The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by NickC »

Lessons from Ukraine
The British Army's shortfall in AD capability highlighted by recent leaks, a February document marked “secret” seen by AFP, said 89 percent of Ukrainian medium and long range air defences was made up of the old gen SA-10 LR-SAM (S-300) and SA-11 MR-SAM (Buk) Soviet-era systems that could soon run short of missiles. When Russia invaded Ukraine Feb 2022, Ukraine had around 100 active S-300 batteries with as many as 300 launchers and 72 Buk tracked systems inherited on the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Noticeable is the Ukraine’s inability to defend against Russian TBM missiles like the Soviet-era Mach 4.6 Kh-22 supersonic cruise missiles as well as defence against short-range ballistic missiles eg Iskander-M. "I emphasize that it is impossible to shoot down Kh-22 missiles with the means we have in our arsenal,” Col. Yuri Ignat, spokesman for Ukraine’s Air Force, said in January after one of those missiles hit an apartment building in Dnipro, killing 40 and on April 15th AP News "Ukraine awaits US missile system (Patriot) after latest Russian strike" kills 11 last Saturday 15th in Sloviansk (first Patriot reported as just delivered)

The British Army has no medium or long range AD capability whatsoever since Thunderbird, if you classify point defence (Sky Sabre) as approx 30 km range, medium-range as 70+ km and long range as 150+ km

Very informative was Finland's very recent take on GBAD choice, as detailed by Corporal Frisk. April 5th Finland chose Rafael David's Sling LRAD, developed with approx $2billion US military foreign aid with assistance of Raytheon and Orbital ATK (rocket motors). Ten companies received the Finish RFI in 2018, five companies were shortlisted for RFQ in 2020, Kongsberg NASAMS with the AMRAAM-ER missile combining the booster of the ESSM and the front unit of the AMRAAM to give a 50% increase in range and a 70% increase in altitude; Diehl Defence with its ~40 km range SLM variant of its IRIS-T ; MBDA Land Ceptor with CAMM-ER; Rafael David's Sling and IAI BARAK-ER (presuming both Patriot and SAMP/T NG -Aster included in the RFI but excluded from RFQ due to their high cost) Finland down selected the two longest range AD systems - Rafael David's Sling and IAI BARAK-ER before finally selecting David's Sling. Interestingly the main Finish criteria was for a high ceiling, minimum 15,000 metres / ~50,000 ft, not range to defend its long border with Russia - referencing the effective engagement altitude which is quite a bit below the theoretical maximum altitude often quoted.

The David's Sling interceptor is the Stunner/Skysceptor missile, understand its a two-stage missile with a booster and multi-pulse rocket motor, the third activates the interceptor prior to intercept giving the high terminal energy required to give it the necessary terminal power for its aerodynamic maneuverability required for hit-to-kill, its a approx 4.6 m-long 400kg missile capable of intercepting targets at altitudes of up to 15 km and have seen claimed ranges between 40 and 300 km, very fast as said can reach speeds of up to Mach 7.5 needed for intercepting TBMs as is a very long range radar to give the required timely advance targeting info necessary reflected in the short 20 to 30 km engagement range? as it's a super challenging problem to intercept TBM's at high Mach numbers.

Stunner a hit to kill missile, so no warhead saving weight and volume minimising its SWAP-C, guided completely by its aerodynamics whereas the Lockheed HTK PAC-3 MSE uses 10 rings of 18 ACM, mini rockets, fitted circumferentially around the forward rocket body, Stunner uses two sets of four movable wings and third set of fixed tail wings.

The missile’s asymmetric, dolphin-shaped nose features three sensors for terminal guidance: a radar seeker and combined electro-optical/imaging infrared (EO/IR) sensor. The combination of these sensors make the Stunner very difficult to jam and for countermeasures (recent reports from Ukraine reports Iskander-M fitted with six RF and IR decoys in tail) and gives it better target discrimination especially against stealth a/c and missiles than other missiles with a single type of seeker, would not be surprised if its imaging EO/IR seeker can be programmed to recognize and hit specific parts of a target, talk of missile IR seekers programmed to target the canopy to kill pilot.

Each trailer-mounted vertical launch firing unit holds 12 missiles.

