Page 19 of 20

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 08:39
by Tempest414
RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.


But Soldiers are seen as Expendable by HMG / MOD as proven by the lack of kit they are afforded

RunningStrong wrote:High value assets are battle winning assets.


If this is the definition then each and every common garden soldier should be seen as a high value asset and afforded good kit

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 09:38
by ArmChairCivvy
mr.fred wrote:I'd take a reasonable chance of knocking out a tank with an NLAW vs. a minuscule chance of damaging it with a CT40.


It is reasonable due to the PLOS/OTA (when Direct Attack DA mode is not chosen)
- Predicted Line of Sight (assumes unchanged speed during the time of flight to target) would need pretty instant reactions from the driver, for avoidance. As there is no homing, one could easily argue that NLAW is a clever rocket (and not a missile), and also due to the
- Javelin-like Top Attack (OTA... I wonder what the "O" stands for? Optional, or "operate" by turning a switch?)

Of course the CTA was never meant for more than dealing with IFVs and their dismounts, Or other ATGW teams hiding... from the thermal :!: sensors

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 11:31
by mr.fred
O for Overfly

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 16:32
by Lord Jim
The CTA is stated to be capable of penetrating legacy MBTs, but the same article doesn't elaborate on what a legacy MBT is, A T-55? Sherman? More importantly it can deal with any current AFV bar MBTs and is believed to be future proofed against developments. Of course there are exception, one being the Namer which id basically a turretless MBT when it comes to protection.

As for the NLAW and its use one the vehicle, I think you would do better to let the dismounted infantry deal with the threat. They would have a far better chance of hitting and neutralising the threat whist it is distracted by the 40mm rounds being fired by the IFV.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 18:54
by mr.fred
Stated performance in the literature is 175mm at point blank. Frontal arc protection of a basic T55 is 200 mm, so it’s not going through that.
It’s an improvement on the 30mm, but not so much that you would be guaranteed to go through something protected against 30mm at all angles.

Mounted NLAW, in my thinking, would be more of a counter to ohshit moments than for deliberate action, based on a system that uses ammunition already in the logistics chain.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Apr 2019, 20:30
by Tinman
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not.


But Soldiers are seen as Expendable by HMG / MOD as proven by the lack of kit they are afforded

RunningStrong wrote:High value assets are battle winning assets.


If this is the definition then each and every common garden soldier should be seen as a high value asset and afforded good kit



Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 18:37
by RetroSicotte


Spotted while at Tankfest.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:03
by Lord Jim
Do we have more than one? :D

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 11 Jul 2019, 21:29
by mr.fred
A few...

Image

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 07:05
by Lord Jim
Are those the trials platforms or are they awaiting delivery to the Army.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 08:33
by mr.fred
I didn't think that there had been a production contract so Trials vehicles?

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 12 Jul 2019, 09:35
by Gabriele
There's 11 or 12 vehicles being used in the Reliability Growth Trials. Until the manufacture order is confirmed, there won't be others.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 02 Sep 2019, 16:49
by Jake1992
Has anyone heard any more on the the warrior CSP program ? Last I heard it had hit a wall and is in real trouble with Ajax now being considered as a full blow replacement instead. Personally Iv always thought that this would be the best way to go but funding restricted it.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 02 Sep 2019, 17:09
by Lord Jim
Things are moving forward, with the test vehicles completing their latest set of MoD/Army trials last month. I believe there are two more stages to go in the glacial progress of this programme that really should have been completed by now

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 02 Sep 2019, 18:05
by Jake1992
Lord Jim wrote:Things are moving forward, with the test vehicles completing their latest set of MoD/Army trials last month. I believe there are two more stages to go in the glacial progress of this programme that really should have been completed by now


Have the finances been sorted as the run away cost is what I read has caused to be looked at again with Ajax option being looked at more closely now?

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 02 Sep 2019, 19:26
by mr.fred
Jake1992 wrote:Has anyone heard any more on the the warrior CSP program ? Last I heard it had hit a wall and is in real trouble with Ajax now being considered as a full blow replacement instead. Personally Iv always thought that this would be the best way to go but funding restricted it.

There was this:
https://www.janes.com/article/90725/upg ... d-missions

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 03 Sep 2019, 05:47
by ArmChairCivvy
" ability to meet the missions required of it by the MoD
[...]
as part of the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Reliability Growth Tests"

The reporter has taken word by word what he has been told (which is not much as he had to repeat it to get an article together).

Reliability is the key word, MTBF is the estimate that they are sharpening (two more stages to go) and it could - if the estimate gives a shorter "than designed" mean time - throw the thru-life costs by a Bn
... and we all know what that will mean; weren't we supposed to get 600 or thereabouts (in various configs) for a bn

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 03 Sep 2019, 14:56
by Lord Jim
Well to replace the Warrior in its existing roles within the Armoured Infantry Battalion we need 57, so by my poor maths that around 240 for the four such Battalions as a starting point, 40 odd for BATUS, again in same roles and than however many we intend to have in storage. WEll still need to define what platform(s) are to replace the 20 odd FV432s and 8 CVR(T)s that also reside in each Battalion, unless the Warrior BASV has risen from the grave.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 04 Sep 2019, 18:25
by Simon82
The MoD is reported to therefore be considering buying new hulls instead of upgrading the 30-year-old vehicle. An upgraded engine, tracks, and cannon would then be fitted to the new hulls.

That doesn’t sound like a very cost effective way of getting a 21st Century AFV to me.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/exclusi ... de-delays/

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 04 Sep 2019, 18:48
by Jake1992
Simon82 wrote:The MoD is reported to therefore be considering buying new hulls instead of upgrading the 30-year-old vehicle. An upgraded engine, tracks, and cannon would then be fitted to the new hulls.

That doesn’t sound like a very cost effective way of getting a 21st Century AFV to me.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/exclusi ... de-delays/


Things like this, the ever increasing cost and for commonality sakes Iv always thought that an Ajax IFV would of been and still would be the best option IMO.

Also just read on UKDJ that LM have replaced the head of the project due to cost increase and delays.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 04 Sep 2019, 21:16
by ArmChairCivvy
Now " cancelling the £1.6bn project after numerous setbacks. Last year, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority said that “successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.

The MoD is reported to therefore be considering buying new hulls instead of upgrading the 30-year-old vehicle. An upgraded engine, tracks, and cannon would then be fitted to the new hulls."
... another "Comet, from the 50's mindset project"

Shoestring airlines are not allowed to fly, these days, but we seem to be still locked in that mind set?

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 05 Sep 2019, 20:26
by mr.fred
Has anyone spotted that the article link now leads to a 404 page not found? I wonder what that is?

No ironic inflection intended - I genuinely wonder why.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 10 Sep 2019, 16:44
by Lord Jim
Latest from Jane's, reporting from DSEI 2019, on the progress of the Warrior upgrade programme.
https://www.janes.com/article/90978/bri ... rce=Eloqua

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 10 Sep 2019, 19:02
by ArmChairCivvy
8 have always been quoted (does that tally up from the turreted ones?):
"Lockheed Martin UK has supplied 11 WCSP for the RGT Armoured Trials and Development Unit trials: six FV520 Warrior IFV section vehicles; two FV521 Warrior IFV command; one FV522 Warrior repair; one FV523 Warrior recovery/repair; and one FV524 Warrior artillery observation post vehicle."

The article says 380 ( :D ) in the original plan
.... and as the order of battle has changed,
the number of WCSP is expected to be reduced to perhaps 250 to 280 units.

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Posted: 10 Sep 2019, 21:25
by mr.fred
ArmChairCivvy wrote:8 have always been quoted (does that tally up from the turreted ones?):

Only if you don't count the FV524 as turreted

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The article says 380 ( ) in the original plan
.... and as the order of battle has changed,
the number of WCSP is expected to be reduced to perhaps 250 to 280 units.

But has the cost changed? If it's stayed the same that's something like a 50% increase in unit cost.