Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[benny14]

http://www.janes.com/article/77318/iav- ... our-trials

Is this the completed vehicle? or is it just one part of the upgrade program been tested?

[mr.fred]

It says:
“eight Warrior infantry fighting vehicles upgraded to Warrior 2”
Rather than “partly upgraded”, so maybe? What were you expecting?

[benny14]

It says:
“eight Warrior infantry fighting vehicles upgraded to Warrior 2”
Rather than “partly upgraded”, so maybe? What were you expecting?

From what I had heard over the last year, the project was having some difficulties, so I was quite surprised that they have a working prototype ready for testing already.

[RunningStrong]

If you believe LM they were test firing Warrior prototypes with CT40 back in 2015.

What they've done in the meantime is beyond me.

[mr.fred]

Made a new turret and modifications to the hull? They look different.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What they've done in the meantime is beyond me.

Into service 1988, into the "10-year prolongement in service contract" 7 or 8 years ago... I think the above thing is quite fair to say!
- regardless, the MoD is reporting (all though) that things are running according to the contract
- so may be they are trying to pre-empt the supplier from saying what the real bug bear has been?

[Lord Jim]

Most likely is that the MoD had funding to carry out the assessment and development phases, but has not allocated production funding due to other priorities, using the smokescreen of continued development to keep it in limbo so to speak.

[Frenchie]

Warrior and Ajax with Javelin

[benny14]

Ajax with Javelin

Export variant...

[Little J]

Fitted for, but not with (?)

[benny14]

Fitted for, but not with (?)

It is a bit confusing, I believe the plan is to use the "Formation Reconnaissance Overwatch Ares" variant with dismounted Javelin teams. Even though the vehicle used will be mounted with a protector RWS which is capable of been fitted with a Javelin. Maybe we will use a mix of both.



I dont think we will see the side mounted Javelin on the AJAX turret because of money issues. This would be more useful as the AJAX turreted vehicle will be up front and would encounter enemy vehicles first.

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Ares" variant with dismounted Javelin teams. Even though the vehicle used will be mounted with a protector RWS which is capable of been fitted with a Javelin. Maybe we will use a mix of both.

Agree that the combo is likely to emerge. It is a corollary to IFVs having about 70 ready rounds for the autocannon, but at least a couple of hundred more are carried
- they are reloaded under armour, though. Can't say the same of the single Javelin! But at least one is/ would be available, without stopping for more than a few seconds ("fire-and-forget" coming in handy).

[Lord Jim]

I am hoping that the Army will get its head sorted out regarding fitting at least Javelin to one or more AFVs. In the 1980s it was realised that something else besides dismounted Milan teams was needed, especially in the Armoured Infantry and so the Spartan Milan Compact Turret entered service, a low cost, relatively simple solution. The fitting of Javelin will happen, it just depends whether it is a planned fit or a UOR down the line. I suppose being out of proper armoured warfare for so long, over 25 years, there is a lot the British Army is going to have to relearn.

[benny14]

I suppose being out of proper armoured warfare for so long, over 25 years, there is a lot the British Army is going to have to relearn.

Even in the Gulf/Iraq wars I dont think that there was ever more than a couple incidents where we used vehicle mounted anti-tank weapons. Most of the fight was air power and tank on tank engagements. Even though Iraq had a large military, it was no where near a peer foe, and lacked air superiority. In a fight vs Russia as NATO seems to be gearing up to, things would not be so simple. Russia has a large air-force and has many capable fighters, not to mention they have an incredibly large AA net. Our formations need to be able to deliver a strong punch against enemy armored formations when not supported by air as it would not always be 100% available.

[Gabriele]

Actually, the Lessons Learned report from 2003 says, on page 22:

The Swingfire anti-tank guided weapon system, which is fitted to some UK reconnaissance vehicles, was also of great utility during the combat phase. It was the longest range, integral weapon system available to reconnaissance units and was used in approximately half of their attacks despite representing only a quarter of their main weaponry.

Also, it was interesting to note that 2000 out of 13.000 shells fired by AS90s were bomblet carriers. Both capabilities have been lost in the meanwhile.

[ArmChairCivvy]

was also of great utility during the combat phase. It was the longest range, integral weapon system

You can say we lost a capability when we phased out the Swingfire... with the replacement halving the "reach".

Javelin, though, is more limited by the aiming/ sights unit (which itself is limited by having to be man-portable) than the missile itself
- that could easily be changed in a turret installation, as the constraints like weight (and the cost of ditching the unit, at times, when disengaging under fire) will be different

[Jake1992]

So the Warriors planned to have its turret upgrade to the CT40 to extend its useful life to the mid 2030s, but has there been any thought to its replacement ?
As with the woeful state of our percurment set up as is planning would need to start a good 10 years before introduction.

Iv heard talk of the 8x8 Boxer fitted with CT40 as an option, but my understand is that the boxer is desired to replace the mastiffs and ridgebacks which makes at lot more sence to me, with the CT40 option there to give greater fire power of ever desired.

Would a variant of the Ajax be a viable option come the time giving a comman platform ?

[benny14]

Would a variant of the Ajax be a viable option come the time giving a comman platform ?

