Armour and A More Deployable Army

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
FNUSNU said:
Arty has been the battle winner for ever, so now they decide to cut it back, genius.
Wasn't the battle winner Napoleon ( another Long Range Sniper) thought it was in the Peninsular War either.

Wellington recognised that the french standard tactic was to pound your infantry with arty then let the unstoppable column punch through your
' Thin Red Line'.

So he put the Infantry line into deadground and destroyed the column
'in the regular way'.

Not sure which battle - either Talavera or Waterloo[1] - but Nosy's comment is as true today as it was then:

<victory is not dependent on ONE Arm but on the way in which they combine >


Le Chevre - matelot brevet



[1] i'm sure some Sharpe buff will tell me :wink: [/i]
 
The latest Janes Defence Weekly (well, the online version at least) contains an article about the US FCS programme. The full version is subscription only so I'd better not post the lot, but the non-subscriber extract may be found at:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw050627_1_n.shtml

Highlights are:

Vehicles meeting the C-130 requirement (17 tons odd) can't do the job;
You can fly three 22 ton vehicles that will do the job in on four flights, but have to spend hours at the other end bolting bits on, fuelling and bombing them up;
The US Army is not happy with this;
It has recommended that it buys heavier vehicles that do the job and some larger transports to carry them.

The implications for FRES are obvious and not good.
 
One_of_the_strange said:
The implications for FRES are obvious and not good.
...and squaring this equation is causing some serious problems as it is! After FCLV Panther, I just don't see the FRES project being able to deliver what we need to support experditionary warfare within the timelines.

Perhaps I'm being cynical?
 
The US has now dropped C-130 mobility completely from the FCS requirements. See below:

http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?action...nKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=3884

There are also many other question marks hanging over the project, mostly concerned with fielding such technically advanced vehicles in the planned timescales at acceptable cost (just like every other major procurement programme then ?).

At what point do the MoD wake up and realise that if the US can't afford to do it then there's no chance we can as FRES ? And that running on our present clapped out armour fleet (FV 432 anyone ?) on the assumption that it will be replaced by FRES is not a viable option ?

It would also be nice to see some truly original thinking applied to the designs. After all, if you're after minimum weight why do you persist in using turrets for arty and armour ? Put advanced suspension on and with a bit of design you could make an assault gun lookalike work.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
One_of_the_strange said:
The latest Janes Defence Weekly (well, the online version at least) contains an article about the US FCS programme. The full version is subscription only so I'd better not post the lot, but the non-subscriber extract may be found at:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw050627_1_n.shtml

Highlights are:

Vehicles meeting the C-130 requirement (17 tons odd) can't do the job;

It has recommended that it buys heavier vehicles that do the job and some larger transports to carry them.
Ah yes...Lockheed's C-130.....which has been in service since 1954.....http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hercules.html

Doubtless an aviationist can tell me how long the RAF intend to run it on......

Le Chevre
 
Goatman said:
One_of_the_strange said:
The latest Janes Defence Weekly (well, the online version at least) contains an article about the US FCS programme. The full version is subscription only so I'd better not post the lot, but the non-subscriber extract may be found at:
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/americas/news/jdw/jdw050627_1_n.shtml

Highlights are:

Vehicles meeting the C-130 requirement (17 tons odd) can't do the job;

It has recommended that it buys heavier vehicles that do the job and some larger transports to carry them.
Ah yes...Lockheed's C-130.....which has been in service since 1954.....http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hercules.html

Doubtless an aviationist can tell me how long the RAF intend to run it on......

Le Chevre
My understanging is that C130 OSD is before FRES ISD. Even if it isn't, with only 25 C130, is FRES ever going to fly anywhere? Especially if the Air and SF components have a more pressing need (and they will always achieve more 'rapid effect').

US studies have also demonstrated that it cost $8 to ship a ton of ammunition to Iraq and $500 per ton to fly it. Bit of a no-brainer really. I think the only way to go to deploy strategic distances is to invest in fast shipping, nice idea, but whoever is going to pay for it?
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Of course everyone is assuming that FRES will consist of vehicles; as it is an effect and not a platform (i.e. getting protected mobility, etc. into theatre rapidly) surely the head shed will realise that it would be cheaper, more practical and more flexible to buy a large fleet of C17s which could move our existing CR2/WR quickly to theatre if needed, and also give us massive strategic lift for other purposes.
 
or possibly great big freaking airships
fres euro hummer with a remote weapons turret with a couple of javalins and a 50 cal some bolt on armour a comms fit and possibly a TV camera on a mast
 
napier said:
Of course everyone is assuming that FRES will consist of vehicles; as it is an effect and not a platform (i.e. getting protected mobility, etc. into theatre rapidly) surely the head shed will realise that it would be cheaper, more practical and more flexible to buy a large fleet of C17s which could move our existing CR2/WR quickly to theatre if needed, and also give us massive strategic lift for other purposes.
Doctrinally true, but in reality FRES is also a direct replacement for CVR(T), Saxon and FV430.

More C17s sounds attractive (and the RAF will love you), but don't forget the costs of flying to theatre as opposed to shipping. Boeing is also about to close the produciton line on C17 unless they receive a big order from the USAF, do you think they will keep the production line open for our (probably paltry) order?

You also have to ask yourself whether a CR2 or Warrior is always appropriate (politically and presentationaly).
 
Well, that would be why we should buy our own rather than chartering from one of about three operators who control the price (and include some of the dodgiest feckers in the universe).

And if we're worried about the cost of air rather than sea transport, then we can't do rapid deployment anyway. Therefore, we don't need a FRES, because we'll be going by sea or rail and can bring CR2/WR/AS90 with us without bother. Therefore, we'll also be restricted to deployments within three days' sail @15knots of a major garrison, so we can either return to pre-1968 forward basing (which we won't and can't), or defend the Kent coast. And if our primary mission profile is home defence with CR2s lined up on Dover cliffs, WTF are HM Forces for?
 
If you fly a Brigade anywhere in the world it will take about 5/6 months to get it there with current airlift assets. That's without POL, ammunition, rations and water, engines and major assemblies etc etc etc. A few axtra C17s is not going to make much of a dent.

Everyone wants to fly. Rapid diplomatic effect is achieved by the RAF, an SSN and SF. When they all deploy where do you think the Land component will be in the loading list? I agree that the true military effect will only be achieved with the deployment of tha Land component, but flying the Land component (over strategic distances) at anywhere above SS is not an act of war.

So what if the Land component do deploy at around 15/20 knots? That's 15/20 knots 24/7; with an entire FRES battlegroup at the SPOD, at the same time, with everything it needs. That's rapid effect, not the transit time of an individual aircraft from UK to point X in the Third World.

Ah, you will say, not everywhere is near an SPOD. Agreed, but part of the FRES requirement is to self deploy over 400KM in 24hrs. Now there aren't many places we are ever likely to deploy to that are further than 400KM from an SPOD, only then (if you are desperate) should you ever consider flying vehicles forward.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Why doesn't UK PLC (PPP/PFI) buy a fleet of Antonov/C17/whatever and become one of the big leasing providers in the same way that elements of our Merchant Marine are used for civvy purposes in between military needs. That way the cost of acquiring and maintaining a large air fleet can be covered/ameliorated by international civ users and we can have a reliable source of lift as and when needed.
 
Rapid effec t= rapid shipping. FRES IPT has now sacked C130 enveloped and moved to A400. Which remains at the design stage, and reliant on Air Force Procurement chain.

Forget 'Medium'. Fast into action Heavy, and up-gunned Light.

Empower Light forces with Wiesel COTS (commercial off the shelf) CSW (crew served weapon)carriers, C2 vehs and tracked ambulances. Keep it simple, stupid. Give them BOWMAN secure comms only - forget SA - too bulky for light forces, and too great an ES bill for operating at short notice in complex terrain. Cheap as chips and bloody effective. STOP OVERCOMPLICATING A SIMPLE PROBLEM! Israeli Brigade HQs are the same size as US Army Company HQs....this is the direction light forces need to go - fast, agile, and loads of big guns on simple reliable all-terrain platforms, that can be heli'd, or drive into complex terrain, and bring real venom to the close battle. Coupled with Javelin and the new TI kit coming in, and you're in business.

G_B
 
napier said:
Why doesn't UK PLC (PPP/PFI) buy a fleet of Antonov/C17/whatever and become one of the big leasing providers in the same way that elements of our Merchant Marine are used for civvy purposes in between military needs. That way the cost of acquiring and maintaining a large air fleet can be covered/ameliorated by international civ users and we can have a reliable source of lift as and when needed.
1. When there is international demand for strategic heavy lift (during disaster relief for example), we will want the planes ourselves.
2. No civvy firm is going to enter into a contract with the military when there is potential for them to be left in the lurch when we say 'sorry we need them for X'. The Ro-Ro shipping is different because we only really need them for M/LS, programmed deployments. I imagine the planes would be more likely to be used for SS contingent (hence short notice) operations.
3. I think HMT treasury will get a bit jumpy about allowing us to maintain a large fleet of transport aircraft that we may be able to make a bit of cash out of on the side.
 
So we need light, cheap, simple firepower. The answer is out there, and it's called an assault gun - you can refer to it as a Samokhodnaya Ustanovka or Sturmgeschutz if you like. After all, if I can get my pimped out ghetto wagon to bounce up and down at will I'm sure I can use the suspension on my assault gun to point the ordnance at the target far better and easier than the originals did.

But don't let the usual suspects get their hands on it and fill it full of unnecessary bits and pieces.
 
load of those euro hummer things with bolt on armour javalin to to deal with armour .50 cal to make bad guys go away
and if we are feeling flush some sort of improved wombat for making holes in walls and people especailly if you can get some FAE rounds for it ambulance version command varient etc
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Hairyhaw said:
At the risk of sounding a bit naive, could you ever see a time where there could be an expansion or is it generally the rule that the Govt's like to or feel obligated to contract the Reg army?
When Maggie came to power, first thing the RAC knew about was whispering that there was to be another armoured regiment and that it would be 5RTR.

The Falklands conflict came along and all mention of expansion of armour disappeared.

Never say never.
 
Just read something interesting on Janes - subscription only I'm afraid - key quotes:

"The immediate effect of this will be to add around six to seven tonnes to the weight of the baseline FRES vehicle as additional armour is incorporated to ameliorate the effects of asymmetric threats such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs)"

" ... weight and size limits for the various versions of FRES are ultimately limited by the capacity of the forthcoming Airbus A400M ... the A400M will carry a vehicle of at least 32 tonnes and possibly up to 36-37 tonnes."

" ...the reality of operations in a largely urban environment against an asymmetric threat has forced a complete re-evaluation of the degree of acceptable risk to an armoured vehicle's survivability"

""With a total NEC capability we can kill whatever we see ... going to drive our adversary out of the open spaces and into urban terrain, driving the FRES programme in a totally different direction"

So it's only taken the management and DPA two years and a few tens of millions of pounds to acknowledge the bleeding obvious. Maybe they should have read this thread when it started and saved themselves some money. Oh, and that sound you hear is the defence firms salivating at the prospect of new contracts to repeat all the work they've done to date with a different set of initial conditions.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top