Warrior firepower upgrade moves ahead

[big bad john]

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw060512_1_n.shtml

Warrior firepower upgrade moves ahead

By Christopher F Foss Jane's Land Forces Contributing Editor
London

Following on from the Warrior Lethality Improvement Programme (WLIP) industry day held earlier in 2006 at the BAE Systems Land Systems facility at Telford, the UK's Defence Procurement Agency has now received the pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ) from a number of potential turret contractors.

The UK is seeking a new two-person turret for the Warrior infantry combat vehicle (ICV) armed with a stabilised cannon with a calibre of at least 35 mm. The requirement is for the weapon to be aimed and fired under day or night conditions with a high first-round hit probability while the Warrior is on the move. The selected turret must be capable of being integrated into the Warrior with the minimum of chassis modifications.

For operations in Iraq some Warriors have already been fitted with an enhanced level of protection. Also, Warrior is already being fitted with the General Dynamics UK Bowman digital communications system and the Thales Battlegroup Thermal Imaging System under separate contracts.

The British Army has taken delivery of 789 Warrior ICVs, with final deliveries taking place in 1995. Under existing plans it is expected that a total of 449 Warriors will be upgraded under WLIP with another 125/150 converted into Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would the Bradely turret drop in?

 

[George Wallace]

That depends.  Has NATO standardized its' Turret Ring Sizes (like standard NATO ammo)?

I don't think our various manufacturers of AFVs have beat the major Auto manufactures to the standardization of automotive parts and designs.

 

[chanman]

That depends.  Has NATO standardized its' Turret Ring Sizes (like standard NATO ammo)?

I don't think our various manufacturers of AFVs have beat the major Auto manufactures to the standardization of automotive parts and designs.

The turret on the export Desert Warriors look a LOT like the LAV and Bradly Delco turrets, although it looks like they have one TOW on each side instead of having them both on the same side like the Bradley.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm not saying it can not be done.  It can, with extensive modifications to the hull.  Would the expense be worth it?

 

[Red 6]

The Bradley turret systems are awful complex. I don't know that every Warrior would need to be equipped with a TOW launcher. The subfloor housing on the Bradley turret has so many black boxes shoehorned into it, that it looks like an old lady's closet floor. I'm not sure we want to foist that on our British Army buddies. :argument:

 

[chanman]

I'm not saying it can not be done.  It can, with extensive modifications to the hull.  Would the expense be worth it?

Ah, here's what I meant.  I'm not sure how similar they are, but the turret of the Warriors built for Kuwait uses both the Bushmaster and the TOW

Looks almost exactly like this Pirahna turret.

Oddly enough, since BAE bought out United Defence, the Bradley and Warrior are now made by the same company.

 

[Red 6]

Well, what do you know about that. You learn something new every day. Thanks for the intel.

 

[ArmyRick]

The Kuwaiti warrior uses a Delco turret. It is basically the same as the LAV25, Coyote, LAVIII, etc, etc.  It has the two additional TOW launchers on each side.  This in my opinion would have been a better choice for a LAV TOW vehicle rather than just rehashing the M113 TUA.

 

[Kirkhill]

Red 6, how did you make out with the sighting problems of the TOWs on the Bradleys?

Others have commented in the past about how the vibrations from the Bushmaster knocked the TOW sights out of alignment.  It has also been suggested that much of that problem goes away with the newer generation of Fire and Forget missiles that incorporate the seekers on the missiles.  Javelin and Spike come to mind.

 

[Red 6]

I served for about 8 years and never experienced problems with the TOW boresight being off. The big thing with the TOW launcher was you had to be on fairly level ground to fire it. There was a TOW leveling bubble on the left side of the turret next to the gunner's elbow. If the track was on pretty much any sort of cant, missle firing was a No Go. I wonder if the missile elctronics are more reliable today as compared to my time (ancient history now.) As I recall, we would boresight the launcher to the TOW cross, which was fixed in the Integrated Sight Unit. It was the opposite with the 25mm. You zeroed the sight to the gun. Some of you current scouts help me out? I'm pretty sure the mechanics are the same for the LAV 25.

death before dismount!

 

[Kirkhill]

Many thanks for the answer Red 6.

 

[chanman]

Well, what do you know about that. You learn something new every day. Thanks for the intel.

I've been wondering how modular those light turrets are - there seem to be an aweful lot of different ones available from the 20/25/30mm cannon up to 90mm guns, and they seem to show up on Pirahnas, LAV-150's and such.  Since the turrets all look fairly similar - and in some cases are the same (on the global defence website, http://www.global-defence.com/2000/pages/delco.html lists the LAV-25 TOW turret, 30mm cannon, and 120mm turret, and notes the 25mm/TOW combo ".fully integrates the TOW capability, including TOW thermal sight and controls, and is integrated with Piranha, Warrior, M113, Al-Fahd..."

Since it doesn't seem like the Pirahna, Warrior, and M113 were designed with fitting the turrets in mind, how much work does it take to install one of them, and how severe are the effects on CoG, weight, and structural strength (after cutting the hole in the roof and all)?

 

[couchcommander]

dumb question time...

With the DND using a bunch of the coyotes as DFSV's (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehcoyo2.htm)... why don't they put TOW (or Spike) equipped Delco (or Rafael RCWS-30 for Spike) turrets on them for now, and then transfer the turrets to some new production LAV III's as they come available (preferably the ones that would have been destined for the LAV TUA project), and then return the DFSV coyotes to their originally intended, and high demand, roles (preferably with a mid life upgrade to maintain their technological edge)?

The result is a near immediately available DFSV with some serious teeth that will soon share a common platform with the rest of the LAV fleet, more surveillance Coyotes, and the replacement of the old TUA turrets (it's my understanding the ones being used were just taken off of the old M113).

Use of the Spike would be good as it's specifications at least look impressive, especially on the Rafael RWS with the 30 mm cannon (I have no experience at all with them in operation... comments?), and it would make a great candidate to replace the Eryx and TOW providing commonality to all land forces (various articles have been talking about it being used in against light aircraft as well, a good capability for a DFSV to have given the emergence of UAV's). This is all built using existing and availible technology.

But yea.. dumb question, fire away.

 

[chanman]

Does TUA allow it to be reloaded under armour?  Red 6 would know better, but it seems the external TOW launchers on the turrets with the 25mm cannon need the crew to be exposed during reloading.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Couch,

The Coyote DFSV program was pretty much summed up a couple of years ago.  Our Coyote DFSV Sqn converted to tanks in 2002 before converting to Recce in 2003.  In my last year at the Regiment we were busy re-converting the DFSV'd Coyotes back to their Mast or Remote role.  We do a lot of converting.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bolting missiles on our LAVs and Coyotes.  Given our current war I'm not sure if its a pressing concern. The 25mm cannon is a damn fine weapon on its own out here.

One problem with putting air defence measures on all vehicles is the airspace coord nightmare that that creates.  Since the flying machines are on our team, I'd rather not increase their anxiety about us folks down on the ground.

Cheers,

2B

 

[couchcommander]

Good to hear re: the coyotes..

And good points with the air defence (though I assume anyone in A-stan wouldn't generally shoot at aircraft, given that the insurgents don't have any I am aware of).

Rest of the question still stands though - why not use either a Delco TOW equipped turret or (from the specs sheets, preferably) a Rafael 30 mm with Spike RWS and produce a more capable and versatile platform than LAV TUA (ie make a LAV DFSV....and leave the MGS's to watch from a far away road where they most suited IMO...)?

The missiles, IMO, could be useful in A-stan for precise fire support given the issues with using artillery and mortars that have been pointed out to me (air support is there, but not always on scene or availible when needed).

Of course the 25 mm's are a great gun as far as I've heard and equipping all of our LAV III's with them was a great decision IMO (albeit an expensive one.... I am still trying to figure out how you guys managed to get that past the bureaucratic penny pinchers... which of course brings up the question if we had gone with a less expensive .50 cal RWS for the ISC and supported it with a 25 mm armed DFSV, would we have the current shortage of LAV's that we do... but different thread, different time...)

But anywho, if we support the 25 mm armed LAV ISC's with a 30mm w/ Spike ER armed LAV DFSV - would we not have a better overall capability than just the LAV's (or even the LAV's with the LAV TUA)?

But yea, fire away, and thanks for the info.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The 30mm Bushmaster II would be a nice cannon to have, but I would say that we'd need it across the board.  We don't need another nature of ammo.  I am told that our existing turrets cannot take the 30mm, so I think that that ship has sailed.  The 25mm will do.

If we didn't have turrets on the LAV IIIs (they'd be basically super-Bisons at that point), the LAV wouldn't be nearly as effective.  In a WW III scenario paired with M1s it wouldn't be a bad thing.  In Afghanistan, however, it would be a bad thing.

The LAV III platoon and company as configured is a pretty robust package.

If we are going to someplace with bad guy tanks, then putting TOW on each LAV and Coyote might not be a bad thing.  There would be a big training bill.

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

So 2Bravo, you're comfortable with the hand you have and want to stand pat?

Where is the effort best spent now? New equipment of the same type, more training dollars, more bodies.....?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I would like some CH-47s and AH-64s.  I'd like more Coyotes and LAVs so that we can kill Whole Fleet Management before it kills us.  I'd also like some turretless LAVs for echelon vehicles (the Super-Bison, with cup-holders and genuine Corinthian leather interior).  AR-10s and C8 heavy barrels for all infantrymen.  Man-portable thermal vision.  More 117 radios. 

Thats it!

2B