Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

And as others have said repeatedly, it won’t work unless you make modifications so significant, you’d be better off starting with another vehicle - preferably an unadulterated ASCOD or CV90.

The best you could probably hope for is an ARES PMRS with an unmanned turret/RWS - and that’s a vehicle designed to take 4 in the back (maybe 6 at a squeeze).

If the problem is that we supposedly don’t have enough money for AJAX and Warrior CSP, then this certainly isn’t the answer, as you’d be paying for a shed load more NRE to develop that vehicle, on top of a higher unit cost than Warrior CSP...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Depends on cost benefit of Warrior soldier on/WCSP (and then replace)
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Think you have me mistaken mate, I was AAW / radar. I can wax lyrical about 967 auto tracking on seawolf but- my marine engineering knowledge extends little beyond a bit of HQ1 watchkeeping.
Sorry, working from memory - I knew we had a knowledgeable stoker around, remembered wrong who it was.

967, GWS25 and FOTI0405A, them was the days...
 
Sorry, working from memory - I knew we had a knowledgeable stoker around, remembered wrong who it was.

967, GWS25 and FOTI0405A, them was the days...
Ah for the days of resetting DLPP in the fwd tracker!
 
And as others have said repeatedly, it won’t work unless you make modifications so significant, you’d be better off starting with another vehicle - preferably an unadulterated ASCOD or CV90.

The best you could probably hope for is an ARES PMRS with an unmanned turret/RWS - and that’s a vehicle designed to take 4 in the back (maybe 6 at a squeeze).

If the problem is that we supposedly don’t have enough money for AJAX and Warrior CSP, then this certainly isn’t the answer, as you’d be paying for a shed load more NRE to develop that vehicle, on top of a higher unit cost than Warrior CSP...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you took all the racking out of an Ares and fit seats you could easily double the number of dismounts.
 
If you took all the racking out of an Ares and fit seats you could easily double the number of dismounts.

And with everything an infantry section currently carry, could you still stow everything you need?

...and then you’ve still got the real problem (which inevitably comes down to money) of integrating a new weapons system (assuming you want one), and building more chassis to replace the Warriors you already have in 4/6 x AI Bns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
If you're just reading the brochures and Wikipedia it's an attractive option for a "Striker Plus" overwatch capability. Brimstone's good kit but it's no more the complete, total answer than - say - Exactor is, and "stick Brimstone on random vehicles" isn't a practical solution outside of (relatively basic) wargames.
Ah, someone's taken the hint. :)
 

CamNostos

Old-Salt
Can't see that, even now, deleting big turrent and replacing it with flat plate or smaller turret would be a huge engineering challenge. Of course, the problem would be "Wtih what?" - see numberous previous threads.

Fragrant support troop is an interesting one. Original purpose was for them to mount night OPs while sabre troops rested (back in the days when night fighting was a challenge). Metamorphosed into assault pioneer types - which is fine until you consider the amount of stuff (mines, chainsaws, RCKs, explosives etc) they required and the small volume of Spartan. Especially if filled wiht the reservists who were supposed to turn up on promulgation of Queen's Order 2 (=mobilisation for Armageddon). Hence tendency of Spartan to have bloody great cage on roof. We looked a trailers when I was in Wolfenbuttel, but I can't recall that getting sorted before the wall came down.

At formation level then the problem with Sp Tp was getting it to where it was needed. Sqn frontage some 10km or more. Sp Tp moving in two 2 vehicle sections. Still has at least 5 km to move.

Has anyone asked me, an extra bod in back of a recce vehicle is a huge boon. Otherwise the commander is swanning about alone when dismounted to have a look round a corner. Also v useful to have someone watching rear (a la Luchs) with extra skills (and, in modern world I would argue) with a Javelin for opportunity targets. And of course if working as 2 vehicle sections the extra men bringing total to 8 would have massive boon on fatigue management.

Not sure that Sp Tp is actually that valuable. Sure in defence a few early, minor demolitions and (possibly) a dismounted ambush. In advance less benefit. (This may well be recce heresy, so if you do object please come back with evidence of what you can actually do with a Sp Tp, as opposed to what you could do with the bodies/kit/ability dispersed to every troop).
Interesting post. Can only speak for Lt Cav but it’s as you said now we’ve got 4th seaters. A sqn will have three Find Tp and one Sp Tp. It’s used more or less solely as a dismountable Jav Det with maybe a sharpshooter or possibly sniper pair and only one Jav post. In my opinion a sub standard solution after losing formed GW/Sniper Tp but does provide some flexibility/survivability in a Sqn.
 
