So much extra ... but definitely not for the same price (as the production runs todate have been v short)Tom8 wrote:720cm2
Coke can indeed
Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
It's a lot closer to a pringles tube.Tom8 wrote:That image of mine hides the true diameter of the 40mm cta cartridge, which is 60mm.ArmChairCivvy wrote:cubic
30x173mm Cartridge volume =450cm2
40x255 mm cta Cartridge volume= 720cm2
Coke can indeed
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1068/pdf/
DCGS: "We need to replace Bulldog, no question. There is a programme called the Armoured Support Vehicle that will replace Bulldog. That will come online at the back end of this decade."
ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sv/preview'
"The headline budgeted WLC figure has reduced as a result of the decision to remove the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle (ABSV) project as a directed cost-saving in ABC16."
DCGS: "We need to replace Bulldog, no question. There is a programme called the Armoured Support Vehicle that will replace Bulldog. That will come online at the back end of this decade."
ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... sv/preview'
"The headline budgeted WLC figure has reduced as a result of the decision to remove the Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle (ABSV) project as a directed cost-saving in ABC16."
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
More than ten years then. Though Bulldog is mechanically and protection-wise much younger than what the broad-brush statements would implyBlueD954 wrote:will replace Bulldog[. That] will come online at the back end of this decade."
ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving
... let me put it this way: will get a look in when the number of fit-for-purpose hulls becomes known, towards the end of the main prgrm?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/warrior- ... g-vehicle/ plus unknown numbers of ABSV?ArmChairCivvy wrote:More than ten years then. Though Bulldog is mechanically and protection-wise much younger than what the broad-brush statements would implyBlueD954 wrote:will replace Bulldog[. That] will come online at the back end of this decade."
ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving
... let me put it this way: will get a look in when the number of fit-for-purpose hulls becomes known, towards the end of the main prgrm?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
https://britisharmedforcesreview.files. ... -units.jpg
The link or image was the envisioned list of units just post-SDSR 2015 or Army 2020 Refine - infantry regiments only. It definitely has changed given the announcement that only one AI brigade will be operational by 2025 ish.
The link or image was the envisioned list of units just post-SDSR 2015 or Army 2020 Refine - infantry regiments only. It definitely has changed given the announcement that only one AI brigade will be operational by 2025 ish.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Does not mean that the units would disappear.BlueD954 wrote:It definitely has changed given the announcement that only one AI brigade will be operational
That target (as you rightly described it) has a discrepancy of 2-3 vs. what the current army site lists
- one clear thing is that the 5 Sp. Inf bns has been reached by standing up a 3rd Gurkha rgmnt
- clearing up the rest (you know, columns and rows coming up with the same tally) would definitely need resorting to a spreadsheet
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Could that be with a gun? It has been a haze as to where all the Ajax Joint-fires vehicles will be allocated and how many upgraded Warriors for artillery would still be needed (these also have turrets).BlueD954 wrote:The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors
- the difference between 245 and 265 could easily be explained by the fact that two AS90 rgmnts will live on to 2030... or beyond
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
I thought Mobile Fires Platform will be on a truck-like chassis like the Archer artillery.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Could that be with a gun? It has been a haze as to where all the Ajax Joint-fires vehicles will be allocated and how many upgraded Warriors for artillery would still be needed (these also have turrets).BlueD954 wrote:The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors
- the difference between 245 and 265 could easily be explained by the fact that two AS90 rgmnts will live on to 2030... or beyond
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
come 'in their own time'.BlueD954 wrote:Mobile Fires Platform will
Until then, having short-ranged but mobile and protected 155mm moving closely with the formations they support will call for observation & command to be equally
- mobile,
- and protected (under armour)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
As well as the GMLRS.ArmChairCivvy wrote:come 'in their own time'.BlueD954 wrote:Mobile Fires Platform will
Until then, having short-ranged but mobile and protected 155mm moving closely with the formations they support will call for observation & command to be equally
- mobile,
- and protected (under armour)
OK back to Warrior.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The protection for the forward observers needs to be in line with the unit they are supporting rather than the artillery they are spotting for.BlueD954 wrote:I thought Mobile Fires Platform will be on a truck-like chassis like the Archer artillery.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Therefore we also need a Precision Fires control platform based on the Boxer.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Lord Jim wrote:The CTA40 at one stage was nick named the "Coke Can Gun".
