UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Mar 2019, 08:10

Lord Jim wrote:WCSP is probably the only affordable option at the moment for the AI but I do not think the ABSV should be taken any further.


Despite the fact that there will be AJAX derivatives for these 'duties'
• FV511 - Infantry Command Vehicle
• FV512 - Mechanized Combat Repair Vehicle; fitted with crane; towing capabilities.
• FV513 - Mechanized Recovery Vehicle (Repair) - fitted with winch and crane; towing capabilities.
• FV514 - Mechanized Artillery Observation Vehicle - fitted with radar and specialized equipment; 1 x 7.62mm machine gun for self-defense; "dummy" 30mm RARDEN cannon mount.
• FV515 - Battery Command Vehicle

, been wondering if the (soon down to) 2 brigades with AI will maintain Warrior as the mechanical base (REME support)
... totally apart from that 'pesky' ABSV question. Pesky as in relying on an older still platform as things stand now.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Mar 2019, 08:20

That is the point I am making, we are already purchasing Ajax variants that cover many of the ABSV roles and this will also happen with Boxer, which would also be probably better suited to roles such as Ambulance and Mortar carrier than Ajax. With Boxer the cost of developing the Mortar module for example will be negligible and demonstrators have already been built and anyway we are only talking about a mission module.

With the upgraded Warrior the Army should have a pretty good IFV to last it into the 2030s, and without a major reorganisation of the Ajax programme, it is the only option really available (As many will not accept a wheeled IFV based on the Boxer). But we should leave it there. Any funding that was going to be made available for the ABSV should be redirected towards other AFV programmes such as Boxer to ensure we get at least some of the variant not currently planned but essential for units using the platform to have the right capabilities.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Mar 2019, 09:50

Lord Jim wrote:cover many of the ABSV roles
true, but the price of the 'quick fix' would be mixing tracks and wheels in front line formations
- I don't hold a definitive view on that
- some others on this site might?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Mar 2019, 10:17

I cannot see any issues with including wheeled platforms into the Armoured Infantry Brigades, in fact I can only see benefits, as they would reduce the maintenance and logistical requirements across the various units. Having the same platforms in both Armoured and Mechanised Infantry formations must make sense. Modern 8x8 match the mobility of tracked vehicles in the vast majority of terrains and they are superior when it comes to dealing with mines and IEDs. When it come to protection the match the majority of AFV types like for like.

Where there is an issue is the use of the Ajax in the Strike Brigades, where their use negates one of the main advantages behind the idea of a medium weight formation. Whereas the Boxers can easily move large distances under their own power to relocate within an operational theatre, the Ajax is going to require articulated Transporters. In the opposite to the Armoured Infantry Brigades, the Ajax is also going to increase the logistical needs of the Mechanised Brigades.

We are buying a lot of Ajax and its variants. After equipping the four Recce Regiments we are going to have over 250 platforms to find a use for. Now we could spend resources developing additional variants of the Ajax to replace the FV430 variants in use with the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units but these roles could just as easily be covered by variants of the Boxer platforms and there would be the benefit that the same platform would be used across the Army. Add to that many of the variants we have a need for have already been produced at least as demonstrators using the Boxer platform, mainly because it is easier and cheaper to have to just design a new mission modules than a whole platform.

So where an existing Ajax variant exists then use it to replace he FV430 variant in the Armoured and Armoured Infantry units. Where it doesn't use a Boxer variant that can also be used in the Mechanised Infantry units. As a side benefit this also increases the pool of vehicles available for the WCSP if the BASV programme is binned.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Frenchie » 24 Mar 2019, 20:37

I'm sorry Lord Jim, but I think ABSV could to be used like recovery, repair, mortar carrier, ambulance, command post, artillery observation, supply, Javelin carrier, APC. It would save money to buy more Boxers and more smaller vehicles, I think you are short of vehicles that can be quickly deployed by C-130. I propose a reorganization, tracked brigades with Ajax, Challengers, Warriors and ABSV and wheeled brigades with Boxers, MRV-P and mid-size wheeled vehicles, so you get something rational with off-road brigades and quickly deployable brigades.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Mar 2019, 00:33

