Not necessarily. Personal kit has just as much an of influence on carriage capacity as the internal profile of any weapon system. I believe it is the commonly cited reason behind the allegedly reduced carriage capacity of the current Warrior.mr.fred wrote: Number of dismounts shows the impact of different turrets on the vehicle.
Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Personal kit, vehicle equipment, ammunition scaling, turret manned or unmanned, deck penetrating or not, amount of radio equipment, ATGW etc. Ad infinitum.
Changing the turret changes the internal fittings.
Changing the turret changes the internal fittings.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Google says this is a different turret than before, it's now a GD North America developed manned 30mm turret.Jake1992 wrote: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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Didn't Warrior have bench seats? I'd expect mine blast seats would be a good reason why you'd lose carriage capacity.~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Not necessarily. Personal kit has just as much an of influence on carriage capacity as the internal profile of any weapon system. I believe it is the commonly cited reason behind the allegedly reduced carriage capacity of the current Warrior.mr.fred wrote: Number of dismounts shows the impact of different turrets on the vehicle.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Here's a better picture of the Ajax IFV being offered to Australia. 3 crew + 6 dismounts
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Things seem to be sort of standardising when it comes to the number of dismounts an IFV can carry, six with a manned turret and up to eight with a RWS. The only IFVs I can find with the higher number of dismounts, current trend interior and manned turrets are the new generation of heavy IFV.
As for suppressive fire I suppose it comes down to number of rounds, their size and type. With a 25mm or 30mm you can spray an area effectively whilst larger weapons can fire a three round burst of programable rounds and achieve the same result. From what I have seem regarding the Ajax firing its 40mm it seems that bursts are the usual way of engaging targets, where as Bradleys seems to fir far more rounds per target. Mind you the big advantage the CTA-40 has over similar weapons is the compactness of its ammunition.
As for suppressive fire I suppose it comes down to number of rounds, their size and type. With a 25mm or 30mm you can spray an area effectively whilst larger weapons can fire a three round burst of programable rounds and achieve the same result. From what I have seem regarding the Ajax firing its 40mm it seems that bursts are the usual way of engaging targets, where as Bradleys seems to fir far more rounds per target. Mind you the big advantage the CTA-40 has over similar weapons is the compactness of its ammunition.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Depends on whether you include 8x8s configured as IFVs?Lord Jim wrote: an IFV can carry, six with a manned turret and up to eight with a RWS. The only IFVs I can find with the higher number of dismounts, current trend interior and manned turrets are the new generation of heavy IFV.
US army found it a problem (and are trying to get away from it) having 3 squads needing 4 vehicles. More generally, the number of dismounts in mech./ AI bns has been shrinking and in a way they have become "tank-escorting specialists". Therefore the orthodoxy of not mixing tracks and wheels should be challenged at the next (up) formation level: having 8x8 bns to deliver enough infantry, quickly and protected, to where they are needed.
- no news to readers of the forum, that to make them capable of operating independently, a fraction of such 8x8s should be fitted out as IFVs
- why not all, then? As has been pointed out, the turrets come at a cost that is close to what the rest of the vehicle costs. Not recommending the good old 80:20 rule in this instance, but 75:25 (%, for the mix) instead
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Cannot think of a 8x8 with a manned turret equipped with a 35/40mm cannon and fitted out with individual seats for the dismounts.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Check out AMV XP:
armed with an Orbital ATK Armament Systems 30 mm MK44 dual-feed cannon, which can be upgraded to fire 40 mm ammunition with enhanced performance. Mounted above the MK44 is a 7.62 mm FN MAG machine gun (MG); mounted on the roof is a Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station (RWS) armed with a .50 cal M2 HB MG; and to the right of that is a Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW).
- the bolded as the same that is being trialled on Spartans
armed with an Orbital ATK Armament Systems 30 mm MK44 dual-feed cannon, which can be upgraded to fire 40 mm ammunition with enhanced performance. Mounted above the MK44 is a 7.62 mm FN MAG machine gun (MG); mounted on the roof is a Kongsberg Protector remote weapon station (RWS) armed with a .50 cal M2 HB MG; and to the right of that is a Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW).