An IFV variant of AJAX would be able to easily replace Warrior.

Iv heard talk of the 8x8 Boxer fitted with CT40 as an option, but my understand is that the boxer is desired to replace the mastiffs and ridgebacks which makes at lot more sence to me, with the CT40 option there to give greater fire power of ever desired.

Boxer is getting RWS Protector. These will be equiped with either 7.62/.50 or GMG. Possibility of equipping Javelin to it as well.

[mr.fred]

You could replace Warrior with an Ajax-derived IFV, but what would be the advantage? Likewise Boxer, it will be increasingly ageing platform.

I would think a better solution would be to look at a common armoured battlegroup vehicle, or at least technology set, for MBTs, IFVs, repair and recovery, engineering support and artillery vehicles. I think the Ajax platform would be too light to fulfil many of these roles.

[Jake1992]

You could replace Warrior with an Ajax-derived IFV, but what would be the advantage? Likewise Boxer, it will be increasingly ageing platform.

I would think a better solution would be to look at a common armoured battlegroup vehicle, or at least technology set, for MBTs, IFVs, repair and recovery, engineering support and artillery vehicles. I think the Ajax platform would be too light to fulfil many of these roles.

That's why asked if it'd be a viable option as by that point the platform will be pushing 20 years old.

I can see the sence of using a comman platform for all those rolls but as you point out an Ajax base set would most likely be too light for many of those rolls, so the base would have to come from the next gen MBT. The problem is then that surely this would be far to heavy for an IFV/AFV derivative as the Ajax is already seen as quiet heavy in this roll 38-42tn.

[whitelancer]

You could replace Warrior with an Ajax-derived IFV, but what would be the advantage?

One could also ask what was the advantage of modifying ASCOD instead of Warrior to produce Ajax.

I would think a better solution would be to look at a common armoured battlegroup vehicle, or at least technology set, for MBTs, IFVs, repair and recovery, engineering support and artillery vehicles.

Now that is something I agree with. Use common suspension, automotive components, and importantly electronics, sights etcetera with modified hull to suite its purpose.

[mr.fred]

Now that is something I agree with. Use common suspension, automotive components, and importantly electronics, sights etcetera with modified hull to suite its purpose.

Yes, common hulls is going too far, IMO, as it compromises the design of all the vehicles in the family. That and the hull structure has to be one of the lower cost items these days. If you have the techniques for the manufacture of the hull, then those can be turned to pretty much any shape.

I can see the sence of using a comman platform for all those rolls but as you point out an Ajax base set would most likely be too light for many of those rolls, so the base would have to come from the next gen MBT. The problem is then that surely this would be far to heavy for an IFV/AFV derivative as the Ajax is already seen as quiet heavy in this roll 38-42tn.

Considering that tracked IFVs are running at 30-40t these days (up armoured Warrior, CV90 mk4, Puma) or higher (Namer) i don't think that 40t plus is too heavy for an AFV expected to operate in the direct fire area of battle.

As a supporting troop carrier that would be too heavy. I'd say that 30t would be the upper limit, so preferably in the mid 20t bracket.
For me, an IFV in an armoured battlegroup is a direct fire combat vehicle with a troop carrying capacity, so 40-50t (or higher) would give appropriate protection and enough capacity to carry a useful weapon and a useful quantity of ammunition to supplement the direct fire capability of the MBTs.

The R&R, engineering and artillery vehicles are in the same weight class anyway (because they need to be), but I would also recommend aiming for high levels of modularity where it is possible. For example, appliqué systems that can be switched out depending on the threat or role. For example, a R&R vehicle intended to rescue ditched vehicles under fire might have more armour while a second line repair vehicle would switch out appliqué armour for appliqué tool and spares racks. Or an MBT being sent to a low threat environment might eschew heavy armour for a lighter vehicle, or more stores to reduce the necessary logistics supports.

[Timmymagic]

http://www.janes.com/article/79496/warr ... efense-crt

Well if the benefits are claimed looks like this could be a shoo in for the Warrior upgrade, particularly as the Army will have had experience, and thus confidence, of these on Viking and Bronco in actual combat.

[shark bait]

There are a few rumors circulating that Warrior CSP may be on the chopping block, perhaps why nothing has been announced despite it being well beyond the planned date. Do we think this is a good or bad thing?

Personally I think it would be a very sensible way forward, under a few conditions of course.

[RetroSicotte]

There are a few rumors circulating that Warrior CSP may be on the chopping block, perhaps why nothing has been announced despite it being well beyond the planned date. Do we think this is a good or bad thing?

Personally I think it would be a very sensible way forward, under a few conditions of course.

The real problem is, how long would it take to get a replacement in service? Warrior is already hopelessly obsolete in armament, and that's the big thing CSP was bringing. CSP is already late, and severely hurting the credibility of one of the forefront IFVs, especially combined with Challenger's own shortcomings and only the FV432 and an MRAP behind that.

If it's a case of "We'll see in 2025+" then that is a monstrously pathetic promise. If Warrior CSP goes, then a Boxer IFV needs to come to the front of the queue immediately.