Frenchie
We are already getting the Command, Recovery, Ambulance, APC and Artillery Observation versions of the Ajax together with the CTA40 version that is actually Ajax and we are getting them in numbers that already exceed those required for the four planned Recce Regiments. As for Boxer we will be getting the APC, Command and Ambulance under current plans though other version are in the works. One of these is going to be a Mortar Carrier as that is essential for the Mechanised Infantry as there will probably be a Repair and Recovery version as well. So with that we will have platforms that will cover those envisaged for the Warrior BASV, and the funding for the few additional variants to meet the basic Battalion organisation will be minimal, especially if any funding that comes available for BASV is directed in that direction. By doing this we will have a more modern and compact vehicle fleet that has a smaller logistical footprint.

The only vehicle we will have able to be rapidly airlifted C-130, will we still have them, will be the planned JLTV fleet, but both this and the Boxer can be transported by the A400 and then of course we have the C-17. Be deployment by air is no longer the priority it once was, being over taken by protection levels for starters.

The mobility of both Tracked and Wheeled, especially modern 8x8 is very similar so both will have no problem operating together. The issues I see are those of the Mechanised Brigade with Boxer and Ajax being together, but the Boxer held back by the Ajax, with it greater logistical needs and in ability to self deploy large distances, which is supposed to be the reasoning behind these formations. So moving forward and with my glass half full hat on I would like to see the British Army reorganised into three Armoured Infantry Brigades, and one Airmobile/Ranger Brigade.

Each of the former would comprise of;
1 Armoured Regiment with Challenger 2 CSP.
1 Armoured Recce Regiment with Ajax
2 Armoured Infantry Battalions with Warrior CSP.
2 Mechanised Infantry Battalion with Boxer.
1 Artillery Regiment with AS-90 or successor

The latter would comprise of;
1 Attack Helicopter Regiment with AH-64E Apache Guardians.
3 Parachute Infantry Battalions, partially equipped with JTLV
1 Artillery Regiment with M777A2
This form also be tasked with support the UKs Special Forces in addition to being the Army's Spearhead formation.

Supporting these would be additional Artillery, Air Defence, Army Aviation, Engineering, signals and Logistics units controlled at Divisional Level and allocated as needed.

This would be the UK's sole Division, with other units re tasked or disbanded and personnel transferred to the units listed above to ensure they are fully manned and have sufficient mass to be able to sustain casualties and still remain viable. Funds from not pursuing the BASV and requiring less Ajax platforms should allow both the number and variety of Boxer vehicles to be procured. The Warrior CSP will still be a core platform until both it and the Challenger 2 CSP retire in the latter half of the 2030s. The Division laid out above will give the UK a formation fit for purpose in modern warfare and one that will be able to deploy battlegroups tailored to whichever type of conflict that arises in the future.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Mar 2019, 04:24

Lord Jim wrote:already getting the Command, Recovery, Ambulance, APC and Artillery Observation versions of the Ajax
Command & Ambulance?
Lord Jim wrote: in numbers that already exceed those required for the four planned Recce Regiments
Doubt that the joint fires version would be in those rgmnts - as the Arty in Strike Bdes (plans, as for now) is going to be drawing any tube/ rocket artillery from a central pool, rather than having its own, as standing formations
Lord Jim wrote: to be rapidly airlifted [by] C-130, will we still have them, will be the planned JLTV fleet

- all retained Hercs will be short body
- so not many vehicles will travel in them; that said, a few can make a big difference. Is Scimitar2 still around, for use in a fire support role?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 25 Mar 2019, 06:42

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Command & Ambulance?

Athena. But no ambulance.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 617
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
Location: France

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Frenchie » 25 Mar 2019, 10:24

Thank you Lord Jim for your clarification, I did not think that Ajax has so many different versions :thumbup:

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Gabriele » 25 Mar 2019, 12:40

all retained Hercs will be short body


Nope, it was going to be the exact opposite, now it is 13 long and 1 short.

