The future form of the Army

[mr.fred]

However this system significantly out performs most if not all western SPGs,

Not really. You’re picking the extreme ends of performance and citing them as standard.
The 2S35 is equivalent to a good, modern western SPG, which is impressive, but “Significantly outperforms” is not justified.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A fun picture here, at the start https://www.armyrecognition.com/analysi ... ustry.html
- answers LJ's wildest dreams (but we would have to buy Chinese )

Ignore the text in the linked as it does not fall within the headlined topic.

[Lord Jim]

You have no idea what my wildest dreams could be but they are not applicable to this board. Mind you there is no reason you could not substitute Boxer for all those variants.

As for the performance of the 2S35, well compared to anything we have it certainly overmatches our tube artillery, and matches the best western SPGs like the PzH2000. All the more reason for us not to go out an buy a new SPG until something becomes available that is highly mobile, easily deployable and has a equivalent performance, at least in range to the 2S35.

[Lord Jim]

I am for that kind of rebalancing, but I would not term it primary, but rather filling the gap in counter-battery- and if there are no batteries to counter, you can blow up command posts and logs nodes of the OpFor, just for fun

Given the flexibility of the HIMARS with the munitions available now and planned for the future I would put it as the primary until a SPG with the required capabilities becomes available. I mean the old German developed AT missile would certainly have its uses as would a HE bomblet version though that might fall foul of the anti AP mine agreements. For engagements under 10Km the Brigades have their integral 120mm Mortars able to fire a substantial amount of HE down range or more specialised rounds like the Swedish Strix.

I just don't see the point in using scarce funding to replace the AS-90 with a system that barely matched what the opposition already has. Any replacement must importantly meet the mobility and self deplorability criteria for a system to be able to effectively support the Army's Mechanised Brigades, which excludes heavy tracked platforms like the PzH2000.

[mr.fred]

As for the performance of the 2S35, well compared to anything we have it certainly overmatches our tube artillery, and matches the best western SPGs like the PzH2000. All the more reason for us not to go out an buy a new SPG until something becomes available that is highly mobile, easily deployable and has a equivalent performance, at least in range to the 2S35.

Depends a bit on how you state it. The AS90 has a burst rate of fire of 18 rounds per minute and a maximum range with guided munitions of 70km.*
If we hold out for the super SPG that will outrange**, out rate*** and otherwise out-stat any particular opposition we have, real or imagined, then we will end up entering the next conflict with exactly what we have now, but more obsolescent.

* Now that burst rate is for 10 seconds only and the 70km comes from guided ammunition the British army don’t have.
** though do we have the fire control to use that range?
*** how long do you think you want a fire mission to last? How long will it last when your opponents may have the ability to conduct counter battery fire?

[Ron5]

I'd be surprised if AS90 can reach 70 km with any existing ammo. Doesn't that usually require 52 cal?

[Lord Jim]

I have not seen any articles etc. mentioning that the AS-90 could shoot as far as 70Km with any type of rounds, but that doesn't mean it can't but as stated we have very limited varieties of 155mm ammunition and the AS-90 only has a 39 cal barrel. But the 2S35 is shooting not just guided but other rounds like HE out to 70km, though these are specially shaped I gather.

With HIMARS the Mechanised Brigades will have Artillery support that can cover a large operations area, and operating in widely spaced pair (500m to 1Km apart) one would be ready to fire whilst the other relocates. HIMARS has the range as of now to counter the newer Russian Artillery systems and the munitions in development will only improve its capabilities. So I propose that initially the Mechanised Brigades rely on HIMARS and their integral 120mm Mortar. The Armoured Cavalry Brigade would bring with it a Artillery Regiment equipped with AS-90s, but with four eight gun batters rather than the usual three. These will still have a role to play, but need more up to date rounds to be truly effective. The US should have a deployable SPG able to fire at least 70Km by the end of the decade, given the priority they have given to precision fires. So the Money possible allocated to the AS-90 supplement/replacement should instead go to purchasing two Regiments worth of HOMARS and the munitions to go with it, including a few ATACMs if possible.