Saying that the whole gun etc. is extremely compact and besides its unique layout, should easily be able to fit in may existing multi calibre turrets. If you look at the upside down Bofors L70 in the CV2040 in comparison this will emphasis the point. Yet the performance is basically the same if not better as the Bofors still requires clips of ammo to be manually fed into the ammo shoot, though like the CTA40 it primarily fires either single shot of a burst of a few rounds.
Lord Jim wrote:The CTA40 at one stage was nick named the "Coke Can Gun".
Found this interesting 2016 article that compares various rounds (25-40mm):
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot. ... r.html?m=1
The author implies that the British may have gone with a 40mm canon Because we do not fit ATGW to our vehicles. Do you think this is true? The French have gone with 40mm and twin ATGW in the jaguar turret.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Mr. TurretRing knows what he is talking about.
This " during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation" is often quoted, but a partial view as with more reach you can force the opposing infantry dismount earlier... and kill lots of them while they are trying to get to where they were supposed to be.
Moreover, if you can't punch through the frontal plate, then they will dismount seconds before they are on top of you.
- Korea (ROK) and Japan made their IFV gun choices specifically with the 'best available' BMP in mind
This " during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation" is often quoted, but a partial view as with more reach you can force the opposing infantry dismount earlier... and kill lots of them while they are trying to get to where they were supposed to be.
Moreover, if you can't punch through the frontal plate, then they will dismount seconds before they are on top of you.
- Korea (ROK) and Japan made their IFV gun choices specifically with the 'best available' BMP in mind
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The increased range and penetration of larger calibre Auto Cannons os going to be more and more important in peer conflict if they happen. A number of countries are seriously up armouring their IFVs or even introducing "Heavy" IFV platforms whose frontal armour if far greater then that to be usually expected. This together with the ability to use programable rounds, which will probably become the most used round followed by APFSDS variants, means that the trend for larger weapons is here to stay.
As for the UK not fitting ATGWs to is AFVs, we traditionally have had specialist platforms for this role, either designed as such like the Striker, or converted from existing platform like the Spartan MCT. We did fit Milan to a number of Warriors during the Gulf War in a rather ad hoc manner, that could not be fired from under armour, but the British Army has never been profligate with the use of ATGWs, unlike some other nations. I am sure if it was affordable, both the WCSP and Ajax would have either produced specialist ATGW carriers or added ATGWs to a number of CTA40 turrets. Lockheed Martin did trial Javelin on their Warrior Turret, but if we went sown that route we would want to install a heavy ATGW, the requirement for which exists for the British Army but has zero funding.
It is interesting though, that one of the things the "Strike" trials units has done is greatly increase the number of anti tank weapons, both guided and unguided, that are available to the Infantry down to Company and even Platoon level. Maybe this will breath new life into the Heavy ATGW requirement, raise its profile and priority, and see funding be made available, who knows. Finding these capability holes is what the Trials Units was set up for.
As for the UK not fitting ATGWs to is AFVs, we traditionally have had specialist platforms for this role, either designed as such like the Striker, or converted from existing platform like the Spartan MCT. We did fit Milan to a number of Warriors during the Gulf War in a rather ad hoc manner, that could not be fired from under armour, but the British Army has never been profligate with the use of ATGWs, unlike some other nations. I am sure if it was affordable, both the WCSP and Ajax would have either produced specialist ATGW carriers or added ATGWs to a number of CTA40 turrets. Lockheed Martin did trial Javelin on their Warrior Turret, but if we went sown that route we would want to install a heavy ATGW, the requirement for which exists for the British Army but has zero funding.
It is interesting though, that one of the things the "Strike" trials units has done is greatly increase the number of anti tank weapons, both guided and unguided, that are available to the Infantry down to Company and even Platoon level. Maybe this will breath new life into the Heavy ATGW requirement, raise its profile and priority, and see funding be made available, who knows. Finding these capability holes is what the Trials Units was set up for.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Would we? Why?Lord Jim wrote:Lockheed Martin did trial Javelin on their Warrior Turret, but if we went sown that route we would want to install a heavy ATGW,
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Thanks for the reply. I found another report that shows data to support your comments regarding range, caliber and frontal armour penetration:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Mr. TurretRing knows what he is talking about.
This " during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation" is often quoted, but a partial view as with more reach you can force the opposing infantry dismount earlier... and kill lots of them while they are trying to get to where they were supposed to be.
Moreover, if you can't punch through the frontal plate, then they will dismount seconds before they are on top of you.
- Korea (ROK) and Japan made their IFV gun choices specifically with the 'best available' BMP in mind
http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... n.html?m=1
There was an interesting comment on Mr turret rings report from a Swede explaining that the reason the Swedish went with the 40mm over a smaller sized gun paired with ATGW. They explained that this was due to the terrain found in Sweden, which is mainly forested, meant that the added range that ATGW Gave you could not be utilised.
This could also explain why the Australians have chosen the 30mm bushmaster along with Spike missiles for their recon boxers, as the potentially sort after, mineral rich territories of northern and western Oz are very suited to ATGW use.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Also explains the next step: they (with us) developed NLAW which is often referred to as a missile, but is actually a rocket for which the impact point for the moving target is calculated by optically tracking the target for 2 seconds before pulling the triggerTom8 wrote:was due to the terrain found in Sweden, which is mainly forested, meant that the added range that ATGW Gave you could not be utilised.
- gave more range (600 m), more penetration, less cost, and is infantryman-luggable
- then they de-developed their ground forces (peace dividend), and the Finns who have the same kind of terrain, but fewer politicians with blue eyes bought umpteen of them (they are still buying)
- we have very few; even bunkers and MG nests 'get' a full-price ATGW instead
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Thx for the warfaretech link, too (the first comment was 'interesting').
Reading the simulation results was not easy (x-axis had no scale) but @ 1km with 60 degree sloped armour (RHA? Did not say) the gain from 'upgunning' was 10mm more penetration.
Reading the simulation results was not easy (x-axis had no scale) but @ 1km with 60 degree sloped armour (RHA? Did not say) the gain from 'upgunning' was 10mm more penetration.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Member
- Posts: 509
- Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Found this interesting:Tom8 wrote:Lord Jim wrote: Found this interesting 2016 article that compares various rounds (25-40mm):
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot. ... r.html?m=1
"The CV9040 was designed with rather specific requirements, which are not shared by many other countries. The 40 mm Bofors gun was chosen for a number of reasons:the same calibre was already in use with the Swedish Navy and was used for anti-aircraft weapon systems (including the CV9040AAV self-propelled anti-air gun later developed, based on the CV90 chassis). A major factor however was the demand to penetrate the side armor of (ex-)Soviet main battle tanks such as the T-55 and T-72: these tanks have 80-90 mm thick steel armor over the sides of turret and hull, penetrating this with a 20-30 mm gun at medium ranges and certain angles of impact is not possible."
Now that we've adopted the Bofors 40mm in the RN - and we have a SPAAG shaped hole in the Army - is there potential to widen adoption of the Bofors 40mm?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Surely more desirable to widen use of the CT40, which is a very similar capability.jedibeeftrix wrote:Now that we've adopted the Bofors 40mm in the RN - and we have a SPAAG shaped hole in the Army - is there potential to widen adoption of the Bofors 40mm?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
and fits much better into an armoured turretmr.fred wrote:widen use of the CT40, which is a very similar capability.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
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.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/c ... ign=PS2020
€500m for a midlife update 144 vehicles, or about €3.5m each.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
The wording leaves it open whether actually installing, after selecting the APS is in that cost number:
the latest in series of incremental upgrades to the Dutch CV90s. Most recently, in 2019, the Dutch Army selected BAE Systems to integrate the Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS) into its fleet.
the latest in series of incremental upgrades to the Dutch CV90s. Most recently, in 2019, the Dutch Army selected BAE Systems to integrate the Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS) into its fleet.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)