Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[shark bait]

It would have been more economical and more relevant to upgrade 650 Warrior and buy Fennek recce, than to develop this family of Ajax vehicles.

That is very much my thinking. Perhaps then the Army wouldn't be getting screwed because no one dared to pull out of Ajax.

[mr.fred]

http://www.janes.com/article/74127/dsei ... den-depths

Odd that the Warrior turret is the one they are developing

[bobp]

Especially the bit were they are talking about adding a Javelin, ideally would be handy to knock out a MBT.

[ArmChairCivvy]

talking about adding a Javelin

I hope it is not the single-shot version, shown on some test launch videos: rearming by a crew member climbing out

[ArmChairCivvy]

This Javelin business on turrets is quite interesting though> the range is limited by the guidance pack, normally carried by an infantry man (so not limited bcz of the missile).
- could something heavier, mounted on the turret, better that (by a significant margin)?

[bobp]

Good point about re-arming a single launcher, however you could argue a twin pack would need re-arming at some point. Secondly a single shot misses its target would you have time to launch the second before you are toasted by the tank. Also the weight and size of the missile add to the turret size.

[mr.fred]

This Javelin business on turrets is quite interesting though> the range is limited by the guidance pack, normally carried by an infantry man (so not limited bcz of the missile).
- could something heavier, mounted on the turret, better that (by a significant margin)?

Going by the specs of the command launch unit and the missile sensor, the limitation would seem to be on the missile sensor, so it's at least 2.5km regardless of the platform and up to, and possibly in excess of, 4km in suitable conditions. I get the impression the missile will go further than the sensor can lock onto things.

[jimthelad]

It is more target resolution and PID at range. I believe there was/is a refined solution being looked at for the US which might make it's way onto Stryker. Will try to find link when i get a sec.

[Ron5]

Seems to have two missiles ..

LM-Datasheet-009-v1-40mm-Turrets-08-2016-SMALL-1.jpg

[Timmymagic]

Seems to have two missiles ..

No armoured cover either...?

[RetroSicotte]

Seems to have two missiles ..

What's the source on this? Is this just a photoshopped mockup?

[Zealot]

It's real; http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf

[RetroSicotte]

Much appreciated.

[ArmChairCivvy]

For once we stand to do a one upper over our Russian friends. As our French allies (or is Thales "our defence company?") only gave them - the consideration must have been good, but not much consideration went into the process - the Catheterine XP, albeit in thousands when you include the license production.

So their MBTs will have a little over half as many pixels in both width and height compared to the Catherine MP that we already have on Ajax. This little trick (way above what an infantryman could carry, with all the other kit) would translate to about twice the detect, recognise and identify ranges. More important than their 125 mm cannon's effective range (do the Ukrainians still sell them the missiles, to fire out to 5 km, using the gun?).
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/en/production/a ... ed-missile

[ArmChairCivvy]

Here's a real nice MIV (candidate... but of course it won't be an open competition; will be interesting to hear the legalise to be put out in justification of single sourcing - once again)
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/105.jpg
killing tanks out to 5 km
... and it is not a mock up

[Ron5]

It's real; http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf

Yup, that's where I found it.

This one has armor on the missile box.

LM-Datasheet-009-v1-40mm-Turrets-08-2016-SMALL-3.jpg

[Zealot]

Here's a real nice MIV (candidate... but of course it won't be an open competition; will be interesting to hear the legalise to be put out in justification of single sourcing - once again)
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/105.jpg
killing tanks out to 5 km
... and it is not a mock up

If we were going with that, we should use the CTA 105 in development

CTA-Developments.jpg

[Ron5]

Not seen that before!

I was under the impression (obviously wrong) that 40 mm was getting toward the upper limit on the technology.

[Zealot]

Not seen that before!

I was under the impression (obviously wrong) that 40 mm was getting toward the upper limit on the technology.

Yeah me too!

There are also rumors of a CTA 50 cal. in development

[Smokey]

There are also rumors of a CTA 50 cal. in development

50 cal. as in half an inch or 50mm?

[Zealot]

Half Inch.

[ArmChairCivvy]

50 cal. as in half an inch or 50mm?

Getting it right on both accounts:
- 45 mm was the original dvlmnt; paired down to 40 mm to make the ammo look ( in size) more like Coke cans
- the half inch is also on its way; how will that tie in with the (aborted?) caseless ammo "case"? Their final recommendation was to go for vehicle-mounted support weapons

[Ron5]

http://www.janes.com/article/74127/dsei ... den-depths

Odd that the Warrior turret is the one they are developing

Lockheed says its because it weighs less than Ajax turret so would fit a broader range of vehicles.

Of course there's still ACC's theory about finding a home for unused turrets if the Warrior upgrade goes bye bye. Although an upgraded Warrior was on display at DSEI.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Although an upgraded Warrior was on display at DSEI.

With all these turret/ bigger gun/ number of ready rounds developments, I wonder if they have lost any space in the back?

[RetroSicotte]

The Warrior went from 7 men to 6 men with the upgrade, so yes, slight loss of space.