Warrior upgrade, take 3?

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by incendiarycutlery, Nov 18, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In the last couple of days, there has been a bit of news from two companies about an upgrade programme for Warrior:
    Lockheed Martin UK
    There's more meat to the BAESystem's press release, but the Lockheed Warrior was at DSEI.

    From the pictures available, the turrets of both vehicles seem to be much larger than the current turret. Both are stabilised and both have the same gun, so what's to choose between them, other than cost?

    From the numbers on the BAE release, it's about £1.55m for each upgraded vehicle. Is it worth spending that kind of money on what is essentially a 25 year old vehicle that will be closer to 30 by the time the upgrade starts?
  2. Especially to upgrade a component that isnt used in Herrick - a stabilised gun for firing on the move.
  3. Sorry,was under impression that Warrior was in theatre but only 1 companies worth at the moment but more might be placed in soon.
    Perhaps a better question is if we do get the new turrets in whatever format, how many of them will we get?Perhaps an oppurtunity for the government to mothball/place into long term storage/class as war stock a couple of battalions worth of warrior,declare those battalions light role untill the ever changing date for the arrival of FRES.
  4. The weapons systems have needed changing for a very long time.
  5. The french sent over a CTWS turret to Warminster back in 2004, and I had the mispleasure of the turret lift, and putting the new turret in, so some bigwigs could come and take a look at it. The weapon looked good (although very strange compared to the rarden). Different ammo select, and some gucci rotating block setup for the firing mech.

    The turret looked good, but it had one hell of a gap around the turret ring. Looked like an easy target, and definite weak point. No idea why it wasn't selected?
  6. Isn't that self-defeating logic? You don't fire on the move because you don't have a stabilised gun. You don't need a stabilised gun because you don't fire on the move.

    The numbers on BAE's release say 450 turreted and armed vehicles (510s and 511s). Will the army get the full amount? Will it get any after someone uses the "Not useful in Afghanistan" card? Should it really be replaced with something new designed from the ground up? I think that it will probably get some, though perhaps not the full numbers after someone works out some kind of "whole fleet management".
  7. Warrior has been around along time, I agree - but she is a reliable old horse;

    Gulf War 1
    Gulf War 2

    She may not be flavour of the month at the moment in Afg - but she is battle proven and the envy of quite a few other armies. I'm all for Op ENTIRETY - but she is worth keeping, we don't know when we'll need her again.

  8. With a stabilised gun they will be able (in theory) to fire quite accurately on the move. Although I'd like to watch that happen! From a safe distance.
  9. Agreed, anyone whose been in an Bradley or other armoured vehicle appreciate the Warrior more afterwards.
    And the fact it is battle proven again not in dispute or the fact we have been screaming for an upgraded turret since Bowman not in dispute.
    Warrior is certainly a vehicle we need to keep and upgrade,its to valuable a skill for the infantry to loose but is this just a short term upgrade before the arrival of FRES with its stabilised gun and space for Bowman.This could be an opppurtunity for the gov to reduce the overall numbers of warriors in the system and therefore creating less demand on an overstretched budget.
  10. If they upgrade Warrior with new turrets then I would imagine FRES just becomes more and more unlikely to appear
  11. Hasn't it allready been announced that this is to happen? Im sure I saw an article when I logged onto armynet a while back stating that a few AI battalions were reverting back to the light role, 4Scots being one of them IIRC. Typically I cant find the story on Armynet now.
  12. I didn't think that Warrior and FRES were in the same capability bracket. The FRES offerings seem to be cut-down IFVs stuffed full of comms and sensors, while Warrior is still the ride for the armoured infantry.

    The current FRES vehicles won't replace Warrior. Chances are the Warrior will still be in service as long as it has been already.
  13. Don't get me wrong - Warrior is in Herrick and doing a good job.

    They don't however need to fire the main armament on the move and that is what I meant by the component that is not even needed.
  14. I thought that's what you meant.

    Being as firing on the move with an unstabilised gun means you have a very poor chance of hitting and a very high chance of the rounds that miss going all over the shop, you wouldn't do it.

    I don't really understand how you can say that you don't need a capability because you don't use it, when you don't have the capability to use.

    If you do have the fire-on-the-move capability, then perhaps you might use it?

    Plus stabilisation usually comes along with computerised fire control, so the gunner gets better accuracy for less work, whether the vehicle is moving or not.
  15. Why don't they need to fire on the move?