The UK will base hundreds of tanks and fighting vehicles in Germany and rotate more troops on exercises through the country barely a year after withdrawing a large Cold War-era presence.
The mini U-turn - part of a major modernisation plan for the army unveiled by the defence secretary on Thursday - will see Germany becoming one of three new "regional land hubs" for the army, along with Oman and Kenya.
The aim is for more troops to be deployed to different parts of the globe for longer - training with partner forces for months rather than the current exercise schedules of weeks - to strengthen relations with allies and deter threats from states such as Russia and China.
The renewed presence in Germany will also mean the UK can respond faster to any Russian - or other - attack on a European NATO member state.
Ben Wallace, speaking in the House of Commons, also set out what the army will look like as it shrinks to 73,000 by 2025 from a target strength of 82,000 - its smallest size since Napoleonic times - to save money, though the reduction is 500 soldiers fewer than initially planned.
The programme - dubbed "Future Soldier" and described as the most radical restructuring in more than 20 years - is designed "to transform the army into a more agile, integrated, lethal, expeditionary force", the defence secretary said.
"Transformation on this scale - every single unit will be affected in some way by this change," he told MPs.
It will include an extra £8.6bn in funding for equipment over the next 10 years. However, one of the army's most expensive programmes - the £5.5bn Ajax mini tank - is still blighted by problems that have yet to be resolved.
"Our army will operate across the globe, equipped with the capabilities to face down a myriad of threats from cyber warfare through to battlefield conflict," Mr Wallace said.
Fewer soldiers will mean some base closures, including Alanbrooke Barracks at Topcliffe in North Yorkshire. A total of 33 "site closures" are planned though officers said many of them are small, such as a number of reserve centres and cadet training centres.
There are winners as well as losers with some anticipated base closures being scrapped.
This includes Glencorse Barracks in Edinburgh and the retention of Brecon Barracks in Wales - a decision that will likely be seen as an attempt to woo devolved nations.
The army itself is changing in structure to become more streamlined as it shrinks in size.
No cap badges will be lost and there are no plans for mass redundancies. But the army will be rearranged under four divisions of infantry called The Queen's Division, the Union Division, The Light Division and the Guards and Parachute Division.
A number of brigades will either be ditched or merged as priorities shift to building up a greater ability to fight from a distance.
This involves investment in long-range missiles and surveillance.
As part of this adjustment, 1 Armoured Infantry Brigade will merge with the Artillery Brigade to become a Deep Recce Strike Brigade.
There will also be an emphasis on specialist capabilities.
This includes the creation of a Ranger Regiment, to be stood up from 1 December, which models itself on the Green Beret special forces in the United States. Britain's Rangers will be able to operate in smaller groups than the regular army and be more self-sufficient.
They will partner with local troops or militias in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
On the new plans for Germany, the army aims to base a brigade of tanks and armoured vehicles - around 250 machines in total, supported by trucks and other infrastructure - in Sennelager training area, where British forces were previously permanently located.
Battle groups of hundreds of soldiers will then deploy to the training area to exercise on the equipment with NATO allies for around four months at a time.
They could then move on to Estonia, where the UK has for the past five years led a 1,000-strong battle group of NATO troops as part of a mission to deter Russian aggression.
The future UK presence in Germany will be very different to the 20,000-strong military footprint that was located in the country previously - a legacy in the decades that followed the end of the Second World War. That permanent presence was withdrawn in 2020.
An Army spokesperson said: "The NATO Forward Holding Base Sennelager is the Army's developing Land Regional Hub in Europe.
"Deliberately designed with our NATO partners it will enhance our ability to rapidly meet our commitment to NATO under the NATO Readiness Initiative by increasing our ability to store and hold material and equipment on the continent.
"Whilst the intent is also to increase our training there, alongside our NATO partners, there is no plan to re-base UK combat forces in Germany."
+19
ALAMO
Mir
Airbornewolf
Finty
lancelot
Isos
Hole
JohninMK
KiloGolf
Godric
Rodinazombie
max steel
George1
Werewolf
NickM
War&Peace
DickSharpe
sepheronx
Admin
23 posters
British Army: News
Finty- Posts : 539
Points : 545
Join date : 2021-02-09
Location : Great Britain
https://news.sky.com/story/british-army-restructure-sees-hundreds-of-tanks-and-troops-return-to-germany-after-withdrawal-less-than-a-year-ago-12478388
lancelot- Posts : 3180
Points : 3176
Join date : 2020-10-17
- Post n°52
Re: British Army: News
UK is delusional and still dreams of empire. The Germans have enough resources to defend themselves. The UK should focus on its own issues.
JohninMK likes this post
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°53
Re: British Army: News
This a disgrace a farce after farce it seems. UK has one of biggest budgets in the world (top 10) and it's forces are being reduced and equipment is becoming outdated and disasters like this the defence minister should be sacked. And if that flying cost is true (not sure if it is) then 1.5hours flying time costs more than 1 drone to buy. I read somewhere that a USA predator drone costs around $5,000 per hour, but did state that additional costs could be added due where in the world it was type of mission, and any additional support elements and if it was armed (cost of munitions). So going by this it surely can't be real surely? Unless they have created the F-35 of drones
"The Army’s new £1 billion spy drones can’t fly when it’s too windy and have problems with their altitude sensors, which have triggered a spate of crashes.
Six have been damaged at a whopping cost of £30million, with drones expert Chris Cole saying: “The Army’s Watch-keeper programme has been a disaster from start to finish.”
He added that “the whole thing has been quietly swept under the carpet, meaning, no doubt, similar mistakes will be made again”.
It comes after the Ministry of Defence spent an eye-watering £5.5 billion on Ajax tanks which troops cannot use because they deafen them
The Watchkeeper drones, which cost £5 million each, were supposed to provide the MoD with a “spy-in-the-sky”.
But the budget has spiralled, while their operational date was delayed by five years
They have flown just over 200 hours on active missions – costing over £1,000 per second in the air.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/armys-new-1-billion-driverless-25618551
"The Army’s new £1 billion spy drones can’t fly when it’s too windy and have problems with their altitude sensors, which have triggered a spate of crashes.
Six have been damaged at a whopping cost of £30million, with drones expert Chris Cole saying: “The Army’s Watch-keeper programme has been a disaster from start to finish.”
He added that “the whole thing has been quietly swept under the carpet, meaning, no doubt, similar mistakes will be made again”.
It comes after the Ministry of Defence spent an eye-watering £5.5 billion on Ajax tanks which troops cannot use because they deafen them
The Watchkeeper drones, which cost £5 million each, were supposed to provide the MoD with a “spy-in-the-sky”.
But the budget has spiralled, while their operational date was delayed by five years
They have flown just over 200 hours on active missions – costing over £1,000 per second in the air.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/armys-new-1-billion-driverless-25618551
GarryB likes this post
JohninMK- Posts : 15658
Points : 15799
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
- Post n°54
Re: British Army: News
d_taddei2 wrote:This a disgrace a farce after farce it seems. UK has one of biggest budgets in the world (top 10) and it's forces are being reduced and equipment is becoming outdated and disasters like this the defence minister should be sacked. And if that flying cost is true (not sure if it is) then 1.5hours flying time costs more than 1 drone to buy. I read somewhere that a USA predator drone costs around $5,000 per hour, but did state that additional costs could be added due where in the world it was type of mission, and any additional support elements and if it was armed (cost of munitions). So going by this it surely can't be real surely? Unless they have created the F-35 of drones
They have flown just over 200 hours on active missions – costing over £1,000 per second in the air.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/armys-new-1-billion-driverless-25618551
It seems to me that they have achieved their objective to perfection, transfer maximum taxpayer money into the pockets of the MIC and its shareholders, quietly if possible so classifying projects is a definite plus.
That they work as specified is an added benefit if achieved, whilst meeting the original budget is a failure.
d_taddei2 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40560
Points : 41062
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°55
Re: British Army: News
Your training is complete... any country that can put up with having Boris Johnson as PM (or Bush or Trump) will ignore the facts and put up with any old bull shit.... congratulations you have completed your training and are now a master of the dark side.
Don't be a whistle blower... that leads to prison or exile... and public vilifying...
Don't be a whistle blower... that leads to prison or exile... and public vilifying...
d_taddei2 likes this post
Airbornewolf- Posts : 1524
Points : 1590
Join date : 2014-02-05
Location : https://odysee.com/@airbornewolf:8
- Post n°56
Re: British Army: News
@ Finty, What is your own vision and opinion then?.
What is your own perspective?.
Have you spoken with people in the british service?.
We can all give our own opinions. but it does not mean much perhaps if you have nothing to compare it to?.
What is your own perspective?.
Have you spoken with people in the british service?.
We can all give our own opinions. but it does not mean much perhaps if you have nothing to compare it to?.
GarryB likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40560
Points : 41062
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°57
Re: British Army: News
Yes, it is one thing to post news reports, but it is another to post your opinion of said news...
I mean it is pretty clear the UK decision to spend money on Trident was all part of the secret plan of stealing the French sub deal with Australia with the US in their grand plan to get Australia involved against China... for which SSKs would be useless and SSNs would become necessary for Australia to become a useful tool of th US.
Australian SSKs would be useless against China... they need SSNs to have any useful effect so the French SSK deal had to be destroyed but the Aussies didn't seem interested in spending bigger money on SSNs with the US so lets make it a deal with the UK with US SSN technology... what are the chances it will end up as cheap as 90 billion euros when the US and UK are finished...
Lets put aside peanuts for the NHS nurses and doctors after Covid and spend billions on Tridents the UK will never use, so Australia will end up with all those NHS nurses and UK designed SSNs with US nuclear power systems, and the UK will end up with Australian dollars buying UK SSNs... sounds like a trade...
I mean it is pretty clear the UK decision to spend money on Trident was all part of the secret plan of stealing the French sub deal with Australia with the US in their grand plan to get Australia involved against China... for which SSKs would be useless and SSNs would become necessary for Australia to become a useful tool of th US.
Australian SSKs would be useless against China... they need SSNs to have any useful effect so the French SSK deal had to be destroyed but the Aussies didn't seem interested in spending bigger money on SSNs with the US so lets make it a deal with the UK with US SSN technology... what are the chances it will end up as cheap as 90 billion euros when the US and UK are finished...
Lets put aside peanuts for the NHS nurses and doctors after Covid and spend billions on Tridents the UK will never use, so Australia will end up with all those NHS nurses and UK designed SSNs with US nuclear power systems, and the UK will end up with Australian dollars buying UK SSNs... sounds like a trade...
George1- Posts : 18525
Points : 19030
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
- Post n°58
Re: British Army: News
New British air defence missile system enters service
16 Regiment Royal Artillery has now accepted into service the first tranche of Sky Sabre air defence systems.
Sky Sabre has replaced Rapier.
According to the Ministry of Defence, “unprecedented in speed, accuracy, performance and target acquisition, Sky Sabre will be able to hit a tennis ball-sized object travelling at the speed of sound”.
Sky Sabre has three key components expected to operate up to 15km apart:
• A Giraffe Agile Multi-Beam 3D medium-range surveillance radar that rotates 360 degrees on an extending mast and can scan out to 120km for threats.
• A computer system linking up the radar and missiles sending them to their targets. It also provides ‘Link 16’, a tactical datalink allowing Sky Sabre to share its information with Royal Navy vessels, Royal Air Force systems and allies.
• At 99kg each, the Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles (CAMM) are double the weight of Rapier and have three times the range. They can reach speeds of 2,300mph eliminating fighter aircraft, drones and even laser-guided smart bombs. Eight missiles are mounted on the launcher, which fire in a multi-directional manner that significantly reduces its signature making it less of a target for adversaries. The launcher also re-arms in less than half the time of Rapier.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-british-air-defence-missile-system-enters-service/
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°59
Re: British Army: News
George1 wrote:New British air defence missile system enters service
16 Regiment Royal Artillery has now accepted into service the first tranche of Sky Sabre air defence systems.
Sky Sabre has replaced Rapier.
According to the Ministry of Defence, “unprecedented in speed, accuracy, performance and target acquisition, Sky Sabre will be able to hit a tennis ball-sized object travelling at the speed of sound”.
Sky Sabre has three key components expected to operate up to 15km apart:
• A Giraffe Agile Multi-Beam 3D medium-range surveillance radar that rotates 360 degrees on an extending mast and can scan out to 120km for threats.
• A computer system linking up the radar and missiles sending them to their targets. It also provides ‘Link 16’, a tactical datalink allowing Sky Sabre to share its information with Royal Navy vessels, Royal Air Force systems and allies.
• At 99kg each, the Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles (CAMM) are double the weight of Rapier and have three times the range. They can reach speeds of 2,300mph eliminating fighter aircraft, drones and even laser-guided smart bombs. Eight missiles are mounted on the launcher, which fire in a multi-directional manner that significantly reduces its signature making it less of a target for adversaries. The launcher also re-arms in less than half the time of Rapier.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-british-air-defence-missile-system-enters-service/
Doesn't that bad. Range of around 24km, and 400mph quicker than rapier. But was developed in late 1960's and compared to other systems it's not that impressive, hasn't made major leaps and bounds. But the layout of the system does help. Although the big question is how much is it( Inc per missiles)? The cost Vs capabilities Vs other systems is key factor if this is value for money and a good system.
Mir- Posts : 3835
Points : 3833
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°60
Re: British Army: News
The joke is not on you d_taddei2, but with a missile range of 25kms and a radar range of around 120kms I would have to say the Sky Sabre (Aster?) have very little to zero chance of shooting down any Russian combat aircraft before being blown to pieces itself.
The Telegraph also mentions something of a future upgrade to defend against hypersonic and ballistic missiles???!!!
The Daily Express: "Boris sends chilling message to Putin with new "detect and destroy" missile system"
The Telegraph also mentions something of a future upgrade to defend against hypersonic and ballistic missiles???!!!
The Daily Express: "Boris sends chilling message to Putin with new "detect and destroy" missile system"
ALAMO- Posts : 7526
Points : 7616
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°61
Re: British Army: News
That is actually a kinda funny story, you must admit that.
They really cheer themselves and flex muscles having something that matches the Tor, 40 years after ...
They really cheer themselves and flex muscles having something that matches the Tor, 40 years after ...
d_taddei2 likes this post
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°62
Re: British Army: News
Mir wrote:The joke is not on you d_taddei2, but with a missile range of 25kms and a radar range of around 120kms I would have to say the Sky Sabre (Aster?) have very little to zero chance of shooting down any Russian combat aircraft before being blown to pieces itself.
The Telegraph also mentions something of a future upgrade to defend against hypersonic and ballistic missiles???!!!
The Daily Express: "Boris sends chilling message to Putin with new "detect and destroy" missile system"
The system is most likely just for aircraft and Helicopters, drones maybe, but missiles maybe not. The British have always had short range air defence, and never really had anything long range and like most western nations prefer aircraft for defense than AD systems, which I find risky. Having been in British army, I can tell you that AD systems were only ever used to cover strategic areas or high command. Troops on the ground had zero AD systems. A brigade would get one detachment of javelin AD systems and that was used to protect brigade command and maybe comms only. Which had a range of 5km and speed of around 1.5-2mach going by memory. Basically a Russian strelets armed normally as a pair, sometimes as a triple missile system, or a single MANPAD config. That's pretty shit considering how far a brigade could be stretched out for. Of all the exercises I took part in I never seen or had any AD coverage. Goes to show what the top brass think of the guys on the ground and this system won't be much different considering it replaces rapier which was used to cover bigger formation than brigades
Isos- Posts : 11603
Points : 11571
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°63
Re: British Army: News
ALAMO wrote:That is actually a kinda funny story, you must admit that.
They really cheer themselves and flex muscles having something that matches the Tor, 40 years after ...
That's closer to an upgraded S-125 than a Tor. Tor is an all in one system and can follow ground forces.
This thing is a semi mobile system that needs to stop to be used. Its small range makes it pretty shitty to use unless you protect something inside your country where mobility isn't needed.
The Giraffe radar is also very well known since plenty of countries including Serbia have access to its production. Its 120km range is probably for 5m2 targets and it has a small antenna reducing its perfs. Against modern drones and gliding bombs it will be very limited.
d_taddei2, ALAMO, Hole and Mir like this post
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°64
Re: British Army: News
Isos wrote:ALAMO wrote:That is actually a kinda funny story, you must admit that.
They really cheer themselves and flex muscles having something that matches the Tor, 40 years after ...
That's closer to an upgraded S-125 than a Tor. Tor is an all in one system and can follow ground forces.
This thing is a semi mobile system that needs to stop to be used. Its small range makes it pretty shitty to use unless you protect something inside your country where mobility isn't needed.
The Giraffe radar is also very well known since plenty of countries including Serbia have access to its production. Its 120km range is probably for 5m2 targets and it has a small antenna reducing its perfs. Against modern drones and gliding bombs it will be very limited.
Actually you would probably find the upgraded S-125 is better, better range, better altitude engagement height, and a bigger warhead considering the missile weight of this is 99kg Vs 953kg of S-125, also S-125 is around 1 Mach faster. And the S-125 has been combat tested numerous times and did pretty well in upgraded format.
Last edited by d_taddei2 on Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total
ALAMO, Isos and Mir like this post
JohninMK- Posts : 15658
Points : 15799
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
- Post n°65
Re: British Army: News
I'm there in the comments in that thread
Isos- Posts : 11603
Points : 11571
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°66
Re: British Army: News
S-125 missiles offers the same performance as a pantsir missile overall. It's too big and you can have only 2 missiles per launcher.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
d_taddei2 likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40560
Points : 41062
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°67
Re: British Army: News
The core of their problem has never been is it good enough, it is always been how many will they buy and how many they deploy and from the posts on this thread suggests it is a token system to wave at the enemy to say we have that too.
It seems to be a very early model BUK or even SA-6 but less mobile.
At a time when Mi-28NMs are getting 25km range LMUR missiles I think I would be worried... in fact these systems are not only going to struggle but will likely highlight to Russian intel as to where British HQs are located more than anything else...
At least they aren't trying to just put MANPADS on different vehicles like the US does for AD.
It seems to be a very early model BUK or even SA-6 but less mobile.
At a time when Mi-28NMs are getting 25km range LMUR missiles I think I would be worried... in fact these systems are not only going to struggle but will likely highlight to Russian intel as to where British HQs are located more than anything else...
At least they aren't trying to just put MANPADS on different vehicles like the US does for AD.
d_taddei2 likes this post
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°68
Re: British Army: News
Isos wrote:S-125 missiles offers the same performance as a pantsir missile overall. It's too big and you can have only 2 missiles per launcher.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
The upgrades don't limit the number of missiles carried, its the platform, most of the newer upgrades have been done on a truck chassis carrying two missiles. However there is an upgrade which mounts it on a T-55 which carries four missiles.
Mir- Posts : 3835
Points : 3833
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°69
Re: British Army: News
d_taddei2 wrote:
The system is most likely just for aircraft and Helicopters, drones maybe, but missiles maybe not. The British have always had short range air defence, and never really had anything long range and like most western nations prefer aircraft for defense than AD systems, which I find risky. Having been in British army, I can tell you that AD systems were only ever used to cover strategic areas or high command. Troops on the ground had zero AD systems. A brigade would get one detachment of javelin AD systems and that was used to protect brigade command and maybe comms only. Which had a range of 5km and speed of around 1.5-2mach going by memory. Basically a Russian strelets armed normally as a pair, sometimes as a triple missile system, or a single MANPAD config. That's pretty shit considering how far a brigade could be stretched out for. Of all the exercises I took part in I never seen or had any AD coverage. Goes to show what the top brass think of the guys on the ground and this system won't be much different considering it replaces rapier which was used to cover bigger formation than brigades
The British actually had the Bloodhound SAM - a decent missile system back in the 60's that compared favourably with the S-125 and the Nike Hercules. It's job was to protect the airbases and other important military installations. It's was replaced by the Rapier short range system which lacked the range and altitude of the Bloodhounds. The Bloodhound could travel at Mach 2.7 and the Mk2 version had a range of nearly 200kms!
ALAMO- Posts : 7526
Points : 7616
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°70
Re: British Army: News
Isos wrote:S-125 missiles offers the same performance as a pantsir missile overall. It's too big and you can have only 2 missiles per launcher.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
It's 4 pcs with the new modernization like the one made in Poland, on heavy tracked chassis, or semi-stationary.
Isos- Posts : 11603
Points : 11571
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°71
Re: British Army: News
ALAMO wrote:Isos wrote:S-125 missiles offers the same performance as a pantsir missile overall. It's too big and you can have only 2 missiles per launcher.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
It's 4 pcs with the new modernization like the one made in Poland, on heavy tracked chassis, or semi-stationary.
Pechora 2M offered by Russia is truck mounted and can carry only 2 of them.
Anyway like I said a small Pantsir missiles offers the same performances, and soon with 40km range even better ones, than this huge piece.
The big missiles are a disadvantage but the system is very goo for upgrading your stock of s-125. If you don't have any then you buy pantsir.
GarryB likes this post
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°72
Re: British Army: News
Isos wrote:ALAMO wrote:Isos wrote:S-125 missiles offers the same performance as a pantsir missile overall. It's too big and you can have only 2 missiles per launcher.
But the upgrade is very good and alows to destroy even small munitions like syrian ones against israeli stuff.
It's 4 pcs with the new modernization like the one made in Poland, on heavy tracked chassis, or semi-stationary.
by Russia is truck mounted and can carry only 2 of them.
Anyway like I said a small Pantsir missiles offers the same performances, and soon with 40km range even better ones, than this huge piece.
The big missiles are a disadvantage but the system is very goo for upgrading your stock of s-125. If you don't have any then you buy pantsir.
Depends on customer requirements as I said it has been offered and done with four missiles on a T-55 chassis. The size of the missile does have various useful factors, mainly based on target size and blast radius when it comes to proximity fuses, a small missile might not do enough damage to a B-52 or a A-10,where a larger missile might succeed. Same goes for destroying a cruise missile where proximity is concerned or a swarm of drones.
In relation to the bloodhound there was a reason why they took it out of service and replaced it. The bloodhound can't be compared to the S-125 different ranges and deployment was different, and the bloodhound never saw upgrades and combat use into the present day I think tells u something.
Mir- Posts : 3835
Points : 3833
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°73
Re: British Army: News
In relation to the bloodhound there was a reason why they took it out of service and replaced it. The bloodhound can't be compared to the S-125 different ranges and deployment was different, and the bloodhound never saw upgrades and combat use into the present day I think tells u something.
You are quite right the Bloodhound should rather be compared to the Soviet S-25 and the S-75. There was nothing wrong with the Bloodhound though - esp the Mk2 upgraded version with its much longer reach. The only reason why it was withdrawn from service in the 90's was because the USSR seized to exist which meant the end of The Cold War. There were earlier plans to develop the Bloodhound even further into a mobile version and also an ABM version but all were cancelled.
I forgot about the similar looking Thunderbird II, which used some of the Bloodhounds components but was smaller and a shorter ranged missile system for the Army. This missile was actually replaced by the Rapier and not the Bloodhound as I mentioned earlier. The Thunderbird II was similar to the Soviet Krug system.
GarryB- Posts : 40560
Points : 41062
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°74
Re: British Army: News
The core problem with older bigger missiles is their cost and size, actually having two SA-3s on a truck is much cheaper and more mobile in places with good road systems than having four on a T-55 tracked chassis.
Another thing you can use the old missiles for is target practise and air defence training... replace the guidance and warhead and radar antenna with an autopilot and programme it to perform a few attack manouvers and you can test you air defence forces using more modern weapons.
Of course it really only makes sense if you made a lot of them and the Soviets made SAMs in eye watering numbers... the original SA-1 they made over 100,000 of them and since the 1970s have used about 13,000 of them as targets... to be honest, these days they could use them just as ballistic rockets for targets in Europe...
Pantsir is brilliant because it is not big, but is small and light and low drag and it uses cheap command guidance that means all the value and expense is in the launcher which can be reused over and over again.
I think countries like India are mad to want to make their own light fighter or main battle tank... it would make rather more sense for them to mass produce Igla-S and Pantsir missiles. To their credit they are making Igla-S missiles, but for their medium missile they are spending enormous money and time on an SA-6 upgrade... a missile that has been replaced already with three generations of BUK and I suspect a scramjet powered missile is being developed to replace that.
The recent capture of Pantsir systems might lead to an American version in the near future.
The real irony is that during the 1990s when the cold war had ended the British actually bought and tested a Tunguska vehicle.... so they can't say they didn't know anything about the Pantsir missiles...
Another thing you can use the old missiles for is target practise and air defence training... replace the guidance and warhead and radar antenna with an autopilot and programme it to perform a few attack manouvers and you can test you air defence forces using more modern weapons.
Of course it really only makes sense if you made a lot of them and the Soviets made SAMs in eye watering numbers... the original SA-1 they made over 100,000 of them and since the 1970s have used about 13,000 of them as targets... to be honest, these days they could use them just as ballistic rockets for targets in Europe...
Pantsir is brilliant because it is not big, but is small and light and low drag and it uses cheap command guidance that means all the value and expense is in the launcher which can be reused over and over again.
I think countries like India are mad to want to make their own light fighter or main battle tank... it would make rather more sense for them to mass produce Igla-S and Pantsir missiles. To their credit they are making Igla-S missiles, but for their medium missile they are spending enormous money and time on an SA-6 upgrade... a missile that has been replaced already with three generations of BUK and I suspect a scramjet powered missile is being developed to replace that.
The recent capture of Pantsir systems might lead to an American version in the near future.
The real irony is that during the 1990s when the cold war had ended the British actually bought and tested a Tunguska vehicle.... so they can't say they didn't know anything about the Pantsir missiles...
d_taddei2- Posts : 3029
Points : 3203
Join date : 2013-05-11
Location : Scotland Alba
- Post n°75
Re: British Army: News
GarryB wrote:The core problem with older bigger missiles is their cost and size, actually having two SA-3s on a truck is much cheaper and more mobile in places with good road systems than having four on a T-55 tracked chassis.
Another thing you can use the old missiles for is target practise and air defence training... replace the guidance and warhead and radar antenna with an autopilot and programme it to perform a few attack manouvers and you can test you air defence forces using more modern weapons.
Of course it really only makes sense if you made a lot of them and the Soviets made SAMs in eye watering numbers... the original SA-1 they made over 100,000 of them and since the 1970s have used about 13,000 of them as targets... to be honest, these days they could use them just as ballistic rockets for targets in Europe...
Pantsir is brilliant because it is not big, but is small and light and low drag and it uses cheap command guidance that means all the value and expense is in the launcher which can be reused over and over again.
I think countries like India are mad to want to make their own light fighter or main battle tank... it would make rather more sense for them to mass produce Igla-S and Pantsir missiles. To their credit they are making Igla-S missiles, but for their medium missile they are spending enormous money and time on an SA-6 upgrade... a missile that has been replaced already with three generations of BUK and I suspect a scramjet powered missile is being developed to replace that.
The recent capture of Pantsir systems might lead to an American version in the near future.
The real irony is that during the 1990s when the cold war had ended the British actually bought and tested a Tunguska vehicle.... so they can't say they didn't know anything about the Pantsir missiles...
A bit of a null and void comment, a truck yes can go on roads quicker, but it's not so great off road where a T-55 would be far superior. So the point would be dependent on the country and its terrain and needs. The original point was the new system only carrying two missiles to which I pointed out a four missile version does exist.
The Russians still build big missile systems such S-400, S-300VM, S-350,a lot of that will also have to do with range/fuel.
The panstir is a good system but like a good AD systems network a variety of systems are used.
The British have starstreak which is getting old now and is very expensive for it is a glorified MANPAD and requires a direct impact on target. And rapier which is old and short range only. And now this will be replaced with the new system. The British don't really invest or care too much about AD systems. Instead they prefer aircraft for the job, the problem with that is expensive to just to operate and is only useful when in the air, and a bit of right place right time scenario. Not every attack can be predicted.
And yes the older missiles have been used as targets for decades and why not as u stated. Houthis turned the Sa-2 into a surface to surface missile with some success. I would imagine a Sa-5 would be pretty good for this too. And there would nothing wrong I suppose if needed using the Sa-3 and Sa-4 the same although shorter range.
And yes Ur right about India's Akash system another foolish move and wasted time and money. I don't see anything wrong with buy production rights for foreign AD systems, all the R&D has already been done for u. Maybe it's a pride thing with India. But I would rather put my hand up and say yes we need help, help built a AD system or let us produce your system, rather than be known as a fool and waste tax payers money and the end result being a upgraded version on an older foreign system and it not coming into production until decades later. Far more easier, quicker, and cheaper getting production rights. And any upgrades on the system in future u could also purchase the upgrade, and u didn't have to do any of the development and testing. The amount of money wasted in India on such projects they could have had a better armed forces with better equipment than they currently do. And technically the made in India initiative would still be met as the equipment is still made in India although not developed in India but who cares, jobs are provided and the country saves money
GarryB likes this post