British forces of the Royal Welsh Battlegroup are heading to Estonia as part of the UK’s contribution to strengthening Eastern Europe amid tensions with Russia.
According to the British Army here, the UK is doubling the number of personnel in Estonia and sending additional equipment, including tanks and armoured fighting vehicles.
“The Royal Welsh Battlegroup, which includes armoured vehicles and personnel from the Royal Engineers, Royal Tank Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery, will leave Sennelager in Germany and bases in the UK today, and begin to arrive in Estonia during the coming weeks.
A Company of Danish soldiers and vehicles also form part of the Battlegroup, working side by side with British troops. Part of Exercise Iron Surge has seen a convoy of Warrior infantry fighting vehicles and Challenger 2 main battle tanks leaving Sennelager. They are being moved by Heavy Equipment Transports (HET) from 19 Tank Transporter Squadron, Royal Logistics Corps (RLC).”
The British Army also say that Apache helicopters of 1st Aviation Brigade Combat Team, flown by the Army Air Corps, will also be making their way to Eastern Europe.
“These training exercises ensure that UK troops and equipment are operationally ready for their deployments.”
Going to be hard to start rebuilding those tanks when we need to be deploying them in the field!
Should have bought off the shelf and swapped out one for one. Another cracking MOD decision.
These capability holidays are great until some deranged nut job decides not to cooperate and it turns out the capability is actually needed after all!
I read somewhere that we could have leased a fleet of leopard A7s, you have to wonder why we didn’t really, especially as part of the deal was to set up a factory in uk.
it really is time for some joined up thinking on this, the Australians have a state of the art factory for their T26’s and boxers/land, whilst we are reviving forklift factories and building sheds…
I read that too, we had a option to lease German tanks. I’m a civilian but why would an island nation want the expense of competing in the top tank league.
UK has been building world-class battle tanks since the end of WW2.Why cede the field to others?
Because the UK no longer has the demand volumes to make for efficient manufacturing runs or to have manufacturing facilities that are sustainable over time. That is compounded by the manufacturing holiday that has taken place meaning other nations have no confidence the UK could produce the goods…safer to order from others
I remember it being said in the 1960s or 70s that the British Army was a much smaller customer for LandRovers than the farming community.
What is this manufacturing holiday?
When was the last time UK was in full production of MBT’s. To make @280 mbt efficiently over say a 6 to 7 year period (1 per week) to be followed by a 14 to 21 year holiday without manufacturing is not sustainable. The only conceivable UK plan that would provide efficiency and sustainable manufacturing for a UK need would be to get into bed with a single heavy tracked armour provider and go through manufacturing cycles of MBT, IFV, tracked Artillery, tracked reckon family vehicles etc. Do that over say a large 20 to 25 year cycle. The problem today is all of these main categories need to be upgraded / replaced in the same near term timescales.
Alternative would be an international shared component manufacturing base and common assembly facility in a tracked armour club in a similar vein to eurofighter supply chain.
If made in the U.K. is what’s wanted that cycle is going to have to be used. Good or bad.
I know 25 years sounds like a long time but it’s not that bad compared to the cure by rate of vehicle production.
I would start simple with some bulldog replacements, then move to warrior all the while getting tank prep work ready.
The army is never going to get its kit replaced all at once. They are in a bit of a situation
Pete, a very interesting point of view. We have never had the concept of a steady drumbeat of manufacturing AFVs to maintain skill-set. We have not had a drumbeat for many other platforms. We made the Invincible class 1973-81, then there was a ‘manufacturing holiday’ until 2009-17 when the QE class were built.
Of course it would help if there was OEM involvement in doing very major upgrades between build cycles.
Indeed Graham. I can imagine the design team rolling from new platform concept and feed design moving to upgrade of another platform before moving to design of a third platform etc etc but all with lessons learnt and feedback coming back from end users and shared / considered across platforms. The concept of then having seperate strip it, refurbish and upgrade it facilities with slightly different skill set then also becomes sustainable and efficient.
REME Base workshops (later named ABRO, then DSG then Babcocks) used to do Base Overhauls about every 7 years, including very significant upgrades.
Totally different organisation (OEM) did exceptionally major conversion work that involved cutting the hull etc.
Indeed. maintenance inhouse, upgrades mkt
mkt?
Sorry Graham. .I’m a heavy industry procurement geek. Was concurring with your commentary. Army / MOD should have in-house or long term contracted capabilities to perform majority of inspection and maintenance work. Any significant upgrades or enhancements and that either goes back to OEM or to another party in the market with the right capabilities and capacity to provide and integrate the upgrades.
mkt=market. I guess.
Peter, I was a REME officer for 34 years.
With few exceptions REME did inspections, repairs to Level 1, 2 and 3, equipment recovery, fitting of most modifications – to all army technical kit from office machinery through to weapons, sensors, helicopters, artillery, vehicles, radars etc etc – and also did helicopter servicing.
REME units conducted most upgrades that did not involve cutting an armoured hull and some which did. It was a REME unit that converted Centurion gun tanks to Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicles (in 1961). It was an army Base workshop that converted an initial tranche of Chieftain gun tanks to AVREs, probably in the 1990s.
The OEM (Vickers) converted Chieftain ARVs into CHARRVs, and a major Industrial company converted SA80s from A1 to A2 configuration and CR2s into CR3s.
REME does all routine equipment modifications and many of the complex upgrades. However Babcocks have taken over the REME Base workshop function now, as I understand.
Indeed and as much as it pains me to say it we have ceded that advantage a long time ago. We shouldn’t have but we did and yes with no chance of exporting any tank we design/build and too small a market of our own our priorities now needs to be elsewhere and leave design/production of tank formations in large numbers (though happily open a production facility here) to those continental countries most needing them as they have land borders to protect and our contribution would realistically be as a reserve element against any breakthrough for the most part.
Who said we don’t have the volume demand? The bloody truth is we always needed around a thousand MBT’s. At times like the current crisis, we suddenly look back at so-called rational military strategy, and in the case of MBT’s got it wrong. The cold truth is we are deploying heavy armour but in numbers that are painfully small, resulting in strong words of intent, but supported by an inadequate resource.
The MoD.
Ps.. the 280 number I quoted is an optimistic doubling of the C3 number.
Personally I would think a realistic enhanced capability compared to C3 plans would be @280MBT, an additional 25 Apache and moving fwd with @ 50 x Ajax style carriers cw 8 or 12 Brimstone cannisters each. Real swarm destruction of armoured columns at range. Understand Brimstone 3 may also have an anti air capability as well. UK IP, Effective and relative low cost with @40km range ground launched.
https://youtu.be/kNGLC1SbVyQ
I wonder if the Brimstone system can be fitted to Bulldog? This appears to be the only vehicle that has roof space? In regards to CH2, I would like to see upamour packs shipped out to Estonia and Warrior too! Another option could be the fitting of anti-ballistic systems to CH2 to increase survivability? The measures I’ve outlined would require fitting systems that have not been fully tested, but with so few tanks what other options do we have?
Indeed. No arguments on the upgraded armour. The Bulldog type vehicle is also a great option as it would be readily air deployable in support of rapid reaction type forces. And given the Brimstone range and sensors it can sit further behind the front line in support of heavy armour. Give them some real anti bunker, anti armour, anti FAC, anti Helo, anti missile site capability at range.
Why do we need 1,000 MBTs? We are on the far side of Europe. Let Poland and Germany field 2-3k MBTs. We would be much more useful providing 500 Typhoons and F35 ensuring Europe maintains aerial dominance over eastern Europe.
We never had a thousand MBTs at the height of the Cold War and when we were spending 5% of GDP on defence.
Apparently, it wasn’t far off as stocks of Centurion were retained in storage allegedly? In truth, a thousand MBTs would just be enough if not up-armoured, but with maximum protection kits, both applique and electronic the numbers could possibly be less? It’s all immaterial as we don’t have a sustainable MBT force. I guess if an Ukrainian invasion happens the UK MOD may look at leasing MBTs, to deploy across a huge expanse of Eastern Europe support commitments?
I doubt that Cent MBTs would have been kept in storage after their replacement by Chieftain. To what end? We bought 900 Chieftains which was a sufficient number of MBTs. Centurions had limitations in range, speed, firepower and protection – and used petrol when the AFV fleet had been transferred to diesel.
If Russia invades Ukraine, the UK will not intervene (along with the whole of NATO) as Ukraine is non-NATO. We may reinstate a significant armoured presence in Germany.
According to my memory, I remember being told of sheds being full of Centurions after their retirement? They may have already been sold to another country? I once visited Lugashull where hundreds of Chieftains were awaiting disposal, and this might have been where the Centurions were also spotted some years before?
This is true, I grew up in and around tidworth. I remember from my youth the sheds at DMED near ludgershall and the surrounding fields were packed with old tanks, apc’s, land-rovers, all auctioned off as I was told, whether this was true I can’t say but all that equipment was deffo there i used to get my dad to drive past it all just so I could look. This was back in the mid 90s, all the sheds have been knocked down, there’s houses built there now
I too took my son to see the huge throw out of armour including Scorpians, FV432’s, and Chieftains. There is a famous aerial photograph of hundreds of Chieftain parked outside the Lugershall sheds entitled ‘All must go.’ I think it was in the Daily Mail. I was told by a chap at Bovingdon Museum that they were mostly in poor order?
They were sat out in the weather for years in the end some of them so it doesn’t surprise me they ended up that way, it just looked cool all these old army vehicles parked up, then one day we drove past and they were all gone.
More significant than the DMED organisation which was just a lodger unit was the main unit in residence – AVSD Ludgershall (Armoured Vehicle Sub-Depot). At that time Ashchurch was just for B and C Vehs. Ludgersall was a good but ageing facility with its own railhead.
MoD tries to sell obsolete vehicles and other equipment unless there is an over-riding security issue – and I recall that auctions were favoured.
You are right that on the Cold War drawdown there were so many A vehicles disposed of that many were parked in open land outside hangars. There are some photos on the internet.
Soon after that process, the A Vehs for retention were moved up to Ashchurch which is now for all types of vehicles. MoD wanted to close it down a few years ago – I have no idea why.
It usually takes a great deal of time to dispose of large obsolete fleets; they would not have been held as any kind of war reserve after withdrawal from service and most will have been in a very poor condition.
Similarly I believe the navy takes 20 or more years to dispose of submarines!
I was the Equipment Support Manager for CR1 during its disposal – luckily that was quite easy as Jordan wanted them all and the Prime Minister quickly agreed the sale!
Who from? Just about everyone you could lease from is in NATO, who would all be looking at their own inventory. The only major suppliers who could do volume & are not in NATO are in east Asia. Russia extends to east Asia. PRC & NK are in east Asia. If s**t hits the fan, peace time ideas like leasing equipment from allies is going to be a problem.
Turkey leased some early-mark Leo2s before they got their shiny new ones, as I recall.
It might have something to do with the fact that the UK invented tanks. The problem is that we have sat back and allowed the competition to catch up or even get ahead of us. I hope that after the challenger upgrade program that MOD and political establishment realise that we will have to start developing a new next generation tank soon.
When I was in the army (1975-2009) we did a Base Overhaul (BOH) on all ‘A’ vehicles roughly every 7 years at a REME Base Workshop; very major modifications were incorporated in addition to the very through overhaul. For even more major modifications they went back to the manufacturer.
If you look at the career of the Chieftain you would be astonished how many Mark numbers there were.
For some reason technology insertion petered out at BOHs. So we end up with much largely unmodified equipment. Shameful.
The Navy seems to get ahead of the game cutting steel on T26s and not being far off working on the T31s.
I agree we should start concept work on the next tank very soon.
This island nation invented the tank in 1916. Our island status does not mean that we cannot and should not make Land warfare equipment.
Any expense arising is due to not now persuading enough export customers to buy British AFVs (itself a mystery) thus hiking up the unit cost to the British Army.
The decision to take a decade to dismantle our existing tanks and return a handful to service is looking horrific right now.
Like it or not the Cold War is back and right now is at risk of going hot.
Whether or not it does isn’t really relevant, it doesn’t change the fact that right now, and for a long time to come it seems, we need our heavy armour in the field either as a deterrent or ready to meet our treaty obligations.
It’s essentially the WCSP for tanks but with a company that knows what it is doing carrying out the work.
having said that, we could have had new leopards and a set of 150 CR2’s in storage as backup, as they are better than no reserve.
Fortunately the US senate wouldn’t take No for an answer and decided the USA needed an extra 3000 Abrams tanks. We have been asleep for years. Its all done electronically or with paper here. ‘What metal bashing how very 1980’s old boy.’ Seems not so after all.
It is usual to upgrade existing AFVs until they cannot be further upgraded. CR2 has essentially never been upgraded and that is long overdue. The hull has plenty of life left. CR3 will be far better than Leo A7(probably).
To lease a fleet of Leopards would require a complete new support infrastructure and incur a training burden and massive CR2 disposal costs – and may well be more expensive than the CR3 project.
The forklift factory is where Ajax is being built.
The AJAX factory is where AJAX is being built.
Ajax is dead in the water. It just that no one has told the rowers yet.
The Challenger should have received an upgrade years ago now. The planned upgrade will bring it well up to standard with the Leopard A7, maybe even surpassing it.
The number we are upgrading is the issue, with such a small fleet it doesn’t leave much room for attrition should the worst happen.
As I mentioned, AFVs used to be regularly upgraded, not just once in their lifetime. Usually every 7 years during Base Overhaul at a REME static (Base) workshop. A more major piece of work, such as re-manufacturing CR2s into CR3s would be done by the OEM.
RBSL is remanufacturing 148 tanks out of the 386 CR2s originally purchased, although only 227 have been declared in recent years.
Of the 148, 112 will be assigned to deployable units (Two Type 56 regiments), leaving 36 for: Training Org, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve – but I don’t have the figures for that mix. AR might only be 10 or so tanks!
I get your point, I just mean that this should have been done a long time ago. A long with the type of regular in service upgrades done by REME that you describe.
I guess in an ideal world, we would upgrade at least all of our stated operational 227 CR2’s. At least then you could get another type 56 regiment out of the fleet. Even with the three type 56 regiments you’d then still have a fleet of 59 remaining. Seems a more sensible attrition pool. But, manpower is the issue, not sure we have the recruitment numbers to fully man another regiment.
Is it the KRH or QRH that are losing Challenger? I can’t remember.
Hi Aaron, If you look up Chieftain tank in Wikipedia you will see that the tank was developed from one Mark to another, continuously upgraded. That was done less for CR1 and for CR2’s 24 year service life (so far) I think they only upgraded by fitting of Bowman radio to replace Clansman, a small TI upgrade and fitting of cleanable air filters.
If they converted 227 tanks instead of 148 and had 59 remaining – they would not all be Attrition Reserve as some would be Repair Pool and some would be in the Training Organisation.
Not sure which regt lose their Challys.
A very good article and well worth reading in full.
In the end, of course, and sadly, it all comes down to finance, and on the face of it Challenger 3 seems to be cheaper overall than Leopard 2.
But a quick look at the actual costings indicates that leasing Leopard 2 as offered to the MoD would be less expensive over the lifetime of the tank than the shorter term solution of Challenger 3.
While a lease agreement would have avoided the higher initial purchase cost of Leopard 2 versus Challenger 3, the tables are also turned when it comes to support costs.
Leopard components are available from multiple sources, ensuring a ready supply, but also competitive costs.
In essence, by plumping for Challenger 3 the MoD has chosen to go with an old chassis with no money to modify it or the powerpack, which means no increase in power or mobility despite an overall increase in weight.
Yes, it will have a new turret and electronic architecture, but the price only includes 60 sets of the APS, to be issued on an as required basis which will hardly encourage those crews unlucky enough to come down the pecking order.
Deliveries are mooted to begin in 2027 but informed commentators will tell you that 2030 at the earliest is much more likely. And, when and if it does enter service then, it isn’t really going to be much better than Leopard 2A7A1 is today, if at all.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-mod-was-offered-leopard-2-tanks-on-lease/
The offer of a Leapord production in the UK didn’t offer as much of a economic incentive as Challenger. Plus it would have likely dramatically increased the vehicle price and slowed slower delivery. Besides the fact Leapord just wasn’t the right tank for the British army.
hey Harry
don’t agree here – perhaps the Leopard isn’t suitable, but if the choice is 200 leopard A7’s or 148 CR3 – I would take the Leopards.
If not Leopard it would have to be Abrahams, ultimately we don’t have enough units to warrant a bespoke solution.
the cost of maintaining and upgrading CR against both of the above is x2 at least
by the time CR3 comes online it will be obsolete, with most new systems probably going for a larger calibre and autoloader, the other alternative is for a CTAS 120mm round which may extend the life of the 120mm calibre if the same kinetic output seen in the CTA 40 can transmit to this much larger calibre
CR3 needs to be complete by 2025 latest to be of any real value in my eyes and is a stop gap to the next generation coming online in the 2030’s
Sorry I thought you where referring to the initial challenger 2 selection in the late 80s and early 90s. Since that was the only occasion when Leapord production was offered in the UK and when it was seriously considered. The plan was always to upgrade Challenger 2, neither Leapord or Abrams was ever considered to replace it.
Also no country is considering getting anything larger then a 120mm, as such it will likely remain the nato standard for at least the next two decades.
hi Harry
Rheinmetal have already offered the UK a 130mm gun for CR3 and proposing it for MGCS, Nexter is proposing their 140mm gun (based on GIAT).
As it stands I think the 130mm gun is the next size, but it doesn’t have to be.
What I would like to know is why they can’t update the ammo to CTAS and get the improvements out of the 120mm barrel we have invested in. If we did this and made it the NATO standard then the cost would come tumbling down. Larger guns take it out on their platforms if we can get performance from the 120mm then we should try.
The US have spent a fortune on the XM360 gun which is much lighter than anything out there and seems to perform as well, add in a CTAS autoloader and there may be a lightweight turret that far exceeds current 120mm performance(no expert -so I don’t know).
as we have a CTAS factory in the UK manufacturing 40mm CTAS it would seem logical, as would to standardise all guns in the UK to use this ammunition (to bring costs down)
the French have the Jaguar at 1m Euro each, with the CTA40 on them – we should go for these as the recon vehicle for the strike brigades and order 500 (far cheaper than Ajax meaning we can buy a shed load)
maybe I am talking crap here, but some joined up thinking on how we make a product we are committed to (CTA) work wouldn’t go amiss, especially if it gives us an edge
The 130 was never offered to the MOD nor would they be interested, it was merely demonstrated on a CR2. Every western nation that has or is upgrading its tanks have stuck with the 120 including the USA. The new 120 rounds sought of replicates the CTA in that the dart extends into the shell casing, which is why the British 120 had a lethality cap. Also the strike brigades have been gone away with .
Harry I don’t see that partial telescoping enhances lethality – it just shortens the round.
Abrams would be a poor choice – not very robust armour (many have been destroyed in combat) and a horrific fuel consumption that would create a massive logistic footprint. Plus having to build a completely new engineering support system.
tbh – I question why the UK needs tanks at all, for me France and Germany should provide the tanks and the UK should protect the northern flank and a wheeled Strike force to reinforce.
Germany has consistently not met its NATO commitments whilst the UK has tried very hard to please everyone, time for that to end and for us to concentrate on what we can do. Carriers, Northern Flank, Special Forces, Airborne, ASW,Subs and Ballistic Missile Defence would probably leverage our skill set to the full. We have too few tanks to be effective or even a leader, but if we want to do heavy then lets do it properly and go big.
My personal preference is the Meerkava IV which is not only a tank but can hold 4 infantry. 800 of these would be useful and at $5-10m each would be cheaper than most the alternatives, even if we go for the namer with CTA40 its at least one platform that is world class.
the IDF places a premium on force protection as they are outnumbered, it has worked for them to date and we should adopt a similar philosophy. Every single person in the Army needs to have armoured protection, and there are some excellent vehicles out their at the $1m mark to do this.
The Army used to have Divisions of c.12k troops and I think we can again if we buy the right vehicles to take the strain on manpower of supporting fires with many solutions requiring 3 or less people now.
that means we can realistically have 6 Army Divisions and 1 Royal Marine Division. so that is what I would do
We need tanks for the same reason that we invented them in 1916 – to fight expeditionary operations with the best mobile, protected, direct fire platform that we could conceive. In WW1 it was to create mobile warfare and break away from costly attrition warfare and to create shock action.
Then when other nations developed tanks themselves it was the role of Britain’s tanks to match and defeat those tanks. Nothing has changed. Our peer and near-peer opponents all have huge numbers of tanks – that is why we still need tanks.
I agree that our role in Europe, once protection of the homeland is squared away should be flank defence and provision of a central reserve force for NATO, be it at the operational or as part of a strategic level force. But tanks need to be included in that reswerve force mix. We can’t leave tank provision just to the French and Germans – that would be far too few.
We have debated your grand plans for 6 army divisions and 1 RM division before – I don’t think that is realistic in the slightest.
Harry, tell that last point to Stuart Crawford! He would not agree with you.
Wasn’t the MOD methinks but civilian bean Counters, same ones who decided that 3 AWACS were as good as 4, or 5, or….
Just in time spares ordering does not work if the original company that made the part no longer exists or the lead time is three to six months because the low profit item has to be planned into the companies production. Drawings have to be sent out to tender for a part to be made as per MOD rules which causes delays, if it goes to cheapest bid it could be made wrong and then need to be replaced or put out to tender again. Better to use data to predict part usage and make sure a few extra are available or MOD to have their own manufacturing workshop !
You are referring to rebuilding them to the CR3 standard. That is the conversion of 148 CR2s which was originally scheduled to take to FOC of 2030, although Ben Wallace is trying to get them all done a bit quicker. There should be a total of 28 tanks (two squadrons) in Estonia after the current uplift. There are still 128 tanks that RBSL can be getting on with.
There is plenty of life left in the CR2 chassis and they would give a good account of themselves, as is, against the older Russian tanks.
– it was a good decision to upgrade them, except for the delayed start, the low numbers involved (we bought 408 CR2s) and the lengthy time that conversion will take.
Absolutely, I’ve been saying just that, Chally3 is a folly, we need the latest version of M1 Abraham’s.
That way we can buy them in quality if necessary. 148 of a bespoke Tank is now looking like a very bad idea….
They’d need a huge supply fleet just for fuel. We don’t have enough for Challenger as is. That’s why we went to Basrah during Gulf war 2. We couldn’t supply our armour any further into Iraq.
Agreed, the turbines in the Abrams consume fuel at a far higher rate compared to other tanks. So we’d need to complete overhaul our logistics chain to cope.
John have you actually read what Graham has said above your post?
M1, Leopard are legacy tanks older than Challenger! The Americans and Germans are now looking at replacing them. It makes perfect sense to upgrade our Challys to a much better standard then the marks of both of the above and wait to see what appears next. Although the decision to actually do 148 is looking a bit stupid now though!!
Agree. I think we have made the right decision to go with the Rheinmetal-BAE proposal. C3 will be a very good tank and we will have an option to take part in any future eurotank project. Also agree 148 is not enough.
Well done. A sensible reply to some frankly daft comments. I agree 148 Chally 2s upgraded is going to be proven not enough. I think the moment a single Russian troop enters democratic and soverign Ukrainian territory is when an emergency defence budget act is going to have to be pushed through parliament. We will be back into cold war version 2. So all Chally 2s need upgrading to 3 standard. Trophy APS sets for them all. Scrap ajax. Get cv90 series vehicles instead.
Defence budget will need to go up substantially.
I’m afraid I don’t agree chaps, first off, the Chally3 is going to be far from an upgrade, it’s effectively going to be a new digital tank.
It’s going to be a ‘very’ expensive bespoke undertaking and an evolutionary dead end, it’s an Armoured Nimrod MR4A on tracks if you will.
Zero chance of exports and zero chance of expanding beyond 250….
Its a typical example of why the UK has a healthy defence budget and precious little to show for it.
The Americans continue to upgrade the Abrahams, it’s now a fully digital and lethal MBT and buying a fleet of them would cost a fraction of the cost of Chally3.
It will continue to be upgraded ( paid for by the US taxpayer) and has a huge spares and support system we can access.
Critically, we could rapidly expand our MBT fleet if needed.
Quite frankly, you could improve and upgrade the fuel supply system and the whole thing would still be vastly cheaper….
Well as it’s costing the Poles 6 billion dollars for 250 tanks and recovery vehicles! Seems to me to not being very cheap when we would have to set up training,servicing etc
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/02/18/state-department-clears-6-billion-sale-of-tanks-to-poland/
So that’s about 4.5 billon pounds, all in, including everything, support, ammunition, spares, recovery vehicles and bridge layers….
A whole up to date capability delivered, low risk and guaranteed and scalable, so it can be increased in size if needed.
Bloody good value.
Chally3 £800 million for 148 tanks, that’s the tanks alone, first off, I will bet my house it will be at least double by the time it’s ready for delivery and probably rather late too.
Then there’s the new ammunition, new support contract, £,£,£,£ Ching rings till!
We will end up paying more, for a capability the Poles will have years before us and in far more robust numbers…
We already have the bridge layers,recovery vehicles and AVREs, spares setup to be tweaked,no new contracts for a completely new system to be incorporated into our existing setup. You don’t just say let’s have M1s and get them tomorrow.Cr3 will be ready before we could get any new design into service.
Quite right Jacko, continue with Chally 3 upgrade for now and then participate in the German-French-Polish new tank programme – they all need to replace their current tanks about the same time we do.
In the meantime though, we need all 227 Chally 2s upgraded to Chslly 3 to give us some battlefield muscle.
Personally I think the day of the super heavy mbt has ended. It’s no longer the ability to take a hit & survive. It is now how to hit & not be hit. Speed, mobility & the firepower to make any hit count. To my way of thinking, this can’t be done with a 70+t tank. Weight reduces speed. Reduced speed increases the likelihood of an opposition hit. This is what brought the heavily armoured knight of yesteryear to an end. It did not matter if you could take them down or not. Wait & they would fall over of their own accord. Most of them could barely stand up unassisted.
You don’t even need to hit a heavy mbt. Starve it of fuel & it won’t be going anywhere. I can run my current vehicle for a week, just on what it takes to start the engine of a M1.
History has a habit of repeating itself, because no one wants to learn the lessons of history.
If you scrap MBTs for those reasons you give a gift to any potential opponent with lots of tanks, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, China….. Would you advise Israel to get rid of all their tanks? The tank has saved their nation many times, even when anti-tank weaponry was somewhat less sophisticated than it is today.
Also if tanks are not ‘bomb-proof’ would you also scrap IFVs, APCs, trucks, artillery systems, the dismounted soldier – for the same reason?
What is wrong with Chally3? – other than it should have been done 10-15 years ago and to all 386 tanks.
Abrams has second-rate armour (many have been lost in combat) and very high fuel consumption necessitating a huge fleet of fuel tankers and also a completely new engineering support system.
So do we now have 2 BGs in Estonia or 1 reinforced BG? If 2 then that means under the new Army ORBAT there are only 4 more to rotate or reinforce. Seems to me,to state the obvious, we are again doing too much with too little. Good luck to the lads and lasses anyway.
It’s 2 Battlegroups now. Big thumbs up to the Danes by the way. We have the 3rd largest budget and a mobilised army of over 100.000 and this is the kit we give to the pathetic number of BG’s we can put in the field. Our soldiers are as good as any in the world and I wish the brass were good enough to lick their boots.
Does the Army reserves that bring us just over 100,000 include the TA or what used to be the TA? The army is too small by far & has been swindled out of the kit needed.
All this spin of doing less more with less comes home to roost when reality comes a knocking. Funny how the big corperations, fat cats & MPs never do with less, only awarding themselves more.
Big corporations, fat cats and MP’s didn’t propose the specs for Ajax. They aren’t responsible for Warrior upgrade. They didn’t decide not to upgrade AS90’s gun. Or take the meataxe to the AAC. Nothing in Army procurement will ever, ever change so long as the people responsible are never held responsible for their incompetence. Get rid of the big corporations, the fat cats the MP’s and Army procurement will stay the never ending groundhog day shitstorm it has been for almost 30 years.
You’ve clearly not worked in the private sector in the U.K….
‘Doing more with less’ has been the mantra there for decades.
I have worked in the private sector for the last 20 odd years but the private sector dose not go to war and dose not have to deal with battle feild attrition. Having the latest calos fantango bit of kit is grate and it can replace 10 other old bits of kit but when it is taken out you realise that the numbers count.
The Regular Army is heading down to 73,000. The Reserve Army (TA, as was) should be 30,000. Hence the just over 100,000 figure that Boris likes to crow about.
Army is ridiculously small. More people work at Tesco.
..and from that army we cannot nowadays deploy a full warfighting division (of three brigades/BCTs) equipped with modern kit.
Shameful.
50-year old Scimitar recce vehicles, 40-year old Warriors, 30-year old AS90s, 25-year old CR2 tanks – all largely unmodernised. I hope our troops don’t have to go to war against a quality opponent anytime soon in this kit.
It makes you weep. Of course Putin & Xi are confident with such weakness opposing them.
2 Battle Groups? Really? What would be required in the Baltics to actually hold them? At least a Corps … maybe two Corps? … More?
If all you need is a trip wire, this is overkill. One soldier sitting with a flag in a lawn chair at the border would be a lot less expensive. But if you want to actually defend the Baltics, then you are going to need a lot more than what NATO has there now.
It is not our responsibilty to defend the Baltic states alone. We’re a member of NATO.
My point is NATO does not have the forces to defend the Baltic states and adding a few hundred or a few thousand more troops will make no difference to the outcome if – God forbid – war breaks out.
Russia knows perfectly well they have zero chance of winning a war with NATO so they won’t attack in the first place. If they truly lose their minds and do attack they will have agood 48 hours followed by a slaughter.
I don’t even know what to say to that. Do you know what nuclear weapons are? Do you know how Russian doctrine envisages the use of nuclear weapons in a peer-on-peer conflict? … I suspect that you are very young but that you may not have read enough. This is not a game and you don’t want to cross the threshold of a peer-on-peer conflict.
So ok. Russia uses nuclear weapons in order to conquer the baltic states or Poland or Norway or the UK whatever and we should what do nothing because if we do Russia will use nuclear weapons ? I have an answer. Tell Russia that if it uses nuclear weapons so will we. If you seriously believe that Russia would use nuclear weapons in that circumstance I honestly don’t know what to say to you.
Thank you General Jack D Ripper! … you may be too young to get the reference.
Yeah were done.
No one sensible will use nuclear weapons. It’s a zero end game. That, in some sense is why nuclear weapons are tactically a non event. All they do is stop others from using them (however the lunatic fringe are not known for forward thinking). That reduces you to a conventional conflict. Some reference tactical nuclear weapons. There is no such thing. The first nation to use a tactical nuclear weapon will soon after no longer exist. No one wins a nuclear war. Everyone knows this. The US alone can kill everyone on the planet multiple times over. I would have thought dying once was enough.
This also means that the great powers all know that nuclear weapons are off the table. A deterrent, yes, a weapon, no. So long as it remains a zero end game, no one will play.
You need to do some reading. This is not a game.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/revelations-about-russias-nuclear-deterrence-policy/
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/04/29/russian_nuclear_doctrine_force_expansion_and_nuclear_deterrence_774957.html
A tripwire has not to be laughable. It has to reassure the host nation, be a receiving base in case more troops are needed, be able to observe the opposition over the border. A single squaddie in a lawn chair won’t do that.
It is not necessary for NATO to put a ring of steel into the Baltic countries, as Putin is not focussed at the moment of incursions there – he has his eye focussed on operations in Ukraine.
David, we are not going to war otherwise we would send a lot more kit. Movement of some military hardware to the east is political signalling and to act as a tripwire in forward NATO countries.
We have a Royal Tank Regiment-led BG, with RTR Dreadnought Sqn, Coy of Royal Welsh, artillery and engineers. It also includes a French armoured sqn and armoured infantry company and French artillery, an Estonian recce squadron and a Belgian mech infantry company as well as a Danish/Icelandic HQ contingent. This adds a second BG based around the Royal Welsh HQ, but including the rest of the RTR and a Danish mech inf coy and supporting arms presumably.
5 more, in the new ORBAT there are two tank regiments and 5 mechanised infantry battalions.
I thought warrior wasn’t worthy of upgrade because they weren’t needed, weird then that they’ve been deployed, it’s as if a tracked IFV is still a useful asset…
Yeah, the MOD planning seems to have been based on the belief that armour would not be needed for the foreseeable future. Like all capability holidays it is left looking embarrassing when some nut job decides not to cooperate with the plan and said capability is needed after all.
Either the Intel feeding these decisions is shockingly off the mark or someone just stuck their fingers in their ears and pretended not to hear what was said…
Warrior upgrade (WCSP) was cancelled because it had not been funded not because it was not needed.
Strange I happened to stumble on these today and if selected will be produced in Australia. I assume we could do the same thing for all three?
On the proviso we get our £5 billion back and an increase in the defence budget of course!
Redback Infantry fighting vehicle
“The Redback is an advanced, well-armed and well-protected vehicle. It could be among the most protected IFVs in the world today. It weighs a whooping 42 tons and could be classified as a heavy IFV.”
http://www.military-today.com/apc/redback.htm#:~:text=The%20Redback%20is%20a%20new,first%20publicly%20revealed%20in%202021.
Australia buys K9 howitzers from South Korea’s Hanwha Defense
“SEOUL — South Korea’s Hanwha Defense has signed a contract to supply the Australian Army with advanced self-propelled howitzers and ammunition resupply vehicles.
The deal is worth about $730 million, representing the highest-valued export of Hanwha’s K9 self-propelled howitzer, nicknamed Thunder and known in Australia as the AS9.
Under the contact for the Land 8116 acquisition project, Hanwha Defense Australia will manufacture 30 AS9 Huntsman self-propelled guns and 15 AS10 armoured ammunition resupply vehicles for delivery between 2025 and 2027 at its facility in Geelong, Victoria.”
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/12/13/australia-buys-k9-howitzers-from-south-koreas-hanwha-defense/
K21-105: Light Tank Solution from Hanwha
“Two light tanks instead of one medium tank can be carried in a transport aircraft. Thus, light tank units are more suitable for rapid mobilisation.”
https://chanakyaforum.com/k21-105-light-tank-solution-from-hanwha/
We should have a pretty good idea of how well it performed.
Hanwha Defense said on 18 February that it will hand over the tracked combat vehicle to RoKA in April after it returns from Australia in March.
The Redback IFV is one of the two final candidates for the Australian Army LAND 400 Phase 3. It underwent risk-mitigation activity tests and evaluations conducted by the Australian Defence Force from February to October 2021.
A spokesperson from Hanwha Defense confirmed to Janes that the IFV’s delivery to RoKA is for evaluations to inform South Korea’s Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle (FIFV) programme.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/hanwha-defense-to-supply-redback-for-south-korean-ifv-trials
The two finalists are Redback & Lynx. Very few nations are as capable of breaking a military vehicle as Australia is. Just getting to the end means you have succeeded, even if you don’t win. It should be noted that Ajax was considered ‘not fit for purpose’ & did not even get to the start line. Neither did BAE, but they were considered ‘too expensive’ rather than not up to scratch.
Just shows that cuts have gone to far. You would hope they might decide the least that is needed is to refurb all 220 something Challenger 2 rather than 148 and do something really quick to either upgrade Warrior or buy a replacement.
Poland has just been authorised to buy 250 M1A2v3 for 6b dollars or so with ammo and spares so options are out there if fee new world means deterring Putins armour.
It wouldn’t be hard to order those extra 2 Wedgetail and perhaps a few more P-8.
Some means to defeat the Iskander type threat is an urgent requirement seeing as we are probably about to see them in action
The nation has borrowed hundreds of billions through Covid and gives away billions in aid, so there is money. With the will the nation could urgently boost the UK firepower. Even Starmer is now calling for those army cuts to be reversed.
David your numbers arent quite right. There is a total fleet of 320 + challenger 2s. I agree entire fleet should be upgrade and entire fleet should be equipped with Trophy APS.
I believe that there were 400 something Challenger 2s built for us, but that only 227 remain operational. The rest have not been scrapped and are supposedly in storage but i doubt they have not been cannibalised for spare parts. 148 will be upgraded to CR3… what will happen to the others? A) where will those already in storage go, will they be scrapped or kept? B) what will happen to the 80 or so that will not be upgraded, will they be scrapped, stored, or remain in service as CR2?
I thought those 408 Challengers procured were CR1’s originally, then 225 upgraded to CR2’s in late 90’s?
I don’t think so, somewhere near 1000 of those were built. Vickers then developed the CR2, of which the MoD ordered 168 followed by 240, giving a total of 408. 227 remain in service, no idea what happened to the others hence I’m asking, and 148 to be upgraded to CR3. What prevents us from upgrading the 180 or so stored CR2s and keeping the operational ones in service?
I though we had flogged a load to Jordan? Could be wrong.
Save for a few examples in Museums and in Private Ownership the Challenger 1 Fleet were gifted to Jordan where they are known as Al-Hussein MBT’s,soon to be withdrawn from service.
CR1s were sold to Jordan for a modest price.
I think Meirion is correct. That 1,000 plus number was BAOR Challenger, Chieftain fleet late 80s.
1000 Deployable MBT’s might have seen the light of day but for two reasons -(1) the End of the Cold War and (2)Options For Change.It was envisaged that a mixed fleet of Chieftain ( late marks ) and C1 production would get close to that total but reason (2) meant the Chieftain fleet were prematurely retired.When C2 production started again it was expected that the RAC would operate a mixed fleet but predictably again once C2 became operational all C1’s were retired.
It is a mystery as to why MoD declared 227 CR2s in the inventory many years ago when 408 were built. The balance were not sold or scrapped – they must all be in Ashchurch and have mostly probably been stripped for spares.
The issue is very confusing isn’t it?
I just seen Daniele’s reply. But I think Graham is right.
The Challenger 1 and 2 are completely different Tanks ,C2’s were New Builds ,not Re-worked C1’s.Production totals (published) are for 420 C1 and 386 C2 ( +22 training vehicles ).
No. No CR1s were upgraded to CR2 – that was not possible – they are very different tanks.
Do you know how many CR2’s are training vehicles?
I think Army should upgrade as many as possible of CR2 to CR3’s
Thanks for clarifying this issue of upgrade.
MoD bought 386 CR2s (deployed variously as: gun tanks with armoured regiments; in controlled humidity environment (as part of the Whole Fleet Management regime); in the training organisation (Non-driver trg); Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve…
…and 22 Challenger Driver Training Tanks (turretless and without Chobham armour, the driving instructor in a superstructure at hull centre in the turret position).
CR2s were brand new tanks and had hundreds of differences from CR1s. CR1s were mostly sold on to Jordan.
Not really though, although 386 were ordered, most have been sitting in storage for years now and probably aren’t in the best condition.
I would agree that STOROB would have depleted many working parts.
Question is do they have hull with tracks and working engines / gearboxes.
In the past anything with an engine was periodically fired up. If it was considered in any way serviceable.
If they are not being fired up they are just hills that **might** be redirected.
I’m sort of surprised that they didn’t use the reserve hills to start the upgrade program as the electronics are fitted at the end of the process after the mechanicals are done?
Hulls !!!!
According to a well respected Author on the subject there isn’t a fleet of 320+ C2 Tanks ready to be upgraded, this has been the case for some time,the Fleet was culled post 2003 Iraq.Best guess would be around 225 – 250 max fit for upgrade,whats left of the rest are too far gone.
We bought 408 CR2s but have declared only 227 for years.
Good points, not too much to ask. Time to spend a bit more wisely and stop the massive wastage on other acquisitions and not leave all this too late.
Poland first requested to buy these tanks in July 2021 but the feckless Biden State Dept sat on the request for eight months. The fact that Poland is a staunch NATO ally meant nothing to these bureaucrats. It was only when Putin started his latest shenanigans that the Biden Administration got around to approving the sale, but only because SecDef Austin’s was going to visit Poland and he had to announce something when he got there. Poland still needs to negotiate a contract with General Dynamics, so these tanks won’t be delivered anytime soon.
Poland is a little unique, they are the only country that has increased its tank force since the end of the cold war, primarily as they see their main engagement with Russia will be via armour rather than air. Probably also reflecting that in WW2 their navy had little influence on the defence of their country and had to flee to Britain.
Vey sound suggestions David. Hopefully the unfolding events will propel the government into action to urgently increases defence spend.
Those who would draw parallels between eastern Ukraine and the Sudatenland (and more broadly Lebensraum) would do well to look at Estonia; there are a lot of Russian speakers there, who complain to Moscow of ‘oppression’ whenever even a change in rubbish collection days is not 100% to their liking.
If people think Putin will stop at Donetsk, or Luhansk, I would invite them to look at the diminutive Austrian’s playbook in the 1930s – Putin seems to be a fan of his, he is copying him almost word for word ‘they’re Russian speakers, they are our brothers, we must protect them’ (while bizarrely calling the people who disagree with him Nazis!)
And to the people who say ‘he wouldn’t dare – Estonia are in NATO’ – I would again point you to the 1930s (actually people were still saying ‘he wouldn’t dare’ about Herr H until about 1943). Putin knows we won’t invade Russia, so he is calculating that if he takes part of Estonia, or the Sulwalki gap; how do we get it back without firing a shot into Russia?
Putin has repeatedly expressed admiration for the USSR.
ISTM that the strategy for use now by the West also needs certain echoes of the past.
When I was at school my listening of the BBC World Service would sometimes be interspersed with the International Service of Radio Moscow. Quite an education.
Do you think the russian speakers/supporters will dwindle as new generations grow up in an independent country? Or is this just a fact of life.
Lots of people around the world admire the USA and USA Products, lifestyles even if it’s seen through tinted glasses. I
Is this perhaps how they see Russia/ussr
Like any sizeable minority in another country, to a certain extent they relish being different. For a slightly more ‘friendly’ example look at Belgium – intermarriage between Flemish and Walloons is less than 1% of marriages there.
Russians in Estonia think of themselves as Russian – it is probably amplified because Estonia is not a Slavic country (Estonian is a Finno-Urgic language).
I don’t think Russia will actually push NATO into conflict yet. He’s going to nibble around the edges ( or take a big chunk with Ukraine) and move closer to China militarily and economical ( which I think in the end will tears for Russia but Hay-ho).
I can see Russia and China building their alliance and at some point rolling the dice over both the Baltic states and or Taiwan. But I don’t thinks that’s yet or inevitable. But I think both China and Russia will nibble, challenge and build over the next decade, if the West fails to either strengthen its economic independence, secure needed raw material supplies, build up its armed forces or show weakened political will I think we will end in a general war.
My concern is he had calculated that there won’t be a conflict – I don’t like to say this, but we are moving forces to Estonia, in numbers that won’t concern him in the slightest militarily, in the hope that just their presence and nationality is a deterrent, they are more or less a human shield – “Well, he wouldn’t endanger British (Danish etc) service personel, would he?”
I am suggesting that he would; because what have we got as a response? He’s thinking he’ll take what he wants, economic sanctions will last about 18 months before Germany wants to up it’s order of gas. And that will be it….and I fear he is right.
I do think he is wrong in one calculation though – he thinks he has to go now or never, because us and other nations will start to undo some of the defence cuts; I absolutely guarantee whether this happens on not, there will be more massive cuts to the UK armed forces within the next few years.
Sadly I think I agree if it’s sooner or later that Russia and China act against the western democracies the west seems determined to not take its enemies seriously or somehow think we can make them not enemies.
The seperatist forces in Donetsk & Luhansk have just mobilised, so we could be in the countdown to something quite real. He didn’t baulk at attacking Russians on UK soil, so I don’t think he’ll baulk at attacking Ukraine or the Baltics unless we do something to force him to stand down.
The difference is that if he does attack UK or Danish forces in Poland or wherever his in Article 5 ville.
That won’t mean invading Russia but it will mean Vlad does discover that:-
a) combined NATO conventional forces are a lot bigger and better than his are
b) that anything Russian on NATO soil is fair game
c) Russian aircraft will, strangely, fall out of the air. They are fast, very fast, dogfighty but you could find them with 1950’s radar.
d) Russian armour in the wrong places will be devastated. Looks what happened other places and we have much better kit.
e) Oh and Vlad’s kleptocratic buddies will be short of cash. Bad for Vad.
I worry. I agree if you look at the numbers and the technology the the Russian (shall we just despense with the bull and say ‘soviet’?) armed forces are outmatched across the board.
It is ability to respond that is the issue – US commanders in theatre would be given authority to meet and respond to threats – with European nations it would be a government decision, and Vlad is probably calculating that he could get to his objectives before such a decision is made – and when I say decisions, that would include allowing US forces to overfly, or use bases to engage.
It is a smaller example, but look at our sailors and marines taken out from under the nose of a warhip probably more powerful than the enitre Iranan navy – they were taken by a dozen men in a couple of rubber boats with outboards.
In resources AND rules of engagement our armed forces have been MASSIVELY let down for a long time now.
I’d tend to agree.
The pussy footing around Basra, on political direction, really damaged army image.
I do often wonder if a lot of the fuss that is made about collateral damage is actually FSB / GRU inspired / funded as it is the best way of diminishing our striking power?
I agree a lot of European nations will be quite bad at making up their minds.
Is that the pint of NATO chain of command?
It’s funny we were taught this, given the current inability to act, but I remember when I was ‘training’ there was a discussion of the Maraaguez incident with Cambodia, just as the US were withdrawing from Vietnam – the Cambodians seized a US freighter (as well as some other incidents) and the US admiral latterly said he could have put both the Marine divisions he had ashore, as well as a sustained bombardment from carriers and USAF assets – without consulting Washington. That may be a little hubris on his part, but it does stand out that these days Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel can be carrying out orders, and have to surrender because they know that desk in Whitehall that would authorize any engagement is only occupied from 11am until 3pm and only on weekdays.
Russian army commanders should be terrified to face the Royal Marines, Royal Air force and even some of the regiments of those blokes who for some reason can’t put their equipment where they are told or even try to keep a deck tidy (friendly joke!)….but the Russians know they are 24 hours of discussions with civil servants and lawyers away from being allowed to even load their rifles.
I think I got banned from comments at a well know paper for saying our rules of engagement became nonsense in 1945.
I think he knows Nato would eat the Russian military if he forced a trigger of article 5. So I don’t think he’s that much of a chancer. He’s going to be the strong man with a smaller weaker nation and then snuggle close to China. At some point China and Russia will become a handful if the west does not start taking its geopolitical potential weaknesses seriously and build on its strengths. I think the West still has a we won the world, look how good we are mentally, that china’s exploiting like a major player.
Jonathan, I’m thinking your assessments is very accurate -spot on!
It shouldn’t be said that countries in Eastern Europe have Russian minorities. Rather it should be said that they have Russian beachheads. That’s the way it seems anyway.
You are right about that, many people of Russian origin seem to think and hope that they (let’s just say it: the Soviet Union) will rise again, and if you are a minority in a country it is like a junior schoolboy hoping to see his big brother from the 6th form.
Related point – Highest ever number of Chinese students at UK unis next year; they are sent out by their government using both money and numbers to make sure none of China’s actions are debated with any rigour.
I’d be interested in the basis for that view David? It may well be a generational thing with older people, especially those in Russia itself, on a pitttance of a pension or who look around at crumbling infrastructure (especially beyond Moscow) feel a certain nostalgia for the old Soviet system; despite the fact that the country has been robbed blind by oligarchs and the current regime. Just how could a “democratically elected” head of state – a public servant presumably – lay claim to being the richest man in the world with a net worth estimated at $200Bn? That’s one “union” I’d like to negotiate my pay 😃 . Many young Russians I know and speak to, seem to have much more western / Euopean lifestyle ambitions for themselves. They are well educated with access to international media and are equally concerned (i.e. terrified) at recent developments. Of course there are limits to what they can say, let alone do, under a totalitarian regime. They see the USSR as part of their history, not their future.
I find it hard to believe that those native Russians living in other countries really want the return of some form of Soviet era regime. It seems that even people identifying as Russian in Ukraine are increasingly less keen.
The Chinese seem to be diverting large numbers of their best students away from US universities to ours. Whilst this may be very good for the finances as the UK needs the money, the strategic implementations are, as you say, never discussed. Including the issue of there being a finite number of places so one more for them equals, in most cases, one less for us.
In 2012 I was at Sussex uni during the Summer we were inundated with Chinese so called students not one would engage in conversation with us , mind you we ask which Nail bar would they hope too be working at when finishing whatever they were doing at Uni David
Actually the Estonians I know who are ethnic Russian are pretty glad they’re living in Estonia and not Putin’s Russia.
You can be sure the Russians you’re talking about are all motivated by cash payments from the FSB.
Exactly. Putin is motivated by jealousy.
Heard the same.
We need more of everything in every service except useless fifth column dullards at the top & political oversight making decisions that tear capabilities apart & waste so much money on vastly delayed, inflated or eventually cancelled projects. What we see truely is the legacy of Thatcher, Cameron & Osborne.
And Major, and Blair, and Brown, and Clegg.
Hi Frank62, Thatcher? I know there were cuts during her time in office, but there was also some sensible spending to increase service pay, increased TA. Also some good strategic thinking on her stance of having US nuclear weapons based in the UK (my opinion). And whatever your opinion on her “Dullard” is not a term I would associate with her.
Quite the contrary GMD. She championed monetarism that began the devestation & sell-off of many public utilities that delivered no efficiencies or improvements but reduced services & simply lined the pockets of the fat cats she fronted. The poor & middle have suffered ever since & even today HMG cry crocodile tears whilst raking in the profits. For those profits too major industries were allowed to go to China which began the industial growth of their manufacturing that has funded their rise to near top dog today as the enemy of freedom worldwide.
Her governments cuts to the MOD & RN in particular gave the Argies the distinct impression the UK was weak & would accept a grab of the Falklands. I remember watching David Owen on the BBC panel about the looming & immediatly after the invasion, as the previous Labour defence secretary, saying that a previous threat a few years earlier was nipped in the bud by the deployment of Ark Royal. The cuts planned by Thatcher & Nott pulled the rug under the Falkland Islanders, scrapping Ark Royal, selling Invincible off to the Aussies (only cancelled after the damage was done) & planning to withdraw & scap HMS Endurance.
Despite the face-saving by acting resolutely after the event & temporarily bolstering forces, we forget it was a war created by reckless, foolish Tory cuts.
Dullard applies as although she was bright & intelligent she made some dreadful decisions that led to death, injury, suffering & misery that cost the UK dearly, starting us on the course to where we are today.
Hi Frank62, I don’t think we are going to agree on this point, as my recollection was a country in crisis at the time of her taking office, with endless strikes, industrial inefficiency, a militant left in charge of unions across all industries bringing the UK to a standstill on many occasions. Yes people got rich (many undeserving), but many people where able to become home owners, but shares in public companies and have more control over their financial future. Yes cuts where made to the military, but many reversed because of the Falklands. But I don’t know if a government left or right that hasn’t made mistakes or made cuts to defense spending:).
One of the thing that delayed RN re-fits in the 70’s and early 80’s was the dock yard workers being on strike!
Agreed, the U.K. was a basket case before she was elected. Endless strikes, rampant inflation, poor productivity, etc
When the Defence Support Group was ABRO it was a productive organisation. The modernisation and privatisation, loss of machine shop etc has turned it into a low productive loss making business!
Why exactly did she sell of said utilities? Ah yes to break the ridiculous state the country had got into being run by unions which happened to also be doing what you accuse her of doing and lining the pockets of themselves whilst crippling virtually every industry they represented on productivity and competitiveness.
Depends how you look at it I suppose but as you clearly have a severe amount of Tory resentment you will only take one view.
Don’t forget Defence Secretary, Sir John Nott (“a here today, and if I may say so, gone tomorrow politician”) and his 1982 plans for the future Royal Navy against the very public advice of the FSL Sir Henry Leach, 45 years in the Royal Navy and who ultimately convinced Thatcher he could retake the Falklands, brushing aside the serious doubts expressed by Nott. The planned reductions included scrapping of the Antarctic patrol ship HMS Endurance and disposal of HMS Invincible to Australia just months before the Falklands War; actions which very likely encouraged the Argentine regime to “do a Putin”…
When Leach was asked if retaking the islands was possible, he replied “Yes we can recover the islands.” He then added “and we must!” Thatcher replied “Why?” Leach exclaimed “Because if we do not, or if we pussyfoot in our actions and do not achieve complete success, in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little.” Global Britain anyone?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Cameron and May might as well get Chinese citizenship !
Yes his red carpet and Royal Gala for the Chinese sticks both in my mind and my craw- he was a smug twat.
I was hoping after/due to COVID we would make a strategic attempt to move away from closer ties with China. However it seems I will be dissapointed , this love affar with the Chinese is now getting stronger again.
It seems too many people have too much money involved.
Other fond memories of cancelled projects come to mind as well, TSR2 and the CVA program, the latter being one of the biggest mistakes made.
Sadly both of those did not get cancelled under a conservative government.
NATO sending forces to countries that aren’t in danger of being attacked. How about sending some tanks, helos, ect to where the actual fighting will be taking place??? I guess the poor Ukrainians are on their own.
The threat & insecurity in the Baltics is very real. They probably have intelligence we don’t yet have in the public sphere. It is a wise precautioin to strengthen our trigger forces there before Putin is tempted to try where we’re softer.
If Putin invades Ukraine(again) I’d also like to see our forces go in to help Ukraine repell them.
Let’s not beat about the bush: Putin & PRC are trying to destroy western freedom using every dirty trick at their disposal.
The west needs to help Ukraine with real time battle intel and SIGINT.
Reports that the RC-135 flights are a treasure trove of intel right now, with Russian forces postured at a higher alert than we’ve seen in 30 years the intel nerds are going nuts over what they’re seeing.
Putin wont threaten the Baltic states until he has finished whatever he intends to do to the poor Ukranians. With 190,000 soldiers deployed to Ukraine’s borders this represents the majority of Russias available professional military forces.
You can count them in battle groups. They have 250 battle group units in their order of battle and 160+ are deployed to Ukraine’s border.
We can only hope the Ukranians fight well, bravely and give Russia a bloody nose. Attritionally high loses are going to be hard for Putin to explain away.
Russua does however have a history of just shrugging off loses seemingly no matter how devastatingly high.
Nail on head Mr Bell. If, IF, Russia invades then the extent of Ukrainian resistance is key. Even if overrun, if Ukraine causes the Russians 20 to 30 thousand casualties that will hollow out the professional Russian forces for years to come. If an insurgency takes hold that will last longer. All of which will buy time for NATO to increase it’s military capacity. We should give all we can to the Ukrainians now including lots of PE and detonators for IEDs should an insurgency campaign become necessary so that they can squirrel them away for future use.
I am a bit of a sad sack in that I try to keep up to date with what our political elite are telling us and I watched the series of speeches yesterday from Munich and the only one that made sense (To me) was the one by the Ukraine president. Boiled down he said if you are all convinced that the Russians are going to invade my country again why don’t you impose the sanctions “now” that you keep talking about and not wait till his country has been invaded and his people have been killed.
I just think the longer we keep dithering the more it plays into Mr Putin’s plans.
The last time I checked Ukraine wasn’t in NATO. Acting like they are would be a huge mistake. Let’s not start WWW3.
Some do mate.
Yes, they’re not in NATO. What’s the point in NATO if we give the benefits of NATO membership to non-members.
And if we gave Ukraine NATO membership tomorrow, then we’d be obliged to help throw the Russians out of the Crimea.
If we’re honest the issue isn’t about the victim being a NATO member or not. The issue is more to do with the relative threat the aggressor poses. Bosnia wasn’t in NATO and, while not a NATO operation, neither was Kuwait after Iraq went in.
The West is the guardian of democracy and the rule of international law. Can we really stand by and do nothing while an independent democratic nation on Europe’s doorstep is invaded and seized by an autocratic nutter, in brazen defiance of international law?
NATO should have been organised and ready to place forces on Ukraine’s Western border, as step one is a robust posture. Probably too late to do that now. But NATO and the 30 members need to look again at the puny available forces on the Western side, a Rapid Reaction force of 60,000 is pretty small beer and flags up weakness rather than strength.
Too many NATO Europe members have been happy to hide behind that figleaf and run their forces down, nowhere moreso than the UK since 2010. As we found in 1940, the autocratic nutter does not stop until he is forced to do so on the battlefield.
NATO will have to start rearming now and urgently, diplomacy and some sanctions will not restrain Putin from further military adventures in Eastern Europe.
I imagine if an increase in tank or ifv numbers are needed overall they will be sought after. It may come at the cost of other items.
It’s a hard gamble. To have enough heavy equipment to deter Russia would require a massive increase.
If the British army are going down the light forces they need to have the lighter equipment to do it. Lots of vehicle missiles, ability to take out the other side even when the numbers are stacked in their favour.
I do not envy the people in charge of the decision making.
I think NATO needs a clear defence plan. That is fully upto its members to resource and meet.
UK traditionally in cokd war provided reinforcements to Northern flank and Norway in shape of 3 commando brigade and 5th airborne brigade. Royal navy was larger, much larger than today and optimised at ASW and closing the GIUK gap against Russian submarine incursion into the atlantic. Thereby ensuring American and Canadian reinforcements can flow across atlantic to Europe.
Therefore we need an emergency ship building programme for RN warships and submarines and should leave heavy armour and facing the Russian armour to Germany, Poland, Romania, Holland, Belgium and France. Our contribution to NATO should be precise unqiue capabilities eg ASW, Carrier strike, advanced air defence destroyers and the worlds best infantry. Our heavy armour should really be a token gesture compared to other aforementioned countries contributions. Yet seemingly it is mostly the UK, USA, Danish and Canadians that are manning forward deployed battlegroups. Yes I know France have deployed 1 battlegroup to Romania but that is 1/3 the size of current uk commitments to NATO.
Where are the Germans? Population +120 million and biggest economy in Europe. Where are the Dutch? Where are the Belgians? Where are the Italians and Spanish? I think if Putin invades Ukraine and then puts pressure on Baltic states NATO will fracture. Not sure our friends and allies can be trusted. Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy questionable.
Whilst speeding up our shipbuilding efforts and increasing numbers of ships/submarines etc is entirely possible, providing them with trained crews isn’t.
I would imagine if push came to shove, BAE could probably turn out a T26 in 2-3 years, perhaps less. A T31 (Babcock) even quicker, but you can’t open a box and provides trained crew for them, unfortunately. I suspect the say would apply across all the services with varying amounts of time required to field such a increase in numbers.
The reserves could take up some of the slack, but not a whole crew for a Warship.
I don’t disagree with any of what is being proposed, but the practicalities of manning more ships at a faster rate then planned will probably prove v problematic, if at all possible unfortunately. We might manage one crew for the short term, but that would have a knock on effect on availability further down the line and just handicap us further.
It’s not a easy problem to solve, as it involves time lots of it.
And here lie the problem with all the fantasy equipment plans we see on here. You need the personnel and back up logistic for it all
Absolutely fella, absolutely.
Anybody got actual numbers etc as to what constitutes this Battlegroup?
I fear a BG is very much like a modern RAF ‘squadron’…pretty much a number they decide upon?…
Answers on a postcard..
From Army website. A Light ie Airborne/Light Inf battlegroup is circa 1500. An Arm/Arm Inf battlegroup about 3000. Not clear whether the Danish company would be included or additional to the number.
Thanks David, yes I got a similar figure troop wise…any idea on Challenger/Warrior numbers?..cheers
Standard is 1 Chally 2 Sqd and 2 Warrior Inf Comps numbers i’ve found on them vary widely so 12 – 16 MBT’s and max 80 Warrior/FV432. Sorry can’t be more precise maybe someone else with 1st hand knowledge can help. The Danish provide another Warrior Inf Comp.
Roughly 850. As reported in the press.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned but on the 23 February in Russia there is a public holiday called Defender of the Fatherland Day. This day celebrates the men and women who have and are serving in the Russian armed forces, but more generally it has come to celebrate men.
All this invasion talk might just be a show of strength by Poots to fall at the time of this national holiday, both for internal and external purposes, ie basically one big exercise in inferiority complex issues.
However, it could also be that any possible invasion is to take place on or after this holiday.
How many actual ch2 / Apache have we sent?
MBTs are the past…too slow and vulnerable to air attack unless you control the airspace. Just 3-5 attack helicopters these days carry enough missiles to be able to destroy an armoured battalion within 30 mins and any that get past that attack will be picked off by mobile ATGM teams. Then there are the drones and the loitering kamikaze missiles.
Who’d want to be a tanker these days?
Although I disagreed with the decision years ago to drastically reduce our MBT numbers, events in Syria and the Caucusus in the past 3-4 years have vindicated those who made that call.
Unmanned robotic vehicles are the near future and they are smaller and cheaper and can be fielded in larger numbers if deemed necessary without the large loss of life…BUT again…only if you control the airspace.
Spot on.
Thanks David.
To be fair, a lot of those lessons have been learnt. Hell, that airpower was superior to naval warfare was one of the key takeaways from WW2 and why carriers became such a thing.
Considering the British Army haven’t received much in the way of heavy armour, the Royal Navy’s pride and joy has been anti-air and now aircraft carriers, and that RAF have the most advanced aircraft: I’d say the UK (and the US) have taken airpower very seriously.
The UK does desperately need more and modern anti-air assets though, and looking into the future anti-drone swarm assets.
I agree with your last two lines particularly. Against Near Peer-Peer level opponents, local air superiority will usually determine who wins that particular battle in my opinion.
I’m sorry to disagree, but I have to make the point. As shown in Armenia, if MBTs that are left unprotected by air defences, then yes they become very vulnerable to air attack by a variety of platforms, just like any target. But that has always been the case, as shown by history going all the way back to WW2! However, if MBTs are accompanied by a modern SHORAD system. The advantage in general now lies with the ground forces. This is because the aircraft have to get into range to fire their weapons, where they will be seen approaching. Unless they have decent intelligence that can pinpoint the MBTs location and can use stand-off weapons like Brimstone. Therefore, they have to try to identify the target before entering the air defence umbrella, or finding a way to sneak up to it using the ground’s topography as cover.
I can’t speak for the Armenian forces, as they had lots of Soviet era air defence systems. But if they had something like the Pantsir SHORAD system, it would have seen and knocked out the majority of UAVs and suicide drones. As it has been doing quite successfully in Libya, when faced by the same Turkish TB2 UAVs. It has been doing ok in Syria, when not being deliberately targeted by the Israelis. The Turks usually treat the system with a lot of respect. Though they have also deliberately targeted the system on occasions.
For the UK’s forces, we have Starstreak HVM mounted on the Stormer chassis. At least one if not two will always accompany a tank squadron. It uses a passive infrared search and track sensor called ADAT that allows the system to identify and track targets at 15 to 20km distances. The Starstreak with its blistering fast acceleration and Mach 4.5 terminal speed means targets like helicopters that pop-up from cover to fire an ATGM at a tank, will be taken out very quickly. Especially if they use a SACLOS missile guidance system over a fire and forget one. Starstreak also has a very low smoke trail making it very difficult to track or detect. Along with the passive IRST ADAT and laser guidance, means an aircraft will have next to no warning they are being attacked. Confounded by the next to impossible to decoy or jam laser tracking system. The Stormer can be networked to the Army’s Giraffe battlefield surveillance radar, which has a general detection range greater than 100km. Thereby giving them more warning of approaching danger. Starstreak does have a problem though. It can not engage multiple targets simultaneously and it probably can’t intercept a ATGM in flight. Though in theory it should as its just responds to the laser tracking.
However, it won’t be until Land Ceptor reaches full operational capability that the the UK will have a decent local area SAM system. Which I’m sure after recent events will be hastily speeded up. We may see that the system is sent to Estonia in the very near future. Land Ceptor will be a game changer for the UKs land forces. Unlike Rapier, it can intercept multiple targets simultaneously at significantly longer distances. Plus, it is a networked fire and forget missile system, that uses an Israeli combat management system that was developed for the Iron Dome and the David’s Sling systems. Iron Dome has been in use protecting Israel from mortar, rocket and drone attacks pretty successfully for the last 5 years. Whilst David’s Sling has been taking out both aircraft and missiles encroaching into Israel. So there should be confidence in the system working as advertised. The Land Ceptor should also be able to counter the Iskander short range ballistic missile.
Unmanned robotic fighting vehicles will be the future, but not for a long time yet. The problem is the very high data-bandwidth required, which is needed not just for the control of the vehicle but also from all the sensor feeds. It therefore needs to use very high frequency communications and thus maintain line of sight between the transmitter and receiver. Using a vehicle remotely operated via cables is not practicable, especially when under an artillery barrage. Russia tried using their unmanned fighting vehicle the Uran 9 in Syria a few years back, it failed miserably. When used in built up areas communications with it were quickly lost. It had very poor situational awareness and its weapons interface kept shutting down when an explosion went off near to it. The obvious answer is remote relaying via a UAV etc. But then this itself becomes vulnerable to SAMs as well as directed ECMs. Until they can solve the communications problem, we will never see unmanned vehicles replacing manned vehicles in a fighting capacity.
Challenger 3 is supposed to be getting the Trophy active protection system (APS) as part of their theatre entry kit. Up to now, no MBT has been lost to a ATGM when it has Trophy fitted (it has been now been fielded for over 7 years!). Unlike other systems it provides full horizontal as well as vertical coverage. It was initially designed to protect tanks when fighting in built up areas, where top attacks from RPG7s were common. It can defeat both ground and air launched ATGMs that use direct, diving and top attacks. Hamas had a well publicised prize fund to anyone who could knock out a Merkava protected by Trophy. As the system was proving invulnerable to the latest ATGMs fired singly or in coordinated multiple attacks. Unfortunately, the Challenger 2s sent to Estonia do not have the system. So they will have to rely on their own smoke countermeasures and SHORAD for protection.
The MBT is still the heart of a combined armed force. It is the only vehicle that can be used effectively for both offense and defence. Where the main gun, armour and mobility gives it the advantage over smaller and lighter vehicles. When equipped with an APS like Trophy, the ATGM threat becomes less of a problem (so long as they have plenty of reloads). Leaving a tank’s APFSDS round as the most reliable means of defeating a MBT, along with artillery. The Top Brass have taken their eye of the ball. As they should have been watching what the Israelis do with their MBTs and not what the Russians have been doing.
Very well informed and intelligent response Daveyb…you make some good points.
I’m not convinced though that in a European theatre…most likely NATO v Russia, as things stand in 2022 and near term afterwards that the balance hasn’t still shifted against the MBTs. The Stormer HVM units are very capable and operating alongside foreign units with more traditional SHORAD add an interesting extra capability…but they are very short range…5 miles / 8km. ATGMs they might be up against have a similar range. Likely i’m assuming that the Stormer will operate in the rear of an attacking force not in the vanguard reducing their effective range in protecting leading vehicles by another mile.
Against a non peer opponent though (also likely to have weaker air assets in any case) they should be very effective. Problem from a UK point of view though is that hard to conceive of another opponent that would be able to afford and deploy large number of heavy armoured vehicles…possibly only Iran, Syria…and unlikely I would have thought
they would make it to the M.E…wouldn’t be time to deploy that far in useful numbers any armoured vehicles of sufficient size/weight.
I have to agree with you though that the Land Ceptor changes the equation markedly. Much more useful range and capability but would need them in large numbers as saturation small drone attacks would rapidly deplete their missile stocks leaving the units they are protecting
vulnerable to attack by conventional helicopters and ground attack aircraft.
Ideally they need a laser defence co-mounted.That or in the interim a pair of good old fashioned cannon like Pantsyr.
Some good points about APS…I agree the Israelis produce some excellent stuff as well…but how will APS perform on a modern battlefield with dozens of armoured vehicles on each side, smoke, shell splinters and shrapnel flying around, mud covering sensors, ECM…never really been proven in modern combat. Guerilla warfare level opponents might not have been a reliable scenario.
Latest news. ‘Someone’ has blown up a gas pipeline in eastern (rebel controlled) Ukraine. Russia considering sending ‘peacekeepers’ in.
If they use the ‘peacekeeper’ excuse, then they’d be entering Ukraine from the East into the rebel areas. If they then spread out from there, it’s going to be difficult to take Western Ukraine from that direction. The Dnieper is a natural defensive line, even at Kiev it’s 1km wide. Manstein made his stand with his back to it when launching his highly effective elastic defence against the Red Army and giving Zhukov his first defeat.
To take the West, and quickly knocking out Kiev, requires a move South from Belarus, skirting the Chernobyl exclusion zone on route. To justify that, Putin would probably want ‘evidence’ of Ukrainian attacks into Russia or Belarus to justify ‘regime change’. Stray artillery rounds over the border would probably do it… maybe hitting the Russian forces currently there…
If Manstein’s reserves were not taken away from him. I wonder how history would have looked?
Russia has the advantage of being able to attack over a broad front, including from the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, Crimea, the border with Russia, and in the north from Belarus. Attacking through the Chernobyl exclusion zone should not be discounted. As Russia’s armoured vehicles have pretty good NBC protection. It would almost be like Germany’s advance through the Ardennes in France in 1940.
I don’t think history would be any different. Manstein was just delaying the inevitable. With Hitler’s obsession with holding ground the elastic defence by giving up ground to generate reserves was doomed.
As it was, the brilliant Manstein counter attack in spring 43 after Stalingrad worked because the Russians had overstretched. It was stopped because of the thaw, leaving the Kursk salient, which stuck out like a sore thumb.
They might have stood more chance later before Kursk if they had attacked at once but waited for the Panthers/Elephants, which meant their refitted Panzer divisions got frittered away attacking in an obvious place against Russians waiting for them for months in depth. And still 2 SS Pz Corps performed brilliantly.
After Kursk with the Orel fronts backhand attack, the Germans were doomed with or without more reserves in my view, they lost them at Kursk.
I think it would only have delayed the inevitable outcome. It was only a matter of time before Hitler relieved Manstein from any command. He only tolerated Manstein’s disagreements because of his successes.
Agreed Russia has many invasion options. But the pretext Putin gives would limit the overall aim, just the East or the whole of the Ukraine. The pretext becomes untenable if his military actions don’t align with it.
As for the actual reason for the invasion… if Putin is genuinely worried about Ukraine being the backdoor to future invasions of Russia then the east of Ukraine would suffix, using the Dnieper as a border and turning Kiev into a divided city.
(It would also give Russia the rich resources of the Donbas basin and the Sea of Azov, while also securing water for Crimea.)
If Putin wants to rebuild the USSR, then obviously the target is the whole of the Ukraine. In which case he’ll use forces from all sides, with the possible exception of those currently in Transnistria.
Any video? I feel sure there would a TV crew conveniently nearby to capture the incident for Russian TV News or maybe on YouTube? 🤔 complete with shadowy figures with Ukrainian flags on their arms… seen running from the scene… Honestly you couldn’t make it up… or maybe you could! 😄
A couple of news feeds…
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/gas-pipeline-ukraines-breakaway-region-catches-fire-after-blast-reports-2022-02-18/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2618057/Video-Huge-flames-cover-Luhansks-night-sky-gas-pipeline-explosion.html
I was in sarastic mode… Although interestingly aside from her statement about the explosion 3 days ago “Tatiana Bogorodko”, Head of Luhanskgas does not seem to have left any trail on any Internet search that I can find… Really odd for someone with such a title, I’m sure Reuters would have done some basic checks on sources but you would have expected some reference, speaker at conferences etc
Just seems really odd. Is she perhaps in the same category as these “Ukrainian saboteurs”? i.e made up by the Ministry of Truth and Fairytales in the Kremlin…. Jackanory, Jackanory…😂
I was reading some reports from Belarus over the weekend. The locals where complaining about the Russian troops there for the exercise.
Drinking heavily a lot of the time, selling diesel from their vehicles for cash, flogging their kit for cash, living in tents and leaving debris and gash everywhere. Militarily discipline was by all accounts greatly lacking
Perhaps we should deploy some Naffi mobile canteens instead. Loud speakers broadcasting offers of bacon butties for fuel would stop any invasion dead in its tracks.
When the Russians sent some ships to pompie in the 90s for a visit it was a similar thing then. Poorly paid and ill disciplined they where selling all sorts of kit for the price of a mars bar!
Good call!
And that does lead to the question of how long the Russians can stay in their current positions. Their men are going to start to get tetchy if they don’t either retreat or invade.
I was talking to a mate yesterday about the strategy of simply leaving stockpiles of Jonnie Walker Red in their path….lots of it 🤣🥃🥃🥃🥃🤪🤪
Clearly there is no Belarusian equivalent of “Wolfgang The Bratty Man: Legend of the Cold War” 😆
For British troops in BAOR he was a legend. During exercises on huge training areas he had the knack of finding soldiers – however well hidden they were. Wolfgang began selling fast food to British troops in the early 1970s. His van could appear at any time of day, even in the middle of live military training exercises, and on more than one occasion grenades narrowly missed him.
Wolfgang Meier’s fast food van completed its last mission in 1994 and with the money he made he says paid for a camp site which his daughter now manages. Never mind Trophy, that’s the sort of morale booster British forces need. He had a simple explanation for his uncanny ability to find his customers: “If I wasn’t sure where a unit was I would stop a tank crew and offer them beers. They’d give me directions.Then I would know exactly where to go.” 😅
There was a recent article on Think Defence about that guy.
The piece said that they should have a Bratty module for a boxer!
Wolfgang’s Bratty Boxer – Think Defence
Good points. A significant issue for Russia is troop reliability. Why not ‘leg it’ to the west? Stalin feared this in 1945.
That would be one hell of a way to reduce the threat. Under the counter exchanges, kit for bacon butties and Mars bars.
No mention of air support for this Estonia deployment. In the old days we would have Harriers underneath the motorway bridges. The F35B will be too expensive to risk in the front line
Anyway without air superiority the Ukrainian forces opposing any invasion will be destroyed on the first two days.
Re-deploy the only bit of kit that is designed to take out the Russian AFV’s superiority the A10’s, yes they are getting on a bit but they can still do the job that they were designed to do that is take out Russian armour!!!
Brimstone is pretty handy in that regard as well!
I have got a feeling in my water that we are going to need all hands on deck for this one, so if we can get it in the air or on the ground pointed in the same direction and able to keep firing it will do!!
And one thing, so I understand, guaranteed to scare the sh.1t out of Russian tank crews…
Doing what it was intended to do
I’m too lazy to look it up, so does anyone know what armour the Russians an Ukrainians have on their tanks? They both have grids of rectangles that I assume are reactive armour on them.
And the Challenger 2’s don’t have those boxes on them, but do have Cobham / Dorchester Level 2, which I believe is also reactive?
Dorchester armour is not reactive. Yes the rectangular boxes on Russian and Ukranian tanks are reactive armour.
Dorchester has proven effective against ATGMs that are man portable eg milan and RPG derivatives. Most of the latest anti tank weapons are top attack. Where the tanks armour is weakest. Aiming to take out crew in turret and destroy sensitive targeting and night vision equipment so the turret is gutted and tank cant be repaired and reused without extensive rebuilding.
Just goes to show there’s no long term plan. Surely a single site factory on say 25 year cycles, using a standard chassis design could pump out MBT, ifvs and everything in-between on time and budget. Rather than this shambolic ad-hoc systems currently used. The armed forces of this nation deserve and should have better.
👍
We would then be in a single supplier situation with no price/specification etc competition.
Could be done if MOD owned a design for the vehicle, either purchase off supplier or desiged in house. They could lease the building to specific company with open bidding for construction, that way keeping open and fair price for market
That could work especially if the skilled base of employees is protected by TUPE.
EXACTLY!
My call is, yet again, for an agency (not MoD) tasked with the continuous design and production of key strategic items such as MBTs. Ignore exports, just accept that it has to be done.
So what would you prefer – The current situation where monies just get continually wasted?
Ironic that the free market Tory ‘best value for money’approach seems to fail when it comes to military spending in particular.
I’d rather spend more (or maybe even less?) & and end up having somethign half decent than nowt at all.
The MOD/Amry procurment process needs a complete rethink- as its failing.
I’ll just quote your words back “The current situation where monies just get continually wasted …….The MOD/Army procurement process needs a complete rethink- as its failing” Competition works if the purchasing authority is up to the job.
We have a national shipbuilding strategy, why not a land vehicle building strategy. As I previously stated over a 25 year cycle, and even without substantial uplift in budget we would land up in a much better situation than what currently has happened. In a few years time all we will have is boxer (which I like personally, even though it isn’t a ‘tank’) and literally nothing else.
A Land Equipment Industrial Strategy is to be published by MoD later this year. Long overdue – naval side has had one for at least 5 years.
A Land Equipment Industrial Strategy is to be published by MoD later this year. Long overdue – naval side has had one for at least 5 years.
Why do you think we will only have Boxer in afew years time. We are meant to be getting Ajax when it is de-bugged and CR3s by about 2027. AS90 replacement should be in within 10 years.
Bojo and what’s left of his crowd might now realise the Army is comically too small.
I fear it will take a disaster for them or any of the political parties to realise that!
Well in all honesty they’ve had (not just in the UK) at least 8 years warning to address this since Pooty took Crimea and the Russophile areas of the Donbas. He has not exactly been quiet since about his ambitions either (and all the other tricks he’s been using from his hybrid war playbook). Not sure if our Intelligence has been asleep on the job or what it takes for a wake-up call.
Never seen a stronger example of “there’s none so blind as those who will not see.”
Well he is a clown so he probably thinks its a pre-requisite that it be comical.
Bet the Army brass are kicking themselves now that they had the Warrior upgrade programme cancelled!
If they tried they’d probably miss !
Yep- apparently first we didn’t need them…now strangely we do.
Will the fact we are now sending tanks when there were plenty saying we didnt need them any more mean a rethink on the CH3 numbers…Or are they hoping we will forget this deployment next year?
With hindsight the cancellation looks crazy, potentially reckless
Do you really think the army brass wanted Warrior upgrade to be cancelled? Why would they do that? Cancellation was a Political/Treasury decision.
I think they were given the choice, upgrade Warrior or go ahead with the Ajax program? I agree it was probably a Treasury decision to cap the funding. But it was the Brass that made the ultimate decision to can Warrior’s upgrade.
Warrior and Ajax perform totally different functions so it would never be the case of one or the other.
I heard that Warrior upgrade was a programme running slowly with some CTA cannon problems and no funding at all (not a funding cap) had been set in place for the production contract. It was therefore ‘easy’ to cancel.
I cannot believe the Brass would cancel WCSP – was there an article which said this? The decision triggers continuance for several years of unmodernised WR progressivley declining in capability and with an increasing maintenence burden, then its replacement by an inferior vehicle (Boxer) which has poorer mobility and is likely to have no cannon to provide fire support. The abandonment of the IFV and its replacement by a latter-day Saracen.
Could the Brass be that stupid?
I agree the only thing we can really go on is the MoD press releases and the questioning during the defence select committee. Where the answers to the panels questions was typical brass political answers, without giving a full explanation. I know Ajax is the scout vehicle and does a very different role to the Warrior’s IFV. In all respects I’m surprised they didn’t can the Challenger upgrade as well, like they did before. As that would have been just another easy excuse. Where we will be facing more asymmetric threats from failing countries, rather than the possibility of facing up against a peer nation, so heavy armour is not needed.
With regards to the gun, I had heard similar, that the gun was suffering feed issues when travelling over bumpy terrain. But I also heard that had been sorted. There was also an issue with the gun’s recoil causing damage to the gear splines on the turret. I think that was in the process of getting sorted.
I hadn’t heard about the funding, as I thought the whole program came under a new upgrade budget and not part of an existing one. If the sustainment and upgrade program went ahead Warrior would be back up their with the best.
Boxer has its place, but it is not supporting Challenger! Vehicles that use 8×8 drives are great on-road and on hard and firm surfaces. Once it gets soft they start to struggle and eventually get beached. Saw too many Strykers and LAVs beached and needing rescue in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Funny enough saw three Strykers getting pulled out of the mud in Iraq by a Warrior. Mind you the Strykers were carrying additional bar armour and everything but the kitchen sink, so must have been close to their max axle weight.
Why would they can the Chally upgrade? It would soon become unusable, particularly as it has not serously had any previous upgardes in its 24-year life. So a new tank would have to be fast-track procured – expensive.
You say we will only ever face asymetric threats so won’t need heavy armour? Your crystal ball must be top of the range.
We have used tanks in combat frequently since WW2, and especially so since 1990. In contrast there has not been a dogfight by an RAF fighter since 1982 and no ship or submarine has been in a shooting war since 1982. Our tanks actually get used. Events in Ukraine have surely focussed the mind on the wisdom of retaining armour – I would say we did not have enough and that it should all have been modernised by now.
Boxer is no IFV – it is not that different from a 1950s Saracen APC in what it can do. The Infantry has been set back. Boxer will not keep up with CR2, let alone CR3, when conditions get bad (deep mud, snow and ice) – and I bet each won’t come with a 40mm stabilised cannon unlike WCSP.
I don’t disagree with you. But, before I left the service, I went to a presentation held by some of the joint chiefs. In it they actually stated that they were shifting their focus to becoming a more rapid response force needed to intervene in failing countries. This was the party line. A lot of my fellow seniors just laughed openly at the presentation, believing someone had recently come back from the land of unicorns. As the majority of the presentation was political rhetoric without any substance. I really don’t know what happens to officers when they reach the top ranks. They start off as someone you can respect then turn into nodding yes men?
I know how useful a MBT is in asymmetric warfare, having been embedded with the Canadians during my last tour in Afghan. Their Leopard 2s I believe made a difference. They were particularly adept at making large doors in thick mud brick walls! Plus they acted as bullet magnets allowing you freedom of manoeuvre, to outflank a contact and do what was necessary.
I due believe the brass are now bricking it. Both Challenger and Warrior have been left on the shelf for far too long. They will still do what’s needed of them, as will lads and lasses manning them. But they will be a lot more vulnerable, as you quite rightly say, they’ve not been updated for gone 20 years. I really do fear for what may happen if they are needed to fight against their Russian peers! Which may happen sooner rather than later.
I enjoyed your comment Davey. That presentation sounded tragic. Politicians like to peddle the idea of restructured forces that are: better, more responsive, agile, with light logistic footprint – whereas what that means is: cheaper, smaller, poorly protected, less lethal. The belief that we will never ever again fight a peer or near-peer opponent in high intensity conflict so can reduce holdings of such equipment and not bother to upgrade it, staggers me. Who can tell what will happen in future?
The very senior officers don’t like to challenge this claptrap from politicians with zero military experience as they will be thought of as troublesome, disloyal, rebellious – and the next OJAR will be marked down. So we heard senior officers (and Ben Wallace) a year or so ago say that they would be happy giving up their attachment to traditional weapons and platforms (meaning ‘heavy metal’), so long as they were replaced by more drones and a slack handful of cyber gadgets. Pathetic. We need, and have always needed, a force mix of light, medium and heavy units and equipments.
I deployed to Camp Bastion in 2008-9 and saw the Dutch Leo2s at close quarters. I was glad we had them at our disposal.
I really enjoyed your comment. The presentation you went to sounds tragic. Much of our equipment stays in service (sadly) for 30, 40, 50 years – how can anyone assume that we will just do asymmetric warfare in third world countries over that timeline?
Does this prove we need to replace the Warriors with like for like replacements now, and convert more challengers?
We should reinstate the WR upgrade programme (WCSP) and convert at least 227 CR2s to CR3.
Still buy Boxer for those who are not Armoured Infantry.
I agree. I have a mate who was REME, whose job was working on the Warriors. He said the Warrior can be kept going for a while yet. But it really needs a new turret, main weapon and optics. Yes, they are a bit old, but they could be so much more. The armour, especially at theatre entry standard is as good as anything currently available. The addition of the 40mm, would have made it an outstanding IFV.
Gentlemen, the point here is we are sending our forces to Eastern Europe, when the French and Germans have far greater armies than ours. Wtf are they doing..? Once again the English speaking world comes to the rescue. I’m so glad we are out of that European project. It was a con from the beginning. Any Remainers need to hang their heads in shame at the disgusting show these two countries have put on for the world to see. Toothless.
Both those countries have pretty good Intel and are closer to the problem than we are. Maybe its just that they have analysed the risk differently to us and decided that they don’t need to react.
Oh give it a break now bot boy, your repeated sad putin loving nonsense is wearing thin. You are a russkie bot, troll, sad sheep whatever, and its so obvious to see. You were given the benefit of the doubt from many posters on here but as Putin rolls to war you become a supporter of a totalitarian regime who are about to try to kill thousands. Sad, pathetic and such a shame.
So were my comments wrong or are you reduced to attacking me?
Far to quick a response on a days old thread! Monitored account then.
I don’t know what a ‘monitored’ account is. The speed is mainly down to this site’s very quick notification system.
Of courses it is!
Germany is the lead nation in the Lithuania battle group and had has sent reinforcements there. France has offered to send reinforcements to Romania.
I.ll not hang my head in shame for a prat like you who just posts twaddle.
Heavens, please let me know your views on the Forces News broadcast t’other day that a second BG had been sent to Estonia and who stood up alongside that BG.
Airborne can tell me to get back in my box, Daniele can discuss things with me but you, are a moron.
Lol Second battle group against what? 190k Russians, pull your head outta your ass. British Army is in rag order. Squaddies getting done for drug taking, laid off coz of coronavirus, a hundred tanks, Boxer, Ajax? RN – 1 type 45 that’s working lol…shall I continue. God what a cunt.
We are not going to fight the Russians. Ukraine is non-NATO so NATO will not go to war over a Russian invasion.
You are perhaps a little too critical. There has always been cases of drug-taking in the armed forces (as the forces reflect society), not just the army – small numbers – found by CDT – and the serious offenders are kicked out.
Covid affects even soldiers. No need to denigrate the army for that.
I totally agree that Ajax is a disaster on every level.
Boxer is an old design, has poorer mobility and firepower than Warrior, will cost more than Warrior upgrade and is not here for several years.
At the risk of a torrent of comments, here goes:
Chicken and egg. NATO steps up its activities so the Russians stay where they are, just in case.
.
“Belarus and Russia, due to military activity near the borders and escalation in the Donbass, decided to continue a joint check of the response forces, the Belarusian Defense Ministry said”
I imagine it is so much easier to swallow Russian propaganda than write it.
… and when supplies of Vodka start to run out? Or when rasputitsa kicks in. Marshall Mud has served well in the defence of Mother Russia, seeing off the best troops Napoleon and Adolf could offer; I wonder where his loyalties lie when the boot is on the other foot? One thing is certain it must be bloody cold for those young Russian boys living in tents in the Russian winter; even if some are from Siberia its a world away from a nice warm apartment in Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk. Despite what we hear about army modernisation in view of the scale of the deployment I doubt that many are Spetsnaz / “little green men” quality; conscripts most likely, far from home with little incentive (I doubt Pooty carries as much influence as Uncle Joe did back in the day), and facing a determined peer level army, fighting in defence of its homeland – which is huge. I don’t know the realative quality of the Russian Officer corps or their NCO’s but I imagine they lack, shall we say, the “persuasive powers” and encouragement techniques of the Red Army political officers of the past.
I realise the threat the Russian military poses Ukraine is not just from soldiers but surely the type of influence the present Russian leadership craves can hardly be achieved through just the use of T-90s, Iskander and SU-35? The army currently in position on the borders is surely insufficient in both quality and quantity to hold down a country with a hostile population / potential insurgency supported across its western border. Will we see Putin consult the Stalin playbook and introduce concetration camps, gulags, mass deportations of populations? Madness.
Putin goading the West to see if they bare their teeth. He knows the British are weak due to decades of underfunding. One type 45 out of 6 is absolutely disgusting. Type 23s past their sell by date. Boxer, Ajax. Do I need to continue?
We are chucking billions at welfare in this country, we pared back our industry, we rely on London to keep us afloat. This British response in Europe is wanting to say the least and people are whining about this govt that is attempting to mend the structural damage that has been wrought over decades. We are a shitshow. The Yanks must be laughing their asses off at us.
The EU has no say in a members defence spending, taxation or intelligence services, I agree that defence spending is woefully below what it should be but you need to blame our own various govts for that.
Thankfully our Brexit govt is getting on with the task in hand!
Whilst I agree with your points, I don’t believe the Yanks are laughing at us. On a positive note this may well be the catalyst for the MOD to get their s**t together. In particular, an increase in defence spend to be channeled to the army is the pressing priority.
OMG, I’ve been chilled with you John but I now have to say give that russkie propaganda crap a rest. Every time you post it now becomes a sad joke and you need to give the troll stuff a break.
Just popping a bit of a news update, that might not be in our MSM, when I think it might be appreciated here.
Very quick response from a monitored account!
Not sure what you are getting at. I spend a lot of time in front of my PC screen and in the bottom corner a message appears saying I have a new email. If I see and check it I get to reply quite quickly.
Just in case of what? In case NATO attacks Russia? Not going to happen. NATO is a defensive alliance.
Of course they won’t. No, to keep Ukrainian troops in the north so that they thought twice about attacking Donbass but its all changed now.
Ukrainian troops are not attacking Donbas – that is their own territory.
They are trying to eliminate para-militaries (Russian seperatists), Wagner Group Russian troops – and since the early hours of today thousands of Russian Army troops.
Why would they attack their own country you silly troll? Donbass isn’t Russkie no matter what your wet dream calendar pin up Putin tells you.
It’s looking increasingly like Putin’s strategy is to wear Ukraine down psychologically and economically by leaving Russian forces permanently stationed in Belarus, cutting off the Sea of Azov, throttling Odessa from the Black Sea to and continuing to deploy Russian special forces masqerading as ‘separatists’’ in Donbass, We need a strategy to counter this strategy which is designed to avert provoking the west into the imposition of economic sanctions.
He has already frightened the UK and the US into removing embassy staff from Kyiv. And Lufthansa has suspended flights to Ukraine. This is just the start of the psychological pressure to isolate Ukraine from western support.
Not wishing for a war but some of the Russian troops have been in their positions since the end of November in absolutely abysmal conditions, I do not think Mr Putin can keep them there much longer without them kicking off. I think he stands a good chance of losing control of his guys on the front line and they will just go for it to brake the monotony of living on the front line.
You mean like in WW1? Yes, valuable contribution, thanks so much.
What up now David, are we not allowed to express opinions now ! or are you a bit out of you depth so have to trash others to make you look good.
Idiots want to send troops to the Russian border while not giving a fuck about our own border
Our border is the responsibility of Border Force/Police.
Tabloid reader, I see, totally misinformed!
A late but prudent observation. This week in 1989 , the last Soviet forces left Afghanistan . Let’s hope Mr Putin pauses to reflect before continuing on the current course.
The British Army’s presence in Estonia is effectively being beefed up from one to two battalions – a total of about 1600 personnel. That’s still far below an independent Brigade with associated HQ and supporting troops – engineers, artillery, logistics, signals, etc. A full strength combat ready Brigade with two battalions of mechanised infantry and a tank regiment would need close to 5000 personnel. If the government announces that a 7th Armoured Brigade (a name tag defunct since 2014) is being deployed to Estonia, we will know that it getting very serious.
US has over 2000 Abrahams MBT’s in storage. Like Poland, we should augment the current strength such as Poland are.