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.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
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Its artillery is obsolete and all but non existent.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
You miss the point. It would at least fix one of the many things that need fixing. That doesn't mean that all the other bits won't still need fixing.
 
You miss the point. It would at least fix one of the many things that need fixing. That doesn't mean that all the other bits won't still need fixing.


Its like living in a damp crappy council flat, and buying a new BMW 330i

It would fix nothing, just allow the Generals to carry on ignoring the basics.
 
You miss the point. It would at least fix one of the many things that need fixing. That doesn't mean that all the other bits won't still need fixing.

Actually, those other bits are in the process of being fixed:

- GMLRS recap and range/lethality enhancement
- Guided 155mm
- EXACTOR replacement
- New VSHORAD and SHORAD capability


So now we risk enhanced Combat Support capability - with nothing to support.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Its like living in a damp crappy council flat, and buying a new BMW 330i

It would fix nothing, just allow the Generals to carry on ignoring the basics.
No, it isn't. It's rather more like fixing the damp course while still acknowledging that the window frames need doing next.

Frankly, I'm a fan of having at least one bit fixed quickly.
Actually, those other bits are in the process of being fixed:

- GMLRS recap and range/lethality enhancement
- Guided 155mm
- EXACTOR replacement
- New VSHORAD and SHORAD capability


So now we risk enhanced Combat Support capability - with nothing to support.
Exactly. But trucks and pallets = unsexy. 'Tanks' = photo opportunity and mollification of the masses.

Many moons back, when Options for Change came along, many professional defence commentators made the observation that what was proposed actually made sense - as long as the tail set-up was adequate for the proposed teeth. In other words, we'd end up better balanced - smaller but potentially more capable.

Of course, then more 'efficiencies' needed to be found and along came the the ridiculous Frontline First.

...and here we are again, three decades later, repeating the same wrong bits.
 
Headline from today’s Daily Fail, just playing devil’s advocate here, but do we really need MBT’s given we haven’t used them in anger since 2003?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Actually, those other bits are in the process of being fixed:

- GMLRS recap and range/lethality enhancement

Not wanting to be too mean, but that's a case of "we buy it from the US and this is what they're doing, we keep up or we lose the capability".

- Guided 155mm

Is IFPA(Static), latterly TGMI, rising from its grave again? Someone buried that at a crossroads one midnight in 2016, with a stake through its heart, its head cut off, and its fuze well filled with garlic...

- EXACTOR replacement

Which will be... more EXACTOR. Not a bad capability to have, but we bought it for one job, and are now (apparently) planning to use it well outside its intended utility. Happy to be proved wrong...

- New VSHORAD and SHORAD capability

It's an improvement, and FLAADS is better than anything the Army's ever had, but there will be very few of them, the implementation planned is soft-skinned and semi-static... it's better than "do nothing", though.


The problem remains that there's a confused incoherence to the entire Army. Is it meant to be able to stand up to a "near peer" division or two from "Murinius" trying to seize or defend the "Troms Oblast" with a full panoply of capabilities on hand? Is it meant to deploy a Strike Brigade to self-deploy a thousand miles into the Third World and conduct dispersed network-enabled warfare? Is it a force of light infantry able to defend "the bits of the map nobody wants"?

Trying to do everything - or more precisely, jumping from plan to plan every couple of years - on current funding levels merely means platforms age out without replacement, or capabilities are shrunk to near-irrelevance, while suppliers stop responding to your market surveys because you're not seen as a credible customer any more...
 
Headline from today’s Daily Fail, just playing devil’s advocate here, but do we really need MBT’s given we haven’t used them in anger since 2003?

Nuclear weapons haven’t been used since 1945 - should we also bin our deterrent for the same reason?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Headline from today’s Daily Fail, just playing devil’s advocate here, but do we really need MBT’s given we haven’t used them in anger since 2003?

Never mind when we last used them, when did the potential oppo last use theirs ?
 
No, it isn't. It's rather more like fixing the damp course while still acknowledging that the window frames need doing next.


I'd say you got that the wrong way round.

Tanks are sexy, they do great photo ops, Generals can get a woody watching 50 tanks gallumpfing across Salisbury Plai.

But in the real world, the pesky Russian drones finds them and the artillery strikes them with long range tube and rocket artillery filled with smart and cluster munitions.
You need to prepare the battlefield first for your tanks.
 
Nuclear weapons haven’t been used since 1945 - should we also bin our deterrent for the same reason?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Would save a fortune if we did, why insist on muscling up to the big boys when we aren’t ‘ard anymore. Step back, let the big boys fight among themselves, use NATO as our protection and align ourselves with countries such as Estonia
 
Headline from today’s Daily Fail, just playing devil’s advocate here, but do we really need MBT’s given we haven’t used them in anger since 2003?

To date the Canadians and the Dutch have given up their tanks. The USMC are planning on it.

Canadians: Seven years later brought back into heavy armour as all their plans fell apart.
Dutch: Relatively quickly realised they needed heavy armour, and have some weird arrangement with the Germans where they loan the tanks from the Germans and stick crews in them. Rent or buy... which one is cheaper in the long run?
USMC: Planning on giving up armour due to be expecting to fight on artificial islands the size of a postage stamp in the pacific agaisnt the Chinese.

So we have two countries that are smaller than us who have tried to give up armour, and its all got tits up in a relatively short term. We also have one organisation giving up armour as it will be fighting in an environment that we will not fight in. Even then I'm not entirely sure they made the right call.
 
Would save a fortune if we did, why insist on muscling up to the big boys when we aren’t ‘ard anymore. Step back, let the big boys fight among themselves, use NATO as our protection and align ourselves with countries such as Estonia

Because unless countries pull their own weight, there is no NATO.

As it happens, Estonia spends more as % of their GDP on defence than most of NATO - if we try to play the game of ‘let others do it’, then we can look forward to an even more irrelevant global future post Brexit, as we lose an remaining influence we still have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Never mind when we last used them, when did the potential oppo last use theirs ?
I’m starting to think scaling back is the right move, I have for years been in favour of spending 2, 3, 4 times what we currently spend on defence. Enter the arms race again, lots of armour, nukes, missiles, subs, ships etc.
But recently my thinking is changing, let’s not pretend we are a player anymore, reduce our armed forces to a level that can do a bit of war gaming and ceremonial duties, after all, gotta keep the tourist happy, big part of the economy. Scrap the armour, scrap nukes, even scrap / sell HMS Prince of Wales & Queen Elizabeth, keep a few ships to patrol our shipping lanes and fishing areas. In the big picture our meagre showing would make shitall difference anyway, lost in the huge arsenals of Russia, China and USA. Be it a conventional war or dirty / nuke war, no one is going to mind if we slip into something more comfortable, twin set and pearls instead of military garb, let’s dance and sing to the sound of our military band as the World goes to Hell in a hand cart.
 
Would save a fortune if we did, why insist on muscling up to the big boys when we aren’t ‘ard anymore. Step back, let the big boys fight among themselves, use NATO as our protection and align ourselves with countries such as Estonia

Who's defence budget has been going up just shy of 10% a year for the last 5 years and is not far off having doubled in 10 years, much like the Latvian & Lithuanian defence budgets

I'm sure the Estonian Government would love the idea of cosying up to yet another European country that has effectively given up defence as too hard and too expensive
 
I’m starting to think scaling back is the right move, I have for years been in favour of spending 2, 3, 4 times what we currently spend on defence. Enter the arms race again, lots of armour, nukes, missiles, subs, ships etc.
But recently my thinking is changing, let’s not pretend we are a player anymore, reduce our armed forces to a level that can do a bit of war gaming and ceremonial duties, after all, gotta keep the tourist happy, big part of the economy. Scrap the armour, scrap nukes, even scrap / sell HMS Prince of Wales & Queen Elizabeth, keep a few ships to patrol our shipping lanes and fishing areas. In the big picture our meagre showing would make shitall difference anyway, lost in the huge arsenals of Russia, China and USA. Be it a conventional war or dirty / nuke war, no one is going to mind if we slip into something more comfortable, twin set and pearls instead of military garb, let’s dance and sing to the sound of our military band as the World goes to Hell in a hand cart.

One can either push the cart or ride in it.
The advantage depends on the final destination.
If it's nasty, I'd rather push others there.
 
USMC: Planning on giving up armour due to be expecting to fight on artificial islands the size of a postage stamp in the pacific agaisnt the Chinese.

So we have two countries that are smaller than us who have tried to give up armour, and its all got tits up in a relatively short term. We also have one organisation giving up armour as it will be fighting in an environment that we will not fight in. Even then I'm not entirely sure they made the right call.


The USMC has the advantage over the UK Army in that they currently have more aircraft, more helicopters and more ships available than the UK Armed Forces as a whole. They also have a minor advantage in that the US DoD has more MBTs in storage than the UK Army has ever had operational since WWII as a whole, and the US Army has more MBTs in the pacific region alone than the UK has in use or in storage now.

I suspect the USMC is happy, as a whole, that their plans for future force structure are as balanced as they can be, given the future tasks in front of them.
 
Who's defence budget has been going up just shy of 10% a year for the last 5 years and is not far off having doubled in 10 years, much like the Latvian & Lithuanian defence budgets

I'm sure the Estonian Government would love the idea of cosying up to yet another European country that has effectively given up defence as too hard and too expensive
Listen, no one was more gunho and military mad than me for years, increase the defence budget, buy new equipment, posture, brag and boast,
but as I see our armed forces diminish and wain at the hands of tosspot politicians who don’t give a monkeys arrse about veterans, our serving boys and girls, our standing in the World or even whether we look like a bunch of Monty Python rejects, I’m thinking, what’s the point, the UK’s armed forces are always gonna be at the bottom of the political pile when it comes to money, correctness and standing. No politician wants to associate themselves with a bunch of has-beens that are seen as out dated, politically incorrect and redundant.
I for one am ready to jack it all in and admit defeat, let’s act our age not our shoe size, we are a skint, spent force living on our reputation that was won along long time ago, move on, nothing to see here.
 
The USMC has the advantage over the UK Army in that they currently have more aircraft, more helicopters and more ships available than the UK Armed Forces as a whole. They also have a minor advantage in that the US DoD has more MBTs in storage than the UK Army has ever had operational since WWII as a whole, and the US Army has more MBTs in the pacific region alone than the UK has in use or in storage now.

I suspect the USMC is happy, as a whole, that their plans for future force structure are as balanced as they can be, given the future tasks in front of them.


For the USMC, tanks were a diversion, its core mission is the one its going back to, grabbing islands.

Published almost exactly century ago

 

Truxx

LE
Headline from today’s Daily Fail, just playing devil’s advocate here, but do we really need MBT’s given we haven’t used them in anger since 2003?
Define "in anger"

2003 was five minutes ago in the great scheme of things. As long as other have them, we need them.

Having a CH2 parked at the road end in such places as downrown Kljuc in 1996 was very effective. More effective I would venture than sending the VRS a snotty email and not liking their facebook page.

As someone else has said, you do not have to use something "in anger" for it to make sense.
 

Latest Threads

Top