Squad Mission Support System

Sometimes armed forces have a habit of making the simple and cheap expensive and complicated.


This was brought to our attention by Solomon's S.N.A.F.U. blog.

This is the United States' Army's new Squad Mission Support System,an unmanned vehicle to carry 600lbs (375kg) of kit for foot soldiers which is said to cost U.S. $500,000 (£312,000) each.

This is the British Army's Supacat All Terrain Mobile Platform (A.T.M.P.) which carries a payload of 1.6 tonnes (3,520 lbs) and cost about £46,000 each (U.S. $74,000) including a trailer back in 1997,today they can be purchased used at a very reasonable £9,500 (U.S.$15,200).

Infantrymen have to carry large amounts of equipment when they are operating in areas where vehicles cannot operate such as jungles,forests or mountains like the troops shown above in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan.

At most other times they will be on bases or operating alongside vehicles which can carry their kit for them.


The Squad Mission Support System cannot follow the infantry in very close terrain,it can only go to places where a manned vehicle could go.

But unlike the driver of a manned vehicle it cannot keep it's eyes and ears open for the enemy,pick up a rifle and shoot,provide medical attention to wounded men or even change it's own tyres when they are punctured.


To an infantry section it is more of a burden and less of a benefit than a manned vehicle.

Is it worth the loss of military capability and huge procurement cost of an unmanned vehicle just to save the wages of an 18 year old driver?

Member Of Parliament Opens His Eyes

This blog is not about politics.

But as European integration is the driving force behind the British Government's defence policy it is difficult to ignore it.

It is also difficult to ignore the fact that many in the British political and military establishment seem to have little idea that British defence policy is largely driven by the European Union.

Conservative Member of Parliament Douglas Carswell has been mentioned on this blog in an earlier post.

Mr.Carswell appears to be under the misapprehension that the British government follows a "buy British" defence procurement policy.

Even though it has for many years been following an avowedly "buy European" policy in line with European Union policy and at the cost of thousands of British jobs.

He also seems to think that the planned sharing of British and French aircraft carriers is the result of this "buy British" policy rather than a deliberate decision by the British government to participate in the creation of a pan-European naval force.

Military independence and political independence are indivisible.

Which is why independent nations try to buy domestically wherever it is practical.

Having surrendered the largest empire the World had ever seen as a result of inadequate security of supply,the British government should understand this better than most.

Without security of supply Britain does not have military independence.

Without military independence Britain does not have political independence.


Without political independence the British government cannot further the interests of the British people.

Which is why the European Union wants to replace national security of supply with European security of supply.

Even if Douglass Carswell does not understand the political importance of security of supply,the European Union certainly does.

However,if Mr.Carswell is not up to speed on defence procurement he does seem to have finally realised that the British government is following a policy of European integration.

Which he should have been able to work out from the tacit support of the Lisbon Treaty from Britain's Europeanist Prime Minister David Cameron.


The leader of Douglas Carswell's own Conservative party.

What Have Kiowa Warrior And Lynx Wildcat Got In Common?

The Agusta Westland Lynx Wildcat reconnaissance helicopter is often criticised for having it's sensors mounted on it's nose.

Many believe a reconnaissance helicopter should have these sensors mounted above the rotor head in what is known as a Mast Mounted Sight (M.M.S.).

This is where the OH 58D Kiowa carries it's sensors.

Mounting the sensors up high allows the helicopter to see over cover while hovering behind it protected from enemy fire.

This was very useful during the Cold War when these helicopters were expected to be falling back on to friendly terrain ahead of advancing Soviet tank armies.

However,recent operations have seen American forces moving fast and high over terrain controlled by the enemy.

Seeing what is beneath the helicopter is now regarded as more important than hiding behind hills and you can't do that with an M.M.S..

Which is why the latest "F" model of the Kiowa Warrior will have it's sensors relocated to the aircraft's nose.

Just Like the Wildcat.

But with even better all round coverage thanks to the under nose location.

There have also been suggestions that Mast Mounted Sights suffer from vibration more than nose mounted sights.

The Cost Of A Catapult

Some time ago in our post titled "Why Catapults Are Cheaper",we said the following:

"The cost of a British electromagnetic catapult system from Converteam is not public knowledge so we can but mention it but prices for the American system are known."

We may now know how much Converteam's catapult costs.

According to this week's Sunday Times newspaper,Converteam have offered to build a land based full scale prototype electro magnetic catapult and a ship set (2 catapults) for a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier at a cost of £140 Million.

This compares very well with the published cost of the American electro magnetic catapult system which we also covered in our earlier post:

"The cost of the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (E.M.A.L.S.) ship set for the same vessel is up to $573 Million (£370 Million*).

That is for a set of four catapults,enough for both new British aircraft carriers."

The American system comes in at an average of £92 Million per catapult (a more recent document suggests £105 Million per catapult) versus an average of £47 Million per catapult for the British system if the Sunday Times report is correct.

It would be interesting to know how the price of British arresting gear (made by MacTaggart Scott,inventors of the steam catapult) compares to that of the American Advanced Arresting Gear which costs £66 Million per set.

*Based on exchange rates on the 17th of September 2010 when the earlier post was written.

Extreme Fishing In The Gulf With The Royal Navy

The one that got away.

This video was published by Newsweek,and was brought to our attention by the CGBlog.


The article is unclear as to whether these are hostile Iranians or just innocent fisherman.


The video does not show what led up to this moment.


It is not clear if the boat was approaching the warship despite the visual and audible warnings or because of them.


Well placed warning shots clarified the situation for the crew of the small boat.

Post metrification,do youngsters get taught how big 100 yards is these days?


Note references in the video to "Port Battery P1",which we explained in an earlier post.