Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...

[Chris Werb]

Stuart, did you see the leaked image showing the Conservative government's preferred solution to the DROPS 3 requirement?

[Stuart Galbraith]

LMAO.

 

I mean, its all good talk. They all say the right things. But they successive Governments have been saying the right thing since 1998 and it still doesnt seem to match up to the rhetoric. I dont think even the (restructured) 2 percent is enough to make up the ground we have lost since the war on terror.

[Chris Werb]

Well one source of cash is that actual operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were paid for out of the UK's 2% commitment. Now they're over there should be substantially more in the kitty. One problem, however is that, thanks to BREXIT, the pound now buys a lot less Javelin, GMLRS, 5" gun, JSF, AH-64E, Protector etc,

[Chris Werb]

Introducing RUSI's latest guest speaker.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just stop dragging up my childhood ok?

 

Whats next, Marmalade Atkins as PM?

[Chris Werb]

Just stop dragging up my childhood ok?

 

Whats next, Marmalade Atkins as PM?

 

No, don't be silly! It has to be Luna!

 

It's good that they're looking at fires, but I'm dubious about the strike division if it's firepower is based on 40mm CTA and dismounted JAVELIN. There are a number of holes in our inventory that could be rapidly plugged - bringing the AS90 regiments up to their former establishment in tube numbers (if some idiot hasn't decided to torch the surplus), buying PGK fuses, Excalibur and SMART cargo 155 rounds, Alternate Warhead and SMART MLRS rockets for example. I would like to see Javelin integrated on both the Warrior and Ajax now it can reach out to .4.5km and SPIKE-ER on a mobile platform too. Ajax may be a bit pricey for the latter application. CAMM-L is now a really urgent requirement and I hope the few Starstreak we held on to were upgraded to autotrack and integrated with the LML for anti UAV work. Some sort of laser weapon, however low powered, perhaps integrated with an RWS with autotrack would be be relatively inexpensive and very useful vs UAVs.

 

 

[Simon Tan]

Chris...UAVs are best tracked and zapped by EW.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No real reason why we cant buy more AS90s if we want them. Just get the poles to build them for us, and we regun them ala braveheart. Its not like the Chassis for AS90 was much cop anyway. Personally I want to build more here, but I accept that is a capablity we have let lapse through successive generations of Politicians fielding frontal lobotomies. No reason why we shouldn't bring it back though. As a cheap alternative, procure some of those BAE built 155mms the US Army has acquired for Stryker and Airborne Brigades. 105mm was great, 30 years ago. It wants replacing.

 

120mm mortar vehicle. No more excuses, no more whining, lets go and build one. Like yesterday. 81mm is great for light infantry, but considering how heavily forested the baltic states are, it wants something with a bit more footprint.

 

Reform at least one MLRS regiment. Id rather buy more and field 2, but the combined AS90/MLRS regiments are so wierd I expect even the French have noticed.

 

Im inclined to think we ought to field a missile system that can reach out beyond 200 klicks, but im not sure what one it would be, or whether even a NATO unit that we call contribute to might be a better solution. I cant see we would have much utility for it outside of a NATO mission really.

 

I think we should stop tweaking IFVs, and build a new tank. And yes, that probably means going halves with the beastly Europeans, or maybe half with the Americans, but as far as Im concerned, its about the only game still in town that can deal with creating fire, manoeuvre and shock effect on a modern battlefield. That doesnt mean IFVs dont have utiltity. Its just noting the Russians see a need to build IFV's and new tanks, and we should be doing the same thing too if we have half a mind to deal with the problem on at least equal terms. Upgrading 20 to 30 year old knockoffs is not going to cut it for much longer. I think we are better placed than many with Challenger2, but that doesnt me we shouldnt be considering a replacement PDQ either. We should stop pretendign AJAX is going to successfully going to replace Challenger 2, grow up and bite the bullet.

 

Not that I think any of this is realistic. Its just what I would be doing if some deranged fool made me Secretary of State for Defence.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Chris...UAVs are best tracked and zapped by EW.

Probably right. The Americans seem to be chasing a solution to the problem, but we dont even seem to see it as a problem yet.

 

The Russians are even developing means of fielding tactical drones you can deliver via 300 rockets. Which clearly is a bit disconcerting because it means 300mm rocket batteries can potentially self designate if it comes to it.

[Chris Werb]

I think we probably still have enough AS90s in store to fill out the existing regiments. No point in introducing something new in addition.

 

The towed 155 is a non starter - it's very vulnerable to CB fire and is slow firing (manually loaded), for most non all out war missions the 105mm is just as good if not better (suppression over time) and it's new L50 shell is meant to be equivalent to the M107 155mm in lethality. Some PGKs for its projectiles would be good though.

 

The 200km missile - we had a 300km missile project which was transparently ATACMS - we should purchase a small stock of those pending the new 500km, two per pod missile.

 

At least one HIMARS regiment would be a great investment- preferably two. I would personally like to phase out the M270 for the savings and superior operational mobility of a the wheeled launcher vehicle. It's rare you would need to fire 12 GMLRS or four 500km rockets off one vehicle in one go. I would like to see money put into a ground launched SPEAR 3 to launch from either MLRS pods or, better still, a pallet on the back of a MAN dropside truck so that any dropside could be a missile launcher. The P44 missile for the MLRS launcher is highly desirable as is MLRS launched SDB, but there are limits to what we can afford.

 

200+ km missile would be very useful in out of area operations as vastly increases the area one launcher can cover - much more a 500km missile. Think landing at San Carlos and immediately being able to hit any static target anywhere in the islands.

 

Yes emphatically to 120mm mortars, if we have the manpower to operate them. Both towed and vehicle mounted. INCONEL barrels. Guided projectiles (SALH/GPS and STRIX if still available). Long range glide projectile a possiblity in future.

 

Given our divisional structure, I'm not sure joint SPH/MLRS regiments are actually a bad thing - what is your argument against them?

 

MBT - adopt either Korean K2 or Japanese Type 10 with APS and possiblity of RWS, TUSK/TES kit and be done with it. Think about fitting MMW radar (I don't buy into the ESM vulnerability arguments). Collaborative engagement capability which Type 10 has and K2 may have is a must as is ability to retrofit 120mm gun and autoloader.

 

Jointly fund abortive US kinetic and top attack gun launched missiles/projectiles - ensure these will be 130mm sub cal compatible.

 

Adopt new US integrated air defence command system as per Poland. We were too far down the road with CAMM-L now, but US Army MML with AIM-9X twinned with ADAD and Giraffe looks like a very innovative and cheap solution to rear area AD and some C-RAM.

 

We need to bite the bullet and get ourselves back into the area AD/ATBM business. At least one Regiment of Patriot to the latest standard. One battery could be permanently emplaced to cover London, others mobile on 8x8 MAN chassis.

 

Counter-mobility. Find the person who retired the Plessy Shielder/VOLCANO system and shoot him. Get the system reinstated on lengthened AJAX chassis or buy back Stormers from Witham. Purchase helicopter deployable version and, if Germans agree, put AT-2 SCATMIN back into production for MLRS. Help fund remaining development of abortive US remotely monitored/operated area denial systems like PIP Hornet and investigate using new MLRS AW warhead as a remotely operated bounding mine.

[Chris Werb]

Chris...UAVs are best tracked and zapped by EW.

 

I've seen the counter UAV systems the Russians and Turks have deployed. They're enormous active emitters and would make high priority targets themselves (the Ukranians posted UAV footage of their artillery allegedly destroying one). I also wonder how they would work vs UAVs with highly directional antennae. Not saying they are entirely a bad idea, just that they might be better suited to taking out the likes of Predator/Reaper from great distances rather than dealing with quadcopters etc. A laser system can mess up the optics on a UAV and essentially mission kill it. I'm guessing one of those powerful hand held green lasers could if you could hold it steadily enough. Something you can put on a Humvee could probably physically destroy the smaller ones. The (relatively) soft kill laser system system would be relatively cheap, would not be an active emitter and would be very mobile. Alternatively hire this kid:

[Panzermann]

Chris...UAVs are best tracked and zapped by EW.

The radio connection is the weakest link. Cut it and the drones are pretty useless.

[BansheeOne]

 

Ah, the famous phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think we probably still have enough AS90s in store to fill out the existing regiments. No point in introducing something new in addition.

 

The towed 155 is a non starter - it's very vulnerable to CB fire and is slow firing (manually loaded), for most non all out war missions the 105mm is just as good if not better (suppression over time) and it's new L50 shell is meant to be equivalent to the M107 155mm in lethality. Some PGKs for its projectiles would be good though.

 

The 200km missile - we had a 300km missile project which was transparently ATACMS - we should purchase a small stock of those pending the new 500km, two per pod missile.

 

At least one HIMARS regiment would be a great investment- preferably two. I would personally like to phase out the M270 for the savings and superior operational mobility of a the wheeled launcher vehicle. It's rare you would need to fire 12 GMLRS or four 500km rockets off one vehicle in one go. I would like to see money put into a ground launched SPEAR 3 to launch from either MLRS pods or, better still, a pallet on the back of a MAN dropside truck so that any dropside could be a missile launcher. The P44 missile for the MLRS launcher is highly desirable as is MLRS launched SDB, but there are limits to what we can afford.

 

200+ km missile would be very useful in out of area operations as vastly increases the area one launcher can cover - much more a 500km missile. Think landing at San Carlos and immediately being able to hit any static target anywhere in the islands.

 

Yes emphatically to 120mm mortars, if we have the manpower to operate them. Both towed and vehicle mounted. INCONEL barrels. Guided projectiles (SALH/GPS and STRIX if still available). Long range glide projectile a possiblity in future.

 

Given our divisional structure, I'm not sure joint SPH/MLRS regiments are actually a bad thing - what is your argument against them?

 

MBT - adopt either Korean K2 or Japanese Type 10 with APS and possiblity of RWS, TUSK/TES kit and be done with it. Think about fitting MMW radar (I don't buy into the ESM vulnerability arguments). Collaborative engagement capability which Type 10 has and K2 may have is a must as is ability to retrofit 120mm gun and autoloader.

 

Jointly fund abortive US kinetic and top attack gun launched missiles/projectiles - ensure these will be 130mm sub cal compatible.

 

Adopt new US integrated air defence command system as per Poland. We were too far down the road with CAMM-L now, but US Army MML with AIM-9X twinned with ADAD and Giraffe looks like a very innovative and cheap solution to rear area AD and some C-RAM.

 

We need to bite the bullet and get ourselves back into the area AD/ATBM business. At least one Regiment of Patriot to the latest standard. One battery could be permanently emplaced to cover London, others mobile on 8x8 MAN chassis.

 

Counter-mobility. Find the person who retired the Plessy Shielder/VOLCANO system and shoot him. Get the system reinstated on lengthened AJAX chassis or buy back Stormers from Witham. Purchase helicopter deployable version and, if Germans agree, put AT-2 SCATMIN back into production for MLRS. Help fund remaining development of abortive US remotely monitored/operated area denial systems like PIP Hornet and investigate using new MLRS AW warhead as a remotely operated bounding mine.

 

 

89 according to the military balance. Of course maybe there is more that have just been dismantled, in the same way we have done to Challenger2. Might be able to kitbash a few more into life if it comes to it.

 

Well point taken for the light mission, I notice the Russians may have brought D30s into use for Spetsnaz Brigades, and similarly for them that probably works too. But one has to say, 155 towed is pretty much ALL the artillery for the Baltic states. The latvians have some towed 100mm in a reserve formation, and Lithuanian has a battalion of PZ2000 in the Iron Wolf Brigade, but their other brigade still has towed artillery. All the Estonian brigades, including the regular formation, have towed. Not sure that is going to change. So if it would be a problem for us, it assured is going to be as big a one for them, and indeed the yanks who seem in love with them for their Stryker Brigades.

I dont disagree about their vulnerability I might add. But even a vulnerable 155mm artillery system might be better than not having on at all, at least as far as hybrid is concerned.

 

No problem with HIMARs. I think have M270 armoured was pretty dumb, particularly in light of comparable Soviet systems all being softskin. We supposedly even went one better and had ours armoured against IEDs, which is even more wierd when you think about it, particularly as we have several thousand logistics trucks without any armour at all.

 

Surely it must be possible to develop minelets that ONLY kill armoured vehicles? I cant believe its impossible to find some way to claw back from the assumption all minelets are there to kill goats and small children.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Someone mentioned a goalkeeper system the yanks had kitbashed for used against mortar systems in Afghanistan. Would something like that mounted on a wheeled vehicle be adequate for dealing with small tactical drones?

[Dark_Falcon]

 

 

Chris Glenn, not sure what you meant about navies being a losing proposition in the long run as I did say land-based. Where I would go with this is a two tier, dual, ballistic and air breathing cruise system in two range brackets - 100km and 500km…

 

 

I suspect that surface navies have been losing ground relative to air power as viable instruments of 1^st-tier wars since 1945. Specific measures going forward are fine, (for example, rail guns are going to reverse trends for a while) but in the long run, offense is going to win, ships are just giant metal targets, and the US with respect to Europe is a sea power. So Europe in the long run should look to move NATO in the direction where Europe relies on itself more and where the US assistance is still welcome and valuable, but not necessary. There’s no rush, it’s just a long term trend.

 

 

Their subs are so quiet and we have such little ASW capability left, that it is unlikely we can prevent them causing serious mayhem in the Atlantic and further afield should they choose to do so. Our only deterrence/response would be to target civilian infrastructure, particularly power and energy distribution and we should make it clear that we would do so from the outset if they started a maritime commerce war against us

 

 

I’ve always been kind of skeptical about the effectiveness of ASW, because it seems to rely on the assumption of pristine sonar conditions, whereas when the war starts I kind of expect it that sonic jammers are going to turn large swaths of the Atlantic into concert stadiums, so that you’re trying to listening for a mouse while Guns and Roses is blasting out Sweet Child of Mine on stage at 95 decibels. OTOH, offensive mining might help, submarines are low tempo, and we have plenty of naval power.

 

Our limited ASW capability can therefore mostly be employed to defend reinforcement convoys.

 

 

Right, assuming that convoys remain a viable tactic moving forward. Might be cheaper just to build submersible freighters.

 

Therefore, if each major NATO country spent the equivalent of purchasing one destroyer, even if it meant forgoing one such warship, or a couple of frigates, we could put together a pretty amazing conventional deterrent force.

 

 

We already have a pretty amazing conventional deterrent forces, we don’t need any more of that – the Russians already know their power grid can be taken out and their ships sunk. What’s the point of threatening to bounce the rubble? They've already figured out that if that game gets played they lose a couple trillion and we lose 50 trillion. Why not just have a strategy where we just cut to the chase, blow up our own power grid and then our already agitated domestic scene spins into civil war? Isn't that where, “target civilian infrastructure, particularly power and energy distribution” will lead?

What we need are clear limits on what we ourselves do in the foreign policy sphere, sort of a self-deterrence from doing anything too rash, and institutions that root out people with instincts for risky strategies based on forcing the Russians and Chinese to submit. In terms of your idea that if we lose a convoy the Russians lose St. Petersburg's power grid, I think this is exactly the wrong approach. It's like saying 'if we win the game then its over fair and square but if we lose the game then we start shooting the other team's fans until they agree we won'. I think we've got to ditch the total war mentality and go back to the era where the rules of war were more formalized and the consequences limited. Britain and France in 1815 somehow managed to fight a war where they marched out into sparsely populated fields and shot it out at Waterloo, the French lost fair and square, and then everyone - winners and losers - went home, raised families, and world went on.

 

 

Waterloo is not the best analogy to use, since had France won that battle the war surely would have gone on. The Russians and the Hapsburg Empire would not have accepted an Anglo-Prussian defeat as having resolved the war.

[Dark_Falcon]

Someone mentioned a goalkeeper system the yanks had kitbashed for used against mortar systems in Afghanistan. Would something like that mounted on a wheeled vehicle be adequate for dealing with small tactical drones?

 

Phalanx system, Stuart, and it got named Centurion. Sorry about the name stealing from the great British tank, but yes, you can mount the system on a truck:

 

 

Goalkeeper, by contrast, uses the same 30mm cannon as the A-10, which really is too much 'Brrrrt!' to remain behind the lines. It'd be ordered forward to shoot up BMPs.

[carrierlost]

All the Estonian brigades, including the regular formation, have towed. Not sure that is going to change.

 

 

There were plans to purchase 155mm spg at about the same time as cv90 deal was done. Not much info since. Seems the options are limited for reasonable price. So currently there are 24 155mm fh-70 towed and 42 122mm d-30. I think the 105mm are no longer used. In addition we have about 160+ 120mm mortars.

[swerve]

 

Britain and France in 1815 somehow managed to fight a war where they marched out into sparsely populated fields and shot it out at Waterloo, the French lost fair and square, and then everyone - winners and losers - went home, raised families, and world went on.

 

 

Waterloo is not the best analogy to use, since had France won that battle the war surely would have gone on. The Russians and the Hapsburg Empire would not have accepted an Anglo-Prussian defeat as having resolved the war.

 

Schwarzenberg had over 200,000 Austrians & Germans from minor states facing a fraction of their number of French in Alsace & Lorraine. There was a Prussian corps to their north, & Barclay's Russians were on the march, & would soon be backing up the Austrians. They greatly outnumbered the forces the French could face them with, even if they won at Waterloo. The UK had reserves mobilising (e.g. a brother of one of my ancestors was training, having been recalled just after being released from the militia), as did everyone else.

 

Napoleon had to win just about every battle or lose the war. The Coalition could lose a lot of battles (& men) & still win.

Edited July 10, 2016 by swerve

[Gregory]

 

Someone mentioned a goalkeeper system the yanks had kitbashed for used against mortar systems in Afghanistan. Would something like that mounted on a wheeled vehicle be adequate for dealing with small tactical drones?

 

Phalanx system, Stuart, and it got named Centurion. Sorry about the name stealing from the great British tank, but yes, you can mount the system on a truck:

 

 

Goalkeeper, by contrast, uses the same 30mm cannon as the A-10, which really is too much 'Brrrrt!' to remain behind the lines. It'd be ordered forward to shoot up BMPs.

 

 

Why are these systems not more widespread? It would seem that targeting a subsonic target in an unpowered ballistic descent would be pretty easy for modern technology. Should be a a company level asset, really.

[Panzermann]

 

 

 

 

Someone mentioned a goalkeeper system the yanks had kitbashed for used against mortar systems in Afghanistan. Would something like that mounted on a wheeled vehicle be adequate for dealing with small tactical drones?

Phalanx system, Stuart, and it got named Centurion. Sorry about the name stealing from the great British tank, but yes, you can mount the system on a truck:

 

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/north_america/united_states/artillery_vehicle/centurion_c-ram/pictures/Centurion_C-RAM_Counter-Rocket_Artillery_Mortar_weapons_system_United_States_American_US_army_001.jpg

 

Goalkeeper, by contrast, uses the same 30mm cannon as the A-10, which really is too much 'Brrrrt!' to remain behind the lines. It'd be ordered forward to shoot up BMPs.

Why are these systems not more widespread? It would seem that targeting a subsonic target in an unpowered ballistic descent would be pretty easy for modern technology. Should be a a company level asset, really.

Cost mostly and they are only useful for fixed installations. Like a camp in AFG or similar. Not really usable for mobile warfare.

 

Though Rheinmetall is happily selling MANTIS and advertises it as next genearation self propelled AA gun system. (the weapon system formerly known as Oerlikon Skyshield)

 

 

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/air_defence_systems/index.php

[Chris Werb]

What Panzermann said. There has to be a cheaper way of doing C-RAM if you're going to do it at all - you can't afford to put Centurion or MANTIS guns around everything of value. The problem is that any peer enemy can totally saturate any conceivable defence anyway, hence it is being de-emphasised now. The US is working on combining the Multi Mission Launcher with distributed sensors and various cheap hit to kill missiles for C-RAM and counter precision munitions and AIM-9X for air breathing threats.

[Gregory]

Cost mostly and they are only useful for fixed installations. Like a camp in AFG or similar. Not really usable for mobile warfare.

How come?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

All the Estonian brigades, including the regular formation, have towed. Not sure that is going to change.

 

There were plans to purchase 155mm spg at about the same time as cv90 deal was done. Not much info since. Seems the options are limited for reasonable price. So currently there are 24 155mm fh-70 towed and 42 122mm d-30. I think the 105mm are no longer used. In addition we have about 160+ 120mm mortars.

 

Thats true, you are all well endowed with 120mm mortars. I think the Latvians use Finnish designed variants of 120mm Soviet mortars from WW2, which again is no bad thing, they seemed built to last. Makes our own lack of interest in firepower at the unit level frankly embarrassing.

 

Poles use 98mm in their light battalions, I always thought that was an interesting solution between mobility and firepower.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

Someone mentioned a goalkeeper system the yanks had kitbashed for used against mortar systems in Afghanistan. Would something like that mounted on a wheeled vehicle be adequate for dealing with small tactical drones?

 

Phalanx system, Stuart, and it got named Centurion. Sorry about the name stealing from the great British tank, but yes, you can mount the system on a truck:

 

 

Goalkeeper, by contrast, uses the same 30mm cannon as the A-10, which really is too much 'Brrrrt!' to remain behind the lines. It'd be ordered forward to shoot up BMPs.

 

 

Why are these systems not more widespread? It would seem that targeting a subsonic target in an unpowered ballistic descent would be pretty easy for modern technology. Should be a a company level asset, really.

 

Bit expensive, and a bit awkward to maintain I gather, or so it seems to suggest on US Army Air Defence lecture I listed above. Apparently they had to bring in Navy Corpsman to help train the Army on how to use it when it was initially fielded. Troops seemed to love it though, with a blimp mounted radar it seemed effectively to deal with the mortar threat in Afghanistan. Apparently they didnt even fired until the radar blimp was on the ground so effective did it turn out to be.

 

Thanks for that Dark Falcon.