Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
The Harrier was an iconic British aircraft, but the Tonka was far away the better bomb truck. Somewhat fortunately for the UK, Cyprus has been a perfectly located "aircraft carrier" for the Tonka for the last 10 years.
Fair enough - given the nature of most operations in the past 20 years (dropping bombs mainly) they've certainly got their money's worth out of it!wisbech said:
Tanks were rather useful in Iraq invasion - essentially invulnerable to anything the Iraqi’s had.
Are they much use in guerrilla ops? No, but not certain that all wars will be guerrilla.
There lies the crux of it. Are they much use in guerrilla ops? No, but not certain that all wars will be guerrilla.
I hope any decisions on any specific piece of equipment are being made based on what we want our forces to be.
Are they solely defense? Or attack minded? Which theatre?
The difficulties arise when we get an extreme case of champagne tastes and beer budgets.
Murph7355 said:
There lies the crux of it.
I hope any decisions on any specific piece of equipment are being made based on what we want our forces to be.
Are they solely defense? Or attack minded? Which theatre?
The difficulties arise when we get an extreme case of champagne tastes and beer budgets.
The current fashion is medium weight, with AJAX, MIV, potentially WCSP and the new Strike155 requirement, it's all about getting the strongest force in the back of a A400M or C17 to support the paras ASAP. MBT is incompatible with that, but the obsolescence of the CR2 cannot be allowed to continue for much longer or it will be entirely irrelevant.I hope any decisions on any specific piece of equipment are being made based on what we want our forces to be.
Are they solely defense? Or attack minded? Which theatre?
The difficulties arise when we get an extreme case of champagne tastes and beer budgets.
There was an excellent article in the defence sector a while ago, quite an in-depth study on the benefits armour brings to the party.
They are the best deterrent for aggression there is, if, and this is where UK plc falls down, if there are enough of them.
The danger of every review is we try and refight the last war, in this case Afghan/Iraq vs insurgents. We should be looking at the strategic perspective of what we want to do on the basis of our role on the world stage and place emphasis on forces that reflect that.
Was an interesting conversation between Andrew Neil and Toby Elwood, old mate from RMAS, on it in last night’s programme on the subject.
They are the best deterrent for aggression there is, if, and this is where UK plc falls down, if there are enough of them.
The danger of every review is we try and refight the last war, in this case Afghan/Iraq vs insurgents. We should be looking at the strategic perspective of what we want to do on the basis of our role on the world stage and place emphasis on forces that reflect that.
Was an interesting conversation between Andrew Neil and Toby Elwood, old mate from RMAS, on it in last night’s programme on the subject.
ellroy said:
The danger of every review is we try and refight the last war, in this case Afghan/Iraq vs insurgents. We should be looking at the strategic perspective of what we want to do on the basis of our role on the world stage and place emphasis on forces that reflect that.
Was an interesting conversation between Andrew Neil and Toby Elwood, old mate from RMAS, on it in last night’s programme on the subject.
The eyes are firmly on lessons to be learnt from Ukraine, not the sandbox. We know we don't have active protection systems for AT threats, we know we don't have sufficient artillery or range, and we know we don't have enough electronic warfare assets to stand tow to tow with the Russians as a part of a larger force.Was an interesting conversation between Andrew Neil and Toby Elwood, old mate from RMAS, on it in last night’s programme on the subject.
Air superiority is not always achieved.
MBT provide protection against ATGM, HEAT and EFP which AFV might struggle
Our 120 rifle gun is provide reliable counter for heavy armoured target with our long rod penetrator, our HESH is perfect for dealing with soft or light armoured target and structure
Our Challenger II is quite our dates especially when the comparing to T-14
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
MBT provide protection against ATGM, HEAT and EFP which AFV might struggle
Our 120 rifle gun is provide reliable counter for heavy armoured target with our long rod penetrator, our HESH is perfect for dealing with soft or light armoured target and structure
Our Challenger II is quite our dates especially when the comparing to T-14
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
Ayahuasca said:
There is another defence review underway, and it is suspected that Dominic Cummings a) is in charge of it and b) wants to get rid of much of the army, including its tanks.
Given Cummings overt links with Russia, why doesn't that surprise me 
I just find it astonishing that a complete cretin like him gets into positions of power, and cretins like Johnson etc., think it appropriate to appoint such idiots into those positions. Just like Blair and that idiot Campbell.