In my dreams the short ones become at least 2 and under the "VENOM kinetic strike capability" thing announced by Williamson a couple of tanker/gunship HARVEST HAWK kits are procured for them.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Mar 2019, 13:21

I was sure there was an ambulance variant of Ajax but that must have been one of the ones binned along with many other variants that we should still be acquiring to make the Regiments balanced.

As for the Joint Fires variant, I assume these will be under RA control but allocated to units. Do we know how many are being produced? If the Warrior BASV is cancelled we would need to find more alternatives, but again I would move towards a Boxer variants for many of the reasons I have already stated. Will there be a Joint Forces variant of the JLTV for Light units? Surely that would make sense as well and maybe that would be a better option then Boxer of the Mechanised units as well.

I really cannot see a reason for persevering with the BASV as the programme has basically been still born. Major work will be required to convert the vehicles to many of the roles necessary, often involving cutting the hull up to raise its height for example. Simply removing the turret and welding a plate over the hole will not cut it, no pun intended.

I to would have likes three or four Short C-130 converted to specialised roles, my favourite also being a version of the USMC AAR/Gunship configuration.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 25 Mar 2019, 21:26

I guess a Warrior support vehicle will depend on the shape of the remaining hulls after CSP has done with them. There’s likely to be a few hundred going spare though.
Update the hulls in line with CSP, replace the turret with a simple superstructure, adapt the interior for a bit more room and you’ve got a vehicle more suited to the support role. I wouldn’t go too mad adapting tpit to different roles - more of a FV432 replacement with better protection and mobility.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Mar 2019, 22:25

Gabriele wrote:In my dreams the short ones become at least 2

Ookey, so the reason for keeping them is not SF (more particularly not being able to turn something of the size of an A400M around, in a tight spot)?
mr.fred wrote: a FV432 replacement with better protection and mobility.
I am all for that... does REME's cause have any following around here? :)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Mar 2019, 22:43

Can anyone do a comparison of he height of a Warrior vs an FV432. I read somewhere that you cannot have a mortar (81mm) ready to fire in a Warrior hull (assuming turret removed and space vacated used for mortar) without it being permanently open topped. I believe you need a good 12" to 18" in height to make the hull suitable/comfortable for many roles. Of course you can operate in cramped conditions, and compared to the back of a BMP-1 the warrior is a Rolls Royce but there would be far more space in the back of a Boxer. As for REME, I believe Boxer has a solution planned. Now what about Signals.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Mar 2019, 22:59

Lord Jim wrote:read somewhere that you cannot have a mortar (81mm) ready to fire in a Warrior hull (assuming turret removed and space vacated used for mortar) without it being permanently open topped. I believe you need a good 12" to 18" in height


Not directly commenting on height, but the BAE/ Hagglofs thingy has the mortars pointing out, in an angle as firing them (one, rather) at the height of where the ears of the crew serving it/them are was a big problem.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 25 Mar 2019, 23:11

The mortar variant might be a touch too far for a simple conversion. The Warrior hull is set up for a turret rather than a large roof hatch, so it might be better to see if you could fit a gun/mortar in a turret if you wanted a mortar vehicle. A 120mm might more sense for an armoured formation.
Otherwise, it’s an APC with different internal fits.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Mar 2019, 23:22

mr.fred wrote: A 120mm might more sense for an armoured formation

Breech-loaded & in a turret?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 25 Mar 2019, 23:41

Such a variant would make sense but the Army sees the 120mm as a similar system to the 105mm Light Gun rather than a substitute for the 81mm as and course there is the issue of money. There has already been a SP 81mm demonstrator for the JLTV and a 120mm Mortar variant of the Boxer using a roof hatch would not be an expensive or complicated design to develop as we are talking about adapting the existing APC module. As mentioned between them the Boxer and JLTV cover all the roles intended for both the 4x4 and 6x6 MRV(P) and also as a replacement for many of the platforms the Warrior based BASV is aimed at. Together with Ajax the UK will have the core of a AFV industry once again with the adoption of the Boxer and JLTV and any short term coast benefit of proceeding with the Warrior BASV will be more than countered by the longer term savings from adopting the Boxer, Ajax and JLTV to carry out these roles.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 26 Mar 2019, 07:40

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
mr.fred wrote: A 120mm might more sense for an armoured formation

Breech-loaded & in a turret?

