Changing the army - how?

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Or as was previously know - Ambitions & capabilities, don't get them mixed up

I think by 2040 we will be down to about 6k Infantry - A couple of 56 seater coaches will probably suffice.
Yes but they'll all be Rangers.

And before anyone adds a 'funny', I'm being serious. The trend seems to be an incredibly small number of omnipotent über-warriors, somehow instantly and miraculously fashioned out of ordinary infantry battalions.

That, or some VSOs need floss inserted in the ears and a bloody good pull-through.
 
This goes back to your point that if we're doing the same as everyone else it probably means we're doing the right thing.
No.
For detail see - CEA fraud, MPs expenses and various other things where "but everyone is doing it" doesn't make it right

This is a culturally point more than about where defence spending should go geographically
 
Yes but they'll all be Rangers.

And before anyone adds a 'funny', I'm being serious. The trend seems to be an incredibly small number of omnipotent über-warriors, somehow instantly and miraculously fashioned out of ordinary infantry battalions.

That, or some VSOs need floss inserted in the ears and a bloody good pull-through.
Floss is too small. I'm thinking something larger, like flannelette for a 155mm

In all serious thro, I could accept a smaller infantry presence in the Army IF it was properly equipped, trained and manned with a proper real equipped reserve for the unfashionable concept of War Fighting Establishment and rear area security.

What we have is a bodge of underfunded fashionable ideas, increasingly sterile training and out of date equipment.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Floss is too small. I'm thinking something larger, like flannelette for a 155mm

In all serious thro, I could accept a smaller infantry presence in the Army IF it was properly equipped, trained and manned with a proper real equipped reserve for the unfashionable concept of War Fighting Establishment and rear area security.

What we have is a bodge of underfunded fashionable ideas, increasingly sterile training and out of date equipment.
Smaller but properly balanced and fully resourced has been the refrain since Options for Change. As has we won’t be doing anything for the next decade.

Neither has been true.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No.
For detail see - CEA fraud, MPs expenses and various other things where "but everyone is doing it" doesn't make it right

This is a culturally point more than about where defence spending should go geographically
You miss my point. It’s being claimed that what we’re doing is revolutionary. It’s not. It’s dangerous.
 
Floss is too small. I'm thinking something larger, like flannelette for a 155mm

In all serious thro, I could accept a smaller infantry presence in the Army IF it was properly equipped, trained and manned with a proper real equipped reserve for the unfashionable concept of War Fighting Establishment and rear area security.

What we have is a bodge of underfunded fashionable ideas, increasingly sterile training and out of date equipment.
You are Lord Haldane and I'll have my tenner now, please!!
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
And we have a plethora of innovative, agile SMEs. With few exceptions, there are British companies who can make pretty much anything the Army needs.
Having run a UK defence sector SME I can assure you that Big And Expensive and Ministry of Duffers combine to strangle good ideas at birth, or force them into the clutches of the large internationals....
 
Last edited:
Having run a UK defence sector SME I can assure you that Big And Expensive and Ministry of Duffers combine to strangle good ideas at birth, or force them into the clutches of the large internationals....
They do, sometimes for good reason. Sorry if it happened to you for the wrong reason.

A promising, low-TRL demonstrator from S->S/ME doth not an in-service, killing machine make. The bones of many a good idea are strewn across the pathways at Milbrook, Bordon, Benbecula and BUTEC.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
They do, sometimes for good reason. Sorry if it happened to you for the wrong reason.

A promising, low-TRL demonstrator from S->S/ME doth not an in-service, killing machine make. The bones of many a good idea are strewn across the pathways at Milbrook, Bordon, Benbecula and BUTEC.
Indeed.
Mine was deffo for the wrong reason.
Low-TRL (Technology Readiness Level 1 = idea on fag packet, 9 = it's in service) is a notoriously dangerous place to pay and there is little evidence that the bigger organisations are better at it, but of course they make more bets.
One of the things the British Army needs to understand is that it is no longer of sufficient size to warrant anyone designing anything for them. It's off the shelf henceforth, unless the orbat expands significantly AND starts winning again.
 

Alamo

LE
Indeed.
Mine was deffo for the wrong reason.
Low-TRL (Technology Readiness Level 1 = idea on fag packet, 9 = it's in service) is a notoriously dangerous place to pay and there is little evidence that the bigger organisations are better at it, but of course they make more bets.
One of the things the British Army needs to understand is that it is no longer of sufficient size to warrant anyone designing anything for them. It's off the shelf henceforth, unless the orbat expands significantly AND starts winning again.
I once had a discussion with the then CAS who opined what scared him was the USAF stopping experimentation. If they don’t do it, who will?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Indeed.
Mine was deffo for the wrong reason.
Low-TRL (Technology Readiness Level 1 = idea on fag packet, 9 = it's in service) is a notoriously dangerous place to pay and there is little evidence that the bigger organisations are better at it, but of course they make more bets.
One of the things the British Army needs to understand is that it is no longer of sufficient size to warrant anyone designing anything for them. It's off the shelf henceforth, unless the orbat expands significantly AND starts winning again.
Even then, I don’t think we need bespoke.
 

Yokel

LE
I once had a discussion with the then CAS who opined what scared him was the USAF stopping experimentation. If they don’t do it, who will?

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other despotic and anti Western regimes. What is more the useful idiots in the Western media will see it as a game changer totally in line with what the political leadership says.

If you do not experiment in peacetime, then you have to accept the risk of doing it in wartime.
 
Indeed.
Mine was deffo for the wrong reason.
Low-TRL (Technology Readiness Level 1 = idea on fag packet, 9 = it's in service) is a notoriously dangerous place to pay and there is little evidence that the bigger organisations are better at it, but of course they make more bets.
One of the things the British Army needs to understand is that it is no longer of sufficient size to warrant anyone designing anything for them. It's off the shelf henceforth, unless the orbat expands significantly AND starts winning again.
A slight aside on TRLs. All too often SRDs (System Requirements Documents) contain Key System Requirements and Mandatory performance requirements that are mutually incompatible with the specified TRL (and equally the specified reliability and maintainability requirements).

Put simply, you can’t demand performance characteristics that haven’t yet been achieved by industry and demand high TRLs at the same time. If you specify high levels of TRL, you are implicitly specifying a COTS solution. If it doesn’t exist commercially somewhere where you can buy it, it ain’t high TRL.

The only way the British Army warrants anything being designed for them is if they pay for the R&D. They get a contractor on board earlier in the CADMID cycle and own the development risk.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
The only way the British Army warrants anything being designed for them is if they pay for the R&D. They get a contractor on board earlier in the CADMID cycle and own the development risk.
If I were the Chancellor/CDS/SoS for Defence I would ban the Army from starting any R&D until it had demonstrated:
1. It had an aim and an orbat to match.
2. OR bat was justified by extensive operational analysis on the suite of simulators it already has,.
3. Someone else was doing it
4. It was TRL>>3

If the person mentioned Rangers or Cyber I would have them taken out and shot to better focus the minds of their minions.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If I were the Chancellor/CDS/SoS for Defence I would ban the Army from starting any R&D until it had demonstrated:
1. It had an aim and an orbat to match.
2. OR bat was justified by extensive operational analysis on the suite of simulators it already has,.
3. Someone else was doing it
4. It was TRL>>3

If the person mentioned Rangers or Cyber I would have them taken out and shot to better focus the minds of their minions.
Surely the plan is:

1. Do no research.
2. Let China do all their research.
3. Use Cyber to steal it all.
4. Insert Ranger team to deliver note saying: "SEE, HOW DO YOU LIKE IT?"

I can see no* flaws with this plan.

* For a certain value of "no".
 
Top