British Military Current Events

[daftandbarmy]

It's a tricky balance sometimes.


Obviously, spend on your members.  Make sure their living accomodations are comfortable and respectable, they have access to childcare, education, safe communities, etc etc.  That's a given.

Shiny kit does help with recruiting and retention too.  If it gets to a point where your kit is so ancient and behind the curve, the morale sinks all the same.

One of my NCOs once made a similar comment, as I recall:

One member of the RAF recalled once being told "how what we were doing was extremely important to defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to national security". "I couldn't help but thinking 'Well, sir, if that's true, why are my kids showering in cold water - yet again?'," the anonymous service member added.

https://www.forces.net/news/defence-told-spend-more-personnel-and-less-shiny-kit-boost-retention

 

[Kat Stevens]

It's a tricky balance sometimes.


Obviously, spend on your members.  Make sure their living accomodations are comfortable and respectable, they have access to childcare, education, safe communities, etc etc.  That's a given.

Shiny kit does help with recruiting and retention too.  If it gets to a point where your kit is so ancient and behind the curve, the morale sinks all the same.

Look, that Chieftain AVRE was good enough for my grandad, and it's damn well good enough for you, son.

 

[OldSolduer]

One of my NCOs once made a similar comment, as I recall:

One member of the RAF recalled once being told "how what we were doing was extremely important to defence and how the nation greatly valued our contribution to national security". "I couldn't help but thinking 'Well, sir, if that's true, why are my kids showering in cold water - yet again?'," the anonymous service member added.

https://www.forces.net/news/defence-told-spend-more-personnel-and-less-shiny-kit-boost-retention

I made a point a number of years ago when we were discussing Leopard 2s etc and the infrastructure they required. My point was those Leopards won't do anyone any good if we don't have soldiers to man them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Look, that Chieftain AVRE was good enough for my grandad, and it's damn well good enough for you, son.

Unless you’ve experienced British Army accommodation, single and married types, you’ll never really understand why many troops would be happily thundering around in one of Hobart’s original ‘Funnies’ in exchange for something better.

 

[FJAG]

Defence Told To Spend More On Personnel And Less On 'Shiny' Kit To Boost Retention

A new report has used hundreds of submissions from personnel and their families among its research.

The British military has been told it must spend more on forces personnel and their families in order to improve retention....

Not to get too argumentative here but any "report" that talks about "'shiny' new kit" comes at the issue with a tilted view.

As CBH99 states "its a tricky balance sometimes" as to how to balance spending as between personnel, equipment and operations and maintenance. Canada and most European countries have skewed the ratios in favour of personnel (Canada for example spends over half of it's budget on personnel pay and benefits - the optimal ratio should be less than 40% on personnel and 25% on major equipment.)

This article tends to influence my thinking on defence spending inputs and defence capability outcomes. It's not so much what you spend but what you get for your dollar. This is also the reason why I think we ultimately need to create a better quality reserve and equip it and depend on it for the crisis side of conflict so as to reduce annual personnel costs. In the interim critically examine what we spend on full-time service, particularly the lavish (yes, lavish) administrative overhead structure of defence and reduce it to the bare necessities.

All the happiest soldiers don't matter if they get blown out of the battlefield in their rusty clapped out crap.

:stirpot:

 

[Good2Golf]

Careful what one wishes for...

"We have made further proposals, including taking Service Families Accommodation (SFA) away from the failing Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and vesting it in a dedicated Forces Housing Association (FHA) instead.

"This new entity would be optimised to provide decent, affordable accommodation for service personnel and their families and would be run in their interests, not that of the MOD bureaucracy.

 

[Canuck_Jock]

Careful what one wishes for...

Management of SFA can't get any worse....can it....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Major General Fraser warns UK armed forces review to not replicate Canada’s experiment with armed forces unification. Instead, he argues for the UK to adopt integrated force structure similar to USMC.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1317627/army-news-british-armed-forces-RAF-Navy-merge

 

[FJAG]

The Army is not big enough for war as troop numbers are a 'shadow' of what they were a few decades ago, warns General Sir Mike Jackson

• Ex-general says armoured corps was a ‘shadow’ of what it was a few decades ago
• The former Para said that the Army could fight a conventional battle ‘at a pinch’ 
• Sources say upcoming defence review could see soldiers moved into other areas

By LARISA BROWN DEFENCE AND SECURITY EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 19:55 EDT, 7 August 2020 | UPDATED: 05:20 EDT, 8 August 2020

The size of the Army may be too small for war, a former general has warned.

General Sir Mike Jackson, who was Chief of the General Staff from 2003 to 2006, said the Army’s armoured corps was a ‘shadow’ of what it was a few decades ago.

He said the 80,000-strong Army would now struggle to fight a battle in the way it did in the past.

His comments came as defence chiefs are carrying out a major review of the military, which is due to conclude in the autumn.

The Ministry of Defence is under pressure to deliver military capability for less money and also to modernise the force to meet diverse threats – but it has dismissed claims that Army numbers could be cut.

Speaking to ABF The Soldiers’ Charity for its podcast General Talk, Sir Mike said: ‘When I joined, the Cold War was very cold. The whole strategic posture was deterrence of the then Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It needed mass. We had a comparatively large army for peace time.’

But he said it has shrunk since. ‘It worries me that 80,000 may not be big enough,’ he added.

The former Para said the Army could fight a conventional battle ‘at a pinch’, but ‘it would take some preparation time’.

Sir Mike said: ‘We are down to the position where really if we get it right we can field a single division. Perhaps of two or three brigades. That is [the] maximum effort we could expect of today’s Army.’

A brigade has around 6,500 troops, while a divison typically has between 8,000 and 25,000 personnel.

When Sir Mike joined the Paras in 1970 the Army’s regular strength was 176,000, with 80,000 reservists.

He added: ‘The Royal Armoured Corps is pretty much a shadow of what it was when I joined.’

The MoD’s review could see soldiers moved into other areas, for example cyber, to match the threat and skills needed as the world changes, sources said.

A report by the Royal United Services Institute think-tank last year warned that British troops would be ‘comprehensively outgunned’ in a war with Russia due to a ‘critical shortage’ of artillery.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8606095/The-Army-not-big-war-warns-General-Sir-Mike-Jackson.html

:cheers:

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting look at the status of the Challenger upgrade program. The current idea seems to ba a new turret mounting a 120 smoothbore similar to the American and German ones, a "soft kill" active defense system and a through tube missile. However, the program is under review and the impact of the current pandemic on the economy may delay things:

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/08/british-army-tank-upgrade-weighing-the-prospects

 

[OldSolduer]

Just an observation but when you face Soviet doctrine - or Russian if you will - you're already outgunned in artillery. This should not come as a surprise

 

[Colin Parkinson]

An interesting look at the status of the Challenger upgrade program. The current idea seems to ba a new turret mounting a 120 smoothbore similar to the American and German ones, a "soft kill" active defense system and a through tube missile. However, the program is under review and the impact of the current pandemic on the economy may delay things:

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/08/british-army-tank-upgrade-weighing-the-prospects

Not to mention the introduction of a 130mm gun with a claimed 50% improvement in AP performance, that demonstrator with new turret , auto loader and gun is on a Challenger 2 chassis. The question is would the US also opt for that gun, which then cascade down to all the other NATO allies.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nice to see that they've kept the 'ski jump deck. An effective, practical, uniquely British innovation as I understand it:


UK’S OPERATIONAL F-35 JETS MARK FIRST LANDING ON HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH
09 June 2020

The decks of HMS Queen Elizabeth are roaring with the sound of F-35 Lightning jets as the famous Dambusters squadron landed on the aircraft carrier for the first time today.

Pilots, engineers, cyberspace and mission support staff from 617 Squadron, the UK’s operational strike squadron, embarked the carrier over the weekend during a quick stop in Portsmouth for supplies before the aircraft themselves landed on board this afternoon.

It marks the first time 617 Squadron – famously known as the Dambusters – has fully joined HMS Queen Elizabeth as the UK prepares to deploy the next generation squadron of fighter aircraft to operate from the sea.

The F-35 jets that landed on board today will be the same aircraft that will sail next year with the ship for her maiden Global Carrier Strike Group 21 deployment.

Commander Mark Sparrow, the Commanding Officer of 617 Squadron, said: “We are excited to be on board the carrier and we have been training hard to be here.

“This is the first time the ship’s operational squadron has embarked and worked together.

“The F-35 brings next generation capability to UK Defence through its ability to find, destroy or avoid enemy air defences and enemy aircraft whilst gathering intelligence data.”

Today is a significant day for HMS Queen Elizabeth on the road to delivering carrier strike operations for the Royal Navy. “We are at the heart of a world-leading capability for the UK and will soon have on our decks two squadrons of F-35s – from the UK and US – plus the protection of a strike group made up of destroyers, frigates and support ships.

He said: “Today is a significant day for HMS Queen Elizabeth on the road to delivering carrier strike operations for the Royal Navy.
“We are at the heart of a world-leading capability for the UK and will soon have on our decks two squadrons of F-35s – from the UK and US – plus the protection of a strike group made up of destroyers, frigates and support ships.”

HMS Queen Elizabeth will now enter an intense period of flying having just successfully completed four weeks of basic sea training.

The aim is to demonstrate that the jets can successfully defend the aircraft carrier by delivering combat air patrols – launching from the ship to conduct strike missions against a target – and being ready to take off at short notice.

After the initial qualification period, 617 Squadron will test their ability to work with Portsmouth-based HMS Queen Elizabeth and Merlin helicopters of Culdrose-based 820 Naval Air Squadron by conducting a number of complex training missions.

This is all in preparation for their second embarkation later in the year when the squadron will join the carrier and her task group for a large multinational training exercise with US, European and NATO partners.

The Royal Navy is transforming into a force centred around carrier strike – supporting the ships as they conduct carrier strike missions, enforce no-fly zones, deploy Royal Marine Commandos, deliver humanitarian aid, and build international partnerships with our allies.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to return to Portsmouth later this month.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2020/june/09/20200609-f35-jets-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth

 

[FJAG]

An interesting viewpoint. Quite frankly getting rid of current capabilities before the new concepts come off the drawing board is frequently taking a step on the road to disaster.

Military chiefs draw up plans to scrap ALL Britain's tanks in bid to modernise armed forces amid budget cuts
-Ministers considering ditching the 227 Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior vehicles
-Officials are thought to be keen to switch from heavy armour to other assets
-It comes as the forces are anticipating budget cuts to due to coronavirus
By JOE MIDDLETON FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 19:25 EDT, 24 August 2020 | UPDATED: 21:32 EDT, 24 August 2020

Britain's military chiefs have drawn up plans to scrap all the country's tanks in a bid to modernise the armed forces amid expected budget cuts due to the coronavirus crisis.

Ministers are thought to be exploring the idea due to the exorbitant cost of upgrading the fleet of 227 Challenger 2 tanks, the UK's main battle tank, and the 388 Warrior armoured vehicles, as reported by The Times.

The Challenger 2 is sometimes praised for its imposing presence, but some detractors say it is not the right fit for the British Army, and government officials are understood to be keen to modernise given the changing nature of warfare.

Last year both vehicles were called 'obsolete' and the armed forces are looking keenly at how future funds are spent given expected future budget cuts due to the economic fallout from the coronavirus crisis.

Britain is understood to already be sounding out Nato partners about giving up its heavy armour and focusing instead on aviation and cyber warfare.

A government source told the newspaper: 'We know that a number of bold decisions need to be taken in order to properly protect British security and rebalance defence interests to meet the new threats we face.'

The ongoing talks about the tanks are part of the government's defence review which is set to conclude around November.

One senior British defence source said: 'We simply will not be viewed as a credible leading Nato nation if we cannot field close-combat capabilities. It places us behind countries such as France, Germany, Poland and Hungary.'

Currently the UK's arsenal of 227 tanks leaves us behind Argentina, who have 231, Germany, with 236, and Uganda with 239.

At the top of the table is Russia, who have 12,950, followed by the United States on 6,333, China on 5,800 and India with 4,665.

But General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander joint forces command, supports the modernisation of the forces and said the future is is 'about manned/unmanned autonomous things.'

Under the potential plans the Challenger 2 tanks would be placed in preservation, just in case they were needed in an emergency.

The country's premier battle tank has been in service since 1998 - the successor to the Challenger 1 which was used during the first Gulf War - and was used during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The tank was deployed in Bosnia and Kosovo during the NATO-led mission in former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s.

The tank has a crew of four, carries a 120mm main gun and two 7.62mm machine guns, with a top speed of around 37mph.

It is currently in service with the Queen's Royal Hussars, the King's Royal Hussars and the Royal Tank Regiment. 

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: 'Our commitment to Nato is unwavering, and the UK recognises that as a global military power our greatest strength remains our alliances.

'We are engaging our international allies and industry partners as we develop and shape defence's contribution to the integrated review.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8660069/Military-chiefs-draw-plans-scrap-Britains-tanks.html

:cheers:

 

[OldSolduer]

If this comes to fruition it is a decision they will regret.

 

[MJP]

If this comes to fruition it is a decision they will regret.

I tend to agree, but then remember we are barely in the tank game and don't seem to regret it.

 

[OldSolduer]

I tend to agree, but then remember we are barely in the tank game and don't seem to regret it.

Yes true but we aren't a stones throw from a major Eastern European power.

People seem to forget, despite the breakup of the old Soviet Union (I miss that country as it was quite predictable) Russia itself has a nasty disposition and enough venom to make it hurt badly.
As  a German officer told me in 1996 when we were discussing why the German Army was still training conscript soldiers his answer was "Russia is too close".

 

[CBH99]

On the surface, this seems like a bad idea.

However...

-  If the UK doesn't have the ability to deploy the tanks to mainland Europe and elsewhere, or deployed only in small quantities, perhaps this is a capability they can give up & not see much of a consequence when it comes to their deployable forces.

-  He did mention they wanted to perhaps focus on aviation assets instead.  If they scrapped their MBT's, but expanded their tactical aviation assets, perhaps that would be more useful in enforcing their foreign policy objectives?



10 to 20 additional Apache helicopters might be more useful in places like Mali, or a conflict in the Baltics, than deploying an additional 20 tanks?    :2c:

 

[Blackadder1916]

As we are discussing a UK news article that was discussing reporting from another UK publication (The Times - which unfortunately requires a subscription to read other than the headlines), I found interesting some of the other details repeated in The Express.

Cyber warfare threatens to take over UK's Armed Forces as Boris makes 'bold decision'
BRITAIN could be set to lose its military tanks as defence officials consider scrapping them as an alternative to costly upgrades.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1326990/cyber-news-UK-military-news-british-army-tanks-cybersecurity-cyber-warfare-military

By EDWARD BROWNE
PUBLISHED: 05:27, Tue, Aug 25, 2020 | UPDATED: 08:06, Tue, Aug 25, 2020

The move would see funds being diverted elsewhere, including aviation and cybersecurity. A government source told the Times “bold decisions” had to be made in order to “rebalance defence interests to meet the new threats we face.”

The paper claims a new plan would be to offer 50 of the UK’s Apache helicopters for use by allies.

Other proposals being discussed with the UK’s allies include investing more in electronic warfare and closing down an Army training base in Canada where heavy armour drills are carried out.

It is thought funding cuts related to the coronavirus pandemic are also factors.

One senior defence source has blasted the plans, saying the government was “dressing up financial pressures as capability choices.”

Last year, former Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt called two of the British army’s heavy armoured vehicles “obsolete”.

She was referring to the Challenger 2 battle tank and the Warrior vehicle.

Ms Mordaunt warned the UK “must be competitive”, but said Challenger 2 had not received a major upgrade in around 20 years.

She said: “During this time the US, Germany, and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants with a sixth pending.”

The then-Defence Secretary added the Warrior vehicle was “even more obsolete.”

The government’s alleged plans to scrap the UK’s tanks altogether conflict with reports last year which claimed over half of the UK’s Challenger 2 tank fleet would be upgraded to last until 2035.

Dr Jack Watling, a Research Fellow in Land Warfare at the Royal United Services Institute defence think tank, highlighted the issue with maintaining the UK’s heavy armour capabilities.

He wrote: “If Britain is serious about deploying heavy armour it would need to upgrade its CR2s, and replace or upgrade its Warrior and AS-90 platforms.

“Moreover, it would likely need to forward-base these units in, say, Poland if they are to be closer to where they may see action.

“The problem is that doing these things is exceedingly expensive and would likely be undertaken at the expense of several army modernisation programmes, and the new Strike Brigade concept.

“There is also a severe risk that if the army fully upgrades its existing heavy armour at the expense of modernisation it would begin to fall behind emerging critical capabilities, from autonomous systems to long-range precision fires.”

And at a RUSI conference, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith suggested “corrosive and intrusive effects” of cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns could be more of a key concern.

He said: “The main threat is less missiles and tanks. It’s the weaponisation of those elements of globalisation that hitherto have made us prosperous and secure, such as mobility of goods, people, data and ideas.”

In March this year, the UK confirmed it had ordered the last of 50 Apache AH-64E attack helicopters from Boeing at a total cost of $191,858,915.

Military news site DefenseNews reported last year the Ministry of Defence had set aside £18.4 billion for land-warfare equipment over 10 years.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder if they've managed to improve on the mess tin?


Army ‘battle lab’ to lead the way in technology innovation

The MOD is teaming up with Dorset Council and Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership to spearhead a next-generation joint working scheme. 

Army ‘battle lab’ to lead the way in technology innovation


The bold new initiative will see the MOD invest £3.1 million into the Defence Innovation Centre, along with a further £2.6 million from Dorset Council & Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership. The Defence Innovation Centre will be built at the Dorset Innovation Park, the county’s Enterprise Zone.

The Army, as the lead for this project, has called its part of the centre the Army BattleLab, which is aiming to be operational by Spring 2021, providing 1100m2 new office space and 450m2 new workshop space for MOD innovation, and associated conference and collaboration space.

The Army BattleLab will feature an engineering workshop, as well as joint working and conference areas for use by the Army and wider MOD, for at least 15 years. In its first ten years the programme aims to create 90 new local jobs and add £4 million to the local economy. 
 
As a highly equipped space, the BattleLab will enable the MOD to work directly with academic institutions, defence primes, small and medium enterprises and wider industry to develop new products and technologies which could be commercialised. 

Defence Minister Jeremy Quin said: “The Army’s BattleLab in Dorset will build close industry relationships, whilst exploiting cutting-edge technologies to keep our Armed Forces sharp in the face of new and changing threats. This initiative will foster talent and innovation and will drive future success.”

The Army will use the Army BattleLab as the physical manifestation of ARIEL – the Army Research Innovation & Experimentation Laboratory. It will allow the end users, our soldiers, the opportunity to work with innovative industries in a shared space, allowing ideas to be developed, and technology and equipment to be refined.

BattleLab will mean exciting events, such as the Army Warfighting Experiment (AWE), will become more routine and increases the potential to scale-up new and innovative technologies. 
 
Maj Gen Bennett, Director Capability said: “The Army BattleLab offers an unparalleled opportunity for the Army to engage directly and persistently with industry, small and medium enterprises and institutions who can help us think about our challenges differently.

Early engagement between end users – our soldiers – and those who have the expertise to develop technology, combining our requirements and experience, will change how we develop and procure unique and technical capabilities going forward.

It is an exciting and innovative approach, directly supporting our transformation agenda, and we very much look forward to seeing how it progresses.” 

Dorset boasts a particularly strong defence sector and is home to the Army’s Armoured Trial and Development Unit in Bovington, the Royal Corps of Signals training centre in Blandford, and a unique training area at Lulworth Cove, which includes cleared airspace up to 5000ft, making it ideal for experimentation and trials to occur.
 
Lt Gen Tickell CBE, Deputy Chief of the General Staff said: ‘We are looking forward to progressing The Army BattleLab initiative; which is not just an example of our commitment to engage, but also an opportunity to extend the effort outside big set pieces like AWE. The chance to accelerate prototype warfare – testing and experimentation - and lead this area of Defence innovation, and to work with industry on a more regular footing.’ 
 
Jim Stewart, Chair of Dorset LEP said: “This large-scale investment is a major boost to Dorset’s defence sector. Dorset is renowned for its strengths in innovation and this new MOD workspace will enable these sectors to flourish even further. We are delighted that the MOD has chosen Dorset Innovation Park for the location of its Army Battle Lab and we look forward to working with them on its success.”
 
Dorset Innovation Park is Dorset's only economic development site with Enterprise Zone status. It is developing as an advanced engineering cluster of excellence for the South West, building on its strengths in marine, defence, energy and cyber-security.

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/08/army-battlelab-announcement/