Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Little J »


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 »

Well that's one way to get around the manning shortages. Would it work for a T-23?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

Lord Jim wrote:Well that's one way to get around the manning shortages. Would it work for a T-23?
Remote operation is not going to reduce personnel requirements, that would need autonomous operation.

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 wasn't actually being serious here.

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 »

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

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 whole WCSP is moving forward so slowly at times it appears to be going backwards.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

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
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!

Or is my memory playing tricks?

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Gabriele »

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.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:
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
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!

Or is my memory playing tricks?
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.

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 »

You guys don’t look very hard:

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:
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.
How can you be so sure?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote:You guys don’t look very hard:
Thanks. Exactly the video I was thinking about.

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 »

Gabriele wrote:with the NAO Major Projects report well and truly cancelled, there is no way in hell to understand what happened.
Yes, deplorable. Which other ministry gets to mark their own homework?

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 :wtf:
- 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)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
It was very much a publicity stunt with limited engineering value.
How can you be so sure?
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.

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 »

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.

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: 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.
That doesn’t mean that either test had “no engineering value”, does 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 »

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.

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 »

Or putting CAMM on type 23s rather than waiting for type 26 and 31?

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 »

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?

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 »

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?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Pretty much, the Warrior is perfectly fine once upgraded.

The problem is less the platform, and more the process to make that happen.

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 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.

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 »

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?

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:electrical systems, electronic systems
Directing the discussion in the right, errr, direction - if anyone here has that depth of expertise
- 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)

Post Reply