ARMY 2020: Britain Out of Germany (and more)

[exspy]

Gents,

I don't know if this has been posted here previously. I couldn't find it, but thought it would be of interest. It lays out all of the changes and reductions through which the British Army will have to suffer over the next 8 years. Very informative.

Cheers,
Dan.

PS: Didn't the world go through a 'Save the Argylls' about 40 years ago?

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06396.pdf

 

[Eaglelord17]

Does anyone know if the 40% reduction in the Challenger II MBT's are going to be surplus or warstocks, because if they are to be surplus it could be a good opportunity to get some more good solid tanks on the cheap for Canada.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Does anyone know if the 40% reduction in the Challenger II MBT's are going to be surplus or warstocks, because if they are to be surplus it could be a good opportunity to get some more good solid tanks on the cheap for Canada.

Yay!  A third type of ammo to support for another vehicle that fills the same role that we have two other types for.

I'm sure maintenance would be thrilled as well...

 

[Eaglelord17]

Yay!  A third type of ammo to support for another vehicle that fills the same role that we have two other types for.

I'm sure maintenance would be thrilled as well...

I know logistically it would be a hassle but considering how Canada tends to do precurement it could be worth while.

 

[George Wallace]

I know logistically it would be a hassle but considering how Canada tends to do precurement it could be worth while.

Please, get real and think that over one more time.  With BUDGET CUTS, you want to suggest an enormous monetary and logistical nightmare?  Have you ever in your life worked on a British armoured vehicle?  They are "Plumber's nightmares" to maintain.  Add that to AmmoTech90's comments, and the logistical nightmare of adding spare parts to the Supply chain and your suggestion becomes so unrealistic to even contemplate.  Of course that leads us to the eventual conclusion (following previous DND/CF decisions) that it will likely happen.  :

 

[Journeyman]

.... it could be a good opportunity to get some more good solid tanks on the cheap for Canada.

    :facepalm:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I know logistically it would be a hassle but considering how Canada tends to do precurement it could be worth while.

Please list the reasons why it would be worthwhile. During your listing, please try and figure the financial impact that would result from the procurement (including spares & ammo), maintenanace and training that would result for our cash strapped forces.

We currrently field one of, if not the best, main battle tanks in the world. Why would we even consider buyinig Challenger.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I was thinking more from a warstock standpoint where we have it put away until we could need it say in 10-20 years time when our current tanks get old and we start considering replacing them. I know financially it would be extremely expensive to field the tanks which is why a warstock of them might be a better option. Personally I just don't want the Forces to move back into the 'tankless' army concept which we had just before Afghanistan. I have no experience with any tank though and seeing that financially it is not in our best interest it could best be described as a pipe dream.
After looking at the document again what probally would be a better go is if they do a 35% reduction on there heavy arty then those would be more productive for us as we could potentially get some self-propelled arty or maybe even some replacement arty for our Reserves which is something that would increase our capabilities tactically. These are just thoughts to try and take advantage of a ever changing world (like how we almost bought F14 fighters from Iran).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I was thinking more from a warstock standpoint where we have it put away until we could need it say in 10-20 years time when our current tanks get old and we start considering replacing them. I know financially it would be extremely expensive to field the tanks which is why a warstock of them might be a better option. Personally I just don't want the Forces to move back into the 'tankless' army concept which we had just before Afghanistan. I have no experience with any tank though and seeing that financially it is not in our best interest it could best be described as a pipe dream.
After looking at the document again what probally would be a better go is if they do a 35% reduction on there heavy arty then those would be more productive for us as we could potentially get some self-propelled arty or maybe even some replacement arty for our Reserves which is something that would increase our capabilities tactically. These are just thoughts to try and take advantage of a ever changing world (like how we almost bought F14 fighters from Iran).

You do recall what happened the last time we bought surplus equipment from the Brits right?

 

[Tank Troll]

Holy Hell!!! Have you even remotely thought about this or are you just thinking out loud? Brits are not known for making good armoured Vehicles. Just big slow, clankie, hard to work on, complicated mechanical nightmares. Then you want to put then in storage for 10 to 20 years? Where are you going to store them? At the war Museum? Cause that is the only place that they would be usefull at by then, and they would only want one. Armoured vehicles break when they sit and do nothing. Brit Armoured vehicles are built broken and proceed to deteriorate more when you start using them.

 

[Journeyman]

Seriously, just stop.

I was thinking more from a warstock standpoint where we have it put away until we could need it say in 10-20 years time when our current tanks get old and we start considering replacing them. I know financially it would be extremely expensive to field the tanks which is why a warstock of them might be a better option. Personally I just don't want the Forces to move back into the 'tankless' army concept which we had just before Afghanistan. I have no experience with any tank though and seeing that financially it is not in our best interest it could best be described as a pipe dream.
After looking at the document again what probally would be a better go is if they do a 35% reduction on there heavy arty then those would be more productive for us as we could potentially get some self-propelled arty or maybe even some replacement arty for our Reserves which is something that would increase our capabilities tactically. These are just thoughts to try and take advantage of a ever changing world (like how we almost bought F14 fighters from Iran).

So you've come around to accept that you don't know squat about tanks, logistics, or procurement, and you apparently don't understand that even "war stock" requires PYs for maintenance and inspection.

Yet you see nothing wrong with wading into sorting out artillery acquisition with the same knowledge base.  :brickwall:

Since you refuse to understand the difference between "opinions" and "informed opinions," I suspect that the expression "stay in your lane" will be right over your head as well.


Oh, and Canada never, EVER, considered buying Iranian F-14s; Canadians went down to the Grumman plant to check out new-buy Tomcats about the same time that German- and Japanese-airforce interest was lagging, but never Iranian.

That's just another one of those elusive "fact" things, that some posters care about.

 

[Timmy!]

you want to put then in storage for 10 to 20 years? Where are you going to store them? 

Worthington Memorial Park with the T-72 guarding the CANEX.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Oh, and Canada never, EVER, considered buying Iranian F-14s; Canadians went down to the Grumman plant to check out new-buy Tomcats about the same time that German- and Japanese-airforce interest was lagging, but never Iranian.

Look up the Iranian Revolution, AFTER it was over America refused to supply parts and equipment to maintain the newly purchased F14's they had (recently purchased under the Shah just before hand). Canada tried to get the Iranian F14's for an extremely cheap price as the Iranians now did not have the inferstructure to maintain them. Deals fell through at the last moment and we ended up buying the F18's instead. Just a quick history lesson.

You do recall what happened the last time we bought surplus equipment from the Brits right?

Yes I do the Subs. Canada was the ones who mostly screwed up on that one by trying to make the subs more 'Canadian' by putting in American equipment. They mostly worked fine before we started tinkering with them. But this is not the time or place to address that. Seeing as my thoughts are not welcome on at least this topic I will bid my adieu and try to stay more in my lane.  :bowing:

edit: forgot to spell check

 

[Journeyman]

Just a quick history lesson another drive-by "thought"  :

Finally, in the 1970s Grumman was persuing F-14 sales to Canada. The Canadians seemed interested, even came down to the Grumman plant for a briefing, check-ride, etc. They needed something to replace their aging F-101 Voodoos with, and the F-14 seemed to be the answer. In fact, it looked pretty good for a while, then suddenly the whole thing went sour. The reason for not buying the F-14 must have been politics, not the price of the plane.

Export Tomcats  <--- Oh look, a source.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Ok.  Some of these posts are starting to make sense now.  :

I was told by my COC that there probally wouldn't be any QL3's running this year for Supply Techs as there moving to DRMIS and as such are taking a year to redesign the course. As a Reservist Supply Tech that does worry me as I wish to be trade qualified as soon as possible (do not want to stay a cornflake for an other year).

Holy macaroni, how is it you are a SME on army, navy and air force procurement and weapon systems, yet still wearing a Cornflake?  :facepalm:

 

[Timmy!]

How does he do it? Amazing!

 

[AmmoTech90]

Just one more point.

In 20 years where do you expect to get the ammo for these perfectly preserved and serviceable tanks.  The UK is the only country that has significant production of that type and I have to wonder if they will still be making it in 20 years, because there is no guarantee that any stock we buy now will be useable then.  To ensure it is we would have to maintain a surveillance programme on it.  Good chunk of change there.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Export Tomcats  <--- Oh look, a source.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=R7Mi7MM75YIC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=iranian+revolution+canadian+f14+purchase&source=bl&ots=w5k6yZHazG&sig=4GCyZFw3f3aHZgLHQehGriDmhxk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=43ymUImbOcmU2QWAtYCYBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=iranian%20revolution%20canadian%20f14%20purchase&f=false
Page 280 if it doesn't come up proper.

http://www.casr.ca/id-cf18-1-3.htm


there's two of your important sources.

Holy macaroni, how is it you are a SME on army, navy and air force procurement and weapon systems, yet still wearing a Cornflake? 

I never said I was, putting down thoughts on a internet forum is exactly what they are, thoughts. Different people have different opinions and those are what mine are. You may not agree, it may not be plausable but at least I am willing to say when I am wrong. I have already said I was out of my lane and that I am done on this thread.

 

[Timmy!]

I have already said I was out of my lane and that I am done on this thread.

But you just replied......

 

[Journeyman]

http://books.google.ca/books....Page 280 if it doesn't come up proper.
http://www.casr.ca/id-cf18-1-3.htm

there's two of your important sources.

Source 2 is a virtual cut & paste from source 1, so you've provided one source. That source is an uncited musing by an author who, while a nice guy, is hardly an expert on the topic. (Yes, we've crossed paths several times over the years; we've both done more than a BMQ)

....I am done on this thread.

I have doubts.