Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

[ArmChairCivvy]

It's a huge gap and the dedicated thread
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=372
has been dormant for a year and a half!

[Lord Jim]

The same radar or a variant of it is being used for the new SPAA turret for the US Army. In this case each sensor is mounted at a corner of the turret.

[Caribbean]

those gubbings below it (integral to its workings) would fit into the space in the back of the AJAX

I would guess, from the fact that it is absent for the static version, that the majority of that volume is taken up by the power supply (batteries /generator) and presumably some interface circuitry for system display in the cab and gun system, since operating both the gun system and a radar system will probably be a bit of a push for the JLTV's own power generation capability (particularly when sitting static for long periods). Since Ajax (at least the ground based surveillance variants, if not all) is designed around the possibility of having to do precisely that (sit and watch), it would be interesting to see if it could cope using only it's own internal power systems (potentially reducing the required volume to just the interface "gubbins").

However, the vehicle pictured (maybe paired with a version equipped with an LMM/ Startstreak launcher) would certainly appear to be a good option for providing air defence for lighter formations

[SW1]

Thought the french and bae were developing the smart anti air burst round for the cta cannon. would it not be better to start with that for uavs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

power generation capability (particularly when sitting static for long periods). Since Ajax (at least the ground based surveillance variants, if not all) is designed around the possibility of having to do precisely that (sit and watch), it would be interesting to see if it could cope using only it's own internal power systems (potentially reducing the required volume

To take that further, power cells per cubic cm can be three times more electricity generative than best batteries (both can be recharged). Batteries only need connectors, I can't provide a comparison of the surrounding volume needed in power cells. This one is already a dated explanation, but at the concept level valid:
" an auxiliary power unit developed by Radian Inc. The system is planned for deployment on US army vehicles. The fuel cell consists of the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology, developed by Hydrogenics Corp. Since modern armored vehicles rely on the use of many electronic and electrical systems, even when positioned in stationary positions, the APU will offer adequate supply of electrical power, to operate digital equipment and extended silent watch requirements.

As an alternative to the battery systems and diesel generator sets currently being used by the military, fuel cell power generation offers longer operation, zero emissions, improved cycle-life, low noise signature, reduced deterioration and improved cold weather performance. In Regenerative fuel cell technology the system’s electrolyser will recharge the hydrogen supply while the vehicle engine is operating, supplying the hydrogen storage subsystem with sufficient fuel to operate the fuel cell auxiliary power system for up to ten hours at the field destination with a load of 3 kW average, and peak demand of 5 kW."

[Caribbean]

Fuel cell technology is indeed a possibility - too expensive for everyday use yet (even compared to the overall cost of battery-powered vehicles), but a possibility for specialist military applications. On doing a little research, it seems fuel cells currently cost around 3 times as much as a conventional generator per kilowatt capacity ($100 vs. $35) and between 10 and 20 times as much per generated kilowatt hour (US prices, of course - conventional generators seem ridiculously expensive to buy in the UK, so I'm sure fuel cells will be as well).

Of course, as one of the outputs is hot water, you may be able to do without the BV as well!

By comparison, the original NASA-built fuel cells for the Apollo program cost $600,000 per kilowatt (and the one on Apollo 13 blew up - OK, if you are being pedantic, the oxygen supply tank ruptured, but it was part of the fuel cell assembly).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Shoehorning this onto the Warrior thread, about soldier systems for whatever size squad is carried (perhaps less relevant for AI than other types of protected mobility infantry):
When a French squad dismounts, their soldier systems will have been recharged from facilities built into the vehicle.
However, the rqrmnt has been set for them to stay fully functional for 24 hrs w/o reconnecting,
Hence one of the guys has a rather bigger backpack... with a fuel cell for everyone to share

[Ron5]

Thought the french and bae were developing the smart anti air burst round for the cta cannon. would it not be better to start with that for uavs.

Yes, that's what I have in mind. It's the sensors that are of interest I think, plenty of gun choices.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Agree. The problem exists, so the solution will have to work with the already fielded guns (there's lots).
- whatever sensors will need to be added, cost is not the only problem. The mounts are meant to live in the direct fire zone, so anything too brittle/ exposed is just a new problem

[Caribbean]

Hence one of the guys has a rather bigger backpack... with a fuel cell for everyone to share

Interesting - do you know if that is a hydrogen fuel cell, or a methanol/ethonol type. I woud think that a liquid fuelled "backpack" system would be more practical to handle than hydrogen, but not so ecologically friendly as they produce (hopefully recycled) CO2 as output.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Don't know, the info just popped up in connection with their soldier system
- vehicle primary
- no (immediate) degradation of performance if vehicle unavailable

What type not mentioned. I guess this is the new 'honour' that the biggest guys in the squad receive... used to be the MG (but the hybrids are now getting lighter).
- 'portable' can mean many things but an example of innovation funding for such a thing from the US DoD has this: "FY16 DOD/Army SBIR Phase IIThe innovative non-catalytic thermal partial oxidation (TPOX) reformer is very simple, compact, lightweight, and minimized parasitic power consumption, and therefore it is well-suited for the applications such as portable fuel cell power generation"