When I was at Bovvy we were shown the user manual for Spartan.

Designed to carry 7: a crew of 3 plus a fire team of dismounts.

The pictures showed them all sitting to attention in the back in their Mk 4 helmets and wearing 58 pattern CEFO, their large packs slung behind them.

Couldn’t fit a fag paper between them of course.

I found it a bit cramped with a sapper recce team of 3.

It should never have been more than 4 in my eyes. If you went for a cabby then fine but with all the kit and living on it then no. Also they put a huge rack in for the javelin misses where your feet went and then another rack for a missile for the only sort of free space you had inside (if you were sat on the bench the space you face in your eye line). I always seemed to get half the bloody regiments rugby team in my troop. At one stage I had 3 lads who were all over 6'4 in my crew.
 
Brimstone is not only fire-and-forget with much longer range,, but can do autonomous search and engagement - so, in theory you could volley Brimstone from defilade along the FLOT (well, along the enemy's side of it) with the missiles autonomously seeking, prioritising and engaging targets - the original intent of Staff Requirement (Air) 1238, where aircraft could lob Brimstone at enemy tank formations from a safe(r) standoff range rather than having to overfly them with BL755, turning "sorties per tank killed" into "tanks killed per sortie".

Or, send salvoes after an identified enemy armour concentration, again with rather more range and no line-of-sight issues (probably safer if there's a risk the forces are intermixing).

Of course that was all in the "total war" days back when tactical nuclear weapons were the next step for stopping massed enemy armour if the conventional weapons failed, and the safety case for lobbing an autonomous missile that's relying on a 94GHz radar and some smart algorithms to pick its target might be harder to make in these less permissive days of "low collateral" and "lawfare". Direct fire Brimstone would probably need to be DMSB with laser designation, which is back to longer exposure while 'someone' guides it in.

If you're just reading the brochures and Wikipedia it's an attractive option for a "Striker Plus" overwatch capability. Brimstone's good kit but it's no more the complete, total answer than - say - Exactor is, and "stick Brimstone on random vehicles" isn't a practical solution outside of (relatively basic) wargames.
Agreed! IMHO, the reason Brimstone keeps popping up as an option is because there is probably a pile of legacy Brimstone (guided by a radar that says to itself "ooh that looks kind of like a Warsaw Pact armoured vehicle of some sort, let's go kill it") rotting away in a shed somewhere. The reality is that they were a great idea in a Cold War "there's nothing out there but the Russkies" sort of way, but they are nowhere near discriminating enough for the modern battlefield.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
e reason Brimstone keeps popping up as an option
I understand that the ability to kill Warsaw Pact missiles via Brimstone (or some-such) was part of the justification for Typhoon.

Merlin, the 81mm anti armour round was where it all started, although given range of 81mm and distance behind FEBA of baseplates the whole IFF thing might have got a tad tricky.

Cue debate about 120mm mortars
 

Majorpain

War Hero
Of course that was all in the "total war" days back when tactical nuclear weapons were the next step for stopping massed enemy armour if the conventional weapons failed, and the safety case for lobbing an autonomous missile that's relying on a 94GHz radar and some smart algorithms to pick its target might be harder to make in these less permissive days of "low collateral" and "lawfare". Direct fire Brimstone would probably need to be DMSB with laser designation, which is back to longer exposure while 'someone' guides it in.

