gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3359
    MEMBERS
  • 191195
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

UK military spending review   General Military Discussion

Started 13/3/21 by autogun; 13941 views.
Refleks

From: Refleks

13/3/21

Does total budget remain the same, with the differences just being the priorities?

autogun

From: autogun

13/3/21

No, there's supposed to be an extra £16 billion over four years to pay for new equipment.

In reply toRe: msg 3
autogun

From: autogun

14/3/21

The Army can see it's in the firing line, so is getting its retaliation in first: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446

The Army is likely to find itself "outgunned" in any conflict with Russian forces, MPs have warned. 

In a damning report, the Commons Defence Committee described efforts to modernise the Army's fleet of Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFV) as "woeful".

The ageing and depleted fleet puts the Army at "serious risk" of being outmatched by adversaries, it states.

In reply toRe: msg 4
autogun

From: autogun

16/3/21

The BBC News website is giving the defence review top billing - now that is unusual..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410532

Prime Minister Boris Johnson will later detail the results of the Integrated Review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, which the government says will address "the challenges and opportunities the UK faces in a more competitive world". 

In reply toRe: msg 5
autogun

From: autogun

23/3/21

More details re AFVs:

After £430 million, ten years and the recent completion of over 80 percent of its long-delayed trials, the UK’s Warrior Capability Sustainment Program is no more. The axing of the much-maligned program was announced in the Defence Command Paper released yesterday by the Ministry of Defence.

The Command Paper states that “legacy platforms that have already been extended beyond their planned life” will need to be retired, in order to free up funding for the accelerated procurement of the Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle. As a result, the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program being undertaken by Lockheed-Martin UK has been cancelled, with no operational Warriors to receive any of the upgrades of the program. Warrior, initially known as MCV-80, initially entered service in 1984. The unupgraded Warriors will continue to serve until their expected out of service date “by the middle of this decade”, after which they will be replaced by Boxers.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

23/3/21

I rather suspect that the Warrior upgrade was cancelled because it could be, rather than any technical reason.

autogun

From: autogun

23/3/21

The Warrior upgrade has struggled on for so long (and with the cost estimate steadily increasing, of course) that there has been a lot of criticism of spending so much money on upgrading an old and unsatisfactory vehicle. There has long been an argument that it would be far better, and cost not that much more, to buy more examples of the Ajax MICV family instead, so it is interesting that the proposed alternative now is to buy more Boxers.

I suppose the argument might have gone something like this: the main reason for having a tracked MICV is to keep up with the tanks off-road. But the number of tanks is dropping so low (c. 150) that we've probably ordered enough of the Ajax already to cover that requirement. So boosting the 8x8 family might make more sense.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

23/3/21

Except that no IFV have been ordered in the Ajax family of vehicles.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

24/3/21

Given the UK has left the EU, it seems like it would make sense to reduce their 'land' based assets vs naval and air forces. 

For NATO, really the continent of Europe should be providing the land based weapons, not an island the furthest distance from Russia. Whereas NATO is not very heavy on Naval power and so-so in the air. 

And for partnering with the US, really Naval power, or the deployment of SF / Marines, is what would be complimentary. 

And of course for defending the UK or securing its interests abroad independently (Falklands 2.0?) that also speaks to a Naval and Air force with SF + Marines. 

So I think its pragmatic to be shifting focus from tanks and AFV's given budget constraints. 

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

24/3/21

For the UK (and Australia), defence in depth requires expeditionary warfare.

147 chally 3 aren’t enough to fill out the stated requirements for deployable units, not to mention the complete absence of IFV.

The DCP is a promise of hollow forces and missing capabilities for years to come.

Fortunately, according to poliorcetes, the future of major power conflicts is microdrone attacks against stadia filled with civilians, so ongoing lockdowns will prevent that.

Just think of the savings that can thus be wasted on the NHS and city of London diversity officers.

TOP