35mm or perhaps the 40mm (30x173 upnecked to 40x180) would definitely be an improvement over RARDEN(lets face it, RARDEN's had a good innings and RSAF Enfield has been a block of flats for the last 20 years, this should have been sorted out a long time ago) but 40mmCT is a bit too close to be having second thoughts, experimental though it may be it's claimed performance is greater than even the 40mm bofors on the CV90

Indeed. The claimed muzzle velocity has dropped substantially over the years but the claimed performance has remained the same. It still has a bigger HE shell than any gun of comparable size.

Originally Posted by omegahunter

More importantly, how about doing a Bradley or a BMP on it, and strapping Javelin to the outside, and giving it a bit more firepower....

Not for the offensive - because your "strap an MRATGW to the turret" solution requires the vehicle to stop before it can fire. The eight blokes in the back might disagree about that.

Not for the defensive - because then the blokes in the back will have to walk, when all their vehicles are off playing in the BG ATk plan rather than in a Bravo muster ready to pick them up.

It's an APC, not a mini-tank. If you want a tank-killer, you build one - but don't risk the section in the back just to load up the wagon with another quarter-ton of "k3wl wpns" and associated reloads.

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by omegahunter

More importantly, how about doing a Bradley or a BMP on it, and strapping Javelin to the outside, and giving it a bit more firepower....

Not for the offensive - because your "strap an MRATGW to the turret" solution requires the vehicle to stop before it can fire. The eight blokes in the back might disagree about that.

Not for the defensive - because then the blokes in the back will have to walk, when all their vehicles are off playing in the BG ATk plan rather than in a Bravo muster ready to pick them up.

It's an APC, not a mini-tank. If you want a tank-killer, you build one - but don't risk the section in the back just to load up the wagon with another quarter-ton of "k3wl wpns" and associated reloads.

Good points but perhaps there are valid reasons for having 1 in 3 fitted as such, a little like the Firefly for the Tp Leader!

Originally Posted by ugly

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

Originally Posted by omegahunter

More importantly, how about doing a Bradley or a BMP on it, and strapping Javelin to the outside, and giving it a bit more firepower....

Not for the offensive - because your "strap an MRATGW to the turret" solution requires the vehicle to stop before it can fire. The eight blokes in the back might disagree about that.

Not for the defensive - because then the blokes in the back will have to walk, when all their vehicles are off playing in the BG ATk plan rather than in a Bravo muster ready to pick them up.

It's an APC, not a mini-tank. If you want a tank-killer, you build one - but don't risk the section in the back just to load up the wagon with another quarter-ton of "k3wl wpns" and associated reloads.

Good points but perhaps there are valid reasons for having 1 in 3 fitted as such, a little like the Firefly for the Tp Leader!

While I agree with that thinking for Warrior, what about giving Scimitar a Javelin capability? After all, Scimitar covers the Bradley's recce role.

What would make sense, to me, for the recce overwatch role would be a vertical launch hellfire-class weapon (NLOS-M, essentially, or something like it) that can be cued by vehicles in the Scimitar roles (probably a bit bigger and with mast-mounted sensors) The overwatch vehicle would be something like a Shielder flatbed with the capacity to direct fire on it's own, provide support to other vehicles or have a fire post dismount and set up some distance from the vehicle (much like the old swingfire).

Moving away from the section battlebus though isnt it?

Just a bit, but there is still a link, so bear with me.

Given how much clever stuff goes into even section vehicles these days, it isn't too much of a stretch to add a designator and/or suitable communications to cue a supporting missile on target, so rather than dedicated launcher on each vehicle, you have a dedicated vehicle per platoon or company, but one that can be cued by any of the other vehicles in the fighting unit.

Going back to the Section vehicle, what is it that we want it to do? Is the primary target dismounted infantry, enemy light, medium or heavy vehicles?

[quote="---Æ"]

Originally Posted by ugly

Now now chilblains behave or the grown up will delete you!
Oh and the grendel and all the current 6+mm loads offered in an AR platform are no better than 7.62 x 39mm and until the mantra that the round must fit the current Stanag magazine it will get no better, it may be more accurate and deliver more energy than the 5.56 but its still no more powerful than the M43 round!

from an engineering perspective 6.5 Grendel is roughly the ideal middle ground between 762 and 556. 6.5Grendel providing more power than 556 at close range and due to the larger bullet more streamlined bullet with a high ballistic coefficient the heavier rounds can maintain power and velocity akin to 762 at range. Obviously the round doesn't easily lend itself to a belt-fed platform
Now that I have rechecked the figures I still stand by my accusation, the latest batch of 6.5 short cartridges, grendel, Lapua et al are still woefully underpowered when compared to .30 ammo and also is as described above woefully inadequate for machine feeding. Add to that the fact that the M43 Russian round is still capable of greater muzzle energy despite its crap Ballistic Co efficient then you see the light! Now look at the old .280/30 or 7mm mk1 and you have the right round, not in its final configuration as it was little more than a .308 necked down to remove the massive 5 foot bullet drop at 500 yards. The incarnation should be the original round made with modern propellants, modern bullet and case construction and great ballistic reseach.
I am sure that this round or a 6+mm round in a similar configuration would fit the bill!

Originally Posted by incendiarycutlery

Just a bit, but there is still a link, so bear with me.

Given how much clever stuff goes into even section vehicles these days, it isn't too much of a stretch to add a designator and/or suitable communications to cue a supporting missile on target, so rather than dedicated launcher on each vehicle, you have a dedicated vehicle per platoon or company, but one that can be cued by any of the other vehicles in the fighting unit.

Going back to the Section vehicle, what is it that we want it to do? Is the primary target dismounted infantry, enemy light, medium or heavy vehicles?

Yes provided it is a secondary function or the weapons are carried forward in the 4th wagon?
Ant AI gurus got any comments on this?I am way out of my pay scale on this one!

If the Wagons are purely to carry the squaddies, then the weaponry would be purely defensive (GPMG) and it's an APC. Where the wagons are expected to suppress hostile dismounts, it needs something bigger and longer ranged so it can stay out of light anti-armour weapon range. If you expect to tangle with hostile AI, you either need to make sure that your armour is also present in sufficient quantities or that your wagons can out-shoot their wagons. The question there is how long does it take before measure and counter-measure means that you have turned your IFVs into tanks with some capacity for dismounts? Something like a stretched Merkava.

ATGWs on IFVs are game changers. You accept that your cannon will not kill hostile light or mediums, but your ATGW will destroy them beyond their capability to engage you back. It also makes a prickly prospect for hostile armour. It's expensive to attach ATGWs, but considering how much is already on there in terms of sensors, stabilisation and advanced cannon and ammunition, is it really that much extra cost.

I don't know if ATGW are the answer for Warrior - there is precious little room in the vehicle as it is without the addition space needed for support equipment and spare rounds.

I was thinking that the missile carrier would be a fifth or twelfth wagon. An added bonus would be that Anti-tank or Anti-structure warheads could both be carried (a common launcher) rather than having to resort to brigade artillery or fast air for precision HE. The cueing technology could be carried by dismounted infantry at some cost or built into the vehicles with very little additional cost.