back to article Coming live to a warzone near you: Army Truck Driver for Xbox!

As recently retired senior officers told UK Parliament that the armed forces are at risk of "institutional failure", the Ministry of Defence told the world's press that soldiers are playing with Xbox controllers. General Sir Richard Barrons, Admiral Sir George Zambellas and Air Marshal Sir Barry North all gave evidence to the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

    Didn't the Iowa battleship used drones in the first Gulf War to aim its main batteries guns, and check for results, and Iraqi forces surrendered in front of one of them? So, really nothing new... but it's alarming a 25 year old technology don't have proper countermeasures....

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

      it's alarming a 25 year old technology don't have proper countermeasures....

      There are appropriate countermeasures, mostly systems around the Oerlikon 35mm gun. The UK's Oerlikon GDF was retired due to budget cuts at the end of the cold war (havng been acquired via nicking them from the opposition during the falklands war) and is now in storage in the UK. Marconi developed the Marksman anti-aircraft system to stick 35mm guns on a tank, which Poland bought.

      So if we wanted or needed a system to shoot down drones then we can dig up the existing systems from storage and train people on them, or buy new ones from Marconi and train people on those. More pressing questions would realistically be what purpose our army is equipped for. Fighting the Russians seems to be in vogue again, so let's consider that for a moment.

      Our army has 227 tanks, plus 181 in reserve. The Russians have the following types and numbers of tanks:-

      T14 MBT- 100 active

      T90 MBT 350 Active 200 in reserve

      T80 MBT 450 Active 3000 in reserve

      T72 MBT 1900 Active 7000 in reserve

      It should be immediately obvious how inadequate our little army would be/is for fighting Russia.

      IMO: Britain has no place fighting a land war against pretty much anybody unless they are trying to cross the channel, and we'd be better off nationally having a smaller army but with lots of equipment in reserve. This means that we can relatively quickly ramp up the army in response to a crisis, but we don't have a standing army which our politicans can use to invade other countries because they want to look big on the international stage.

      We can then have a defense policy around having a larger navy to protect our trade (as evidentely we don't have the ships to protect it against pirates in speedboats with AK's at the moment) with a large and well equipped airforce. We'd then be able to contribute a usefully large and powerful airforce and navy taskforce to international operations instead of sending an inadequate number of illequipped troops.

      1. WolfFan Silver badge

        Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

        We can then have a defense policy around having a larger navy to protect our trade (as evidentely we don't have the ships to protect it against pirates in speedboats with AK's at the moment) with a large and well equipped airforce. We'd then be able to contribute a usefully large and powerful airforce and navy taskforce to international operations instead of sending an inadequate number of illequipped troops.

        You can see that. I can see that. We're not taking up space and gathering dust at #10.

        May I suggest gathering the assorted MPs (and Lords), both government and opposition, putting them aboard some RAF C-130s (if enough which actually work can be found) and dropping them onto the enemy of the day? (Parachutes optional.)

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

          May I suggest gathering the assorted MPs (and Lords), both government and opposition, putting them aboard some RAF C-130s (if enough which actually work can be found) and dropping them onto the enemy of the day? (Parachutes optional.)

          For my money, the lords do better than the commons. Every issue directly affecting me has gone through the commons on party political votes and ended up being kicked back down by the lords with a message that they aren't passing the law until there it contains a reasonable amount of sanity.

          That said, with the exception of the lords that actually have been doing good work holding sucessive governments of any colour to account for longer than i've been alive, i'd shed few tears should all of the politicans and political appointments to the lords tossed out of the back of a C130.

          And speaking of which, the C130. It was slated to have been replaced by the A400M by now, which is supposed to be a larger C130 with a better range, but cheaper than a C17.

          About that.

          C130 $67 million.

          A400M $179 million

          C17 $218 million

          We're buying 22 A400's, for a total of $3,938 million. Can we have 25 C130's for $1,675 million instead, and then spend $2,180 million on 10 C17's and then put the leftover $83 million back in the budget to spend on something else?

      2. Commswonk

        Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

        @ Peter2: This means that we can relatively quickly ramp up the army in response to a crisis...

        Are you a politician by any chance, or perhaps an aspiring one? Only a politician could ever believe that a country could "quickly ramp up the army" even if qualified by adding the word "relatively". In a crisis (the word you used) a response might be required in days at most, not some large multiple of months or years.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

          The suggestion was that the Brit Army is needed only against a Channel Invasion. Starting from today, how many days would it take the Russian Army to reach the Channel and be prepared to cross? Sure ain't days. At least I hope not...

