British Armed Forces

Einhard

Everytime Britian gets involved in a conflict somewhere, there are questions asked about the readiness of the forces, their capability, the quality and quantity of their equipment etc. For an uninformed observer, it would appear that the British armed forces are fairly pathetic, and incapable of responding to global threats in a focused and effective manner. In terms of Libya, the Brits don't even have a carrier from which they could launch operations.

Yet, Britain has the fourth largest expenditure on the military in the world. I also know that their armed forces are quite effective. Yet they don't appear to be as effective and powerful as they should be, given the money spent on them.

Is there a reason for this? Is the British media and parliamentary system simply better at reporting shortcomings than others? Is the British system more open and accountable? Or do the Brits have a problem with their armed forces?

OS119

Einhard wrote: »

...Is there a reason for this? Is the British media and parliamentary system simply better at reporting shortcomings than others? Is the British system more open and accountable? Or do the Brits have a problem with their armed forces?

i think there's an element of attitude about it - you hear lots of stuff about shortages and malfunctions, yet the UK is one of very few nations that could mount a 3000 mile round trip self-contained strike package with AWACS, ELINT, Tankers, Ground Surveilance Radar aircraft, strike aircraft with guided weapons and defence suppression capability, and the fighters to protect them. and its probably one of the three nations in the world that can deploy 2 infantry brigades, helicopters and fast jets in high-intensity combat 8000 miles away and sustain them indefinately.

there is a significant elemt of truth in the problems - by and large British politicians will stump up for equipment purchaces, yet they get niggardy about keeping them in spares, crews and fuel. so the 'glass half empty version' is you have a force with 70-odd cutting edge AH-64's that has problems deploying 10 of them, or a force of 160 or so Tornado and Typhoon fast jets that has fun putting 40 of them on deployment - and this is what gets reported on, but the 'glass half full' version is that only a relatively small amount of additional funds could/would see a massive increase in firepower in fairly short order.

did the French tell you about the aircraft carrier they built that was too short for the aircraft it was designed to carry?

Raging_Ninja

OS119 wrote: »

did the French tell you about the aircraft carrier they built that was too short for the aircraft it was designed to carry?

Can't launch aircraft in calm weather, right?

LondonIrish90

Einhard wrote: »

Is there a reason for this? Is the British media and parliamentary system simply better at reporting shortcomings than others? Is the British system more open and accountable? Or do the Brits have a problem with their armed forces?

Britain is at war considerably more of the time than many other nations. Due to the nature of warfare, there will always be shortcomings, problems and things going in no way like it was intended to. Because the Irish public are exposed to a lot of news from the UK, they will undoubtedly hear about the troubles that arise in British military operations.

The UK is not alone in having problems with its military in any way. In fact, there are few nations who share Britain's capability to deploy anywhere in the world within the space of a working week, should a crisis needing military intervention suddenly occur.

RMD

What a lot of people don't know is that there's a sizable contingent of 40 commando (Royal Marines) in the Mediterranean right now ready to go as a rapid reaction force. So if the need arises, Britain can react very quickly with enough soldiers to help the rebels push back a Gaddafi attack.

Utrinque Paratus

Einhard wrote: »

Everytime Britian gets involved in a conflict somewhere, there are questions asked about the readiness of the forces, their capability, the quality and quantity of their equipment etc. For an uninformed observer, it would appear that the British armed forces are fairly pathetic, and incapable of responding to global threats in a focused and effective manner. In terms of Libya, the Brits don't even have a carrier from which they could launch operations.

Yet, Britain has the fourth largest expenditure on the military in the world. I also know that their armed forces are quite effective. Yet they don't appear to be as effective and powerful as they should be, given the money spent on them.

Is there a reason for this? Is the British media and parliamentary system simply better at reporting shortcomings than others? Is the British system more open and accountable? Or do the Brits have a problem with their armed forces?

Its because you dont hear of problems with the French or other militaries. France does not have the overseas comitments the Uks armed forces do. When did France fight two wars at once ?

The only other nation doing this was the US.

They were bound to be overstretched, dont forget the UK also has 25,000 troops and armoured divisions in Germany, 5,000 in NI, 3,000 in Cyprus, 10,000 in Afghanistan, 700 the Falklands, 3,000 in canada etc.

There is no margin for error in terms of the avaliblity of man power or equipment.

By 2019 the UK will have the largest carriers outside the US. They are costing 7 billion pounds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nsxjWDl7Lk

no_bother

Am not doubting the british capability to react to - or itervene in situations where they are required - but if they are - and if any force is - including our own - the least they should expect - or be entitled to - despite budgets - is whether they are equiped in all ways to deal with these situations.

Utrinque Paratus

no_bother wrote: »

Am not doubting the british capability to react to - or itervene in situations where they are required - but if they are - and if any force is - including our own - the least they should expect - or be entitled to - despite budgets - is whether they are equiped in all ways to deal with these situations.

There is only so much money to go around, in recent yrs a large chunk went to building the new nuclear Astute class subs costing 4 billion for the first 4. 7 are planned.


At the same time as fighting wars on two fronts, the helicopter budget suffered, saying that the British army air corps alone operates 300 helicopters and the RAF the largest chinook fleet after the US with around 70 chinooks.

http://defense-update.com/newscast/1209/news/chinook_raf_151209.html


The new procurement will increase the Royal Air Force (RAF) Chinook fleet from 48 to 70 airframes. The recent order is part of the MOD newly announced 'Future Helicopter Strategy' that will deliver a 40 percent increase in the number of lift helicopters available for use on operations in extreme conditions, such as those in Afghanistan. The RAF will fly the new Chinook alongside the Merlins which arrived in Afghanistan last month.

no_bother

Understood - but given that is the case surely the spreading it thinly option is really not going to work - esp with families. I know the campaign in the uk seems to have been less on the news recently but it is still a big issue for the on the ground troops. the very least you would assume is that the guys / girls have up to date equipment.

Utrinque Paratus

no_bother wrote: »

Understood - but given that is the case surely the spreading it thinly option is really not going to work - esp with families. I know the campaign in the uk seems to have been less on the news recently but it is still a big issue for the on the ground troops. the very least you would assume is that the guys / girls have up to date equipment.

Actually UK infantry troops nowadays have personal issue gear only special forces get in many other armies. Youre 5 yrs out of date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army

The infantry section normally has two four man infantry fire teams. On operations each fire team can be equipped with the following:[44]
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army&action=edit&section=57"]edit[/URL Weapons

• 1 x L85A2
• 1 x L85A2 with UGL
• 1 x Minimi light machine gun
• 1 x L129A1 DMR
• 1 x 84mm Antitank Weapon
• 1 x Light Anti Structure Munition
• 4 x White Phosphorus smoke grenades
• 8 x high explosive grenades
• 4 x smoke grenades

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army&action=edit&section=58"]edit[/URL Vision systems

• 3 x Sight Unit Small Arms, Trilux (SUSAT)
• 1 x Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight (ACOG) to be used with the L129A1 DMR
• 2 x image intensified Common Weapon Sights
• 1 x TAM 14 small Thermal Imaging System
• 1 x Head Mounted Night Vision System (HNVS)
• 2 x VIPER 2+ thermal imaging weapon sight
• 2 x commanders target locating system (CTLS)

The new issue L115a3 Long range rifles are 25k each.
New Sniper Rifles Should have Range of "1,500 Metres": Officer

According to one senior officer, the new rifles should, ultimately, provide snipers with the capability to "engage a target at 1,500 metres." In the past, he said, range was capped at "about 1,000 metres."
He added: "Every soldier wants to be a sniper as they're held in extremely high regard. Battalions are desperate to send soldiers here (the Warminster-based Support Weapons School) for training and our courses are always full."


http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/new-sniper-rifle-sees-first-use-by-british-army.html

no_bother

thanks for that - don't mind being corrected - am happy to hear that is the case - just used to hear oh mentioning that the irish forces were better equiped though for less dangerous missions.

Utrinque Paratus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkL_MZLaqSs&feature=related

just used to hear oh mentioning that the irish forces were better equiped though for less dangerous missions.

................its total bs, the Irish army does not even have anti IED jamming capabilities on its vehicles, let alone some of the PI kit the Brits have.

no_bother

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkL_MZLaqSs&feature=related

just used to hear oh mentioning that the irish forces were better equiped though for less dangerous missions.

................its total bs, the Irish army does not even have anti IED jamming capabilities on its vehicles, let alone some of the PI kit the Brits have.

must follow up with oh - is more second hand info i am passing on so may not be 100%. Am happy to see things have improved.

newby.204

The new issue L115a3 Long range rifles are 25k each.

Unless they purchased some serious day/night optics as part of the package from AI, there is no way an AW series rifle, .338 or not, with extras and a 5-25 S&B, costs 25k.

Utrinque Paratus

newby.204 wrote: »

The new issue L115a3 Long range rifles are 25k each.

Unless they purchased some serious day/night optics as part of the package from AI, there is no way an AW series rifle, .338 or not, with extras and a 5-25 S&B, costs 25k.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3500569.ece

(bottom of link)

— Each rifle costs £23,000
Source: MoD

Utrinque Paratus

The new issue Mk 7 helmets have a GPS system built in that allows commanders to know the location of every soldier on the battlefield or patrol.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fist/



The future infantry soldier technology (FIST) programme is being managed by the dismounted close combat integrated project team at the UK Ministry of Defence Procurement Agency at Abbey Wood, Bristol.


The first major experimental trial for the FIST project under the assessment phase took place in January 2005 at the army's Salisbury Plain training area.
"The FIST system is expected to enter service between 2015 and 2020."
70 soldiers took part and each soldier was equipped with experimental systems including 'off-the-shelf' radios, computers, GPS, weapon sights and cameras. Effectiveness was compared with soldiers equipped with conventional infantry systems.

An extension to the FIST V2 trials took place in November 2006. Four teams competing for the command, control and communications system took part: Selex Communications – soldier system radio (SSR) and advanced situational awareness software; Thales – Vector Tetra radio and soldier integrated combat system (SICS); ITT soldier radio and Cobham integrated digital soldier system (IDSS); Raytheon MicroLight radio and Cobham soldier radio and integrated digital soldier system (IDSS). In May 2007, Raytheon's MicroLight radio was chosen as the communications system for FIST V2.

FIST programme aims

The FIST programme covers the development of all areas of technology for the dismounted infantry soldier and emphasises the integration of systems.
"FIST will provide the soldier with improved situational awareness, lethality and survivability."
The FIST system will provide the soldier with improved situational awareness, lethality and survivability.
The systems will be assessed on a measure of improved capability and on soldier friendliness with ease and comfort of operation.
The five main areas of capability are identified as C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), lethality (weapons and sights), mobility (navigation, size and weight of equipment), survivability (clothing, stealth, body armour) and sustainability (logistical considerations).


Awareness

A main strategy of the FIST programme is that the infantry soldier is a key element of the UK's network-enabled military force.
The FIST soldier's communications system provides communication up to company level. Above company level, communication is via the Bowman integrated combat radio system.
The soldier will have a small encrypted radio that operates over a line-of-sight, short range to other members of his unit. The patrol leader's radio will communicate with the forward operating base.
The network system will reroute automatically to allow continuity of operation when a communications link is broken, for example when a soldier moves over a hill or ridge.
Voice and data communications can be relayed to the soldier directly or via drone relay links from headquarters, which have downloaded battlefield commands, information and images from forward observers, unmanned air vehicles, remote sensors and other airborne or satellite surveillance assets. The UK's Watchkeeper unmanned air vehicle system is scheduled for deployment in 2010.
The soldier will have a global positioning system, a dead reckoner and map displays to increase his situational awareness. The use of helmet displays, wrist-mounted displays, hand-held and laptop computers and communications systems will be considered.
Lethality

"The SA80 will be fitted with an enhanced sighting system on the weapon or linked to a helmet-mounted sight."
The enhanced FIST lethality capability is mainly through improved sighting and weapons. The use of non-cooled observation and sighting systems saves weight and logistic requirements.
The infantry is currently equipped with the 5.56mm SA80 assault rifle. The SA80 will be fitted with an enhanced sighting system on the weapon or linked to the soldier's helmet mounted sight. A linked sighting system allows the soldier to fire round corners at the target while remaining in a protected position.
Other weapons available to the soldier include MBT LAW and Javelin anti-tank missiles and high-explosive fragmentation grenade (HEFG) launchers.
To engage targets hidden in trenches or behind shelters, the soldier can measure the range of the target with a laser rangefinder. The range data is downloaded to the weapon's round and the overflying weapon round detonates at the designated range to strike the hidden target.
Clothing

The clothing will reduce the soldier's visual, radar and infrared signatures as well as providing personal temperature control and environmental protection. The clothing might have built in wires or a type of wireless technology such as Bluetooth to interconnect the FIST components.
The grades of body armour protection will be selected for different operational requirements.
An integrated helmet will provide ballistic protection and an interface to other elements of the battlefield network. The helmet-mounted display can show the battlefield situation, with wearer's position, positions of friendly and hostile troops and equipment and prioritised targets, as well as the downloaded imagery from his weapon sight.
NBC protection

The infantry soldier will receive warning of a nuclear, biological chemical warfare (NBC) hazard via the battlefield information system applications (BISA). BISA, under development by SciSys, operates on the Bowman communications system and is linked to the Royal Air Force command control and information system (CCIS), the Royal Navy command support system (CSS) and the joint operational command (JOCS) structure. New lightweight and breathable materials are developed for NBC protection.
Power supplies

Future infantryman power requirements are estimated at an order of magnitude higher, i.e. ten times higher than currently used. Designs will continue to be based on advanced lithium ion battery technology until emerging technologies such as fuel cells and fuel cell chargers become more mature.
"Future infantryman power requirements are estimated to be ten times higher than currently used."
QinetiQ, at Farnborough, is investigating FIST power supplies, including fuel cell configurations and the application of QinetiQ's ammonium borate hydrogen generator.
ABSL Power Solutions Limited (formerly AEA Technology Battery Systems) produced a modified power system for the FIST V2 trials, which includes two lithium ion battery packs, each integrated in the SA80 rifle magazine pouch and connected to the power anagement unit (PMU). The PMU provides power for the GPS receiver, the situation awareness computer, thermal imaging and image intensification sights, and voice/data radios.
The UK MoD is funding the development of a handheld fuel cell for recharging conventional batteries by an industrial team including Black and Decker, Ineos Chlor, Intelligent Energy, and QinetiQ.
In early 2004, the UK MoD announced a bilateral information exchange agreement with USA, covering development of power sources, power management, fuel cells and batteries.

It wasn't me!

I had a pricelist from AI some time back (can't find it now and the place I got it is waiting on one for this month). The Magnum series weren't as cheap as the AE and the like, but it was nothing like five figures either, so either AI are charging a several hundred percent premium to the armed forces, the figures are just mistaken, or they're being fudged to conceal money going elsewhere, but yeah, I'd bet the entire system comes to about £7k, including any gunsmithing jobs done after purchase. Here's a secondhand one on this page for £3100. Add an optic such as a typical high end S&B and you're talking about £5k there. Certainly, £23k is horseshít.

Utrinque Paratus

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I had a pricelist from AI some time back (can't find it now and the place I got it is waiting on one for this month). The Magnum series weren't as cheap as the AE and the like, but it was nothing like five figures either, so either AI are charging a several hundred percent premium to the armed forces, the figures are just mistaken, or they're being fudged to conceal money going elsewhere, but yeah, I'd bet the entire system comes to about £7k, including any gunsmithing jobs done after purchase. Here's a secondhand one on this page for £3100. Add an optic such as a typical high end S&B and you're talking about £5k there. Certainly, £23k is horseshít.

the 25x Carl Zeiss optic alone would cost more then your figure.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3500569.ece


http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/2099467.new_23_000_sniper_rifle_unveiled/


A new and improved British Army sniper rifle was officially unveiled today.

With greater range, power and accuracy than existing sniper weapons, the Long Range L115A3 Rifle is already being used by some soldiers in Afghanistan and many more are set to arrive in the coming weeks.

At GBP23,000 each, including all its related kit, the precision rifle is the most expensive weapon of its kind to be used by British Armed Forces.

It wasn't me!

Utrinque Paratus wrote: »

the 25x Carl Zeiss optic alone would cost more then your figure.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3500569.ece


http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/2099467.new_23_000_sniper_rifle_unveiled/


A new and improved British Army sniper rifle was officially unveiled today.

With greater range, power and accuracy than existing sniper weapons, the Long Range L115A3 Rifle is already being used by some soldiers in Afghanistan and many more are set to arrive in the coming weeks.

At GBP23,000 each, including all its related kit, the precision rifle is the most expensive weapon of its kind to be used by British Armed Forces.

Last I checked it was a Schmidt and Bender, not a Zeiss. Evidence for that having changed? Also, the most expensive Zeiss scopes on the market aren't anything like that. I buy too much of this stuff not to know the prices, so don't know where you're getting yours. Pretty sure this is the optic in question, and it's nothing like £5k. Either way, the rifle system is going to cost nothing like £20k+. Perhaps including things like NVE and such, it gets much more expensive, but the rifle itself would come in around £7k.

OS119

It wasn't me! wrote: »

...but the rifle itself would come in around £7k.

thats my understanding - infact i think its a bit less than that.

personally i don't care that it doesn't cost £23k, its a bloody good weapon and it does the job.

It wasn't me!

OS119 wrote: »

thats my understanding - infact i think its a bit less than that.

personally i don't care that it doesn't cost £23k, its a bloody good weapon and it does the job.

Oh aye, had a go of an AE .308 recently and it really was a joy to shoot. Was shooting half inch groups at 200 yards with cheapo South African milsurp stuff. Trigger was a delight, too. Lovely rifles.

newby.204

I too am not questioning the rifles performance, i know both the .308 and .338 are fantastic rifles, i just its piss poor reporting, on the papers part UP, not yours

RMD

Never expect good quality accurate reporting when it comes to the military / arms. They'll always write the wrong crap or hype something up completely.