Babcock has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel Aerospace Industries and Subsidiary ELTA Systems to provide a deep-find radar solution for the British Ministry of Defence’s SERPENS programme.
SERPENS is the MoD’s next-generation weapon locating system with a digitally networked suite of sensor systems that detect hostile mortars, artillery and rockets. The collaboration will offer IAI-ELTA’s Compact Multi Mission Radar (C-MMR) system, which will be partly produced and integrated in the UK.
According to the firm, the C-MMR is designed for air defence and artillery weapon location missions, “with the radar locating hostile weapon locations and calculating impact and launching points in real-time”. The radar implements advanced 3D-active electronically-steered array antenna technology.
The MoU between Babcock and IAI-ELTA will boost sovereign UK radar experience and expertise. Babcock says that it provides them with the opportunity to further prove its system integration and through life support pedigree while also developing its radar assembly and maintenance expertise.
Dr Richard Drake, Babcock’s Chief Technology Officer, was quoted as saying:
“We are delighted to announce our partnership with IAI-ELTA to provide a deep find radar solution for the UK Ministry of Defence’s SERPENS programme. Babcock is proud to provide class-leading technology to our customers and with IAI-ELTA’s battle proven C-MMR system, we have a capable, affordable and available solution.”
Ronald Cook, IAI UK Managing Director, added in a news release
“This agreement between IAI and Babcock demonstrates our commitment to the UK. We are bringing together the brightest minds in the industry to combine world-class technology with our commitment to UK prosperity. We are proud to partner with one of the UK’s finest companies in the industry to provide our cutting-edge C-MMR to the UK market.”
Cutting through the spin and bull. How many? How much? When? While “Deep Fires” is in vogue and we get the endless spin about how much the army is prioritising it ( while having left the RA to go to the wall the last 20 years ) the fact remains 5 RA operate a mere handful of such systems. I believe 4 MAMBA at present? For an army that wants to deploy in up to divisional strength? While this is an advance in tech and capability will the all important numbers follow suit, as the RA should now be a… Read more »
During the Cold War highly trained BAOR infantry two man teams were dug in on the N German plain waiting for the Russian 3 Shock Army to come over. Our chaps operated Milan AT systems and TOW. The Russians had systems then (late 70’s?) that could identify where the firing point was and a minute or so afterwards, incoming could be expected to hit the firing position
The men were trained to shoot and immediately scoot.. Their life expectancy was calculated at less than 9 minutes
Your really selling the army as great career path. 20 years of training and exercises, 9 minutes in combat. Perhaps the soviet tech was over stated in its abilities just like the Russian stuff?
I expect Daniele would have more accurate figures, but from memory the British Army in the mid 1970s was about 175,000 strong with a separate Territorial reserve force of another 50,000.
As in WW!, the thing was not the number of casualties but how fast they could be replaced. In 1975 it was expected that the Russians would lauch a surprise attack (on new years eve probably) with everything that they had – chemical, biological and tactical nuclear.
A bit like the German Operation Michael in March 1917 which effectively destroyed the British 5 Army (Gough) in three days
“expect Daniele would have more accurate figures”
Not really, David, before my time. I’m more interested in the late 80s onwards. I recall the army by the 80s at 160,165,000, so in the mid 70s ( when I was 3! ) you’re probably correct at that 175,000 figure.
I joined in ’75 and recall that the Reg Army was 180,000 and TA was 50 or 60k.
“Perhaps the soviet tech was over stated” I think so. I have a “corrected” Soviet Military Power book that looks at the Pentagon guide of the same name from 1988. Pentagon, military, MI complex companies would all exaggerate the threat as of course they want the money. While numbers are an important aspect, as I have mentioned above, the Soviet systems were way way behind the wests, despite the Pentagons best efforts to play up the threat of likes of the Mig 29. As with this SERPENS. If there are only 4 ( for example ) and the capability is… Read more »
Bit like the rest of the forces, all be over in an afternoon
Bit like the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, all be over in a few weeks
It would seem those russian systems wouldnt have worked and life expectancy would have been way higher. Their counter battery ability has been extremely lacking in Ukraine. Plus the tanks would probably have broken down well before they got into range.
Its amazing how useless the Russian kit and proven to be and i can only assume things weren’t much better or even worse during the cold war.
Indeed. Though to be fair in 1975 many Russian officers had seen action at the end of WW2 and the Red Army was still very good.
That’s the part that I dont get. Russia has seen a lot of combat over the last 20 years through multiple wars and proxy wars and yet they seem totally lost in Ukraine.
True, they even identified lessons learned after Chechnya and Georgia. Reforms we’re even supposed to take place, to improve interoperability between army and air force (noted as a weakness in Georgia), as well as look to weed out corruption and move somewhat to a professional army. But corruption stalled it, crippled it, and quietly killed off any attempt to change the status quo. Thankfully for us.
To be fair to them I would dread to think what would happen if we had to do a full deployment. Maybe not from an officer /leadership perspective but I suspect massive integration issues between the 3 forces and huge logistic and supply problems, plus masses of polictical interference. Luckily not been needed since suez, and even then it was only 45k during a period of a much bigger armed forces.
Failure to learn from past mistakes and update obsolete tactics appears to be one of their weakest points
True but same generals lost 300k men taking Berlin. Our definition of good and there’s probably had a wide gap.
Indeed. The Battle of Berlin was a disaster due to political interference and military incompetence and the pressure to push on despite not being properly set up to do so, amongst other things. There was no tank and infantry coordination and the troops were used as mere cannon fodder to hit the set time scale. In fact it was so bad that many of those troops rebelled against their officers. All sounds familiar to me.
I’d read Stalin drew a demarcation line between Zhukov’s and Koniev’s fronts and it stopped just short of Berlin. Encouraging both to go for it even though Zhukov was closer.
To be fair Zhukov also had to fight through the Seelow heights and the Germans were not going to go down without a fight.
Just Milan I think? All Infantry Battalions had an AT Platoon in FS Coy. 24 posts I think.
TOW was on Lynx helicopters in the AACs 3 BAOR regiments, don’t recall it used by us Brits on the ground. Our longer ranged ATM was Swingfire.
Don’t forget the guys in the stay behind roles. 21 and 23 SAS. I knew one of them, he was not enthused by his life expectancy either, despite lying low in a hide crapping into plastic bags.
Today the HAC carries out that role, and one of 5 RA’s batteries, 4/73 Sphinx.
Aren’t they supposed to spot the Russian drones before the drones spot them, and wouldn’t they work in conjunction with SHORAD?
MAMBA is currently undergoing “mid-life” extension and is supported until 2026. Defense News did a piece last week and confrmed 2026. It also said in excess of £400m. But it didn’t say how many. Can’t help with that one.
BTW, don’t you just love the fact that MAMBA has been in operation since 2004, but the “mid-life” refit in 2022/23, costing £46m, is to take it up to its replacement in 2026. Smacks of another botched planning job.
Unless they are secretly planning on running both in parallel.
No surprise. There were also 5 ( I think ) COBRA removed.
I’m also unsure if the BaseISTAR kit so carefully worked up as a result of Helmand is still about or whether that has been scrapped too.
Hope so.
We only have 3 or 4 batteries of regular SHORAD too, which works out when deployed as 1 per Armoured Brigade, plus 1 with 16 AA Bde.
Those SHORAD systems mounted on Stormer ( 3 batteries ) are meant to move with the BGs picking off helicopters as they appear, I don’t know army doctrine as to whether they would be stationed next to our less mobile CB assets.
If it was possible to make some small cheaper systems that would be a great area to go towards. Really against any force that has abilities to use mortars, fires these location detection devices are essential. Counter accurate strike also being needed.
The Israel has the Iorn beam now like C-Ram for short range and point defence. Hopefully we are looking at the same. MOD is looking for medium defence (CAMM) and shot defence. That may be a star streak style system or a C ram. But we need longer range ABM for division level as well.
There are/were smaller systems in 5 RA, I forget their name.
Yes, I know I keep beating that drum but for me this area should be No 1 in the army. Artillery. Drones. ISTAR.
I came across this statement:
Is LCMR the lighter system you were thinking of? Although I knew sonic location was a thing, I hadn’t come across ASP before. It’s interesting to delve a little more into domains that haven’t been my primary area of interest.
Yeees, ASP and LCMR. I’ve got all this stuff on my database but couldn’t access it at work yesterday to remind me what it was.
There has probably never been a better point, in recent times, for the Army to present a shopping list & I suspect they will get whatever they have reasonably asked for providing it is working towards the objectives of the new PM (assuming it is Liz).
Buying new kit & establishing new units will likely gain at the expense of the gutting of back end operations. At least that will be the plan.
I’m just waiting for her to scrap income tax while jacking up defence spending to 3% of GDP. It will be just like 1913. I just hope she does not get lost in any rooms again could be an issue for a PM.
Martin I can’t say I’m wild about either candidate. Rishi would probably allow the armed forces to stagnate. They are just a cost on his spreadsheet. Liz seems to understand that much of Government needs total reform but it makes you wonder if she has the guts to drive it forward and if the party have the backbone to follow her. That is all before you wonder if she is competant to pull any of it off. Just setting the NHS on the right path with the right funding is a mamouth task. Even if she can put in place… Read more »
Back end operations?
You mean CS/CSS. In that case we will be more f****cked than now!
Without the back end, the pointy bit cannot do its thing.
Which is why I always defend the MoD when people want it disbanded.
In theory the Government could gut the MOD completely with each service taking on responsibility for the activities that they actually value. The Army, for example, would then only have themselves to blame for any misspent money (or services not provided) as they would be taking the decisions themselves. It looks a little like the Tories will go down the small Government route or at least try to before they are shot down by the civil service. I totally take your point that that type of exercise will throw out all sorts of useful and/or essential services which might need… Read more »
“could gut the MOD completely with each service taking on responsibility for the activities that they actually value.” Hmmm, I don’t agree on that detail Mark. What about those many areas of MoD that are purple? That is tri service, and sometimes multi national. You cannot just dismember DES and DD as just 2 examples, they support the whole force and would not sit well under a single service either. The services now have TLBs to spend on their areas not on things of no relevance to them that one or other of the services would need to take on.… Read more »
The problems with the MoD are well known and have been discussed ad nauseam by numerous Select Committees in Parliament. Their record on managing large projects is “abysmal” and if you disagree with disbandment, what is your proposed solution? The constant reductions in military capability to pay for their never ending cock-ups are what everyone who posts here deplores.
Def Intel for e.g could be managed within SIS
No Defence Secretary in living memory has been able to reform their procurement procedures, Wallace is no exception. A radical solution is realy the only option
One of the major issues with the Levine reform is that the creation of TLBs has weakened the centre and led to divergent thinking. What we need is more integration, not less – what you’re proposing would in essence split the forces further. Let me give you an example of why it is a bad idea. Amphibious capability. Because the funding for it is devolved to the RN, it hasn’t been prioritised – because they value Carrier Strike and CASD. So, the RMs have been forced to come up with the Future Commando Concept to try and create a relevant… Read more »
Your arguments amount to maintaining the status quo in the MoD/Armed forces – which, clearly is no longer tenable. The problems in procurement are the root cause of the never ending reductions in military capability which the Treasury insists are necessary to pay for the endless series of mismanaged cock-ups in major procurement projects. The MoD has blown billions of taxpayers hard-earned money on disasters like Ajax – with no vehicles yet in service despite the billions spent and the project being years late. The Type 45 destroyers have never worked properly and to date, only HMS Dauntless has received… Read more »
Firstly, it’s illegal to have Armed Forces without a department of state; political primacy is paramount to a correctly functioning state so disbanding the MOD is a non starter. Secondly the forces are responsible for purchasing their own equipment now – the equipment budgets are devolved to them as TLBs – and since that happened Defence Procurement hasn’t improved – all it has led to is divergent capability development. All of the issues you state above have happened whilst the Services have been managing their own equipment plans so it’s a bit of a dead argument to be honest. Who… Read more »
Whilst I acknowledge your arguments, with respect it’s all been heard before. Continuing to do things in the same old way and expecting a different result – projects that come in on time and on budget – will result in more expensive cock-ups, resulting in further capability reductions. Radical thinking out of the box is required At the least, private sector accountability procedures should be introduced at Whitehall and Abbey Wood. If you fuck-up, your out. The system where MoD civil sevants only spend two years in post and then move on to the Treasury should be scrapped. Allowing senior… Read more »
If the service-based TLBs are abolished in favour of a cross-domain procurement model, at least for major projects, the siloing might be less pronounced and the politics less influential. If you hand budgeting to the services, it’s likely to get even worse.
I’m wary of falling prey to the Politicians’ Syllogism: we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this.
Hi David. I’ve commented on that to you before when you wanted MoD disbanded. There are literally dozens of agencies and organisations within MoD that have nothing whatsoever to do with procurement. You cannot just disband, there needs to be a structure. Why not take a look at MoD website, they’ll list many of them? Though in little real detail in how they fit into the wider structure. Manage DIS with SIS!?? 😆 Do you actually know what DIS and SIS respectively do and are responsible for? You might as well “save money” by merging carrier strike with the FANY.… Read more »
😆 Brownie points for those who know what “FANY” is, no cheating!!
Entertainment for the troops, but with bandages and some ointment for Woodbury rash…
😆
Hi Daniele – I am not going to be goaded into getting into an argument with you about disbanding the MoD, but I welcome your contribution to the discussion.
How about some suggestions about how to prevent the next cock-up? You might like to start with Frank Ledwidge’s excellent book “Losing Small Wars, British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan” – it’s the culture thats wrong, and the total lack of accountability. Not to mention the civil service propensity for downright obstructiveness, directed against anyone who has the temerity want change.
No goading or arguing from me David.
Answering questions? Well I’d asked plenty to your goid self on this topic many, many months ago to which I got no response from you, or at best a tangent reply.
So I won’t be answering yours promptly in return! 😉
Though I’ll add maybe D Cummings was right. He wanted to reform the “Whitehall blob” and procurement too.
That on its own is fine. Disbanding the MoD, which has been explained many times, including by myself previously and BobA in this thread, that it is not that simple and not purely about procurement, is not.
If Liz is to steamline the Armed Forces and increase spending whilst lowering taxes she will need to address certain issues which are repeatedly critisised by people on this forum. Her first objective must be to change the position whereby responsibility is split between two organisations. Never works and never will. That said just because you have responsibility does not mean you have to do the work. Much of what the MOD currently do could remain there, be set up under separate agencies, outsourced, embedding staff etc. All have their pros and cons. Also none of these issues will get… Read more »
I can agree to sime extent. But lets take DI as an example as you suggested. It is in large part already formed from people in the 3services. And it already carries out that role, supporting all 3 and liaising elsewhere. Where is the saving removing it? It’s personnel remain. It’s infrastructure remain. It’s utility bills remain. It’s payroll remains. It’s just moved, the output is still there. It’s CDI is now answerable to whom? Who pays the bills? Central government? To me the biggest item that needs fixing in MoD is the nuclear deterrent renewal placed into it’s budget… Read more »
Personally I think the answer is Four fold: Make Strategic Command the primary and sole 4* command and have a single strategy branch therein. Make the separate services 3* Operational Commands (akin to Field Army)
Make all senior Officer Careers tri-service in the same way that the Army has created the modern General Staff to remove regimental identity.
Make Defence Procurement an actual profession, not a posting that an officer enters into at Career Stage 2.
The Department of State should then be the prime policy maker and interlock with wider government / national strategy and funding alignment.
If I’m following your meaning, to me paragraph 1 has already happened in 95, 96 Bob, with PJHQ and now Strat Com.
The 3 services aready take their lead on Ops and planning combined ops from Northwood, and the other parts of their
stand alone HQs are admin, personnel, and so on.
I thought overall strategy/Policy was already centred on the Main Building Directorates.
I know you know all this better than me already. 👍
I like your suggestion re DES procurement.
Because it has already been recognised that DI needs a strong input from from the services it just suggests that full control by the services takes it to it’s logical conclusion. The Civil Service is by it’s very nature full of Government generalists who could (and do) move from department to department. The Armed Services need people who live and breathe the military sitting next to speciaists in other disciplines all working in the same team to the same objectives. That is the benefit. The saving is not in head count or office space but in more projects which achieve… Read more »
I might be getting the wrong end if the stick here…but you’re describing what already exists….in DI! There are already civil servants and service personnel in combined teams within it. Doing exactly what you suggest already.
So….moving it out of MoD achieves??
You may find that moving several facilities out of the MOD might have little if any benefit. If so the services have a number of options one of which is to leave them where they are. It is not a one out all out scenario. Personally in the case if DI I would say it should sit independently with strong links to all the appropriate organisations. Raising these types of radical re-organisations will always lead to fears that it will simply end up as a cost cutting exercise by removing people, office space etc. and to be fair that quite… Read more »
I can agree with David that procurement needs improvement, an understatement! Reform of DES and procurement was looked at by Hammond when the idea of privatizing the lot was floated. It didn’t happen, thankfully, as DES had other functions at that time that should rightly remain in house, and still does. No, DI should not be the 1st port of call! It lost too many staff as it is with previous reforms, especially in the all important DIAS functions. DI, being a tri service, civil service organisation sits within Strategic Command, which was created to centrilise and streamline these disparate… Read more »
Procurement is highly difficult in defence. When you are spending billions trying to define your needs, motivate suppliers, ensure quality & pay a fair price it is perhaps best to ensure you have the very best people and are not hamstrung by constraints which have evolved over time but nobody is quite sure how they are relevant to the current situation. If you want change you need to shake things up a bit (maybe a lot), think outside the box & question the status quo. If you are not prepared to do these thing you cannot be surprised if things… Read more »
So for example, putting Defence Intelligence into Strategic Command?
DI should work well independently. These are two different functions and merging functions rarely works. That said if these functions are not working well together you have a problem.
Well that is the point I keep trying to get acros. One no one is saying there is a problem regards DI not working well in its current set up and two, DI IS within Strategic Command already, it is not “merged” with it no more than any of the other organisations that sit beneath Strat Coms umbrella. It is in effect an independent entity whose 3*/OF-8 ( CDI & his deputy DCI3 ) report directly to the 4* star head of Strat Com operationally or if necessary to the VCDS / PUS in Head Office. Moving out of where… Read more »
My original point was that an incoming political leadership set on low taxes, small state and 3% spend on the military suggests a leaner and more focused organisation with less duplication is an obvious objective. It might not happen but if it does I can’t think of a more obvious target than the MOD. Merely because there are functions which sit logically there & need no change does not invalidate this type of policy in any way. There will always need to functions sitting above the services. It is also quite an incentive for radical change if you are offering… Read more »
Back end operations? Mark, what do you define as those?
Finance, Payroll, Procurement etc. All essential but nothing directly involved in war fighting so not logistics or anything like that. The term mainly derived, I think, from from American Corporations trying to cut costs in areas they felt were irrelevant. Led to all sorts of outsourcing etc. It did lead to massive savings but also sent many companies to the wall.
Ah, not uniformed CS CSS then.
All those areas are merged within MoD for all 3 services for a long time already, or theirs office buildings have been relocated, merged, or closed, all to save money. This has also started in the intell community too with unified HR departments and so forth.
I don’t see savings there save wholesale privatisation, which only saves short term before causing more issues and which in some areas of DES is impossible.
Thanks Mark. I am not sure many would agree that Finance, Payroll and Procurement were irrelevant! Non-core, perhaps, but very vital. I recall my first experience of outsourcing in HM Forces was the contractorisation of the officers and sergeants messes, probably in the 1980s – not at all popular amongst the mess members, but their voice didn’t count! Serco was one of the companies involved. Since then, much is already outsourced – much training is run by contracted companies. Two troop transport helicopters in the Falklands are run by a private company (was Bristow, then Brintel). REME’s static workshops, once… Read more »
Hi Graham. Clearly there would be no Armed Forces if you didn’t have a payroll. The point here is that the MOD do not need to have a roll. Appointments, promotions etc. can be handled by the service as can the rest of the personnel issues. Nowadays it is in a system and done. Procurement is an interesting area where Government tends not to outsource. Contractors are now few and far between because of IR35 and it is reliant upon inadequately recompensed civil servants handling massive important contracts. Government would not hesitate to go to a major law firm to… Read more »
Hi Mark, thanks for your good points. Procurement gets a shake up now and then but it needs a really good one now. I do wonder how many procurement cock-ups are down to poorly written contracts though. I used a corporate lawyer from time to time when I was a PM at Abbey Wood but it was to help draft a contract with Industry, not to check one that had been produced already by MoD. I am not sure who these professional procurement firms are but I wonder if they could understand the very complex business of procuring cutting-edge military… Read more »
Procurement is a much meligned profession. Most people don’t really know what it is for and others regard it as something which just prevents them from doing their job. It is regarded in much of the public sector as a low grade task following a pointless process made up by the evil EU. If done properly procurement have a pivotal role which binds the suppliers to the clients, brings in the subject matter expects, ensures there is benefit to all parties & the right product comes out at the end. Many of the best procurement people cut their teeth in… Read more »
The Army’s future ISTAR program is called Zodiac, and this project is called Serpens, named after the only split constellation. But how much can be read into that astronomical fact? Are there two parts to Project Serpens, the head and the tail? Is this an indication that the fires is expected to be far from the radar, or it contains active and passive functionality, or that the multiple radars will be networked to make a whole picture, or am I just making too much of a random name?
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/dsei-2021/2021/09/dsei-2021-iai-unveils-new-sea-serpent-anti-ship-missile/
LOL. Nice conspiracy theory brewing. Also IAI. I can’t see the Army taking an expensive anti-surface marine missile, especially if the Navy goes NSM, but with coastal batteries proving popular in Ukraine and a 200km++ missile definitely counting as deep fires….
If I were IAI I would throw in free training for a couple of Babcock guys on how to connect Sea Serpent to the Harpoon launcher wiring.😉