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.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2335
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Mar 2019, 15:22

Can those turrets actually traverse? How does it handle horizontal acquirement?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Mar 2019, 20:39

Well this is the same vehicle in its early form, and no clue as to whether it can traverse except for small adjustments. Looking at the platform it seems Sweden liked the idea of the AMOS but decided something simpler and cheaper would do the job.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Mar 2019, 22:27

RetroSicotte wrote:Can those turrets actually traverse?
Well, the Swedish DE&S tells us:
"Stridsfordonschassina som nu byggs på med granatkastarfunktion levererades redan 2003-2004. De var tänkta för påbyggnad med svensk-finska Amos-pjäser men projektet avbeställdes 2008. Chassina har sedan dess förvarats torravluftade"
- the hulls have been a/c stored for one and a half decades
" Tornet kan rikta plus, minus, 30 grader åt sidan. Större vinkel-förändring hanteras genom att hela vagnen utför så kallad centrumsväng"
- the turret can turn +/-30 degrees, anything more than that is done with the tracks (the Swedes know how to do this, think of their S MBT)

The fact that there is a turret, rather than a protective ring http://www.fmv.se/Global/Bilder/Nyheter ... gg_480.jpg
is mainly down to...
the fact that war does not stop when the thermometer dips down to minus 20 or 30,
and
the db noise levels at the height were the crew would need to be, to achieve the target 16 rounds per minute ROF (hence the two barrels) exceeded what can be countered by any practical type of ear muff
- muzzle loading is still what is being done (as opposed to AMOS/ NEMO)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Mar 2019, 02:30

It looks like a good piece of kit and is probably reasonably priced compared to more complicated systems. 16Rnds/min is pretty good for a 120mm if that is the sustained rate of fire and as mentioned the crew are under armour and not subject to outside temperatures. I wonder if the system can fire in a direct mode? Obviously it would have to elevate to reload but two 120mm HE rounds would ruin anyone's day.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Timmymagic » 04 Apr 2019, 12:36


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Apr 2019, 05:01

Video from last year. We should have a serious look at the export turret for some of the Ajax/Warrior/Boxer.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 05 Apr 2019, 07:38

Lord Jim wrote:Video from last year. We should have a serious look at the export turret for some of the Ajax/Warrior/Boxer.

Why?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Apr 2019, 08:31

Why?

I guess it was meant the way around of exporting some?

Indeed, an LM business line mngr confirms that they have 2 bn worth of such deals under negotiation - he was speaking in the UK but it is a US company, so can't now remember whether he said $$ or £s.
- turret, with everything in it + what makes it move/ quick to control tends to make up half of the price of an AFV (below the MBTs category... those things are kept close to the chest and export versions tend to be different from the ones reserved for own use)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Apr 2019, 16:58

The reason is that LM have already done the work required to integrate multiple ATGW types, Fire Control Systems and so in the export version of their CTA40 turret. IT is therefore not a huge jump for them to integrate other systems into the Turrets the UK has chosen for the Ajax and Warrior CSP. In fact a demonstrator of the latter was shown with the UK turret fitted with Javelin.

The Recce Regiments would benefit from an under armour ATGW platform to provide over watch and greater AT capability compared to that provided by the CTA40. Being vehicle mounted it would be possible to use the newer Javelin ER missile with its rage of 4000+m. OF course such a platform would be more flexible than the Striker, its predecessor, by it also having the CTA40 gun.

The Armoured Infantry Regiments would likewise benefit form an under armour ATGE platform, a capability they have lost since the retirement of the Spartan MCT and only partially replaced by the Warrior Milan which doesn't really class as an under armour platform.

Finally the turret used for the Ajax ATGW would be ideal for installation on the Boxer to provide the Mechanised Battalions with greater firepower. Weapons modules already exist for the Boxers so developmental costs would be minimum beyond that of the turret itself.

The British Army is beginning to rediscover top tier combined arms warfare once again after it lapsed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq at the end of the Cold War. However there is the danger that old style reductions in firepower through the desire to save money could have a negative effect on the Army's ability to actually fight in such a conflict. Capabilities that have been allowed to perish when the attention was on Afghanistan or thought no longer needed as no substantial conventional threat existed, need to be reacquired and having a protected/under armour ATGW capability is one of them.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 05 Apr 2019, 17:52

Quick answer is that Boxer without some with a decent gun turret is going to get its ass handed to it.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Apr 2019, 22:39

Lord Jim wrote:Capabilities that have been allowed to perish when the attention was on Afghanistan or thought no longer needed as no substantial conventional threat existed, need to be reacquired and having a protected/under armour ATGW capability is one of them.


Agreed... but what on earth is (in yr txt) ATGE?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Apr 2019, 23:05

Ron5 wrote:Quick answer is that Boxer without some with a decent gun turret is going to get its ass handed to it.

One in four... I would say

Or, let me tone it down:
1:4 with turret
... and then, at the next level up,
a whole (3 X 4 of those others= 12), 4 or so with a 'Big' gun.

12 +4
times 3 or 4
fifty to sixty, with some command vehicles thrown in?

Now, Warrior will not get that kind of turret
... Ajax might be well on its way? A mix? (not optimal?)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3488
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 05 Apr 2019, 23:38

Warrior/Ajax can't keep up with Boxer

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 06 Apr 2019, 00:07

Lord Jim wrote:IT is therefore not a huge jump for them to integrate other systems into the Turrets the UK has chosen for the Ajax and Warrior CSP.

But why not the other way? The AJAX platform is designed for growth and has a far more advanced and integrated system than the Warrior export turret.

Why would you dumb-down the Recce elements of the platform to gain a ATGM missile (which with single or even double loading could hardly be deemed overwatch) capability?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Apr 2019, 00:10

A well known fact that "Warrior/Ajax can't keep up with Boxer"
- but Boxer can keep up with them (95% of the time).

Now, the question is: will we be building the support variants
A. to be compatible with the future (main) fleet, or
B. backwards compatible?

It is more than a billion dollar question...as everyone can see ;) from Microsoft corp. valuations

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Apr 2019, 02:20

If we are talking about the BASV, I see it as the last resort if no other option is affordable.

Regarding the Fitting of ATGW to turrets, I see only the need really to fit two or more to a variant of the Ajax turret with should be a fairly simple and inexpensive affair. Again I would use the ER variant of the Javelin for this. This could be used on both the Ajax and Boxer providing the Recce Regiments and Mechanised Infantry Battalions greater anti-tank firepower. With the Armoured Infantry I would, instead of equipping Warrior with a modified turret, equip the Recce Platoon with Ajax/ATGW whilst retaining the ATGW teams in the Weapons Company, greatly increasing the Battalions anti-tank capabilities.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 06 Apr 2019, 13:08

Fitting ATGW is easy. Functionality is harder.
There are all manner of different capabilities of mounting ATGW, for example:
Missile on a pintle mount
Missile deployable from a protected mount.
Missile always protected
Missile operable from under armour
Missile operable from under armour on the move
Missile life reduced by mounting
Missile life not reduced by mounting.

The more functionality you want, the more it costs up front. The less you have, the more it can cost in the long term.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Apr 2019, 13:55

Well as far as ATGW and the CTA40 Turret, development has been dome for either a two or four round ATGW box launcher depending on the missile chosen, up to four in the case of Javelin. It can be fire under armour but I do not know of any ATGGW system that is fired on the move. Sure with the latest generation you can bug out after firing but you seem to need to be stationary to lock onto a target still. The Missiles are in storage tubes/launch canisters so I cannot see much difference in shelf life if you use it form a vehicle mount of on foot. You only carry them when you need them.

So that is the criteria I am looking at, and yes their are additional costs like training and maintenance, but that is the case with any new equipment. This is a capability we need, we need increased protected anti-tank and direct fore capability, especially in the Armoured Infantry, Recce and Mechanised Infantry formation. A dozen or so Javelin launchers carried by dismounts is simply not enough in the Infantry units and the Recce lack any such capability at present.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 06 Apr 2019, 18:04

Costswise, I was thinking more along the lines that a pintel mount is cheap and requires almost no additional training, but puts your soldiers at considerably greater risk to use.
A rigid mount is easier to design and build, but you could have to expend more on operations as environmental conditions, which infantry AT is more protected from, take their toll.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Apr 2019, 07:53

The developmental work of integrating ATW into the turrets has been done in the main so there is little cost there. The turret requires a modified sight of the gunner to allow the acquisition and engagement of target with the ATGW as well as the CTA40 and co-axial MG. Again training is minimal as with systems like Javelin once locked on and fired the gunners job is done.

