WARRIOR UPGRADE: Is This The Future Of The British Army's Armoured Vehicle? âą FUTURE | Forces TV
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 7. 09. 2024
- Read more about the Warrior upgrade here đwww.forces.net...
The British Army's Warrior armoured vehicle first entered service in 1988. Eight years ago, manufacturer Lockheed Martin was contracted to upgrade the vehicle's turret. That design is now being road-tested, which the Ministry of Defence will use to decide whether to upgrade the entire fleet.
Subscribe to Forces TV: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews
#Warrior #BritishArmy #Technology
For some reason it reminds me of a Cromwell turret, probably the ârivetsâ
I was about to say that and then I see your comment.
fattoler looks a bit like a Cromwell too
I was about to say the same thing we're just having recycling obsolete turrets designs.
Cromwell or a Tiger I...
hey i was about to say that
Chain gun HAS to go. Itâs trash. Absolute trash. The 40mm is awesome and we need it. The vehicle also needs a better power pack. You canât keep slapping new stuff on it and then ignore the pack. In Afghan the packs would fail often because of the weight and strain they were put under. Letâs be honest, you put more armour and this bigger and heavier turret on there, she will struggle. Love the upgrades and the vehicle. But they need to cautious.
Matsimus - How many training areas in the UK have the capacity to accommodate 40mm firing at its full range? Slight oversight as usual.
Watched the vid and thought straight away about you Matsimus (as you did a similar one not long ago), scrolled to comments and there you are as the first comment. Nice.
"But they need to cautious".
"Chain gun HAS to go".
*rolls eyes*.
@@stonemarten1400 we have Canada
Lulworth and Castle Martin
Good upgrade: Yes
Till 2050: No
It's not even suitable until 2030. This should have been on service 5 years ago. The money spent on turrets should be fitted to boxer modules and the legacy warrior scrapped. The hulls are nackered.
>squarish turret
OOY LOOK Aâ THAT LADS ITSA CROMWELL!
Just a quick point, when the drivers hatch is up the turret can't traverse left. Also the chain gun ejects its cases forward onto the drivers hatch. Turret stabilisation is nothing new. British army are so slow to uptake new ideas, warrior needs a replacement.
i hate to say it but the Warrior as a whole is outdated and obsolete especially taking into account the recen purchases of Ajax and Boxer they are faster better protected and can do Warriors job way better.
Yes, turret stabilisation is nothing new but you will have to recognise itâs gonna much better than say the turret stabilisation introduced on a bradley.
The warrior may be old but itâs also got more to it than the bradley which quite honestly, was a failure cause so many people wanted so much out of it.
It tells a lot about a platform if the government havenât completely ditched it.
No were not slow at all. Gun stabilisation was pretty much invented by us. Matilda tanks in WWII had a very early version of it.
"A vehicle that can fire and hit moving targets while on the move..."
Vehicle: Misses moving target!
I guess it was standing still then?
*Gunner: Misses moving target
Miles B you saw a tracer miss there are 2 other rounds following it or before it and to be fair it was most likely gunner error
This was something they were planning to implement, but i'm pretty sure the bradley can fire while moving and hit moving targets.
"On the move" - what 10 mph? - game changer?
When I was serving all we had was a 432 with a 7.62 in a turret lol
Warrior always had a good power to weight ratio as they were always burning the challengers up. The problem of lack blowing is probably similar to Challenger one, not enough new engines are. going back in the system. They pull the pack put a good engine with a good gearbox and not enough new parts are being introduced.
Said it 3 months ago... at 3.50 the guy mentions case telescope round. That 40mm has the same kinetic damage potential on Armour as an 80mm. Equipped with "smart" capability, the first round can punch a hole in a wall, the laser range finder sets the second air burst round to go off in the hole. Expect to see a Navel Version of this gun in 105mm soon!!!
Rumours of turret wobble due to 20,000 lbs of recoil, good luck with second shot!
It has taken 11 years of âmodelling, paper studies, limited blah blah blahâ to get to this stage on a legacy vehicle. When this upgrade began iphones didnât exist, can you guess the data rates inside this vehicle, or the storage capacity?
11 years.
70 years ago 11 years also represented a major development timescale.
It was the period between the first flight of the Lancaster,
And the Vulcan.
In 20 years we (the UK) spaffed so much money up the wall on armour it is incredible. We've spent above 100's of millions on FRES that never even happened. It morphed into AJAX. Contracts signed in 2010...it is it 2021. Still not in full frontline service. Yet we have obsolete Challenger 2's and Warriors....How can we spend so much yet we still depend on our legacy platforms? It is batshit.
@@mwnciboo chally 2 obsolete?
It looks a bit like a Cromwell.
clacicle yes totally agree. My first thought was the Comet
I was thinking exactly the same thing!
When you wanted to be like Grandpa Cromwell.
With all the modern AFV available, including from BAe, why are we trying to upgrade Warrior?!
"First Infantry Vehicle Fire on the move". Bradley IFV has been firing on the move since it came out in the 1980s.
"Extra Protection on the outside" puts hand a thin bit of steel slapped on the side with a couple of bolts 02:37
I think he means that's the mounting point for additional steel armour skirts with ERA blocks mounted
@@1IbramGaunt so it had no additional armour just the mounts oh I see now. British Army can't afford the actual armour just the mounts themselves
Perfect for the coming norf v souf wars
That turret Reminds of a Cromwell I Dammm that turret is thick
Didnât realise the crommy had a 100 year LEP
Firing on the move means you don't have to stop amazing technology nowadays!!
Pretty sure its been updated quite a bit, so technically its not 30 years old, sorta like the m2 bradley.@@FunnyVideoCollector
âThe worlds very first infantry fighting vehicle that can fire and hit with pinpoint accuracy whilst on the move.â Yeah okay. Because other nations have not had this capability for years.
Xyou are right: this mus be a very uninformed soldier who don't even know nothing about others nations tanks.
@@minimax9452 it isn't a tank it's an infantry fighting vehicle
Ifvâs are not your mainline battle tanks, they serve different roles.
Many IFV have this so its just propaganda from this solider or he doenst know much about the rest of the worlds IFV's
Yeaaa i was wondering ummmmm the bradley?
10 years is along time to upgrade any vehicle. Should have spent those years building a whole new platform instead
They tried to put the gun in the old turret , this was supposed to be a cost saving measure. BAE did tell them a new turret was needed , this raised costs. and delays. The new turret is heavier and there has been some cracking of the age hardened aluminium hulls. The recoil of the gun may cause further problems, this maybe why they are having such a long trial period . W!ith corona virus there may be no money in the pot to pay for the project
Agreed. A full upgrade is needed across the entire armoured fleet methinks.
You turned a troop carrier into a early WW2 crusader tank LOL
Can't believe it's taken this long to get stabilisation of the gun....
It was built in the cold war and they were paranoid about nukes, so they built the warrior to be able to operate after a nuke so minimal electronics so it can operate after an EMP
UK: Stabelized gun is soo new.
German: laughs hard
Could do with a few anti tank missiles đ
Many of us are worriers, but we have to remain mindful.
"Worlds very first IFV that can fire at and hit moving targets"? You sure about that mate. Im sure I saw a years old video of a Swedish IFV doing that.
3x brimstones in the back .
A Drone operator station .So you can scout out ahead or activate the Brimstones .
M61 Vulcan in the turret for supression and air defence (drones)
Some type of Trench cutting tool so you can cut out some cover .
A data link to send targate infomation to nearby assets .
Cromwell look-alike.
About time most ifv since the 90s have had stabilised gun now if it gets a atgm system it be compatible to bmp2 or Bradley
Yup so updating an already outdated IFV to early 90âs standards, still doesnât have ATGM
They have on the old one a atgm mounted to the roof in a launcher
So the Rupert sez they can hit targets with âpin point accuracyâ while a clip is shown of a target being missed! đ
No shock there
Paper targets rounds go through
Except for that it hit. The round passed through it.
Was a hit mate
It was a hit.
'Rupert' served in Bosnia, Afghan, Northern Ireland, Iraq and has served recent Balkans.
What's your issue with Rupert?
It's got no TOW missiles or laser range finding.. This AFV would be mince meat in a real battle just wouldn't last , it's made of aluminium. At least you can recycle it once it gets destroyed in battle
The British Army is still stuck in the 1980's , pity they can't provide their soldiers new kit...Chuck in a few screens and a bigger turret and gun and "she'll be right mate"
Has it got ERA?
@@michaelhaney9432 It's got bar, NERA and add on Dorchester blocks. I think it will be ok.
Basically an APC. The Brits acquired the Warthog as modernized version of an APC. It proved to be more effective for troops in operations in Afghanistan.
It's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. This update is mainly about the 30mm gun being upgraded. Warthog isn't providing that.
@@davidhouseman4328 The basic functions of these armored vehicles is to provide transport and some protection for the infantry. The Warthog provided enhanced protection to troops esp. when they are on long patrol duties. It may not have the fire power of a Warrior class but it fulfilled its functions adequately or else the British army wouldn't bother to assess and subsequently bought them.
@@blmetal65 I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Warthog, simply it filled a different role.
An APC not an IFV so it's not viable warrior replacement.
The Cromwellâs back
Welcome to the stabilizer club, you silly tea drinkers! Top soldiers in the UK. Keep grinding!
@@GGG19872 Did you even read my post? LOL
What about the working space for dismounts? Presumably it will remain very much the same?
At 2:46 isnât that called a stabilizer thatâs been used sense WWII on U.S. Shermanâs
yes and many British mbtanks too,the warrior is not a tank it is an APC
rosslynstone IFV not APC
first fire on the move? ... PUMA laugh its ass off ... if you wanna have a IFV with high accurcy fire on the move in any weather conditions buy a Puma not this poss that miss target by miles in a TV presentation
Hope there is an engine remap to help it with the increasing weight
It looks antiquated already, the real joke is that we are trying to keep them in service unit 2050 lol good luck đ„
What are you expecting it to look like?
oh no a military apc has dust on it after its been used in the desert and mud for weeks on end what a shocker.
Warrior IFV with Ajax APC + Chally 2.5 and Apache E đŁđŁđŁđŁđŁđŁđŁ
For me that warrior combat apc Is the best
But to upgrade with a tank destroyer with escort light tank
That will be a deadly combination
Max Elsoro the warrior is an IFV not an APC. The British (along with most militaries) havenât used light tanks or TD in decades, outdated tech
@@jangamaster8677 I known but to have a big upgrade to a outdated
To a upgrade armour vehicle with new British challenger tank will be good stuff
Max Elsoro I agree, the Brits have needed that upgrade for too long! Glad they finally getting some put in place
@@jangamaster8677 well yeah because royal navy newest super carrier
The Queen Elizabeth class is finally here and they need a powerfull British Force for
NATO sakes
Turret looks as if it has been salvaged from WW2 Cromwell Tank!
Driver's hatch would be down while engaging with the enemy.
Give it heavier armour and better gun
Two gpmg and another 2 places for additional troops.
Also protection against drone's
If the WR CSP gets switched off, what does that mean for 40mm cannon on the AJAX fleet I wonder! As one of the few users of 40mm Ammo I think that means itâs no longer viable as each round will be ÂŁÂŁÂŁÂŁ
Will they actually upgrade all of them or will they announce that they can't due to defence cuts
The new turret makes it look old and intimidating
That Turret is too old school, it needs a better design, unless they will have Raphael installed , it makes for a perfect target.
Looks like an old Comet or Cromwell turret.
does it have anti A10 protection
Whatâs the difference between Warrior and Ajax? Or does Ajax and Boxer replace the scimitar? Why do they still need Warrior?
first ivf with shooting on the move ability???
ever heard of the puma?? he dos exactly the same and it already 1 year in active service.
fully stabelized gun, fully stabelisd gunnersights, fully stabelized independant commandersights
and hunter killer ability.
Lavs have Stab, Bradley's. Bmp2 this is nothing new.
Should send them out with the fire brigade in problem areas with gurkha support , that's sorted.
The new 40mm cannon looks the part.
Cromwell 2 Pro Edition
Stick a 180mm on top with a total missle whacked on the side.
The turret could have been more sloped rather than a box on top. bigger target area!!
Vehicle needed scrapping and replacing with the new ajax system
Not in its current state. Warrior is nearly four tons per passenger. Ajax is nearly ten.
@@Orlunu yes its heavy but its a lot easier and better on large boulders and up hills engine wont cut out as quick
@@ancientmachine9070 "better" is a relative term. Ajax would have some advantages over Warrior in the field simply because it is so much more modern, but it is not a good design for the job, because it was not designed for the job. A Warrior replacement is needed, but Ajax would be a half-arsed replacement.
@@Orlunu i can respect that awnser and would say i agree
@@ancientmachine9070 Bit large and heavy for reccy role, would need its own bridge layer ?
8 years for a turret???? Talk about wasting money.
It was more to do with the main gun, being a weapon using careless ammo.
@Anthony Roic Prepare the worst, hope for the best. History will tell you a lot. Especially the British Army being under equipped with inferior equipment such as the beginning of WW2
Max Steele pft,Itâs lockheed martin leading the project,why is a major US defence contractor taking 8 years to develop a turret?
Shouldve just used ajax
CMI defence had a turret that would have fitted lol
So the shout of '3 Rounds' will never be heard again in the upgraded Warrior turret with a fully auto cannon
180 db noise levels they say lol
Looks like a Cromwell tank, not thatâs its a bad thing
Amazing it's taken this long, when it first came out the Rarden cannon was obselete and we knew it
We learned in WW2 that all the bolt heads are the first thing to get sheered off. Then we forgot. Soon we will learn again!
I don't think they are bolts that hold the turret together, more likely mounting studs for add on armour. Chally 2's sometimes have stud mounts on the turret for the same reason.
Just wondering, what can the new 40 mm do vs the old 30 mm? (I DOO understand the stabilized mounts) I just would like to know if it now has a chance against a main battle-tank?
none at all from the front of anything older than 1st gen
CTA gun invented in 1954 by American air force, wonder why no one else used it?
Not a lot
A warrior took out older Russian mbts with its main 30mm in Afghan through the lower plate
It might be able to render some systems on a modern mbt inactive, damage tracks and that sort of thing. Hopefully it won't ever come to a warrior having to take one on.
Money in the MOD must be short, upgrading tanks using Turrets from Cromwell Tanks LMFAO.
Please bring back warrior APC support vehicle infantry make 500 and give bigger main gun and gpmg and four missles and chain gun
Lockheed need I say more infamous for budget over runs and low quality.
based on what? because i'd give you the point on the budget and time constraints, but quality?
"Based on WW2 Design, complete with rivets" LOL
Yeah I thought that as well , reminded me of a WW2 tank lol, but they said it's got HE Airburst but does it airburst over enemy troops like the Grenades in the XM25 ?
Yes
one drone and then goodbye
Is this the vehicle that they are going to have to scrap before it comes into service? Because it canât do more than 20MPH, or it half cripples the crew?
@Blob B Thank you.
it looks really cool but would it be best just to upgrade to Ajax so we have matching vehicles across the army. it looks cooler than the Bradley
Ajax itself doesn't take troops, Ares only takes 4 and I believe drops the 40mm.
@@davidhouseman4328 Ajax comes in 6 different variants one of which is an infantry fighting vehicle and it uses the same 40 mm cannon
A stabilizer to let it fire on the move.
...... 30 years late.
What's the Warriors star sign? ARES!
It'll definitely be used to mid Century god they just built the new ARES from the chassis!
I have doubts.
Isn't it a bit lardy.
In theatre would additional armour be fitted ?
How much would it then weigh?
Is the power unit man enough ?
With full armour packs I reckon about 35 tons which is still lighter than most new MCV's. Uprating the CV8 to 800hp would make it a real flying machine.
So that's what a chain gun looks like when it ejaculates 2:29
This aged well eh ??
Yep.
What about adding a spike
Anybody know how much the barrels cost ?
Waste of money we need IFV variants of Boxer. Warrior refurb should have gone on an off the shelf RWS and replacing the turret with an extended body.
So the turret can't traverse to the left with the drivers hatch open ?
Cool wagon.
Let's not get too excited about main armament stabilisation, the M2 Bradley has had it since its introduction. The British army is about 40 years behind.
Graeme F Well itâs a news network,of course they have to hype it up.Also,if you wanna compare tech,than the US is behind UK since their Abrams have been destroyed plenty of times.Challenger 2 with chobham armour?Nil.
@@aquillandscroll6428the subject is about IFV's, not MBT'swell I could also compare UK warrior with the German Marder introduced in 1971
@@aquillandscroll6428 I guess with regards to Challenger 2, you are reterring to the gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Well I would suggest that you may need to look at the armies of those opponents at the time. Gulf wars the iraqi's best MBT was the T72, I would be concerned if a T72 could take out a Challenger 2 being that they are very different generation of MBT. Example the T72 turret was turned manually. As for Afghanistan I believe their best MBT were some rusting T62's. I would be interested to see how challenger 2 would fare on a modern battlefield with depleted uranium, hypersonic missiles, and tank busting helicopters and aircraft? See it depends on the capabilities of your opponents.
Not all stabs were created equal. It's not a "have it, haven't it" binary game. Modern stabs are a far cry from the 40 year old ones in capability.
@Andy of Avalon sorry I don't see to understand the point you are making here?
Kinda funny he wants it to be the first IFV thats stabilized, you guys missed that mark already.
Needs a fifty cal on top
And now Boris the Blade is getting rid of them.
Outstanding
Unless you want to hear the word Cromwell don't look at the comments.
No,they're being "retired"
will there be a 7.62 machine gun for the commander or other crew member on the top of the turret
Turrets all have gimbles for those things, yes.
Mercy reaper the only weapons on this vehicle as it stands are the 30mm/40 and the 7.62mm chain gun which was shown in the video the driver,commander and gunner have their personal weapon systems inside the vehicle on rifile racks
@MercyReaper That's the hated chain gun. The commander still needs an MG for point defence and suppression.
If it was up to me Iâd have angled the turret armour, included ERA and TOW missiles.... or maybe just start over
chain gun needs to be independent of the main gun
The turret needs smoothing. Its too flat reducing glancing and armour thickness effectiveness.
Sitting target with that bulky turret,imagine a enemy dug in with RPG
Yeah they will be killed by infantry.
It has thermal imaging so it wonât happen plus it has heat protection
Is that Darth Vader @0:43 ?
No Laser Beam Cannon?
digital optical sighting, no red dot just a sudden bang
Did he miss hitting the target at 03:54?
No it went threw
The telescoped ammo is cool, the 40mm cannon that uses it..............Eh needs work.
Short barrel life due to blow by before round seals in tapered breach rumoured to be 700-1000 rounds !
@@peterwait641 So X months of training. greaaaat.
I predict the concept of the IFV will go away and weâll be back to the APC concept again.
Nah. IFVs are currently gaining importance because mechanised infantry benefits the most from digitalization. Dismounted troops connected with their IFVs via BMS is a force multiplier.