Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

For now the MOD has ordered 515 guns, 245 for Ajax and 245 for Warrior CSP, with the balance for trials, test, development.

The 23 Joint Fire Direction vehicles in the Ajax family have the gun. The FV514, the Warrior variant which is used to direct artillery fire, has only a dummy rarden, which does not actually work as internal space was needed for the other systems.

The FV514 was planned to receive the GVA and armour part of Warrior CSP, and then receive a separate upgrade via Royal Artillery, to make it able to direct joint fires. This was true at least into 2012. The plan was to have both a FRES SV Joint Fires and the FV514 Joint Fires.

23 Ajax Joint Fires seem way too few to do it all on their own, considering that each AS-90 battery used to have 3 FV514 (and a Warrior Battery Command Vehicle, but these have long gone). That would be 27 vehicles for the 9 remaining batteries, plus probably other vehicles needed across cavalry and infantry battalions.

Have no idea if the FV514 is still in Warrior CSP; if the RA has frozen the design for its upgrade and, far more importantly, if it has the budget for it; if the FV514 upgrades would be done in the same stop in factory, or if they would be two separate, successive programmes.

Lately, news releases about the Warrior CSP mention a "command" variant which never existed before (there is the Infantry-Command sub-variant of the basic, turreted section vehicle, but a "command" Warrior was never made). Have no idea if they actually mean the FV514, or what. Basically, despite being the key programme for the armoured infantry, itself seen as the heart of Army 2020, no one seems to know how to make Warrior CSP, Joint Fires and ABSV requirements, budgets and schedules match.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I would not be surprised if there were to be three different levels of fit-out (taking the example from some other armies):
- artillery forward observation
- battery command vehicle
- a higher level command vehicle

Economies might dictate which chassis for which (based on the numbers required), but there is also the logic of
- more subsystems
- hence more power and more space required
- hence the possibility of reusing older vehicles is less as we go up that chain

I am thinking back to an article in the Gunner where they reported on fitting out the direct fires vehicles to handle the air-ground coordination (as a trial, satcoms and all that) and the Warrior ended up looking like a Christmas tree and there was not enough space inside for the guys to do their job (not to mention power... which system shall we now switch off, Sir?). Not enough space and not enough power (and lots of systems running) = normally gives you a cooling problem, too
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Well if Gabriele cant make the numbers match there's no hope. Some on the inside better have a plan (and some money)
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by GibMariner »


Ninetyfifth
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 May 2015, 10:03
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Ninetyfifth »

Some good views:

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Gabriele wrote:Lately, news releases about the Warrior CSP mention a "command" variant which never existed before (there is the Infantry-Command sub-variant of the basic, turreted section vehicle, but a "command" Warrior was never made). Have no idea if they actually mean the FV514, or what. Basically, despite being the key programme for the armoured infantry, itself seen as the heart of Army 2020, no one seems to know how to make Warrior CSP, Joint Fires and ABSV requirements, budgets and schedules match.
I was under the impression that the FV510 was the section variant, the FV511 the command variant, FV512 and FV513 engineer and recovery vehicles, FV514 the OPV and FV515 the battery command vehicle.
Wiki says so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_t ... ed_vehicle
Going by the numbers suggests that the command variant is a legitimate variant, even if it is similar to the section vehicle, the FV510. It's got different rear doors at least.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/06/s ... -eighties/
reckons the rear compartment is different too.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

mr.fred wrote:
Gabriele wrote:Lately, news releases about the Warrior CSP mention a "command" variant which never existed before (there is the Infantry-Command sub-variant of the basic, turreted section vehicle, but a "command" Warrior was never made). Have no idea if they actually mean the FV514, or what. Basically, despite being the key programme for the armoured infantry, itself seen as the heart of Army 2020, no one seems to know how to make Warrior CSP, Joint Fires and ABSV requirements, budgets and schedules match.
I was under the impression that the FV510 was the section variant, the FV511 the command variant, FV512 and FV513 engineer and recovery vehicles, FV514 the OPV and FV515 the battery command vehicle.
Wiki says so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_t ... ed_vehicle
Going by the numbers suggests that the command variant is a legitimate variant, even if it is similar to the section vehicle, the FV510. It's got different rear doors at least.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/06/s ... -eighties/
reckons the rear compartment is different too.
I don't doubt there are differences in the rear, but the Infantry Command variant FV511 is part of the 245 turreted examples. And if the article mentions both the Infantry Command and the mysteryous "Command" variant, the question mark remains.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Gabriele wrote:
I don't doubt there are differences in the rear, but the Infantry Command variant FV511 is part of the 245 turreted examples. And if the article mentions both the Infantry Command and the mysteryous "Command" variant, the question mark remains.
Which article? I've not seen a distinction, but I haven't been paying close attention.

Ninetyfifth
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 May 2015, 10:03
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Ninetyfifth »

The FV511 was the Warrior Command version. Two per AI Coy, two in Fire Sp HQ (Alt) and two in BG HQ - Co and 2Ic.

