British Army News and Discussion

[RobWilliams]

On the other hand I doubt that any country in europe is able to finance a new MBT programe all by itself these days.

That's what I mean I know in the past a lot of projects have gone down the pan but could that have been because walking away and doing it alone was a viable option whereas that could no longer be the case?

 

[StobieWan]

Just caught this off the front page - UK reconsidering assembly of the scouts in the UK..


British MoD Reconsiders Assembling Scout in UK | Defense News | defensenews.com

Also interesting to see the integration work come to my neck of the woods (Ampthill, which I'm guessing actually means "Millbrook")

 

[bdique]

Technically the AS90s aren't Bravehearts as that was an upgrade program to move from 39cal to 52cal barrels but following from unsatisfactory charges (they were going to be more powerful but produce less barrel wear) came to the floor it gave the MOD an excuse to kill it.

It's the regular 39cal barrels for us, ~24.7km range which can move to 30km with guided munitions.

I joined this forum to learn something new everyday. It was a good decision

I've been hearing good things about what the CTA 40mm should be able to do, hopefully it delivers.

I've had the honor of operating on both the M242 Bushmaster 25mm, and the Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm. There's a saying going around my unit back then that the 25mm destroys sandbags, the 30mm penetrates them.

One of the things that made me hesitant about the 40mm round was the size resulting in storage issues, especially if it is a typical chain-linked round. IFV turret sizes can't change too much, so a larger round would mean less ready rounds carried as compared to a turret that has a autocannon of smaller calibre. Compounding the problem is the fact that a bigger round needs larger feeder/receiver mechanisms, as well as a bulkier feed chute, shrinking the space available to gunner and commander. However, with the introduction of the telescopic round, it seems like the size issue should be resolved. I am very excited to see the interior of the Scout SV turret.

Yup, it appears the goal of Army 2020 is to make each brigade deployable alone with the appropriate support structure and this includes the associated logi/artillery/eng support.

Scary. What's more interesting is that the Brigade commander doesn't just have to rely on organic assets, but has access to other non-Army assets i.e. fixed-wing aviation, attack helos etc. That is a lot of options and firepower to handle a variety of situations.

Yeah, ours are currently based on the FV432 vehicle and a program to replace them has rarely been mentioned - if at all - publicly, however it's possible our current mortar carriers will be replaced under the ABSV program.*

ABSV stands for Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle, this program is based off of using surplus Warriors created from budget cuts and removing the turret and using these for command/control roles and ambulance roles currently fulfilled by the FV430 family.

As a program, it's not really set in stone and plenty of rumours making the rounds, it's expected to hit Initial Gate before the end of the year where the program aims will be released and some projections have made 2019 as the planned for (i.e still subject to change) ISD.

Even rumours of an ATGM armed variant of ABSV exist.

Looks like the MOD are - thankfully - looking to assemble the majority of the Scout SV vehicles in the UK rather than in Spain. It's asked GD to crunch the numbers. There's an option to have 100 assembled and painted in Spain with systems integration and testing to be done in the UK and the remainder to be fully assembled etc in the UK (489 vehicles).

Makes me wonder about the future of UK AFV design/manufacture, whether when Challenger 2 and the AS90 need replacing if we could do that ourselves in house or team up. Frankly i'd be extremely happy with the idea of partnering with Germany.

*scratch that, BAE has publicly demonstrated a turretless Warrior in a mortar carrier configuration so i'd now put the ABSV down as the replacement.

Well it's good that there's the mortar variant on a newer chassis. The venerable M113 and variants based on it has served many militaries well, but even the upgraded versions are outclassed by newer, modern IFV/APCs. There's only so much upgrading you can do to a vehicle (on top of wear and tear) before you need to come up with a whole new design.

I don't really know much about the Warrior but from what I read it sounds like a solid vehicle with no serious issues so the ABSV should have a bright future ahead.

Well, the last joint UK-German vehicle programs didn't go so well...

FMBT got cancelled and resulted in the MBT-80 program (cancelled...) which then resulted in the Challenger 1. We got the Leopard II...

The Boxer program resulted in the Dutch and us getting the Boxer and you opting out and getting...errh...nothing so far...

Although we seem to have gotten the better deals after the projects broke up the overall history is less than stellar. On the other hand I doubt that any country in europe is able to finance a new MBT programe all by itself these days.

It is a real pity, but I guess multinational military projects are inherently risky, and is a real art to manage. Even so, most of these partners aren't dumb - they won't back out empty-handed.

 

[RobWilliams]

I've had the honor of operating on both the M242 Bushmaster 25mm, and the Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm. There's a saying going around my unit back then that the 25mm destroys sandbags, the 30mm penetrates them.

Interesting, makes you wonder what a 40mm could do!

But one thing I don't think has been talked about on a large scale, there doesn't seem to be some secondary 7.62 armament mounted in the design. Presumably the plan is to go for a RWS because i've read about ops in Iraq where through the need to minimise the risk of civilian casualties they relied on the 7.62 coax as the 30mm was forbidden to be used.

I hope they go for a RWS.

One of the things that made me hesitant about the 40mm round was the size resulting in storage issues, especially if it is a typical chain-linked round. IFV turret sizes can't change too much, so a larger round would mean less ready rounds carried as compared to a turret that has a autocannon of smaller calibre. Compounding the problem is the fact that a bigger round needs larger feeder/receiver mechanisms, as well as a bulkier feed chute, shrinking the space available to gunner and commander. However, with the introduction of the telescopic round, it seems like the size issue should be resolved. I am very excited to see the interior of the Scout SV turret.

You can find examples of what the turret currently looks like and what the upgrade to the 40mm does to the turret. I'd be interested to see what you think.

Here's a link to the brochure. It says the system is linkless and that turret intrusion between a 25mm and this 40mm is 'similar'.

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29677743/CTAI-Brochure"]CTAI Brochure[/ame]

Again, i'd be interested to hear what you reckon.

Scary. What's more interesting is that the Brigade commander doesn't just have to rely on organic assets, but has access to other non-Army assets i.e. fixed-wing aviation, attack helos etc. That is a lot of options and firepower to handle a variety of situations.

Indeed, although the Apache fleet is going to be sorely tested with airframes supposedly dropping into the 50's and the maritime role being more important. That being said in the future they will be superb AH-64E models.

Well it's good that there's the mortar variant on a newer chassis. The venerable M113 and variants based on it has served many militaries well, but even the upgraded versions are outclassed by newer, modern IFV/APCs. There's only so much upgrading you can do to a vehicle (on top of wear and tear) before you need to come up with a whole new design.

I don't really know much about the Warrior but from what I read it sounds like a solid vehicle with no serious issues so the ABSV should have a bright future ahead.

I'm just glad they're using the culled Warriors for something useful, they are a solid vehicle with nominally 3 crew and 7 dismounts, but take out the turret, probably the gunner too and other associated kit no longer warranted and that's some useful space.

AFAIK 3 Commando brigade has mortars mounted in the back of Viking vehicles, at least they used to, not sure if they still do.

It is a real pity, but I guess multinational military projects are inherently risky, and is a real art to manage. Even so, most of these partners aren't dumb - they won't back out empty-handed.

Yeah which is why in this case the UK can't go it alone like it has after pulling out from past projects, the fleet isn't big enough to warrant it. Our new best buddies (the French) like autoloaders so it'll be interesting to see what the UK (or indeed Europe) decides to go down and see if in the 2030+ region how viable unmanned turrets could be.

I still maintain, i'm a massive fan of the L2 series.

 

[bdique]

Interesting, makes you wonder what a 40mm could do!

But one thing I don't think has been talked about on a large scale, there doesn't seem to be some secondary 7.62 armament mounted in the design. Presumably the plan is to go for a RWS because i've read about ops in Iraq where through the need to minimise the risk of civilian casualties they relied on the 7.62 coax as the 30mm was forbidden to be used.

I hope they go for a RWS.

Yes, I thought it was a little strange too. I would think that coax is sufficient actually, no real need for a RWS. The way I see how coaxials are mounted on the Bionix/Bionix II, it barely takes up any turret space, and is stabilised in tandem with the main gun. Also, in the event of stoppage, the gunner or commander can assist with clearing the stoppage. If it is an RWS...well that MG had better be well oiled and maintained before the vehicles move out.

That being said, the RWS does have its advantages (no exposed crew) when you need operate in urban areas...not on the periphery, but deep inside. I can understand why using the 7.62mm while operating on the perimeter instead of the 30mm HE makes sense, but a coax is sufficient. In any case, it does not look like the Scout SV is expected to operate deep inside urban areas.

You can find examples of what the turret currently looks like and what the upgrade to the 40mm does to the turret. I'd be interested to see what you think.

Here's a link to the brochure. It says the system is linkless and that turret intrusion between a 25mm and this 40mm is 'similar'.

CTAI Brochure

Again, i'd be interested to hear what you reckon.

Well, it does look like the turret intrusion is similar to the 25mm, which is good. I mean...any space saved is good. But to be fair, I cannot really make a fair statement since there is no proper cutaway/exploded view to show the interior layout of the Scout SV turret. Some things I note include the fact that highest elevation is 47deg, which is fairly low (most systems, even the unmanned turret version can hit 70deg).

The magazine looks innovative. It also seems like the magazine straddles the gunner and VC. I don't know if this is a safer way of protecting the ammo from AP rounds (an alternative is to store the rounds in the turret floor) but I can imagine how this would make reloading more convenient.

One thing I found interesting was the fact that the feeder mechanism in the 40mm CTWS ensured that you always fire the round you have selected. This is unlike the M242/Mk44, i.e. if the first round in the chamber is AP, but you electrically selected HE 3 round burst...your first round out is going to be AP, the following two HE. Guess they are being efficient in ammo usage. Also, there's the 90deg rotation thingy that seems like a great way to save space (as opposed to a bolt & chain assembly) but I'd like to know more about the feeding process (i.e. upon firing, do the recoil gases mechanically rotate 90deg to allow ejection of spent cartridge/chambering of next round, or is this timed and controlled by a computer/servos?) Either way, it looks like a fascinating machine, hope I get the chance to sit in and see this firsthand.

AFAIK 3 Commando brigade has mortars mounted in the back of Viking vehicles, at least they used to, not sure if they still do.

Vikings...I can't think of Vikings without thinking of Warthogs. Mortars on the rear cab makes perfect sense, especially given the mobility of the Viking, I see no reason why that arrangement should be discontinued.

I still maintain, i'm a massive fan of the L2 series.

Same here. I hope the upgrades don't mess up the low ground pressure - that's a little known fact that makes the L2 incredibly versatile.

 

[RobWilliams]

Following on from the usual 'Argentina are buying fighters' news from UK tabloids, the UK has revealed plans for upgrading the air defences of the Falklands.

Some have come to the opinion this is a knee-jerk reaction, but it isn't. CAMM(L) specifically is a natural update which was always going to happen at least.

UK Bolsters Falkland Defenses to Counter Argentine Air Ambitions

Updates include a new battle management command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) system, future upgrade from Rapier to CAMM(L) and Giraffe-Agile Multibeam radars.

The result of the new system will be airspace management out to "significantly beyond 100km" and is limited by the radar.

The missile component (FLAADS(L)) is the land based variant of CAMM which is palleted system on a MAN HX truck with 12 missiles.

 

[swerve]

Rapier is approaching its OSD, so replacement is needed just to maintain capability. CAMM is the only option, & it happens to be more capable.

I presume the existing radars are also nearing end of life. I wonder if the Giraffe radars will be the new GaN AESA ones. SAAB said when they were announced that it already had a customer, but declined to name it.

 

[RobWilliams]

That's exactly it, it appears to be reported that it's a 'new' review and equipment is being updated because of it when it's just equipment reaching the end of its life.

Ideally it would retain the air-portable capability of Rapier via Chinook/Merlin.

WRT radars, I have no idea. Never really looked into 'em, we had some deployed in Afghanistan so maybe those are being redeployed?

Turns out the contract for FLAADS was recently signed with MBDA

UK Signs Deal For New Air Defense Missile

 

[Nick underscore]

British Army is restanding the 77th Bgde (Chindits) as a cyber unit.

Activates in April this year and will wear the mythical Burmese 'Chinthe' as unit insignia. Was an avid reader as a child, of their exploits in WW2.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537c7436-a892-11e4-ad01-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QOUDbUV6

 

[swerve]

Surviving Chindits aren't very happy at the idea of desk warriors adopting their name & badge.

The Chindits trudged through jungles, a hundred miles or more behind enemy lines, living off airdrops, fighting fierce, determined & skilful enemies, tropical diseases, leeches, venomous snakes, exhaustion, heat, thirst & hunger,& taking heavy casualties. They didn't sit in comfortable offices with chilled water, coffee & pizza on tap, & go home at the end of the day.

The army has taken notice. It has said (press release sent out on a Saturday morning, so you can see that it's being taken very seriously) that the new unit will not be called the Chindits, & its badge will be designed after consultation with the organisations representing Chindit survivors & relatives.

 

[Nick underscore]

The army has taken notice. It has said (press release sent out on a Saturday morning, so you can see that it's being taken very seriously) that the new unit will not be called the Chindits, & its badge will be designed after consultation with the organisations representing Chindit survivors & relatives.

Then how did this blunder happen? Why call it the 77th at all?

PR screw up

 

[FormerDirtDart]

British Army is restanding the 77th Bgde (Chindits) as a cyber unit.

Activates in April this year and will wear the mythical Burmese 'Chinthe' as unit insignia. Was an avid reader as a child, of their exploits in WW2.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537c7436-a892-11e4-ad01-00144feab7de.html#axzz3QOUDbUV6

Everything I've seen state that it will preform psychological warfare/information operations.
Using the internet, and social media to influence behavior and shape the narrative is not cyber operations.

 

[RobWilliams]

That's the thing, I've read places which claim one mission will be disinformation, stuff like that. I really don't know how much 'psychological warfare' they can do on social media.

Basically, I have no idea exactly what the point of it is but then again that's probably the point. But I'm sure there's a good reason for it.

 

[RobWilliams]

UK Apache replacement held up by AgustaWestland, BBC report states - IHS Jane's 360

The reported controversy by the BBC claims that while the UK could get AH-64E's straight off the line from Boeing at $30mn a piece, if AW gets their way with licence production and modernisation then that'll increase to $44mn.

The decision is part of the Apache CSP program to figure out how to proceed with the capability be it AH-64E, some other attack helo or scrapping the capability.

Mixed feelings, cheap as possible please but AW did some really great things to the current crop which were (at the time) more unique than most in terms of deployment. Mainly the marinisation aspect as well as other UK bespoke systems which made UK cabs the superior product.

Capability is being cut to 50 aircraft down from 66.

It's a good read.

 

[John Fedup]

UK Apache replacement held up by AgustaWestland, BBC report states - IHS Jane's 360

The reported controversy by the BBC claims that while the UK could get AH-64E's straight off the line from Boeing at $30mn a piece, if AW gets their way with licence production and modernisation then that'll increase to $44mn.

The decision is part of the Apache CSP program to figure out how to proceed with the capability be it AH-64E, some other attack helo or scrapping the capability.

Mixed feelings, cheap as possible please but AW did some really great things to the current crop which were (at the time) more unique than most in terms of deployment. Mainly the marinisation aspect as well as other UK bespoke systems which made UK cabs the superior product.

Capability is being cut to 50 aircraft down from 66.

It's a good read.

An extra $14m per helio is a hefty increase. From the article description of the AW built units, it does seem these helicopters performed well. What exactly would a new AW Apache have over the Boeing AH-64E besides bigger engines and marine enhancement that could justify the extra money (other than employment creation)?

 

[RobWilliams]

An extra $14m per helio is a hefty increase. From the article description of the AW built units, it does seem these helicopters performed well. What exactly would a new AW Apache have over the Boeing AH-64E besides bigger engines and marine enhancement that could justify the extra money (other than employment creation)?

I'm actually quite sure I read that the engines on the E are more powerful than what we have now, but that's from memory so don't quote me on that.

If that's true, and it may not be, there's the following

• Integration of UK HIDAS
• Integration of UK comms equipment
• Integration of Brimstone 2
• Same marinisation work on new build E's for the marine environment including lashing points, folding rotors and flotation equipment

I'm probably forgetting others, but there's still a good chunk of work that'll need to be done on the E's anyway for the UK.

The $14mn increase is projected rather than actual.

 

[bdique]

The E does have more powerful engines, but I can't remember the exact engine, quite sure on the new engines tho. There's also Link-16, iirc.

 

[RobWilliams]

The E does have more powerful engines, but I can't remember the exact engine, quite sure on the new engines tho. There's also Link-16, iirc.

WAH-64D has a pair of RTM-322 at ~1600kW each
AH-64E has a pair of T700-GE-701D at ~1500kW each
AH-64D has a pair of T700-GE-701 at ~1300kW

Obviously, hopefully both sources are accurate and I've approximated them all. So UK engines would still be more powerful however I doubt that after Afghan ops the US would use engines which still resulted in the same operational issues. But is it worth paying to have them changed over? I couldn't say.

Good to know about L16

 

[Nick underscore]

Possibly the inclusion of mast-mounted UAS tactical common datalink assembly (UTA) for greater situational awareness?

 

[John Fedup]

The E does have more powerful engines, but I can't remember the exact engine, quite sure on the new engines tho. There's also Link-16, iirc.

GE and P&W are both working on advanced turbine engine concepts for the Apache (GE3000 and HPW3000). The goal is a 3000 hp engine with better fuel consumption. If either of them achieves this goal it will certainly enhance the performance of several military helicopters.