Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

There was something like that originally on the Marder IFV - a remote control 7.62mm MG.

I have had a quick look for images, but can’t seem to find any. The only reason I remember is a model in 1/72 of one I built as a kid MANY years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Covered the rear.
 
I see closure of BATUS is in there too. I wonder how much it cost a year to train there?
 
Sounds like some decision makers have been reading the USMC Gazette

Lots of support for it on social media
We dont need tanks were an island
Didnt need tanks in Afghanistan or Mali ( Not a peer to peer conflict - so not relevant)
No armour means no long expeditions to 3rd world - completely ignoring that the lighter more responsive force they envisage is far more suited to do just that
USMC is ditching heavy armour - si it cant be a bad idea - UK generals dinosaurs cold war donkeys etc ( Forgetting USMC has the US Army to provide heavy armour as when and if required
We can Always buy them in 10 years if we need to (and one assumes relearn the skills on the fly)
Russia isnt going to invade ergo Tanks = waste of money - in fact Tanks are not really relevant any more - light forces are the future ( okay Comrade KGBski ).
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Lots of support for it on social media
We dont need tanks were an island
Didnt need tanks in Afghanistan or Mali ( Not a peer to peer conflict - so not relevant)
No armour means no long expeditions to 3rd world - completely ignoring that the lighter more responsive force they envisage is far more suited to do just that
USMC is ditching heavy armour - si it cant be a bad idea - UK generals dinosaurs cold war donkeys etc ( Forgetting USMC has the US Army to provide heavy armour as when and if required
We can Always buy them in 10 years if we need to (and one assumes relearn the skills on the fly)
Russia isnt going to invade ergo Tanks = waste of money - in fact Tanks are not really relevant any more - light forces are the future ( okay Comrade KGBski ).
The Black Mafia's propaganda campaign has succeeded.
 
Lots of support for it on social media
We dont need tanks were an island
Didnt need tanks in Afghanistan or Mali ( Not a peer to peer conflict - so not relevant)
No armour means no long expeditions to 3rd world - completely ignoring that the lighter more responsive force they envisage is far more suited to do just that
USMC is ditching heavy armour - si it cant be a bad idea - UK generals dinosaurs cold war donkeys etc ( Forgetting USMC has the US Army to provide heavy armour as when and if required
We can Always buy them in 10 years if we need to (and one assumes relearn the skills on the fly)
Russia isnt going to invade ergo Tanks = waste of money - in fact Tanks are not really relevant any more - light forces are the future ( okay Comrade KGBski ).

we haven’t deployed them in forever, and the thought of a couple of hundred obsolete CR2’s isn’t keeping Vlads generals awake at night.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Also just posted in the 'Army to be cut by 20,000' thread:

To be fair, such a move would only echo the hard choices that both the RN and the RAF have already made. The RN had to give up a lot to get the carriers (whether it gave up too much and is past a point of critical mass is another debate). The RAF brought forward retirement of Harrier and Jaguar to ensure Typhoon/F-35 (although, again, will we get past just that initial order of the latter?).

I can see a sort of sense. Although 'Peace in our time' and 'No more war for [however many] years' have been given lie to by history too many times.

I can also see that it's right to consider every option. The problem there is this: how to guarantee at the end of the capability gap that the capability can and will be funded and fielded. Too many government 'reviews' (cost-cutting exercises) are then followed by another review which, in the face of all evidence, states that the original one was right. The real risk is that once we lose those capabilities, we simply never see them again. The other problem is regenerating the experience... which often only comes with experience. It’s not just about technology. Who‘s going to train people up? Who‘s going to (re-)write the (credible) manuals that work in real life? ...because we are very good, too good, at shredding 'history' as 'not being relevant'.

Also, if we unilaterally declare ourselves out of business for, say, a decade, what International influence and credibility do we lose? Warfighting capabilities influence trade and more specifically people's willingness to trade with us.

The elephant in the room is that there are credible options out there now. Want to replace Warrior? There are numerous very good choices. The same with AS90. Challenger 2 is perhaps a little trickier, but the various upgrades mooted, especially the 130mm instead of the 120mm gun, would take us comfortably into the time when the next generation of MBTs is bedded in, the initial problems sorted, and an off-the-shelf buy is a go-er.
 
Last edited:
Armies have had effective anti-tank weapons for about 100 years - and attack helicopters with ATGM for over 50.

And yet somehow, they have all also retained their tanks... Maybe because the Darwinism of combat has proved that the value of the tank is considerably greater than that of a mobile anti-tank gun?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also just posted in the 'Army to be cut by 20,000' thread:

To be fair, such a move would only echo the hard choices that both the RN and the RAF have already made. The RN had to give up a lot to get the carriers (whether it gave up too much and is past a point of critical mass is another debate). The RAF brought forward retirement of Harrier and Jaguar to ensure Typhoon/F-35 (although, again, will we get past just that initial order of the latter?).

I can see a sort of sense. Although 'Peace in our time' and 'No more war for [however many] years' have been given lie to by history too many times.

I can also see that it's right to consider every option. The problem there is this: how to guarantee at the end of the capability gap that the capability can and will be funded and fielded. Too many government 'reviews' (cost-cutting exercises) are then followed by another review which, in the face of all evidence, states that the original one was right. The real risk is that once we lose those capabilities, we simply never see them again. The other problem is regenerating the experience... which often only comes with experience. It’s not just about technology. Who‘s going to train people up? Who‘s going to (re-)write the (credible) manuals that work in real life? ...because we are very good, too good, at shredding 'history' as 'not being relevant'.

Also, if we unilaterally declare ourselves out of business for, say, a decade, what International influence and credibility do we lose? Warfighting capabilities influence trade and more specifically people's willingness to trade with us.

The elephant in the room is that there are credible options out there now. Want to replace Warrior? There are numerous very good choices. The same with AS90. Challenger 2 is perhaps a little trickier, but the various upgrades mooted, especially the 130mm instead of the 120mm gun, would take us comfortably into the time when the next generation of MBTs is bedded in, the initial problems sorted, and an off-the-shelf buy is a go-er.


So lets posit the Army buys 200 shiny upgraded CR2's, then what?

Its air defence capability is pitiful.
Its artillery is obsolete and all but non existent.
UAV's are still regarded by too much of Land as a novel fad that will pass.
Its electronic warfare capability is still in the Land of Powerpoint.

Find - Fix - Strike

It can't find, it can't fix, and it can't strike
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top