The vehicle was configured with a CP rear fit - 2 x VHF sets and an HF guard set. A map board and CP seating arrangement,double rear doors and an arrangement to fit a penthouse out the back.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

FV514 the OPV and FV515 the battery command vehicle
@95th, do you see the joint fires version of the SV (Ajax) as the new FV515?
- only a good two dozen on order
- off the top of my head I count RA to stand at: 3 rgmnts in RF (GMLRS/ AS90+ 1 more airportable); 1 in AF (LG); 3 more in reserves (1 GMLRS and 2 LG)
- assuming no need for the 3 with LG, would the numbers roughly match? There will be some kept in Batus, some will be in the workshop (say, 10% float for that)

Warrior was tested for Joint Fires (air integration) half a dcecade ago and ran short of space, power... to a degree where TWO were seen necessary to make the concept workable
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

mr.fred wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
I don't doubt there are differences in the rear, but the Infantry Command variant FV511 is part of the 245 turreted examples. And if the article mentions both the Infantry Command and the mysteryous "Command" variant, the question mark remains.
Which article? I've not seen a distinction, but I haven't been paying close attention.

For example, here:
Lockheed Martin is to supply 12 WCSP demonstrator vehicles under the contract: nine section vehicles (including two section command) and single examples of command, repair and recovery variants.
http://www.janes.com/article/54488/long ... -dsei15-d3

I have no idea what that "command" thing actually is. It should be FV514 if, as once planned, it is part of the upgrade. Don't think they are making a wholly new variant, but at this point i really do not know.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

riksavage
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 May 2015, 02:05
Singapore

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by riksavage »

Don't command vehicles have an additional communications fit and dummy main gun? Look the same on the battlefield, but the internal arrangement is better suited to command and control.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:battery used to have 3 FV514 (and a Warrior Battery Command Vehicle, but these have long gone). That would be 27 vehicles for the 9 remaining batteries, plus probably other vehicles needed across cavalry and infantry battalions.

Have no idea if the FV514 is still in Warrior CSP; if the RA has frozen the design for its upgrade and, far more importantly, if it has the budget for it
As the discussion has been inconclusive so far (purely due to the dearth of released detail), I reread what Gaby stated at the beginning, and came to the assumption of 9 (3 x 3) batteries in the RF. In fact, those 3 RA rgmnts are mixed and the GMLRS components may be self-sufficient with their own command vehicles?
- more a question than anything else
- the need for land-air coordination would a be a tad looser as they are typically fired at more distant targets

The older version may have to do for such formations that won't get the Ajax anyway (commonality for REME to be able to keep all vehicles on the "road" etc...)
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

riksavage wrote:Don't command vehicles have an additional communications fit and dummy main gun? Look the same on the battlefield, but the internal arrangement is better suited to command and control.
No, the FV511 Infantry Command has a working turret and gun. The FV514 has the dummy.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ninetyfifth
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 07 May 2015, 10:03
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Ninetyfifth »

Gabrielle is correct. The FV511 is the Infantry Command Vehicle (clue in the title). If necessary the crew have to be able to fight the vehicle and so the turret has a fully functional Rarden and Chain gun. Other than the Comd radio harness fit the turret is exactly the same as a section variant.

FOOs in some Arty close support regts are equiped with the OPV variant (FV514). It has the chain gun, the dummy Rarden fit, PADS and MSTAR . There is also a Battery Comd variant (FV515)

I can't see why the upgrades should change the vehicle designation ( there may be some amendments) although as I understand it, D Combat and his gang (the Capabiliy director) has been pushing hard to deliver a warrior based close support variant for both BG level indirect fire (Mortar) and ani tank capability. As usual the bottom line is affordability and these capabilities probably remain high on the "nice to have" list. That said, just how long we can continue providing Armd BGs Fire Support using ancient FV 430 series vehicles is a point of concern.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by marktigger »

with the cut in armoured brigades will there now be more hulls available for conversion to other roles especially if the Artillery trade theirs in for Ajax?

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:will there now be more hulls available for conversion to other roles especially if the Artillery trade theirs in for Ajax?
A very good question; availability should be better, but will we actually see an Ajax variant and a Warrior variant side by side, so that for each formation the supporting REME would find commonality in wagons - and their spares?
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

marktigger wrote:with the cut in armoured brigades will there now be more hulls available for conversion to other roles especially if the Artillery trade theirs in for Ajax?
In general terms, no. The requirement for armoured infantry battalions could well stay unchanged (6 battalions, 3 in each brigade) or drop to 4. I fear a drop to 4 is quite likely since 245 Warrior CSP is not enough, for what i can roughly calculate, to actually equip 6 battalions.

It is not that there will be more Warrior hulls available for conversion: it is the requirement that will get smaller. Assuming one tank regiment is lost, one REME battalion goes mechanized, one Medical regiment also, one artillery regiment loses AS90... all these changes add up to a reduction in the ABSV requirement, as all those formations use Warrior and FV432 (and thus in the future eventually ABSV) in several variants.

In terms of "heavy" armour, the Strike Brigades are a cut by any other name. How bad a cut, we don't yet know.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Neither the Warrior nor the Ajax prgrms seem to have any emphasis on increasing stealth?
http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/b72de ... 4bd43dee/1
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)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

An order for Barracuda nets, the same as those pictured, was announced along with Ajax at DSEI last summer. On top of that Ajax is meant to have a greatly reduced audio and thermal signatures anyway. It'd be a poorly thought out requirement if your planned reconnaissance vehicle didn't have a degree of discretion about it! :D

http://saabgroup.com/Media/news-press/n ... e-systems/

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.


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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

arfah wrote:CTA40 gun trial/test

Seems reasonable?
Doesn't look like they're troubling the stabilisation much

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

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

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Yeeeessssss.
Maybe more of a middle ground?
I don't know what Punch and Judy ever did to the gunner, either.

Post Reply