Ideally the APU keeping vehicle electronics up and running and anything that leaves with the squad should be fed with the same stuff (though diesel is also applicable for the vehicle power cell and solid-state feeds on someone's back might be better from the point of view of taking a kinetic hit)

[Lord Jim]

As for keeping the dismounts batteries topped up, wouldn't this be one of the many useful tasks for a UGV? Could a bracket be fitted to the side of a IFV to hold a smallish 6x6 UGV that would affect turret traverse, that could be released when the troops dismount, and is readily reattached or dumped (Needs to be fairly expendable then). If each IFV carried one and only one was unloaded at a time as it would be sufficient to support the platoon for a set period. So weight, cost, manoeuvrability, and load carrying capacity would be the key targets, but would it be feasible. It could also be recharges as the IFV moved along. Finally such a platform would be useful for Light Infantry for the above task as well as load carrying. Just a thought.

[Caribbean]

OK - TPOX is a system that reforms a hydrocarbon fuel (like JP-8) into a hydrogen-rich synthetic gas for use in a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. SOFCs need to operate at high temperatures (> 600C), which I would have thought was not optimal for military use, but they are structurally simple, so maybe that's the reason for using them.

[ArmChairCivvy]

hydrogen-rich synthetic gas for use in a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

They even did ballistic tests for a container of it: how big is the flame, how does it die down ...

I think what you carry and what is used on vehicles will diverge; hence put some stuff onto the Section "Weapons" thread

[mr.fred]

WCSP trials proceeding, looks like the same old* videos though.


* all things being relative. we’ve seen these shots before

[Lord Jim]

Sometimes I wish the old ways were brought back, bring something into service and fix it on the fly rather than try to certify and fix everything before accepting it into service.

[Ron5]

Sometimes I wish the old ways were brought back, bring something into service and fix it on the fly rather than try to certify and fix everything before accepting it into service.

Bet you wouldn't buy a car on that basis.

[whitelancer]

With the loss of most of the R & D capability within the MOD, both expertise and facilities, they are very much reliant on industry. Which is why I suspect WCSP has to meet over 2000 requirements, an extraordinary number in my opinion. Obviously the MOD doesn't want to get caught out as they were with the SF Chinook purchase. One can only wonder at the time , money and effort that went into producing that many requirements let alone industry having to comply with them and the MOD making sure they are met. Hope its not a case of not seeing the wood for the trees!

No equipment is perfect when it enters service, trying to make it so just costs time and money, which are both precious commodities. However it does need to be good enough. Judging the point when its better to bring something into service rather than continue development, (or cancel it), is the difficult thing. Should Germany have rushed Panther into service or held off until the reliability issues had been sorted out? Answers on a post card to...

In addition, no matter how much testing is done you will usually find additional problems once a piece of equipment enters service, even more so when used in combat.

R & D should be a continuous process, not doing so means you find you have outdated equipment which either has to be replaced or drastically updated without the capabilities to do so, exactly the position the Army finds itself in at the moment with all its major equipment.

[ArmChairCivvy]

R & D should be a continuous process, not doing so means you find you have outdated equipment which either has to be replaced or drastically updated without the capabilities to do so

Like you, I deplore the running down/ disposing of the "establishments" that provided internal capability
- staff requirement, concept, give out to industry for responses
- choose 1 for producing a prototype, with no guarantee of acceptance; not 2 or 3 like in the US (as we cannot afford that)

[mr.fred]

- staff requirement, concept, give out to industry for responses
- choose 1 for producing a prototype, with no guarantee of acceptance; not 2 or 3 like in the US (as we cannot afford that)

So who carries the risk for the design?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Define risk of design.

Clearly depends on the contracting model.

[mr.fred]

Define risk of design.

Clearly depends on the contracting model.

The risk that the design does not do what you want. Who is liable?

I thought you were proposing a contracting model where the MoD designed the system and contracted out to produce. If not, what were you proposing?

[ArmChairCivvy]

I thought you were proposing a contracting model where

OK, let's hash it out a bit more:

staff requirement, concept, give out to industry for responses
ACCEPT one of the general design
- choose 1 for producing a prototype, with no guarantee of acceptance;
THAT CONTRACT then of course requires completing detailed design
TEST prototype (some bells and whistles may not be integrated)
AWARD CONTRACT (this may be to a combo of a lead design company, main production facility and all the normal suppliers for subsystems, which last mentioned do not carry the PRIME's liability)
RUN OPEN BOOK so that all further batches, if any, can be ordered not as fixed options which bloats the initial price - cough, cough, FRES has dropped to a fifth of the envisaged quantity - but as + on top of the TRUE COST

... whereto do I send my bill

[whitelancer]

To give an idea of what MVEE and its forerunners did, this by TD may be useful, a good read regardless.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/09/ ... s-to-ajax/

Without the expertise and farcicalities of somewhere like MVEE I wonder how the MOD selected GD for Scout and LD for WCSP.

[ArmChairCivvy]

To give an idea of what MVEE and its forerunners did, this by TD may be useful, a good read regardless.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/09/ ... s-to-ajax/

It is very informative and its approach helps to draw the lines of longue durée. I responded to TD's June 2017 call to crowdsource a follow on piece, which is this one https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2017/09/ ... apability/.