Re-arming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

zen said:
£38 billion is the real figure plowed into this project from it's origin.
Click to expand...
It's very impressive that they've spent 38 billion pounds on not buying the BAE/Alvis CV90 variants for the TRACER requirement (or any of the five other FV432/FV510/CVRT replacement programs since about 1980) when the answer has been in plain sight the whole time.
 
To quote someone elsewhere.

"They had CVRT-2000 already planned out with stabilised 40mm and the superb 90mm Cockerill HV gun as options; the whole CVRT family was being planned for new model replacement when the Treasury/ MoD decided on the Peace Dividend instead. What could have been…"
 
What I'd like to know is whether any of the ASCOD/Pizarro/Ulan variants have similar issues, and if not what's different between them and Ajax.

I'm sure BAE Systems AB would be perfectly willing to come in and audit the design if GD can't figure it out themselves ;)
 
DWG said:
What I'd like to know is whether any of the ASCOD/Pizarro/Ulan variants have similar issues, and if not what's different between them and Ajax.

I'm sure BAE Systems AB would be perfectly willing to come in and audit the design if GD can't figure it out themselves ;)
Click to expand...
None that I'm aware of, the issue seems to have been scope creep. The Army kept adding on equipment during the design phase without changing the drivetrain to handle it iirc
 
It's pretty bad to think that this disaster has/will cost a good chunk of what the two carriers have cost, and yet seems to be heading to producing nothing combat capable. The Times is reporting that Pollard is pointing fingers at MOD/Senior Officers for not telling him the continuing issues before he declared IOC, Chris Bowbrick is being named checked in the article.

Though the Times is also reporting something else from that exercise, seems the MAN lorry fleet also has issues and requires a fleet wide safety check.
The support vehicles, the army’s “workhorses” essential for logistics, are used by nearly every unit of the British Army and Royal Marines. Some have been in service for nearly two decades. All six thousand of them have to be checked for safety after issues were raised with the bolts, it is understood.
A source said there was a problem with the bolts on the propeller shaft, which transfers power from the engine through to the wheels.
Another source said: “The vehicles would have been used to move supplies around on the exercise. They need to be inspected across every location.”
Click to expand...
 
DWG said:
What I'd like to know is whether any of the ASCOD/Pizarro/Ulan variants have similar issues, and if not what's different between them and Ajax.

I'm sure BAE Systems AB would be perfectly willing to come in and audit the design if GD can't figure it out themselves ;)
Click to expand...
I really don't know why CV90 for everything that isn't a tank or boxer or artillery hasn't been the choice. It's been the smart option since like 1985.
 
www.navylookout.com

Steel cut for RFA Resurgent, the first Fleet Solid Support ship - Navy Lookout

The first steel was cut today for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships, formally starting the construction of the class and confirming the name of the lead vessel. Now 10 years since the FSS project was made public in the 2015 SDSR, the ceremony at Navantia UK’s...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com

Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Resurgent, Resource and Regent are the names of the three new FSSS.
 

UK To Acquire Small Diameter Bombs For F-35 Fleet | Aviation Week Network

The UK plans to acquire the GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb II to give its Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters a long-desired standoff capability.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Reportedly, source familiar with the upcoming DIP have declared to Aviation Week that the plan will include an interim purchase of the Small Diameter Bomb to provide a standoff strike capability.
 
It appears that the AW149 has won the NMH contest after all....and Norway are buying it, both for their Army's/RAF not Navy and the AW101 CSAR variant (will that be the Italian Caesar design?).

Merlin HM.2 must be a shoo in for the naval requirement now as well...with Norway operating AW101 for SAR and now CSAR it would make sense, particularly with the news that they're planning to operate closely with the UK on T26 operations.

More co-operation on Stingray Mod2 as well....which again is a tick in the box for Merlin, plus the UK's funded work to get it on P-8....and I think may mean the Stingray Mod2 equipped new ASW weapon for Mk.41 will be on steadier ground....

You'd have to wonder about the prospects for Stratus LO with Norway too...temptation for some long range strike might be too much....

i wonder if this also makes CAMM-MR an even more likely prospect on RN vessels...Norway might want the extra reach, and the RN could do with it too. Poland is obviously keen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1996558648567640437
View: https://x.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1996558648567640437
 
Could see CAMM integration with NSAMS coming here

How many AW149 will Norway want?
 
whatismoo said:
I really don't know why CV90 for everything that isn't a tank or boxer or artillery hasn't been the choice. It's been the smart option since like 1985.
Click to expand...
Frankly the Ajax was the better choice when they were making the decision, its just instead of just building the ASCOD (which has had non of these issues and has been in service for decades at this point) the mod redesigned the thing to hell and back ending up with the same issues the us navy found with the constolation class.

The government wanted a forine ifv for cost savings, that army wanted a bespoke design for there operational parameters, the compromise has ended up with neither getting what they wanted.
 
Cjc said:
Frankly the Ajax was the better choice when they were making the decision, its just instead of just building the ASCOD (which has had non of these issues and has been in service for decades at this point) the mod redesigned the thing to hell and back ending up with the same issues the us navy found with the constolation class.
Click to expand...
What made Ajax better in 2010? BAe had a working prototype! GDLS had a piece of paper! Other than the fact that BAe offered a slightly worse industrial offset (building in Sweden and fitting out in Newcastle). There were over a thousand CV90 kicking around by 2010, and like under 250 Ascod. And they sweetened the industrial deal after someone reminded them they were fumbling it. It really just seems that the MOD hated BAe ground vehicles in the 2000s-2010s between FRES/Scout-SV and WCSP.
 
whatismoo said:
It really just seems that the MOD hated BAe ground vehicles in the 2000s-2010s between FRES/Scout-SV and WCSP.
Click to expand...

MoD was in an anyone but BAE mood at the time following Nimrod and Astute....it led to Ajax and WCSP going to Lockheed Martin, arguably that was even more insane...

Unfortunately they should have also been in an anyone but General Dynamics mood as well following the Bowman fiasco...(which also killed off Racal...).

Cjc said:
Frankly the Ajax was the better choice when they were making the decision, its just instead of just building the ASCOD (which has had non of these issues and has been in service for decades at this point) the mod redesigned the thing to hell and back ending up with the same issues the us navy found with the constolation class.
Click to expand...

ASCOD could not do the job....the base design from which Ajax spawned was ASCOD 2, of which there was one prototype...
 
whatismoo said:
What made Ajax better in 2010? BAe had a working prototype! GDLS had a piece of paper! Other than the fact that BAe offered a slightly worse industrial offset (building in Sweden and fitting out in Newcastle). There were over a thousand CV90 kicking around by 2010, and like under 250 Ascod. And they sweetened the industrial deal after someone reminded them they were fumbling it. It really just seems that the MOD hated BAe ground vehicles in the 2000s-2010s between FRES/Scout-SV and WCSP.
Click to expand...
Well the industrial offset was important pluse the design was a lot closer to what the uk army wanted, and ascod 2 also had a prototype so neither was seen as more ready then the other. Frankly if the uk had chosen the cv90 we would still probably be here sense the uk army would have demanded even more extensive alterations to the cv90 then they did to ascod. This whole issue has nothing to do with the chassis and has everything to do with bad decision making by the mod, very similar to how bad decisions by the us navy killed the consolation class.
 
Cjc said:
Well the industrial offset was important pluse the design was a lot closer to what the uk army wanted, and ascod 2 also had a prototype so neither was seen as more ready then the other. Frankly if the uk had chosen the cv90 we would still probably be here sense the uk army would have demanded even more extensive alterations to the cv90 then they did to ascod. This whole issue has nothing to do with the chassis and has everything to do with bad decision making by the mod, very similar to how bad decisions by the us navy killed the consolation class.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced this is the case given BAe had a prototype built, which kind of locks in the design, and had been working on CV90 based CVRT replacements since the 80s! They knew the requirements up down and sideways and spent 50 million making a working plan to meet them.
 

From Strategy to Stall? The UK’s Strategic Defence Review and the Emerging Implementation Gap​

www.aerosociety.com

From Strategy to Stall? The UK’s Strategic Defence Review and the Emerging Implementation Gap - Royal Aeronautical Society

Despite buzzwords of 'working at pace' and 'moving to a war footing', some six months on, the UK SDR now seems trapped in limbo with, as 2025 closes, still no publication of the Defence Investment Plan (DIP). The RAeS AIR AND SPACE POWER SPECIALIST GROUP examines the delay and its effect on...
www.aerosociety.com www.aerosociety.com
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

HII expands UK drone vessel operations hub at Portchester

US defence firm HII has doubled the size of its unmanned systems facility in Hampshire, strengthening its long-term presence in the UK and positioning the site as a European hub for autonomous maritime operations.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

An option for future unmanned escorts? There's the appeal of having the USN do the testing, then buying the rights to let Babcock produce them. The relationship between Babcock and HII already exists.
 
Reuben James said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

HII expands UK drone vessel operations hub at Portchester

US defence firm HII has doubled the size of its unmanned systems facility in Hampshire, strengthening its long-term presence in the UK and positioning the site as a European hub for autonomous maritime operations.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

An option for future unmanned escorts? There's the appeal of having the USN do the testing, then buying the rights to let Babcock produce them. The relationship between Babcock and HII already exists.
Click to expand...
My fear for the RN is that all their small surface ships will become USVs, shrinking their manpower.
 
Scott Kenny said:
My fear for the RN is that all their small surface ships will become USVs, shrinking their manpower.
Click to expand...
I do wonder about how they plan to mix the fleet. If each Type 26 is expected to deploy with a minimum of two extra USVs, you'd need maybe 8-10 hulls at minimum. That's with the assumption that maintaining the USVs in port would be easier than a frigate, for example.

Expanding that out to include the destroyers and patrol frigates, then maybe 30 unmanned hulls might be needed. If they could be designed for 15-20 year service lives, you could get a nice drumbeat going.
 
More information on the SA-80 replacement Project Grayburn:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK sets out Project Grayburn rifle replacement to industry

The Ministry of Defence has issued an industry notice expanding concept work on Project GRAYBURN, the long-running effort to replace the SA80, with an emphasis on UK manufacture, multiple variants and defeating modern body armour.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Explains the weapon systems it's to replace, including a new cadet rifle.

It'll be an interesting project to watch
 
Reuben James said:
I do wonder about how they plan to mix the fleet. If each Type 26 is expected to deploy with a minimum of two extra USVs, you'd need maybe 8-10 hulls at minimum. That's with the assumption that maintaining the USVs in port would be easier than a frigate, for example.

Expanding that out to include the destroyers and patrol frigates, then maybe 30 unmanned hulls might be needed. If they could be designed for 15-20 year service lives, you could get a nice drumbeat going.
Click to expand...
Well, you could probably skip the parts of post refit work-ups that are related to getting the crews back up to speed as opposed to those post refit work-ups that are about making sure the repairs and upgrades are all working, which gets into how many USV hulls you need to keep 1 at sea.

10x Type 26s means 3x at sea. You'd only need ~7-8x USVs of the type accompanying the Type 26s.




bob225 said:
More information on the SA-80 replacement Project Grayburn:

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK sets out Project Grayburn rifle replacement to industry

The Ministry of Defence has issued an industry notice expanding concept work on Project GRAYBURN, the long-running effort to replace the SA80, with an emphasis on UK manufacture, multiple variants and defeating modern body armour.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Explains the weapon systems it's to replace, including a new cadet rifle.

It'll be an interesting project to watch
Click to expand...
No, let the PDW be a P90 or MP7, don't waste time reinventing that wheel.

And "must be able to defeat modern body armor"?

The UK is buying into the same idiocy that the US Army did?

*facepalm*
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, let the PDW be a P90 or MP7, don't waste time reinventing that wheel.

And "must be able to defeat modern body armor"?

The UK is buying into the same idiocy that the US Army did?

*facepalm*
Click to expand...
Well if the UK buys a normal rifle (like the Scandi-AR, or the Colt Canada AR, or the L403 for everyone) you could just issue a ~200-300mm length barrel version as a PDW, you know like the L119 family CQB upper the Royal Marines have used for ages, which replaced the L22A1 for them, if memory serves.

