That is very much my thinking. Perhaps then the Army wouldn't be getting screwed because no one dared to pull out of Ajax.Frenchie wrote:It would have been more economical and more relevant to upgrade 650 Warrior and buy Fennek recce, than to develop this family of Ajax vehicles.
Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
@LandSharkUK
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
http://www.janes.com/article/74127/dsei ... den-depths
Odd that the Warrior turret is the one they are developing
Odd that the Warrior turret is the one they are developing
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Especially the bit were they are talking about adding a Javelin, ideally would be handy to knock out a MBT.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
I hope it is not the single-shot version, shown on some test launch videos: rearming by a crew member climbing outbobp wrote: talking about adding a Javelin
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 (Army)
This Javelin business on turrets is quite interesting though> the range is limited by the guidance pack, normally carried by an infantry man (so not limited bcz of the missile).
- could something heavier, mounted on the turret, better that (by a significant margin)?
- could something heavier, mounted on the turret, better that (by a significant margin)?
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 (Army)
Good point about re-arming a single launcher, however you could argue a twin pack would need re-arming at some point. Secondly a single shot misses its target would you have time to launch the second before you are toasted by the tank. Also the weight and size of the missile add to the turret size.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Going by the specs of the command launch unit and the missile sensor, the limitation would seem to be on the missile sensor, so it's at least 2.5km regardless of the platform and up to, and possibly in excess of, 4km in suitable conditions. I get the impression the missile will go further than the sensor can lock onto things.ArmChairCivvy wrote:This Javelin business on turrets is quite interesting though> the range is limited by the guidance pack, normally carried by an infantry man (so not limited bcz of the missile).
- could something heavier, mounted on the turret, better that (by a significant margin)?
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
It is more target resolution and PID at range. I believe there was/is a refined solution being looked at for the US which might make it's way onto Stryker. Will try to find link when i get a sec.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Seems to have two missiles ..
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
No armoured cover either...?Ron5 wrote:Seems to have two missiles ..
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
What's the source on this? Is this just a photoshopped mockup?Ron5 wrote:Seems to have two missiles ..
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
For once we stand to do a one upper over our Russian friends. As our French allies (or is Thales "our defence company?") only gave them - the consideration must have been good, but not much consideration went into the process - the Catheterine XP, albeit in thousands when you include the license production.
So their MBTs will have a little over half as many pixels in both width and height compared to the Catherine MP that we already have on Ajax. This little trick (way above what an infantryman could carry, with all the other kit) would translate to about twice the detect, recognise and identify ranges. More important than their 125 mm cannon's effective range (do the Ukrainians still sell them the missiles, to fire out to 5 km, using the gun?).
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/en/production/a ... ed-missile
So their MBTs will have a little over half as many pixels in both width and height compared to the Catherine MP that we already have on Ajax. This little trick (way above what an infantryman could carry, with all the other kit) would translate to about twice the detect, recognise and identify ranges. More important than their 125 mm cannon's effective range (do the Ukrainians still sell them the missiles, to fire out to 5 km, using the gun?).
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/en/production/a ... ed-missile
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 (Army)
Here's a real nice MIV (candidate... but of course it won't be an open competition; will be interesting to hear the legalise to be put out in justification of single sourcing - once again)
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/105.jpg
killing tanks out to 5 km
... and it is not a mock up
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/105.jpg
killing tanks out to 5 km
... and it is not a mock up
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 (Army)
Yup, that's where I found it.Zealot wrote:It's real; http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... -SMALL.pdf
This one has armor on the missile box.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
If we were going with that, we should use the CTA 105 in developmentArmChairCivvy wrote:Here's a real nice MIV (candidate... but of course it won't be an open competition; will be interesting to hear the legalise to be put out in justification of single sourcing - once again)
http://www.luch.kiev.ua/images/data/105.jpg
killing tanks out to 5 km
... and it is not a mock up
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Not seen that before!
I was under the impression (obviously wrong) that 40 mm was getting toward the upper limit on the technology.
I was under the impression (obviously wrong) that 40 mm was getting toward the upper limit on the technology.
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Yeah me too!Ron5 wrote:Not seen that before!
I was under the impression (obviously wrong) that 40 mm was getting toward the upper limit on the technology.
There are also rumors of a CTA 50 cal. in development
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
50 cal. as in half an inch or 50mm?Zealot wrote:There are also rumors of a CTA 50 cal. in development
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
Smokey wrote: 50 cal. as in half an inch or 50mm?
Getting it right on both accounts:
- 45 mm was the original dvlmnt; paired down to 40 mm to make the ammo look ( in size) more like Coke cans
- the half inch is also on its way; how will that tie in with the (aborted?) caseless ammo "case"? Their final recommendation was to go for vehicle-mounted support weapons
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 (Army)
Lockheed says its because it weighs less than Ajax turret so would fit a broader range of vehicles.mr.fred wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/74127/dsei ... den-depths
Odd that the Warrior turret is the one they are developing
Of course there's still ACC's theory about finding a home for unused turrets if the Warrior upgrade goes bye bye. Although an upgraded Warrior was on display at DSEI.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
With all these turret/ bigger gun/ number of ready rounds developments, I wonder if they have lost any space in the back?Ron5 wrote: Although an upgraded Warrior was on display at DSEI.
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)
The Warrior went from 7 men to 6 men with the upgrade, so yes, slight loss of space.