The traditions of the services, and their separation, is perhaps a great example of the institutional inertia that pervades old systems to their own detriment - the example of the introduction of the tank and its tactical/strategic potential being hampered by the old Cavalry officer's mindset is perhaps a good example in itself. In recent conflicts the 'enemy' has usually shown itself to be more adaptive and 'understanding' than the conventional forces, levering advantage beyond their 'on paper' capabilities.
Then there's the procurement process itself, riddled with inefficiencies and unaccountability - The Pentagon Wars is an amusing film, but factually based to a large degree...
I don't think there is anything wrong with challenging this mind-set [which is Cummings MO] at the least, and I think the tank and carrier are examples of more profound issues rather than items of focus in isolation.
If we started from a clean sheet, how would we define the role of the forces and their realistic aim, and how would we configure that in actual terms bearing in mind the disparate aspects that are often at the fore - conventional, unconventional, political, technological and humanitarian - that would seem to be enhanced by a more joined-up thinking approach.
I don't have the answers, but it's a good question.
Then there's the procurement process itself, riddled with inefficiencies and unaccountability - The Pentagon Wars is an amusing film, but factually based to a large degree...
I don't think there is anything wrong with challenging this mind-set [which is Cummings MO] at the least, and I think the tank and carrier are examples of more profound issues rather than items of focus in isolation.
If we started from a clean sheet, how would we define the role of the forces and their realistic aim, and how would we configure that in actual terms bearing in mind the disparate aspects that are often at the fore - conventional, unconventional, political, technological and humanitarian - that would seem to be enhanced by a more joined-up thinking approach.
I don't have the answers, but it's a good question.
kurokawa said:
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
Didn't Rheinmetall create their own demonstrator when the gun upgrade got dropped from the Life Extension Programme? Presumably there's not many MBTs still using rifled barrels, which I'd expect to push the ammunition cost up quite a bit, in the same way that the cased telescoped stuff got AJAX and Warrior CSP costs a fortune, which potentially reduces the amount of rounds fired in training.ellroy said:
....
The danger of every review is we try and refight the last war, in this case Afghan/Iraq vs insurgents. We should be looking at the strategic perspective of what we want to do on the basis of our role on the world stage and place emphasis on forces that reflect that.
...
This. The danger of every review is we try and refight the last war, in this case Afghan/Iraq vs insurgents. We should be looking at the strategic perspective of what we want to do on the basis of our role on the world stage and place emphasis on forces that reflect that.
...
And....
andy_s said:
....
If we started from a clean sheet, how would we define the role of the forces and their realistic aim, and how would we configure that in actual terms bearing in mind the disparate aspects that are often at the fore - conventional, unconventional, political, technological and humanitarian - that would seem to be enhanced by a more joined-up thinking approach....
This. If we started from a clean sheet, how would we define the role of the forces and their realistic aim, and how would we configure that in actual terms bearing in mind the disparate aspects that are often at the fore - conventional, unconventional, political, technological and humanitarian - that would seem to be enhanced by a more joined-up thinking approach....
We have to learn from the past, not necessarily emulate it.
I'm not convinced we want nor need to be a country that tries to project military power globally.
The one caveat being our role in NATO. Which I do see as important if that body is to continue. Which I think it should as I believe that is the force for peace.
That probably needs a close look in itself really, and the basis under which we project.
kurokawa said:
Air superiority is not always achieved.
MBT provide protection against ATGM, HEAT and EFP which AFV might struggle
Our 120 rifle gun is provide reliable counter for heavy armoured target with our long rod penetrator, our HESH is perfect for dealing with soft or light armoured target and structure
Our Challenger II is quite our dates especially when the comparing to T-14
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
Armata is dead in the water - too expensive and complex. And there is a lot of debate about many of its capabilities being 'vapourware'.MBT provide protection against ATGM, HEAT and EFP which AFV might struggle
Our 120 rifle gun is provide reliable counter for heavy armoured target with our long rod penetrator, our HESH is perfect for dealing with soft or light armoured target and structure
Our Challenger II is quite our dates especially when the comparing to T-14
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
IIRC Russia cancelled the programme in favour of LEP and upgrade programmes for T-80 and 90s.
Coming back to the OP's question - you want something that over-matches the capability (or capacity) of any potential aggressor. If a potential aggressor has MBTs, then we need some offensive capability that over-matches what an MBT can do...and there isn't a lot that does that other than more of, or better, MBTs.
Problem with Chally is that a LEP is going to be spendy as it's rather outdated in a number of areas, and as there aren't very many of them, we need to over-match on capability grounds because we certainly can't on capacity.