Probably. That would be most likely to fit on the hull.
On the other hand the greater range and lethal area would require more control than the 81mm.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Mar 2019, 11:42

mr.fred wrote:the greater range and lethal area would require more control than the 81mm.

Yes. Also in those formations resupply should work fine. Whereas is more general 'infantry' use, for suppression, a metric ton of 81mm bombs yields twice as many splinters as the same weight of 120 mm... just that the lighter ones will not make much of an impression on protected vehicles

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Mar 2019, 14:06

Ok if we are going down this route and say the British Army decides to stick a 120mm mortar turret on the Warrior to replace the FV432(m) the they might as well stick the same turret on a Boxer variant in the Mechanise Battalions. And if we do that we could also purchase the Portee 120mm Mortar that can go on the back of a vehicle the size of a JLTV, and replace the 81mm weapons mounted on the Bv206s used by the Royal Marines.

All this would mean we can retire the 105mm Light Guns as we would have a 120mm available to all types of Infantry Battalion, and replace them in with the M777A2 in the Royal Artillery Regiments that support all formations other then the two Armoured Infantry Brigades. All of this is great and I have proposed this before with the only problem being finding where the money would come from.

Whilst we are doing this we should also ensure that we chose the Rheinmetall submission for the Challenger 2 CSP and include he 120mm L55 Gun, and purchase the additional versions of both Ajax and Boxer many believe are needed to make the formations based on these platform fit for the roles intended for them. Oh an lets not forget we need we need more Land Ceptor units, and also a Regiment of Patriot PAC-3.

Being serious the Warrior BASV, if I finally gets going is going to be run on a shoe string, and the Mortar variant is likely to be a de-turreted APC with a infantry style 81mm inside that has to be unloaded and set up in order to fire, in a similar vein to how our under armour ATGWs have been replace by dismounts with Javelin.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Mar 2019, 14:24

Lord Jim wrote: say the British Army decides to stick a 120mm mortar turret [A]on the Warrior to replace the FV432(m) the they might as well stick the same turret[B] on a Boxer variant in the Mechanise Battalions. And if we do that we could also purchase the Portee 120mm Mortar[C] that can go on the back of a vehicle the size of a JLTV

Well,
for A, BAE had a prototype, yonks ago
- for B, there is a good, more recent product on the market (you choose: one or two barrels :D )
- not sure what C is, but have posted vids of that kind of thing (from a Spanish manufacturer)

Lord Jim wrote:with a infantry style 81mm inside that has to be unloaded and set up in order to fire
??

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Mar 2019, 16:42

ArmChairCivvy wrote:??


A - Yes
B - Yes
C - Yes

Well we have dropped the idea of firing ATGWs from under armour so is it too far a stretch to think someone somewhere might say;

"Well it doesn't take long to set up and fire a mortar, especially with all these GPS gizmos about so why not simply shove a broken down 81mm mortar in the back of a BASV with its crew and then when it is needed they dismount, set up the mortar, fire a few rounds and then mount up and go. They can always hide in the BASV if things get too hot. It would be the simplest and cheapest option and worked for the Army's ATGW capability."

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 26 Mar 2019, 17:46

Nice video showing this vehicle in action;

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 Mar 2019, 18:02

V impressive :yawn:

If anyone is wondering what is happening with all that action in front of the double barrels (there seems to be no use of the two, in quick sequence, to achieve simultaneous impact in the target area... as there is no computer to do those calcs ;) ) it is the "loading monkey" that is dropping the mortar bomb into the tube = no breech loading, just keeps the crew under cover. Not a bad idea in minus 20 degrees, or so


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests