Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62

Thread: British army (maybe) getting a new MBT?

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,120
    Nothing the latest 'Strategic Defence and Security Review' (out today) about a new tank. Extra £12bn over the next five years; more F35s to be bought so that both of the (in production) Queen Elizabeth carries have a complement, four new Frigates (presumably for two operational carriers) and two rapid response 'Strike Brigades' to be set up as well as maritime patrol aircraft (Nimrod replacement) and more high-altitude drones.

    Full pdf file here; https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ty-review-2015

  2. #47
    Colonist Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    02 Mar 08
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    2,095
    You won't get two operational carriers if you only ever have two. You may for very short periods, but that's about it.

    It isn't a nitpick, it's a very important point.
    Ego Numquam

  3. #48
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    1. The US is NOT building new tanks. The issue is REBUILDING of tanks...i.e., strip them down to the hull and do a complete overhaul. And one of the reasons Odierno stated what he did was...sequestration! Tank units are expensive. Light Infantry is cheaper. If Congress is going to force a smaller budget on the Army The Chief is going to tell Congress you are going to lose work in your districts.

    2. The M1s in the budget were not for current units but to placed in OCONUS preposition stocks...we are building more POMCUS sites world wide.

    3. The US military uses a single fuel for all ground and rotary vehicles and aircraft...JP-8. We went away from diesel 20 years ago. All engines which are thought of as diesel are actually multi-fuel. Gasoline is used in non-tactical vehicles (i.e., leased commercial vans & trucks) and, maybe in some older cooking sets. Everything else is JP-8...aviation units use special filtering but its the same stuff which goes into a HMMWV, M1, M2, whatever.

    And while switching to M1s may seem a logistics burden, in the long run it may be cheaper. They are VERY reliable. And that log tail need not go any further back than Kaiserslautern. But I more than understand buying within NATO...that makes sense as well.
    Logistically, the Abrams and Leopard are the only real choices for nations without their own tank building... both come with easy access to spares. The Leclerc, Challenger and Arete as good as they are, do not have the advantage of scale of production than the big 2 do.

  4. #49
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,471
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Logistically, the Abrams and Leopard are the only real choices for nations without their own tank building... both come with easy access to spares. The Leclerc, Challenger and Arete as good as they are, do not have the advantage of scale of production than the big 2 do.
    True. In theory both GB and France could commit to building their own MBT designs but only if either country was also prepared to commit to an enormous production run. (Think several hundred vehicles at least) which simply can't be justified given their current economic and defense priorities, it just wouldn't make economic sense. So while India and China can manage it I doubt very much that either France and England could. After all the same issues apply to current and future jet fighter acquisitions and no country in Europe has the 'readies' at hand to take on a major aerospace project like that by themselves either.

    So if there was to be an EU wide push for a new MBT design sometime in the next decade or so I would be betting on a (face saving) consortium based approach, even if Germany (and everyone else in Europe for that matter) knows that Krauss-Maffei could handle the whole job by themselves thanks very much.
    Last edited by Monash; 28 Nov 15, at 01:03.

  5. #50
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Yup, Europe has collectively crippled its ability to produce arms on the scale needed if they ever face a real threat again.

  6. #51
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,976
    OTOH this was by deliberate design on part of both the Europeans and the Americans in the post-WWII environment. we did the same thing with Japan.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,120
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Yup, Europe has collectively crippled its ability to produce arms on the scale needed if they ever face a real threat again.
    Grippen, Eurofighter, Mistral, PL1 development (now building a prototype with BAE Systems), Type 45 Frigates and QE Class carriers... Ukraine was producing it's first recon UAVs in June last year. Now producing Oplot tanks en mass and Israeli licensed automatic guns. If the political will was there Europe could rearm fast as Ukraine and Poland are now doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chunder View Post
    You won't get two operational carriers if you only ever have two. You may for very short periods, but that's about it.

    It isn't a nitpick, it's a very important point.
    I agree but I think the point is to have one operational all the time.

  8. #53
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,511
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Grippen, Eurofighter, Mistral, PL1 development (now building a prototype with BAE Systems), Type 45 Frigates and QE Class carriers... Ukraine was producing it's first recon UAVs in June last year. Now producing Oplot tanks en mass and Israeli licensed automatic guns. If the political will was there Europe could rearm fast as Ukraine and Poland are now doing.



    I agree but I think the point is to have one operational all the time.
    Look at how low the production numbers are, where is the nation that can make at least 80% of its own defense needs and provide at least 50% of the troops it needs during a general war. Europe used to have several- UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland now it has none. Well there is one European nation that can still make all its own kit- Russia.

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    OTOH this was by deliberate design on part of both the Europeans and the Americans in the post-WWII environment. we did the same thing with Japan.
    "Embedded leverage" for the patron of security collective, the clients enjoy domestic savings?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,471
    The benefits and costs of being 'king of the hill'. From the US perspective the plus side of the equation is that as the dominant military power in Europe and 'guarantor' of peace you have diplomatic weight on issues relating to EU security and foreign policy. Not control but certainly influence. The down side is of course that you have to pay for the privilege via a larger defense budget.

    The European view is of course the mirror image. You get the protection of a strong military alliance and lower domestic defense budgets at the cost of less independence on key foreign policy issues (and no doubt some domestic political issues as well).

    In other words you pay for what you get. My sense is that the US is starting the questing whether being the 'World Police' (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is worth the cost and that maybe it's time it's NATO partners started paying their way. Which is fine as log as you are also prepared to give up the influence that defense spending buys you, Anyone willing to bet which way the the US will decide?

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    In other words you pay for what you get. My sense is that the US is starting the questing whether being the 'World Police' (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is worth the cost and that maybe it's time it's NATO partners started paying their way. Which is fine as log as you are also prepared to give up the influence that defense spending buys you, Anyone willing to bet which way the the US will decide?
    This has been a bone of contention between Europe and the US for years (maybe even decades); for a long time, during the Cold War, Europe was "safe" under the US's nuclear umbrella. However, since the end of the Cold War, the US has been trying to get Europe (and specifically NATO) to shoulder a larger share of the common defense burden, which they are grudgingly doing. Just before Gates stepped down as Secretary of Defense a few years ago, he specifically mentioned the lack of participation of many of the NATO members, and warned that the US is becoming increasingly disillusioned with supporting the 65-year old military alliance almost unilaterally. However, I don't see the US backing out of the alliance anytime soon, though I'm sure we will begin cutting back (if we haven't already) on our fiscal and political support of NATO.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  12. #57
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    This has been a bone of contention between Europe and the US for years (maybe even decades); for a long time, during the Cold War, Europe was "safe" under the US's nuclear umbrella. However, since the end of the Cold War, the US has been trying to get Europe (and specifically NATO) to shoulder a larger share of the common defense burden, which they are grudgingly doing. Just before Gates stepped down as Secretary of Defense a few years ago, he specifically mentioned the lack of participation of many of the NATO members, and warned that the US is becoming increasingly disillusioned with supporting the 65-year old military alliance almost unilaterally. However, I don't see the US backing out of the alliance anytime soon, though I'm sure we will begin cutting back (if we haven't already) on our fiscal and political support of NATO.
    Actually we are increasing our support. We are establishing equipment sets all across the continent. We are increasing our joint training and operations. We are investing in sites in Poland, the Baltics, Rumania, Bulgaria & Czech Republic.

    We are not stepping away...we are stepping up as well.

    Keep in mind just because is is a National Guard or Reserve unit doing the mission for the US, do not see that as a sign that something is unimportant. The ARNG & USARC of 2015 is VERY different from the ARNG/ & USARC of 2001.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Actually we are increasing our support. We are establishing equipment sets all across the continent. We are increasing our joint training and operations. We are investing in sites in Poland, the Baltics, Rumania, Bulgaria & Czech Republic.

    We are not stepping away...we are stepping up as well.

    Keep in mind just because is is a National Guard or Reserve unit doing the mission for the US, do not see that as a sign that something is unimportant. The ARNG & USARC of 2015 is VERY different from the ARNG/ & USARC of 2001.
    I'm not sure about the ARNG or the USARC, but I was very surprised recently to find out that the ANG actually flies most of our tactical air missions, both overseas and domestically; IIRC, a majority of our ACC missions are staffed by ANG units. With the drawdown of forces, especially since BRAC, a lot of the tactical and strategic assets have been transferred to ANG units.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  14. #59
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Stitch View Post
    I'm not sure about the ARNG or the USARC, but I was very surprised recently to find out that the ANG actually flies most of our tactical air missions, both overseas and domestically; IIRC, a majority of our ACC missions are staffed by ANG units. With the drawdown of forces, especially since BRAC, a lot of the tactical and strategic assets have been transferred to ANG units.
    The ARNG & USAR are not a strategic reserve anymore. They are operational forces. Every ARNG state is aligned with an allied nation in the world; especially the newer NATO countries. They exchange training yearly. They are also all engaging in several major deployments and exercises in FY 16 & 17 along with Active duty units.

    The same level of activity for the USAR. Also at any given time a large chunk of the Air Mobility Command airframes flying, and personnel deployed running BASOPS on contingency missions are USAFR.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    My sense is that the US is starting the questing whether being the 'World Police' (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is worth the cost and that maybe it's time it's NATO partners started paying their way. Which is fine as log as you are also prepared to give up the influence that defense spending buys you, Anyone willing to bet which way the the US will decide?
    Dam, but I shouldn't post when I'm tired. My spelling/sentence structure goes out the window.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Australian army or the British army? which one?
    By 1947 in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 12 Feb 13,, 16:25
  2. Afghanistan: how the US army battled it out with the British
    By troung in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07 Jul 12,, 21:29
  3. British Army 700 new armoured vehicles
    By VarSity in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 24 Sep 09,, 17:35
  4. Yon gets down with the British Army.
    By Bluesman in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10 Dec 07,, 14:23
  5. British Army unveils new Trojan tank
    By Boltonian in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 15 Feb 07,, 10:02

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •