Realigning the British Army after Ukraine

Truxx

LE
True. Which has an impact on long term management of big, complex weapon systems that need parts and updates.
HMT might stump up for the purchase of a batch of Mastiff off the lot, but the log chain that comes with it? Wheels, gearboxes, engines, axles, etc? They won't want to keep paying for that. They will, quite rightly,say
"We bought you the puppy. It's up to you to walk it feed it and pay the vets bills."
Conversely they will not pay UOR cash if they think that it is a way of shortcutting/ part funding what is actually a core requirement.

The other feature of UOR is the Taking The Piss factor, making any purchase outrageously expensive.
 

Brotherton Lad

LE
Kit Reviewer
One of those tiny handful of people who make a lasting impression.

"I may not always be right Gentlemen"....

(theatrical pause)

"But I am never wrong"
He features in a stained glass window in the Roman Catholic chapel at Sandbags.
 
Conversely they will not pay UOR cash if they think that it is a way of shortcutting/ part funding what is actually a core requirement.

The other feature of UOR is the Taking The Piss factor, making any purchase outrageously expensive.
If you want it 'Urgently" then by definition you are desperate, and that means it's going to cost you. It's a seller's market.

Which is why we have a procurement system based on competitive tendering, instead of allowing VSOs to run amok with the HMG chequebook at arms fairs, going, "Shiny, Shiny, Want!"

UOR has its uses, but it just isn't cost effective.
 
As I dive into this thread, I realise that my knowledge of procurement is as deep as a puddle, so I apologise in advance for my stunning density.

It appears that realistically we need to have a balance of troops, armour, artillery and air capability as we simply do not know what the army will be tasked with next - a good olde-fashioned WW or fighting insurgents in Buttfeckistan or a humanitarian role.

As we've seen from the Russian fiasco, failure in one area makes it all too easy to exploit and destroy assets.

Money is everything. Money decides defence philosophies, so we are hampered accordingly. Therefore, we need to maximise every penny spent.

My question is - is it better to buy off the shelf and accept some compromises, or make bespoke armour and have it cost more?
If we don't know what the need is going to be, then off the shelf makes sense. It gives a capability now which can be further developed if needs be as experience dictates. I see no real point in reinventing the wheel if someone already has done the job. Especially if said reinventing is going to take 5-10 years at great expense if there's something available today.

If that someone is overseas, then depending on what it is we are buying from them, licence building it in the UK may or may not be a sensible way forward for resilience purposes, preferably with the ability to export the thing as well.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Ever tried hand re-loading something that is stabilised, and doing its own thing?
Yes. As has anyone who served on Chieftain or Challenger. 120mm bloody sight heavier than a clip of 30mm
Would you agree that we need stabilisation?
I actually said that

Equally, the advantages of upgrading give you an extra 50 years of development of cannons, logistics commonality between chassis (Ajax/Wr), stabilisation and the ability to slam rounds in repeatedly, access to new interesting natures into the target. On the later point programmable airburst for example. A very important round for infantry support.
RARDEN is indeed an idiosyncratic weapon. But cash is short, and the marginal increase in capability for the IFV's direct fire weapon is, I suspect, not the best use of ££. Well aware of capability of 40mm airburst (did OA on that too) BUT there are now alternatives - e'g' 155mm Excalibur.

Note also that "infantry support" at the range of infantry engaging dismounts with direct fire (sub 1,000m) is equally deliverable with chain gun.

Great! These other missiles, how many are manufactured in the UK?
none. do you anticipate an unwillingness of US to continue to supply Hellfire? The armed forces do not exist to be sole operator (or launch operator) of UK weapons that are so good no-one else wants them. Arguably the Army (in particular) has supported weapons that are no better than alternatives with higher unit costs.
As I've said before the one advantage of the army's equipment being so run down is that we literally have a clean slate with no legacy drags on development. We can fix it, and we need to.
No disputed, and if AS90 boned then replace off the shelf.

The problem is not finding good kit. The problems are (1) working out what is needed and (2) paying for it. Army's track record on (1) is excorable, (2) is tricky given bankrupt government
and deluded VSO (and VS CS) who shield the remains of the Potemkin village of military capability with a barrage of bullshit PR that no mainstream media defence correspondent bothers to challenge.
 
RARDEN is indeed an idiosyncratic weapon. But cash is short, and the marginal increase in capability for the IFV's direct fire weapon is, I suspect, not the best use of ££. Well aware of capability of 40mm airburst (did OA on that too) BUT there are now alternatives - e'g' 155mm Excalibur.
I thought cash was short? Now you want to unmask a 155mm battery and expand a 155mm guided munition to achive what can be done by an Infantry section with its own organic assets.

Note also that "infantry support" at the range of infantry engaging dismounts with direct fire (sub 1,000m) is equally deliverable with chain gun.

Ahhh yes, I've heard this theory before. In the 1930s and 1940s. The Second World War showed it to be incorrect.

none. do you anticipate an unwillingness of US to continue to supply Hellfire?
Well two things there.
1: The last three president's include two who have been openly anti-British, and one who may have been in the pocket of the Russians. Whose to say they might not get one who will cut us off from a vitally important munition at the worst possible time.
2: The US is currently regressing, and taking early moving more towards a religious nutjob country. There are significant social issues in its make up. These could turn nasty and interrupt supply of munitions.

You also said that Only the British used Brimstone, as an indication of it being a bit shite. This is not true:

The interesting note is the last one. The Poles recently selected the Brimstone as the winner of the Ottokar Brzoza program. One which I suspect the Hellfire, and the others, were entered in (but I've not been following closely enough to confirm it). They're planning on firing it from an AFV, exactly like I've been suggesting.
 
One of those tiny handful of people who make a lasting impression.

"I may not always be right Gentlemen"....

(theatrical pause)

"But I am never wrong"

I had the pleasure of meeting Rick Jolly mid 90s he kindly pointed out that Nelson suffered from seasickness too

When you meet or serve alongside great men you tend to impart their positive mental attitude
 
Last edited:

Ursus Major

War Hero
It is nowhere near as big as Hindu and Islam - but believe it or not, it still holds about the same numbers as Sikhs.
And there are far more regular Church-going, rupee-donating believers in India than there are in England nowadays.

This concerns me - and I am Atheist !
Err, they have had Christians in India since Apostolic times, stand fast St Thomas…
 
Agree in part,. Disagree violently in part.

8. Light role inf is a delusion. As you say, they can always get out of their Boxers and walk. (Does that make them commandos??) But the Boxers might as well deploy them. If the logistics can't support a Bn of boxers with motion potion it probably can't do the casevac either.
Very droll. Very, very droll.

Incidentally, I have only met the one serving VC holder and I certainly saluted him. Mind you, he was a Capt (QGO) and I a humble SSgt*.

* You know what I mean.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
I'll trot out my standard question here, one that was proposed by DRAC back in the late 40s: Why should an infantryman have less protection than a Tank crewman?'
IT may have been proposed by DRAC in 1940s, but hasn't been adopted widely anywhere, ever. But of course you could be right.

It's idiotic to compare the protection to the solders. A tank exists primarily to kill tanks, which means it faces APFSDS and needs (massive) protection. An IFV exists to deliver an infantry section onto an objective. It has no business whatsoever getting into a firefight with a tank.

Your standard question was irrelevant, for reasons above, when you first used it. It's now simply tiresome. It's also derailing an interesting thread into the dreary CR2 replacement debate.
 
A top man and quite a warrior bearing mind his medical calling
Not least because he survived working with my mother in law…
 

Shandy123

War Hero
They’ve learnt one thing.. Don’t listen to Putin!

As I said AT Regt, if not a Regt all have a AT Company.
Why separate it? What's wrong with the usual model of 2 or 3 LAWs carried per section?
 

WhiteCrane

War Hero
I was there this thursday. I loved the BOAR exhibit. That burger van was brilliant! You know the BBC did a documentary about the army. The first ep was set in Ukraine. Very prescient.

Here is a clip from the 1st ep. BBC Two - Army: Behind the New Frontlines, Series 1, The New Cold War, Fake News Thoghh I can not find the first ep anywhere. On DailyMotion someone has the last 2 eps, not the 1st.
 

Latest Threads

Top