The Ministry of Defence has reconfirmed its ambitious target to double the British Army’s fighting power by 2027 and treble it by 2030, though details remain unclear on what exactly this goal entails.
This clarification came in a response by Defence Minister Luke Pollard to Conservative MP James Cartlidge’s query about whether the plan includes the procurement of the Precision Strike Missile system as a key measure of success.
Pollard clarified that the target, originally set by the Chief of the General Staff, is “a principle to guide Army modernisation” rather than a target tied to any single programme or procurement effort. He further stated, “It is not tied to specific programmes or procurements, but will incorporate the outcomes of the Strategic Defence Review.”
Although the overall ambition was announced previously, the latest response raises questions about the exact pathway the Army will take to achieve its target. The lack of specific metrics leaves room for interpretation as to how this doubling of lethality will be assessed or achieved.
The Army’s goal broadly encompasses a push toward modernisation, which could involve enhanced precision weaponry, digital integration, improved mobility, and advanced reconnaissance technologies. However, without concrete benchmarks, it is uncertain how success will be measured.
Now then the basic question! Will they be able to take and hold ground?🤔
Jacko, We still have Infantry, so the answer is ‘yes’.
Just not much, or for long…
Barely
Given that we are an island, I’d suggest that the ability to take and hold sea and airspace to be far more important, and for the army the ability to prevent anyone else taking and holding OUR ground should be number one priority. With a secondary aim being a highly mobile rapid reaction force able to support NATO allies where needed or to respond to minor conflicts in relation to British interests.
Bonzo, since the Cold War ended our army has received little or no direction by political masters to prepare for/train for defence of the UK homeland. Military Home Defence (MHD) exercises AFAIK have not been held since Ex Brave Defender which was held in 1985. The Government War Book no longer exists which amongst other things detailed the Key Points in the UK requiring defence. I don’t therefore see MHD as the primary aim for the army. Some context may be of interest: ‘The aims of the exercise are to test plans and procedures for the ground defence of vital… Read more »
It would be useful to know the definition of lethality they are measuring against or it is entirely pointless statement.
If they constantly cut capability for sure it won’t be double or triple as lethal as most normal people would equate the term.
It assume it comes down to the weapons being bigger. AS90 replacement with a bigger gun, ajax, etc. Although how boxer vs warrior is more lethal is anyone’s guess or challenger 3 vs almost double as many challenger 2s.
Same decision I guess made on type 45 . As it’s 3 times more advanced than its predecessor the type 42 we didn’t need as many. Fell over quickly that it can’t be in 3 places at once. And serviceability didn’t help. Challenger 2-3 cut numbers more advanced same philosophy Politicians of all parties never learn its all about financial implications . The SDSR will be interesting
“Do more with less” is the MOD cop-out for justifying cuts.
More tanks, more guns, more missiles, more personnel, more budget? How? And what happens if peer adversaries do the same or more?
You’ve put your finger on the problem if it’s treated as a one off project: what happens when our adversaries play catch up? There is a solution. If lethality is treated as an ongoing project with constant increases in lethality, delivered through improving technology and improving conops, it might be possible to remain ahead by a factor of three, always moving forward, always chased by our adversaries. I doubt the ability of the Army to deliver on such a project. The constant internal war for resources within MOD means that at some point soon they would lose out and the… Read more »
I suggest more guns more missiles less tanks and less people.
That’s how you double or triple lethality with in the same budget.
For years we cut back on artillery to keep as many light infantry units as possible. Now we are seeing the reverse.
Well, if we take China as the potential enemy – they are already doing more. If you look on Russia as the enemy – well, tied up in Ukraine at the moment but have massively increased their arms budget. Meanwhile, the country that is making the threats against NATO countries is the US – threatening to annex Canada and buy/annex Greenland as well as saying the UK is ‘out of line’… so probably more of an immediate threat than either Russia or China! So if you consider that the FIRST priority of a government is to protect the country –… Read more »
Totally agree, maybe the words need to change, so do they mean modernise or upsize the armed forces? because they will need to do both.