But what about 16 Air Assault Brigade. Well except for the AAC Regiment of AH-64D Apache. it is probably has the least firepower of any front line formations, a bad situation when they are supposed to operate initially beyond the support of other units. So I propose again that all three Battalions of the Parachute Regiment should be recombined with a Reserve Battalions bringing the Brigade up to four. It should be modelled on the US Army's Rangers, and train in all types or Airborne warfare from Parachute assault to Ail Landing operations. The three regular Battalions will rotate as the on call support unit for he UKs Special Forces, and likewise the latter will be available to work in support of the Brigades operations acting to support the Brigades Pathfinders and providing advanced recce etc.

Each Battalion would be organised broadly as they are now, but would have access to pool of armoured platforms to enable them to carry out limited mobile operations up to company sized, in theatre once these are either flown or parachuted in. Regardless of their method of entry they need to be supported by a number of the new types of unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) being developed. The most promising is the US Army's Mule, which can be carried inside large helicopters or easily parachuted in with the troops. These will enable the units to move with far more ammunition, heavy weapons and supplies than has traditionally been done. This should allow the battalions to carry far greater firepower. How long these vehicles can go without needing to recharge I do not know but I am sure the US Army has looked into this, easily replacement battery packs would be one way forward.

Next the Brigade needs more integral aviation support. I propose the Brigade has a dedicated AAC Regiment equipped with one Squadron of light Recce Helicopters and three Squadrons of Medium Lift Helicopters, of a similar size and capacity to the UH-60 Blackhawk or the NH-90. This will allow the Brigade to carry out air mobile operations, without having to always rely on RAF assets totally, though it will require the services of the RAF to move its heavier equipment.

The Parachute Battalions will gain additional weaponry as well , such as the Carl Gustav M4 and its new types of ammunition providing an effective direct fire support capability at Platoon level. Like the Royal Marine Protection force, I would propose that the Para adopt the Colt Canada C8A3 Carbine. This is a far lighter and handier weapon than the L85A3, just as reliable and able to be set up as per each soldiers needs. The H&K UGL would be retained. The L7A2 GPMG would be replaced by its Light weight cousin the Maximi or Minimi Mk3, which is already in use by the Special Forces. It together with the L129A1 DMR will provide extended range suppressive fire within the Platoon. A further look should be given to the "Ironman", Ammunition Backpack system used in limited number by the US Army. This gives the gunner access to around 1200 rounds of ammunition, and is far easier to carry than numerous 100 round Bag Magazines dispersed throughout the Platoon. The Gunner personal kit would be redistributed about is webbing with larger items being carried by other members of the Platoon. The exact way this should be managed is a topic for discussion.

The Support Company will contain a Platoon equipped with both the three round pedestal launched and shoulder launched Control Module variants for the Starstreak HVM. It will also have a platoon equipped with a more modern ATGW than the current Javelin, ideally one with greater range and a man in the loop capability, therefore one of the Spike family should suffice. The Third Platoon would be equipped with both M2 Heavy Machine Guns and H&K Automatic Grenade Launchers.

There would be no integral Mortars, Fire support for the Brigade being provided by a Regiment of the Royal Horse Artillery equipped with rifles 120mm Mortars, which will have replaced their current 105mm Light Guns. The former are lighter than the latter and are more flexible, having a far great selection of ammunition available, adequate range and can be carried inside a Chinook. The Regiment will have three batteries nine mortars and a further Battery equipped with light weight UAVs with all weather day night capability. These will both provide targeting information for the Mortar Batteries and provide ISTAR support of the Infantry, which will be able to directly access the feed form the UAV and take control at Battalion of Company level is required.

This formation together with the UK Special Forces Group, the three Mechanised Brigades and the Armoured Cavalry Brigade would be the four weight tiers of the re-organised Army. All will train together on a regular basis, both regular and Reserve personnel. This should allow task Forces tailored to each individual mission, to be readily assembled with all aspects from Headquarters to logistics both rapidly and smoothly without having to send out raiding parties to rob other units to make up shortfalls in equipment.

These Units together will form the UKs main fighting force, an enlarged 3rd (UK) Division, and with 3 Commando Brigade are the UK's ground combat component. The British Amy's 1st Division would be greatly reduced in strength, consisting of only two Brigades, one of which would be the Household Brigade. Both these Brigades would become Motorised, being equipped with the MRV(P) programme winners in their various forms. The Division would not contain any Artillery units except for a Reserve Regiment tasked jointly with ISTAR and Air Defence duties, equipped with UAVs and the man portable Starstreak HVM. Each Brigade will comprise of one Cavalry/Recce Regiment and four Infantry Regiments. they will however unlike now be organised as full sized Battalions, but with a reserve component of up to 30%, and would contain assets such as the Mortar Company equipped with L16A2 81mm Mortar, and Carl Gustav M4s for fire support and Javelin for Anti Tank work.

This will mean the disbandment of up to eight Light Role Infantry Battalions and one Light Cavalry Regiment, as well as reducing the number and size of the 102 Logistics Brigade that supports the Division, but most personnel would go to bring other units unto full strength with some of the units with 102 Brigade transferring to 101 Logistics Brigade supporting 3rd (UK) Division.

Any discussion is most welcome on the above, whether to amend or replace or reject what I have proposed here and in earlier posts.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given the flexibility of the HIMARS with the munitions available

well for area effects (as per normal artillery use) you would require AW - "A" for Alternative, which
A. we don't have, and
B. where the RoF of HIMARS relative to its tracked brother would become a severe handicap

which excludes heavy tracked platforms like the PzH2000.

Agree, as PZ is a rare beast: not just an SPG, but armoured in a more serious way than most

and the 70km comes from guided ammunition the British army don’t have.

+

the AS-90 only has a 39 cal barrel

if we are talking Excalibur, its range from the shorter barrel was quoted on the preceding page of comments

** though do we have the fire control to use that range?

same range as for GMLRS

how long do you think you want a fire mission to last? How long will it last when your opponents may have the ability to conduct counter battery fire?

Now we are talking - a key point

operating in widely spaced pair (500m to 1Km apart)

No different from how a "fire box" for an AS90 battery works - though for conventional artillery I believe the next positions are planned and a DROPS sent to do a 'drop' proactively... takes us back to the fact you mentioned that the platform for such a use would need to be a protected one. We had plenty of AS90 platforms to convert for such a role and definitely not adding to the REME burden... rather a store of spares that is 'self propelled'

including a few ATACMs if possible.

the next GMLRS will double the range and halve the unit cost. Finnish army upgraded the fire controls for ATACMs, but then backed off from the purchase. High unit cost was officially quoted, but then again Putin might have been on the phone - as he was when the UK-led tripwire force was sent to Estonia: the planned GMLRS support was left behind

[ArmChairCivvy]

Each Battalion would be organised broadly as they are now, but would have access to pool of armoured platforms to enable them to carry out limited mobile operations up to company sized

Those pools raise interesting questions. First of all there is the RM pool of Vikings. Second, close to a hundred CRV(T)s were remanufactured - or were they totally new - for Afghanistan, and over half of those would be suitable for a fire support role, though using rounds that are becoming or have become 'non-std'. - Where is this fleet now?

will mean the disbandment of up to eight Light Role Infantry Battalions and one Light Cavalry Regimen

Have you allowed for the 1 bn in Brunei and 2 on Cyprus? Again, one of the latter could have access to the limited number of Warriors that were TES'sed for ops in the heat that you can encounter there... and everywhere as far as there is a fire bde role 'somewhere' in the ME assigned. For base security only, surely one bn would suffice?

[mr.fred]

if we are talking Excalibur, its range from the shorter barrel was quoted on the preceding page of comments

No, Vulcano.

[jedibeeftrix]

jedibeeftrix wrote:
strike, properly done - as outlined by LJ - does serve a real purpose [...] of affordable, quick, and logistically light power projection, Art5 is a second order priority here.

Which by no means... means that is it is a 2nd priority overall.

i understand your point, but I think you also get mine?

from a formation/investment PoV we're building the army around expeditionary reach not resilience against massed armour:

there is a reason the future concept is built around wheeled mid-weight brigades with low firepower, and designed to operate as dis-aggregated whole across wide areas. strike is not designed to rush Lithuania in very dense demography against high firepower/armour overmatch.

there is a reason why we're dropping from five multirole brigages, to three arm-inf brigades, to two arm-inf brigades, to people now suggesting that we can justify only one. because WW3 isn't a decadal event, and we can't justify the huge loggy/reme burden to move these things on an every day basis.

strike is necessary every day, even if it is of reduced utility in extremis.
armour is effectively useless for the every day, but we need some for extremis.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if we are talking Excalibur, its range from the shorter barrel was quoted on the preceding page of comments

No, Vulcano.

Yes, sorry, you did say so.

Excalibur could go into our tube artillery as we have it, whereas wouldn't Vulcano require the longer barrel?
- no worries, we licensed the Braveheart turret to Huta Stalowa, so we'll just order some (through they did swap to a different gun; indeed they swapped twice to get it working)

[ArmChairCivvy]

we're building the army around expeditionary reach not resilience against massed armour:
[...]

there is a reason why we're dropping from five multirole brigages, to three arm-inf brigades, to two arm-inf brigade

Yes, I do see your point. Just to be pedantic
- 5 MRB were to transform what we had to the rule of 5 for sustained rotation in expeditionary mode
- when the crazy idea was dropped, we went back to the 3 x AI so that we could contribute something to deterrence, instead of looking for wars we could 'win' without a shot being fired
- the first transformation (rather than cheese slicing) is now happening: to get from those 3 to the 2+2 (pepper that with an Apache rgmnt or two and airmobile inf. bn or two)... just that the transitioning is over a v long period of time

[mr.fred]

Excalibur could go into our tube artillery as we have it, whereas wouldn't Vulcano require the longer barrel?
- no worries, we licensed the Braveheart turret to Huta Stalowa, so we'll just order some (through they did swap to a different gun; indeed they swapped twice to get it working)

There’s a document from BAESystems on employment of Vulcano projectiles from different guns. 70km is the value for the guided projectile from the 39-cal guns.

Quoting performance for the 52-cal gun would also be good equivocation. Although the gun used in the Polish SPG is not the same ordnance as that trialled by the British Army.

[ArmChairCivvy]

. 70km is the value for the guided projectile from the 39-cal guns

Wow, with all that base bleed, is there any 'payload' left?

Although the gun used in the Polish SPG is not the same ordnance as that trialled by the British Army.

I seem to remember that they first went to the Nexter gun, but swapped for a German one.
- though my memory on this development path might be a bit hazy that would make it the same gun as what the land version of the Vulcano round was modified for: The Vulcano 155mm artillery projectile has been developed to meet the requirements of the Italian Army fired from its PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Quoting performance for the 52-cal gun would also be good equivocation

Oh, forgot this one. Deagel says 80 km (10 km more then)

[Lord Jim]

I agree that the weight of fire per vehicle puts the HIMARS at a disadvantage compared to the M270, but the fact that there could be multiple HIMARS engaging a single target, form different directions matches the fire power, but increases the survivability. The HIMARs are more mobile and with only firing six instead of twelve rockets can be out of action slightly quicker. Again with only one, six rocket module to replace, the HIMARS can be reloaded faster. The reason I proposed two Regiments of HIMARS replacing the one of M270 GLMRS was to make the system more widely available. We did not modernise all our M270 to be able to fire the GMLRS rockets. Any purchased HIMARS would be able to fire all available munitions including the ATACMs. But the biggest pluses for HIMARS over the M270 is its ability to self deploy and having a far smaller logistical foot print.

Regarding the deployments in Brunei and Cyprus, I had forgotten about the 2nd Battalion Ghurkha Rifles, but they are outside the Army's main order of battle, being permanently station in the Kingdom, and I believe the Sultan helps towards their upkeep. As for Cyprus, I would remove the "Fire Brigade" role and reduce the force to one Battalion, but I would have this role carried out by a Squadron of the Royal Air Force Regiment, as their specialty is Base Security.

With regards to the "Pool" f vehicles to be available to the re-organised 16 Air Assault, whilst many of he CVR(T) Family were modernised and a small number of new vehicles purchased, the Scimitar 2s, I do not see these as a suitable platform for the proposed role, or at least not without a major re engineering programme. My thoughts were more along the lines of a number of variants of the JLTV.

Returning to artillery, the Volcano round would give our existing AS-90s greater range with a maximum range of 50km with BER and 70km with the Guided Long Range (GLR) version. however it is a subcalibre round and contains substantially less explosive material than a conventional HE round, especially the GLR version. As far as I see the Volcano would have a place in our inventory and would increase the usefulness of the AS-90s, but these cannot effectively support the Mechanised Brigades, for that we need a wheeled platforms. For the "Strike" principal to work, units must be able to self deploy over large distances with a much smaller logistical foot print that the current Armoured Infantry Brigades.

[ArmChairCivvy]

For the "Strike" principal to work, units must be able to self deploy over large distances with a much smaller logistical foot print

V true and to move into that direction we will have to finally start to stick to vehicle families, rather than buying 'the best' for any and evry functional requirement. Doing that rigorously will yield, as a bonus, simplified maintenance, a reduced range [= total parts nomenclature] and scale [good old portfolio theory says that as you increase the sample size, the parameters will be known more reliably... i.e. more eggs in the same basket - for once - helps] of inventory
- thus, the consequent reduction in the strike brigades' logs footprint should contribute to greater deployability
- and speed of response,too, as configuring a brigade in a task-oriented way will not lead, as easily, to bringing 'exotic' assets, with totally bespoke support, into the mix

[mr.fred]

Reference for the Vulcano: https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/produc ... -munitions

But the point isn’t “I want vulcano”, but rather “make sure you don’t judge your kit against the outlier specifications of the potential opposition” and “don’t hamstring yourself to achieve a requirement you either won’t or can’t use”

[Lord Jim]

I think I understand where you are coming from here. Volcano is a capability that would definitely improve the range of legacy platforms, but will it achieve the weight of fire require to neutralise a given target. This is where HIMARS or the M270 firing extended range rockets carrying submunitions would probably do a better job. At that range you are after key targets, like the oppositions own artillery, and not engaging Infantry and I still see the battalions 120mm Mortars playing the key role in providing indirect fire support for the troops. In a similar vein, the enlarged AS-90 Regiment accompanying the Armoured Cavalry Brigade would still have a very useful roll in providing fire support until replaced by a platform that can deploy at the same speed as the Mechanised formations.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the point isn’t “I want vulcano”, but rather

anything that we can stuff down the barrels -oops, I guess the process works from the other direction - of what we have now, fielded
- then, next, rebalance the the conventional and rocket artillery
... as both are going through "order-of-magnitude"changes

[Lord Jim]

as both are going through "order-of-magnitude"changes

The whole Army needs to go through a series of major changes in both equipment and doctrine.

[ArmChairCivvy]

as both are going through "order-of-magnitude"changes

The whole Army needs to go through a series of major changes in both equipment and doctrine.

Agree, and that is true from time to time> Read an excellent pocket-book history of the British Army and it is clear that without the changes set in train between the Boer War and WW1 we would not be here (living in the same way) now...far more important than producing the world's first mechanised expeditionary force; that came back without any of its kit.
- after the latest expeditionary stints we ended up again (like bfr WW2, when there was that thin wedge, BEF, and a huge garrisoning force spread around the world) with effectively two armies: the small force with the latest kit (given to the next rotation) and the rest of the army 'standing still'

HOWEVER, my comment was meant to be much narrower: both tube and rocket artillery are going through a step change in their related technologies
- so it is not an easy question as for "HOW TO balance them, going forward"

[jedibeeftrix]

Of relevance:

[mr.fred]

the point isn’t “I want vulcano”, but rather

anything that we can stuff down the barrels -oops, I guess the process works from the other direction - of what we have now, fielded
- then, next, rebalance the the conventional and rocket artillery
... as both are going through "order-of-magnitude"changes

I find most uses of “order of magnitude”, “game changer”, “step change” and “quantum leap” reflect a poor understanding of the situation or a hopelessly optimistic appreciation of the potential new systems being touted.
In the literal sense, for an 80km range to be an “order of magnitude” improvement, the current state of the art would have to be 8km. For 16 round per minute to be the same, 1.6 would have to be the current reality.