Obviously compared to a basic pintle mount the cost of fully integrating a ATGW into a turret is greater but the bulk of this has been done so we would really only have to bear the additional cost of the revised turrets, around eight per Battalion/Regiment. However the ability with better optics compared to the man portable launcher, to use the ER version of Javelin with its effective range of 4000+ meters only increases the benefits of going for an integrated system.

We are one of the few NATO countries that do not possess an under armour ATGW capability and the above is an elegant solution. If we intend to be able to conduct top tier combined arms warfare it is a capability we need. We made do with the pintle mount for Milan on the Warrior but that was a far from ideal solution.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2019, 08:11

Lord Jim wrote:with systems like Javelin once locked on and fired the gunners job is done.
I guess with top attack (and the flight trajectory that goes with it) the ability of the target to hide behind obstructions is much diminished?

In no time at all :? we will end up with the need for multiple homing methods (as in a/c launched missiles) as there are many efforts on-going and focussed on ‘blinding’ adversaries' AFVs or low-flying helicopters by targeting photosensors in optical sighting systems either by obscuring sight at the target end or by variable frequency bands making interference impervious to filter systems at the other end.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 07 Apr 2019, 16:15

ArmChairCivvy wrote: I guess with top attack (and the flight trajectory that goes with it) the ability of the target to hide behind obstructions is much diminished?

To varying degree, depending on the system. Javelin only goes up 150m so at longer ranges it won’t change the angle that much. Fire-and-forget seekers also need to keep the target in sight during flight, especially if it’s moving. Some systems, like MMP and Spike, can be corrected during flight so can be fired from defilade.

In no time at all :? we will end up with the need for multiple homing methods (as in a/c launched missiles) as there are many efforts on-going and focussed on ‘blinding’ adversaries' AFVs or low-flying helicopters by targeting photosensors in optical sighting systems either by obscuring sight at the target end or by variable frequency bands making interference impervious to filter systems at the other end.

There aren’t that many multi-mode seekers out there. Those that do exist are usually trying to get advantages of the different seeker modes rather than avoid countermeasures, for example the Brimstone dual mode seeker has RF for fire and forget, and laser for accuracy.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2019, 16:58

mr.fred wrote:the Brimstone dual mode seeker has RF for fire and forget, and laser for accuracy.

The optimal is still to be invented; in this one MMPs 'in the front line' and Brimstones 'vehicle-mounted' - a test rack is shown - as the next line of defence

- of course Spike NLOS can emulate the eye of the controller c. 20 km away by using its optical pattern recognition, which is quite difficult to fool to begin with and autonomous (so jamming the connection back to the launcher is not of much use)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2944
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Apr 2019, 17:50

Of course funding permitting, having a true dedicated long range under armour system like Spike-NLOS or even a ground launched derivative of Brimstone 3 would be a valuable addition, with the CTA40/Javelin-ER Turret equipped vehicles being allocated one per platoon instead. Then we would have truly formidable Anti-tank firepower in our formations with the ability to engage other target such as bunker as an additional benefit.

These are the sort of programmes the Army should be looking at as we get back into high intensity warfighting once again. We should be moving away from the Blue Peter style adaptations made in the field to try to fill capability gaps. I for one would not want to be in the open, on foot or out the top of a turret trying to use a ATGW, when a 122mm MLRS barrage lands around my position and the shrapnel starts to fly.

Also the other side has had highly capable 6000m ATGWs since the mid 1980s with the AT-6.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Apr 2019, 18:08

Lord Jim wrote:I for one would not want to be in the open, on foot [...] trying to use a ATGW, when a 122mm MLRS barrage lands around my position and the shrapnel starts to fly.


It is worse than that (and "the why" for including the operating from under armour option. Namely: Also the other side has not done away with their non-Ottawa payloads, and sprinkling cluster munitions/ mines around known positions of ATGW teams will trap them there... in a moving battle.

The purchase by the Finnish army of kevlar shields in quantity has passed pretty unnoticed. My bet is that they are not for 'crowd control' but for top cover of fox holes, around artillery positions so that those can be quickly manned again, after a counter-battery strike.
- moving position is still a problem, but with 20-40 km of range one can stay a player in the battle for a while


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests