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!

Will MOD Cancel Warrior CSP?

"We're going to carry on being almost the only people using an IFV that doesn't have ATGW on it, because we know better than everyone else and our uber-super-duper gun will kill everything you'd need an antitank missile to kill except for actual tanks..."

If you want to kill tanks, use a tank.

If you want a tank to kill an IFV, use a turret mounted ATGM.

If you want a IFV to kill a tank, use ATGM toting Foxhounds.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If you want to kill tanks, use a tank.

If you want a tank to kill an IFV, use a ATGM.

If you want a IFV to kill a tank, use ATGM toting Foxhounds.

If you wanna kill a tank use

download (1).jpg
 
We cut up and melted down 100 hulls that could have been re purposed. A vehicle that would have weighed what, 15t less than the original with loads of room for batteries, computers etc and the running gear lasting longer. Plus you could carry loads of beer. Oh yeah and a 3 man person crew.
But what would have been the military utility?
I'm not sure that "tracked beer barge" is an official capacity.

You could also have used some of those hulls for messing around with power train and running gear experiments, or a whole bunch of other things
 
If you wanna kill a tank use

View attachment 289938

As long as you can guarantee dedicated close air support assets overhead throughout your land campaign.

And the enemy has no credible SHORAD.

And the targets are not hidden amongst ground clutter.

And there are no higher priority targets on the commander's 'to-do' list.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
But what would have been the military utility?
I'm not sure that "tracked beer barge" is an official capacity.

You could also have used some of those hulls for messing around with power train and running gear experiments, or a whole bunch of other things
We would not have had needed Scout basically. We would have a very well protected heavy recce vehicle with exceptional mobility. The idea is not as daft as it seems to those of us who watched West German recce in action; the enormous Luchs and Leo1 in support.
 
Will MOD Cancel Warrior CSP?

When the Warrior IFV entered service in the mid 1980s it was in many ways a revolutionary vehicle for the British Army but it had flaws that were created by the attitudes prevailing in the MoD from the late 70s onward. It had a semi-automatic 30mm gun, which while it was a vast improvement on the GPMG on the FV432 it worked on a 3 round clip. Was this a legacy of the prevailing view in the MoD that machine guns apart automatic weapons were to be avoided? Just remember a previous generation of middle ranking officers had downgraded the FN Fal to produce the less capable semi-automatic SLR because Tommy Atkins couldn’t be trusted with an automatic weapon. This 1950s attitude also meant that Warrior lacked basic sensible equipment such as air-conditioning as the chaps didn’t deserve it, or waterproof clothing, or decent boots.

Fast forward until Warrior has been in service 20 years and a combination of mission creep and UORs has increased Warrior’s in service weight by 10 tons, the poor old girl is gasping and panting in a series of desert conflicts she was ill designed to fight. The decision was taken to upgrade Warrior, give her a few new toys and a decent modern automatic gun. If you watch what has happened here you may notice the officers taking this decision are two generations on and have spent their careers using the SA80 with its automatic capability, introduced around the same time as Warrior.

Now here is where MOD herd mentality came into play. The fashionable view at the MoD was referred to as the ABB policy, “Anybody But BAE Systems.” DE&S staff were guilty of muttering in the coffee bars and meeting rooms that BAE Systems stood for Big & Expensive and they “needed teaching a lesson” Over the previous 50 years all the major national defence industrial businesses had agreed, unofficially, to take the public blame when programmes were late into service and over budget. That these delays and cost over-runs were frequently caused by the MoD and armed forces changing the requirement half way through the design and build rarely reached the press. Look at the F35 catapult debacle for example. Now the scene was set for an ill thought out cake and arse party motivated by spite.

Over the next few years programmes that logic dictated were in the bag for BAE Systems got strangely awarded to companies with little experience of the job in hand or capability on shore for example Ajax went to a company that didn’t have a UK factory to build it. Jackal series production went to a shipyard (the only defence capable UK shipyard not controlled by BAE Systems!) Virtus was awarded to an Israeli company that had never made military load carriage but were famous for sandals and Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) went to Lockheed Martin at Ampthill. Shortly before Lockheed Martin bought Insys at Ampthill it had been publicly shamed by the cancellation of the Soothsayer project; a programme so grossly mismanaged by the team at Amphill now operating under the Lockheed Martin banner.

Meanwhile in a quiet shed in France BAE Systems (Hiss! Boo!) and Nexter of France had been working on a Anglo-French Government funded research programme to build CTA40, a twin feed automatic 40mm weapon using innovative cased telescoped ammunition. This gave a weapon that could fire and switch between armour piercing or airburst without ceasing fire.

France and the UK commenced vehicle programmes at roughly the same time. The French specified CTA40 onto their EBRC Jaguar vehicle, while the UK MoD specified only the specified parts of CTA40 made by Nexter out of spiteful determination to deny BAE Systems any work. This Nexter only variant was also specified onto the General Dynamics Ajax vehicle giving Lockheed Martin two turret contracts for the price of one. All Ampthill had to do was build two versions of the turret and make a new ammunition feed and ancillaries. So all the UK millions invested in developing CTA40 had subsidised the French in acquiring a shiny new 40mm weapon and Ampthill had to start again using components that they didn’t design or understand.


The first version of the Warrior CSP turret was too small and the gun didn’t fit, the second version is vastly overweight and the new Lockheed Martin-Nexter CTA40 can only fire when stationary unless you want to risk a jam. The version of the turret for Ajax is 2 tonnes above specified weight plus having the gun that doesn’t work. Both programmes are now years late with no solution to make the turrets work. The French Jaguar vehicle is now in service.

When you factor in BREXIT and the fall in the value of Sterling the MOD equipment budget is suddenly in trouble. UK manufactured equipment has barely changed in price but overseas equipment is 15-10% more expensive than it was 18 months ago. The MOD desperately needs to cancel some projects and push the costs out by 5-7 years in order to trim its sails.

An obvious candidate programme is the now over budget, over weight, non-functioning Warrior CSP. For a fraction of the CSP budget the MOD can drop the Ampthill white elephant, do a quick and dirty refresh on some basic Warrior systems and win itself a breathing space in which to force the original BAE Systems-Nexter CTA40 into Ajax. Everyone saves face except Lockheed at Ampthill and in 2023 the MOD can announce either a second purchase of Ajax Mk2 or more likely a fleet replacement of CV90s when the ABB mob have retired.

In the meantime we will be able to judge how many ABB officers remain when we learn the identity of the preferred bidder for the Challenger 2 upgrade, another one where BAE Systems should have it in the bag.
Well if you will insist on it having to be UK designed and built!!
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
As long as you can guarantee dedicated close air support assets overhead throughout your land campaign.

And the enemy has no credible SHORAD.

And the targets are not hidden amongst ground clutter.

And there are no higher priority targets on the commander's 'to-do' list.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But a mere bagatelle my boy, a mere bagatelle
 
Yanks don't seem to be in much of a hurry over Bradley; they have just paid out $50m for suspension and belly plate upgrades to be completed by April 2019 for 276 vehicles. They don't have any turret proposals; I was surprised that they have various marques of turrets co-existing.
 
Yanks don't seem to be in much of a hurry over Bradley; they have just paid out $50m for suspension and belly plate upgrades to be completed by April 2019 for 276 vehicles. They don't have any turret proposals; I was surprised that they have various marques of turrets co-existing.

I think they're just waiting to see what comes of NGCV.

If that doesn't look like it'll work out, they'll probably press on with longer-term Bradley sustainment, which might include fitting the 30/40mm XM813 or the 35/50mm Bushy III.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
The a4(?) has fire and forget ATGM I believe.

And they have a ally RWS on Warhammer(?) turret.


I want to know what weapons the Game of Thrones turret has mounted...
 
The a4(?) has fire and forget ATGM I believe.

And they have a ally RWS on Warhammer(?) turret.

Still using TOW, I believe.

Stryker is getting Jav on an RWS, which is fire-and-forget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Also 40mm CTA isn't Thors' Hammer. It is 40mm calibre ammunition with all of the capabilities and weaknesses of such a calibre.
100% agree, we should have looked at having a Normandy solution (as in the firefly) fit one in every platoon with a bfo 90mm gun and leave out the troops in favour of a hull full of ammo. Allow the BG to use as needed, a company attack with 4 in fire support mode or as a screen against nasty men in bunkers.
Arm the other three wagons with either twin 20mm or twin .5 and have these for shredding enemy dismounts, soft vehicles or anything else sporting. Rarden wasn't restricted to a 3 round clip by dint of the Crusty old CGS but by the fact that in CVR (W) and (T) you really would have struggled to fit anything else into the tiny fecking turrets.
 
See, this is the kind of stuff that clearly makes amateur military enthusiasts and Defence blogs go weak at the knees, doubtless sounds impressive to politicians and civil servants, but has no practical purpose to soldiers. It sounds like the kind of vastly expensive overengineering which is killing our equipment programmes.

If that is the only selling point for this piece of kit, then if it's been ignored, good. Explain exactly what the use case is for a 40mm that can switch seamlessly from anti-armour to anti-personnel fire? Is this some ARMA (sorry, VBS) type Cold War virtual scenario where we go weapons free against an enemy attacking in massed tank and infantry formations, like happens in all our exercises and none of anyone's wars since forever? Perhaps using anti-armour rounds to punch a hole in, say, a building and then fire airbursts into the mix?

Real weapons in real wars are used by soldiers, who have human reaction times, rules of engagement, and have to make decisions. Anything that isn't fully automated (no "killing" weapons are, only anti-projectile ones) which operates faster than those core times is a waste of resources. I genuinely cannot think of any realistic scenario where the weapon you describe is likely to be required. At the most basic level, even firing on an IDed enemy static armour + infantry defensive position would require the gunner to fire in bursts, simply for ammunition conservation. Possibly the only real scenario I could think of in which this would have some use would be a single enemy tank advancing in an urban road with close infantry support, and in that case, it is being built for the wrong country: I can't imagine UK ROE which would allow airburst over direct fire in that situation, for fear of accidentally brassing up civilians in the buildings. Moreover, "close infantry support" usually isn't so close as to necessitate seamless fire at one target, because these days there are standoff distances to patrolling with armour, lest you get liquefied by the pressure shock of your own armour's main gun firing, a lesson the US learned in Fallujah when they tried to emulate WW2 / Vietnam tactics and take cover directly behind modern tanks with vastly more powerful guns.

This could go on, but the point is: this is at best a feature of incredibly limited use in practice. Imagine if, instead, BAE had proposed and focused on a 40mm weapon that was X times lighter, had Y more ammunition capacity, was Z time more reliable or easier to maintain, or cost a fraction of the price so the soldiers who used it could also have a range of other kit they need. That would be something any real soldier might get excited about.

It may be that you have described it poorly, or the thing has other useful qualities. But if you are going to write a puff piece about a piece of kit / BAE on these forums, it might be worth doing it about something that has some obvious practical military use.


Super Forty - NIH
 
Also 40mm CTA isn't Thors' Hammer. It is 40mm calibre ammunition with all of the capabilities and weaknesses of such a calibre.

Edited to add - nice one @Sarastro


No! No! No! Repeat after me, and it's in the powerpoints....

'40CTA can defeat previous generation MBT's'

Wut? You don't believe Warrior or Ajax with a 40mm gat can go toe to toe with T55's and T72's?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
BAE, you say?

Read the timeframe referred to in this article.

Tank Goodness, At Last: Army, BAE Roll Out AMPV To Replace 56-Year Old M113

More to the point, look at the levels of pragmatism involved.

Probably a more relevant observation than the much-posted and viewed Pentagon Wars video about the Bradley.

My point? That there is a need for good-quality systems that are better than the enemy's/enemies'. But the Americans do seem in this case to have realised that silver-bullet solutions are not the answer. We should watch and learn.

Or - gasp - just buy some.
 

Latest Threads

Top