to pre-empt any alternatives, but personally I think we will need, also going forward, both heavy and medium formations. Only putting this addition in, as should the above scenario unfold, it would put the existence of the former in peril
- unless we buy something foreign :o
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 »

I vote we go "French".

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 »

Should the Warrior programme, as is, be cancelled?
Unless there arises some impossible to overcome problem, then No.
we’ve dithered too much already. We need the upgrade and we can’t keep switching ideas at the drop of a hat while soldiers have to deal with increasingly obsolescent equipment.

This kind of renders the following options moot, as we would keep Warrior in the armoured battlegroup alongside the upgraded Challenger.
Switching some vehicles to a turretless APC (a battlegroup support vehicle, if you will) would seem sensible, in order to reduce the number of different platforms in the formation. Following on from that thought, I’d also look at what you can do with the automotive components. The Warrior uses the same transmission as the CV90, and the latest version is now rated for 1000hp, and the CV8 engine is available in higher power outputs. It’s been tested with rubber band tracks, too, and suspension for the uparmoured versions has been trialled in combat. So I’d switch to band tracks, uprate the engine and transmission and use that for the turreted vehicles. The turretless vehicles could keep the older transmission and engine, being lighter, but the band track would still be preferable. This would mean that the engine and transmission from the turret vehicles could be used as spares for the support vehicles.

But only if there is money. Realistically, we probably won’t get the automotive upgrades or even the turretless version, but we can use other vehicles to fill the support vehicle gap.

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 »

If Warrior is kept and that is not 100% certain, then the most logical way forward would be to put the whole "Strike" brigade process on hold and use Variants of the Boxer and Ajax to replace the CVR(T) and FV430 variants in the formations. This would obviously mean the conversion of Warriors to support platform is cancelled but that isn't a bad thing. Any funding left over should go to bringing 16 Air Assault up to the level needed to make it a credible formation and also 3 Commando to the same ends. Again as I have said else where this mean the UK can still deploy a "Division but it would comprise of the heaviest and lightest types of formation and would be the total sum of out available front line capability. Even to do this the rest of the Army would have to be cut back, may be as far as only having two or three motorised Brigades left to support the above, and yes these would be mounted in the MRV(P) and dependant on a large proportion of reserves to meet their manning levels. This would mean the Army losing up to four Infantry Brigades which is something the press and cap badge bunnies will go berserk at of course. However it is ideas like this that the MDP is looking at, there are certain thing, mainly procurement contracts the MoD is locked into but besides that there is a lot of freedom to be pretty radical.

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 »

To me that sounds like a great plan. Would it be "a first" for smart spending (=more) upfront, to save on the total (=thru-life)?
mr.fred wrote: sensible, in order to reduce the number of different platforms in the formation. Following on from that thought, I’d also look at what you can do with the automotive components. The Warrior uses the same transmission as the CV90, and the latest version is now rated for 1000hp, and the CV8 engine is available in higher power outputs. It’s been tested with rubber band tracks, too, and suspension for the uparmoured versions has been trialled in combat. So I’d switch to band tracks, uprate the engine and transmission and use that for the turreted vehicles. The turretless vehicles could keep the older transmission and engine, being lighter, but the band track would still be preferable. This would mean that the engine and transmission from the turret vehicles could be used as spares for the support vehicles.

But only if there is money
Just as a technical note, band tracks are not either-or. Norway converted theirs (CV90s) before sending some to A-stan. The noise, vibration, wear and tear, even fuel consumption benefits were significant. That is on all-hard terrain. In the gentle, coniferous zones... with so many fallen needles on the ground :) the traditional tracks would be quite OK.

Adding pure speculation: if the aluminium hulls are in varying condition, we have plenty to choose from. The original £ 1 bn plan was for a number of hulls of around 650. Now, before the testing confirms or modifies the new estimate, it stands at £ 1.8 bn (for an undisclosed number of Warriors - but ABSV is to receive its own funding, were it ever to happen). In the words of Mr. Fallon: The Warrior programme is..er.. complex. Refused to be drawn into any further comment!
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 »

I did say that I’d come back to SEP, as it, and other vehicles, raises some contextually interesting points about comparing things based on data sheet values.
When “HMG proof armour” is presented, it usually means 14.5mm as that is what Stanag 4569 refers to, but the .50 BMG is also a HMG. As the ASCOD base spec shows, range comes into it too. Then you have to consider things like multiple hits. An appliqué layer might be good for one hit, but is it good for multiple hits close together? Armour schemes, particularly appliqués, will always have gaps, so protection is rarely 100% coverage.
At the same time, manufacturers aren’t going to detail weaknesses, or indeed strengths, of their solutions - you don’t want to give out enough information for an enemy to exploit.

Then there is mass and power. Additional mass (like a turret) requires more power to retain mobility, but as you add power you need more automotive mass which in turn requires more power and more automotive mass. Wider tracks, bigger suspension units, larger engines, stronger transmissions all weigh extra so will tend to push up the overall mass. Warrior, at 25t with 410kW is slightly more power to weight than SEP at 13.5t with 200kW, but that’s not a direct comparison either, since SEP uses electric motors which provide very high torque at low revs, while band tracks have less rolling resistance.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

I would have thought Afghanistan would be one of the worst places in the world for rubber tracks.

