British Army News and Discussion

[Big_Zucchini]

Britain unveils strategy to gain a technological advantage over adversaries

The latest strategy launch comes weeks after the MoD rolled out a new integrated operational concept to shape how Britain adapts its future military effort to the changing security threat posed by the likes of China and Russia.

www.defensenews.com

Love how they sneak the "we want to cut conventional capabilities even more" part so elegantly.
Meanwhile, they throw empty words like:
Integrated - 4 times.
Technology - 14 times.
Capability - 7 times.

It's amazing how such a long article can be so devoid of content.
Not a single new piece of info was given except "we'll probably cut even more tanks".

 

[ngatimozart]

Britain unveils strategy to gain a technological advantage over adversaries

The latest strategy launch comes weeks after the MoD rolled out a new integrated operational concept to shape how Britain adapts its future military effort to the changing security threat posed by the likes of China and Russia.

www.defensenews.com

Love how they sneak the "we want to cut conventional capabilities even more" part so elegantly.
Meanwhile, they throw empty words like:
Integrated - 4 times.
Technology - 14 times.
Capability - 7 times.

It's amazing how such a long article can be so devoid of content.
Not a single new piece of info was given except "we'll probably cut even more tanks".

I believe that they intend to reintroduce the Longbow as the main battle weapon along with the armoured knight on a trusty steed.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe that they intend to reintroduce the Longbow as the main battle weapon along with the armoured knight on a trusty steed.

Probably an inadequate supply of oats for the trusty steed though.

 

[ngatimozart]

Write up in the UK Defence Journal about the Brit Army acquisition procurements. It uses the term shambolic. The author spent 20 years in the Royal Tank Regiment.

Why is the British Army’s equipment procurement so shambolic?

Stuart Crawford looks at British defence procurement over the past 20 years.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[Big_Zucchini]

His service does make him biased towards tradition. We have that in Israel, where soldiers from corp-oriented brigades with rich combat history and decorations are lobbying against the switch to BCTs that would basically create whole new brigades and dismantle old ones.

But it could be useful to look at things more positively now.
I advocate for a 5-division ground army structure with 3 deployable ones (if we discard rotations), but the core capabilities the UK wants to advance as a key NATO member exist and are only improving. In the meantime its allies should cover it where it's weak.
Hopefully by 2030 we'll see some critical mass of modern AFVs.

 

[StobieWan]

Write up in the UK Defence Journal about the Brit Army acquisition procurements. It uses the term shambolic. The author spent 20 years in the Royal Tank Regiment.

Why is the British Army’s equipment procurement so shambolic?

Stuart Crawford looks at British defence procurement over the past 20 years.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

It's quite reasonable - the FRES debacle which went on for decades without delivering a single vehicle was probably swamped by rapidly evolving shifts in requirements due to the ME experiences for instance. However, to find ourselves finally buying Boxer after pulling out of the program ten years earlier is discouraging.

Not that I'm suggesting Boxer was or is a bad choice - just that it should have been executed much earlier.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Remarkable that the UK orders the AGM-179 while they already have the Hellfires and Brimstones.

UK signs up for JAGM missile

The United Kingdom has placed its first order for the Lockheed Martin AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) weapon system developed for the US military.

www.janes.com

 

[swerve]

It's quite reasonable - the FRES debacle which went on for decades without delivering a single vehicle was probably swamped by rapidly evolving shifts in requirements due to the ME experiences for instance. However, to find ourselves finally buying Boxer after pulling out of the program ten years earlier is discouraging.

Not that I'm suggesting Boxer was or is a bad choice - just that it should have been executed much earlier.

More than ten years ago I went through the easily accessible public information I could find on what had the MoD had spent on not buying AFVs, starting in the mid-1990s. I totted up about a billion quid. Some more was spent after that, but that may have been offset by actually buying Boxer - but perhaps not, since I don't think we got any credit for what we'd spent on not buying Boxer first time round.

 

[ngatimozart]

More than ten years ago I went through the easily accessible public information I could find on what had the MoD had spent on not buying AFVs, starting in the mid-1990s. I totted up about a billion quid. Some more was spent after that, but that may have been offset by actually buying Boxer - but perhaps not, since I don't think we got any credit for what we'd spent on not buying Boxer first time round.

That's sensible expenditure of public monies. Great value for money. That billion quid could've been better spent in the NAAFI shouting the squaddies free beers. At least it would've done something constructive.

 

[StobieWan]

More than ten years ago I went through the easily accessible public information I could find on what had the MoD had spent on not buying AFVs, starting in the mid-1990s. I totted up about a billion quid. Some more was spent after that, but that may have been offset by actually buying Boxer - but perhaps not, since I don't think we got any credit for what we'd spent on not buying Boxer first time round.

Very difficult number to add up - how many lives could have been saved by simply buying Boxer right off the bat? How much money could have been saved not extending Scimitar etc

 

[StobieWan]

Remarkable that the UK orders the AGM-179 while they already have the Hellfires and Brimstones.

UK signs up for JAGM missile

The United Kingdom has placed its first order for the Lockheed Martin AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) weapon system developed for the US military.

www.janes.com

Makes sense, it's already integrated with Apache and F35. Buy what the big dog in the yard uses and you're not likely to be too far wrong.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

£80bn boost for military to arm it with new tanks, warships and ‘kamikaze drones’

The Defence Review will be partially unveiled on the 16th, and fully on the 22nd of March.
Some details are already known, or more precisely, guessed with very high certainty.

About 150-170 tanks will remain in service and be upgraded to a truly modern standard.
All Warriors (758) will be "abandoned", and replaced by the Boxer, as a cost cutting measure. It's worth noting the Warriors were supposed to be upgraded under the WCSP program to a modern standard, for over 2 billion dollars.
The army will be downsized and the nuclear warhead cap will remain at 180.


I personally think there is a lot of positive change presented here, especially by finally giving a coherent strategy for the UK alone, and as part of larger alliances.

 

[swerve]

We still have 758? Are you sure? After 36 years in service, & a few wars, I'd expect more than 31 to have been written off.

The WSCP was supposed to extend the lives of 380, of which 245 would get a new turret. It's been running for 10 years, & as of this time last year, had cost £430 mn of an originally expected £1 bn. Last June it was stated to be three years late & £227 mn over budget. But the scheduled in-service date was supposed to be 2018, so three years late should have seen the army getting upgraded Warriors this year.

The project must be totally fucked-up, if three years after it was supposed to have started delivering it's about to be abandoned.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

We still have 758? Are you sure? After 36 years in service, & a few wars, I'd expect more than 31 to have been written off.

The WSCP was supposed to extend the lives of 380, of which 245 would get a new turret. It's been running for 10 years, & as of this time last year, had cost £430 mn of an originally expected £1 bn. Last June it was stated to be three years late & £227 mn over budget. But the scheduled in-service date was supposed to be 2018, so three years late should have seen the army getting upgraded Warriors this year.

The project must be totally fucked-up, if three years after it was supposed to have started delivering it's about to be abandoned.

I'm not sure about this number, as I'm not the one reporting it. I've merely linked an article.
Regardless, the plan is reportedly north of 500 Boxer units, despite a shrink in the army's size (at least on paper). So it might as well be a 1:1 replacement.

 

[StobieWan]

The project must be totally fucked-up, if three years after it was supposed to have started delivering it's about to be abandoned.

Ordinarily, taking that sentence in isolation, I'd read it as strong words indeed. Looking at it in context, I'm finding you guilty of some English understatement there.


What a horrible screwup if true. Last update from LockMart has them at 80% of the missions required - I'm guessing nothing has been delivered en-masse as yet.

I'm wondering if that will all be replaced by Boxer if more of the Ajax variants will be added?

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Ordinarily, taking that sentence in isolation, I'd read it as strong words indeed. Looking at it in context, I'm finding you guilty of some English understatement there.


What a horrible screwup if true. Last update from LockMart has them at 80% of the missions required - I'm guessing nothing has been delivered en-masse as yet.

I'm wondering if that will all be replaced by Boxer if more of the Ajax variants will be added?

The Ajax reportedly had other variants, one of which is an APC. I do not understand the logic in the WCSP if an Ajax can be made into an IFV, other than delivery times (easier to deliver a turret than a whole vehicle).
I'd suggest not abandoning the Warrior entirely but giving it a slight modernization, i.e install a Bushmaster cannon for commonality, refurbish its automotives, and then mothball.
Or, either sell at a symbolic price, donate to an ally in need, or create a war reserve stock somewhere in central Europe to use in an emergency without relying on transportation assets that might be overburdened.

 

[StobieWan]

The Ajax reportedly had other variants, one of which is an APC. I do not understand the logic in the WCSP if an Ajax can be made into an IFV, other than delivery times (easier to deliver a turret than a whole vehicle).
I'd suggest not abandoning the Warrior entirely but giving it a slight modernization, i.e install a Bushmaster cannon for commonality, refurbish its automotives, and then mothball.
Or, either sell at a symbolic price, donate to an ally in need, or create a war reserve stock somewhere in central Europe to use in an emergency without relying on transportation assets that might be overburdened.

In UK service we're buying ARES but it's not a good replacement for Warrior tbh, the variant we're getting in armed with a Cal 50 and seats six including driver and gunner, so not a lot of dismounts.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In UK service we're buying ARES but it's not a good replacement for Warrior tbh, the variant we're getting in armed with a Cal 50 and seats six including driver and gunner, so not a lot of dismounts.

Yeah, that's not meant as a true APC in the way the Boxer fulfills that capability. But the base platform can be stretched if needed. Of course, the Boxer will fulfill this role now, and it's not a bad thing.

 

[Raven22]

All Warriors (758) will be "abandoned", and replaced by the Boxer, as a cost cutting measure.

If this is true, it will be interesting to see what happens with the organisation of 3 (UK) Div, as both the strike an armoured brigade will seemingly be mounted in Boxer. Indeed, it looks like the only difference between them will be that the armoured brigades will have tank regiments while the strike brigades will have Ajax regiments. This will be a pretty terrible outcome, as all brigades will have a mixture of wheels and tracks, meaning you lose the advantages of both.

Also, if Boxer is not fitted with a turret it will be a massive decrease in combat power, particularly as there are no ATGMs fitted to any variant of Ajax. The only anti tank capability within the brigades will be the 120mm of the tanks and dismounted javelin. Far from ideal.

 

[StobieWan]

If this is true, it will be interesting to see what happens with the organisation of 3 (UK) Div, as both the strike an armoured brigade will seemingly be mounted in Boxer. Indeed, it looks like the only difference between them will be that the armoured brigades will have tank regiments while the strike brigades will have Ajax regiments. This will be a pretty terrible outcome, as all brigades will have a mixture of wheels and tracks, meaning you lose the advantages of both.

Also, if Boxer is not fitted with a turret it will be a massive decrease in combat power, particularly as there are no ATGMs fitted to any variant of Ajax. The only anti tank capability within the brigades will be the 120mm of the tanks and dismounted javelin. Far from ideal.

That's what I'm thinking as well - we'll have to hold off on an actual announcement but if WCSP goes away and Boxer (which I do like immensely for what it is) fills that role, then we're giving up a chunk of punching power,