If you're just reading the brochures and Wikipedia it's an attractive option for a "Striker Plus" overwatch capability. Brimstone's good kit but it's no more the complete, total answer than - say - Exactor is, and "stick Brimstone on random vehicles" isn't a practical solution outside of (relatively basic) wargames.
However in a peer war scenario, for which it was after all designed, it does provide some interesting options at the tactical level, which is why I found it exciting to see it on the RTR CR2 demo vehicle. CR2 wouldn't just be able to attrit enemy armour within direct fire range, but also 10k+ and in dead ground. That sort of ability would be a tad detrimental to enemy tanker morale IMO, its far superior to the Russian Beam riders.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
However in a peer war scenario, for which it was after all designed, it does provide some interesting options at the tactical level, which is why I found it exciting to see it on the RTR CR2 demo vehicle. CR2 wouldn't just be able to attrit enemy armour within direct fire range, but also 10k+ and in dead ground. That sort of ability would be a tad detrimental to enemy tanker morale IMO, its far superior to the Russian Beam riders.
(Ignoring the penetration issues of CR2, if they are current) I'm really struggling to think of an occasion when for a direct fire shot I would chose slow ATGW over APFSDS. In the world of active defence systems the decision is even more heavily in favour of APFSDS.

Range might be an issue - but why would I want to expose my MBT to retaliatory fire and / or HE. Better surely to pass target to (say) AH or indirect fire and wait for range to get to 2,000m or so and then get off 3 or 4 rounds and move.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
(Ignoring the penetration issues of CR2, if they are current) I'm really struggling to think of an occasion when for a direct fire shot I would chose slow ATGW over APFSDS. In the world of active defence systems the decision is even more heavily in favour of APFSDS.

Range might be an issue - but why would I want to expose my MBT to retaliatory fire and / or HE. Better surely to pass target to (say) AH or indirect fire and wait for range to get to 2,000m or so and then get off 3 or 4 rounds and move.
I think it's a case of each having its place.

There's definitely a place for something like Exactor. The debate is whether the carrier/launch vehicle is an MBT.

I'd suggest not.
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
(Ignoring the penetration issues of CR2, if they are current) I'm really struggling to think of an occasion when for a direct fire shot I would chose slow ATGW over APFSDS. In the world of active defence systems the decision is even more heavily in favour of APFSDS.

Range might be an issue - but why would I want to expose my MBT to retaliatory fire and / or HE. Better surely to pass target to (say) AH or indirect fire and wait for range to get to 2,000m or so and then get off 3 or 4 rounds and move.
Agree, there seems to be an emphasis to look at each of the platforms in isolation and to try and have them do everything. What is going to give the best survivability/lethality is how well the IFV's MBT's, AH and others operate in a combined arms environment. Let the MBT's do what they are designed for rather than stacking other bits on for minimal gain or sacrifice of other capability. I definitely believe there is a need for a ground based long range AT platform to provide the umbrella or outer layer the MBT's IFV's. As CC posted above it is just working out what system and on what platform/s.
 

TamH70

MIA
Agree, there seems to be an emphasis to look at each of the platforms in isolation and to try and have them do everything. What is going to give the best survivability/lethality is how well the IFV's MBT's, AH and others operate in a combined arms environment. Let the MBT's do what they are designed for rather than stacking other bits on for minimal gain or sacrifice of other capability. I definitely believe there is a need for a ground based long range AT platform to provide the umbrella or outer layer the MBT's IFV's. As CC posted above it is just working out what system and on what platform/s.

Mibbies something like a more distant fires-focused version of this?

 

Majorpain

War Hero
(Ignoring the penetration issues of CR2, if they are current) I'm really struggling to think of an occasion when for a direct fire shot I would chose slow ATGW over APFSDS. In the world of active defence systems the decision is even more heavily in favour of APFSDS.

Range might be an issue - but why would I want to expose my MBT to retaliatory fire and / or HE. Better surely to pass target to (say) AH or indirect fire and wait for range to get to 2,000m or so and then get off 3 or 4 rounds and move.
Direct fire no, but thinning enemy ranks before they close to direct fire range is always preferable no? And its not like you can ask a missile what it was fired from, that's if you even see it before something explodes.

The main problem isn't its firing an MBT, its that it would make Tobias Ellwood right. "Abrahams" "Challenger 3".

 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Direct fire no, but thinning enemy ranks before they close to direct fire range is always preferable no? And its not like you can ask a missile what it was fired from, that's if you even see it before something explodes.

The main problem isn't its firing an MBT, its that it would make Tobias Ellwood right. "Abrahams" "Challenger 3".

Thinning fire is fine. But Exactor, for instance, comes on a trailer.

You don't need an MBT for the task. More to the point, if you don't use MBTs then by the time they encounter the enemy they've still got full ammunition racks... useful that.
 

Latest Threads

Top