Obsolescent and outgunned

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by RichardIC »

Obsolescent and outgunned: the British Army’s armoured vehicle capability

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 5/default/

Oh dear.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by marktigger »

totally expected. The concentration on light role was always going to lead to this. Re focussing on high end warfighting was always going to be expensive. But still it will be the usual Jam tomorrow and more money will be wasted on bespoke solutions.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

The committee should have also added "outnumbered" to that headline, just to make it absolutely explicit.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by bobp »

RichardIC wrote:Obsolescent and outgunned: the British Army’s armoured vehicle capability
Sums it all up nicely. :oops:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:The committee should have also added "outnumbered" to that headline, just to make it absolutely explicit.
They didn't, because the immediate counter would have been "we will always fight as a part of an alliance" and bring our value-add to the 'party'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1223
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Scimitar54 »

And if that “Value Add” is insufficient in quantity ............ WE MAY WELL LOSE! :mrgreen:

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by military »

Too bad there is not a separate report on the deplorable state of the artillery!

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1212
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by RichardIC »

It gets a walk-on part in this.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I like the new tone of the report (and technically the writing on the topic cannot be faulted, also always drawing on the relevant evidence - in order to maintain the role of a 'judge'. Not an
'auditor').
- technical note :)
" We have agreed this report before publication of the Integrated Review: in its response, the Department should set out what effect any reduction in the Army’s headcount as a result of the Review will have on delivery of armoured vehicles and on the Army’s ability to deploy them."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by SW1 »

“ This report reveals a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude, which have continually bedevilled attempts to properly re-equip the British Army over the last two decades. Even on the MoD’s own current plans, (but subject to the Integrated Review) we are still some four years away from even being able to field a “warfighting division”, which, itself, would now be hopelessly under-equipped and denuded of even a third combat brigade.”

Doesn’t sound like a focus on light role is to blame to me. Sounds more like an organisation the doesn’t know what it’s trying to do.

The question now and one we can only hope the Integrated review will answer is to lay out a very specific set of clearly defined objectives and then a short focused set of priorities to be delivered stick to them and feet held to the fire until they are.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I skipped the history part (saved for later), but twrds the end it gets drawn (back) in, and it is very interesting that the net settlement between the MoD and the Treasury re: UORs ( protected vehicles being the bulk in the end sum) as far as I know has not been made public:

- In 2011, the NAO reported that the Department had spent or intended to spend £2.8 billion on the urgent operational procurement of these vehicles.[160] As of September 2020, the Army had 2,101 of these vehicles in its holdings.[161]

- A lack of coherence in programme funding repeatedly destabilised projects; between 2005 and 2011, the Department removed £5.6 billion in savings measures from its armoured vehicle programmes,
... "saved" twice as much as was needed for the UORs; and probably got the bulk of the UOR'red fleet for a penny (plus the extravagant £400 mln to make them maintainable within mainstream and kitted out for what ever role - if any - each of them were given)

Try to follow the fate of the biggest fleets within that financial total, and the foot note [162]
link to "The Ministry of Defence has recently announced its intention to dispose of some of these vehicle fleets, including Mastiff, Ridgeback and Wolfhound. See Army: Vehicles, Question for Ministry of Defence UIN 65952, tabled on 29 June 2020"
RETURNS "the page does not exist"
... supportable, if not for infantry, for CSS use and with many interchangeable spares

Husky had to be (also) procured as the off-road mobility of the above made it less than sure if supplies would ever arrive (except by helicopter)
- so Husky would be fit for use (mobility, protection) within e.g. LI... but no! The axe fell even earlier

ALL of the above is awaiting OSDs(to be made public), so may be they are so far out that the whole thing becomes a lesser catastrophe than what it seems?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Tempest414 »

This report makes it clear that army needs a big push and needs focus and funding of key needs to give it a core fighting capability for me it needs

1) 200 x MBT max budget 1.5 billion for Challenger 3 upgrade or Leopard 2A6 off the self
2) 170 x Archer 155mm guns Max budget 700 million
3) 850 x Boxer 400 APC , 200 IFV , 70 120mm Nemo motar , 70 Air Defence , 110 other types Max budget 4 billion
4 ) 300 x Warrior 2 max budget 1.5 billion
5 ) 1750 x JLTV max Budget 700 million
6) 600 x MPV (P2) 400 troop carrier ,70 Mortar carrier's , 130 other types max budget 600 million
7) 650 x Ajax max budget 4,2 billion
8) 50 x Aw-149 helicopters max budget 800 million

