Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

I thought it interesting and pertinent that another country is spending that kind of money on a midlife update.

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 »

It isn't really a MLU but just the next in an ongoing series of "incremental" upgrades, something it appears nearly all users of the CV90 platform have been doing. The use of the term in the article is misleading.

Rubber tracks is something we should definitely looked at for Ajax for all the reasons mentioned in the article.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:Just for the sake of comparison:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/c ... ign=PS2020
€500m for a midlife update 144 vehicles, or about €3.5m each.
Is that €500m for a rubber track? €3.5m for tracks doesn't sound like a bargain...

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:s that €500m for a rubber track? €3.5m for tracks doesn't sound like a bargain
I’m guessing that there’s more to it than that. I just thought that the amount spent on an upgrade was interesting.

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:s that €500m for a rubber track? €3.5m for tracks doesn't sound like a bargain
I’m guessing that there’s more to it than that. I just thought that the amount spent on an upgrade was interesting.
It's interesting in that we have no idea what is in that upgrade except for rubber tracks...

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 »

The text was from a BAE PR person. Soucy from Canada might be 'OK' for a mention, but perhaps the Israeli supplier was not?
- US Army (?) is buying the same stuff and they are not shy about it

Or is 'supershot' on its way? There are not many CV90 operators with the 35mm gun that can be easily modified
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
mr.fred wrote:widen use of the CT40, which is a very similar capability.
and fits much better into an armoured turret
accepted. but there seems to be some doubts about the cost-effectiveness and utility of CT40 in the naval role...

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 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: doubts about the cost-effectiveness and utility of CT40 in the naval role...
Let's let the French do the test run on their OPVs (the AA version for use on land is just a concept, in metal though)
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 »

RunningStrong wrote:It's interesting in that we have no idea what is in that upgrade except for rubber tracks...
Another part of the upgrade was the preparation to be able to fit the Israeli APS as and when required. The programme is more a case of that is the current budget for numerous upgrades over the next few years to keep the platforms at their highest capability level. It is not a single large programme carried out all at once like we are having to do.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote: doubts about the cost-effectiveness and utility of CT40 in the naval role...
Let's let the French do the test run on their OPVs (the AA version for use on land is just a concept, in metal though)
The only thing missing from CT40 to allow AA at this time is timed airburst rounds, though a 3 round burst of AP would provide better range.

It's then a decision of whether a passive thermal sensor is a better choice for short-range AA than an emitter. I'd personally prefer the former.

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 »

Isn't a programable fused round already available for the AA version being pushed for both land and sea use?

Could we adapt the the ADADs Thermal sensor used in conjunction with Starstreak, for both mounted and dismounted operations for such a system?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Isn't a programable fused round already available for the AA version being pushed for both land and sea use?
I've not heard any conclusion on the GPR-AB round optimised for ground use (circa 2016) but there have also been indications that an additional KE-AB round is being developed for AA use. I assume this is a smaller warhead with longer range
Could we adapt the the ADADs Thermal sensor used in conjunction with Starstreak, for both mounted and dismounted operations for such a system?
On an open architecture vehicle it would be possible.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote: doubts about the cost-effectiveness and utility of CT40 in the naval role...
Let's let the French do the test run on their OPVs (the AA version for use on land is just a concept, in metal though)
The only thing missing from CT40 to allow AA at this time is timed airburst rounds, though a 3 round burst of AP would provide better range.

It's then a decision of whether a passive thermal sensor is a better choice for short-range AA than an emitter. I'd personally prefer the former.
How will you determine range?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
jedibeeftrix wrote: doubts about the cost-effectiveness and utility of CT40 in the naval role...
Let's let the French do the test run on their OPVs (the AA version for use on land is just a concept, in metal though)
The only thing missing from CT40 to allow AA at this time is timed airburst rounds, though a 3 round burst of AP would provide better range.

It's then a decision of whether a passive thermal sensor is a better choice for short-range AA than an emitter. I'd personally prefer the former.
How will you determine range?
LRF, but there's a big difference to LRF seconds before engagement and a radar emitting.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:How will you determine range?
Many options including Laser range finders, Lidar and radar for active systems. while those emit, they can be tightly focussed so that only the target would see it.

If you want to maintain zero emissions then a computer-controlled stereoscopic or coincidence rangefinder would be an option.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

My point is that you're going to have an emitter whether you like it or not, and for lasers, there's a dozen systems on the market that can detect and counter. Ajax is festooned with them.

The other thing of course is that lasers & thermal detectors have weather imposed limitations that won't impact your target to the same degree.

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 »

As said, point defence.
= you keep shooting at 'it' as long as it keeps coming. I guess AB rounds are programmed for the distance, though... are there any that are proximity fused?
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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As said, point defence.
= you keep shooting at 'it' as long as it keeps coming. I guess AB rounds are programmed for the distance, though... are there any that are proximity fused?
That's funny, just reading today about a new 30mm proximity fuse being tested for the M230LF. Can't remember where I saw it tho' :(

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 »

A logical consequence of good quality/ all weather ranging being too expensive to install as an optional extra... but regardless, many more [already fielded] autocannons will need to be able to engage aerial targets
Ron5 wrote:just reading today about a new 30mm proximity fuse being tested for the M230LF.
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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

If we are discussing guns vs low speed drones, I think the answer is to go back to WW2 solutions. Same problem. Solved by radar directed guns & proximity fuses. AHEAD is a modern wrinkle that also applies.

Ajax, or any other platform, just firing EO directed dumb shells is just not going to hack it.

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: Solved by radar directed guns
-too expensive, SPAAGs will still be used for armoured convoys on the way or HQ nodes (that will constantly need to move as they are heavy on radio traffic)
Ron5 wrote:Ajax, or any other platform, just firing EO directed dumb shells is just not going to hack it.
-exactly
- so what is the potential of proximity fused AB rounds; to fill the gap?
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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:too expensive
I wonder where the cost goes. I was thinking something like this radar setup on an Ajax with CT40 ..

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 »

That looks good (and compact)
... but is it a radar or an EO?
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)

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That looks good (and compact)
... but is it a radar or an EO?
That setup is both but I was just showing it for the radar. That's from RADA and another config (without the EO) is advertised for static anti-drone so I was assuming they have a suitable FCS.

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 »

https://radausa.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 024852.jpg
those gubbings below it (integral to its workings) would fit into the space in the back of the AJAX
... just that they would have to be on rollers for the maintenance man to reach all the other things already specced and in place
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