>UK to reduce operational Challenger 2 tank fleet
>The Times newspaper reported on 19 April that the British Army is set to reduce its operational Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) fleet from 227 to 148 vehicles during their Life Extension Project (LEP) upgrade.
janes.com
Global Britain here we come!
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
>posting nearly week old news
This has been the plan for ages, (SDSR2015, Future Force 2020, Joint Force 2025) one tank regiment is swapping to Ajax/Scout SV.
So it shouldn't be a shocker if some tanks don't so through SEP.
The regiment is receiving their Ajaxs around this point in the year and by 2020, should be able to deploy.
Week? Talk about years old.
I suspect they have a problem with consumables. Apart from ammunition there are many consumables and semi-consumables in a tank, things like oil filters, valves, bearings. And since the last manufacture of most of these was about 30 years ago when the whole complex shut down...
This is why maintaining production lines is important. People bitch about congress spending too much on extra tanks the army doesn’t need, which has some truth to it, but they ignore the fact that keeping that institutional experience and parts inventory alive is a major strategic concern.
Is there a political party in the UK that actually cares about national defense?
The issue is that no one has a clear idea on what the UK’s military should accomplish. Territorial defense? Working with allies in an expeditionary capacity? Enforcing British will on world events? There doesn’t seem to be a consensus, so funding is never stable.
When will they mothball their entire fleet again?
>Global Britain here we come!
Global Britain is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Once Britain will have left the EU, it'll become an unincorporated territory of the US (kind of like the US Virgin Islands fe.) in all but name, not a global empire lmao.
Literally where did bongs find that Gavin Williamson faggot?
Why do they need a large amount of armored vehicles if they're an island nation with no direct armored threat? The current conflicts the English are engaged in are asymetrical warfare against enemies without armor. This is no longer the Cold War. Russia is not a threat, the chinks are 5000 miles away. If you guys need to be critical about what the English are doing with their military, be critical about their less than adaquate Navy and Air Force.
>be critical about their less than adaquate Navy and Air Force
I think this is a nice change from shitting on their navy and air force which happens on k all the time.
>Russia is not a threat,
you should inform Europe, they seem to have a pretty different idea
>This is no longer the Cold War. Russia is not a threat, the chinks are 5000 miles away
Yeah, why bother maintaining a military force worthy of the name. After all, the cold war is over- it is now impossible for military threats to emerge, user said so!
Yup. When their entire economy rests on London being a global financial center, they pull out of the largest trade organization in history. Great going guys.
You mean cares about jerking to having a big military. Who is the UK defending from? France?
Russia loves to make threats, but their economy is fucking garbage. The only thing they can lord over the EU is their natural gas lines to the EU. Which in a pinch they can purchase LNG from the US, which they already do. Russia is a paper T-I-G-E-R.
If you read the last part of my post where we should be critical of their lackluster Navy and Air Force. You might not have posted. Russia is not next door to them, they do not share a border. They have no direct threat from Russian armored units.
Europe also shits itself when the Turks start to move despite being the primary arms supplier for them for the better part of 2 decades. There's nothing that doesnt scare the EU .
Europeans are a bunch of whinging faggots.
This
youtu.be
>If you read the last part of my post where we should be critical of their lackluster Navy and Air Force. You might not have posted. Russia is not next door to them, they do not share a border. They have no direct threat from Russian armored units.
Remind me where in my post I was talking about Russia, and where I said they had a good navy and air force.
You're an idiot. Why would an ISLAND nation need a large supply of tanks and armored battalions when they have almost no territory to defend and all of their neighbors are their closest allies.
Unless you're thinking the goddamn frogs plan on surprise invading their neighbor and one of their largest allies.
Dude seems like a prick and regularly spouts shit, but there's no denying he's the best defsec we've had in a while. Dude actually fights for funding, past 4-5 ones have all just bent over and accepted whatever.
Okay smart guy, if you think it's impossible for any ground threats to emerge that would require Britain's military to intervene ever, why not get rid of the army altogether? Since we can be 100% sure the geopolitical landscape will never change, thanks to you.
>oil filters
Those are commercial.
Name one potential threat then?
>270 views
Who the fuck in his right mind watches videos from European Commission YouTube channel? Or links them on Jow Forums as a proof of something?
Morocco and Algeria going to war with each other, Something going down in the middle east between the Saudi and Iranian blocs, Russia attempting to grab a baltic state if they think NATO's not looking.
Pakis.
>Why do they need a large amount of armored vehicles if they're an island nation with no direct armored threat?
You can ask the same question to Singapore, who has 200 Leopard 2s.
>Why would an ISLAND nation need a large supply of tanks and armored battalions when they have almost no territory to defend and all of their neighbors are their closest allies.
Name a military that does not have any sort of armored vehicles to support their infantry.
[spoiler]The European Union[/spoiler]
>The European Union and Britain are military enemies
This retarded shit is why I rarely come here anymore
If someone is going to intervene on any of these conflicts, it's going to be the US and US only, and sure as hell not the britbongs or any other yuropoor country. They barely can maintain militaries on their own and have zero force projection capabilities.
Britain tends to tag along with the US on most conflicts. They have similar global interests.
It’s just a proof that user wasn’t talking out of his ass because it’s an official strategy on their official channel
It wasn’t proof so much as emphasizing the point that Europe is buying more American LNG to reduce their reliance on a potential adversary.
You can always fuck off back to where you came, faggot.
So 2nd world nations and a paper tiger. The English will never fight alone. They will always have the backing of the US and ANZAC.
>You can ask the same question to Singapore, who has 200 Leopard 2s.
They have a direct neighbor and have frequent disputes with said neighbor.
>Name a military that does not have any sort of armored vehicles to support their infantry.
England still has armored vehicles to support their infantry. The nature of modern warfare has changed, England is changing with it. When warfare changes again, I'm certain the English will adapt, as they always have.
>[spoiler]The European Union[/spoiler]
Shut the fuck up, this is a retarded statement.
Given that the UK managed to get encircled by a static position while negotiating with the EU I don’t think a couple more tanks would help in a military conflict
>So 2nd world nations and a paper tiger
That second world nation has better military power capabilities than britbongs, that's telling.
>The current geopolitical situation will remain the same forever!
That's what you are saying now.
The fact still remains that for any nations, their closest neighbors invading is still a valid "what if" for any defence plans. Just because they get along now doesn't mean they won't get along in future.
To dismiss the EU as a military threat because they are friends with the UK now is a stupid move.
Which one, the pakis?
The pakis may have decent equipment but they are still plagued by being an Arab army. The only reason they fare well against India is that India is as retarded, if not more so, than Arab your average Arab military.
Getting angry and calling names like some sperglord won't make you appear any more retarded.
Thinking that the UK and EU will potentially go to war is so beyond retarded that it hurts. Seriosly poke your head out in real life just once, and stop building your world view on what edgy teens on Jow Forums are telling you.
kek
Both the EU and the UK have nukes
And I am telling you to fuck off, you dumb sperg faggot. Why are you coming to a fucking Jow Forums of all placesand then start whining and screeching like a retard when people say edgy dumb shit? Only because you're the bigger retard and sperg here. Fuck outta here and go look for cocks to suck somewhere else, brainlet.
I think he would mean the saudi's.
But everyone knows the Saudis are fucking retarded.
Pakis aren't arabs, you inbred mong. Read a book for once.
>So 2nd world nations and a paper tiger
That have massive fleets of tanks.
>The English will never fight alone
Yeah sure dude, they totally didn't have to defend the Falklands by themselves
>They will always have the backing of the US and ANZAC
Yes. Fucking Australia and New Zealand will be there to provide the armored punch in a potential conflict, good to know that the UK can skimp on tanks now.
>
Yes. Fucking Australia and New Zealand will be there to provide the armored punch in a potential conflict, good to know that the UK can skimp on tanks now.
The US has the armored punch covered.
>Yeah sure dude, they totally didn't have to defend the Falklands by themselves.
They didn't need help.
>That have massive fleets of tanks.
Massive fleets of shitty tanks that are easily killable.
148 globally deployable and supportable tanks is still more tanks than anyone barring the US can project.
It's almost like we're an island under zero threat of invasion.
Plus there's still another 300 odd in storage, with the option to buy/build new tanks when we want.
Force projection is far more important than funding excessive numbers of tanks that sit and do nothing.
watching britnong damage control is always priceless
Cant you just keep the lines for consumables/spares open instead of the whole deal?
Point is the UK has plenty of GDP and know how to atleast maintain an armored force, the they dont need it is an easy cop out of responsibility for the sake of budget.
The Netherlands did the same and covered it up with a changing battle field as an excuse, the only reason they did it was a cop out and a cut in budget.
What they will end up doing will be buying new tanks at a premium while they had good leopard 2a6s and trained crews.
Point is serious militaries need tanks to project force and when you cut down on that you dont have it when you really need it.
The Netherlands actually integrated per of their army with Germany, especially some tank battalions iirc, which was a pretty smart move to cut costs and still remain effective
They still have tanks to project force. My point is that the modern battlefield has changed. While tanks are still useful, their are more cost effective options that are just as effective. Tanks are expensive to move and maintain, even for countries with large GDPs. Great Britain doesn't need a large amount of tanks. They need a large Navy and Air Force to power project when they to. They don't need tanks to project force. They can absolutely get away with fast, mobile and hard hitting units.
Its more like a combined battalion and its still a cop out in my opinion, you should see the advertisments the Dutch army posts of Dutch crews in German tanks, its a fucking joke.
The army never wanted this loss of capability and they now have to put a good face on it, but the fact is we lost our own tank force and arent anywhere near effective.
It might be a smart decision but its a smart one after cutting the armed forces to pieces all the while wanting more deployments.
And you think planes arent incredibly expensive? Maintaining planes is outragously more expensive than tanks
The thing is you dont know if the UK or the Netherlands can get away with the decision they have taken,
and you dont know if they will have to or wont have to project force with tanks in the future.
>Global Britain is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Once Britain will have left the EU, it'll become an unincorporated territory of the US (kind of like the US Virgin Islands fe.) in all but name, not a global empire lmao.
Why?
It is a top global economy that holds very significant positions in international institutes. It has a vested interests in maintaining the status-quo and it backs that up with having military bases and forces posted around the world.
>and you dont know if they will have to or wont have to project force with tanks in the future.
That's the point. The UK will most probably have to, but it is reconfiguring its forces to be more deployable by switching a regiment from heavy tanks to med/light armor.
If it needs tanks, it will still have enough to deploy armor brigades.
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of the UK moving in with an expeditionary force, which makes sense but doesnt prepare for a peer on peer conflict.
I personally dont see Russia as a threat at this moment but a peer on peer war could very well happen and then having only one armored division and hundred some mothballed tanks with untrained crews just wont do.
The joke is that they already had only three regiments with 1/4 being stuck in reserve.
>be critical about their less than adaquate Navy and Air Force.
Do you mean the navy with SSNs, SSBNs, aircraft carriers, amphibious warships with more frigates and destroyers than any other European navy?
Or do you mean the air force that has two very modern fighter jets types, ISTAR, AWACS, tankers, strategic airlift, tactical airlift, a massive helo lift force etc?
All of which are supported by a network of bases across the world?
Taking back control, buddy!
The UK can't deploy 148 tanks globally. 1/3 of them are even just reserve tanks.
Japan has around 1000 tanks.
Wait, seriously?
>I think you are looking at this from the perspective of the UK moving in with an expeditionary force, which makes sense but doesnt prepare for a peer on peer conflict.
Well, it has to move in with an expeditionary force, by the very nature of being an island.
And, no, it doesn't necessarily - but I wouldn't be presumptuous to claim that the British army isn't aware of what is required for peer fighting.
>I personally dont see Russia as a threat at this moment but a peer on peer war could very well happen and then having only one armored division and hundred some mothballed tanks with untrained crews just wont do.
And that's why you have NATO. So you don't have a single division.
Yes
Come on man, the RAF is looking pretty rough these days. RN is definitely world class, though, considering most of the world powers are just competing to be #2 behind the USN.
I don't blame them, China hates their guts, they still have an active territorial dispute with Russia, and big daddy USA is telling them to re-arm. Might as well get some tanks.
*suspicious looks from Korea intensify*
Yeah, just seems excessive for an island nation that’s like 95% mountainous terrain. Japan’s just about one of the worst places in the world to use tanks.
Japan doesn't also have allies sitting in front of China to adsorb armored division - unlike Europe and the UK.
>Come on man, the RAF is looking pretty rough these days.
No, I have no idea what you mean by that.
Half of them are Type 74s from the height of the cold war.
Also this
The Japs have the Chinks and the Slavs on their door step. The slavs aren't much of a threat, the chinks however...
Talking about Japan. Unlike NATO armies deploying enough direct fire and artillery support is actually important to them.
Doesn’t the RAF fly pretty much only Eurofighters as their primary combat aircraft? I know they retired the tornado recently, and I think they’re getting F-35Bs for some reason, but that’s it. Definitely a casual observer when it comes to European militaries, so I’m liable to be wrong.
>Half of them are Type 74s from the height of the cold war.
They have around 500 Type 90 and Type 10.
The another 500 are Type 74 which are still useful for Japan because of its 40t weight class.
>expeditionary force
Yeah my bad i thought the defenition of an expeditionary force meant a small force going to fight in a foreign country but apperanty its any size.
>presumptuous to claim that the British army isn't aware of what is required for peer fighting.
I think they do know what they need for peer to peer warfare, as much as any military can from planning.
I just think this is a simple way to gear the army towards a very specific way of fighting while condsidering less and less that peer to peer warfare is serious.
And as far as NATO is concerned if you look at what the objectives of individual nations was it wasnt just send some divisions here and here its was a combined arms approach from all of the countries involved.
It didnt lean just on the Americans to provide tanks and the Brits to do this and the Germans to do that.
It was a combined group from all of the NATO countries that had divisions in Europe.
Any problems with logistics from lets say American tanks or problems with one countries weapon system can be taken up by other countries, because of that i think its a serious lack in capability.
>can't even modernize an already moderate number of tanks
>want to build a 6th gen fighter on their own.
Lots of Typhoons which are vastly upgraded, continually arriving F-35s, with a very large ISTAR fleet, armed drones, worldwide base network, large tankers, only non-US operator of US level SIGINT, world class training, only ally that turns up to basically every Red Flag in numbers, lots of experience.
RAF is doing fine. Remember looking at "jet numbers" means very little. Air combat is about the collective capability in the air. Lots of jets with no support just equals lots of dead jets.
Everyone knows that’s a joke
They’re going to fold and end up with the Franco-German jet program, which I guess it’s going to be a bit embarrassing after Brexit
And what's the problem with flying Eurofighters? It is a very capable platform - and has been integrated with all the A2G weapons that Tornados had.
The reason it is getting F-35B is the joint fighter force with the navy. Enabling them to operate on the new carriers.
So I'm still not sure by what you mean - they've got plenty of neat programmes happening like Meteor missiles, new AWACS, drone swarms, Brimstone missiles, a new fighter programme call Tempest. There's lots of good news.
>reminder that they haven't even ordered enough F-35B's to provide both of their aircraft carrier with a meaningful airwing.
The once projected F-35 numbers are unlikely to become reality.
Its actually an attempt to limit the massive fuck-up that was ditching their own armor. Canada was in the same boat back in the early 2000's, they just managed to put the brakes on the fail-train before it went too far
>modernizing doctrine by swapping a single regiment to a new platform enabling network/sensor/information operations is somehow going backwards
This man is a Russian shill you should call him a faggot.
That’s good to hear, then. I’m looking forward to joint US-UK carrier ops in the Western Pacific.
no, all of those tanks are active.
Reminder that all countries make orders in batches and this is part of the process.
Imagine having two tank regiments of a somehow competive tank and then talk big about global power projection.
You won't convince people that like shitting on the UK. it's one of the first stops on the retard bus.
The franco-german project is probably gonna turn into a franco-german-italian project. Then the french gets pissy about something, and the italians run out of money. Then we end up with two different aircraft plus some kind of pastanigger-version of both
>right now
>The UK now operates three tank regiments with 56 Challenger 2s each. The remaining 59 are understood to be used for training and as a war maintenance reserve.
That's before the reduction. A share of tanks are always reserve.
The planned reduction means to cut a tank regiment and a handful reserve tanks.
I mean, at least the French have a functioning aerospace industry on their own. Can’t say the same for Germany or Italy.
France and Germany are the leading nations. They have the last words on everything. Other nations can only join under the premise to accept this.
Spain did this. UK will learn it the hard way.
And still has more opportunities of producing something flyable than the UK working alone
Also aren’t Italians pretty competent at building planes? They have some good companies
At that point, why even operate tanks at all? You’ll have to invest your entire fleet into any theater.
The German aerospace industry is actually larger than the UK.
Because the two aren't necessarily related. There's little point in posturing about having more tanks than your force structure is setup to deploy.
Global Britian...well when it leaves the EU it will be irrelevent, even to the US.Thee us a LOT of middle england fantasy about the empire abd somhow returning to that.In reality? 1979, lots of strikes, cutbacks, austerity, job cuts and sinking down the GDP and other national rankings. The challanger was really part of the British Army if tge Rhine.Brituabs commitment during the cold war to provide amour on the quality Vs quanity basis to defend the west german line in the sand. That's gone and its up to Poland and Germany, hungary to provide that line now. So lots more armour will come from Germany, US Poland.UK is an island, limited use for tanks defensively. As regards projecting power in NATO its airforce and navy are a better fit.
Im not saying this is a bad thing. The more interesting aircraft the better, its just that high-profile pan-european programs are either hit or miss as to actually going as planned.