Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

zen said:
JohnR said:
I've been reading about us; the UK, joining the Eurotank consortium as observers to ultimately replace Challenger 2. One video; on Youtube, mentioned that we were also observing other similar projects, which projects could these be - the only ones I can think of are the future developmen of the K2 Black Panther and the development of a Merkava replacement I've seen somewhere, but I can't remember where (I really need to make notes).

With regard to the Eurotank project I hope that the Germans take charge of the budget, last thing anyone needs if a $27 million tank. What the hell did the French do with the Leclerc, were French tanker jealous of the British BV and insisted on a Gourmet Galley and a wine cellar?? Or did they gold plate the instruments??
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Turkish effort based on the K2?

Here's a question, why in these discussions when talking turns to a foreign design of tank, the tendency is to only talk of the Franco-German option?
Click to expand...

A Eurostar train journey away, so less logistics in development & production. Additionally, in a worst-case scenario we’d be all using the same type of tank trying to tie down Putin’s brigades in the Baltic states.
 
starviking said:
zen said:
JohnR said:
I've been reading about us; the UK, joining the Eurotank consortium as observers to ultimately replace Challenger 2. One video; on Youtube, mentioned that we were also observing other similar projects, which projects could these be - the only ones I can think of are the future developmen of the K2 Black Panther and the development of a Merkava replacement I've seen somewhere, but I can't remember where (I really need to make notes).

With regard to the Eurotank project I hope that the Germans take charge of the budget, last thing anyone needs if a $27 million tank. What the hell did the French do with the Leclerc, were French tanker jealous of the British BV and insisted on a Gourmet Galley and a wine cellar?? Or did they gold plate the instruments??
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Turkish effort based on the K2?

Here's a question, why in these discussions when talking turns to a foreign design of tank, the tendency is to only talk of the Franco-German option?
Click to expand...

A Eurostar train journey away, so less logistics in development & production. Additionally, in a worst-case scenario we’d be all using the same type of tank trying to tie down Putin’s brigades in the Baltic states.
Click to expand...
Well (I can't resist this one) it's certainly Euro-Tunnel vision ;)

But Poland bought a South Korean design and Turkey (for all it's faults) is working on a domestic design based on the same South Korean machine.
Since these two states are much closer to the threat of Russia.....

And while we're at it, why did Poland buy K9 SPG with a UK Braveheart turret?
 
The underlying politics of the respective countries, which are clearly beyond the scope of this forum (I’m not seeking and will not engage in discussions on them here), would be major problems/ complications re: the UK choosing to be come involved in Turkish or Polish tank programs.
And, in comparison, involvement with either the France/German or US next generation tank developments would, for various political, industrial, logistical, sustainability and best-product-for-the-buck considerations would appear to make a lot more sense and be objectively a much better decision (if the decision is taken not to go for a domestic alternative).
 
kaiserd said:
The underlying politics of the respective countries, which are clearly beyond the scope of this forum (I’m not seeking and will not engage in discussions on them here), would be major problems/ complications re: the UK choosing to be come involved in Turkish or Polish tank programs.
And, in comparison, involvement with either the France/German or US next generation tank developments would, for various political, industrial, logistical, sustainability and best-product-for-the-buck considerations would appear to make a lot more sense and be objectively a much better decision (if the decision is taken not to go for a domestic alternative).
Click to expand...
Oh I agree with that.
Though what is absolutely clear is that for more than obviously cost and international political reasons, a domestic solution is virtually anathema (which is both domesticpolitics and a deeper issue rather outsidethescope of this forum), and anything Franco-German is by instinct put at the top of the list.

It must be challenged or else this complacency will stullify conversion down to which financial package we opt for and completely ignore actual requirements and in turn the proper debate on those requirements themselves.

If we are ro keep an MBT force, is it's purpose to sit and excersise on the North European plains waiting for Russian hordes to swarm over the Pripiyet Marshes and Mazurian Lakes?
Or are we still keeping to the West Bank of the Oder?

Do we assume to no longer deploy such forces outside this scenario?

