Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tom8 wrote:720cm2

Coke can indeed
So much extra :) ... but definitely not for the same price (as the production runs todate have been v short)
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)

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tom8 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:cubic
That image of mine hides the true diameter of the 40mm cta cartridge, which is 60mm.

30x173mm Cartridge volume =450cm2
40x255 mm cta Cartridge volume= 720cm2

Coke can indeed
It's a lot closer to a pringles tube.

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by BlueD954 »

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."

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BlueD954 wrote:will replace Bulldog[. That] will come online at the back end of this decade."

ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving
More than ten years then. Though Bulldog is mechanically and protection-wise much younger than what the broad-brush statements would imply
... 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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by BlueD954 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
BlueD954 wrote:will replace Bulldog[. That] will come online at the back end of this decade."

ABSV was cancelled in 2016 as a cost saving
More than ten years then. Though Bulldog is mechanically and protection-wise much younger than what the broad-brush statements would imply
... 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?
The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/warrior- ... g-vehicle/ plus unknown numbers of ABSV?

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by BlueD954 »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BlueD954 wrote:It definitely has changed given the announcement that only one AI brigade will be operational
Does not mean that the units would disappear.

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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BlueD954 wrote:The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors
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).
- 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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by BlueD954 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
BlueD954 wrote:The SDSR 15 figure was 245 turreted Warriors
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).
- the difference between 245 and 265 could easily be explained by the fact that two AS90 rgmnts will live on to 2030... or beyond ;)
I thought Mobile Fires Platform will be on a truck-like chassis like the Archer artillery.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

BlueD954 wrote:Mobile Fires Platform will
come 'in their own time'.

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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by BlueD954 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
BlueD954 wrote:Mobile Fires Platform will
come 'in their own time'.

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)
As well as the GMLRS.

OK back to Warrior.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

BlueD954 wrote:I thought Mobile Fires Platform will be on a truck-like chassis like the Archer artillery.
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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Therefore we also need a Precision Fires control platform based on the Boxer.

Tom8
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Feb 2020, 07:59
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Tom8 »

Lord Jim wrote:The CTA40 at one stage was nick named the "Coke Can Gun". :D

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". :D

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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,
Would we? Why?

Tom8
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: 15 Feb 2020, 07:59
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by Tom8 »

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
Thanks for the reply. I found another report that shows data to support your comments regarding range, caliber and frontal armour penetration:

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tom8 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.
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 trigger
- 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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

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
Found this interesting:

"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?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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?
Surely more desirable to widen use of the CT40, which is a very similar capability.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:widen use of the CT40, which is a very similar capability.
and fits much better into an armoured turret
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
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)

Post Reply