- the bolded as the same that is being trialled on Spartans
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Yes an RWS, which is what I was saying that to get eight dismounts you need to fit one of these, but if you have a manned turret you usually end up with only six. Now if the could get Kongsberg to adapt the turret to take a CTTA-40 it would be perfect to arm some of our Boxers when they eventually are ordered.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Saw this photo yesterday and was surprised to see an APS on a Warrior CSP. Or am I looking at smoke launchers? Interesting photo anyway.
From the defence photography facebook page ....
From the defence photography facebook page ....
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
On this frontal piccie they are there, but no sign of any sensors for an APS. And such launchers do not tend to come with a single attachment point due to the need to cover enough angles... not that I have studied them in detail (US Army was rumoured to be comparing 15 alternatives.. where do they all come from?... at one point)Ron5 wrote:an APS on a Warrior CSP. Or am I looking at smoke launchers?
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-gb/pr ... icles.html
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Pretty sure they are smoke grenade launchers. Bloody stupid place to put them though.
Post crossed with ACCs. Thanks for the link.They are defiantly smoke grenade dischargers.
If you check out the video of the firing trials you will see they are not present. I wonder if they were something of an after thought and they couldn't come up with any where better to put them!
Post crossed with ACCs. Thanks for the link.They are defiantly smoke grenade dischargers.
If you check out the video of the firing trials you will see they are not present. I wonder if they were something of an after thought and they couldn't come up with any where better to put them!
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Why’s that?whitelancer wrote:Pretty sure they are smoke grenade launchers. Bloody stupid place to put them though.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Yes, smoke thingies. @acc's photo makes that very clear.
Regarding location, I think on Ajax they are mounted lower on the angled front corner of the turret.
Regarding location, I think on Ajax they are mounted lower on the angled front corner of the turret.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Nowadays many AFVs have smoke launchers that cover 360 degrees which seems to be the case here.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
They don't cover 360 degrees, unless you traverse the turret of course. As they fire phosphorous grenades you need to be very aware of what's, around you before you fire them. Particularly true if your dismounts are on the ground.Lord Jim wrote:Nowadays many AFVs have smoke launchers that cover 360 degrees which seems to be the case here.
Because they interfear with the commanders all-round vision, which is never a good thing, are more prone to damage and as a general rule I am not a fan of cluttering up the turret roof with all sorts of stuff. In my opinion the highest point of the vehicle should be the commanders sight and that should be as low as possible.mr.fred wrote:Why’s that?whitelancer wrote:Pretty sure they are smoke grenade launchers. Bloody stupid place to put them though.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
With the traditional location used by the UK for its smoke launchers you are right they only cover the front hemisphere of the vehicles but many other countries have launcher set ups that do fire grenades to provide 306 cover as especially these days you cannot be sure the enemy is to your front.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
They have RP (Red, not the White stuff) in them as RP also provides a screen in the Near and Far Infra Red spectrum - as well as the visible spectrum. So, it is more efficient than WP which only provided [note the past tense] a screen in the visible one.whitelancer wrote:phosphorous grenades
- US Army still has (?) also WP, impregnated in felt... I guess to slow down the burning, to produce what they call 'obstructive smoke'. Which sort of suggests that you are not meant to advance through 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The coax placement is very interesting. Looks like there is a desire for high angle fire, useful for urban areas but also possibly against UAV's...Ron5 wrote:Here's a better picture of the Ajax IFV being offered to Australia. 3 crew + 6 dismounts
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.Timmymagic wrote: The coax placement is very interesting. Looks like there is a desire for high angle fire, useful for urban areas but also possibly against UAV's...
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Indeed. But a hovering quadcopter could be doable.mr.fred wrote:It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Had to go a few pages back (p.7) to pick up the numbers I had spotted lately. Testing is in full swing, so that MeanTimeBetweenFailure statistic emerging from it could make or break the prgrm - meaning that if the thru-life £££ number goes up, again, then alternatives that can be costed on a surer footing might start to come to the foreArmChairCivvy wrote:the original prgrm targeted 600, with a £ 1 bn budget
- the thru-life costing has been revised to £1.8 bn; for a smaller overall number!
- the MTBF stats may (?) bring another revision
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Or just use the CT40 Airburst which it is coaxial to....mr.fred wrote:It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.Timmymagic wrote: The coax placement is very interesting. Looks like there is a desire for high angle fire, useful for urban areas but also possibly against UAV's...
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
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.