Because if it's firmly stuck in Germany and built in Germany to operate only in Germany. Then it seems more like an Armour Tax, than a military solution.

But once we cross the Oder to support Polish Independence, then their domestic solution isn't built in Germany, and nor is the US Army's located in Poland.
 
Future Uk tanks (like other equipment) would be required to be deployable and to be able to operate in many different potential theatres. As shown by the operational history of the Challengers.
While deployment in Eastern Europe facing Russian forces will likely be one of these theatres it is not the only or necessarily a massively predominant consideration re: the tank chosen.
And any US or Franco-German tank will likely have at least equally good logistics and performance in that theatre as any Polish produced tank. For example the Franco-German tank will likely be bought by many international customers (even if only partially as the Leopards), including NATO countries that would likely deploy tanks in this theatre in times of major tensions with Russia (including most obviously Germany itself). The same will also be true re: further developments of the US M1 or any replacement.
If the underlying concern is that the likes of US and Germany may abandon Poland, well if that happens the UK will have done so too and it’s really not important what tank they bought.
 
I agreed that based on history, the greater likelihood is of deployment of MBT outside of the Northern European Plain.
Considering the position of the UK, it's involvements with the world.
 
GTX said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Poland hasn't actually purchased the K2PL yet
Click to expand...
I think you might be right there.
I also note they are looking at Tank Destroyers, including UGV concepts.
Have negotiated technology transfer of Ceptor.
And has interest in Brimstone.
 
zen said:
GTX said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Poland hasn't actually purchased the K2PL yet
Click to expand...
I think you might be right there.
I also note they are looking at Tank Destroyers, including UGV concepts.
Have negotiated technology transfer of Ceptor.
And has interest in Brimstone.
Click to expand...
I think Poland has an interest in anything claiming to kill tanks.
 
The Chinook plan sounds very logical.

Meanwhile the Puma replacement is not so clear-cut. It seems that FVL is not being considered now as the retirement date of 2025 means FVL which is due in 2030 won't be ready in time. It seems the NATO Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) programme for a common medium-class helicopter for 2035 is likely to be favoured instead as Merlin also needs replacing 2029-30 but a common type looks problematic due to the need for marinisation.

The choice looks likely to be an interim Puma replacement to serve 2025-45 and extending Merlin to 2040 so that something new, whether FVL or NGRC could be brought in the 2040s.

What the interim choice is, is not clear.
Its good to keep options open but its hard not to see this turning into a repeat of AST.404 and ending up a dog's dinner. But its good to see common sense that the Puma can't be strung out any further.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helico...line-will-be-too-early-for-fvl/142048.article
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Thousands of soldiers living in unsafe housing

Almost half the accommodation available for single military personnel would not meet current building standards
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
I thought this had all been brought up during the days of New Labour and was supposed to have been addressed? What does it take to provide a safe acceptable standard of accommodation for service personnel who are placing their backsides on the line. I bet it would cost a lot less than the money that has been spent over the past two decades or so refurbishing the offices of the civil service and would cost a lot less than the £5 billion or more to refurbish the House of Parliament.
 
JohnR said:
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Thousands of soldiers living in unsafe housing

Almost half the accommodation available for single military personnel would not meet current building standards
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
I thought this had all been brought up during the days of New Labour and was supposed to have been addressed? What does it take to provide a safe acceptable standard of accommodation for service personnel who are placing their backsides on the line. I bet it would cost a lot less than the money that has been spent over the past two decades or so refurbishing the offices of the civil service and would cost a lot less than the £5 billion or more to refurbish the House of Parliament.
Click to expand...
Basically yes, and please note serving personnel pay rent, for their accommodation.

Back in the day, I worked out for the price of 3 tornadoes they could put new roofs on all operational hangars - obviously this came up whilst sweeping up water and positioning bins to catch the drips.

They have spent a lot on the single accom, I think more issues are around the married quarters.
 
www.thetimes.co.uk

Dozens of tanks to be scrapped in‘redesign’ for army of the future

Dozens of tanks will be scrapped and the remainder upgraded to make them “battle proof for future conflicts” under proposals put forward by the army, sources have told The Times.The army’s 758 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles could also be retired and replaced by 500 new armoured personnel carrier
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

www.telegraph.co.uk

Tanks 'could be scrapped' in radical overhaul of armed forces

Need to modernise is driving plans to sideline Challenger and Warrior tanks in favour of investment in cyber and space technology
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.dailymail.co.uk

Army could scrap 1/3 of its Challenger 2 tank force

The Government is considering scrapping 77 Challenger 2 tanks to upgrade the remaining 150 of the force up to a Challenger 3 standard with a new turret and weapons system.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

www.bbc.com

British Army could axe ageing tanks as part of modernisation plans

Senior Army officers have told the BBC the military may abandon its ageing stock of Challenger 2 tanks.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

For what it is worth, the British government is now (rather desperately) denying that this story is true. I think the backlash came as a surprise to those who were promoting this plan (it shouldn't have).


https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/lr3jwh
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/lr3jwh/dozens_of_tanks_to_be_scrapped_in_redesign_for/
 
Last edited:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Arctic trading route must 'remain free', First Sea Lord says

At the North Pole HMS Dreadnought tried to contact the Admiralty. Radio interference meant they got a cab rank in Canada instead
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk


TomcatViP said:
Meanwhile, in UK:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Death of Hercules: Fleet of planes favoured by SAS is to be grounded

The entire fleet of the transporter plane favoured by the SAS is to be grounded - despite fears the cost-cutting move will put soldiers' lives at risk.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Playing devil's advocate for the Treasury:
There is no major theatre of operations where British interests require us to provide a mechanised formation on any scale.
(Other members of NATO should now shoulder their roles notably Germany)
Outside NATO regional powers like the Gulf and Asean nations have the resources to provide this capability.
Given the necessary focus on rebuilding the NHS, Social Care, Education and Infrastructure post Covid the Armed Forces will have to.make sacrifices.
 
Playing devil's advocate for the Treasury:
There is no major theatre of operations where British interests require us to provide a mechanised formation on any scale.
(Other members of NATO should now shoulder their roles notably Germany)
Outside NATO regional powers like the Gulf and Asean nations have the resources to provide this capability.
Given the necessary focus on rebuilding the NHS, Social Care, Education and Infrastructure as well as Unemployment payments post-Covid the Armed Forces like the Aid Budget will have to make necessary sacrifices.
 
If I were reviewing our Ground Forces I would be asking the following in no particular order:
Is the current structure and size of the Army and the Royal Marines fit for purpose?
Given that the next war is never the one we get to choose or like the ones we have just fought how can we provide the most effective equipment options?
The time has come to honour the Covenant to serving and former members of the Armed Forces. How can this be done properly?
 
A quick question - do any of the Territorial formations include tanks?
 
The Royal Wessex Yeomanry is the last true Army Reserve (TA) armoured regiment left since 2013.
 
Well at least we can stop speculating and see what the damage is. So far we've had leaks from every branch of the armed forces crying their portion shouldn't be cut and we have no idea of the overall impacts.
I think it will probably go down with the 57, 66, 75, 81 and 2010 in history as one of the big controversial reviews.
 
The biggest budget item for the MOD remains people.
I suspect that all the rumours about equipment cancellations will mask a move to drastically reduce numbers.
I expect that this will be done by redefining the roles of the Forces to justify such cuts.
Large scale deployments overseas will be the first casualty.
Once you move fewer people and their kit things like C17s and RoRos/Amphibs can be scaled back or even removed.
Of the three services the Army is most vulnerable. With the Middle East carved up between Israel, Saudi and Iran and Oil unfashionable there is no other operational theatre outside Europe, certainly not the Far East where the locals have enough of their own.
That leaves NATO and training missions in the Third World.
NATO is easy. Apaches and Typhoons plus Astutes more than compensate for German and Polish land forces.
Training missions are good for morale and low on people.
Defence of the Homeland is already mainly a TA role.
The RAF will keep its Typhoons but F35 numbers will drop.
The RN will have growing numbers of ships including one Carrier in Standby Squadrons.
Bases will probably be hit again. Closing Rosyth?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom