Army Rumour Service

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.

Or maybe, “this is what happens when MoD changes a spec during a project, mandates the use of a weapon system still in development, or sells off the organisation responsible for providing refurbished hulls (which were in a worse state than expected)”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you please clarify why we cannot just build new hulls? Welded steel is cheap as chips.
 
Can you please clarify why we cannot just build new hulls? Welded steel is cheap as chips.

Well, for a start, Warrior is made of Aluminium Alloy...


But other than that, we could have done - and I’m not convinced it would have really cost us that much overall (BAe still had the jigs at Telford when it was being discussed).

MoD chose not to.

I’m not exactly certain of the reasons why - perhaps the business case stated that it would be more cost-effective to refurbish the best of the old hulls (many being earmarked for disposal anyway), or perhaps DSG just needed the work. Either way, I have a feeling we’ll regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, for a start, Warrior is made of Aluminium Alloy...


But other than that, we could have done - and I’m not convinced it would have really cost us that much overall (BAe still had the jigs at Telford when it was being discussed).

MoD chose not to.

I’m not exactly certain of the reasons why - perhaps the business case stated that it would be more cost-effective to refurbish the best of the old hulls (many being earmarked for disposal anyway), or perhaps DSG just needed the work. Either way, I have a feeling we’ll regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Work required to inflate the DSG order book in order to make it attractive for outsourcing - similar (but different) to not including munitions storage in the LCST outsource as it made things more unattractive.
 
Work required to inflate the DSG order book in order to make it attractive for outsourcing - similar (but different) to not including munitions storage in the LCST outsource as it made things more unattractive.

Ah, I wasn’t too far off the mark then - and sadly not surprising.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
... and people still somehow manage to maintain the belief that we don't need a Defence Industrial Strategy.
That's funny, I could have sworn I was briefed on the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy (DSIS) back in March:


Doesn't mean it'll be any better than previously mind!
 
That's funny, I could have sworn I was briefed on the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy (DSIS) back in March:


Doesn't mean it'll be any better than previously mind!

I think the problem is that MoD is currently swamped with ‘strategies’ - too many of which seem to have been been written more for the benefit of the author than the intended audience.

There’s a simple formula:
- Quick summary of status quo
- Add the words about ‘drivers for change’
- A couple of case studies
- Some lovely glossy (and inclusive) pictures of Defence’s most photogenic personnel
- A few nicely worded and quotable non-sequiturs (e.g. ”it is only by building ships, that we will once again become good at building ships”)
- Some woolly and ambiguous conclusions that provide no clear direction and guidance to anyone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think the problem is that MoD is currently swamped with ‘strategies’ - too many of which seem to have been been written more for the benefit of the author than the intended audience.

There’s a simple formula:
- Quick summary of status quo
- Add the words about ‘drivers for change’
- A couple of case studies
- Some lovely glossy (and inclusive) pictures of Defence’s most photogenic personnel
- A few nicely worded and quotable non-sequiturs (e.g. ”it is only by building ships, that we will once again become good at building ships”)
- Some woolly and ambiguous conclusions that provide no clear direction and guidance to anyone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are Jeremy Quin and I claim my £5.
 
I've only had a chance to skim read but this one caught my attention:


I would encourage everyone to read that paper which is short (3 pages and not too many big words), unemotional and directly to the point. Once read, read between the lines.

For example
Hoorah a decision.
. In 1998 the Strategic Defence Review proposed to reconfigure the army from a force of 3 armoured, two mechanized, one air mobile and one airborne brigades into one comprising three armoured, three motorized and one air assault brigades.
Well it lasted five years
However, the 2003/4 ‘Delivering Security in a Changing World’ review concluded that the army was too heavy and effectively proposed converting one armoured brigade into a light brigade. With operations in Afghanistan and Iraq the army added additional light brigades.
And another five
This was again changed in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review which proposed a structure of 5 composite brigades and one air assault brigade.
Then only two years
Within two years this was changed again to 3 armoured infantry brigades and an air assault brigade
And another three
only for this to be altered again in the 2015 review which called for two armoured infantry brigades, two new Strike brigades and an air assault brigade.

The brief example of changes in brigade orientation masks the accompanying reconfiguration of units within these different brigades. Even what might seem constant – the creation and maintenance of an air assault brigade hides the fact that even here there have been many changes in units assigned to that brigade.

In other words, whilst the current plans for the army’s armoured vehicle capability might be right at a particular point in time, we can almost certainly guarantee that they will be overtaken by future reconfigurations of the army’s structure and needs. Only by ending this ceaseless reconfiguration will the MoD be able to develop and implement a coherent armoured vehicle programme.
 
I would read everone to read that paper which is short (3 pages and not too many big words), unemotional and directly to the point. Once read, read between the lines.

For example
Hoorah a decision.

Well it lasted five years

And another five

Then only two years

And another three
Can't argue with any of that.

It'll be ignored of course.
 
Well, for a start, Warrior is made of Aluminium Alloy...


But other than that, we could have done - and I’m not convinced it would have really cost us that much overall (BAe still had the jigs at Telford when it was being discussed).

MoD chose not to.

I’m not exactly certain of the reasons why - perhaps the business case stated that it would be more cost-effective to refurbish the best of the old hulls (many being earmarked for disposal anyway), or perhaps DSG just needed the work. Either way, I have a feeling we’ll regret it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it’s the way costs are calculated.
new equipment vs refitted.
for some strange reason, MOD thinks they don’t come from the same money pot.
 
"It is entirely feasible to see that the Strike concept could be abandoned as part of the Integrated Review in order to preserve the armoured capability and then the army will be left with 500 or so new Boxers without a requirement for them. This reinforces the need for a consistent approach and also encourages a rationalization of the variety of armoured vehicles. For example, could the acquisition of Boxer be used to replace the existing Warrior IFVs?"

Interesting...
 
Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating the status quo, I would be more than happy with a Warrior with a stabilised turret however the doctrine and tactics would have to change to reflect the new capabilities.

Gassing_Badgers has explained the British way of conducting a Sqn/Coy Gp attack which I hope goes some way to showing how to overcome the lack of an IFV with a stabilised turret. All I would add is that there is usually a static troop that provides DF onto the objective whilst those forces in the assault are carrying out the assault.

I merely try to correct some of the more fanciful notions put forward by PhotEx (or whatever other guise he may choose to inhabit this week). As mentioned in a previous posting he expresses some opinions that are quite simply wrong based on sources of dubious provenance.

If I wish to read about a fantasy world where magic is capable of besting any of our enemies I will re-read the books written by JK Rowling, rather than many of PhotEx and his missives.

or to put it in basic terms....

the British Army's the light armour shall not fight on the move tactics are clueless and more suited to Cambrai than the Crimea.

see other ridiculous ideas such as embedding a tracked MICV in the wheeled ‘Strike Brigade’.
 
.




except for the very arkward fact the LAV-25 and it’s vastly superior stabilised, belt fed turret entered service a before before Warrior, and the 25mm gun proved quite capable of duffing up medium armour, helped by the fact the Americans rather sensibly hung a couple of ATGMs on the turret.
our only export sales? decades ago, and The customer insisted the POS British turret was binned Avd the LAV turret fitted..... and still we refused to take the hint.

RARDEN? Totally POS, an embarrassment, a Nordenfelt for the 1980’s.
And your experience of using Rarden is?
 
RARDEN was an is total w@nk.

Uses a bespoke non standard nature, not a NATO everyone uses it - pick 30x 170 when everyone else is going 30 x 173 - pure genius!
Can't be used against anything moving faster than a jog as its hand driven, zero AA capability
No one bought it other than us.


So RADEN has slightly better penetration beyond 1,500m compared to 25mm? Well whoopy do!
If you are relying on your auto cannon to smite armoured vehicles out @ 2,000m your tactics are deranged. Thats what ATGM's were invented for. Although they have a NIH stamp for British light armour.

And the ONLY people to buy Warrior other than us?

They fitted with with a 25mm turret with a couple of TOW ATGM's hung off the side. The very same turret we selected whenever we tried to sell Warrior to other countries.

Talk about the British Army refusing to accept the reality that they got it totally, 100% wrong!

View attachment 499799
Oh, in that case, I accept your "expert" opinion.
 
"It is entirely feasible to see that the Strike concept could be abandoned as part of the Integrated Review in order to preserve the armoured capability and then the army will be left with 500 or so new Boxers without a requirement for them. This reinforces the need for a consistent approach and also encourages a rationalization of the variety of armoured vehicles. For example, could the acquisition of Boxer be used to replace the existing Warrior IFVs?"

Interesting...

Very interesting.

Or they could just attach the Boxers to each Armd Bde as the resident Mech Battalion.

Sticking the CT40 turret on Boxer instead of WCSP sounds like a good idea, until you have to go through the whole rigmarole of RGT/RQT again...plus you lose the massive advantageous Boxer ‘as is’ in terms of its ability to carry a full 8-person* infantry section.




* I had to check my own microaggressions there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
it’s the way costs are calculated.
new equipment vs refitted.
for some strange reason, MOD thinks they don’t come from the same money pot.
As always, that is just plain wrong.

See my post #9,164 for the actual reason.
 
"It is entirely feasible to see that the Strike concept could be abandoned as part of the Integrated Review in order to preserve the armoured capability and then the army will be left with 500 or so new Boxers without a requirement for them. This reinforces the need for a consistent approach and also encourages a rationalization of the variety of armoured vehicles. For example, could the acquisition of Boxer be used to replace the existing Warrior IFVs?"

Interesting...

Infantry brigades / non brigaded infantry still need Protected mobility

Or Perhaps reorganise as per plan A) 3* Mech Brigades 1*Ajax 1*MBT 1*Warrior 2*Boxer**


**Accepting that the lower readines units may be short of Boxers as theres no money to increase the order and so use a number of whatever fills the MRVP 2 slot for training purposes
 
... and people still somehow manage to maintain the belief that we don't need a Defence Industrial Strategy.
Here you go:

1601029659902.png


Indecisive or a natural response to a changing world?
 

Latest Threads

Top