Thales has published a first-hand account from a former British Army tank commander arguing that the new Challenger 3 main battle tank (MBT) must deliver technological overmatch at a time when the UK will operate fewer tanks than its potential adversaries.
The article, authored by Syd and released by Thales UK, reflects on lessons from decades of armoured service. Syd wrote: “Lethality starts with what you can see. This is as true now as it was back when I was stationed far outside of Basra’s city walls. The success of my unit’s mission was defined not by the size of our shells but by the power of our sighting systems.”
Having served on Chieftain, Challenger 2 and reconnaissance vehicles like Jackal and Husky, Syd argued that sensors, sights and stabilisation systems have repeatedly proved decisive in combat. The arrival of Challenger 3, he suggested, represents both a leap in capability and a test for a leaner British Army.
The Army has committed to 148 Challenger 3s by 2030, a figure below the notional 170+ often cited as the requirement for a combat division. Timelines are also tight: trials are underway, with structural tests and firing already validated, but all systems must be delivered on schedule if the Army is to avoid further gaps.
Syd noted the warning from NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte: “We’re not ready for what is coming our way in four or five years.” Against this backdrop, he wrote, “every Challenger 3 must punch above its weight.”
The programme is billed as tripling the tank’s lethality by the end of the decade. Much of this rests on its Thales-developed sighting systems. The stabilised TrueHunter Gunner sight, for example, enables firing on the move, while the Commander’s panoramic system integrates surveillance and targeting.
Thales says it is also embedding algorithms to support faster detection and target tracking, introducing what it brands a “DigitalCrew” to reduce operator strain. Syd argued that these advances matter not only for accuracy but for crew survivability: “Any capability that shoulders their stress, fatigue and mental load becomes ever more essential to mission success.”
Syd highlighted how Challenger 3 changes the relationship between tanks and reconnaissance forces. Traditionally, MBTs acted on data passed from lighter recce units. Now, stabilised long-range sights and integration with intelligence feeds mean the tank can itself contribute to the “recce-strike kill chain,” allowing faster and more precise engagements.
Further enhancements are already under discussion, including AI-assisted target recognition and tighter integration with real-time ISR. Yet the article emphasised that capability gains must be balanced against budget and manpower pressures. “It’s a need that can’t be met with endless investment into shinier kit,” Syd concluded. “We must instead shore up what we have. Whitehall knows this; so too does the British Army.”
For industry, Challenger 3 represents a high-profile test case. For soldiers, it may determine whether Britain’s armoured forces remain credible on a battlefield increasingly defined by speed, sensors and integrated strike.
Without even one formed and fully equipped Armoured Division, Britain’s armour will never be credible on a Central/Eastern European battlefield.
To offer a credible conventional deterrent, Britain requires an Army Corps with a minimum of two armoured divisions, equipment (at least) forward deployed on mainland Europe.
That is what this year’s Strategic Defence Review has
promised our allies and that is what they are expecting in the (almost certainly inevitable) breach of NATO’s Article 5.
Agree, what is ordered is totally laughable and ludicrous. Looking at Poland and some Baltic states is a lesson in adequate planning and acquiring the right amount and types of armoured kit. Mass, when needed, is not on the British agenda.
The SDR does, I believe, reference the importance of mass.
Unfortunately HMG has been obsessed with constant electioneering for the last thirty years and the received wisdom is that there are no votes in defence.
The small boats, although not considered in Whitehall to be a Defence of the Realm matter, have alerted the voter to this country’s parlous internal and external security status.
Unfortunately that has occurred in the aftermath of a £500Bn botched response to a common cold coronavirus and simultaneous with the squandering of further Billions on a quixotic, entirely futile utterly stupid pursuit of ‘net zero’.
The latter, in combination with Putin’s demographic colonial imperialist expansionism is at least arguably the biggest threat to national security since 1938.
Agree on everything except net zero is not a futile response . With a huge over reliance on energy imports and import of goods for energy hardware , a national strategic focus on net zero is very important . Agree it makes sense to continue with North Sea instead of wasting billions on importing gas from qatar and USA . Global warming is arguably the uk biggest threat . It is happening now . Being an island with uncontrolled mass migration , having to import around 40 percent of out food . Having g no Royal Navy anymore to guarantee or coerce our trade routes , lack of preparation and foresight will bight us on the back side very suddenly
Net zero is over in the U.S.
The science doesn’t stack up:
‘The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2]. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.’
U.S. DoE Climate Assessment Report 23 July 2025
Britain has to get with the program or disintegrate.
As pointed out below, the DOE is not a valid source in todays day and age.
It’s only two months old!
You still haven’t read it.
You can rebutt it on the website specifically set up by the DoE for that purpose.
Why not copy your detailed and referenced scientific arguments on here so that we can all discuss them?
Have you tried any reliable non-us sources of information on this matter? You will find a quite different view.
Please read the report and inspect its references.
The extensive list of references in the report are by no means confined to the United States
Oh so now I can’t point out its from an extremely biased source because its “only two months old” but you can reference it?
Jog on.
Noddy’s guide:
You said:
‘The DoE is not a valid source in today’s day and age’
That makes no sense; nonsense.
The DoE report that I reference to is not even two months old, written by acknowledged experts, reviewed and amended by 12 more acknowledged experts.
You offer no evidence to support any of your assertions. You haven’t even read the report. You know nothing about climate change.
You are not to be taken seriously.
Says the person who is using Trump as a source. QED.
Global warming is arguably britains biggest threat , you are joking right ?
* On the one hand, apparently, recent heatwaves in the last 3-4 years were responsible for 3000 “excess deaths”. 9/11 killed c. 2977 Americans, and look what the USA felt it needed to do after that… It’s also reported that c. 8 million UK homes are at greater risk of flooding by 2050, with c. 300,000 on the coast at severe risk. So far, the Russians haven’t managed to kill that many Brits (and even a short non-nuclear ballistic missile exchange is unlikely to do so).
* On the other hand, the UK amounts to only 1% of global carbon emissions. Having let the European Union, there’s no longer the argument that it needs to set an example there. Given that the Americans, Russians, India, China, and the EU collectively account for most of global emissions, and none of them are likely to be influenced much by what the UK does these days, and NetZero by 2050 in the UK won’t really make a bit of difference in practical terms. It might have when Britannia Ruled the Waves in 1900 (and was happily setting up the middle east petrol industry to keep the fleet fueled) but it’s just arrogance today to assume that “British leadership” or example will save the world.
In contrast, the UK is a leading contributor to NATO (11% of the budget, much of the non-US nuclear power and airpower, etc.). What it does on NATO and deterrence CAN actually make a difference, and is at least somewhat significant for climate change, since a failure of deterrence leading to Ukraine collapse leading to worsening standoff in Europe would require even higher budgets and induce even more of Europe to dump NetZero goals in favor of military spending. And a failure leading to world war 3 would be catastrophic for both people and the climate.
So arguably, it could make more sense for the UK to focus on spending to increase deterrence (where it is still big enough to make a difference) rather than spending on climate change (where even total success might not make a difference). This argument is somewhat mitigated if NetZero spending also serves a strategic purpose – if you can reduce dependence on oil imports, etc. all for the good.
From a more existential perspective, the main problem is getting China and India off coal. China’s at least succeeding with solar and hydro power. For the US, the best thing would be to get the Republicans out of office, so the best way to save the world climate would be fix the US democratic party so that it moves away from ultra-left social policies…
China has yet again increased the number of coal power stations to 1,195 and burning more coal than ever. They were said to building six times more plants than the rest of the world last year. India now has 285 and economic growth creating demand for the building of more. Net Zero is now doomed to fail the 1.5 degree limit.
Lets concede that Net Zero is a necessary requirement. The journey we take and the length of time we take to get to it is still up to us. Some paths are better than others.
A transition to a nuclear baseline with a renewable top-up on a micro-grid level is better than a hasty drive to renewables with a duplicate gas power infrastructure backup.
If you don’t want to deindustrialise the UK the priority now is not the race to some pointless 2050 target. The priority today is for the country is to reduce energy prices.
If in the short term we should build less expensive renewables. The gas powered power stations are already here so lets use them and frack more local gas to fuel them. We need to reduce subsidies to windmills and force them to be more efficient. We should then pass those savings back to the customer.
In the long term we invest in nuclear and small modular nuclear and transition over to it when old gas plants need to be retired or we require additional capacity. Doing that we support UK manufacturing instead of Chinese Windmill makers.
There are many good reasons to transition from hydrocarbons but there is no climate emergency.
The truth is the entire Net Zero bandwagon is just another over reaction by our vapid political class. It’s a long Covid if you like.
Our country’s contribution to global carbon production is inconsequential and bankrupting ourselves to meet it would achieve nothing except making some smug metropolitans feel slightly less bad about themselves for about 5 mins.
If you want Net Zero we need a couple of decades where our political leaders learn to act like grown-ups or like engineers and less like hysterical Greta Thunburgs.
Agreed the numbers are far too small but the U.K. contribution to NATO should be in reinforcing the Scandinavians who have large land borders with Russia and small populations. That we should be offering armoured forces to support the Germans, French, Poles etc in Central Europe when they face a weakened Russia has more to do with the U.K. politicians inability to accept a role that is not in the expected main area of conflict i.e we must be seen to be there!
Of course our politicians fail to fund the capability but are prepared to offer token forces that in all likelihood would be wiped out is where we’re at.
I have no doubt the Army would like to recreate BAOR and the RAF obviously want to get into flying nuclear strike missions again but that does not necessarily represent the best defence strategy for the U.K. or our most valuable contribution to NATO.
I was very disappointed there were no stated increase in personnel numbers from the defence review and likewise a stated uplift in equipment bar a long term promise for 12 SSNs but to be honest I think there is a huge task in just modernising the defence estate, infrastructure and the industrial base before any of that can happen. It is a long way back from where we are now given the complete neglect of defence for over 3 decades.
If Putin takes Ukraine (and he will not stop until he does), subverts Moldova and annexes the Suwalki corridor, penny packet British armoured formations spread out in the Baltic States will require another Dunkirk. We could not save Schleswig Holstein or, later, Norway even when we ruled the waves.
We have committed to supplying an Army Corps to NATO once Article 5 is triggered. Why? Deterrence. This is not about war fighting. It is about deterrence. We had the long peace in Europe 1945-2014 thanks to conventional deterrence. Few who served with BAOR as youngsters would wish to see it restored. The SDR, instead, talks of prepositioning heavy equipment in Europe. Complicated equipment that lacks ownership rarely prospers. Nevertheless, without considerable (no doubt including resource) encouragement from our allies, that may be the best practicable solution.
Monro, we are not committed to supplying an Army Corps once Article 5 is triggered…because we don’t have an Army Corps and haven’t had one since 1992. We supply those parts of the ARRC that we can supply – Commander, HQ, some Corps Troops, 1 Div and 3 Div. I doubt there is any appetite amongst the Treasury, MoD and the army for re-establishment of BAOR. It took from 1982 (relocation of 2 Div to the UK) to 2020 to get just about all the troops out of Germany – just a very small contingent remains (BAG – British Army Germany – worth looking at the Wiki entry).
BAOR v2 would cost too much to set up and run, would be an unpopular posting point and our old barracks are not now available, any of them. Many ranges and training areas used heavily in the past by Brits have also gone.
If you look up BAG you will see that we do have some kit pre-positioned in Germany, one set for exercises and another for present and future operations.
The UK SDR 2025 sets out five ‘ambitions’ and an impressive 62 recommendations across those ambitions to support this vision.
The UK Government has accepted all recommendations for implementation.
UK SDR 2025 key sentence:
‘(NATO) Strategic Reserve Corps (so ARRC, as one of them) must be ready to execute pre-planned options tasked by SACEUR to manage escalation (before a decision by NATO to invoke Article V) and to deploy anywhere in Europe.
I repeat: ‘(ARRC) must be ready…..(before a decision by NATO to invoke Article V)….to deploy anywhere in Europe.’
For the avoidance of doubt, modern warfare demands an interface between the operational level, concerned with supply and resource allocation, and the organisation of the tactical formations doing the fighting.
The Army Corps is the echelon at which this interface is situated.
The size, composition, of an Army Corps has always, since Napoleonic times, varied depending on its purpose. Typically, today, within NATO as within U.S. Army doctrine, it will comprise between two and five Divisions.
1 Div and 3 Div, two divisions, plus Corps HQ and Uncle Tom Cobley, comprise an Army Corps, albeit a rather pathetic effort.
Consequently the SDR states: ‘The Army must modernise the two divisions and the Corps HQ….The first division should comprise a fully deployable Headquarters, three manoeuvre brigades with armoured and mechanised capabilities, support brigade, and associated enablers. Planning should include the integration of the Royal Marines Commando Force into the SRC….The Army must accelerate the development and deployment of its new ‘Recce-Strike’ approach—combining existing capabilities and technologies, such as armoured platforms, with constantly evolving technology—as part of its efforts to modernise the SRC. It should be bolder in its ambition, seeking to increase lethality ten-fold.
UK SDR 2025: The Role of the British Army
Role 2: Deter and defend in the Euro-Atlantic: providing one of two Strategic Reserve Corps to NATO, in line with NATO’s Regional Plans, ready to deploy rapidly from the UK to anywhere in the Euro-Atlantic area…..
The Army will continue to need armoured platforms and attack helicopters to confront a major state adversary, fighting to take and hold ground. Armoured platforms improve the survivability of personnel in an increasingly transparent battlefield….’
I know of no-one who has suggested a reinstatement of BAOR. The Rhine is much too far west.
sjb, I have no idea how NATO assigns ‘troops to tasks’, but experience, track record, equipment holdings must have something to do wth it. Prior to 1982 the combat component of BAOR was 1 (BR) Corps with four armoured divisions, which was restructured that year to comrise three armoured divisions and a UK-based infantry division. At the end of the Cold War that Corps HQ evolved to be the multi-national corps, the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) comprising a British-led HQ, British support units and up to ten assigned divisions of which the British contribution was an armoured division based in Germany and a mechanised infantry division in the UK.There have been further changes since.
My point is that the British Army has a strong history of deploying and operating armoured forces eastwards to the central area. ARRC today is one of SACEUR’s strategic reserves and would most likely be deployed to a central area, rather than a distant northern flank.
Historically we have provided light, highly mobile forces such as commando forces to the northern flank.
It is not for us to upset the NATO applecart and dictate where our divisions deploy to ie where SACEUR’s strategic reserve should operate. Heavy armour is not well suited to moving rapidly to the high North ie Norway or Finland and has difficulty moving in harsh winter conditions.
I doubt there really is an appetite to revive BAOR. There certainly wouldn’t be the numbers to do that, and all our former barracks are gone.
Whilst I appreciate eNATO nations might not be as strong as they were I cannot believe that the likes of France, Germany, Poland plus others don’t have sufficient resources to stop and indeed defeat the Russians. If not then there is something very wrong and whilst I supported BAOR during the Cold War I just don’t think we are in the same position today not least because our military is so small and the Russians considerably weaker.
Our politicians are deluded if they think we could muster the prerequisite forces to meet our land based commitments to NATO (and not just on paper) and I can’t see that changing until defence spending creeps above 3%, which lets be clear our politicians are hoping never really actually has to happen.
In that regard we would better off deploying our forces where even in their current numbers they can make a difference. Of course that won’t happen for political reasons because our leaders can’t face the reality of what they have done to our armed forces so the pretence continues.
Unfortunately for our political class those across the pond have recognised it and our influence and voice for what it was once worth seems significantly diminished.
Simple geography dictates that our armed forces will have different requirements to Poland and the Baltic states. They aren’t an island with overseas territories in the same way that we don’t share a land border with Russia.
Monro, what puzzles me is the constant military commitments the UK metes out to its forces, yet can’t match assets to do the task properly and with as few casualties as possible. For example, the recent announcement that Britain will lead any peacekeeping mission to Ukraine if and when it gets the green light. This will require a large armoured fleet to work with, principally the French, along a complex border. 148 CH3 on their own would not be enough firepower, though equipped with Troyphy and added armour, would be the equivalent of say another twenty vehicles when compared with the previous Challenger’s survivability. The CH3 will be awesome just as the CH2 is proving in Ukraine, but the government’s constant blind spot regarding MBT numbers is simply baffling.
HMG are hoping that ‘Something will turn up’.
Unless oil sinks to $45/barrel, certainly unlikely before end 2026, it will not. I do not believe that the grave threat to national security from Putin has yet been fully comprehended by the Cabinet. It is to be hoped that it will not take ballistic missiles landing on London to achieve that comprehension. By that stage, it will be far too late.
We need armoured divisions and we need them right away. We should immediately ask President Trump for a draw down of M1A1 Abrams and Bradley IFVs from U.S. reserve stocks to pre-position in Central Europe while we get on with the recruitment and training that will be required. Funding? Simply scrap the scientifically illiterate ‘net zero’.
As an illustrious previous PM would have said: ‘Action this day!’
I agree we face a huge threat from Russia but it is only the second biggest threat to the UK. The largest one is the very extensively and exhaustively scientifically proven threat of climate change driven by burning fossil fuels.
Those opposing net zero are the scientifically illiterate.
However back to the UK commitment to provide two armoured divisions, or typically 6 brigades. My view is that the minimum number of MBT per brigade is 75 with a short term reserve for battle losses and a higher number per brigade would give more creditability.
So we have a minimum requirement of 450 MBT
But credibility also comes from ongoing manufacturing capability which can be rapidly expanded. This last pont is where we have fallen down even worse than in actual numbers. Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine we have produced zero MBT. We should have been making a token number each year and been able to switch to making and supplying considerable numbers to Ukraine each year.
So on top of my suggestion of a minimum number of 450 MBT we ought to get there as fast as possible perhaps 100 to 150 per year and then continue to produce at least 20 each year every year to keep production line knowledge current.
By the time we get to say 600 MBT we won’t be making Challenger 3 but will have moved on perhaps Challenger 4.
We are in the second cold war and have been for years. If it lasts as long as the first cold war 1948-1989 turn we may be making Challenger 5 or Challenger 6 by the time we can consider another peace dividend.
We will have had to beat climate change well before then and China will have weaned itself off burning fossil fuels in well under 40 years. Giving up on fighting climate change would be more devastating than inviting Putin to appoint the next UK government and bring in a police state in the UK.
I very much hope that the people of the USA will stear away from this course which Trump appears to be taking them down.
Totally agree with you. The UK impression 40 percent of its food ontop of an uncontrolled migration policy. This is also one reason why it is strategically vital for uk and Europe to hold onto Ukraines wheat supply. Global warming is here now effecting commodities and will only get worse . Covid has shown we cannot rely on all our friends in europe to help out in times of crisis . 40yrs ago the UK still had Royal Navy leverage in the seas trades routes so food supply and trade routes were always guaranteed . Today the uk has pretty much zero leverage in the seas . The uk is now unable to guarantee food supply via the sea .
Those opposing ‘net zero’ are any number of eminent scientists.
Global Warming Petition Project:
‘In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.’
U.S. Department of Energy Climate Assessment Report
‘I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it…..I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions.’
Energy Secretary Chris Wright 23 July 2025
Conclusions
‘Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency
or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections
6.1-6.7].
‘Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by
natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies [Chapter 8]. Moreover, solar
activity’s contribution to the late 20th century warming might be underestimated’
‘Both models and experience suggest that CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically
than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than
beneficial [Chapters 9, 10, Section 11.1].’
U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate
Climate change is real, but it always has been.
‘Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science. Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue.’
DOE welcomes public comments on this report and is setting up a website for comments.
Net zero is dead. Britain hasn’t so far moticed. That myopia with attendant costs represents a major threat to national security.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dozens-scientists-push-back-fundamentally-flawed-department-energy/story?id=125211760
It looks to me like the Doe has been taken over by a pro trump lobby to dismiss scientific findings and pursue a pro fossil fuel agenda. As we know the biggest American oil companies did there own research into global warming in the 70s and 80s and found overwhelming evidence of global warming caused by fossil fuels . They eventually have decided to discredit there own research ever since . Co2 is known to warm the atmosphere. It was calculated in the 1800s that it is co2 gas that keeps the earth much warmer than it should be relative to its distance ftom the earth
May I encourage you to read the DoE report. Its authors are credible. It has already had eight reviews and consequent minor amendments. The authors invite any and all comments on the dedicated DoE website. It is not an argument to simply dismiss them as a pro Trump lobby. Their detailed and referenced arguments make good sense, in the absence of any evidenced scientific rebuttal (which they invite).
As the DoE secretary says, the key point is that ‘Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.’
One of the authors makes another important point:
‘Embrace the complexity of climate science and acknowledge uncertainty and disagreement. Stop with the faux “consensus” enforcement and stop playing power politics with climate science. Constructively participate in the dialogue that DOE and the CWG Report are attempting to foster, in the interests of returning objective physical science to the climate issue.’
‘Co2 is known to warm the atmosphere.’ The report deals with this in great detail:
‘This report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)
and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather
events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of
CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional
CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries.
Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly enhance plant growth, globally contributing to “greening” the
planet and increasing agricultural productivity [Section 2.1, Chapter 9]. They also make the oceans less
alkaline (lower the pH). That is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great
Barrier Reef suggests otherwise [Section 2.2].
Carbon dioxide also acts as a greenhouse gas, exerting a warming influence on climate and weather
[Section 3.1]. Climate change projections require scenarios of future emissions. There is evidence that
scenarios widely-used in the impacts literature have overstated observed and likely future emission trends
[Section 3.1].
The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate
responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration
ranging from 1.8°C to 5.7°C [Section 4.2].
Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range [Section 4.3]. Global climate models generally run “hot” in their description of the climate of the past few decades − too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and midtroposphere [Sections 5.2-5.4]. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.
Most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency
or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data [Sections
6.1-6.7].’
You can point this out as often as you like, but Monro will refuse to ever believe it because it goes against his anti-science bias.
“In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process”
Can I correct that to “In those who clicked a checkbox claiming to be PhD scientists…..”
The petition claiming 31,487 signatories has been in circulation for 27 years! The scientific consensus may have changed of quarter over a century, however, there is no mechanism for withdrawing your name from the petition as new data arrives (if they find out you’ve died, like the organizer, Prof Seitz, they will asterisk your name; however “The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories.”). Many of the signatories are probably dead, as the original cohort, 1999/98, had a very significant proportion of retirees, and remarkably few under 40. That’s not unusual with these things. A sample of 91 signatories of a similar European petition from 2019 showed nobody under 40. Given that you don’t get a PhD until 25 and probably retire by 65, you’d expect around 34 signatories to be under 40 if there was a flat distribution of active scientists.
The Global Warming Petition Project is historic relic. You can see lists of the signatories by state and by name, but not by year. I’d have thought that far more relevant than by state, wouldn’t you? but perhaps it would uncover an inconvenient truth.
The DoE report was written (almost in secret) by a group of five hand-picked climate sceptics. You only have to look at their Wikipedia entries to see how every single one of the authors were already decided against the climate science consensus. How then could their results be said to be unbiased or representative of modern American science? Look them up for yourself, John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven E. Koonin, Roy W. Spencer. They aren’t even independent of each other! Christy and Spencer have worked together since the 1980s.
Sorry, I missed a name: Ross McKitrick.
You clearly haven’t read the report.
That is precisely why the ‘man made climate change’ lobby is discredited.
It will not address the facts.
Climate science is dominated by computer modellers, with little comprehension of the natural climate cycles that have driven climate change throughout the Holocene epoch.
And the models are nonsense on stilts:
‘In modern numerical weather forecasting, forecasts are updated frequently, say 4 times every 24 hours. Yet forecasts are not good for more than 10 to 14 days. In chaos theory, if you know data somewhat well, you can predict the immediate future, but predicting further into the future requires more and more precise knowledge of present data. Forecasts break down because the patterns of the underlying systems are not understood. Yet in modern numerical climate forecasting (global climate models) which is built on numerical weather forecasting techniques we routinely see forecasts of 50, 75, or even 200 hundred years. The need for updating is ignored. Further, climate modellers ignore the need to understand the underlying patterns of the chaotic climate system.’
We cannot have a sensible discussion unless you have read the report.
Dismissing a detailed, clearly referenced report out of hand is not an argument, particularly not when the report in question has a website specifically available on which to make comments, counter-arguments.
Sorry but climate modelling is entirely different to weather forecasting, not to mention that if you do apply current weather forecasting models to climate prediction it predicts that the earth will warm MORE than current models suggest. There is literally no serious scientific doubt about man-made climate change anymore, and on fact there hasn’t really been any for decades. Exon of all companies was aware of it in the 1970s. There is a huge amount of disinformation and nonsense out there largely deliberately spread by companies with stakes in the oil industry.
There is always scientific doubt; that is the scientific method:
‘This report has been evaluated under DOE guidelines to meet Federal standards. This includes an internal review from eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE. The reviews were quite interesting and varied, and several were very useful. The CWG made a number of fairly minor changes to the Report in response to the reviews, and added a number of references, and we are responding in detail to their comments. As I understand it, the DOE will arrange for a more formal external peer review.’
I say again, please read the report (and the entirety of the quote from it within my comment: ‘Yet in modern numerical climate forecasting (global climate models) which is built on numerical weather forecasting techniques we routinely see forecasts of 50, 75, or even 200 hundred years. The need for updating is ignored. Further, climate modellers ignore the need to understand the underlying patterns of the chaotic climate system.’)
Climate modelling uses numerical weather forecasting techniques, but ignores the need for updates.
If you monitor weather forecast models, as I do, the forecasts change, sometimes dramatically, within a 24 hour period. Any climate model built on those techniques, without the updates, is, frankly, no better than Mystic Meg……
Chapter 5 summary:
‘The spread of model representations of the current climate is very wide. One of the most basic indicators—Earth’s average surface temperature—varies by about 3ºC across CMIP6 models prior to 1880 (Figure 5.1), narrows slightly until 2040 then diverges to over 4 °C. For comparison 20th century warming was only about
1.0°C. This variation suggests substantial differences among models’ physical processes.
• Climate models show warming biases in many aspects of their reproduction of the past few decades.
• They produce too much warming at the surface (except in the models with lowest ECS), too much warming in the lower-and mid-troposphere and too much amplification of warming aloft
• They also produce too much stratospheric cooling, too much snow loss, and too much warming in the U.S. Corn Belt.
• The hemispheric albedo difference in individual climate models ranges widely in sign and magnitude compared to observations. The range in W/m2 is three times larger than the direct anthropogenic forcing of CO2.
• The IPCC has acknowledged some of these issues but not others’
Monro won’t care about that, he’s a climate change denier who is latching onto the DOE now that Trump has ordered it to deny climate change (so his buddies can make more money) and won’t stop refencing it. Best you can hope for is pointing out how unreliable his sources are and move on, because he will refuse to listen to facts.
Not only have you not read the report, you have not presented any facts…resorting to the silly ‘denier’ mud slinging.
In fact I would be the first to agree that anyone who denies climate change is a sandwich short of the full picnic. The climate has always changed. The key questions are whether we can do anything about it and do we need to.
The DoE July 2025 report makes it clear that U.S. net zero measures are unlikely to have any impact. It also indicates that any mild climate warming is beneficial to mankind, the planet so the ‘net zero’ plan is hopelessly misguided, also dangerous.
Again-Have you tried any reliable non-us sources of information on this matter? You will find a quite different view.
Please read the report and inspect its references.
The extensive list of references in the report are by no means confined to the United States
I don’t believe I was talking to you was I?
Sorry I’m not impressed by your constant parroting of Trumps pet department whrn literally the entire rest of the scientific consensus disagrees. We all know the only reason you keep parroting the DOE is because its the only source that sounds reputable that backs up your bias.
You, on the other hand, cite no evidence whatsoever, have no argument, simply follow the crowd following a hedge fund money paid claque ripping off the taxpayer to fund their ever more ludicrous and expensive scams; the end result, the highest electricity prices in the developed world, job losses, unemployment. Well done. Give yourself a big pat on the back.
The mask slips and Monro shows themselves to be the anti-intellectual science denier we all knew they where. Just like RFK and the vaccine deniers and flat earthers. Good job.
There is only one anti intellectual here.
You still haven’t read the DoE study, have you?
In a spirit of helpfulness, for those who have a problem with the written word:
Viewing list:
Climate:The Movie
This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.’
The Great Global Warming Swindle
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be “the biggest scam of modern times.”
Also, while you are at it, why not check out YouTube Channel: Gorilla Science, particularly ‘Spikes of Doom: The nonsense ‘Hockey Sticks’ propping up the climageddon scam’
Enjoy!
“climageddon scam” as I said the mask slips. No wonder you are quoting the same government that includes RFK Junior lol.
BTW you are disagreeing with the Scientific consensus, so the burden of proof is on you, and if the only thing you can cite is Trumps government, a ideologically compromised source that has been instructed to find Climate Change to be bunk or not recieve funding, then I can dismiss you.
Don’t like it. Get better evidence.
You also forgot the bit about the many “Scientists” who initially signed the United Nations IPCC climate change accord were Economists, Sociologists, Psychologists, Lawyers, Engineers, Physicians etc. In other words, nothing to do with the weather or climate change. Or real Science for that matter. What’s more, throwing back one of your arguments, 40% were retired and or Professor Emeritus.
Again-Have you tried any reliable non-us sources of information on this matter? You will find a quite different view.
Please read the report and inspect its references.
The extensive list of references in the report are by no means confined to the United States
He won’t because he knows there are none.
The world could go 100 % green energy tomorrow, it would help, but it will not save the planet.
The underlying and real problem is overpopulation.
We are currently at 8 billion people, and it is projected that we could easily see 10 billion people within 50 – 100 years.
Every human consumes resources.
It is an ever-decreasing circle because our economies depend on consumerism.
We laud short-term initiatives such as replacing ICE cars with Battery EVs, which
in the long term will cause greater pollution because Li-Ion are full of toxic chemicals
Increasing population has been a problem which we have actually been quite successful in managing. More and more countries are seeing births per woman falling below the required level for stable population. It’s about 2.3 to 2.4. much of the increase in population we will see in the future will come from people living longer due to better living standards.
I don’t have a problem if population rises to 10 Billion.
We might find it hard to get resources for eliminating fossil fuels but the fact is humans are very inventive and can find other materials to do things with if one becomes too expensive because of scarcity. Lithium won’t be one of those materials there are huge amounts around the world. At the same time other materials which were in lithium ion batteries 10 to 15 years ago are used much less or even not at all as battery technology has improved.
Petrol and diesel are them selves toxic chemicals but we manage the risks and don’t kill too many people with them each year
Martin, we are not committted to delivering two armoured divisions to NATO. It is simply two divisions. I am not sure why others think it is two armoured divisions. We offer NATO an armoured division (3 Div) and an infantry division (1 Div)…and have done so for many years. NATO has not challenged that only one is an armoured division; there are many mechanised/infantry divisions in NATO.
The army was restructured (downsized) dramatically in the summer 1990 ‘Options for Change’ defence review, which fleetingly recognised the risk of a resurgent Russia. The army was cut to 386 MBTs and orders for CR2 duly went in. I don’t think you can justify 450 tanks now.
RUSI work confirms that a successful armoured division should have 170 to over 300 tanks. The rationale for 386 tanks in total as mentioned above, still stands. But in these penny-pinching times perhaps a case could be made for just 174 tanks (three Type 58 regiments) in the field force and another 76 for the Training Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. Total 250.
Any increase in the size of the tank fleet needs money to buy the kit, but also the additional manpower to be funded to crew and maintain the extra vehicles.
Regarding your comment ‘Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine we have produced zero MBT’. Things are worse than that – we built the last MBT in 2002, (and then some RE variants a couple of years later). The lack of MBT orders after that was the sole reason for the closure of the two new tank factories in Leeds and Newcastle. So I agree that periodic orders are required for Industry.
A real limiting factor is the number of CR2 donor tanks (available for CR3 upgrade) that meets the Platform Presentation Standard. We don’t know that. If it is fewer than the new number, be it 450 or 386 or my Treasury-friendly figure of 250…then we would need to source a number of another model of modern tank from overseas, preferably a late-mark Leo 2.
I take your point re armoured divisions. But at the same time don’t think that a commitment to one armoured division for NATO means that we only need one armoured division.
We have a reserve force, one option is to have a second armoured division made up principally of reserve soldiers..
I also am aware that the currently in production 148 challenger 3 are upgraded challenger 2 tanks, but we could and should build challenger 3 tanks from scratch. Having this capability is part of the deterrence effect we need to prevent Russia attacking NATO.
Yes it will cost a lot of money as £25 million per new tank 100 per year is £2.5billion for a few years, say five to get to the 600 tanks I suggested including the upgraded challenger 2. Then 20 tanks per year is £500 million per year.
We probably need to spend three times as much to cover other vehicle types each year to maintain production capacity so an ongoing £2 Billion per year spend on armoured vehicles as part of maintaining our deterrence.
It’s rather pointless having a large reserve force which is nothing but light infantry. We ought to have a reserve infantry division with equipment to match that provided to the full time infantry division.
The idea of a reserve armoured division for the UK is unrealistic. Even continental forces rarely have reserve armoured formations for a few reasons. Armour is maintenance heavy and expensive, which means that a) buying armour for formations that may never stand up is often a non-starter for governments and b) if that armour is bought how do you maintain it without calling troops up from their civilian jobs. Where do you store that armour, most TA/AR centres are pretty small, and not designed for and armoured coy or squadron being parked up (since even in the cold war most TA units where infantry units). c) You now have to work out how to train on them, because you can’t just go offroading in a IFV in the peak district because it’s close to your AR centre in Derby. So any training means low loading your armoured squadron all the way to Salisbury plain or Castle Martin.
It would also involve a big increase in AR numbers, 19 Light Brigade is currently a bit of a golf bag but due to be split in half, so two AR Brigades each consisting of a RAC Regiment and 4 Infantry Battalions, but there isn’t enough Artillery, engineers, or logistics units to support them.
And then there’s the opportunity cost. At present the Army has a big shopping list and things it needs to get on top of. 4 Brigade needs regular artillery, med, logsitics, 102 Log brigade needs more regular forces, we need more Air Defence, we needs Corps and divisional level fires, and against that background the Army is supposed to say “No what we’ll do is increase the size of the AR and buy a brand new fleet of armoured vehicles, and brand new defence estate across the entire country to park those armoured vehicles in small penny packets, and somehow train the new AR people on them.”
Maurice, I think you assume that leading MNF-U would mean we would supply vast numbers of tanks.
We would supply a 2-star commander and HQ of course. MoD has already said that we would supply training personnel and logisticians…and they would need some Force Protection of course. Nothing has been said about deploying a formation such as an armoured brigade. I have said many times that we could not roule an armoured brigade on an enduring operation without recourse to reserves and probably dropping the eFP tasks in Estonia and Poland…and probably accepting non-optimum tour intervals that would stress the army.
Maurice, those 148 tanks will not all be in service until late in 2030. They are not all assigned to the Field Force. I estimate about 112 to 116 would be the maximum assigned, the others being in the Training Organisation, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
The cost would be horrendous, let alone finding manpower. The wage spend of the troops and support required would also pump billions into the host nations economy. On economic matters the EU nations do us no favours. Tank armies are their problem to fund
GBAD for the UK, Increased fighter numbers, uplift in ASW, tanker and naval force on the northern flank should be out priority, along with putting as many warheads to sea on SSBN as possible and rebuilding the RFA.
But that adds nothing to deterrence. Deterrence is the key, the only true victory. If we cannot deter war, then we have already lost.
Russia is a land power. They will only be deterred by land power. That is all that they reckon with.
‘Modern strategy, it seems to me, deals with the use of military forces in peace as well as in war, and also in all those ambiguous conditions in between. It deals with the use of military forces to prevent conflict, to control conflict if prevention fails, and to terminate conflict if it cannot be controlled.
This “what”-preventing conflict from reaching an absolute form-is of vital concern…..even if one believes that an attack on Western Europe is not a very likely scenario, he still cannot view the growing strength of the Soviet Army in Eastern Europe without a certain uneasiness. For that Army not only serves the Soviets’ legitimate security interests, but it also exercises an influence on the Atlantic Community that could be in the long run as fatal as naked aggression.’
This is where we are today:
‘Erosion of the effectiveness of the Atlantic army will inevitably result in an erosion of political will, strategic flexibility, and freedom of action.’
This is to where we must now return:
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to the Soviet Union. But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to the Soviet Union the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage….’
LAND FORCES IN MODERN STRATEGY by LIEUTENANT GENERAL DE WITT C. SMITH, JR. US ARMY 1977
Tomorrow is the ‘big reveal’; the publishing of the Defence Industrial Strategy. Hopefully we will find out more about the plans for armoured vehicles.
Will this include the autunm equipment plan which is supposed to have some numbers in it? Or just more blue sky thinking full of buzzwords.
I’ve no idea, but I hope we will know more than we know now. Surely it has to be more than ‘we are going to make more stuff in the UK’. Maybe a clear statement about which technologies we judge have to be sovereign and which are commodities we buy on price from anywhere. Perhaps also a statement of strategic, trusted partnerships?
I suspect that it will not include the equipment plan, which is mean to give us the the numbers.. that will be something we have to wait for.
It’s my understanding this is an essentially all about industrial workforce strategy..so new STEM colleges focused on the defence industries as well as training young people and STEM defence jobs for veterans.
That would make sense. Be consistent with the govts ‘mission based’ thinking.
Oh, dear Paul, I have a sinking feeling that it will disappoint on every level. As I mentioned above, the government’s blind spot regarding the Army’s needs and pedestrian progress in supplying troops with state-of-the-art armour is a constant irritation to me. Have you observed new kit is too few and will be delivered in 2030, the repetitive default everyone at the MOD uses. If this dilatory attitude can exist when there is a raging war in Europe, what will it take to wake up and smell the coffee?
What are they planning to deploy to ukraine in the event of a ceasefire? A squadron of challengers will not be any sort of credable deterrent a d the operation tempo would be brutal with just 3 tank regiments that is unless we plan to abandon our forward presence in Estonia, we need to look at rasing a second armoured division to properly hold NATO’s eastern flank especially now we can’t rely on American any more.
Punch above its weight
Do more with less
Enhanced lethality
Sounds like the glib mantras chanted by The MOD.
The army needs mass and reserves …..so build more, or buy more.
So, what they are really saying is that the 148 Challengers are not enough, and because they have not learned a thing, especially with tanks being secondary in use in Ukraine with the modern warfare, the MOD has shrugged its shoulders and told the Army to cope with it!
I see big problems in the future!
Simply put, 148 is no where near enough. Do we have enough Challengers 2s to up that number to 170? Or have sold too many abroad on the QT? If so two options exist – buy back CH2s if possible and up the order for CH3, or place an order for Leopard 2 A7. Of course having 2 types of MBT is not good given the issues with training spares and maintenance requirements.
It’s just enough to sustain a trip wire force on NATO’s frontline indefinitely, plugging into a Baltic or Scandinavian formation. Also in the event of NATO fracturing it’s enough to deter anyone daft enough to try landing ground forces on UK soil. It is def not enough to field a UK division.
I would rather have a supply chain problem than a we don’t have any tanks left problem.
I read about a month ago that the UK still has 219 C2 hulls. If that is right, then the UK could still add another 40-60 C3 on top of the existing 148 plan.
A key word is missing from the final sentence of the editorial, drones.
What use is the finest tank with unbelievable to us now AI intel systems if, being perceived as a primary target, it is swamped by a swarm of drones?
Consider that data fusion AI driven digital C2 may itself solve the current very low level battlefield micro air defence problem.
Armour, operating in combined arms formations, has, since 1918, always required air superiority to be effective in the offense.
One of the overlooked items on the Chinese 3rd Sept parade, was a row of trucks with what looked like old fashioned radar antenna. This is in fact a microwave weapon to disable the electronics in a drone swarm. Drones may have a very short time in the battlefield sun.
These are 10 X as lethal now though.
They are 10 X as lethal now though.
Maybe 20 X !!!
Are you in two minds?
It’s good to see UKDJ back. I couldn’t get on for most of yesterday.
While our sensors will undoubtedly be first rate, what use are they if Opfor target our own vehicle and there are only 60 Trophy acquired?
It’s relatively cheap things like that which should be embraced as standard with this supposed “uplift” in spending, for such small numbers.
Reading that a type 44 Regiment will be adopted, now that we are retaining 3 Regiments of Tanks. ( KRH remaining as is meaning only 3 Regiments of Ajax rather than 4.)
Additionally, Armoured Regiments will be augmented by Strike Squadrons of Ajax, and I think Snipers, Mortars, Drones.
I think they had a CVRT Sqn in the Cold war too, so a bit of spin there from the Army if such isn’t a new thing.
Back but did you get the Warnings and “Bot” Security computer searches ? Mine went nuts, UKDJ was bombarding me with Trackers and some very serious looking searches. WTF was that all about ? Can’t see anything from the site admin either.
No mate?
Strange then. Must be the security thing my Son set up, flagging up unwanted “Probing” (ooo misses !) Well anyway, I guess I’m a real person after all, and not a Bot as it implied.
Who knows.
The UKDJ has been, or is targeted by, Bots and Trolls, be they Russian, Chinese, whoever.
It’s not the first time the site has been down.
Might actually have been something quite mundane.
Anyway, it’s back.
Well now, I seem to have to have a Server Scam, for Spam Bots, before my comments are allowed.
WTF ? I never had that shit on any site before. Obviously someone doesn’t like my style !!!
You not getting this then ?
“Server Scan” !
No mate.
Unless we have an increase in CR3’s type 44 was the only way forwards.
With 3 Regiments retained, yes.
No we always had a CVRT troop 8 x Scimitar for close recce in an MBT Regt as did Arnd Inf 8 x CVRT also Scimitar in the Recce platoon of a Warrior battalion. Same was the case when mech Inf Bns had 432, but then it was a mix of either Scimitar or as in our case Sabre which actually worked quite well We also had 4 x Spartan with the much underrated Milan mobile turret which gave Recce a bit of longer range lunch and had an excellent thermal sight as well. Spyglass if I recall. The medium Recce squadron also with CVRT , then Scorpion but later Scimitar is what you refer to was a Brigade level asset and tasked by them.
Lunch should of course read punch – but we did have quiet a few excellent long range lunches in Recce courtesy of obliging German farmers and being way out in front being out of sight and mind of BHQ. Halcyon days 😁👍🇬🇧
Thanks. Couldn’t remember if it was a Sqn or a Troop in an MBT Reg.
So Sqn scale is new.
I knew of the Recc Platoon with Scimitar in Mech and AI Bns.
We’ve speculated here whether Ajax would continue in Boxer Bns, and the future Ares Bns.
Hi Daniele, I had not heard that it was Type 44s confirmed. So three regiments requires 132 tanks. So we have now just 16 tanks to split between Trg Org (RAC and REME), Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve. That ain’t gonna work. Need urgently to increase the CR3 order by a lot!
Good morning Graham.
Neither have I. I only report here what I read through various sources regarding the future ORBAT.
I agree, it is ridiculous. May well end up less.
I am at least pleased that a third MBT Regiment will be retained. Reports of this for some months now, even from the RAC themselves. Assume the thus “spare” Ajax no longer forming a 4th Armoured Cavalry Reg will be split into the 3 MBT Regs as part of the Strike Sqns?
But..
I assumed that the retention of a third MBT Reg would then entail DRSB “converting” back to a full all arms manoeuvre Brigade, to give 3 Div it’s 3 Brigade structure back, each with 1x MBT Regiment.
And it looks like this isn’t happening.
Indeed, it seems they’re doubling down on Deep Recc Strike by forming another of those for 1 Division.
Which leaves a rather “untidy” looking set up of 3 MBT Regs split between the 2 Brigades, 12, 20.
It jangles with my tidy brain, such a lopsided orbat!
Much prefer 2, ideally 3, identical Brigades.
But that means spending money and finding people.
I recall in the late 80s at the height of the Cold War with 1,3,4 Armoured Divisions of 1 BR Corps, some Armoured Brigades had 2 MBT, 1 Mech, and others had 1 MBT, 2 Mech, so it’s happened before.
Assume due to the Cabrit BG?
So something that’s worth considering;
The Army wouldn’t create a second DRS brigade if the concept hadn’t shown promise.
Against a peer it will punch above it’s weight for all of about 2 weeks, eg in Estonia/ Latvia/ Lithuania.
After that we’re done! Limited ammunition, spares, recovery, reinforcements, GBAD, CAS (with just 140 jets we’ll be unable to control the airspace). The British Army as an Expeditionary Force, even with C3 is no more than a tethered goat.
Force evacuation you ask – after ditching Albion/ Bulwark and with just 8 frigates left I wouldn’t be confident that would be possible.
Tactical withdrawal? having just binned off Puma2 without any replacement we’re down to a small number of Chinooks.
If we’re lucky we’d last a month before Starmer waves the white flag, with a load of destroyed and captured equipment and a load of PoWs paraded in Russia on national TV starving.
That people is what happens when weak politicians and career driven top brass whittle down our military to the point of being near useless in a peer fight.
Defeat in battle is ugly and brutal and our leaders have forgotten what that looks like.
It will take 20 years to rebuild our land forces.
The answer? focus primarily on growing the RN and RAF – and forget any expeditionary delusions – we’re not up to it!
Why would it only punch for 2 weeks. It is only one division in a pretty large european orbat.
Lack of: Size, ammunition, CAS, GBAD, reserves, tactical lift
European NATO has the equivilent of 30 Divisions, lack of size certainly isn’t a problem, and our airforces dwarf the Russian airforce, which is struggling against Ukraine’s virtually non-existent airforce.
How on earth would we end up defending Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania on our own – there’s this thing called NATO last time I looked . Actually under current plans we are only tasked with Estonia , other people, Canadians, Germans, French looked after the rest and having spent quiet a lot of time there recently I can assure you the Estonian army is a very well equipped and capable force in its own right . Also isn’t our primary land forces commitment to NATO still the ARRC?
NATO – you mean that organisation that hasn’t really been tried and tested against a significant peer threat? Can you guarantee the US will come to the party under Trump? could they even come to the party if they were distracted in the Pacific?
The last time our Exped forces were sent in with allies we were ill equipped and ill prepared. Our allies were very well equipped but self preservation meant they took their own tactical decisions. Reliance on others for capabilities has proven not to be a great strategy especially when our own forces lack GBAD, ammunition, ability to conduct CAS at scale and any strength in depth.
History is worth reflecting on – start with the BEF in France 1940.
Our defence focus and therefore spend has to be on RAF and RN. Afterall – control the air, control the battlespace.
You know if NATO doesn’t work we don’t go to war right?
Hey Dern – Depends on the scenario. If RU attacks Baltic states triggering A5, at a time when the US attentions are in the Pacific we have no option.
Uh no. See the US has Tripwire forces in the Baltics as well. So if in your mind the US can ignore it’s tripwire forces being attacked by Russia, so can the UK.
But as pointed out, even without the US ENATO has a considerable combined armed force that isn’t to be sneezed at.
Like us Estonia hasn’t got the depth for a drawn out conflict – wouldn’t last a month. They have no depth (weapons manufacture, reserves).
As for Russia this year alone according to Vadym Skibitskyi, the deputy head of 🇺🇦 GUR theyll manufacture:
~57 combat aircraft Su-57, Su-35, Su-34, and Su-30.
~250 new built T-90M MBTs
~500 BMP-3 and 600 BTR-82A
365 new built artillery systems
What are our plans? -20 T1 Typhoons, -70 CR2, – Albion/Bulwark…
Estonia has no reserves? Pull the other one. The EDL alone has 40,000 people on the books. For a country with a poplation of just over a million they have plenty of reserves.
40k means little if their reserves of production, GBAD, ammunition are limited
Ah so we’re back to pretending NATO and alliances don’t exist then are we?
Reminder that in 2021 Ukraine had very little ability to produce it’s own ammunition or GBAD, but had a big reserve of personnel.
Ukraine is a huge land mass from which to regenerate reserves inc production. What, who is going to provide the resources for the Baltic states? The answer no one – why because each member state barely has enough for themselves. Even the US.
Land mass doesn’t regenerate reserves or production, but luckily Estonia has the whole of the EU and NATO behind it (and again ENATO has 30 divisions so your last sentence has already been debunked), which you just LOVE to ignore.
Your weird twisted scenario really needs some clarity.
Your arguments are infantile and basic. You’ve obviously dont understand threats and capabilities. Land mass provides geographic protection against a range of threats thereby enabling production. Questions for you. How are NATO’s 30 divs (and UKs 3 Div getting re supplied and for how long)?
Open your blinkered eyes Dern. You’ve obviously never been near A2
Doubtless Whitehall is asleep as usual, but Hegseth is retiring/downsizing, perhaps 190 US Army Apache E. So newish models available cheap. I would like to see AAC Apache go back to 67 rather than 50.
RMJ, Of course the most demanding role for the ‘British Expeditionary Force’ is deploying our forces to eastern Europe if Article 5 is called… and then fighting what may be a protracted war. We will be doing that alongside 31 allies, all of whom will deliver land forces and many will deliver air forces. Those 140 Typhoons will not be alone.
Other expeditionary deployments in the past have seen our armoured forces operating in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf and Iraq – all of which were Coalition operations, American-led, and again we had more than the RAF to provide air cover.
You mention that in the past we were under-prepared and ill-equipped for expeditionary operations. To consider just those deployments out of the NATO area…I doubt we are the only army deploying that had these problems. Our equipment was designed primarily for war in NW Europe, so going to an arid, sandy country (both Gulf Wars) always was going to need some readjustment. We did that. Vehicles were quickly modified, tactics revised, equipment deficiencies made good as quickly as possible using the UOR procedure. We have always done this. It is nothing new. We are good at adapting. Doesn’t mean we cannot and should not do expeditioanry. The army has only ever done expeditionary warfare, less a brief period in 1940 when the army prepped for a German invasion of the UK. Exped warfare is all the army ever does.
You say to focus on growing the RN and RAF. No objection to that but the Army needs growing too – unlike the other two services it has been cut once or twice a decade since 1953 and is the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times. It lacks credibility with many senior American figures. It cannot conduct enduring operations at scale (Brigade/Bde Gp) without recourse to the Reserves or RM commandos, dropping other commitments and/or stressing the army due to poor op tour intervals.
Finally think about how much we actually use the army in kinetic (live rounds being fired) operations in the last 50 years. A lot. The Navy….only the Falklands, for a few weeks in 1982 springs to mind.
Deterrence is important but so is undertaking kinetic operations…and winning.
RMJ is working off some weird logic where Russia invades Estonia, but apparently only Britain gets dragged into the War and the remaining 30 NATO nations, despite many of them having troops stationed in Estonia as part of the EFP program, just sit on their hands?
In fairness, we used the Navy during Libya 2011 to ferry apaches into range.
We actually have 213 Challenger 2 tanks left in the inventory including those in storage (some which have been raided for spares) so if the will and money was there, we could increase the order to 200 Challenger 3 tanks. Notably, the same issue exists through all 3 services with vehicles/aircraft and ships/submarines unavailable due to a lack of spares!! Are we ever going to learn?
Yup, but not for the price that RBSL agreed too, it won’t make economic sense for the remaining hulls. And of course the treasury won’t fund the extra 50 hulls.
And that is of course precisely why we were only able to donate 14 CH2 to Ukraine ( although it was symbolically significant as we led the way as regards NBT ) because as all on here know a CH3 is not a new tank but a reworked Chally 2 so we need to hang on to every hull we have As Danielle says I’m hearing too that both KRH and QRH as well as RTR are now retaining their MBT so that will restore us to the ‘rule of threes’ model and allow us to return to the three Armoured Brigade structure Div by binning the nonsense that is Deep Recce Strike. The only way they can achieve this if course with only 148 Chally 3 is again as Danielle stares return to the Type 44 armoured Regt and sadly move back away from the somewhat luxurious Type 56 or even Type 64 that we aspire to today.
We aren’t returning to a 3 brigade structure, that would require an uplift in Boxer numbers, resubordination of a few battalions from 7 and 4 brigade and the raising of some new CSS units and artillery. None of that is happening. KRH is simply going to be a second MBT Regiment within the same brigade as RTR.
Hi Pongolo. I can help with this.
Deep Recc Strike remains….in fact, it is doubling! In Bdes at least if not in actual component formations.
The future structure AFAIA.
3 Division.
12 Armoured Infantry Brigade.
20 Armoured Infantry Brigade.
3 DRSB.
101 Logistics Bde.
( Note 1 DRSB has quietly become 3! In line with its Division.)
So DRSB remains bereft of any regular CS CSS beyond 6 REME, and one of the AI Bdes will have 2 MBT Reg.
The Infantry Battalions due to get Boxer will eventually have Ares. Boxer in whole or in part transfered to 1 Division.
1 Division.
7 Mech Brigade. Boxer Mech Infantry. Still no news on whether will get uplift from 105mm LG to RCH155, but you’d assume so.
4 Light Mech Brigade. Still with no regular CS CSS, unless thst pull rabbits out of a hat or use 29RA, 24RE, which would be my own ideal. Will use Foxhounds from 7 or a new MRVP going forward.
1 DRSB. A “new” Brigade, so each Div has a DRSB.
No idea what will go in it for it to constitute a Brigade.
Talk is of moving 3 RHA over from 3 DRSB, so 1 MLRS Reg per DRSB.
So assume the current DRSB gets halved, and hey presto! A new Brigade.
This is offset slightly by the planned uplift of regular MLRS Batteries from 4 to 6. 3 per Reg rather than the 2 now. ( 26RA, 3 RHA )
And 102 Logistics Brigade.
“Forward / Advanced Forces.
77 Brigade.
ASOB. In Estonia, Finland, and its other commitments per Bn regional.
11 Brigade. In a Light Recc Strike role defending Estonia.
16 Air Assault unsure if that remains in 1 Div or whether it is back in FAT again.
16AA, 1 Avn Bde, and a Bde of 1 Div as response forces.
1 and 3 Div all in ARRC. With 7 ADG ( might become a Bde ) 8 Engineer Bde, 1 Sig Bde, 104 Log Bde, 1 Med Gp, and other elements.
Cheers.
Its complete nonsense. People have been making the same argument for decades, justifying ever lower numbers, and citing increased capability. War in Ukraine has shown it up to be nonsense. Mass wins wars. Sustainability wins wars. Being able to take attrition wins wars.
148 main battke tanks is a joke number, doesnt matter how capable they are.
We wont last a strawberry picking season in combat.
Ah but 148 CH3′ can be crewed by all those “Members” in Government as a trial, then they’ll know the way forward.
Trophy has a massive evidence base around it, essentially every single Uk armoured vehicle should have a trophy system. The Isreali army suffeeed significant MBT and armoured vehicle losses against anti tank missiles before the introduction of trophy. Even so there is evidence that the isreali army is struggling with MBT losses in GAZA. To the point they are holding off on the decommissioning of Merkava 3s as they are waiting for a new order of hundreds of Merkava 4s to regenerate from combat losses. Infact it was reported Isreal has used up 50% of its reserve MBT force.. ( which was to some sources about 500 MBTS).
Essentially both active wars show that MBTs are vital for direct fire support, but the modern battle field is more lethal to MBTs than ever before even arguably one of the most survivable and modern MBTs with active armour ( Merkava 4).. what it really shows is you need:
1) a tank that will keep your crews alive when it’s knocked out, because on the modern battlefield there is a good chance an MBT is going to be knocked out
2) having a very good recovery and repair operation.. because Isreal has a very good industrial base for repairing MBTs and it’s struggling in a war against a really shitty enemy. Russia fighting an enemy with good equipment and training is expending MBTs like water.
3) having a very significant attritional reserve.. we have forgotten this. In WW2 the American armoured divisions struggled a bit because they dropped their attritional reserve percentage and could not replace losses as quickly as the British units which had maintained an attritional reserve of 100% ( essentially the reserve was maintained at a 1 to 1 basis…
With 148 tanks the British army is essentially dropping to not having an attritional reserve..even with only 2 type 56 regiments.. 112 tanks deployed, a sabre squadron for the training establishment takes you to 130 then 10% maintenance pool 13 is 143.. essentially the moment the UK MBT regiments engages a reasonably well equipped and switched on enemy they are probably not going to stay combat capable for very long. In reality the UK needs a at least 1-2 sabre squadrons of attritional reserve MBTs for each active type 56 regiment and it needs three active MBT regiments..
So 174 active tanks in regiments, 18 for training = 192 then 10% maintenance pool so 20 and an attritional reserve of say 3-5 sabre squadrons 54-90 so in reality the Uk needs 266 MBTs minimum and 202 as a good solid risk management number.
Sorry 302 as a good sold number not 202.
Spot on. A gallant gentleman in the 7th Hussars was on his fourth Crusader by the end of the Battle of Tobruk. Should have had a V.C. but it was a defeat…..!
“Now, stabilised long-range sights and integration with intelligence feeds mean the tank can itself contribute to the “recce-strike kill chain,” allowing faster and more precise engagements”
Code for we will be raising a second armoured division by combining Challengers with Ajax.
I’m not sure where you are getting that from in that quote. It’s pretty straight forward in what it’s saying:
By combining the information from the new gun sights on CR3 with the new networking capbilities in the tank, the tank itself can be used as a spotting asset to call in fires, without having to pass the information on to a specific forward observation asset.
I’m not an expert, but the quote just sounds to me like a roundabout, tangential way of suggesting the ‘type 44’ regiment idea that yourself and Daniele have posted. Basically we don’t have enough tanks but Ajax, significantly more than CVRT, is strike as well as spotter.
No it’s got nothing to do with that.
“Stabilised long range-sights and integration with intelligence feeds means the tank itself can contribute to the recce-strike kill chain” means the tank can use it’s own gun sight to contribute to the overall battle picture by uploading the data directly to other units, which previously was only done by recce or OP assets. That means the Tank effectively can cut out the middle man, and speed up the time between spotting an enemy and bringing effects (in this context that means ammunition on target) onto the enemy. It’s entirely to do with the internal systems of the tank, not with the co-operation between Challenger and Ajax.
Ah! Ok, that’s clear. Thx.
I recall you had a Regiment of MBT with DRSB in one of your orbat charts.😊
Yes, but that was for a different CONOP than what this provides.
That’s a pretty nasty capability when you think about it.
It is, there’s a reason there’s a lot of though going into the networked battlespace.
Only problem of course is EM emissions.
Blimey, Paul.
If only.
No mate….😊
Mixing Ajax and Tanks might get you bits of a Brigade, which it is doing, but not a Division!
Should we be a major land power in any major conflict? No expert but focus on sea, air, strategic nuclear, intelligence, airlift and ideally tactical nuclear. By no means saying they are all in the state they should be.
We need to buy or build enough tanks to equip two full armoured or mechanised divisions. Even if it was the latter 6 regiments (I.e. battalions) of 57 tanks would be required which is 336. With attrition replacements, training requirements and reserves that would be at least an additional 30% so 437 vehicles. There are not enough challenger 2 hulls and the US may be an unreadable defence partner so I recommend buying and/or building K2s or Leopard 2s.
An uplift beyond us, especially as the RN and RAF also need resources.
So based on a conventional 3 manoeuvre Brigade Division, and the fact our 2 small Divisions only have 6 Brigades currently, 2 of which are Armoured, 1 Light Mech, 1 Infantry, 1 Air Assault, plus the DRSB. And that the Infantry Bde and DRSB have no regular CS CSS at all beyond a Bn of REME.
For that, you need to raise 3 extra RE Regiments, 3 RA Regiments, 2 or 3 Signals Regiments, 3 Close Support Logistic Regiments, 2 REME Armoured Battalions, 3 Armoured Medical Regiments, 3 RMP Provost Companies, and the requisite uplift in Transport Regiments in 101 and 102 Brigades, including at least doubling the number of HETS.
And the Army’s GBAD is minimal to virtually non existent, depending to who you talk to.
CS and CSS goes hand in hand with lots of extra Tanks and Armoured Infantry.
The Army would need to be back to 90k plus.
Of course, not all those 148 tanks will be in 3 Div, when set against the figure for credibility (recent RUSI work) of 170 to over 300 tanks in an effective armoured division. If we have two Type 58 regiments, that would be 116 tanks in the Div. If instead we had three Type 44 regiments that would be 132 tanks. If we had three Type 38 units, that would be 114 tanks. If we truly have retained KRH as the 3rd armoured regiment, I suspect we will have Type 38 regiments.
I am sceptical that CR3 will have three times the lethality of its predecessor – they can’t mean it will kill three times more targets in a Battlefield Day surely?
Utter pish, with breakdowns, repairs and servicing there will only be handful at the front at any given time so the lethality better be quite extraordinary or they will be no use whatsoever. Critical mass is as important today as ever but we delude ourselves that we are big boys on the block. I wonder what the planners consider a likely casualty rate for an all out Russian invasion? With a tiny number of units just do the maths on 5% and 10% losses and we will have nothing left to do much good within a few weeks. Our egos flatter ourselves that small is beautiful and we are so professional we can make up for tiny numbers. We’re doomed…..do you hear what I say? We’re doomed.