The radar is IAI Elta's MS MMR (Multi-Sensor Multi-Mission Radar) ELM-2084 an S-band 4D AESA radar. The ELM-2084 operates both as the volume search and fire control radar. In volume search mode said it can track up to 1100 targets at a range of 474 km, and can electronically scan in 120 degree azimuth and 50 degree in elevation and provides 360 degree surveillance rotating array at 30 rpm. In its fire control mode, it can track up to 200 targets a minute at ranges of 100 km. Lockheed bid an Elta radar with for the US Army LTAMDS contract for Patriot's new radar system maybe the ELM-2084 or the long range Elta Green Pine, won by Raytheon with their Ghost Eye radar a variant of their Navy SPY-6 S-band radar, Raytheon have struggled through development and has seen several schedule slips building its first prototype radars for Patriot.

BMC the brains, assuming variation of the Iron Dome Rafael BMC4I as used in Sky Sabre which can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets

Cost - Finland's David's Sling approx. 316 million euros whereas Swedish Patriot acquisition approx 1.1 billion euros per battery, surprised US allowed Rafael to bid for the Finish contract as US stopped them bidding for the Swiss GBAD contract even though requested by Swiss to put in a bid, Swiss contract was won by Raytheon with Patriot system for $1.2 billion April 3rd against bid from Eurosam with SAMP/T (Aster). Raytheon has tried to convince US Army to buy the Stunner/Skysceptor, Raytheon renamed it the PAAC-4 (Patriot Advanced Affordable Capability-4) “to defeat short- to medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles and other advanced air defense threats [and] costs a fraction of other hit-to-kill interceptors" Raytheon code for the Lockheed PAC-3 MSE, said the PAAC-4 missiles approx $1 million each vs $4 million for the PAC-3 MSE.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 13:19
Tempest414 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 10:59 we need to remember that the 5 Boxer Battalions will use between 90 and 100 boxers each….
The modularity helps move things around if required.

Still time to spilt the procurement between tracked and wheeled to allow the CR3, Ajax and tracked Boxers to form a fully tracked force backed up by wheeled Boxers for Recce, Ambulance etc.

Also, RCH 155 perhaps?
Not really unless you only have 4 battalions worth of vehicles the thing is you need what need we are going to need close to 900 Boxers and all 590 Ajax to have a fully formed 3rd Division if we ditch Ajax and stop Boxer until the track Boxer is ready to build in numbers we will put the Army back 10+ years plus have to Upgrade Warrior

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 13:38 …ditch Ajax and stop Boxer….
I’m not suggesting that.

Properly modernising 3rd Division is an absolute priority and shouldn’t be diluted in any way. If the Army need the 590 Ajax to achieve it great but what if the defence command paper recommends upgrading 227 CR3?

As for Boxer I’m suggesting carry on building wheeled Boxers as planned but speed up development of tracked Boxer and split the purchase. Rear modules can be moved around as required.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

If you’re doing that properly with 3 div there is no cash or manpower for anything else.

It’s either or.

There is only 4 deployable brigades in theory at present 1 is 16 AA. 7 brigade is now nato assigned for 3 years and cannot be double hatted. 2 armoured brigades which have reserves intertwined to make it full strength.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 14:07 If you’re doing that properly with 3 div there is no cash or manpower for anything else.

It’s either or.

There is only 4 deployable brigades in theory at present 1 is 16 AA. 7 brigade is now nato assigned for 3 years and cannot be double hatted. 2 armoured brigades which have reserves intertwined to make it full strength.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
In someways you are right but this is where we need to do some moving about to get good core capability within each division and this is why for me we need the 1st to be formed into 3 Light Mech Brigades on a vehicle like Patria 6x6 this would allow the Army to re-enforce the 3rd with a brigade from the 1st if needed to make it look more like this

1 x Deep Recce Fires Brigade
2 x Armoured brigades
1 x Mechanised brigade
1 x Logistics brigade
1 x Close support Engineer group
1 x Signals group

But also as said if the 3rd as it stands in FS was to be the Core of a Baltic corps along with the 3 Baltic states and Denmark this would stand as

3 x Armoured Brigades
4 x Mechanised brigades
2 x Deep Recce fires Brigades
3 x Logistics brigades
2 x Engineer brigades
1.5 Signals brigades

So it is how and where we place or are placed within NATO and how NATO now looks to change

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Caribbean »

Tempest414 wrote: 25 Apr 2023, 09:31 I have scraped nothing everything we have on order would be used in the 3rd division but I would then order 1000 Patria 6x6 for the 1st division to allow 3 Brigades of 3 Battalions with each brigade made up like so

1 x Light Cavalry = jackal
3 x Mech infantry = Patria 6x6
1 x Artillery regt = HMARS
1 x Logistics regt = MAN trucks
1 x Engineer regt = Patria 6x6 & MAN
I think the only change that I would make to your proposal would be to make the artillery regt a hybrid tube & rocket artillery regt. I feel that we are rather light on artillery, so I would be looking at three batteries of each (Perhaps HIMARS/ Archer).
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Tempest414
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

So doing some quick work if we wanted to re-role the 1st into a Mechanised division with 9 battalions on Patria 6x6 we looking at getting

430 x APC's with 30mm RT40 & RS4 40mm GMG ( 378 needed for 9 battalions )
170 x C&C with RS4 RWS ( 135 needed for 9 battalions )
100 x 120mm Nemo Mortar ( 81 for 9 battalions )
100 x ATGW (81 for 9 Battalions )
100 x Recce with 30mm RT40 (72 for 9 battalions )
100 x Engineer ( 81 for 9 battalions )
80 x Ambulance ( 54 for 9 battalions )

Cost about 1.2 billion

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: 26 Apr 2023, 12:01 Patria 6x6…..Cost about 1.2 billion
Could Patria be the Army’s T31?

Even it cost £2bn it would be a great result for 1st Division. Built rapidly under licence in the U.K., what’s not to like?
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Rentaghost

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Again it is not that far from what has been talked about here

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b593 ... 0485701783


Ben Wallace will resist pressure from senior generals and push ahead with cuts to the army as part of an overhaul of the armed forces next month, The Times has been told.

Next month the Ministry of Defence will publish its defence command paper, which sets out the government’s long-term ambitions for the military. Under the plans being drawn up in Whitehall, the army will be rebalanced to reduce the number of infantry in favour of more artillery.

Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

Some of those sentences in the article are just baffling to me
Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
After all drama this year about sending more tanks to Ukraine so that its expected counter offensive has more chance to success, somehow there is still discussion are tanks actually needed. No matter how much this article is true indication what revisited review will bring I am not optimist about it.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

1 Div HQ being made deployable and 16 AAB moving into it


User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mrclark303 »

sol wrote: 13 May 2023, 08:35 Some of those sentences in the article are just baffling to me
Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
After all drama this year about sending more tanks to Ukraine so that its expected counter offensive has more chance to success, somehow there is still discussion are tanks actually needed. No matter how much this article is true indication what revisited review will bring I am not optimist about it.
It's hard to get past the fact that in 2010, the Army fought hard to keep three Armoured Regiments, arguing that this was the minimum needed to create critical mass.

That in reality means deploy two, plus some reserve and create a Division based around 120 MBT's.

They argued that Les than three is below critical mass and they really cease to be an effective asset.

Here we are 13 years later, reducing to two Armoured Regiments of bespoke tanks that no-one else will operate...

I have to say, keep three regiments, or just forget it and concentrate on mobile and airborne anti armour effects.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mrclark303 »

mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 17:51
sol wrote: 13 May 2023, 08:35 Some of those sentences in the article are just baffling to me
Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
After all drama this year about sending more tanks to Ukraine so that its expected counter offensive has more chance to success, somehow there is still discussion are tanks actually needed. No matter how much this article is true indication what revisited review will bring I am not optimist about it.
It's hard to get past the fact that in 2010, the Army fought hard to keep three Armoured Regiments, arguing that this was the minimum needed to create critical mass.

That in reality means deploy two, plus some reserve and create a Division based around 120 MBT's.

They argued that Les than three is below critical mass and they really cease to be an effective asset.

Here we are 13 years later, reducing to two Armoured Regiments of bespoke tanks that no-one else will operate...

I have to say, keep three regiments, or just forget it and concentrate on mobile and airborne anti armour effects.
I would say that considering modern Anti Armour systems can dice and slice MBT's, future systems like Spear 3, will induct many more tanks into the turret flying club, a mass launch from 12 Thypoons, each carrying 16 and you can effectively cripple an Armoured Division and stop it in its tracks....

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 17:51
sol wrote: 13 May 2023, 08:35 Some of those sentences in the article are just baffling to me
Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
After all drama this year about sending more tanks to Ukraine so that its expected counter offensive has more chance to success, somehow there is still discussion are tanks actually needed. No matter how much this article is true indication what revisited review will bring I am not optimist about it.
It's hard to get past the fact that in 2010, the Army fought hard to keep three Armoured Regiments, arguing that this was the minimum needed to create critical mass.

That in reality means deploy two, plus some reserve and create a Division based around 120 MBT's.

They argued that Les than three is below critical mass and they really cease to be an effective asset.

Here we are 13 years later, reducing to two Armoured Regiments of bespoke tanks that no-one else will operate...

I have to say, keep three regiments, or just forget it and concentrate on mobile and airborne anti armour effects.
Seems a strange thing to argue that it’s below critical mass when it’s still more tanks than at least 12 other NATO members who use tanks and a few other allies besides that.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 18:00
mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 17:51
sol wrote: 13 May 2023, 08:35 Some of those sentences in the article are just baffling to me
Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.

“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
After all drama this year about sending more tanks to Ukraine so that its expected counter offensive has more chance to success, somehow there is still discussion are tanks actually needed. No matter how much this article is true indication what revisited review will bring I am not optimist about it.
It's hard to get past the fact that in 2010, the Army fought hard to keep three Armoured Regiments, arguing that this was the minimum needed to create critical mass.

That in reality means deploy two, plus some reserve and create a Division based around 120 MBT's.

They argued that Les than three is below critical mass and they really cease to be an effective asset.

Here we are 13 years later, reducing to two Armoured Regiments of bespoke tanks that no-one else will operate...

I have to say, keep three regiments, or just forget it and concentrate on mobile and airborne anti armour effects.
Seems a strange thing to argue that it’s below critical mass when it’s still more tanks than at least 12 other NATO members who use tanks and a few other allies besides that.
I'm not arguing that point, the Army did, by their own metric, it's now too small to be of practical use...

I personally think Chally 3 is more of a job creation exercise, in reality we will deploy no more than a single Regiment (reduced from 56 to 50 MBT's per Regiment) of a bespoke tank that no one else in NATO uses..

Perhaps when we reduced to 148, we should have just bought off the shelf, Leapord 2, M1A1 or South Korean if we were going to bother at all....

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Ian Hall »

Following except from CGS's keynote address gives insight into planned structural form of the army:
So over the coming months:

We will uplift the 1st Division into a credible Land Component Command Headquarters, one capable of integrating effects across all domains. This will include resubordinating 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team under the 1st Division and looking at how the Army’s Global Response Force can contribute to the joint force.

We will optimise the 3rd Division to warfight under an enhanced Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. These formations will be at the very heart of our commitment to European deterrence, maximising the opportunity that the new NATO Force Model presents us.

By the end of this year, Joint Helicopter Command will have evolved into a Joint Aviation Command. This new organisation will pioneer uncrewed aviation into the 2030s, reflecting the emergence of Human-Machine Teaming technology and the rapid proliferation of Uncrewed Aerial Systems.

We will unlock the true potential of Land Special Operations in enabling the joint force and supporting our NATO allies. 77 Brigade together with the Army Special Operations Brigade and our Cyber Electromagnetic Activities Groups, will have the potential to be a world leading special operations capability.

And, finally in the spirit of Haldane, our Reserve force will form a true second echelon. A Reserve that provides our nation with resilience and mass. And by moving away from our insistence on equivalence between our Regulars and Reserves, it will also be one truly designed for our reservists; recognising that they are constrained only by the time they can give, and not by their ambition or desire to serve.
https://rusi.org/events/martial-power-c ... rence-2023

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 18:00 Seems a strange thing to argue that it’s below critical mass when it’s still more tanks than at least 12 other NATO members who use tanks and a few other allies besides that.
And how realistic that countries like Slovakia, Romania, Estonia ... has more or equal number of tanks as UK? Any NATO country of similar size, like Germany, France, Poland or Spain, has more. Even Italy is planing to increase their tank force above UK numbers with smaller army. Just counting number of countries with less tanks without taking into account their size is pointless.
These users liked the author sol for the post:
wargame_insomniac

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 19:11 I personally think Chally 3 is more of a job creation exercise, in reality we will deploy no more than a single Regiment (reduced from 56 to 50 MBT's per Regiment) of a bespoke tank that no one else in NATO uses.
Regiment will have 58 CR3, and with 148 tanks it should not be problem to deploy one. But more than that it will be struggle.
mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 19:11 Perhaps when we reduced to 148, we should have just bought off the shelf, Leapord 2, M1A1 or South Korean if we were going to bother at all....
Because this was the cheapest option, and would probably benefit UK industry more than any other option. Norway order of Leo 2A8 will cost than more than 18 million euros per unit and K2 is not much cheaper. 148 Leo 2s would cost almost double than CR3 upgrade. CR3 will just bridge the gap till next generation of tanks arrive if, by that time UK has plans to retain tanks at all.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 22:44
SW1 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 18:00 Seems a strange thing to argue that it’s below critical mass when it’s still more tanks than at least 12 other NATO members who use tanks and a few other allies besides that.
And how realistic that countries like Slovakia, Romania, Estonia ... has more or equal number of tanks as UK? Any NATO country of similar size, like Germany, France, Poland or Spain, has more. Even Italy is planing to increase their tank force above UK numbers with smaller army. Just counting number of countries with less tanks without taking into account their size is pointless.
Or more realistic countries like Norway, portugal, Holland Canada, Belgium who have less tanks than the U.K. maybe even the like of Australia.

Just counting tanks is rather pointless too. It’s how many our available, deployable and supportable that matters.

Why should the army be a major tank owner when we are not a major land power?

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:17
Or more realistic countries like Norway, portugal, Holland Canada, Belgium who have less tanks than the U.K. maybe even the like of Australia.
Yes, it is completely realistic that Norway, Portugal or Belgium should have same number or more tanks than UK. Of course.
SW1 wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:17
Just counting tanks is rather pointless too. It’s how many our available, deployable and supportable that matters.
I agree but just like having tanks for the sake of having them. And if you have more tanks you will have more available. I am not arguing here that UK should have some enormous tank force but at least 4 regiments (or maybe 6 combined arms battalions like the one fielded by Sweden or US) with some 200-250 tank would be credible force. Witch just two, it is hard to expect they would have much chance to ever train on regiment level, considering UK commitments and that even current three regiments are starched thin.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

sol wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:41
SW1 wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:17
Or more realistic countries like Norway, portugal, Holland Canada, Belgium who have less tanks than the U.K. maybe even the like of Australia.
Yes, it is completely realistic that Norway, Portugal or Belgium should have same number or more tanks than UK. Of course.
SW1 wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:17
Just counting tanks is rather pointless too. It’s how many our available, deployable and supportable that matters.
I agree but just like having tanks for the sake of having them. And if you have more tanks you will have more available. I am not arguing here that UK should have some enormous tank force but at least 4 regiments (or maybe 6 combined arms battalions like the one fielded by Sweden or US) with some 200-250 tank would be credible force. Witch just two, it is hard to expect they would have much chance to ever train on regiment level, considering UK commitments and that even current three regiments are starched thin.
You’ll just have more tanks! Especially if you treat them like we do and leave them outside to rot.

A credible armoured brigade along the lines of the US army is all we need.

sol
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by sol »

SW1 wrote: 27 Jun 2023, 07:55 You’ll just have more tanks!
Well obviously. Having more armoured formation would mean having more tanks. It is interesting how it works isn't it.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mrclark303 »

sol wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 22:53
mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 19:11 I personally think Chally 3 is more of a job creation exercise, in reality we will deploy no more than a single Regiment (reduced from 56 to 50 MBT's per Regiment) of a bespoke tank that no one else in NATO uses.
Regiment will have 58 CR3, and with 148 tanks it should not be problem to deploy one. But more than that it will be struggle.
mrclark303 wrote: 26 Jun 2023, 19:11 Perhaps when we reduced to 148, we should have just bought off the shelf, Leapord 2, M1A1 or South Korean if we were going to bother at all....
Because this was the cheapest option, and would probably benefit UK industry more than any other option. Norway order of Leo 2A8 will cost than more than 18 million euros per unit and K2 is not much cheaper. 148 Leo 2s would cost almost double than CR3 upgrade. CR3 will just bridge the gap till next generation of tanks arrive if, by that time UK has plans to retain tanks at all.
It's interesting, I agree, unless it's general war we will only deploy one regiment.

Over the last 40 years, we have only deployed MBT"s in quantity twice, both times in numbers.

200 plus in 1991 and 125 in 2003.

If required again and we can only contribute 50, Uncle Sam will likely say thanks, but don't bother.

The point being, our 148 Chally 3 will likely never fire a shot in anger, so why bother??

Slight correction ( I might be wrong) the allocation of tanks is being reduced to 50 per Regiment..

Is the Chally 3 price based on the forecast cost, or the actual cost, let's face it, we don't have a great track record here!

I'll wager the price ends up being 'way more' when they are all delivered.

Post Reply