Total cost of this little lot is 14 billion and yes it need other kit but this would allow

1st Division of 3 Brigades with 3 Battalion of Motorised Infantry each with Jackal , JLTV & MPV(P2) and back up at brigade level with Archer

3rd Division of 2 Armoured brigades of MBT , Ajax's , Warrior & Archer and 2 Mechanised brigades of Boxer & Archer

5th Division of 2 Air Assault brigades with JLTV and 105 guns carried by Chinook and AW-149

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by SW1 »

To music


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:3) 850 x Boxer 400 APC , 200 IFV , 70 120mm Nemo motar , 70 Air Defence , 110 other types Max budget 4 billion
How does that work when 500 APCs are costing £5bn?
Tempest414 wrote:7) 650 x Ajax max budget 4,2 billion
The 500 on order (50:50 mix turreted and unturreted) are costing £5.3bn

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Lord Jim »

Tempest414 wrote:1) 200 x MBT max budget 1.5 billion for Challenger 3 upgrade or Leopard 2A6 off the self
2) 170 x Archer 155mm guns Max budget 700 million
3) 850 x Boxer 400 APC , 200 IFV , 70 120mm Nemo motar , 70 Air Defence , 110 other types Max budget 4 billion
4 ) 300 x Warrior 2 max budget 1.5 billion
5 ) 1750 x JLTV max Budget 700 million
6) 600 x MPV (P2) 400 troop carrier ,70 Mortar carrier's , 130 other types max budget 600 million
7) 650 x Ajax max budget 4,2 billion
8) 50 x Aw-149 helicopters max budget 800 million

Total cost of this little lot is 14 billion and yes it need other kit but this would allow

1st Division of 3 Brigades with 3 Battalion of Motorised Infantry each with Jackal , JLTV & MPV(P2) and back up at brigade level with Archer

3rd Division of 2 Armoured brigades of MBT , Ajax's , Warrior & Archer and 2 Mechanised brigades of Boxer & Archer

5th Division of 2 Air Assault brigades with JLTV and 105 guns carried by Chinook and AW-149
Well looking at the above here is how I would see things;
1) 175 x Challenger 3 or Leopard 2A7+
2) 500 x Boxer IFV, 120 x Boxer CRV, 75 x Boxer/Nemo 120mm, 100 x Boxer/Sky Ranger, 50 x Boxer/Starstreak/LMM, 250 other variants.
3) 120 x MAN/Archer, 80 x MAN/Limber, 50 x MAN/HIMARS.
4) 1750 x JLTV including Specialist Team Carrier, Liaison, etc..
5) 700 x MRV (P2) including Troop Carriers, Ambulance, Command, Engineering, Signal etc..
6) 200 Ajax in various forms.
8) 120 x Towed 120mm Mortars
9) 20 x M3 Amphibious Bridging Vehicles to supplement those already in service.

1st (UK) Division with 3 Cadre Brigades each with 3 Infantry Battalion with 1 reinforces Regular Company and the remainder reserves. Each Brigade will also have a Light Cavalry Regiments with the same ratio of Regulars to Reserves. These units will be responsible for detachments in BOTS and providing training teams to be sent to allied nations.

3rd (UK) Division with 2 Mechanised Brigades and 2 Motorised Brigades supported by 2 independent Recce Regiments, and a Divisional Artillery Group made up of Regiments equipped with Archer (4) and HIMARS (2) systems mounted on MAN chassis, 1 Regiment with Land Ceptor, 1 Field Engineering Regiment equipped with Trojan, Titan and Terrier platforms, 1 Field Engineering Regiments Equipped with Boxer based Engineering Platforms as well as though using the MAN chassis, and other units support units such as Medical , Signals and Logistics. The Motorised Brigades would be carrying out operations similar to those envisaged for the "Strike" Brigades but with a Cavalry Regiment of Boxer CRV and 3 Battalions of Infantry in MRV (P2) variants. The Mechanised Brigades would be made up of one Type 56 Armoured Regiment and three Battalions of Infantry in BOX IFV and other variants. All units would have Boxer variants carrying out the roles currently carried out by both FV430 variants and CVR(T) vehicles. All 8 combat units would contain integral Recce in the form of Boxer CVR platforms as well as air defence section also equipped with Boxer variants.

6th (UK) Division with 1 Special Forces Support Brigade (SFSB) with various platforms as well as both Regular and Reserve Special Forces. The SFSB will be made up of the 3 Parachute Battalions and a Battalion of Ghurkhas, and operate in a manner similar to the US Army Rangers with one Battalions always on call to support SF operations.

This is a very very rough layout, but should allow the Army to meet its peace time commitments and be able to field war fighting formations that are viable and effective at every level.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Though divisions, with the exception of 3 Div that got many CS/CSS units 'given' to it so that fast deployment could be preplanned, are administrative structures, the above contribution - if we list the 5 Spec. Inf. Bns in the 6 Div, too - makes the escalation path easy (clearer) as in:
SF, 6,1 and then 3
- the last one I seem to remember 'once in a decade' as an assumption
- often seems to be confused with the old 10-yr Rule: take your time, there will be 10 yrs to build up
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Tempest414 »

mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:3) 850 x Boxer 400 APC , 200 IFV , 70 120mm Nemo motar , 70 Air Defence , 110 other types Max budget 4 billion
How does that work when 500 APCs are costing £5bn?
Tempest414 wrote:7) 650 x Ajax max budget 4,2 billion
The 500 on order (50:50 mix turreted and unturreted) are costing £5.3bn
Interesting the figures I have seen are 2.3 to 2.8 billion for 528 Boxer and 3.5 billion for 589 Ajax

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:Interesting the figures I have seen are 2.3 to 2.8 billion for 528 Boxer
Oops, you’re right. I had £5m each in my head and didn’t do the maths check.
Tempest414 wrote:and 3.5 billion for 589 Ajax
I think that’s what it was originally, but it seems to have gone up.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

If we call the two above, together, a rough £ 6 bn (CTA guns and RWS turrets typically on top of that, as GFE),
and
hazard a guess of 150 of Ch3s, more than LEPped, @£10 mln each,

so (totally out of a hat) 6 + 1.5 plus a .5 bn for the mentioned GFE... a nice, round 8 bn.

Some commentary has been that the xtra 16+ bn will be swallowed whole by a black hole in the EP, but half of it is probably closer to the truth.
- so the above would correespond to 'the other' half
- BUT if course it is only the MBT item (minus the preceding development contract) that is not in the EP already

Looking at the line 'armour' which is a higher figure in the EP is not very useful in interpreting whatever announcements will come out in this week, and in the next
- as telling what the plan/ projection consists of is nigh impossible.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by marktigger »

SW1 wrote:
Doesn’t sound like a focus on light role is to blame to me. Sounds more like an organisation the doesn’t know what it’s trying to do.
the Focus on light role is what has been causing the confusion leading to the organisation not knowing what it should be trying to do. Should it be investing in High end warfighting or low end counterinsurgency?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by SW1 »

marktigger wrote:
SW1 wrote:
Doesn’t sound like a focus on light role is to blame to me. Sounds more like an organisation the doesn’t know what it’s trying to do.
the Focus on light role is what has been causing the confusion leading to the organisation not knowing what it should be trying to do. Should it be investing in High end warfighting or low end counterinsurgency?
We may be getting stuck on the definition of light I think. Over the last decade plus they have committed to Ajax. Boxer warrior and Apache upgrade to the tune of more that £10b quid. None of those are light counter insurgent platforms. Problem is not much has appeared.

Looking in there appears a doctrine tug of war between very senior decision makers in the army stuck between two rival groups over either a traditional armoured division or a more deployable dispersed form of high end warfare, and which ever camp was in position to influence procurement decisions has set about changing course. With no ability to afford both and we have now approached a point with money that was there frittered away and a very real danger they can do neither.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Lord Jim »

My biggest fear is that once again the Powers that be will end up spending money on immature capabilities aiming to far into the future whilst existing capabilities are inadequately funded and suffer. This especially applies to the areas of Cyber and unmanned platforms which whilst needing investment the goals stated in recent papers seem to aim to jump a generation in capability.

Ours current Ground Forces here and now are in need of massive investment to male them once again viable fighting formations. There are existing technologies in the areas mentioned above that would be of great use and easily affordable. We have to prioritise investment in the here and now and out to 2030.

We must not repeat the mistakes of the the last twenty odd years by trying to aim for the highest levels of capability yet after spending £Bns have little or nothing to show for it. The current equipment plan is a start but it requires substantial revision regarding our Ground Forces. I had hoped the increased funding provided for the next four years would facilitate this but if, as predicted in the media the MoD is using a sizable chunk of this new money to balance the books, then the Army is going to have to make some hard decisions.

The shift to the east may make political sense but with the current size of our Armed Forces it makes no military sense. Stationing penny packets for forces around the world may allow the Politicians to say we have a global presence, and we may have a small number of small elite units that are rapidly deployable, but we are and will be unable to create or sustain any effective presence in any single location east of Suez.

Unless things have changed in a really dramatic fashion our primary alliance is still NATO and that has to remain our primary commitment. It is 3rd (UK) Division that is our primary ground component of this commitment back up by specialist assets form 6th Division. This really leaves elements from 1st (UK) Division to form our overseas detachments, permanent or temporary, with 6th Division again providing the elite detachments together with the Royal Marines, to carry out any targeted pin point interventions. But these will not have any mass, nor can their presence provide a sustained result, they will be in and out with allies providing and sustained presence.

There is a danger that the UK is heading back down the hole we found ourselves in the 1990s and early 2000s but with far fewer resources. This is going to make it hard for the Army to carry out its essential re-equipment programme, replacing the hundreds of obsolete AFVs it needs to in a timely manner. The current EP will deliver these urgently needed new platforms at a glacial pace and funding needs to be made available to speed up delivery. Using Boxer as an example, we should still have vehicles delivered from the German production line as well as those being set up in the UK. The delivery rate once everything is up and running needs to be ten times what is currently planned at a bare minimum, with that aim of equipping at least one Infantry Battalion plus replacing legacy platforms like the FV 432 per year, and that is just the Boxer.

No one but the Spin Doctors really believe our Army is capable of dealing with a peer opponent and that is the level of capability we must have. Having forces of that quality and mass will allow us to engage in lower level conflicts but to try to do so is writing the death sentence of many brave service men and women. I truly hope that what is published on the 22nd has both feet in reality and not some fantasy that is unachievable in a manner that is viable.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:My biggest fear is that once again the Powers that be will end up spending money on immature capabilities aiming to far into the future whilst existing capabilities are inadequately funded and suffer
Like throwing £5bn+ at an unproven concept to the detriment of the core capability that said concept explicitly relies on to back it up?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:elite detachments together with the Royal Marines, to carry out any targeted pin point interventions. But these will not have any mass, nor can their presence provide a sustained result, they will be in and out with allies providing and sustained presence.
Emphasis on local allies? That's why the Spec. Inf. (half) Bns are meant to be there, before any intervention (as in 'if any') will be needed.
- local capacity building; both to pre-empt, and if an intervention is still needed, at least the results won't drain away as soon as 'we' leave
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Obsolescent and outgunned

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote:1st (UK) Division with 3 Cadre Brigades each with 3 Infantry Battalion with 1 reinforces Regular Company and the remainder reserves. Each Brigade will also have a Light Cavalry Regiments with the same ratio of Regulars to Reserves. These units will be responsible for detachments in BOTS and providing training teams to be sent to allied nations.
I really can not agree with this the 1st Division must have core fighting capability we only have two fighting divisions. If we took the 1st and say set a budget of 2 billion pounds to give it core fighting capability what could we do.

1 billion on 180 x Jaguar CRV & 820 Griffon 6x6 with 600 x APC , 100 x 120 mortar & 120 other types

200 million on 600 x JLTV

220 million on 54 x MAN 8x8 Archer 155mm

220 million on 54 x MAN 6x6 M-142 HIMARS

25 million on 9 x MAN 8x8 Scaneagle UAV systems ( each system comes with 4 UAV's

335 million for other kit as needed

This would allow for 3 Brigades of 3 Battalions

with each Battalion having
18 x Jaguar CRV
9 x 120mm Mortar Griffons
55 x Griffon APC's
55 x JLTV's

And each Brigade having
18 x Archer MAN 8x8 155mm guns
18 x MAN 6x6 HIMARS
3 x MAN 8x8 ScanEagle UAV = 12 Unmanned vehicles allowing for 3 to be in the air 24/7

Each Brigade could have 1 battle group deployed made up of 1 Battalion plus 6 each of Archer and HIMARS and a Scaneagle

For me 2 billion pounds to have a Light Mechanised division like so seem good value for money

Post Reply