British forces, as part of the coalition, continue to support the Iraqi government in its unrelenting work to prevent any attempts by the Daesh terrorist movement to re-establish a presence in the country.
According to an update, intelligence analysis revealed that a Daesh group was basing itself at two remote locations in the Hamrin mountains in north-eastern Iraq.
“Royal Air Force Typhoons were therefore tasked to attack the terrorists at both locations on Tuesday 2 May 2023 in support of an Iraqi security forces operation. Having confirmed that there was no civilian presence nearby that might be put at risk, the Typhoons employed seven Paveway IV guided bombs in successful precision strikes.”
What is Operation Shader?
Operation Shader began on the 9th of August 2014, when the Royal Air Force began a series of humanitarian air aid drops onto Mount Sinjar in Northern Iraq.
The air drops were ordered following the genocide of the Yazidi people and other ethnic minorities by Daesh in Northern Iraq, which had led to them fleeing onto the mountainside to escape Daesh. Following the conclusion of the aid drops, the operation quickly changed to become the UK element in the US-led coalition that began the campaign to destroy Daesh. Based out of Cyprus, the Royal Air Force continues to survey and strike targets in Iraq and Syria as part of the Global Coalition under the banner of Op SHADER.
Today, UK jets and drones fly frequent patrols, but the reduced presence of Islamic State means fewer engagements.
You can read more about the operation here.
Six Brimstones, two Paveways, four Meteors and two ASRAAMs – frightening if you’re on the receiving side!
What’s the Typhoon carrying on the main image of this article. Is it six Paveways, Four Meteors and Two ASRAAMs plus a fuel tank?
Yes. But it will move like a turtle with all that weight and drag.
Typhoon still has very good performance even with a full weapon load. It has an exceptional thrust to weight ratio.
The weight changes when you put 6tons of weapons on it, then add the drag,
I am not even sure with is the G’s rate for the Brimstones and specially fuel tanks plus they maximum speed allowed. While there are fuel tanks rated for supersonic speeds most aren’t.
Yes but it’s unrealistic cause it won’t go very far with all that payload and little fuel
Being pedantic you are correct but the four Missiles are AMRAAM not Meteor 😕
After hearing about how ineffective JDAM has been in Ukraine all those expensive paveway don’t seem so bad. 😀
I don’t understand your comment.
JDAM and Paveway are pretty effective against *appropriate targets* – if you use the wrong weapon against the wrong target then you won’t get great results.
Also the launch platform and parameters may not be ideal?
F16 might fix that?
JDAM is perfectly good against fixed targets if GPS is not being denied. Paveway IV combines INS, GPS and Laser guidance to give you greater robustness in the guidance loop and a capability of sorts against moving targets
I don’t think the jdam is the issue. In my opinion, neither side can effectively conduct any air operations due to the density of sams. Anything flying up high is almost suicidal.
We shouldn’t give too much authority to PR pictures of Typhoon carrying a real mix of under slung weapons. Don’t forget nearly all the use of Typhon dropping LGBs etc has been in uncontested airspace possibly with target markers on the ground or with accompanying aircraft. If they had to fight their way into a target it would be a different story which is what the F35B is supposed to do if there are any availble. .
Totally OT, understand that the Czechs have just signed a contract to purchase 246 CV90 IFV, with an ATGW pod fitted in addition to its main gun. Interesting….
Very little chance of us doing anything logical.
Apparently, with what is left out of the money for Ajax(which hasn’t been paid out yet), we could buy 175 examples of the Czech CV90 variant, go figure that out!!!
Take it you were also reading certain Twitter threads😉
Yes, I might have been!😂
Yes but you do know the army would want to add a load of stuff to it. Although from what I have been reading recently it’s less about weight on Ajax and more about an inconsistent manufacturing of the hulls basically the factory in Spain has passed of a heap of shit that should not be accepted as each individual vehicle is it’s own heap of problems ( they are not even all to the same measurements ffs)
That name CV90 keeps coming to mind 🤔
The local QA department on holiday or something perhaps!
Surely we should have some recourse for compensation, given some of the basic faults emerging from this?
One wonders why the MOD/DE&S or whomever didn’t pursue a much tougher stance wrt the failings with the project. Water under the bridge now that we are progressing with things, but all the same. Casts a bit of a shadow over all of it.
I think poor QA at the GD Spanish factory, also at the Wales GDUK factory combined with an inability (due to defence cuts) of MoD DGDQA to embed their own QA staff with major manufacturers as they used to do.
If it is simple QA then the hills that fail QA should not be accepted.
If they are outside agreed tolerance that is pretty simple contractually.
GD then get to make new ones properly.
I’ve no idea how you stuff up something laser / water jet / plasma cut that is built on jigs that badly.
Were BL hired to do the setup and QA?
It’s quite bizarre, you can understand poor tolerance in 50-100 year old manufacturing. But not using modern CNC cutters…how the hell they have managed to make each hull a different size to the point they cannot track the common faults causing the vibration is staggering…and apparently that’s the big problem..they are so off a standard each of the present vehicles has different vibration and noise characteristics with potential different causes… I was of the opinion it was better to stick with it as cancelling would be costly and possibly creat even more delays..but the more I have read the more… Read more »
History repeats itself – wasn’t it the case that Warrior Hulls had some inconsistentcys too, making maintenance and upgrades problematic ?.
I wouldn’t really know – I was never involved in land vehicles at any point.
@ Graham may be a better source.
Warrior was built in an era before all CNC was a thing. These days you would be a totally wally to not CNC cut plate as it is cheaper and more accurate.
A lot of construction site fabrication is water jet or laser or plasma cut these days as it is a fully automated process with less space for the errors which plague our industry!
Hmmm, hadn’t heard that before. Upgrades – what upgrades! I recall that Warrior had BGTI fitted (only 350 vehs) and Bowman to replace Clansman – but not sure anything else was done in the last c.35 years.
On a different topic, the first 50 or so CRARRVs were made too heavy and had to be lightened!
Had to search for it but i knew i had read it somewhere,not conclusive proof though – https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/42050-warrior-questions/#comment-1269900
Thanks mate for spending the time on that. Not sure what qualification or experience Chris Werb has. Warrior was designed 1972-1980 when CAD was well established in Industry and I would assume that included at GKN Sankey. Warrior was manufactured from Jan 1986 onwards at a time when CAM and CNC was commonplace. I would be surprised if there was significant variability in the dimensioning of the hulls.
Having said that, arguably GD Spain may have got things wrong with their manufacture of Ajax hulls several decades later – so maybe GKN got it wrong back in the day.
Chris Werb was a regular poster on TankNet, I haven’t seen him active on it for a long while. He is definitely ex- British Army, and from memory he worked for one of the UK’s Defence Companies but I can’t remember which one 👍.
Thanks. I was REME for 34 years (1975-2009) and never heard a remark about Warriors being differently dimensioned from each other.
The scuttlebutt is that the jigs in Spain were not very good or not properly set up.
I’d love to know more detail of that.
Risk with these things is they are circular rumours.
If it is true it is unbelievably incompetent.
Thing is that with a 38t vehicle travelling at the required speeds the level of alignment would have to be very, very high.
Defence jounrnalist Frances Tusa (@FTusa284) posted on 11 May 2021 on Twitter:
“Will Ares hull work? If 5% of the reports are true, chasses are being delivered to differing lengths and substandard build quality.
Makes you wonder if this was a bit deliberate and a bit of anti-British niggle. If the hills where that crap who the bloody hell let them through the gate?! Can’t imagine any car company getting away with this! Very poor quality control and general oversight of the whole program. Hope lessons have been learnt of what not to do. Having said all this the Ascod family may turn out to be a top lotbof vehicles. They might even go for Ascod IFV! But built in Britain! Lol 😁
Even if we order just 175 cv90 it would still take several years + training/integration. What the army wanted was best in class armoured recce vehicle plus specialist carrier, yes the cv90 is a decent ifv but with our recent record in land vehicles who’s to say it won’t go the same way as the rest?
No, that’s not what I was getting at, just pointing out (from someone else’s tweet), what Ajax and variants is costing. But yes agree with you.
Yes and we could have had it in service. However UKMOD had a better idea. Why not turn our back on a British supplier and ask the Americans to build in Spain but first we had to change the characteristics of the required vehicle, add bits it wasn’t designed for and then delay until the cost went up. On the bright side the army will get a handful of the mighty Ajax by the end of the decade so only fifteen years late.🙄
Good news to hear the challenge 2 beat Leopards and Abrams in Nato competition during the week 🇬🇧
One wonders why the arm chair generals spent a decade slatting challenger 2, nothing else on planet earth has ever taken such a beating as challenger 2 and came out fine and the only thing in the world that ever knocked out a challenger 2 is another challenger 2. Sure that riffled gun might not have quite the knock out of a smooth bored gun but it has the longest range tank on tank kill in history and it can cut through T72 tanks and all their derivatives like a knife through butter.
Wish we had more ,OOps I’ve started moaning again 😩
What happens to HESH when we go smoothbore? That thing is unstoppable.
There is a choice of Rounds available for 120mm Smoothbore that will do much the same job as HESH.
Much the same or the same? Are we loosing any capability due to the swap ?
Pretty sure there is an equivalent round, will look it up later 👍.
The two most suitable Rounds are the US made M908 HE- OR-T or the Israeli Elbit Systems M339 HE-MP-T,note that these are used for Anti-structure/Concrete piercing rather than Anti-Tank,which was the main purpose of the HESH Round.
As soon as tanks started using widely distanced spaced armour, HESH was no longer any good at knocking out a tank. However against IFVs and other lightly armoured vehicles it is still more than adequate, scarily so. There were a lot of Iraqi BMP1s were literally cut in half by HESH. Forget what they say about an inner portion of armour forming a flying scab that bounces around the inside of a vehicle. That may have been true against tanks. Smaller stuff with thin armour gets crushed by the concussion and gets ripped apart. The other major benefit that the… Read more »
But HESH round usually have bad ballistic and are much inferior in options to the Israeli round for example. It can be programmed to explode in contact, after the penetration or even at certain distance above trench troops.
Thanks for taking the time to have a look & reply 👍
Reading a few more of the comments I’m now not sure if we have effective anti tank HESH anyway…rifled or smoothbore?
I’m im a bit of a novice with the technicalities tbh , always learning on here..
Have to agree with @Jim on this one. Despite what’s been written/said, C2 is still a good tank, don’t think many would want to meet it on a dark night, or indeed at any time.
Totally agree.
Most of what was written about CH2 was nonsense based on the very early versions of CH1 being problematic.
Anyway it is about to get tested to the full.
Yes they are, a shame we didnt supply 2-3 UKR size battalions worth!
Well the number of combat losses and crew losses says it all really…what you want in a tank is that it can kill other tanks and if it does get knocked out that it does not blow up and kill the crews or render the tank unrecoverable…also it’s not a maintainers nightmare…it’s pretty much got the best record on all of those….it’s only real problem is numbers of hull’s available.
We bought 386 CR2s – pity we no longer have that number and that the replacement (CR3) is only 148 vehs, just enough for two armd regts (tk bns in US-speak).
Yes I think we have had this discussion before 148 is just not enough to maintain a regiment level deployment indefinitely(you need 3 regiments) ..it’s also just not enough really to even ensure those two regiments can be maintained with a reasonable attrition reserve and maintenance pool, we would be one bad event away from not having enough. 220 was really the minimum..for maintaining 3 type 56 regiments..168 deployed to the regiments..10% maintenance and a 10% attritional reserves gives you another 45…
To rotate an armoured regiment on ops every 6 months for an enduring operation, you really need 5 of them in the Orbat to maintain Harmony guidelines for tour interval. If you are not interested in the pressure on or welfare of your troops or their work/life balance, then you can have fewer than 5 regiments in the Orbat – as we do!
Jonathan, you have omitted the tanks in the Trg Org in the second half of your post.
Yes sorry I did miss them out, not sure how many the training org would need ? Your right continued ops with three regiments would be brutal to the troops, I do believe to do it the army would have to drop its harmony guidelines, which would be pretty piss poor and screw retention right up. It does make you realise the army is just too small for presents expectations….it’s bonkers that HMG keep telling the British public the army has two deployable divisions…it’s mendacious…either HMG has raise the army to the 120,000 post Cold War figure or come clean… Read more »
Sticking to tanks – The Trg Org comprises the RAC Centre at Bovington and would have a number of Driver Training Tank variants as well as full-house CR2s. The REME Trg Centre at Lyneham would have a number. I am not sure about the status of BATUS now – they used to have two squadrons, I think, but not sure if they were on long loan from another source (armoured units, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve) or not. Sorry, just don’t have a figure for the above. As far as eFP is concerned we are deploying I think just one or… Read more »
Any links to that?
Yes, despite some vociferous critics of CR2 who castigate the rifled gun etc.
The competition was about shooting quickly and accurately and CR2 killed more targets in the given time than its rivals.
Not only it has a 5km missile, but also an APS like it should. It is similar to Dutch CV90.
It is somewhat ironic that after all the failings with army procurement over the last few years, we have 3/4 of a tracked armoured force (C2/3, Ajax et al, GLMRS), only to find ourselves without a tracked IFV to complete the set after the demise of Warrior. Which is the polar opposite to France who only have the Leclerc tank as their tracked option. Apart from Boxer, the other 3 elements of our And force will need transporting to the area of ops via HETS (believe we only have 72). While the French will only need to transport their tanks!!… Read more »
I really don’t get why the main recon vehicle Ajax is tracked, the Boxers can move faster on roads why they did not made recon Boxer variant while Ajax was the IFV.
Because when Ajax was planned ( pre 2015 ) and then ordered the army was being built around 3 Armoured Brigades on tracks, and Boxer was simply MRAV which was coming in the distant future, 2027. That was A2020.
Then Carter, A2020 Refine, and Strike came along post 2015.
You need to understand shifting army ORBATS and priorities, which change with the winds after each defence review, to see it clearly.
Because having your main ground based ISTAR asset fixed to roads is a terrible idea. BOXER has questionable off road performance in wet conditions.
Also, if you have a predominantly tracked force, you need the recce element to be tracked to match the speed and mobility off road – that was the original CONEMP for AJAX.
People keep using the French as an example – but don’t forget that they’ve gone down a wheeled route because their main operating environment is Sub-Saharan Africa, not Western Europe.
Got it Danielle,
@BobA
Well in WW2 Europe what i see in most exploitation, recon restricted to roads (road tracks at most) except in some very rare situations, and even most of combat is along roads.
If you have and APC much faster than you recon vehicle then there is an issue.
The major issue with off road beside obstacles is the slow speed. You can make a breach off road with static frontlines, but you can’t make exploitation because it is too slow.
Ok, let’s examine that a little bit. Your axis of advance is probably going to be centred on an MSR or several going in you line of advance depending on the size. That’s where your logistic tail needs to go. That’s the same in WW2, it’s the same now. Your recce screen needs to be mobile away from that MSR. It needs to be highly mobile and be able to utilise the terrain to its advantage. So, we made a conscious decision to go with tracks because in this case, off road mobility trumps road speed. there is a difference… Read more »
I disagree.
I have seen the statistics in my younger times about what terrain is fit for tracked vehicles mobility in Europe and the value is surprisingly small.
And you don’t go to combat off road unless the terrain is fast otherwise the enemy can use the roads to box you in.
No one advances trough off road unless it is very short distance or it gives a local tactical advantage.
That’s why before any operation you do an intelligence preparation of the battle space IPB and that includes terrain tracing. Then you understand the likely movement corridors, you understand the going and where the manoeuvre space is. I genuinely don’t know where you’re getting your information but all of my training up to Brigade Tactics is to NEVER advance directly on road. You pull your logistic train up the road after you. And only once the route is proved and SECURE. Also Alex, the going for tracks off road is almost always better than any other form of vehicle unless… Read more »
Even dismounted Infantry get nervous moving on tracks and would favour moving spread out over open country or through woodland.
Same is true for vehicles using roads – roads can be mined, ambushes are often set on roads, you canalise your forces by using roads and present a juicy target for arty or enemy air etc. Roads can be a death trap. Roads can get blocked and can limit passage – Op Market Garden failed in large measure as 30 Corps advanced at a snails pace using a single, low capacity road.
Scimitar can do at least 50 mph on roads (some ‘tuned’ versions could do nearer 70mph) and massive speed cross country, perhaps approaching 40mph?
Hello Bob, wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you, but that then would surely beg the question why not have a tracked IFV to fit into the Armoured brigades, if Boxer isnt up to it? I understand any wheeled 8×8 can only match a tracked vehicle about 75-80% in poor conditions, might be wrong on my part of course. Whilst Sub-Saharan Africa might well be the French main operating environment, both they and the Italians(also large wheeled fleet as well as tracked) would still expect to operate in a European environment if push came to shove. There are also several of the… Read more »
Don’t forget the plan was to have tracked IFV in Warrior 2, but they had to bin the programme. Boxer was already in Order for what was called Heavy Mechanised Infantry (part of Strike) which was designed for operational manoeuvre and theatre entry. On cancelling WR2 the only option was to Res distribute Boxer or risk no armour for infantry. I genuinely think the French took the gamble (I mean strategic estimate) that they wouldn’t have to fight a war in a Europe for at least another generation. So they’ve bought equipment for their most likely scenario because they know… Read more »
Hi Bob, WRT the French, have read somewhere(cant remember where -age thing!!) that their defence focus is on ‘just enough’ to deter/hold an invasion, followed by a tactical ‘Nuc’ or two to end the conflict, thus have constructed their armed forces accordingly. The rest as you rightly say is geared towards fast intervention in their former colonies. I understand the issues/stories surrounding Warrior/Boxer, but, believe we still could have procured some make of tracked IFV to replace Warrior if the vision/will was present. We are apparently going to buy some 1000-1200 Boxers over the next decade, with 600ish already ordered,… Read more »
Your last point. I am surprised that the army did not protest losing the tracked IFV in favour of a wheeled Boxer in the Armoured Inf role, alongside tanks. I really doubt Boxer will have the same level of firepower and mobility as either current Warrior or upgraded (WCSP) Warrior.
No most of the experts testing Boxer said the wheeled capabilies had improved vastly and could do 80% of what tracked can do.
There is a movie of a Boxer stuck in snow and it do not looks good at all.
Would you like to be in the Boxer that could not do the 20% piece? – your life expectancy will be short.
Because with current defence spending we can’t afford all tracked, we can’t afford what did in the Cold War. Defence gets no votes and no cash
Also tracked is hugely expensive to maintain and spends most of its time in bits
Whether you have tracked vehicles or wheeled is nothing to do with cost – it is down to requirement.
Anyway, many wheeled vehicles are phenomenally expensive – Boxer is £5m each. It would have been far cheaper (specifically for the armoured infantry who accompany tanks) to upgrade the Warriors instead.
Which tracked vehicles spend most of their time in bits? That was not my experience as a REME officer. We were mandated to always have 70% ready for battle and 90% after 24hrs sustained maint work.
Don’t be ridiculous of course it’s to do with cost, if the current defence spending can’t even keep up at present we can no way afford a new warrior replacement like for like. Running cost and maintenance of tracked is huge compared to wheeled for the increase in capacity. Unfortunately the cash ain’t there. Talking about warrior upgrade isn’t even a thing, one company said it’s not possible as they have reached the limit of capacity and the other company wasted millions and failed, it’s not fit for purpose and every year cost more, the experts working with the army… Read more »
We clearly disagree. The army requirement in replacing Scimitar was for a tracked vehicle – they were not forced to accept a wheeled recce vehicle because of concern at the cost. The requirement stood and was not beaten down. It is not totally clear why WCSP was cancelled other than I presume that very senior people were annoyed that the project had gone over-budget, some problems had been experienced and some milestones not hit. There is a track record of MoD cancelling projects with these issues (eg TSR2, Nimrod MRA4 etc). I personally think it was the wrong decision. I… Read more »
Well this quote is about warrior having gone to its limit and not being worth the cash to upgrade. Don’t forget one contractor said it wasn’t even viable.
Further developing a vehicle which has already been “extended beyond its planned service life” was unfeasible for a reshaped Army, he said, doubtful of any improvements being possible without “significant costs”.
The weight of additional armour ahead of deployment to Iraq “tested the limits” of the Warrior’s chassis, although its experience in the Middle East highlighted a need for even more upgrades, explained Mr Cranny-Evans.
Hi Andy, I don’t see the quote in your reply. I have made the point that it was cheaper to upgrade Warrior than to buy Boxers. Which contractor said the upgrade wasn’t viable – and why? WCSP was intended to and designed to extend (& increase capability) Warriors life out to 2040, so it seems strange that it is declared later as being unfeasible to keep it in service for this period. Many AFVs serve satisfactorily for a very long time (35-50 years) if the upgrades are done well – numerous examples abound in the British Army and many other… Read more »
Well the military testers that tested boxer feel different to you and feel that in any action we are likely to be in the modern wheeled units are so far ahead of previous generations that they are far better value, the price per unit is simplifying the argument vastly and the army command felt for what we will be involved in it was far better value for money. The fact the heavy armour has to be transported to any potential battlefield coupled with a lack of an enemy nearby to fight (unless we fight France) means that unfortunately when they… Read more »
Hi Andy, I’m not sure who you mean by ‘military testers’ – ATDU perhaps? UK originally joined the Boxer consortium (ARTEC) in 1996 to buy Boxers to replace the residual FV430 fleet (ie those that had not been replaced by Warrior in the 80s) and Saxon APC, known as the MRAV programme at various times. Then we left ARTEC to pursue FRES, so abandoned the Boxer project. Then the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle project was created (MIV) a Project to deliver mechanised infantry with APCs for the two Strike Brigades – Infantry who would work with Ajax. Boxer was deemed to… Read more »
Your obviously a lover of the warrior but at the end of the day the platform is unable to carry or power the kit needed on a modern battlefield or additional armour or networked Ew kit or any of the other power hungry kit. To make it do so would have taken so much money it would be a new build. We don’t have the cash to do everything so unless you want to pick a capability to lose to raise the cash it’s irrelevant. The US while upgrading the Bradley have realised 21 century battlefields have very different needs… Read more »
Andy, I am not sure of your experience or qualifications but I was a REME officer for 34 years. In my service I only heard a few grumbles about Warrior from my REME colleagues who maintained the vehicle and the Armoured Infantry who operated it. In many respects it was better than the US Bradley IFV. It was very combat -exerienced having soldiered onthe two Gulf Wars, UN and NATO ops in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Afghanistan. WR received a useful early upgrade in being fitted with BGTI and the Bowman secure comms system. Further upgrades were of course required… Read more »
And as I asked three times what are you scrapping to pay for it
You also have no idea of the boxer tranche two weapons as no one does yet
And no the warrior upgrades wouldn’t have enabled it to handle the full armour package needed in Iraq (due to far more capable Russian anti tank missles) as the upgrades didn’t involve replacing its engine or chassis I believe.
Again who are we fighting with them? How do we get them there now we don’t have the capability to transport them by road?
Andy, I have no idea why you are asking what I would scrap to pay for ‘it’. I am not and never have advocated buying an expensive new tracked IFV in any of my posts – I have always said that it would have been better to proceed with upgrading Warrior, rather than switching to Boxer for the armoured infantry in the two armoured brigades. There would have been no need to scrap anything to pay for upgraded Warrior (WCSP) as £1bn had been set aside for that WCSP Programme. Perhaps the question for you is what has to be… Read more »
Except the last comment on this website was we would struggle to transport even 80 challengers nevermind any warriors with our current Low loader capabilities so in reality we couldn’t transport any.
Hi Andy, From the FastTrax website:”Fasttrax was awarded a Concession Contract to operate the British Army’s Heavy Equipment Transportation (HET) Service. The company owns 92 Heavy Equipment Transporters (HET) for exclusive assignments tasked by the British Army. Source: https://www.ftxlog.com/about-ftx/associated-companies/fasttrax/ That is a huge number of HETs – and the army always used to operate low loaders or tilt trailers of smaller capacity – not sure if they do now. Armour can also move by rail. Armour can also drive on roads on their tracks, but usually not for exceptionally long distances. We drove armour on main roads in Germany all… Read more »
No the army probably won’t still use its own tank transports additionally to the ones on the PFI contract. As part of the contract they had it written in that if the military used its own resources instead of the PFI owned kit then the MOD is penalised many millions of pounds, this was to stop the MOD changing its mind half way through the deal. The PFI deals in my book were a terrible idea for our military, mind great one for business profits. I believe most governments now will only let tanks with rubber tracks drive on the… Read more »
The army has not owned its own tank transporters (HETs) since the Scammel Commander was withdraw from 2003. The PFI then took over with FastTrax using the Oshkosh M1070 tractor unit and a multi-wheel steerable trailer. I think the army still has smaller low loaders and certainly will have tilt trailers, for lighter vehicles to be moved. I don’t approve of PFI deals for the armed forces and have very specific reasons why. In the case of the HET PFI, if HETs were used on operations then the civvy drivers would adopt a Sponsored Reserves persona ( a part of… Read more »
Unfortunately with current defence spending we are not the military power house we once were in Cold War and we can’t afford a capability we probably won’t use again. I’m afraid Russia is never going to face uk forces on land let the countries near them do that while we supply what we do best.
Andy, I have never suggested that we should have force levels the same or similar to that which we had in the Cold War. It is not just an issue of cost – it is because there is no requirement to do so – we no longer face the might of the Warsaw Pact just over the Inner German Border. Options for Change clearly reduced capability in 1991 – I was in the army then and had no issue with that. Not the case that equipment types that were pre-eminent in the Cold War wouldn’t be used again. The army… Read more »
No but the days when we are a mini superpower are gone we can’t afford every capability without much higher spending, the chance of Russia defeating Poland Ukraine Germany and the nearer nations without going nuclear is practically nothing, by the time we transported tracked vehicles the fight would be done, we’re far better concentrating on what the other members don’t have or what we do best, we can’t afford every capability, I wish we could and ideally I agree with you I just can’t see the public paying
Many seem to doubt we could deploy large numbers of tracked vehicles to a war zone in time. Our tanks, IFVs and SP artillery have never arrived ‘late for the war’.
I think the time may have been reached when we drop certain capabilities, if the defence budget is not going to increase very significantly. Trouble is – what to drop?
so 20% is left htat is can’t . I only hope that 20% doesn’t end up being important. tbh I donlt like those odds -I fail to see why we wouldnt want tracked vehicles unless of course its the reliabilty factor?
I suppose it just means we end up changing the strategies around the vehicle usage?
Good points. Not sure the French have used armoured BGs and armd bdes in armoured warfare, a great deal in recent years, unlike ourselves.
@ Daniele’s post, far better then anything I would have put.
Hi deep, yes you read right the French army is and they described it themselves as an army in the middle..not heavy not just light..they focus on just enough..just enough to do their global security stuff and just heavy enough that a peer is forced to deploy all its army to take on the French army….to then be offered buckets of sunshine, the French have always made it clear that if someone wants to play they will use tactical nuclear weapons…the French airforce and naval aviation is actually focused on delivery of tactical nuclear weapons….they have around 65 deployed at… Read more »
Ajax predecessor (Scimitar) was tracked. You don’t want to constrain recce to move on roads – they have to operate off-road and need the best mobility possible. High speed on roads is not the primary requirement.
Wheeled recce can work of course, but tracked recce can move faster cross country, deal with gaps better etc.
Battle of the Bulge. How the Germans advanced? How US advanced in France? Or for that matter Germans in 1940? along roads.
You can go distances in steppes of Russia but not in Western Europe, you will be too slow.
The Russians lost a lot of tanks and other AFVs in Ukraine by canalising them on roads and thus presenting easy targets to the Ukrainians.
Roads can of course be used with less risk out of the direct fire zone.
They would have lost them by canalising off road or do you think they would not be detectable?
Probably even more because they would be much slower so artillery would be much more effective and reaction times no so crucial.
When you go off-road, you do not canalise, by definition. You can spread out across a wider frontage. Going off-road does not make your forces undetectable but being spread out reduces the chances of your forces being stopped, and makes them harder to hit, whilst allowing most or all of your vehicles to bring their weapons to bear on the enemy. You are a bit obsessed by speed. It is not the be all and end all. Anyway tracked vehicles (and high mobility wheeled vehicles) can move cross country at good speed. Chally can motor cross-country at well over 25mph… Read more »
You canalise always because there are always a miriad of obstacles unless you are on a steppe or a desert, It is just as not at level of a road.
Try going much off road in Lines of Torres for example…
Alex, what army were you in? Going down a road, whether you are a section, platoon or Corps (XXX Corps on Op Market Garden for example) highly canalises your force – and this is a bad thing if you are in the direct fire zone or are being observed by arty spotters/FOOs etc. By opting for moving through open country, woodland etc you spread out presenting a wider frontal area and allowing most weapons to be able to be used. Sure there are obstacles – a forest has got quite a few ie trees. You just walk around them –… Read more »
Recce is not all about moving fast on roads – for much of the time on task they are stationary. Recce does not like moving on roads – too obvious, too easy a target, too likely to be ambushed.
Anyway, some tracked vehicles can really motor – Scimitar can move at upwards of 50mph (illegally tuned versions could do 70mph, well at least with the original petrol engine)
But the French are focused on mobility in austere dry parts of the world where wheels work best…the British army always focused on the mud in Central Europe…our MBTs have a different focus as well with the Leclerc being lighter smaller and more strategically and tactically mobile…but it’s only got a crew of three ( not so good really) and an auto loader ( what is loaded is loaded..no changes) and carriers the bulk of its it’s ammo in the turret..where as challenger is heavier, probably has better armour, has an extra crew person, carrier more main gun ammunition and… Read more »
Hi mate, see my post to @BobA above, well the first para anyway.
You do wonder if the British top brass ever look at what other countries are doing in this department and wonder why the hell aren’t doing the same. A mix of C2-3, Ajax, Boxer and CV90 or similar, sounds really sensible and is still doable. Maybe they’re got something else up their sleeves? It will be interesting to see what Ukraine adopts too. See the US has sold them NASAMs already. Pity land CAMM couldn’t get a sale there after doing so in Poland.
*hulls
The main thing the Top Brass needs up it’s sleeve is extra money which it is very unlikely to get.
I think something along those lines of C2-3, Ajax, CV90, Boxer with Vikings and a new wheeled vehicle for the Light Brigades sounds like a reasonable mix that wouldn’t break the bank.Of course getting the RA requirements and sorting out the rest of the CS/CSS elements is also a must. Probably a big ask, but the army got themselves into this mess, so perhaps they need to concentrate on little steps to sort it?
I wish we continued fielding tracked IFVs and am sure that upgraded Warrior would have been excellent, if the programme had been gripped a bit harder. If there was some sort of need to instead opt for a new IFV, then CV90 would have been a good choice for many reasons.
Some consider the fitting of ATGW on an IFV to be an expensive complication, but having binned CVR(T) STRIKER and SPARTAN with Milan Compact Turret (MCT) without replacement, it would have been useful to fit ATGW to IFVs instead (in addition to cannon of course).
Graham, I whole heartily agree with you on this, and I’m ‘dark blue’ by profession!! I still cant see why we dont buy a tracked IFV if only in smaller numbers (160-180 units) to equip 3-4 battalions worth! You cant be looking at more than £2 billion all in, spread over 5-10 years, its not that much. Depends on army priorities I know, but I believe we could reduce the Boxer purchase by around 200 or so to fund over half the money, as they wouldn’t then be required in the armoured brigades. I like the idea of putting a… Read more »
Reading the above article, I couldn’t help but notice the mention of the Yazidi people, who’s plight at the hands of ISIS has been whitewashed by the media who would rather peddle the line that the followers of ISIS are all mistaken, misunderstood charity workers who simply travelled over to the levant in which to help their fellow man. Take for example Shamima Begum, the media have really gone out of their way to whitewash her racist, evil mindset (‘When I saw my first severed head it didn’t faze me at all’/Manchester Arena bombing ‘justified’ because of Syria airstrikes) and… Read more »
Sums it all up for me. Those same liberal latte drinkers who thought Provos were freedom fighters, and who have sold Loyalists down the river. Then of course folk like us are right wing extremists and a “danger” to the “democratic liberal system”. Makes me puke.
That kind are no liberals
Absolutely agree Jack, a murderer is a murderer no matter how their cause is dressed up.
Boom! As ever no one needs to post anything else! 👍
Sound intelligent commentary , well articulated Farouk.
This guy should start a political party. I’d vote for him.
In total agreement!!
Can’t be easy tugging all them bombs around on such a small plane. You’d think turning would rip the wings off.
Its a good image to promote Typhoon 🇬🇧
And we are not replacing the tranche 1s with a new order or tranche 4s because ?
And if anyone mentions sunset capability’s or using the funding for some “if and maybe” 6 generation fighter that could be ready some time between 2035 and never…just no…
It is shocking, great jets with plenty of potential for further upgrades. We should be making the most of the tech that we have now by increasing numbers by a tranche 4 order and bringing all tranche 2/3 jets to the same standard. I have faith that we will get tempest and it will be a world class platform but 2035 is still some time away and that is the planned introduction date that could slip, and it will take years afterwards to get decent numbers built and in service.
One just needs to look at the numbers remaining, says it all…..
Where’s the thrust vectoring, hypersonic engines the RAF were bigging up couple of years ago? That with the best in class radars being fitted and tiny radar cross section from the front would’ve made the typhoon unbelievable.
Add the twin tail that Typhoon was meant to have until they substituted the Tornado fin to save money and you have your unbelievable winner…Tempest! It’s in the bag 😉
Its simple maths. The budget doesn’t allow it. and they are costing the RAF a lot of money for a considerably less capable aircraft than the T2/3 fleet. The USAF are retiring early F22’s for the same reason. The French have retired early Rafales. The engineering cost and support racks up for early tranche aircraft. Hardware becomes obsolete and difficult to support. I know that’s an unpopular answer, but any RAF top brass would say the same. And we simply don’t have the money to fund purchasing more Typhoons. We are spending £2.35Bn on Typhoon upgrades. We need more F35’s,… Read more »
The MoD has just received an ~~£18billion uplift to the defence budget. Admittedly some of this is earmarked for ARKUS but it is a ginormous amount of taxpayers money. Many who post here are dismayed at the prospect of yet more cuts to military capability in spite of the extra money; Radakin has recently stated that the Army does not need more tanks or SPG, we only need 3 Rivet Joint, we will be buying less F35B, we only need 50 front line Typhoons, it looks like the Hercs will go shortly, technology will replace quantity etc etc Radakin only… Read more »
The CDS is the puppet of the S of S, he can do nothing himself. Not one that I can recall has ever stepped out of line, their pension and prospects demand it!
Radakin could pull strings. Of course we dont know what he says in private but in public he was indeed expected to be a safe pair of hands. Unfortunately!
I am somewhat horrified that Radakin says he approves of the further cuts to the army, saying that we don’t need mass in our land forces etc and that hi tech kit can compensate.
Radakins doing a great job, army numbers kept down, RAF kept level and navy massively expanded both in size and capability. Under him plans the SSN fleet have doubled up to 15, escort numbers are going up to 24 and we got three FSSS. There will be almost 80 F35B all able to operate from the navy’s carriers and the T31 has been massively upgunned. Seems very much like the strategy we need and can afford. Our only land threat has proven itself completely impotent, unable even to cross a few miles into the first country it came to. Why… Read more »
Morning Jim. Regards the army, pretty much the point I make elsewhere, 72k,75k, 82k, is not as important as what you do with it and the kit it has, and the brigades it can deploy. I’d advise caution on the RN increases though, they are not done deals yet. Where is this 15 SSN source? I’ve seen you say that before. That would be UK and Aus I suspect. 3 FSS, yes, but they replace 4, so one less, though they will be more capable. Escort numbers are going down, not up, at least in the short term. And the… Read more »
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/britain-to-build-nuclear-powered-submarines-for-historic-aukus-pact
Doubling of the fleet is in the article and others, Not a done deal but very promising, they won’t be expanding barrow for Aussie boat construction.
Agree Jim. Right defence strategy for a maritime power
We are a maritime power with airspace that needs defending and choose to deploy expeditionary forces in support of NATO and other allies.
Jim, you are really saying Admiral Radakin has done a great job at boosting the navy at the expense of the RAF and most significantly, the Army. Is that a good thing that he still ‘thinks Navy’, not ‘purple’? He endorses the further cut to the army – https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/head-of-british-armed-forces-defends-plans-to-cut-size-of-army/ar-AA1bEXsk Our main threat in Europe has proved it can invade a neighbouring peaceful country with massive forces with no check from the West, seize 15% of their land, prompt the biggest refugee migration since WW2 and decimate major and minor towns and infrastructure. Are you not bothered by that? …and this… Read more »
The issues the army faces aren’t to do with N
N?
My apologies, I must’ve accidentally submitted my comment. What I was going to say was, the issues the army faces goes beyond numbers. Even when the army was 105k+ there were only 7 fully fledged brigades. Ultimately 73,000 should be just enough for 6 brigades, which would be enough. Russian aggression isn’t to be countered by us, and either way, an extra armoured brigade wouldn’t do much in the grand scheme of things. Poland is stepping up to be a major power, Germany is taking steps to do so as well. Russia isn’t the enemy we should focus on. A… Read more »
Under Future Soldier we have: 1 Div – 7 Lt Mech x, 4 Lt x, 11 SFAB, 19x (Army Reserve) 3 Div – 12 Armd x, 20 Armoured x, 1 DSR x 6 Div – ASOB (ie Rangers) x Fd Army – 16 AA x. Problem is that some of these brigades are not equipped with CS/CSS and some are highly specialised and can only be used for specific types of operations. Daniele has rightly taked about the wisdom of a previous Orbat featuring identical multi-role brigades in both 1 and 3 Divs. Russian aggression isn’t to be countered by… Read more »
Future soldier doesn’t make best use of the manpower. There are not enough CS/CSS as you said. 4 Lt has 6 infantry battalions but only reserve CS and CSS. Half those battalions should be reroled to RLC and RA with a slight uplift in REME. The reserve CS and CSS would then go to 19 brigade to create a reserve brigade. DRSBCT should be moved to ARRC along with 3 division, 8 engineer and 2 medical. This would provide the Corps HQ to a JEF armoured corps. 4,7,11,19 would remain as 1 division with some air defence and HIMARS added.… Read more »
Interesting stuff! The ORBAT side of FS has been badly put together and not sanity checked by the grown ups. I can’t imagine what was in the mind of the Structures writing team. We have all here ripped it to shreds. Some of the ideas are good, but mostly badly executed and too much smoke and mirrors to attemot to conceal the gaps. I’m not sure if you think that 1 DRSBCT should be ARRC Corps Troops, in which case 3 Div would ‘share the resource’ with all the other Divs chopped to the Corps. Perhaps best keeping it in… Read more »
I forgot to mention 3 division should gain a third brigade. 1 DRSBCT is big enough to support a corps sized formation, and it could have the addition of other nations recce units and rocket artillery. The CS support arty regiments would obviously be taken out and subordinated to 3 division. 4 and 7 BCT would both be reduced to 3 infantry battalions from 6 and 5 respectively. One of these along with one from 20 ABCT would subordinate to the third armoured brigade so each would have 2 infantry battalions. The surplus 4 infantry battalions would all disband with… Read more »
If you assign 1DRSBCT to ARRC as ARRC tps, then 3 Div has no organic armd recce at the Div level (although the bdes would have their own armd recce still) and that could be a real problem. You plan to keep CS arty with 3xx but to remove deep fires from 3xx, thus the Div Comd cannot fight the deep battle. Not everyone will agree! What if 3xx deploys but the ARRC doesn’t? Assets that 3xx had in FS will no longer be available to it. You choose to permanently role 1IG as a Public Duties battalion – the… Read more »
1 armoured recce regiment would provide divisional recce, the other would provide a squadron to each armoured brigade for recce. DRSBCT could deploy without ARRC, most of the Corps Troops would, in a scenario like Invasion of Iraq with no allies other than the US, parts of all Corps troops would have to deploy- 104th logistics, medical, engineers. US doesn’t assign MLRS to divisions, it’s more flexible to have it at Corps level and assign it from there. I didn’t say Irish Guards would be permanent public duties, probably poor wording on my part. I said they wouldn’t be SFAB… Read more »
In the past we deployed TA Bn sized units and I recall seeing TA units (eg RCT Regts) deploying on major FTXs. I served in 2 Inf Div in the 80s which comprised one reg bde and two TA Bdes – the Div role was to reinforce 1 (BR) Corps. 205 (Scottish) Gen Hosp(V) deployed on Op Granby in 1991 Many formed bodies of reservists depoyed on: Op RESOLUTE in FRY 1995-98; Op TELIC 2003 (eg. 131 Cdo Sqn RE (V), RY(-) and some Med units; Op HERRICK (eg Somme Coy, The London Regt). But in 2009 a decision was… Read more »
I knew TA units had deployed in the past but I didn’t know it was so recent that they stopped. Recently I know it started back up again, would be good to get some mass. 16 Infantry and 4 RAC regiments in the reserve so there’s ample size. My only concern is the FS structure doesn’t make full use of reserve structures. Reserves should be pulled out of regular brigades. There is probably enough for a reserve armoured brigade. 4 BCTs CS/CSS can just jump over to 19 brigade. A third would be ideal but I don’t think there is… Read more »
RM are superb at operating on the NATO flanks especially in the Far North in snow and ice. Why take them off that and switch them to the China region? What could they do there? A bit of raiding from landing craft?
Because RM isn’t big enough. It has two commandos with one being assigned to LRG(S). Arctic (and Antarctic) are of growing importance and one commando cannot fulfil that. Better to let them focus on amphibious operations. Army could perform arctic warfare, it doesn’t make sense for the army to perform amphibious operations.
Thanks Louis. Navy lookot says that 40 Cdo are roled for LRG(S) and 45 Cdo for LRG(N) which includes the High North. But I doubt both would deploy simultaneously. 42 Cdo seeems to be uncommitted to a specific role. With two LRGs in the Navy/RM Orbat I don’t see any need for the army to become involved in amph ops. There was a plan for certain army battalions to have a Mountain Warfare speciality (under the umbrella term ‘Specialist Infantry’, perhaps?) but it must have died a death. The army were involved in AMF(L) which was on NATO flanks and… Read more »
That was my point, it makes more sense to focus the RM on amphibious ops and let the army light brigades perform mountain/arctic warfare. Unfortunately 42 Commando reroled under Future Commando Force to focus on maritime operations. The four combat companies roles are: maritime interdiction, training, force protection, and Joint personnel recovery. It makes sense in some ways because 3 commando hadn’t been a full brigade in a while. The RM aren’t large enough to focus on two major tasks like that. I am a fan of creating the 5th ranger battalion so that one can be focused in the… Read more »
Was disappointed in what Radakin was saying about the Army ,no tanks or Artillery it’s not numbers game ect it’s about TEC .And our NATO members can step up were we can’t .How would he react to the government taking more ships away .Sorry moaning again .😩
He is clearly a Navy man still and not a purple warrior really.
I have heard the phrase ‘smaller, but better army’ for at least 30 years!
well they are halfway there ….
Installing NSM has nothing to do with US criticism. He has to work with the money available. Cuts to the army are brought up far too often. If we want to be a major player then we can’t have a large army. The army bought interim SPGs and the programme is ongoing for full replacement. NSM is not the only thing. Lasers to be trialled on T45, Mk 41 on T31, trialling for drones, ordering of batch 2 T26, ordering of FSSS have all occurred recently. AUKUS and intentions of SSN uplift as well. 3 Rivet Joint is enough, there… Read more »
Agreed. I’d like to see the 3rd AR retained in the role, which will necessitate a few more beyond 148, but beyond that not necessary.
Anyone thinking those numbers are adequate has no business holding such a high position in the military.
That number of typhoons is not even sufficient for uk air defence, never mind using them as the multirole platform they are meant to be.
These people are all selected as they are just puppets to sing and dance as they are told, too scared to rock the boat and effectively an empty uniform.
Has Radakin ever said anything useful for the army or RAF? Why does he think it a good idea for the army to shrink still further and to plug manpower and tank shortfall with a few more drones.
He is too Navy-biased – he has not learned purple ways. Not a great choice as CDS perhaps.
Is he learning anything from the biggest war in Europe since WW2?
Question mate. Why is it that BAES, or any defence company, have to be funded by the taxpayer to develop kit? And then given another payday when we buy them.
Why do the MIC not develop kit themselves that the military need out of their own pocket? They’re rich enough aren’t they? Or have the shareholders pocketed the profits already?
Has it always been this way in all aerospace companies going back to WW2?
We’re paying for AUKUS ramp up too.
It’s like we’re paying twice.
Economics and how big industry works is not my area.
Hi mate. Sorry for the late reply, I’m on holiday in Florida 🌞 The honest answer is, I don’t know. Industry does fund many research and development projects, its not all tax payer funded.I can’t give any examples off the top of my head right now, but it does happen. BAE will have spent a pretty large sum on Tempest from its own budget. But I guess at the end of the day, these are private companies. They are in the business of building defence products to make money. The MOD is simply a customer.
Therein lies one of the problems.
Hi Robert, the issue is not getting rid of the T1 it’s the not replacing the numbers in a timely way. The F35 numbers are not a replacement for the T1 and even if they were, it’s still a long time before they get numbers that can just about cover the maritime fixed wing and strike role holes already left by the retired tornado and harrier fleets. Tempest is still a dream and 2 decades at least away from squadron level deployment and any increase in numbers of F35 further than planned would also be a decade away….In Reality typhoon… Read more »
But that’s exactly what they’re doing J.
That way lots of pork goes to big industry, the friend of government, and billions go into shareholders pockets. And the RAF may end up with some, or may not. The techs developed and the money is spent.
I wonder if Labour would replace them, keeping Warton going. I doubt it.
Losing Warton would be a disaster. The unions recently produced a well-researched paper supporting British industry and jobs in defence; few have commented on that – nor the fact that Starmer has an interest in defence. Labour may well win the next election so there will be change in priorities but we cannot continue procuring defence equipment on the same gravy train principle and expect different outcomes – meaning no more cock-ups
It would.
Starmer interested in defence?? Tell me more. I thought he was only interested in prosecuting Iraqi and NI war vets!
“Sir Keir Starmer has criticised the prime minister for “breaking a promise” not to cut British Army troops. During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Labour leader quoted Boris Johnson from the 2019 election campaign, where he pledged to maintain the Army’s size. But Sir Keir said this week’s defence review would now see numbers fall by 10,000 as part of government plans.” BBC 23 March 2021 “Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable” “Ukraine-Russia: Sir Keir Starmer calls for Parliament to ‘look again’ at defence spending and defence strategy” 21 May 2022 Guardian (!!) “Labour leader urges the UK Government to… Read more »
Thanks mate. It does in places have the usual political waffle in though. “now see numbers fall by 10,000″ But they aren’t, as the current figure is mid 70k, so we are not at the 82k establishment figure, as they cannot recruit enough to fill the vacancies. Now if he had said ” We will abolish the disastrous Capita privatasation and get proper Army Careers Offices back with real Soldiers in them he’d get a tick from me. or…”the headcount, whether 72k or 75k or 80k is not the priority, as we will not be deploying them all. What counts… Read more »
What is constraining defence spending is the size of the national debt at ~~£2.4TRILLION. This has doubled in the past 13 years and now equals 100% of GDP. With interest rates at 4.5% and heading higher the annual cost to the Treasury of servicing it are about £75 billion – more than we spend on defence or indeed the NHS. In effect we are borrowing money to pay the interest on our debts and this accounts for why we have the highest taxation since the end of the last war Whoever wins the next election is going to have to… Read more »
I would never trust Labour with defence. The most disastrous cuts have come from Labour.
Yep, apart from the Army ones in the disastrous 2010 SDSR, and that was just because Iraq and Afghan had been ongoing and Labour could not cut army manpower then. Though they pretty much everything else prior to then.
BAE Warton won’t close. Majority of parts for all Typhoons are built here. Germany and Spain have ordered more, Kuwaiti Typhoon still in production albeit finally assembly is in Italy, final assembly for Qatari Typhoons is still happening at Warton. Turkey is looking to buy 24-48 Typhoons and given talks are with UK I would assume the plan is for final assembly here. Bangladesh wanted to buy 16 from Italy but I haven’t heard about that recently. Egypt wants to buy Typhoon from Italy. The Saudi Arabia deal for 48 Tranche 4 is taking frustratingly long but hopefully will come… Read more »
Hi Louis thanks for the update
Losing Warton would be a disaster. The unions recently produced a well-researched paper supporting British industry and jobs in defence; few have commented on that – nor the fact that Starmer has an interest in defence. Labour may well win the next election so there will be change in priorities but we cannot continue procuring defence equipment on the same gravy train principle and expect different outcomes – meaning no more cock-ups
Labour won’t cut defence spending because it’s already cut to the bare minimum 2% of GDP. They won’t increase it either. Lots of rhetoric coming from them on the army at the moment because it’s the easiest place to bash the Tory’s however industrial aspects around defence will take president for labour in office. Ship building will continue as now and Warton will be kept going even if it comes at the expense of front line forces. Unfortunately the army signed its own demise when it bumped BAE out of the land systems business in the UK and went off… Read more »
Jim, I doubt it was the army that lobbied for the GDUK product (Ajax) by rejecting BAE’s CV90 Recce variant. More likely to have been politicians/Treasury. I wish we knew the facts about the CVR(T) replacement competition.
Not a fan of the propaganda style headlines. It’s a bit more nuanced than ‘unleashing fury on terrorists’. This is a headline I would expect in the daily mail.
OT: it appears that Poland wants to buy 22 AW-101.
🤔
Good stuff, now can the U.K. get the same. It would really help the navy/marines.