It ideally needs a new sensor suite, new main weapon system - HESH is mostly obsolete against modern composites, possibly an auto-loader if you want to go toe-to-toe in a Ukraine type situation, new propulsion system, and something like the Israeli trophy APS.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
It ideally needs a new sensor suite, new main weapon system - HESH is mostly obsolete against modern composites, possibly an auto-loader if you want to go toe-to-toe in a Ukraine type situation, new propulsion system, and something like the Israeli trophy APS.
I've never met an autoloader which can make a decent brew.................DuncsGTi said:
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
It ideally needs a new sensor suite, new main weapon system - HESH is mostly obsolete against modern composites, possibly an auto-loader if you want to go toe-to-toe in a Ukraine type situation, new propulsion system, and something like the Israeli trophy APS.
I've never met an autoloader which can make a decent brew.................
I need to have a chat with BAE...I could be onto a winner.
Murph7355 said:
I'm not convinced we want nor need to be a country that tries to project military power globally.
The capability to do expeditionary warfare either independently, under autonomous C3 as part of a coalition, or fully integrated under the US, or even no expeditionary capability is a hugely important political decision. They can not shirk this question as it has a fundamental impact on the cost, size and shape of our military. Unfortunately I have seen practically zero political debate on this issue over the past 40 years. Why is this such a fundamental question? Because there is no such thing as global reach without the credible capability to deploy the full gamut of military effect globally.Personally I think it is a myth to believe one can be purely defensive and focus only on defending these islands. This myth has been allowed to grow due to everyone turning a blind eye to the input of the US on the world stage these past 70 years. That however uncovers the obvious question no one wants to state up front but in reality shapes everything else. What do we want our relationship with the US to be over the next 30 years?
NJH said:
Murph7355 said:
I'm not convinced we want nor need to be a country that tries to project military power globally.
The capability to do expeditionary warfare either independently, under autonomous C3 as part of a coalition, or fully integrated under the US, or even no expeditionary capability is a hugely important political decision. They can not shirk this question as it has a fundamental impact on the cost, size and shape of our military. Unfortunately I have seen practically zero political debate on this issue over the past 40 years. Why is this such a fundamental question? Because there is no such thing as global reach without the credible capability to deploy the full gamut of military effect globally.Personally I think it is a myth to believe one can be purely defensive and focus only on defending these islands. This myth has been allowed to grow due to everyone turning a blind eye to the input of the US on the world stage these past 70 years. That however uncovers the obvious question no one wants to state up front but in reality shapes everything else. What do we want our relationship with the US to be over the next 30 years?
RizzoTheRat said:
kurokawa said:
There was a rumour few years ago we will be switching to a 130 gun and 3 pieces munition but now another rumour saying we will be switching to 120 smoothbore from Rheinmetall. Anyway an upgrade is needed for our MBT
Didn't Rheinmetall create their own demonstrator when the gun upgrade got dropped from the Life Extension Programme? Presumably there's not many MBTs still using rifled barrels, which I'd expect to push the ammunition cost up quite a bit, in the same way that the cased telescoped stuff got AJAX and Warrior CSP costs a fortune, which potentially reduces the amount of rounds fired in training.It's going to be difficult to be taken seriously as a senior partner in NATO without a MBT, whether it's CR2 upgraded or Leo2.
hidetheelephants said:
hallenger was the only MBT of its generation(Gen3?) to have a rifled gun, everyone else went smoothbore which was a pain as it meant we had to design all our own ammo and it cost a fortune. I suspect we no longer have the knowledge or manufacturing base to do all that, so even if we could afford it we couldn't.
It's going to be difficult to be taken seriously as a senior partner in NATO without a MBT, whether it's CR2 upgraded or Leo2.
Pedantic, but early Abrams were 105 rifled.It's going to be difficult to be taken seriously as a senior partner in NATO without a MBT, whether it's CR2 upgraded or Leo2.
We still maintain a very capable munitions development and test team, partly through sites like Glascoed and partly through the Brits working on the CT40 round.
You're right though, it's prohibitively expensive to make rounds for just your own gun. The issue of changing the gun on CR2 is that in effect you need a whole new turret because you're suddenly using 1 piece ammo.
With RLS buying BAE Land UK, I've no idea where the CR2 LEP will go. BAE pretty much bid an obsolescence upgrade whilst RLS were offering a new turret with the 120 smooth bore.
Pull up the big boy pants, 130 CR3 with 130mm gun. But we need the French/German to agree to use the same gun their next gen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff