British Army Discussions and Updates

[shrubage]

British Aerospace is quite adept at using the threat of job cuts to manipulate the MOD. As an organisation they're better at Machiavellian manoeuvrings than they are at actually designing and maintaining kit. It's the governments fault in that they forced a whole series of mergers of firms in the 80s and 90s to give us the modern day monstrosity that is BAE.

I'd take the announcement of possible plant closures with a grain of salt. Ideally their exit from the market would end the whole 'buy British' ethos that is the source of so many of the British army woes, but we can only hope.

 

[riksavage]

The UK is finally trailing the upgraded Ridgebacks for use in A-STAN, see below link:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RidgbackTestedForHelmand.htm

I always wondered why the UK variant of the COUGAR, namely MASTIFF went for additional side armour and slat armour (US Marine Corp versions follow the original design and stick with the side windows). The UK has ditched the windows for armour protection and fitted panoramic cameras instead.

The UK Ridgebacks & Mastiffs are first shipped to NP in Coventry for upgrades, including armour. NP have developed a new up-armour package, which I can only assume is now being fitted to the Ridgebacks (photo included in link) and Mastiff 2's.

Description as follows:

"NP has augmented their composite armor solution with the new CAMAC Advanced Composite Passive Explosively Formed Projectile Armor (EFPA) and Advanced Composite Bar Armor (ACBA), which can be combined into the CAVCAT to effectively mitigate mine, EAF, RPG and kinetic energy threats effects. According to NP Armour CAVCAT provides this capability at half the mass of high hardness steel."

Anyone confirm this is being fitted?

 

[Grim901]

The UK is finally trailing the upgraded Ridgebacks for use in A-STAN, see below link:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RidgbackTestedForHelmand.htm

I always wondered why the UK variant of the COUGAR, namely MASTIFF went for additional side armour and slat armour (US Marine Corp versions follow the original design and stick with the side windows). The UK has ditched the windows for armour protection and fitted panoramic cameras instead.

The UK Ridgebacks & Mastiffs are first shipped to NP in Coventry for upgrades, including armour. NP have developed a new up-armour package, which I can only assume is now being fitted to the Ridgebacks (photo included in link) and Mastiff 2's.

Description as follows:

"NP has augmented their composite armor solution with the new CAMAC Advanced Composite Passive Explosively Formed Projectile Armor (EFPA) and Advanced Composite Bar Armor (ACBA), which can be combined into the CAVCAT to effectively mitigate mine, EAF, RPG and kinetic energy threats effects. According to NP Armour CAVCAT provides this capability at half the mass of high hardness steel."

Anyone confirm this is being fitted?

Fairly sure this is being fitted yes, can't give you a source though right now.

The extra armour just seems smart since these things are routinely dealing with IEDs made up of 2-6 anti-tank mines. The vehicles can handle the extra weight and the more hits that stuff like slat armour takes, the less damage done to the actual vehicle, so it can more easily be repaired rather than written off.

 

[outsider]

I'm just wondering if this amphibious coach could be of any use to the British Army and RM, if it was militarised, say with the addition of lightweight super-baintomite armour to make it bullet-proof.

Aqua coach launches

An amphibious coach claimed to be the most advanced in the world has been launched, allowing bus passengers to take to the waves.

Aqua coach
The Amphicoach, which carries up to 50 passengers, is the brainchild of Scotsman George Smith.

The vehicle drives like a traditional coach until it reaches water, where its makers say it exhibits 'astonishing' sailing abilities.

The coach's wheels retract into a hull, made from marine-grade aluminium, allowing it to reach speeds of up to eight knots, powered by a jet-drive unit.

According to its makers, the Amphicoach can compete with any luxury standard road coach for performance, safety and comfort.

"On the other hand its sailing capabilities are accepted by marine experts involved in the project as being astonishing," said a spokesman.

"This feature consequently makes the vehicle suitable for extended water tours. The Amphicoach is able to operate day and night, in both fresh and salt water, which is highly unusual."

Twelve vehicles are to be built each year, under the supervision of Lloyd's Register, with Australian, Dutch and German companies said to be interested.

The spokesman added: "Due to the vehicle's superior stability and safety features the Amphicoach is a Modern Technological Wonder.

"Soon people will no longer be satisfied with just a city coach tour, they will want the complete package, a city coach tour with a water cruise built in."

http://www.orange.co.uk/news/quirki...box_left_pos_3_2_link_title&article=newsworld

 

[Grim901]

I'm just wondering if this amphibious coach could be of any use to the British Army and RM, if it was militarised, say with the addition of lightweight super-baintomite armour to make it bullet-proof.

That seems unlikely. I can't see a niche for it that isn't already filled adequately. Even the Americans haven't bothered with trying anything like that, the closest they have is the EFV, which is more like an IFV that floats.

 

[outsider]

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps it will be more suitable for humanitarian aid agencies or the united nations, for disaster relief or for use in third world countries.

 

[Palnatoke]

British millitary procurement equals goverment subsidies to a declining british industry (read BAe), and as suh British millitary procurement embodies the very worst of european defense procurment.

 

[riksavage]

British millitary procurement equals goverment subsidies to a declining british industry (read BAe), and as suh British millitary procurement embodies the very worst of european defense procurment.

What are you talking about, please define in detail your statement with facts?

'military procurement equals government subsidies to a declining british industry (read BAE)' UUUUGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!! What's BAE got to do with anything? The company is one of the most successful defence contractors outside of the US, just take the time to look at its portfolio of businesses.

And as far as defence procurement is concerned, the UK is one of the few countries in Europe that doesn't restrict itself to show parades and peace-keeping. Which means it has been forced to delay / change a number of major project specs as a result of lessons learnt in the field (FRES for example) and undertake a number of UOR's.

 

[Palnatoke]

Riksavage

It's very difficult to be factual about politics.

I could try to mention:
The helicopter deal, the horison/Type 45 deal, the requirements for a new armoured familly to the army (FRES I think it was called), the ChallengerII tank.

Tell me, if the seahawk is good enough for the mighty americans, it's difficult to understand that Britain needs Westland (a marginal producer - imho) to make another design, to my understanding, in the most moderate estimates a much more expensive solution. But maybe they didn't like the colour?

The failure of the Horison project was a joke (And I dare say, well that it's my personal oppinion, that that was directly related to a british wish of having a certain company getting a bigger chunk of the pie ). The results are btw in: heniously expensive ships.

Was was wrong with the "Boxer"? What was wrong with the MOWAG Piranhia III?

The ChallengerII tank: Why didn't they just buy the well tested LeoII. That tank has been in frontline service since the early 80ties and is still the cat to beat. But ofcourse it's not a british manufactured tank.

I am aware that every single point has some "explaination", f.ex. that the colour was wrong, or that it didnt meet special british "requirements". And I can understand the urge of politicians to hand out gifts to selected groups and companies (and the defense budget is the last place where you can do that "old style").
The problem is that Europe as an area is on fast track to develop a defense deficiency. When they are done axeing the bundeswehr, europe will hardly have an army cabable of fighting a real battle on corps level.
Is that because Europeans are against defense? I don't think so, but I do think that most voters think that the money spend are not utilized very well and that more money would probably not fix the problem.

 

[riksavage]

Riksavage

It's very difficult to be factual about politics.

I could try to mention:
The helicopter deal, the horison/Type 45 deal, the requirements for a new armoured familly to the army (FRES I think it was called), the ChallengerII tank.

Tell me, if the seahawk is good enough for the mighty americans, it's difficult to understand that Britain needs Westland (a marginal producer - imho) to make another design, to my understanding, in the most moderate estimates a much more expensive solution. But maybe they didn't like the colour?

The failure of the Horison project was a joke (And I dare say, well that it's my personal oppinion, that that was directly related to a british wish of having a certain company getting a bigger chunk of the pie ). The results are btw in: heniously expensive ships.

Was was wrong with the "Boxer"? What was wrong with the MOWAG Piranhia III?

The ChallengerII tank: Why didn't they just buy the well tested LeoII. That tank has been in frontline service since the early 80ties and is still the cat to beat. But ofcourse it's not a british manufactured tank.

I am aware that every single point has some "explaination", f.ex. that the colour was wrong, or that it didnt meet special british "requirements". And I can understand the urge of politicians to hand out gifts to selected groups and companies (and the defense budget is the last place where you can do that "old style").
The problem is that Europe as an area is on fast track to develop a defense deficiency. When they are done axeing the bundeswehr, europe will hardly have an army cabable of fighting a real battle on corps level.
Is that because Europeans are against defense? I don't think so, but I do think that most voters think that the money spend are not utilized very well and that more money would probably not fix the problem.

Sorry, what are you talking about?

The Challenger II was developed as a result of lessons learnt in GWI with Challenger I, plus its armour was more advanced than what was available at the time on the Leopards. So why on earth would the Brit's opt for Leopards, a tank with a ZERO combat record against armour on the battlefield over a tank developed as a result of real tank on tank action?

Reference T45, the Brit's opted out because they were (at the time) building the most hulls and wanted the lions share of construction (France disagreed). Plus the T45 PAAMS/SAMSON combination is a better system than that currently offered on the Horizon. They also wanted a much bigger vessel to allow for future incremental upgrades.

FRES turned into a cluster because of experience in Iraq / Afghanistan, the original specs would NOT have mitigated the current IED threat. Plus the Canadian experience operating LAV's in Afghanistan also caused the planners to think again. Priority is now being given to a TRACKED replacement for Scimitar utilizing a 40mm main armament. With the arrival of MASTIFF, RIDGEBACK, BULLDOG & HUSKY the need for a wheeled vehicle has deminished. Funny old thing they are actually now looking at buying something they need rather than something designed for a European theatre, which is cross-crossed with metalled roads.

As for axeing the bundeswehr, wants the point of keeping large armoured brigades sitting on their arses in Europe standing-by to fight a hugely diminished Russian threat when the real fighting is being done by others on the plains of A-STAN. Countries have got to start planning and equipping for the next war, not the last.

 

[Palnatoke]

Without heading into a tank vs. tank discussion, I think it's fair to say that the LEOII would have been a quite functional tank for the british army. (Though my personal oppinion is that the LEOII was and is and will stay a superior tank to the ChallII just like the export markets seems to think, but that is beside the point)
It's also quite fair to suggest that a purchase of the LEOII would have been significantly cheaper on the british taxpayer, instead of inventing the soup ball twice.

Also the maintenance and running upgrades of the weapon system would probably also have been a lot cheaper since it would have been in coorperation with the many different users of the system (Germany, Holland,Poland,Sweden, Greece, Denmark, Canada, Spain (did I leave somebody out?).

The T45, yes they wanted the Lions share for BAe and France and Itally surprisingly disagreed. The radar issue became a non-issue as france offered a compromise that essentially meant that Britain could have the radar system they wanted - but that apparently weren't enough. In my humble oppinion because it was not about specs, but about british industrial politics. The end result was, as the story often is in Europe, sad. France and Itally finished the units in construction and dished the project because it had becomed too expensive. To the joy of politicians on election in certain areas, UK went on, continually down sizing the amount of units as costs spiralled out of control.

France and Itally continues with the FREEM project, while UK sails into shipbuilding oblivion, in my humble oppinion British shipbuilding is in an end game, and throwing good money at it will only postpone the enevitable. But maybe I am wrong - I am f.ex. wrong if the new carriers arrives on schedule (if they get them at all) and not with massive budget overruns.
I will go as far as saying: There will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

Regarding FRES.
Had the UK went for f.ex. the Boxer solution, the soldiers would likely have had them now, when they are needed. Some might argue that the type is not needed at all. Perhaps, though I am under impression that the americans are quite happy for their Stryker (basically a Piranhia III with a lot of add ons/versions) I know that the danish army are enthuastically happy for their PIIIs and have not had a single fatallity in a PIII eventhough they have been hit with mines, IEDs, anti tank rockets etc. In exactly the same operational enviroment as the british in Helmand, Afgh.

I am not very interested in the specifics. I care about bang for the dollar and in europe we are very bad at that. The national centric approch lies in the heart of that problem, particulary with a couple of countries that havn't realised that the sun has set on their empires a loong time ago.

As for axeing the bundeswehr, wants the point of keeping large armoured brigades sitting on their arses in Europe standing-by to fight a hugely diminished Russian threat when the real fighting is being done by others on the plains of A-STAN. Countries have got to start planning and equipping for the next war, not the last.

With one hand I agree with you, with the other I disagree.
I think it's a priority that we are absolutely sure that Europe can easely defend the European NATO area against f.ex. the russians, now as well as in 10-20 years. When you have "covered the base" you can start thinking on "expeditions". Europe should be able to do both. It's not like we should prepare for actually fighting the Ruskies. It's more that we make sure that the ruskies think that it's an insumountable task to bring themselves in a situation where a war on paper would be equal. It's about pre'empting the arms race by demonstrating superiority from the beginning.

 

[swerve]

...
Reference T45, the Brit's ... also wanted a much bigger vessel to allow for future incremental upgrades.....

We didn't buy a much bigger vessel. We bought a slightly bigger vessel. Check the specs.

 

[outsider]

The Boxer does look like a pretty good vehicle IMO, pity the UK left the program.

I'm not sure how the Challenger II compares to the up armoured Leopard 2A6, in terms of armoured protection. Would be interesting to know, but the information is probably classified. I understand at the time that the Germans were willing to offer a Leopard 2 with Challenger II levels of protection. I wonder if the UK would have been better off building Leopard 2Ax's under licence.

 

[Palnatoke]

Just to highligt the page I am on:

Type 45:

Cost of construction of 6 ships £6bn approx, including PAAMS

That is a lot more than the entire danish defense budget! It's comparable to the swedish defense budget!

(have not been looking up real exchange rates, soooo).

It's madness.

For completeness:

Unit Production Cost (UPC) in 2005 was £561.6m per ship (note: UPC excludes cost of development and 'cost of capital' charges)

Which is an uninteresting and most likely phoony figure from the view point of the tax payer.

Source MoD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/EquipmentFactsheets/Type45Destroyer.htm

 

[ASFC]

Without heading into a tank vs. tank discussion, I think it's fair to say that the LEOII would have been a quite functional tank for the british army. (Though my personal oppinion is that the LEOII was and is and will stay a superior tank to the ChallII just like the export markets seems to think, but that is beside the point)

Export success does not equal better tank. FYI the Leo 2 has been sold in far greater numbers due in part to the 'Great German Tank Fire Sale', which is probably now just only tailing of. Go and check. Look how many Leo 2 operators bought second hand cheap tanks. They got a steal.

The British Army outlines what tanks it wants, and it got it.

The T45, yes they wanted the Lions share for BAe and France and Itally surprisingly disagreed. The radar issue became a non-issue as france offered a compromise that essentially meant that Britain could have the radar system they wanted - but that apparently weren't enough. In my humble oppinion because it was not about specs, but about british industrial politics. The end result was, as the story often is in Europe, sad. France and Itally finished the units in construction and dished the project because it had becomed too expensive.

We pulled out of Horizon because a) it no longer met the RNs specs, and b) the French, who only wanted 2-4 ships, wanted to build the lions share of the hulls (which is unfair, it would be like the UK demanding to assemble 1500 JSF when we only want 138-150). This was as you point out politically unacceptable for British politicians............And as a member of the British electorate I see no reason why the UK should subsidise French and Italian shipbuilders (-or the EU for that matter but that is off topic).

France and Itally continues with the FREEM project, while UK sails into shipbuilding oblivion, in my humble oppinion British shipbuilding is in an end game, and throwing good money at it will only postpone the enevitable. But maybe I am wrong - I am f.ex. wrong if the new carriers arrives on schedule (if they get them at all) and not with massive budget overruns.
I will go as far as saying: There will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

I don't see why the UK warship building industry is heading into oblivion-it is pretty much secure in building every RN warship for the forseeable future, plus any export orders it gets. Pretty much like the warship builders of France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany and Spain, who are all guarenteed national orders, when they come. Your point is?

I am not very interested in the specifics. I care about bang for the dollar and in europe we are very bad at that. The national centric approch lies in the heart of that problem, particulary with a couple of countries that havn't realised that the sun has set on their empires a loong time ago.

I couldn't give a monkeys what the rest of Europe cares. As long as the British Armed Forces continue to exist it should buy and build what it needs not what the rest of Europe wants. The UK should only participate in European Defence Projects if it benefits us (and others) to build them as common projects, rather than trying to squeeze conflicting requirements into the same project. The A-400M is a case in point. It would have been much cheaper for the UK to go straight to the Americans and buy C-130Js and C-17s. In fact we did anyway............go figure.

The British Defence Industry is a political beast-like alot of other Defence industries. It is however not dying, merely evolving. For the forseeable future there will be a political requirement to build much of our Defence equipment in the UK, because it is a strategic industry, which if we lost completely, would leave us open to sanctions from other countries if we did something with their equipment (which we bought) that they didn't like. Obviously we are open to that, as we do use foreign equipment, but the name of the game is to try and reduce that reliance on other countries, if possible. Unfortunately that strategy of 'independence' is not cheap, and not always politically expediant!

 

[DavidDCM]

Export success does not equal better tank. FYI the Leo 2 has been sold in far greater numbers due in part to the 'Great German Tank Fire Sale', which is probably now just only tailing of. Go and check. Look how many Leo 2 operators bought second hand cheap tanks. They got a steal.

Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and Greece all purchased newly produced vehicles at full price instead of cheap 2nd hand ones from German army stocks.

But don't misunderstand this as if I were against the Challenger II. I actually love that machine.

 

[Grim901]

I'm confused, from your last couple of posts Palnatoke it sounds like your simply plugging the idea of joint european defence procurement, which does admittadly have it's advantages. But after reading the first post you made about the Seahawk not being "good enough" for us, I realized that you just seem to be taking a dig at the British military without backing up much of what you say with any kind of fact.

Different militaries have different requirements, fact. I'm glad FRES has fallen through, neither the LAV nor Boxer meet the current requirements, as someone else said a lot of the mentality at the MoD has swuing back to tracked vehicles after seeing other nations LAVs stuck quite deep in the mud of Helmand. It's the specifics, which you said you didn't care about, that make a lot of difference in decision making.

As for the Challenger 2, I'm glad we built it, it's the most reliable tank in service, combat proven and one has never been lost to enemy fire. I doubt the LeoII can match that combat record.

As for the British defense industry in general, the dying industry or whatever you called it, well in 2007 we were the 2nd largest arms exporter on the planet, doesn't sound dying to me.

Finally, the Type 45's (even though this is a british army thread, not a royal navy thread) are the single most powerful destroyers on the planet. The FREMM class is more the concept Britain is looking into for the C2 version of its new Frigates, not even C1.
The Horizon class was designed for a different purpose, another specific you probably didn't care about. The French were mainly interested in a pure escort for their carrier, where as the british wanted a more versatile ship that could operate alone, hence the larger vessel with more powerful systems.

As ASFC quite correectly stated, Britain should only get involved in European programs if it benefits us, not because it is best for other EU nations (case in point A400M = bad for us). The fact that we're as likely to buy American or British as it is European is one of the reasons we are considered to have one of the least biased procurement systems in the world.

 

[ASFC]

Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and Greece all purchased newly produced vehicles at full price instead of cheap 2nd hand ones from German army stocks.

But don't misunderstand this as if I were against the Challenger II. I actually love that machine.

Quite, i'm not saying the Leo 2 is a rubbish tank either, or that the overridding reason for being bought is that they were cheap. But they were cheaper and that no doubt had an effect on the number of countries who bought them.

Something like 1300 tanks were exported new, and another 1600 odd second hand. Many countries did get a steal on what is a good tank-and that was my point, capability is only one factor in export sales, which Palnatoke seems to have overlooked in his 'dig' at the British Defence industry.

 

[swerve]

Export success does not equal better tank. FYI the Leo 2 has been sold in far greater numbers due in part to the 'Great German Tank Fire Sale', which is probably now just only tailing of. Go and check. Look how many Leo 2 operators bought second hand cheap tanks. They got a steal.

1334 new-build Leopard II exported. That's not bad.
1340 ex-Bundeswehr tanks exported.
304 ex-Dutch (bought new) tanks exported.

 

[Palnatoke]

I don't see why the UK warship building industry is heading into oblivion-it is pretty much secure in building every RN warship for the forseeable future, plus any export orders it gets. Pretty much like the warship builders of France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany and Spain, who are all guarenteed national orders, when they come. Your point is?

I didn't say "UK warship building industry" I said "UK ship building industry." I also think that german, french and spanish shipbuilding is in a slightly better shape than british - but I might be wrong?
But you are right, the UK goverment can continue to keep it afloat by ordering ships and pay the price. Like they have just done with the Type 45, for comparison other nations can build entire fleets for the price of one or two of those.

The result for the RN is that it has fewer vessels and less power, than it could have for the money invested.

For the forseeable future there will be a political requirement to build much of our Defence equipment in the UK,

Yes, unfortunately you are right - which is a problem.

because it is a strategic industry, which if we lost completely, would leave us open to sanctions from other countries if we did something with their equipment (which we bought) that they didn't like

Come on, UK is allready completely depending on "foreign powers". Your airplanes are builded in coorperation with other nations, your JSF will be builded in a foreign nation, PAAMS is also in coorperation etc etc etc. And the - unrealistic, imho - ideas that the germans or french should sanction you, let alone assuming that they ever would is cracy, you can pre'empt that by agreements within the EU framework.
It's just a bad argument.

In short, use your defense budget on getting the men and weaponry for the defense of the country and don't try to sneak in goverment subsidies to industries - because that is a waste of money.