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 »

I was quoting from the after-the-fact joint Nordic report, which actually had % gains. This is from BAE, at the time of rubber band tracks being ordered:

" The tracks reduce vehicle weight by more than one tonne compared with conventional steel tracks. They also cut noise by a massive 10dB and vibration levels by 65 percent.

“The reduced vibration levels are increasing the life expectancy of electronics, optronics and ammunition, which will significantly reduce vehicle running costs,” said CV90 platform manager Dan Lindell. “The tracks also improve stealth, reduce crew fatigue and increase mobility in many conditions, such as on snow and ice.”

Major Per Rune Hansen is CV90 fleet manager for the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization. He commented: “Our vehicle crews were a little sceptical of the rubber tracks at first, but once they used them, they became big fans and really appreciate the reduced vibration and quieter operation.

”Noise and vibration from steel tracks are coming under increasing scrutiny because of ever-tightening health and safety legislation across the world.

“Health and Safety is another reason we are pushing the limits of rubber track technology’” says Lindell. “There have been reservations about their robustness on heavier vehicles, but rubber track performance and track life is increasing all the time, which is why Norway has bought the tracks.”

BAE Systems technical and durability tests on a CV90 over several years weighing 28,000 kg gave good results, with a track life comparable with conventional steel tracks. Trials by the Norwegian Army in late 2010 were so positive that the two vehicles were sent to Afghanistan before the planned schedule was complete"
- they were, then, proceeding to tests with a 35t AFV
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 »

I wonder if we have reach a critical juncture in the development of IFVs etc with regards to firepower verses protection. Today most IFVs and other medium weight AFVs are being built equipped with a autocannon of at least 30mm. Due to the increasing firepower there is a tendency for them to be used basically as light tanks, but has the protection again kinetic weapon especially kept up. The increases in weight of applique armour packages is going to mean we are eventually going to hit the ceiling of what power plants and suspension systems can be installed in such platforms. Are we going to have to resort to having two distinct types of AFV? These would be those with protection levels equal to a MBT such as the Israeli Namer, backed by lighter agile platforms with less firepower more akin to the traditional APC. I do not know. The US Army is looking again at a fleet of tracked medium weight platforms to supplement their heavier types with the aim of overwhelming non peer heavy formations with greater firepower. This appears to be a "Stryker" Brigade on steroids approach, but as mentioned unlike the defunct FCS programme they aim to retain their heavy platforms. I feel this approach is unaffordable for the UK or in fact most armies. Is it worth the UK investing in a platform that has credible firepower but is vulnerable to even peer medium platforms armed with autocannon of 50mm or greater? Would it be better to adopt the French idea and replace the Warrior with a cheaper platform overall like the Boxer now and wait to see what the next generation brings to the table. It would certainly give us a more flexible platform with cheaper operating costs which are important considerations these days. I have not got the answers but maybe we need to start thinking outside of the box on this one.

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 »

My problem with “thinking outside the box” is that it seems to be synonymous with “spend time and money generating pretty PowerPoint presentations without making anything or getting anything of use to the soldiers who are fighting” and also “expecting the enemy to co-operate in the creation of your dream engagement”.

Considering the FRES/FCS debacle, I wonder if we have already been thinking outside the box for long enough, without considering why the box was there and that perhaps there might have been a reason for it.

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 »

But we must remember the current BA plans leave it with formations that are barely credible as far as equipment is concerned. The AI Brigades will have the CR2 CSP and the Warrior CSP but not integral recce as the Ajax are all going to be in the "Strike" Brigades which are going to lack so many capabilities for the role intended for them. They are basically going to be Motorised Infantry Brigades with very expensive vehicles but seriously lacking in fire power. As to that the under investment in 16 Air Assault and the Army can deeply a division on paper but it will not be fit for purpose. One of the main reasons for this is that the BA is still trying to do everything it used to plus create a medium weight capability whilst not receiving sufficient funding. We need to concentrate resources in fewer areas. If it is deemed that we must have the two AI Brigades then funding needs to go there, integrate the planned Ajax variants into those formation and use Boxer to replace the FV430 series. As a result the whole "Strike" Brigade idea has to be scrapped.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:As a result the whole "Strike" Brigade idea has to be scrapped.
I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with that, though I’d probably prefer to focus Boxer on the mechanised infantry, because most jobs would require more than you could lift in Warrior. The mechanised formations could still be dispatched as a blocking or holding force, or for peacekeeping or other tasks that don’t require high intensity combat equipment.

In time, you could still chose to reinforce the armoured or mechanised forces as funding permits and the situation requires.

To be honest, the various brigade organisations don’t really interest me. The force you send into a conflict will be task organised based on what is available and what can be supported, rather than some paper configuration.
If the armoured units are short on recce, then you can always attach a recce regiment if there is one available. Otherwise we’ll have to find another way.

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 issue is that there wouldn't be any Mechanised formations, well maybe one or two battalions worth but all the funding would really go into the two AI formations and 16 Air Assault to get the most bang for you r buck. As for recce, each Armoured and Armoured infantry Battalion/Regiment would have eight plus their would be two "Fully" equipped Recce Regiments with all the necessary variants as originally envisaged, so plenty to go round. This would allow us to deploy at least one reinforce brigade sized format tailored to the mission, which is really a much as we shall be capable of. The big thing is the formations we would deploy would be properly equipped and manned with sufficient support and logistics units.

Post Reply