In terms of defeating modern body armor, 5.56x45 can do that fine, but (and I hope someone reminds western militaries of this sooner or later) a grenade works much better. Adopting normal pressure 5.56x45mm with an EPR style bullet, like (IIRC) Thales F9 or FN PerMax should be perfectly suitable. Honestly, people forget that infantry rifle lethality is ~20% of casualties or less in peer conflicts. I'm sure there's data on this from Ukraine, and I sincerely hope that the UK's Armed Forces are looking at it.
 
whatismoo said:
Well if the UK buys a normal rifle (like the Scandi-AR, or the Colt Canada AR, or the L403 for everyone) you could just issue a ~200-300mm length barrel version as a PDW, you know like the L119 family CQB upper the Royal Marines have used for ages, which replaced the L22A1 for them, if memory serves.
Click to expand...
A stupid-short barrel for a 5.56 is a terrible idea. Massive muzzle flash/blast indoors. Not worth it. It's only better in comparison to a stupid-short barrel on 7.62x51.

Design a cartridge for the job and use THAT. Whether that's 4.6mm, 5.7x28, 6.5x25, 10mm pistol, 7.5 FK, 6x35mm, .300BLK, whatever.

Side note: 10mm pistol ammo is just as straight-sided as 5.7 is, you could make a 10mm P90 with a much heavier bolt or an actual locking bolt.​
 
Scott Kenny said:
A stupid-short barrel for a 5.56 is a terrible idea. Massive muzzle flash/blast indoors. Not worth it. It's only better in comparison to a stupid-short barrel on 7.62x51.

Design a cartridge for the job and use THAT. Whether that's 4.6mm, 5.7x28, 6.5x25, 10mm pistol, 7.5 FK, 6x35mm, .300BLK, whatever.

Side note: 10mm pistol ammo is just as straight-sided as 5.7 is, you could make a 10mm P90 with a much heavier bolt or an actual locking bolt.​
Click to expand...
My guess would be multiple versions of the same weapon to simplify logistics and training.

The UK Forces got rid of SMG (Sterling) and SLR in the 90's to go with one system.

Back in the day i was qualified on pistol (Browning) SMG, SLR, ( Bren and G3 for a short time), each requiring training, refreshing and range test (every 3 / 6 months can't remember) thats a lot of time and expense. I wasn't issued an SLR, but still had to pass the handling and range test so was confident in it's operation if need arose.

When we went to SA-80 it cut down training time greatly. (basically from a day / day and a half to a morning) which was great as you as was had to do that stuff on rest days not "shift days".

It'll be a common system with the same basic drills, just my opinion.
 
Scott Kenny said:
A stupid-short barrel for a 5.56 is a terrible idea. Massive muzzle flash/blast indoors. Not worth it. It's only better in comparison to a stupid-short barrel on 7.62x51.

Design a cartridge for the job and use THAT. Whether that's 4.6mm, 5.7x28, 6.5x25, 10mm pistol, 7.5 FK, 6x35mm, .300BLK, whatever.

Side note: 10mm pistol ammo is just as straight-sided as 5.7 is, you could make a 10mm P90 with a much heavier bolt or an actual locking bolt.​
Click to expand...
You put a relatively small suppressor on it to handle that. This is a solved problem since the moderators on the 10.5-11.5" CAR-15s...
 
whatismoo said:
You put a relatively small suppressor on it to handle that. This is a solved problem since the moderators on the 10.5-11.5" CAR-15s...
Click to expand...
I own one of those.

She is not pleasant indoors or in a place with a lot of hard surfaces around to bounce the blast back at you.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I own one of those.

She is not pleasant indoors or in a place with a lot of hard surfaces around to bounce the blast back at you.
Click to expand...
So I went and talked to the SOT I know, just to get some perspective (I don't have much experience with SBRs, he does). He doesn't have an SP account, but lurks occasionally. These were his comments:

I run an engineering business with a manufacturing SOT that, among other more energetic products, occasionally dabbles in small arms. We have a post-sample CAR-15 along with (germane to this short AR discussion) a modern 12.5” AR-15 with a fairly middling silencer (Dead Air’s Sandman K) and a modern 16” 5.56 AR (Daniel Defense M4v7). I think the CAR-15 with even a false moderator is not meaningfully worse than a 14.5”-16” 5.56 gun indoors, even in full auto, even in an indoor range booth. The 12.5 is an absolute pussycat by comparison and is extremely pleasant to shoot indoors, outdoors, or anywhere else. I’m not sure where the idea that short 5.56 guns are unusably loud came from. Perhaps it was people who aren’t wearing appropriate hearing protection?

Either way, a 12.5” AR-15 variant with a suppressor and an LPVO is perfectly usable indoors and out to 500m if you’re using halfway decent ammo. I’ve gotten first and second round hits on an IPSC silhouette target with my 12.5 at 487yd at an action shooting match and I’m not anything special in terms of shooting abilities.

The notable advantage of a short gun is that when you put a silencer on it, the whole package stays about the same length as a 16” barreled rifle, which itself is kinematically convenient because it’s about arms length.
Click to expand...
I hope you find them interesting and informative! I think there's a lot of potential given how much more mature engineering a suppressed 5.56 gun has gotten.
 
Going back specifically to Project Grayburn, I noted a YouTube video from Garand Thumb entitled The British Just Adopted A New USA Made Combat Rifle. Is there anything behind this or has Garand Thumb conflated the current Project Grayburn with the much smaller Project Hunter?

The American KAC KS-1 (with 350 mm barrel) was adopted as the UK's L403A1 Alternative Individual Weapon (AIW) for use by RMs and the British Army's Ranger Regiment. But that was back in 2023 and would seem to have little direct bearing on the procurement a new standard infantry weapon.

Garand Thumb's title does suggest that Knight's rifle is a done-deal for Project Grayburn. Mind you, this is 2026 and sales of American-made weapons are encountering headwinds.
 
Apophenia said:
Garand Thumb's title does suggest that Knight's rifle is a done-deal for Project Grayburn. Mind you, this is 2026 and sales of American-made weapons are encountering headwinds.
Click to expand...

It absolutely isn't...

KS-1 is too expensive for general issue in its current form.

But Grayburn is also emphasising UK sovereign manufacture....

"The MOD states that it intends for Project GRAYBURN systems to be produced domestically in order to strengthen sovereign supply chains, generate skilled employment and provide an exportable platform aligned with the Land Industrial Strategy. "

Unless Knights gets a serious UK partner thats them scuppered...

I think the 3 in the lead will be...

FN UK - They have manufacturing facilities that can be scaled up, the Manroy Engineering operation. MoD is very interested in EVOLYS...and their FN 15 rifle just got selected for a UK Police national contract (don't necessarily bet on the SCAR being the rifle selected...).
SIG UK - Partnering with AI and Edgar Brothers. AI obviously speaks for themselves, Edgar Brothers just recently announced a manufacturing site...MCX already in UK military and Police usage
H & K - Have a limited presence in Nottingham but could scale...

The above have long term relationships with MoD either themselves, or through their partners....without a UK presence (and the best partners have already been snapped up) any bid will struggle....and I don't think there are any really credible partners left...
 
timmymagic said:
But Grayburn is also emphasising UK sovereign manufacture....

"The MOD states that it intends for Project GRAYBURN systems to be produced domestically in order to strengthen sovereign supply chains, generate skilled employment and provide an exportable platform aligned with the Land Industrial Strategy. "
Click to expand...
Just about any "two blokes in a shed" can make AR receivers. Crud, I think there's 5 different companies in my city making them, some quite high-end and/or piston driven hybrids.

Though I suspect that the winner in terms of flexibility will be the MCX. I'd recommend a specific caliber just for the PDW, not running 5.56. 5.7x28mm would be an option (see the CMMG rotary-delayed blowback), or you could go up to 6x35 or .300BLK and as short as 6" or 8" barrels.
 
zen said:
I've got a soft spot for the Swedish startup promoting 6.5mm pistol compatible sabotage 4mm penetrator for PDW.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a wild little thing. Some overall dimensions as 9x19 NATO.

So you could have an MP5 with a new barrel and it's the equal of an M4. You could make a smaller/lighter thing, more like a vz61 Skorpion or Beretta 93R, and it's an M4 in a holster.

And for "carbine in a holster" missions, there's also the FK BRNO pistols.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom