I think you are missing the point. The force levels in Iraq re the heavy, medium mix not the point I am trying to make. That is not the issue. The issue is the heavy eqpt we have parked up in areas around the world doing nothing. Can we use what we have more effectively ? Do we need it all ?

I am deeply disappointed that senior management are not complaining more loudly about the proposed cuts, using reality as justification. Instead we get jargon-heavy sound bites about how buying less capable kit will allow us to do more.

A valid point. However we must face reality. Complaining and whinging gets us nowhere. What does make an impact is hard cold logic and well argued facts. Can we do x ? No we cannnot because of a b c. If the Army is required to do x, then we need ....... etc etc, it will cost ... etc which we need to be able to spend/buy by ... etc

Mmmm ... interesting. I don't know the exact figures but do we really have lots of kit sitting around in barracks doing nothing ? Or is it down through lack of spares and would be used if available ? Maybe I've missed the point though, do you mean kit deployed to theatre - I suppose deterrence is the justification there.

Or look at it another way, this is peacetime and the Army is undertaking peacetime tasks. We would not expect all available kit to be in use. Should a real war start then we would need and use more. Sizing and equipping the Army to meet peacetime commitments does I think miss the point. After all, we had absolutely loads of heavy kit sat in barracks during the Cold War but I don't think you could use that lack of use as justification for its disposal at that time.

So I suppose we come back to sizing the Army to counter the defined wartime threat - so what is it ? Maybe I've missed the articles but I don't see force structures justified in terms of the threat, I see them justified as all we can afford.

And I don't expect the grownups to whinge at the Govt, I expect them to say exactly what you suggest. Again, maybe I'm not reading the right periodicals but I don't see that happening. What I do see is someone cutting kit on cost grounds then trying to claim we can do more with less with technology that doesn't exist yet.

Well.... a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the last post.. and funny old thing.... much of what has been predicted here - has either come to pass or is being discussed with a view being taken shortly.

So.. the next thing to affect the subject of this thread is Future Army Structures, Future Infantry Structures and some of Whole Fleet Management.

Much is being discussed in the forums here and in the corridoors of power, and there is now considerable agreement there we must be more deployable. The main outcomes of the above studies will be public soon -but what do you predict and/or what else can we do ?

OK own up Ramillies. Are you the PoD?

Yes a number of things this thread talked about in 2003 like sacking the Arms Plot are now coming about. However downsizing the Army has been fed to us before as "Leaner but Better", the 'Peace Dividend", etc, etc, b*llocks.

We're far busier now than during the Cold War with less and less assets. The previous suggestions on better transport assets to get greater efficiencies out of heavy eqpt are also questionable, IMHO. We don't hold large war stocks of heavy eqpt so you would only be redistributing the equip of non committed units which under you fixed posting system (no more Arms Plot) presumably that unit was using to train with in order to rotate with the op unit.

All this cr*p brings us back to the real issue and that is if the Govt doesn't match funding to meet the committments then we are left with bugg*ring about trying to make the thing fit. I wonder how many senior Officers and Foreign Office Johnies are contempating the ability of a British response if things esculate in Eastern Europe. Say an Armd Bde size force was required at short notice to deploy to Poland as a show of force or a deterent as part of a NATO op? Where would the men and eqpt come from? Would this op take priority over Iraq and our troops there redeployed?

There's the challenge. All this downsizing takes no account of needing a reserve that can deal with 'potential threats' that become real in a short time frame.

A few things that floated across my mind ....

The drive towards increasing mobility is only a good thing if what you send can actually get the job done. At the moment I see Iraq demonstrating that there is no substitute for heavy armour to fight the close-in urban battle. That kind of engagement should drive our planning as it is the one that gives the opposition the best chance to win, hence they will refuse battle anywhere else.

So to replace CR2/Warrior we need a FRES variant with:
CR2/uparmoured Warrior levels of protection;
Equivalent weaponry and ammo levels to same;
Fits in a C-130.

Personally I reckon that's unachievable within a decade, probably two. We will see vehicles that offer elements of this solution but read the fine print very carefully.

For instance, does said vehicle use active defences - ie fire a claymore equivalent at incoming missiles ? So you need to switch it off any time friendly troops are near - how useful is that really ?

Does your whizzy thin electric armour stop shaped charges ? Great. How about all the other ammo natures that exist or can be developed quickly - because the enemy reads the press as well. If I stick a nice big lump of PE in a rubber bag with a delay fuse (HESH with a condom on) I reckon I could ruin the crews day - or maybe a FAE round for blast injuries and to blow the vehicle onto its side.

Does your C-130 capable vehicle need a second C-130 to haul the uparmour kit and a third to carry the ammo and fuel ? Not so good now is it.

Thanks for the posts.

All this cr*p brings us back to the real issue and that is if the Govt doesn't match funding to meet the committments then we are left with bugg*ring about trying to make the thing fit.

Yes with you. But whatever we send must be a self contained package where we do not have to strip out assets from other units and formations as we are having to do at the moment in order to make it self contained. But you are right about the bottom line.... cut funding ... and commitments and the size of the force we send is reduced.

So to replace CR2/Warrior we need a FRES variant with:
CR2/uparmoured Warrior levels of protection;
Equivalent weaponry and ammo levels to same;
Fits in a C-130.

Again very valid.. this technology will take time and money to make it work properly. But when it does... it will be good news !

The problem with a project of this magnitude is that the bean counters can't keep their hands off it. How many times have we started out, after a detailed threat assessment and review deciding that we will need x number of new tanks/fighter aircraft/helos/trucks/etc then as the procurement unfolds over years the bean counters eat away at it. Why is it that the requirement is always reviewed downwards?

That is why we don't have sufficient reserves and constantly canabalise from non-deployed units.

At the moment (and into the forseeable future) the only capability we have which spans the spectrum from light to hy is WR and CR2.

The short-term gap which can solve our problems is more strategic lift. With the right amount of lift we can get a hy force onto the ground pretty sharpish (after the area has been secured for example by air assault perhaps).

FRES does not exist, and STRYKER just goes to show that medium against even the current threats is insufficient in terms of protection. We have the technology now to make expeditionary warfare work until the boffins can work out their space-aged platforms. And let's face it, who knows when that will be.

We are consistently reminded that the world's population is becoming increasingly urbanised, ergo, the chances are most of the fighting we will do into the future will involve FIBUA. Check out the Israelis, who have been conducting this type of warfare for some time now. Are they going light? or do they continue to develop the hy end of things because they know that they can cope across the spectrum?

I fail to see the logic, until we can afford ourselves the same mob / firepower/protection form a platfom as we can with our current hy stuff (which has proven itself in the heaviest combat since Korea) in down-sizing our only true capability across the spectrum of conflict.

Of course, people will say that there are places armour cannot go. They would be right. But that's not to say that medium will be able to get there either, if we wish to afford ourselves the above. STRYKER needs to be uparmoured to deal with the current anti-armour threat (it would appear from the pictures of them in Iz) which dramatically changes the vehicle's dynamics and all-up weight, and it becomes a hy veh.

Light forces are eminently more deployable, but as was demonstrated clearly last year in the more pitched stuff, and to date in operations across Iz, they are woefully underprotected and equipped to conduct offensive operations against anything other than blokes with sharp sticks. As soon as any form of armour / anti-armour is introduced into the equation, the odds become so even that we lose initiative.

I would suggest therefore that yes funding should be allocated to the R&D for future systems, but that's long-term stuff. Converting to a theoretical medium capability at present is nonesensicle, and will only leave our blokes swinging in the wind. Let's concentrate on sorting out how we can better get our heavy-end stuff around and about more effectively.

But it's just an opinion.

Stryker - winner of a competition to build the world's most expensive BTR-80.

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

So to replace CR2/Warrior we need a FRES variant with:
CR2/uparmoured Warrior levels of protection;
Equivalent weaponry and ammo levels to same;
Fits in a C-130.

The screamingly obvious thing that comes out of the above, is that if you reduce the volume of the vehicle, you reduce the surface area, and can have thicker armour for the same weight, or the same level of protection for less weight. You then also need a smaller engine, with smaller fuel consumption.

Of course, this means that you need a smaller crew. Given the absence of dwarves in UK Armed Forces (well, since the Cameronians went, anyway), that means all of the VERDI trials (and German investigations for their 1970s future AFV, IIRC) will get dusted off again for "how can you drive and fight a vehicle with only two blokes". Cue the autoloaders.

I foresee much rehashing of all of the "well, we'll have twice as many, but smaller wagons, replacing the CR2" and "hot-desking at the AFV level" (with the next question being "where do all the off-duty crews go?") debates.

The big problem being, of course, "If we have eight blokes in the rifle section, and the smallest protected vehicle that we can realistically fit them in is a Warrior, then sorry - physics says that your next transport aircraft has to be able to carry it", and cue big smiles on the faces of the Airbus consortium and frowns on that of Lockheed.