          1. Jonathan Richards 1

            Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

            > Starting from today, how many days would it take the Russian Army to reach the Channel and be prepared to cross?

            It took the Wehrmacht 15 days from the beginning of the offensive against Belgium, France and the Netherlands until they had the BEF with its back to the sea at Dunkirk. [1] Of course, the Russians might have to cross Poland and Germany too, or maybe they'd take Ireland first with an amphibious landing? Granted, the reverse-D-Day operation would take much longer to mount, but not as much as you might think, if the situation got to that point.

            In any event, one wouldn't have time to train conscript troops to the standard required for modern land warfare, and possibly not enough time to mobilise anything more than a short-notice regularly re-trained reserve. [2]

            Operation Seelowe (Sealion), the German plan for invasion, was not mounted because the Germans couldn't achieve air supremacy over the English Channel. But it was touch and go...

            [1] You've seen the opening credits for Dad's Army, right?

            [2] As far as I know. I Am Not A Strategic Military Planner!

        2. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

          In a crisis (the word you used) a response might be required in days at most, not some large multiple of months or years.

          Ok, let me answer that in a different way. Let's say that we decide to forward deploy the entire army to say, poland. How does it take to get there? Assuming that all of our transport aircraft work then it'd take months to forward deploy an inadequate sized army and their supplies which probably wouldn't make a huge amount of difference to a shooting war.

          Forward deploying a few hundred cutting edge fighters however could be done in days, as they can all fly there and acquire accomodation by group booking a hotel next to the airfield. Ground crew can follow in by airline with their equipment on military transport aircraft and you have a small, but powerful and and useful military fighting force deployed which could sweep the skies clear and screw up an advancing army with Britains very well regarded bleeding edge Brimstone anti tank missiles. This is (IMO) a far more effective contribution to a military force than a small land army.

          It takes years to build a modern fighter jet, or ship. A decade for capital ships, as seen with our aircraft carriers. Land vehicles can be built in weeks.

          Ergo, a sane military strategy would be to stock up on the long lead time items like aircraft and ships, and maintain enough of a reserve of small arms and tanks that the gap between starting conscription and people graduating training and equipment rolling off the production lines is covered by equipment from reserves.

          IMO.

          And btw, even in WW2 there was a ~18 month gap between starting conscription and the start of bullets flying at our troops.

        3. EnviableOne

          Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

          The Isralie armed forces can do this, but thats because they have a large trained reserve force. if national service was re-introduced then it would be a possibility.

          Currently the Joint Rapid Reaction Force is on 48 hrs standby, bringing on a semi-perminant specially trained reserve and then a generally trained populace, would provide an effective ramp up for any threat, providing the reserve and reaction force are adequatley funded and spread between the relevant specialities.

      3. Lysenko

        Re: "used drones to observe the Ukrainians' movements"

        It should be immediately obvious how inadequate our little army would be/is for fighting Russia.

        It's always been obvious. Plans like this were always credible, even when the (much larger) BAOR was forward deployed alongside allies. British defence against invasion from the east has depended on French and British nuclear deterrence for over half a century. The intention was never to win in such a confrontation, it was to render the (inevitable) Soviet victory pyrrhic.

  2. iromko

    Second hand sources?

    The article says "an attack of the type Russia used to destroy two Ukrainian mechanised infantry battalions during Russia's invasion of the Crimea", but nowhere in the linked article there's mention that the attack you describe took place in Crimea.

    Also, during entire war with Russia in Donbas, there wasn't a single episode or attack to destroy two infantry battalions at the same time. The most devastating attack of the type described (UAV reconnaissance followed by rockets barrage) happened near Zelenopillya in the summer of 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelenopillya_rocket_attack. It was horrible, and sources probably refer to this episode, but fail to mention specifics.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Second hand sources?

      Whole thing reads like lots of bull which is somewhat away from reality.

      1. The Russian Army have long sold off and disposed off BM21 Grad described in the article which also does not have some of the capabilities described. BM21 is not in active service in the Russian army any more. This differs from Ukraine, Donbass rebels and everyone around them (Armenia, Azeri, etc) who still use them. BM21 is a war crime weapon by modern standards - it wipes out indiscriminately whole areas and is used predominantly against civilian targets (some footage of how it is done by Ukraine can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYu73JKDUZw . And here is the result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcc-cgWpU0Y - hospitals, firestations and other "military targets". Worthy of our other sponsored darlings the Taleban.

      2. The Russians are now at: Tornado-G (which can be mistaken for Grad as it uses the same caliber) and Whirlwind (Смерч) - 2 generations after that. The main weapon deployed by both is not thermobaric (though they have that in the arsenal). The main weapon is cassettes with guided individual elements each of which can take out nearly any armoured vehicle or tank presently in use (it attacks from top).

      3. The article missed the BIGGEST difference in Russian drone deployment scenarios compared to NATO and the biggest danger. Russian drones can be launched as a munition by the actual multiple rocket launcher. As a result, instead of a slow propeller driven spotter drone (as used by NATO) which can be picked up by radar from 30-40 kms out and taken out early on by a suitable AAA system there is a rocket munition which traverses the distance between the battery and the approximate target area in less than a minute. It reports within a minute tops, the targets are programmed and the battery opens up. Then it gets really ugly. The range is up to 100km for both systems presently in use (instead of under 30km for Grad). Presently, NATO forces have little or no defence against anything like this.

      4. If stuff out of point "3" above was used anywhere around Crimea or Donbass we would have known about it. As the systems in question are _NOT_ inside Ukraine and some of the munitions (especially the drone one) have not been exported it would have signified irrefutable evidence of Russian involvement. It would have been all over the press (and there would have been much more dead than 2 battalions).

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Second hand sources?

        One more thing I missed in the article.

        The range of any British Artillery is under 25km - both the AS90 and the Challenger cannot throw anywhere near the range of the ancient 1950-es BM21 if it is firing modern ammunition - it is 45km. The newer ones - Tornado and Whirlwind throw to 100+.

        It will take not artillery - it will take rockets and the Royal Artillery has in total as many launchers as one Russian or Chinese artillery regiment. Old ones too. Only the yanks, Turks and Greeks in Nato have the upgrades to throw to 140km and beyond. Royal Artillery does not, so if (god forbid) the UK army will ever meet an opponent armed with these it will need to rely on friendly air support (F35, cough, cough, sputter, cough, cough, sputter) instead.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Second hand sources?

      nowhere in the linked article there's mention that the attack you describe took place in Crimea

      Not only that but I distinctly remember that there were only very few dead bodies during the "Uncontested Arrival" of the Little Green Men, these being Ukraine barracks inhabitants who didn't take adequate cover as "warning shots" were fired.

      Does El Reg gets monies from the House of MoD for printing pablum?

  3. Trollslayer
    Facepalm

    Too true

    Having known people in the MoD this attitude is common throughout.

  4. collinsl Bronze badge

    OK - Tanks, like the challenger 2, are NOT artillery.

    Let's get that straight to start off with. They are tanks

    Artillery fires massively differently from tanks (mainly due to sight length differences) and we in the UK use the AS-90 as our primary self-propelled artillery:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS-90

    1. Alex Trenchard

      What you say is self-evidently true; however I believe the intent of the article was to suggest that heavy artillery has been considered a low priority during the years of counter-insurgency warfare, *as has* heavy armour. No further parallel between the two should be inferred.

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Interesting, AS90 has longer range, but Challenger 2 gets closer and more personal.

      However would anything be able to stop a Challenger 2?

      1. WolfFan Silver badge

        However would anything be able to stop a Challenger 2?

        Yes. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M123_Khrizantema

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Even against Dorchester?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing will change

    The bunglers of MoD are committed to all their mega-projects like F35B and carriers, and to projects that were small, but MoD bungling has made into mega-projects, like Watchkeeper. Therefore, with no more money because government can't manage to balance a budget, or plan over the long term, there will be no money to address these problems.

    Moreover, the "Defence Committee" is in fact a largely powerless parliamentary select committee, who are not responsible for the decisions of the Minister of Defence, or the top-to-bottom clowns to be found in MoD.

    Even in some parallel universe where MoD have more money, and can distinguish between arse and elbow, there's no political clarity on the roles that the military are intended to undertake (and those things that they won't do), and thus equipment needs, force size and relative shape can't be defined. That won't change with the shambolic fools of the current government (or those on the opposite benches), and I'm really delighted to see that the latest responsible minister has a degree in "social sciences" - that will help, I'm sure.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Nothing will change

      I am working my way through Lewis's book at the moment and it really does seem to ring true still the problems back then.

  6. Starace

    I don't know why people mention the X Box controllers

    It's not like it's exactly a new idea in military circles, and at least it's a nice cheap COTS bit of kit.

    What you use it for may however be well outside the scope of your average console playing kiddie.

  7. Bob Dole (tm)
    Headmaster

    Maybe the UK should just face reality

    Maybe it's time for the UK to face reality and just go ahead and retire their entire armed forces. Oh, sure, keep a hundred or so "elite" forces around to tag along with the big boys in order to maintain appearances, but on the whole just do away with trying to keep up with, well, anyone on defense spending.

    Just keep kissing the USA's butt while being an outsourced way of allowing the American's to spy on their own citizens - that should be worth quite a few billion each year more than you are currently paying for GCHQ. If you aren't doing this already - just treat spying as a business and whore yourself out to all the other western countries.

    After all, isn't knowing everyone's secrets a pretty good way to make sure they stay on your side?

    Then you can get back to the Tea and Crumpets.

    1. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: Maybe the UK should just face reality

      @ Bob Dole (tm)

      While your digs at the UK are a bit out of line, getting rid of the military is not such a bad idea.

      Costa Rica abolished theirs in 1948 after a civil war, and have never looked back.

      A Coast Guard type service and various Police type services would presumably still be needed, but who is the UK going to fight?

      There is no Empire to defend anymore, and killing foreigners on behalf of the US has proven a really poor idea. (See, I can do that too).

      I am going to go right ahead and assume that this will be an unpopular opinion based on the number of extremely detailed posts from the various commentards.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Maybe the UK should just face reality

        While I have to agree to an extent. I feel we should keep a few to help with humanitarian efforts.

        Realistically though, we don't have the resources to fight anybody.

  8. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    SPAD-UBER-LIKE

    SPUD-U-LIKE

    How long before a SPAD at the MOD comes up with the bright idea of teaming up with a company like UBER to supply battlefield transport for the forces?

    Self-employed army truck drivers. Supply your own truck and insurance

    1. Mark 85

      Re: SPAD-UBER-LIKE

      That's very reminiscent of the tale of French Army being transported from Paris to the front lines in WWI.

  9. Shades

    An X-Box controller controlled truck. How cute.

    How about a 596bhp Nissan GTR controlled with a PS4 DualShock4 controller... From of frickin' helicopter!

    https://youtu.be/jxKTBRcVROw

  10. naive

    Decades of liberal decay destroyed our armies

    Either we are degenerating or there is something else, everything is becoming foobar. If it is the KC-135 replacement or the ever lasting F35 drama, what our grandfathers designed and built in 3 years in the 50's, now takes decades before something is as good as the decades old system it is supposed to replace, involving cost increases which are out of proportion.

    The cost of new weapons systems prohibits to field appropriate numbers, while the politicians use it as an excuse to delay purchase as long they can. And there we are. The US Coast Guard can blow single handed any European navy out of the water, most European air forces use 70's era fighter jets, some armies decommissioned their tanks while governments spend most of their money on social benefits for the unemployed. It is like we are in the late 30's again, with our backbone destroyed by decades of liberal decay, whining on daily basis about potential threats and aggressors seems to be the only solution we have.

  11. ThatOne Silver badge
    Trollface

    The economically rational solution would be to outsource defense (to China, India, etc.)...

  12. Stevie

    Bah!

    "The exercise, which took place in Michigan, USA, is part of a wider British military effort to introduce autonomous and remote-controlled vehicles into battlefield resupply efforts, freeing up human soldiers to bring death and destruction to Her Majesty's enemies of the day."

    The UK considers Michigan an enemy? Or is this a forward collection area for the coming push against Wisconsin in retaliation for the whole Budweiser thing?

  13. Stevie

    Bah!

    By partnering with Google, Apple and Tesla, the UK could leverage it's fleet of Shackletons by making them into autonomous anti-submarine drones.

    Google would supply the e-charts, Tesla the autopilot and Apple the face shape recognition.

    The mighty Unmanned Shackleton would take off from HMS Sultan and roar majestically into the sky, then navigate via Norway, Iceland and the M5 to the English Channel at Nap of Earth in order to maximise the chances of glancing collisions with octogenarian cyclists and other stationary terrain features before zooming to submarine-spotting altitude and proceeding to bomb the daylights out of passing container ships, trawlers and the Isle of Wight ferry.

    While over water it could also be deploying special sonarbuoys designed to play "Rule Britannia" at Volume 11 to f*ck with the Rooskie Sonarpersons, the NSA's Global Array for Innocent Whale-Related Studies And Like That Honest and any Danish Entrepreneurs that might be venturing onto the high seas for a spot of submersible murdering and dismembering.

    By Jove, the thought of Britain's future robotic ASW force quite gets the old juices flowing.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like