Steve. Good post. If we now have, say, 10 AS-90s left to go with the 14 Archers…then buy 72 Boxer RCH-155s can you imagine the MoD press release? ‘Artillery lethality tripled’!
I suppose if you just want to double the lethal firepower of the Army the simple way, the cheapest way is to take a step back and think outside the box. To do that we have to examine the risks and act accordingly, that IMHO opinion comes down to 3 probable scenarios. 1. Russia kicks off in Europe, so that’s NATO but possibly having to do so without North American Boots on the Ground. 2. China invades Taiwan and the that triggers a war in the Far East which involves China then US, Japan, S Korea and Australia (India ?).… Read more »
1. Russia kicks off in Europe, so that’s NATO but possibly having to do so without North American Boots on the Ground. I do like this scenario, im curious what resources Russia has to call upon in the next 5 years minimum that it could even attempt to take on a wider European conflict? I think its clear they are scraping the barrel a bit with hiring NK troops and having to purchase old tech weapons from Iran/NK just to keep the existing effort going. Do they have any form of a professional fighting force left or the equipment to… Read more »
Russia is no different to any other Country engaged in War,they will go through the process of Recruit,Restock,Rest and Replenish,Whether the Weapons supplied through 3rd parties are New or Old Tech is neither here nor there,if they do the job they are supposed to do that is all that matters.
“Or is it an entirely pointless statement?”
Need you even ask?
The point is surely that Russia has struggled significantly in Ukraine against a lesser adversary equipped with soviet era leftovers and Mostly NATO castoffs supported by a fraction of NATO defence budgets. While Russia may ramp up weapon production It’s a long way from rolling its tanks to the Atlantic coast. Of course that does not mean we should be complacent because we clearly have twiddled thumbs for decades and now cannot rely on The US under Trump to provide unwavering support, nor the Chinese to stay on the sidelines, but Russia itself is a long way currently from being… Read more »
Totally agree but as they are currently fully engaged in a war and struggling to produce the required equipment themselves, rest is off the cars as they are heavily engaged and no one truly knows how many fighting aged able men they have left to call upon before the population revolts against them. They have lost probably hundreds of thousands of capable men in action or wounded before ability to fight, many many thousands more have bribed or fled out of the country and now reside abroad, whats left? Even the prisons are probably getting empty!
A mountain of reloads for systems we already have like M270 and Sky Sabre would be the most cost effective way forwards.
The big problem is moving army thinking away from the ‘big new shiny’ acquisition program that eats so much budget training and manpower are reduced to pay for it.
SB, I served 1975 to 2009 in REME. For much of that time our REME tradesmen spent a huge amount of effort struggling to keep a lot of very old kit ‘on the road’. If we went to war tonight our CR2 tanks would be nearly 30 years old and unmodernised, our Warrior IFVs would be up to 40 years old and unmodernised and our FV430s are about 60 years old. A year or two ago I would have added that our entire CVR(T) family were 50 years old and that only a few Scimitars had received an upgrade in… Read more »
I think you need to consider a few things: 1) any US China war will inevitably become a NATO China conflict because of chinas view on warfighting, they believe in the long war and attacking the enemy every place they can.. the moment china attacks the US mainland it triggers article five. 2) in the same way a US China war will cause contagion in the west it will also cause contagion in the enemies of the west.. as China fights its long war it will is all means to bring in allies and those allies will see opportunities as… Read more »
ABC, we could send a CSG to the Far East in scenario 2. That was the premise for CSG21.
Would it even get there in a real hot war scenario?
Bonzo, Why would a RN CSG not get there? Do you mean it wil have been sunk by the enemy en route or would arrive too late?
Agree with much of that.
Enough land force to credibly fight a “2nd tier”conflic And to significantly reinforce other NATO forces if needed (and quickly).
Sea forces to protect our waters and shipping routes
Air defences at all levels from taking out small FPV drones to ballistic and hypersonic missiles.
And significant retaliatory strike capability, in particular medium+range air, sea and land launched missiles.
All supported by the necessary c&c, coms, sensors, logistics and properly resourced, trained and committed personnel.
Just more smoke and bullshit . Typical Government empty words .
Interesting that CGS’ vision is now endorsed MoD policy. But the General stated his vision quite a while ago and still there are no details, yet there are only 2 years until the lethality doubling target must be met.
I am sure that if we ever get any definition of lethality it will include vagaries and will lack fully articulated metrics.
We got a definition from the CGS. I’m sure I’m not imagining this. He said that it was down to the ability of our troops to defeat a multiple number of adversary trooops. So if 10,000 of our troops can be relied on to defeat 20,000 peer adversay troops, that’s double lethality. He didn’t put it that simply, but implied that definition in one of his speeches when he first announced the policy.
FWIW, I recalled wondering at the time, which of our adversaries could be relied on to only field three times the number of soldiers we could. One reason our soldiers can beat multiple enemy troops is that the enemy spend less money on training and equipment and can therefore afford to field more.
Jon, in warfighting we (with allies of course) are up (potentially) against one or more of the CRINK nations. They are known for their large armies. The Russian Army will one day be resurrected to again be a super-large army. I think we (UK/NATO) will always be the smaller force.
But as you say our opponent’sr effectiveness is doubtful – soem reports say the North Koreans have not been seen in Kursk for 3 weeks – withdrawn to barracks due to losses due to poor combat ability?
Jon, thanks. I do remember something like that now. Its an unconventioanl definition of lethality, to say the least, and certainly open to challenge. Classically an attacking force needs three times the number of attackers to defenders to be reasonably sure of success. So classically to attack a force of 20,000 peer adversaries (to take your example) you would need 60,000 attackers….yet the General thinks we should be able to do the job with 10,000 to achieve double lethality status. That is doing the same job as historically but with one sixth the manpower. I think General Walker should write… Read more »
Maybe ex SF chaps shouldn’t be in charge of the wider army, and stay with the way DSF do things?
The Army needs mass and firepower as much as skill, daring, and guille.
Hi Daniele, of course ‘badged’ officers are only in SF roles for a relatively small part of their career. General Roly commanded his battalion (1IG) taking the battalion on an Op HERRICK tour and later commanded 12 Armd Inf Bde. As well as being DSF he did of course do plenty of ‘green army’ staff jobs. I don’t think he is going to shape the Field Army along quasi-SF lines! Very true that the army needs mass and firepower, certainly a lot more than it has got now. Needs increased money. I think Mark Rutte is gearing up to set… Read more »
Well when SF are the ones with Combat Experience and DSO’s then they’re the ones who get the big buck paying PIDs.
Equally you can’t sit here and post about how much the UK needs to invest in the Navy, Airforce and SF at the expense of the convetional army, and then grumble when SF types end up in high ranking positions.
Morning Dern.
😏 Fair….!
I suspect the lethality will lack any increase and infact a decrease in kinetic effectors…I suspect the increased lethality will come from other areas, but ISTAR , command and control and accuracy improvements all become irrelevant if you don’t actually have the troop, vehicle and kinetic effectors to take advantage of those improvements.
Drones?
They showed a lot of pictures last week using the Puma and the Parrot drones in the Arctic and Japan respectively.
Those are for ISTAR, but wonder if some that carry payloads may follow.
They will. CDS mentioned it, and I heard some were being tested back in July, but no specific details.
Drones should only supplement, not replace, though, incase simple politicians get ideas.
Ok lets see less words more orders and changes then. Lately its been a lot bluff and words not a lot else. Things as they are are a joke. Not a funny joke, its a massive shame on the Nation.
Ajax has a bigger cannon than Warrior.
They’ll order 36 RCH155 to replace 14 Archers.
This seems closer to what will happen than we’d like…
Where are the 14 Archers going? Ajax is not an IFV, so a bigger gun means nothing if we get a boxer wheeled IVF. 36 RCH is way not enough that is in war just over 4 Btys worth or just over one Regt. Hardly a full replacement for AS90 etc
Exactly. That’s the kind of nonsense they’ll use to justify it though.
2 Batteries of 19 RA.
They were, as mentioned many times, a stop gap until the actual AS90 replacement arrives.
Original future gun was for around 116 I recall.
That was when 4 Regiments needed re equipping.
In the 200 range is what is indicated with RCH155.
I remain sceptical on that and think around 60 to 90 guns. It all depends on which Regiments and how many Batteries, plus attrition, plus trials, plus training examples.
The thing is though with Archer and RCH you have decreased the manpower need to operate the system compared to AS90. So from a crew of 5 to 3 to 2 respectively. I can’t see the Army making up the spare manpower numbers with additional systems. So I think there will be some typical smoke and mirror shenanigans when it comes to Regiment manpower numbers.
Smoke and mirrors is indeed the way, or the shell game, as we know.
You got all this in writing, proof of orders etc because I’ve never seen any thing confirmed. 14 Archers does not replace 2 Regts of AS90, its not a stop gab its 14 for the loss of 48, And 2 of them are held at the School of Artillery so its 12 two Btys worth replacing 6 Btys. Plus war deployment is 8 guns per Bty so not 2 Btys at all. Why we never brought more is very strange. Where does state we will buy/order 116? you got a link to it. Sounds like wish full thinking or a… Read more »
Martin.
As I said, the 116 was an original requirement from the Army from years ago. Look up the history of it.
It still gets mentioned, but has no substance as the ORBAT has changed.
I know 14 Archer do not replace AS90, they’re all that was available when we gifted our guns to UKR.
Yes it’s crap, it is what it is.
The latest figure for RCH155 is 200 or more.
We can but wait and see. I know you keep going on about this but until the MoD give details we can only wait and see.😖
Martin, the 14 Archer are interim. Once a good number of RCH-155 are in service the Archers will doubtless be sold off.
I know they are but 14 Archers does not well replace 48 AS90’s its not even two war deployment Btys worth. As 2 are at the RSA for teaching etc, leaving just 12. People go on about RCH 155 but none have been ordered, yet there are those saying we may order up to 200, we need 116 at the very least 2 Regts worth and Reserve RA. Nothing i know of is confirmed its just peoples best guess or wish ful thinking .
I work ar RSA where are the two archer’s beings stored
Hi Martin, Regarding Archer, only 14 Mk1s were available from Sweden, so they are only partial replacements for the 48 AS-90s gifted to UKR. No more were available.
True that no RCH-155s have yet been ordered, so we can’t know for sure the likely order size. They may be ordered around the time of SDR publication as MoD and the politicians like ‘the optics’ of doing that. However it is anyones guess when they will be delivered, as they have to do more development and testing and there are hundreds of Boxer MIVs to build and deliver as well.
Army Technology article of Jan 23 infers from the Germany -UK agreement, that the UK order for RCH 155 would be for 240!
Yes perhaps this is what they mean about tripling lethality. 240 RCH 155 would make the British army more lethal than at any time in its recent history. Add on 70 M270’s and we would have a massive firepower capability. 240 RCH 155 would only cost £2.4 billion which is small compared to most army or MOD procurement programs and it only requires a crew of 2. This is exactly the kind of army and technology Britain needs to focus on, automated and highly capable weapons systems that require few people but lots of capital, combine this firepower with top… Read more »
Jim, you talk about a possible very substantial artillery increase, but of course there needs to be lethality increases elsewhere. Currently we have fewer Apache than we previously had and will buy far fewer tanks and the Infantry in the armoured brigades will lose their section cannons when they re-equip with Boxer.
That would be 863 Boxer variants on order, with Boxer plus RCH155.
That’s incredibly optimistic to be ready by 2030 even, with current build rates of 60 a year!
Might that be why Babcock and Patria are getting together to proposed the 6×6 APC? If you could build that in parallel with Boxer then you could dedicate your Boxer chassis to modules like RCH 155, turreted mortar etc. rather than using them as an expensive APC.
It might be.
They could replace the Bulldog etc in the other roles.
That’s what I was thinking, plenty ways to move infantry around that does not involve a 8×8 £5 million monster.
Great if so.
I then ask: Who will “man” these vehicles?
Where are the Regiments for them given that, at the most, only 3 need them given current ORBAT? Without yet another, massive reorg, and great expansion of Batteries, or of Battery size.
Where is the REME support for them?
2 crew? What if 1 gets injured? Who fights and commands the vehicle?
I support the expansion of the RA over all else
due to its neglect since the early 2000s, but remain to be convinced.
Indeed you need artillery to fight a peer war, it’s a very very big hole at present.it’s all very well saying massed Russian fires are inaccurate..but as I’m sure the Ukrainians will tell quantity has a quality all of its own..and if you cannot move for minefields and and a completely inaccurate rain of 155mm fires all the wonders of ISTAR driven mobile warfare like strike etc won’t help much.
Well, indeed.
And the build rate of Boxer is far too slow.
They seem to have gone all in on it, when many of the supporting roles could have been done by a cheaper, more efficient procurement.
I still hold out hope for the Patria 6×6, but nothing confirmed yet
It’s also exacerbated by the sheer amount of equipment that is obsolete and being retired by 2030.
It is a mess.
I’m with you on Patria, although I note the STANAG comments as minimal acceptable armour. Do other armies use up armoured versions or are they happy as is?
I would use Boxer to equip as many Battalions as possible and use vehicles like Patria for other roles.
I read they even have a SERPENS variant for Boxer.
@ Danielle Personally I would look at it the same way France has, they have essentially gone for a minimum STANAG of 4 as base for all their armoured box’s in reality it’s not so much about resistance to direct fire ( small arms is fine ) it’s that all important blast frag resistance from 155mm fires and STANAG 4 is 25meters which is useful VS a pretty pointless 80meters for STANAG 2.. One of the reasons I really thing they are pissing money away with boxer is that not have a direct fire option on an armoured vehicle with… Read more »
Yes Danielle, a SERPENS version, Overwatch, C-UAS and Bridging variants of Boxer are all mooted and have been shown at conferences etc.
It also sounds not only expensive, but very slow to build with the current rates.
@Jonathan
Mate, I let it go most of the time as I’m used to it, but my name has ONE L, not two!
Danielle is a girls name. Daniele is male.
I put up with it but sometimes I say something!
Tesla robots 😀
Hi Paul, someones maths have gone haywire. We bought 179 AS-90s in the early 90s. It has never been the case that the army receives a higher quantity of a replacement equipment.
Sam, Ajax recce vehicle does a different job to Warrior IFV.
No way will MoD order as few as 36 RCH-155 SPGs; it sounds as if we might get more than we expect.
I know, Graham.
I was being facetious re the smoke and mirrors game of the government.
Just buying enough modern vehicles and on a decent timescale would be a start.
They’re still pootling round in grandad’s APCs.
Memorandum of understanding between Babcock and Patria to present a custom version of the Patria 6×6 to the UK. Patria will lead the design and Babcock will deliver a means of ‘building at scale’. Source Joint Forces News.
Yeah mate, saw this.
Fingers crossed, but won’t hold my breath etc.
It’s to light and has shocking blast frag protection as standard.. they will need to do some major upgrades on the protection and so power plant.
IIR the proposal would be a UK variant; so presumably better armour.
Thanks Paul, I wonder why Patria themselves cannot build at scale?
No idea. Politics probably. I expect both the govt and Babcock would prefer UK build.
It is bizarre that there is still no clarity about what the ambition entails. Simply doubling ammunition stockpiles could mean doubling lethality.
It certainly could if you’re talking about PGM’s.
Seems to me not a lot going on, a bit of bluffing as always. No new orders, not sure where some get the figures for RCH 155 at over 100 to 200 we do not have the logistics to support that many same as 70 plus MLRS i do not see us having vast stock’s of rockets and 2 or 3 times the ammo vehicles we have now. Pretty sure it will be done by cooking the books, re defining some things and smoke and mirrors. The army will not get bigger the RA will not get bigger. The Armoured… Read more »
Army Technology an article on this, Martin.
As it will take too long to share a link, here’s the relevant section:
The disclosure of Bundeswehr plans also provides details as to the number of RCH 155 the British Army could be looking for, following the UK-German agreement specifically stating a joint procurement of up to 400 units. This means a UK buy is likely to be for around 240 units of the RCH 155 artillery.
Earlier analysis by Army Technology indicated that any UK acquisition could be for around 200 units of the RCH 155 artillery system.
I’d be very happy if they did buy that many I just do not see it. The RA does not have the logistics for it, or the currant number of Regts if it is still wishing to expand MLRS numbers and incress Air Defence. It if true be a very big increse in RA numbers. My Guess is the RA needs 4 Regts worth and one Reserve Regts worth plus training fleet. 18 peace time 24 to a Regt war time, so the 116 figure seems the most likely, love to see more than that ordered though.
No. The RA as things stand need 2 Regiments worth, 1RHA an 19RA, for the 2 Armoured Brigades we have.
A possible 3rd would be 4 RA if they decide that RCH155 would equip that Regiment to support 7 LM Bde.
The 116 original figure was for 4 Regiments, but one of those, 3 RHA, now operates MLRS, so there are 3 gun Regiments left.
The 200 plus figure will involve considerable changes!
How many regiments have the 105mm ?
@Jonathan.
3 regular.
4 RA. Supports 7 Bde.
7 RHA. 16 AA Bde.
29RA. UKCF.
Plus Reserve regiments.
The HAC has some guns too, as does the Gibraltar Regiment.
It would be nice to see 4 RA converted to self propelled 155mm as 7 Bde is one of those way they could up the lethality..give up its 105mm towed for a mix of 155mm self propelled ( and 120mm boxer mounted mortars and boxers for the Mech infantry battalions ( with 40mm GMG in the weapons mount for direct fire support)… if they were getting really saucy they could move Royal Scots Dragoon Guards to Ajax… That would be a pretty much zero sum increase in personnel requirements but give the army a proper deployable extra heavy brigade. They… Read more »
I’m not expert but I sense that you are right. Significant changes are being considered. The SDR has to decide what sensible contribution and role can the UK make to the NATO defence of Europe: if the answer is not armour it must be mobility and ‘deep fires’.
Maybe they have worked out a way to take and hold (some) ground without a conventional IFV.
@Jonathan.
Morning mate.
Agreed. I’ve suggested using the Archers my self for 7 Brigade. They’re paid for, use them.
Really, So we used to have two RA Field Regts per Div now we have 1.5, The over hyped light Bde is as useless as it gets its just to dress up numbers to say we can deploy a Div when really we can not deploy a full armoured Div. 3 Gun Regts in the RA 72 Guns? 26 Regt is now MLRS with little or no MLRS at the moment. So no Reserve Gun Regt then? apart from the crap light gun for our much love light Bde which we all know was and is a cost saving measure… Read more »
@Martin No? The gun regiments in the British Army are 1 RHA and 19 RA in 1 DSRB (transitioning between AS90, Archer and Boxer 155), 4 RA in 7 LMBCT (105mm light gun), 7 Para RHA in 16 AA (105mm) and 29 Cmdo RA with FCF. So no, your maths are off (also there is the uptick in MLRS you pointed out but then ignored). There also are Gun Reserve Regiments: 103, 104 and 105 Regiments RA (and 101 RA on MLRS), plus the HAC and Gib Reg have gun batteries. I don’t know which “Light Brigade” is overhyped, the… Read more »
Martin, Not all equipments purchased are owned and operated by the Field Army. In an AFV fleet there will be a number in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
So really we have a vast amount less to deploy, i know that. RSA holds vast fleet of vehicles not available to deploy for courses and training/trials i was in the trials team. With less than most admit but people keep banging on about numbers of kit but forget reserves/training/trials in depth repair etc. Like 148 C3’s less than 120 could ever be deployed. the magic 116, RCH 155 less than 96 could be deployed, smoker and mirrors .
Sorry but for our Army to be more lethal it’s just not about heavy fire power like having RCH 155 Boxer artillery platforms or what ever we end up with , you need more Boots on the ground let alone to man the vechels .To do this manpower and platforms Tanks etc most come together can’t do one without the other. But this is just more loose talk from HMG .Apparently HMG aren’t going even do a Defence Review has Promised . 🙄
Thought the Defence Review was “being done’ ?
I think Andrew refers to reports that SDR will be delayed.
No doubt because Reeves keeps rejecting it’s findings, won’t fund it, so they have to go away and do a review that fits.
Not very strategic, is it?
If the Treasury will not fund the budget needed to meet the SDR terms of reference then those terms need to be revisited. Fat chance of that though. Another fudge and cuts it is.
By all standard measurements it’s hard to increase lethality when you reduce the number of guns, bullets and people. We need the Govt to quantify their definition of lethality and what the benchmark is.
It’s all fake, we have promised NATO a two division commitment however all we are putting up is the command element because we intent to take over other nations military units into those divisions. Meanwhile NATO shrinks as it gets more expensive. Russia can field four times the forces with less than a tenth of the budget. We can’t even rely on air power anymore because we are chasing whit elephants and commitment to flawed technologies So we will wargame what we want a conflict to be with zero idea of actual future warfare. As Ukraine complains – we are… Read more »
Apache E. Order more. You want to triple lethality that’s one way to do it. C2 to C3 upgrade every possible tank. That’s another way to increase lethality. The C2s are smashing the crap out the Russians in Ukraine HIMARS/ MLRS Drones and counter drone warfare. We need to purchase dozens of SHORAD compact vehicles that can take out drones cheaply leaving our land Ceptor units for missile and aircraft threats Long range fire. Replace AS90 with a new SPG and ensure capability to replace attritional loses and barrel fatigue. IFV. The British army needs a new IFV with an… Read more »
As we are an Island and we are never going to have 500-100 MBts or 1000’s of IFV / troop to surge like in Cold War (who misses Reforger!!) or imagine trying to redo Lion Heart. I think we should prioritize RAF/RN provide provide long range strike / recon /ISTAR and to protect the SLOCs/deny access to North Atlantic
Agreed. Add SF and SOF to that.
I still insist on a minimum of 1 proper Armoured Division for the Army though, with a 2nd Division for support, flank, Expeditionary OOA roles. Which seems to be where 1 Div is headed.
And these require enablers from CS CSS, so the Army still needs serious money.
Paul, Re: your 4 Feb, 0926. ‘I’m not expert but I sense that you are right. Significant changes are being considered. The SDR has to decide what sensible contribution and role can the UK make to the NATO defence of Europe: if the answer is not armour it must be mobility and ‘deep fires’. Maybe they have worked out a way to take and hold (some) ground without a conventional IFV’. If the SDR concuded that the BAs contribution to the defence of Europe is ‘not armour’, then we are spending an awfully large sum of money on CR3, Ajax,… Read more »
“If” an IFV is fielded, it certainly doesn’t seem like it will be any time soon. I can only assume GD don’t have much hope for an Ares IFV order considering there doesn’t seem to have been any mock ups beyond a digital model despite the Ajax family being under development for years. The likes of Rheinmetall have been taking base platforms and putting various turrets on them to show potential markets what they could have. GDUK don’t seem to want to take any risks and the government wants to push procurement decisions down the road which will just extend… Read more »
Given our relationship with Rheinmetall I would say that IF it was decided to replace Warrior with a tracked IFV that Lynx would be a candidate. It might be possible to renegotiate the Boxer deal and get it fitted with Boxer mechanicals and CTA cannon turrets.
Apologies for my shorthand – bit lazy on my part. By armour I meant ( just) 148 CR3 and zero IFV. I take your other points re Lynx, the Italians, GD, turreted Ares….
You’ve been given a website link to where it states we may buy 240. Suggest reading it.