Warrior Bridge Layer

#1
Whats the story with this then

Britain’s Ministry of De­fence is looking at recycling an existing armored vehicle to give it a new combat support role. Evaluation should begin this summer.

BAE Systems has already built a static demonstrator with its own money, and has developed an interface allowing the vehicle to switch from bridge-laying to operating with a mine plow, dozer blade or excavator arm.
Uk; MoD ponders modifying Warrior Infantry Vehicle to Bridge layer
 
#2
I assume.......possibly incorrectly, that it'll be a modified 512/513 variant? Though, who knows. It will be interesting to see.
 
#3
There was upposed to be a bridgelayer in the FRES SV family.

Perhaps common sense has dictated that we could just mod an existing vehicle, rather than than spend uber-bucks developing a new one...

Now, about Warrior and Scout sharing a common turret...just how much difference are we going to see? Warrior as CVR(T) for 21st Century perhaps!
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#4
There was upposed to be a bridgelayer in the FRES SV family.
Sorry for being silly, but the idea of a bridgelayer is that it should be able to lay a bridge for all classes of vehicle, or by inference are we to assume that MOD has already decided to phase out CR2, be a shame to leave the Trojans on the wrong side of the river also.

And to coin the old joke, there was supposed to be FRES also.
 
#5
And what, pray tell, the **** is wrong with 'Fascine, Pipe, Mini?' 9 rubber pipes held together with two lengths of chain held on to the wagon with 2 lengths of chain, dumped by some acute driving and the quick release of the commander. Cost-next to **** all
 
#6
Sorry for being silly, but the idea of a bridgelayer is that it should be able to lay a bridge for all classes of vehicle, or by inference are we to assume that MOD has already decided to phase out CR2, be a shame to leave the Trojans on the wrong side of the river also.

And to coin the old joke, there was supposed to be FRES also.
I never really understood whether the SV 'family' was simply there to allow the future BRR to operate entirely independantly, or whether this was part of the wider rapidly-deployable 'medium armour' wankfest that got everyone excited in the early part of the last decade...

And I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't really understand either...
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#7
And what, pray tell, the **** is wrong with 'Fascine, Pipe, Mini?' 9 rubber pipes held together with two lengths of chain held on to the wagon with 2 lengths of chain, dumped by some acute driving and the quick release of the commander. Cost-next to **** all
ealth and safety, the pipes were not bio-degradeable.
 
#8
Given the number of occasions where the Warrior has been the heaviest vehicle we have deployed; a Warrior bridge-layer laying a Warrior sized bridge makes some sense.

The problem is that discarding the Warrior's turret does not save as much weight as the bridge is likely to weigh. So either we have to find some other way of saving weight, or the bridge layer will be overloaded.

Laying the bridge backwards would also be a good idea, that way the engine helps counter balance the deploying bridge.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#9
Given the number of occasions where the Warrior has been the heaviest vehicle we have deployed; a Warrior bridge-layer laying a Warrior sized bridge makes some sense.

The problem is that discarding the Warrior's turret does not save as much weight as the bridge is likely to weigh. So either we have to find some other way of saving weight, or the bridge layer will be overloaded.

Laying the bridge backwards would also be a good idea, that way the engine helps counter balance the deploying bridge.
You mean; accept for Trojan.
 
#11
is bridging SV on the very back burner then?

This seems to me to a be a reaction to the fact that we are replacing a 10 tonne vehicle with a 30 tonne vehicle and there has been a bot of an 'oh shit' moment when realised that in order to do the recce role SV Scout will now need the assistance of an armoured engineer squadron or three and we dont have enough to go round. This being a gap filler

Would have thought a Terrier bridgelayer would have been more sensible though
 
#14
is bridging SV on the very back burner then?
I really don't know - the whole FRES programme seems to be in state of 'flux' (or should that be 'fluckxed'') at the moment...

This seems to me to a be a reaction to the fact that we are replacing a 10 tonne vehicle with a 30 tonne vehicle and there has been a bot of an 'oh shit' moment when realised that in order to do the recce role SV Scout will now need the assistance of an armoured engineer squadron or three and we dont have enough to go round. This being a gap filler
The gap crossing requirement doesn't really have anything to do with weight, more the gap itself. Like I said, I'm not sure if this is a recognition that a BRR operating by itself would always need augmentation to be truly mobile (an observation from WW2 was that the tactical and operational mobility of reconnissance units was often limited by lack of engineer assets), or whether its part of a plan to develop a 'lighter' medium-weight BG.

Would have thought a Terrier bridgelayer would have been more sensible though
Terrier is not really designed to operate in the direct-fire battle, so I wouldn't want to be cabbying about in one up front at the sharp end...
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#15
We have not deployed Trojan every time we have deployed Warrior, and how much better that Terrier is Trojan anyway?
No idea, I used to drive over the bridges not lay them. But it would be a bit silly to have brige layers laying bridges that could not, for example take a Leo or Abrams, AS90, MLRS, etc., given that these have been deployed at times when our MBT and other big things like Trojan have not.
 
#16
Could a WR AVLB not carry a Bridge capable of supporting a CR2 or similar?
 
#17
are there any pictures of this about, an intensive google search only brings up a stormer bridgelayer, which is slightly ironic as most of those are in withams getting sold or in storage probably waiting to get sold!!!
 
#18
Could a WR AVLB not carry a Bridge capable of supporting a CR2 or similar?
Yes, if the span was short enough. For a given weight; the stronger the bridge needs to be, the shorter it will be.

However, if you are going to deploy CR2 you might as well deploy Titan. A Warrior bridge-layer only makes sense if that is the heaviest vehicle you are deploying.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#19
The FRES Man Sp variants have been deleted to save money in the Land equipment programme, so the WR bridgelayer is a concept to provide a "medium weight" AVLB, with TERRIER filling the medium weight AVRE role. Prototypes exist, and it works pretty well. But it is currently unfunded, so may never come to fruition.

T2 remain in the inventory to support heavy armour and operate in the direct fire zone if required.
 
#20
Yes, if the span was short enough. For a given weight; the stronger the bridge needs to be, the shorter it will be.

However, if you are going to deploy CR2 you might as well deploy Titan. A Warrior bridge-layer only makes sense if that is the heaviest vehicle you are deploying.
I was thinking more on the lines that we deploya a WR sized fleet, whilst our allies deploy a CR sized fleet.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
scotscop OTC and ACF 29
Smoke_T_Bigfella REME 9
woopert The Intelligence Cell 8

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top