Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

mr.fred wrote: Number of dismounts shows the impact of different turrets on the vehicle.
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
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

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.
Google says this is a different turret than before, it's now a GD North America developed manned 30mm turret.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
mr.fred wrote: Number of dismounts shows the impact of different turrets on the vehicle.
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.
Didn't Warrior have bench seats? I'd expect mine blast seats would be a good reason why you'd lose carriage capacity.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Here's a better picture of the Ajax IFV being offered to Australia. 3 crew + 6 dismounts
DmKBSeaX0AMDMfV.jpg large.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

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.

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 »

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.
Depends on whether you include 8x8s configured as IFVs?

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)

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 »

Cannot think of a 8x8 with a manned turret equipped with a 35/40mm cannon and fitted out with individual seats for the dismounts.

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 »

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
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 »

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

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 ....

Image

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 »

Ron5 wrote:an APS on a Warrior CSP. Or am I looking at smoke launchers?
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)
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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by whitelancer »

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!

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 »

whitelancer wrote:Pretty sure they are smoke grenade launchers. Bloody stupid place to put them though.
Why’s that?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

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.

Image

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 »

Nowadays many AFVs have smoke launchers that cover 360 degrees which seems to be the case here.

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:Nowadays many AFVs have smoke launchers that cover 360 degrees which seems to be the case here.
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.
mr.fred wrote:
whitelancer wrote:Pretty sure they are smoke grenade launchers. Bloody stupid place to put them though.
Why’s that?
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.

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 »

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.

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 »

whitelancer wrote:phosphorous grenades
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.
- 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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Here's a better picture of the Ajax IFV being offered to Australia. 3 crew + 6 dismounts
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...

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 »

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...
It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote:It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.
Indeed. But a hovering quadcopter could be doable.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy 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
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 fore
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:
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...
It’d be a lucky man who hit a UAV with a 7.62mm chain gun.
Or just use the CT40 Airburst which it is coaxial to....

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 »

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.

Post Reply