CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

Majorpain

War Hero
Its built buy BAE, just licence build it in the factory here?
Everyone is busy with much more important things (CR2/Boxer/WCSP), I don't think there is anyone in the UK with the capacity and skills for any reasonable timeframe. If complete vehicle "son of M109" is picked then they will be hot off the US production line IMO.

If however AS90 base vehicle can handle the turret and firing strain of the 155mm 80 mile whopper the US is trying to develop then that's where things will head IMO. BAE will no doubt have a solution if asked (cheque books at the ready....)
 
Last edited:
Tracked heavy artillery probably isn’t where we’re headed.

A wheeled SPG with comparable ordnance is more likely.
 
By retaining the bare bones Of the AS90 hull, MOD can retain the pretence it’s ‘upgrading It world beating design’, not effectively to starting again and buying 95% of the latest version of a system it used to own.
Given it has a back door and some space with all the St Barbara gubbins removed, how does a UK Namer variant sound?
namer.jpg
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
No SPG varient of Namer, only APC, CEV, IFV
not an SPG variant - If the turret is off and all the gunner gubbins has gone, it could be turned into a UK knock off/copy of the NAMER APC variant, i.e. upgraded & armoured replacement for Bulldog

E2A: one of that Ukrain lessons learned document's points was that APCs were too vulnerable now (lots of troops travelling on outside) and the israeli NAMER was mentioned as a better APC model to follow
 

Bravo_Bravo

On ROPS
On ROPs
Consider the lets build our own betterer AH-64's....

What happened?

We've had to scrap them and go back to the cousins and buy proper ones like theirs so they are upgradable coz our 'betterer' ones were too expensive and problematic to upgrade

Lessons learned - UK Bespoke = Gas Axe.
Having talked to AAC aircrew on Eagle Strike, our AH 64s had better avionics and an engine with better hot and high capabilities.

One of my former Riflemen is currently flying one at RIAT, I'll drop him a line...
 
It was well known the US rated our AH64's but what happened is Boeing caught up with the E version from what i gather.
 
not an SPG variant - If the turret is off and all the gunner gubbins has gone, it could be turned into a UK knock off/copy of the NAMER APC variant, i.e. upgraded & armoured replacement for Bulldog

E2A: one of that Ukrain lessons learned document's points was that APCs were too vulnerable now (lots of troops travelling on outside) and the israeli NAMER was mentioned as a better APC model to follow
When (not if) the WCSP falls apart we can de-turret a load of WR and use them as APCs instead of using IDF stuff.
 
When (not if) the WCSP falls apart we can de-turret a load of WR and use them as APCs instead of using IDF stuff.
Fcuk me. where did i say using israeli stuff, instead of just their ideas?
What I was idylly suggesting was for all these unused AS90 hulls being talked about earlier in the thread to be repurposed into a copy of the israeli overarmouring of APCs because of this:

Declining Survivability of Light Infantry Vehicles
Having proclaimed the return of armor as a major and viable player on the future battlefield, we also need to add a severe caveat. Since the end of the Cold War, armies around the world have given increased emphasis to light Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), which prioritizes mobility and fire-‐power over survivability. The evidence coming in from the Ukrainian conflict seriously questions the validity of that emphasis. The experience of the both sides in the Donbas highlights the vulnerability of these vehicles to the increased lethality of the artillery munitions as well as the proliferation of anti-‐tank weapons and medium-‐caliber (30mm) automatic cannons mounted on other light armored vehicles. But the big killer of IFVs is artillery sub-‐munitions and thermobaric warheads == when hit, these vehicle tend to suffer catastrophic damage, killing or severely burning everyone on board......
....The issue of disproportionate IFV vulnerability relative to the tank has been evident for over a decade as witnessed with Israel’s combat experience. And it is noteworthy that both Russia and Ukraine, in the last year, have began following the Israeli example, with newly announced heavy IFV designs based on a tank chassis and with equivalent protection of the main battle tank. Thus, the increased lethality of the modern battlefield is driving the demand for increased survivability of mechanized infantry. the implications of this are pregnant for NATO.
 
Tracked heavy artillery probably isn’t where we’re headed.

A wheeled SPG with comparable ordnance is more likely.
Especially when you consider only approx a total of 4 regiments of SPGs are required

If AS90 needs replacing it makes sense to go for a single type.

A tracked SPG can’t do the job in the Strike Bdes
 
That's where a decent prototype and testing phase comes into play, like with CR2 smoothbore where they found they could only fit 6 rounds in. Best to find any fundamental "its really not going to work" problems early!



Possibly, but cheaper is not always best if you factor in UK jobs paying money back into the treasury. There is a balance to be struck between price and keeping UK capabilities going in some (useful) areas.
And the small U.K.-made production runs mean they cost more per unit and the MOD ultimately has to downsize the military in order to pay for it
 
Fcuk me. where did i say using israeli stuff, instead of just their ideas?
What I was idylly suggesting was for all these unused AS90 hulls being talked about earlier in the thread to be repurposed into a copy of the israeli overarmouring of APCs because of this:

Declining Survivability of Light Infantry Vehicles
Having proclaimed the return of armor as a major and viable player on the future battlefield, we also need to add a severe caveat. Since the end of the Cold War, armies around the world have given increased emphasis to light Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), which prioritizes mobility and fire-‐power over survivability. The evidence coming in from the Ukrainian conflict seriously questions the validity of that emphasis. The experience of the both sides in the Donbas highlights the vulnerability of these vehicles to the increased lethality of the artillery munitions as well as the proliferation of anti-‐tank weapons and medium-‐caliber (30mm) automatic cannons mounted on other light armored vehicles. But the big killer of IFVs is artillery sub-‐munitions and thermobaric warheads == when hit, these vehicle tend to suffer catastrophic damage, killing or severely burning everyone on board......
....The issue of disproportionate IFV vulnerability relative to the tank has been evident for over a decade as witnessed with Israel’s combat experience. And it is noteworthy that both Russia and Ukraine, in the last year, have began following the Israeli example, with newly announced heavy IFV designs based on a tank chassis and with equivalent protection of the main battle tank. Thus, the increased lethality of the modern battlefield is driving the demand for increased survivability of mechanized infantry. the implications of this are pregnant for NATO.
I can see two potential issues with that:

1) Because of its cavernous turret, the hull of AS90 is comparatively low - you’d probably have to lift the roof to comfortably fit a section in the back of an APC version.

2) The reason Israeli Heavy APCs work so well is that they are based on tank chassis - with significant protection built into the hull. By comparison, AS90 hull is quite thin. I can’t really see how it would be any better than a Warrior or upgraded Bulldog in that regard, given both are fitted with appliqué armour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NemoIII

Old-Salt
Especially when you consider only approx a total of 4 regiments of SPGs are required

If AS90 needs replacing it makes sense to go for a single type.

A tracked SPG can’t do the job in the Strike Bdes
Someone said that the Boxer RCH can fit on a AJAX. I'm not sure how easy it would be to actually make it fit. However if we still need/require tracked then AJAX RCH and BOXER RCH could be utilised cutting down on vehicle types and increasing commonality.
 
Fcuk me. where did i say using israeli stuff, instead of just their ideas?
What I was idylly suggesting was for all these unused AS90 hulls being talked about earlier in the thread to be repurposed into a copy of the israeli overarmouring of APCs because of this:

Declining Survivability of Light Infantry Vehicles
Having proclaimed the return of armor as a major and viable player on the future battlefield, we also need to add a severe caveat. Since the end of the Cold War, armies around the world have given increased emphasis to light Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV), which prioritizes mobility and fire-‐power over survivability. The evidence coming in from the Ukrainian conflict seriously questions the validity of that emphasis. The experience of the both sides in the Donbas highlights the vulnerability of these vehicles to the increased lethality of the artillery munitions as well as the proliferation of anti-‐tank weapons and medium-‐caliber (30mm) automatic cannons mounted on other light armored vehicles. But the big killer of IFVs is artillery sub-‐munitions and thermobaric warheads == when hit, these vehicle tend to suffer catastrophic damage, killing or severely burning everyone on board......
....The issue of disproportionate IFV vulnerability relative to the tank has been evident for over a decade as witnessed with Israel’s combat experience. And it is noteworthy that both Russia and Ukraine, in the last year, have began following the Israeli example, with newly announced heavy IFV designs based on a tank chassis and with equivalent protection of the main battle tank. Thus, the increased lethality of the modern battlefield is driving the demand for increased survivability of mechanized infantry. the implications of this are pregnant for NATO.
Quite - same idea, different hull.
 
I can see two potential issues with that:

1) Because of its cavernous turret, the hull of AS90 is comparatively low - you’d probably have to lift the roof to comfortably fit a section in the back of an APC version.

2) The reason Israeli Heavy APCs work so well is that they are based on tank chassis - with significant protection built into the hull. By comparison, AS90 hull is quite thin. I can’t really see how it would be any better than a Warrior or upgraded Bulldog in that regard, given both are fitted with appliqué armour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Brill.
1. Armoured Gurkhas?
2. ah, had a niggling suspicion that the baseline armour wouldn't have been frontline worthy; presumably the engine would have enough oomph to move extra armor instead of turret/gun, but that add on armour opens another can of worms.
Still, always there as "a break in case of war" excuse
 
Having talked to AAC aircrew on Eagle Strike, our AH 64s had better avionics and an engine with better hot and high capabilities.

One of my former Riflemen is currently flying one at RIAT, I'll drop him a line...
All true. Unfortunately we didn't upgrade the main rotor gearbox, which would have led to a even better machine, and probably us not needing the latest variant.
 
I think that there is some merit in looking at what will replace the upgraded Chellenger 2 and Warrior, but also how these replacements are maintained and upgraded throughout their service life.

Anything expected to operate in the direct fire area of a battlefield should expect to have similar protection, suitable for the threat environment it is intended to operate in. For an armoured battlegroup this would mean all vehicles should come in at a very similar weight - Gun tank, troop carrier, engineering, repair and recovery should all look at using common automotives and common electrical and electronic systems where possible - this way you could increase the numbers of things that you buy, instead of being restricted to just the number of tanks.

Equally, where things can be modular, they ought to be. Armour especially, if you have vehicles that can change their protection levels to cover a variety of situations without carrying protection that they don't need, youi don't need so many different vehicles. Buy more of the same and equip according to role. If you need a lighter and more deployable vehicle, don't fit the heavy armour. In some cases, you might even consider fitting a smaller gun. The troop carriers could come fitted for a ring mount that you could refit for protected weapon stations, remote weapons stations and remote turrets as the situation and finances dictate.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
not an SPG variant - If the turret is off and all the gunner gubbins has gone, it could be turned into a UK knock off/copy of the NAMER APC variant, i.e. upgraded & armoured replacement for Bulldog

E2A: one of that Ukrain lessons learned document's points was that APCs were too vulnerable now (lots of troops travelling on outside) and the israeli NAMER was mentioned as a better APC model to follow
My confusion as you quoted PhotEx's Post on SPGs
 
Everyone is busy with much more important things (CR2/Boxer/WCSP), I don't think there is anyone in the UK with the capacity and skills for any reasonable timeframe. If complete vehicle "son of M109" is picked then they will be hot off the US production line IMO.

If however AS90 base vehicle can handle the turret and firing strain of the 155mm 80 mile whopper the US is trying to develop then that's where things will head IMO. BAE will no doubt have a solution if asked (cheque books at the ready....)
Already done:

BAE Systems wins contract for Extended Range Cannon Artillery prototype
 

Latest Threads

Top