British Army Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

To make clear:

I am shooting at the british procurement, because that's a good example of the over all dysfunctional european defense procurement mess.
I could just as well have picked the french, which are equally idiotic in that respect.

Most other (small) european countries are less idiotic because (we) don't have the choise to be idiotic about defense procurement since we don't have the industries, dispite that we do our outmost to be as idiotic as possible.

I have a lot of respect for Britain and her armed forces, and I hope that my critisimn is understood as a friendly: "Can't we try to get this better?"

I surport a common european procurement process - though that is, sadly, completely unrealistic, what we perhaps can get is "Common market" mechanismns that would open up for a lot of efficiency gains, though not being perfect.

 

[ASFC]

I didn't say "UK warship building industry" I said "UK ship building industry."

I don't know if you have noticed but they are almost the same thing-I can't remember the last time the UK launched a major merchant vessel.

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.

Correction, many nations can pay other nations to build them fleets for the price of one or two T45s. Its the price we pay for a home grown Defence industry.

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

Have you seen the T42s they replace?

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.

(My Bold)

No we don't completely rely on other nations-as you say we co-operate, because it is cheaper to in the two cases you mention and benefits us. Look at France, she went alone on Rafale, because they wanted to maintain that capability, and paid the price. I don't see you taking a dig at the French.

I suppose you would deny that the EAP (what the Typhoon is based on) wasn't designed and built in Britain, or that Britain isn't developing other areas of our Defence requirements (like UAVs) which just have not matured yet.

And please-stop presuming that I (or anybody in the UK) always wants to work within the EU, or that it is the miracle solution to all our problems. The whole point of spending money on a homegrown defence industry is to reduce your reliance on foreign powers. Otherwise, we might aswell buy off-the shelf from overseas (and in many cases, end up with a less capable equipment). Hence Defence is a 'strategic' industry and hasn't died out like alot of the UKs other heavy industry has.

don't try to sneak in goverment subsidies to industries - because that is a waste of money.

This happens all over the world. Get real.

I have a lot of respect for Britain and her armed forces, and I hope that my critisimn is understood as a friendly: "Can't we try to get this better?"

I respect you for that as well, its a debate, and I can understand where you are coming from, but your posts are quite pointed and fail to take into account that this isn't just a UK only issue. And this probably isn't the thread for it either, given it is for the British Army and we are discussing the RAF and RN.

Attack the argument, not the user.

 

[Palnatoke]

I can't remember the last time the UK launched a major merchant vessel.

My point exactly.

Correction, many nations can pay other nations to build them fleets for the price of one or two T45s. Its the price we pay for a home grown Defence industry.

Actually you can do the trick, and it has been done, and build the ship yourself (if you have shipbuilding industry), but the political layer has to agree that the agenda is to procure and not a 1000 different things.

Its the price we pay for a home grown Defence industry.

Excuse me, but what exactly is the value of that "homegrown defense industry"? Surely it's not economical (If it were, then you didn't need subsidizing it) and surply wise you are anyway dependent on some few other countries for several critical systems.

Look at France, she went alone on Rafale, because they wanted to maintain that capability, and paid the price. I don't see you taking a dig at the French

That was also supreamely stupid.

Otherwise, we might aswell buy off-the shelf from overseas

Well wouldn't that be a fantastically great idea? You don't need to buy stuff just because it's foreign, but if the foreign stuff is better (that'll f.ex be cheaper) than what you could produce at home, well go ahead. Ofcourse you shouldn't buy stuff from your possible enemy, but countries in the allience should qualify for even the most schizofrenic(spelling??).

This happens all over the world. Get real.

Get real about what? It's in your own interest not to subsidize. Don't waste your money.

, but your posts are quite pointed and fail to take into account that this isn't just a UK only issue.

I apologize if it looks like I deliberately pick on british, that's actually not my purpose. And, yes, as I wrote else where this problem is far from only a UK issue.

 

[ASFC]

Excuse me, but what exactly is the value of that "homegrown defense industry"? Surely it's not economical (If it were, then you didn't need subsidizing it) and surply wise you are anyway dependent on some few other countries for several critical systems.

Are we deliberitly subsidizing it? The UK isn't some self-obsessed 'buy British' country, and we buy quite alot of foreign equipment. And I admit that Politics plays apart, but where doesn't it in Defence around the world? I think what you see as subsidizing is actually national projects, where the UK Armed Forces thinks it can build something more capable than something of the shelf, but costs increase because we never buy in enough numbers, and because industry/the MOD are too slow to learn their mistakes.

However I fail to see your point, or why you are making it in the British Army thread. Defence industries and procurement processes are like this the world over, why pick the UK out? Why do you see European Defence procurement as a solution (I don't-I see Europe as making the process as more beaucratic), and I don't see why you think we are subsidizing our Defence industry-it makes a profit, and it survives, and it gets export orders, the US DoD (for example) buys more from BAE than the UK MoD does, so explain how we subsidize our industry and our companies when in many cases they are getting more orders from overseas.

:unknown

I think we will have to agree to disagree and put this thread back on topic.

 

[Grim901]

One last off topic point, if you're gog to go after government subsidies and keeping industries afloat in the European context you really have to go after France before the UK.

I don't see common EU procurement as a good thing for the British and probably the French too. The simple reason is that we usually demand much more and different/varied tasks from our armed forces than the rest of the EU, who as a whole, rarely deploy troops outside of peacekeeping. It might be good if the smaller (defence wise) Eu countries pooled together in procurement, but it just wouldn't suit British needs for the most part, same as always buying American wouldn't always suit us.

One last thing, If a homegrown defence industry is so bad, why are nations like India and Brazil desperately trying to build one up, rather than relying on their traditional suppliers like Russia/USA etc.

 

[riksavage]

Palnatoke the British Defence Industry compared to many of its European rivals is in great shape thanks to some very sensible strategic decision making. Between 2005 and 2008, eight out of ten (by value) defence acquisitions made by foreign companies in the US were British (BAE, Cobham, Meggitt, & Hampson), The only non-UK companies, which appeared on the list were Finmeccanica and EADS.

BAE now has a huge share of the global armoured fighting vehicles market, in heavy, medium and MARP vehicles. It remains the ONLY tier one partner in the F35 programme. Why on earth would they wish to seek greater integration with the Europeans when they have secured such a large footprint in the worlds most lucrative defence market? The UK benefits from this relationship like no other country, it has access to US tech, which the French, Germans and Italians can only dream of.

There's plenty of negative talk about the declining UK ship- building industry, well so what, we can always get the hulls built cheaply overseas, it's the technology, which goes in to the vessel that counts. You should take a look at Rolls Royce's electric drive / gas turbine market share and see just how many Navies in the world use the companies technology (RN & USN for one). Plus Rolls Royce is the ONLY aero-engine manufacturer which has jet-engines in its portfolio capable of being fitted to all current civi operational Boeing and Airbus planes.

Following the A400 debacle, I will be surprised if the Brit's ever join another European strategic project again - they should have just bought more C17's (we know it's going to happen anyway).

For the UK's next generation of fighting vehicle, by choosing a BRITISH owned company (BAE), they will have access to: United Defence, BAE Systems Global Combat Systems (formally Hagglunds) and South African manufacturers. I also anticipate in the next few months the announcement by BAE of a new Indian joint venture, which will likely build MARP vehicles for the domestic market there.

It would not suprise me to see the Scimitar replacement being awarded to BAE Global Combat Sytems using a CV90 fitted with the new 40mm turret ear-marked for the Warrior.

Oh and (wrong page I know) lets not forget BVT, which is building the two largest Carriers ever built in Europe, the biggest SSN's ever built in Europe and the next generation C2 & C3 vessels.

With NATO becoming more and more like a two-tier club (those that fight vs those that like to parade), you will see the UK defence market focus more and more on the US, Australia and countries such as India for strategic partnerships. I for one will be very happy to see this happen.

More good news, a new UK based joint venture is being set-up to build WOLFHOUNDS to compliment MASTIFF, RIDGEBACK & HUSKY

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...s/OrderPlacedForWolfhoundArmouredVehicles.htm

 

[Palnatoke]

This is wandering a bit off topic..

I am not saying homegrown defense industry is bad. I am saying that inefficient homegrown defense industry is bad.

Bad gets worse when politicians furthermore uses defense procurement to "do a little something" for their local electorate. Or tries to bolster an industry - f.ex. shipbuilding or other heavy stuff - that really isn't doing very well with bad prospects of longterm survival.

The effects, across europe not only the UK, is that coorporation (I'll return to that shortly) is often hampered or rendered inefficient or made impossible, by all sorts of different national requirements and wishes which all have to do, not with operational necessity, but with who gets the larger piece of the pie in terms of economical activity (don't confuse the reason for the excuse).

As an example: Airbus.
French, germans, brits etc are so keen on making sure that they get their "piece of @ss" that almost every part of an airbus airplane have been driven, sailed or goddamn flowen back and forth between the different countries. Everybody know that it's madness, but the taxpayers pay the bill. So all is happy. No, not really. Disregarding the simple fact that from an economical point of view the money could be better invested in the respective countries the madness also prohibits Airbus from becoming the world leading aircraft producer that it has potential to be (actually *should be*), simply because the operation is deeply inefficient and only floats because of subsidies.

Coorporation
Let me start off by saying that I don't at all buy the argument that the British or French army or navy is equiped with higher quality equipment than other countries - And therefore you can't buy foreign because it's substandard. It's not an argument, because it has nothing to do with reality.

When that's said, it's simple logic that if a group of countries team up to produce a given item, you will have instant advantages of scale as compared to having every country producing their own variant of the item.

But as the airbus example highlights we still have a problem:

Namely efficiency

In a capitalistic system you get efficiency by competion, the more competion the better efficiency. So what we should do is to have a common market also for millitary stuff, and not just the current "Common market for everything, except millitary".
This has nothing to do with "EU bureaucrats in the land of Mordor", just a set of rules that ensure free competion across europe. F.ex. When the danish navy needs new frigates, the deal shouldn't be brokered behind closed doors and aimed at the last remaining major yard in Denmark, but instead a process that would allow French, British etc contractors to make a bid and get a fair evaluation - not different than when the danish state builded a bridge across the great belt (where a spanish yard took a good chunk of the ironworking and thus gave the taxpayers and users a better and cheaper bridge as compared to the "national solution" - but that was initially much to the irritation of all danes and a united "we hate the EU and the spanish yard", that was years ago and now most people understand the many very good effects of the common market).

That's my personal suggetion: A common market for defense procurement.

Is effective procurement important?
In my oppinion nothing is more important. If we are to , and allow me to use the word, "Reconstruct" the european defense cababilities in a manner that would allow us to become a true partner of our major ally and friend the United States of America, and not a hang around at best or choir of old hags at the worst.
As it is now, more money is not going to fix the problem. And we can't have more Type 45 scandals where you buy 6 ships for a price that you can run an entire medium sized national defense for a year. Usually great navies are destroyed in great battles, the RN will be the first great navy to procure it self to death...

Is this off topic
Well, yes

 

[Palnatoke]

riksavage

I am not saying that BAe is a bad company, and if it is so great as you say, it would be great for BAe to have a free market of defense procurement in europe.

Let's f.ex. throw the construction of the new carriers or the FREEM into open bidding rounds.

May the best win.

 

[Palnatoke]

"NATO becoming more and more like a two-tier club (those that fight vs those that like to parade),"

Erhhh what are you talking about?

 

[OPSSG]

Let's f.ex. throw the construction of the new carriers or the FREEM into open bidding rounds.

May the best win.

Please accept my apologies for jumping in at this late stage.... On the issue of may the best win, I would ask by whose standards/measures? Considering how excited, I am about Singapore's Formidable class vessels, which is based on a French design and uses lots of French technology, I am a fan of French naval technology. That is not to say that I do not recognize the innovative aspects of British naval technology.

(i) Why would/should the British consider a conventional carrier from a French yard, when the French are having some documented problems with their nuclear aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle? For example, at one stage, the ship had to use propellers from it predecessor, the "Clemencau" because of problems the original ones built for Charles de Gaulle.

(ii) Further, what about the new innovations in present the Type 45? The integrated electric propulsion system for the Darling class is certainly innovative, just to name one of many innovations.​

I note that British troops are heavily involved in current operations, which would give them a good insider's view of future needs and trends in land warfare. This will place their formidable defence industrial capabilities in good stead to compete in world defence markets.

So let us be more careful about criticizing the British or the European defence industries. Please be fair to them in your critique.

 

[Palnatoke]

OPSSG

The standard answer would be that the procurer issues a set of specifications, the would be contractors makes their bids, and the procurer selects the "best" bid, which would f.ex. be the cheapest that meets the requirements - but there are many ways to do it. This actually works in the EU common market, also in public procurements.

Why should country "A" select a company from contry "B"? Because if the company from country "B" is the best and most efficient bid, country A gets the best deal- all things considered.

Does it mean that country "A" is flagging out it's industry? No, not necessarely, because the industry of country "A" can also bid for the projects in country "B". But If the companies in country "A" are inefficient they would either have to become efficient or they will die, which is good for country A, since the ressources can then be used to something that country A is good at.

 

[Firn]

Some thoughts:

BAE is such a dominant cooperation because she has bought up so many others and has proven to be able to win a lot of competitions through the necessary skills in all the spectrum (quality of the product, price, political connections etc.). However even if it is a British company it produces very large amounts (more the most IRRC) of the products not at home. Take Hugglunds which is owned by mighty BAE but produces almost all of its very successfull products in Sweden. This is understandable, given that the relative manufacturing weakness of Britain and the political conditions of the takeovers. But in times of uneasy peace or even war the factories abroad might very well get taken over by the state in which they are.

The success of BAE is not a sign of the prowess British manufacturing but of British finance and I would not wonder if all the takeovers in very recent times are now large financial burdens. The same goes for all the other British companies which bought other defense companies at mostly greatly inflated prices. So if the deals allowed for a closer coordination with the US than it came at a very steep price. Not exactely a very efficient or clever way to sustain a "homegrown" defense capability.

Also a word about strategic European cooperation. Could it be made more efficient? Yes. Does it also greatly profit from the (costly) support of the single states? Yes. But it certainly has proven that given the effects of scale of a Common market, united ressources and European engineering it could become a very serious competitor to US-american companies which also get heavily subsidized through the largely closed US defense market. Airbus is the best known example for it. So European integrated long-term cooperation has overall proven to have good long-term, especially in the civilian sphere, while product-specific cooperation has at best a very spotty track record. And this spotty track record was often the result of great political pressure of local companies who were eager to earn more with "homegrown" product and induced the MoD to pull out of cooperations. The British and French were certainly among the worst of offenders in this case - and paid often a very steep bill to have their hardware built at home.

Not that this doesn't mean that I want to single the British (or the French) out, because it is part of the nature of things that a great deal of varying interests influence the decisions of the participating institutions. These interests are usually a combination of monetary&personal, military and political concerns. What seems to me is that for a number of reasons countries like the USA, Germany and to some extent European cooperations have been able to achieve greater efficiency and export success for their home-manufactured products than Britain. Why it is so is very hard, if not impossible to determine. But is seems to me to be an very interesting fact.

The comments that some NATO countries buy for fighting and others for parade is of course a gross insult with only a very small grain of truth in it.

 

[citizen578]

Replacing CVR(T)... with what?

With the FRES programme a little up in the air for now, what are your suggestions for replacing, specifically, the Scimitar? I struggle to think of a vehicle which offers the same capabilities, without being significantly heavier, or without compromising on transportability.

Take the CV90 for instance, fantastic machine, but is 23 tonnes versus Scimitar's 8. Are there any vehicles out there which can offer the same off-road mobility, with good firepower, and modern systems?

 

[outsider]

With the FRES programme a little up in the air for now, what are your suggestions for replacing, specifically, the Scimitar? I struggle to think of a vehicle which offers the same capabilities, without being significantly heavier, or without compromising on transportability.

Take the CV90 for instance, fantastic machine, but is 23 tonnes versus Scimitar's 8. Are there any vehicles out there which can offer the same off-road mobility, with good firepower, and modern systems?

Why not purchase a new RECE vehicle like the CV90, but KEEP at least some, if not all of the Scimitars in service, updated with a new turret carrying the 40mm CTWS, for where a lighter vehicle is required.

 

[Grim901]

Why not purchase a new RECE vehicle like the CV90, but KEEP at least some, if not all of the Scimitars in service, updated with a new turret carrying the 40mm CTWS, for where a lighter vehicle is required.

How old are the Scimitars now? And how many do we even have left that are usable. I know we've lost a fair few in the Middle East.

I think that we really need a new build vehicle, as Citizen578 said, the CV90 is a wonderful vehicle but it isn't really the suitable as a direct replacement. If we build a new vehicle we can incorporate even further enhancements based on lessons learned in the Afghanistan and Iraqi theatres. I'm not a vehicle expert but would it be better to be using some more of the MRAP technology in our armoured vehicles (V hulls etc) since the threat of mines (and IEDs) is a big potential threat no matter who we're fighting (i.e every conflict we've been in since the second world war). Thoughts?

 

[outsider]

How old are the Scimitars now? And how many do we even have left that are usable. I know we've lost a fair few in the Middle East.

I think that we really need a new build vehicle, as Citizen578 said, the CV90 is a wonderful vehicle but it isn't really the suitable as a direct replacement. If we build a new vehicle we can incorporate even further enhancements based on lessons learned in the Afghanistan and Iraqi theatres. I'm not a vehicle expert but would it be better to be using some more of the MRAP technology in our armoured vehicles (V hulls etc) since the threat of mines (and IEDs) is a big potential threat no matter who we're fighting (i.e every conflict we've been in since the second world war). Thoughts?

AFAIK, the Scimitars date from the 1970's. Wikipedia lists 325 vehicles, but I'm not sure how many are still in service.

The Scimitars can be stripped down to their hulls and completely refurbished. Its been done with with FV432's (which are even older) to produce the Bulldogs. As long as the hull is in reasonable condition it can be done.

Regarding mines and IEDs, the Scimitars mobility means that it can travel off road, hopefully avoiding them.

I'm NOT suggesting that the Scimitars shouldn't be replaced, but that they should remain in service until a suitable replacement is availabe. AFAIK, there isn't one available in its weight category yet.

 

[citizen578]

I'm inclined to agree, Grim. The Scimitar is massively vulnerable to minestrikes, given it's aluminium hull.

According to several pieces I've read, the same 40mm armed turret to be fitted to the Warrior is also earmarked for the recce element of FRES. I don't know what weight that turret is, but I suspect that by the end of the design phase of the new vehicle (given that precedent) we'd be looking at something which would be massively less transportable than the Scimitar... begging the question of how we might continue to give an armoured recce/light tank capability to 16 Air Assault Brigade, and other rapid-deployment or air-mobile formations.

 

[outsider]

I'm inclined to agree, Grim. The Scimitar is massively vulnerable to minestrikes, given it's aluminium hull.

There is a report of a Scimitar hitting a mine in Afghanistan, the vehicle was written off, but the crew survived. I've heard that the light weight of the vehicle actually helps to reduce the effects of the blast, as the vehicle is lifted into the air by the force of the blast.

"Although his Scimitar vehicle was written off, the crew of three walked away completely unscathed: We were blown about three feet in the air and the vehicle came to a standstill 50 metres away,"

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...glandsNorthernCavalryOnTheChargeInHelmand.htm

 

[citizen578]

There is a report of a Scimitar hitting a mine in Afghanistan, the vehicle was written off, but the crew survived. I've heard that the light weight of the vehicle actually helps to reduce the effects of the blast, as the vehicle is lifted into the air by the force of the blast.

"Although his Scimitar vehicle was written off, the crew of three walked away completely unscathed: We were blown about three feet in the air and the vehicle came to a standstill 50 metres away,"

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...glandsNorthernCavalryOnTheChargeInHelmand.htm

That means very little, really. Completely exposed land-rovers and humvees have been hit by IEDs/road-side-bombs without casualties.
And likewise, scimitars have been hit by such devices with devestating effect

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549239/Iraq-bomb-soldiers-named.html


The armour of the Scimitar, even with cage-armour and applique armour, is completely inadaquate for the modern battlefield.

 

[outsider]

That means very little, really. Completely exposed land-rovers and humvees have been hit by IEDs/road-side-bombs without casualties.
And likewise, scimitars have been hit by such devices with devestating effect

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549239/Iraq-bomb-soldiers-named.html


The armour of the Scimitar, even with cage-armour and applique armour, is completely inadaquate for the modern battlefield.

Thats an IED strike, rather than a mine blast. The Scimitars crew can often survive a mine blast from UNDER the vehicle, but not an IED (often composed of artilery shells) from the SIDE.

I agree the Scimitar is under-armoured, but unfortunately there isn't a comparable replacement available in the immediate future. If a new vehicle is designed from scratch, it will be a considerable time before its brought into service, IMO.