General UK Defence Discussion

[Tempest414]

While it may of changed since and could/should be balanced differently going fwd if you wanted a baseline concept of what a future force structure may look like given likely defence spending then I would suggest the one that came out of sdsr 2010 is what it looks like. By all means perhaps one more coherent increasing some bits will mean reduction elsewhere within it but a starting point none the less.

suggest tasks along the lines of

Defend then UK and overseas territories
Provide strategic intelligence
Provide nuclear deterrence
Provide a contribution to the defence and stability of allied territories.
Uphold freedom of navigation.

With the aim of conducting in support of those tasks.

One medium scale enduring operation.
One enduring small scale operation.
One non enduring small scale operation (less than 6 months).

Along with standing tasks in support of the uk and our overseas territories.

the Simple fact is a part from the CASD this list has been the core of UK defence since Nelson the money and kit may have gone up and down with the times but the job stays the same and always will

[SW1]

While it may of changed since and could/should be balanced differently going fwd if you wanted a baseline concept of what a future force structure may look like given likely defence spending then I would suggest the one that came out of sdsr 2010 is what it looks like. By all means perhaps one more coherent increasing some bits will mean reduction elsewhere within it but a starting point none the less.

suggest tasks along the lines of

Defend then UK and overseas territories
Provide strategic intelligence
Provide nuclear deterrence
Provide a contribution to the defence and stability of allied territories.
Uphold freedom of navigation.

With the aim of conducting in support of those tasks.

One medium scale enduring operation.
One enduring small scale operation.
One non enduring small scale operation (less than 6 months).

Along with standing tasks in support of the uk and our overseas territories.

the Simple fact is a part from the CASD this list has been the core of UK defence since Nelson the money and kit may have gone up and down with the times but the job stays the same and always will

Yes it is the core req. it’s the scale of the commitment and number of concurrent operations that’s flex with budget.

[Poiuytrewq]

Pretty strongly worded but if these reports change nothing then is there really any point in publishing it apart from stating the obvious?

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 0/default/

[tomuk]

Pretty strongly worded but if these reports change nothing then is there really any point in publishing it apart from stating the obvious?

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 0/default/

They don't change anything.

[Poiuytrewq]

Adds a sense of perspective to the planned UK order.

[Tempest414]

Adds a sense of perspective to the planned UK order.

Maybe but the UK will have 71 M270a2 so in terms of tubes this would equal 142 HIMARS

[sol]

Maybe but the UK will have 71 M270a2 so in terms of tubes this would equal 142 HIMARS

Current plan is for 75 M270A2 and 10 recovery vehicles.

[Poiuytrewq]

There has been a lot of criticism of this but I’m not sure it’s entirely fair.

https://www.forces.net/services/army/ex ... e-cgs-says

Much of the criticism comes from comparisons with Poland which is fair but it’s not the whole story IMO. The Poles are certainly running up the credit card bill but getting everything to seamlessly integrate and maintaining all that new kit going forward is going to be a logistical nightmare. I wish the Poles the best of luck and without doubt the scale of the ambition is absolutely correct.

IMO the British Army is on the right track by the end of the decade (if AJAX works) but it’s the scale of the ambition that is just too small. The lack of mass is apparent and technological superiority will only achieve so much as the US have proved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The UK shouldn’t try to build an enormous land Army but with peer on peer conflict a plausible scenario once again, it’s time to scale the headcount back up to pre 2010 numbers. If this was to happen then even the most ardent critics would likely agree with the CGS’s assessment.

Just my opinion.

[Tempest414]

For me a lot of talk but Future soldier is a mess as thing stand we only have 2 deployable brigades witch are both light units 16AA and 7th LMBCT the other 4 Brigades are missing key parts so the 2 Armoured BCT's are missing Artillery the DRF-BCT is missing Logistics and the 4th LBCT is missing both artillery and Logistics

As said we have enough units to form 6 x Brigades 2 x Armoured , 1 x heavy mech , 1 x light mech , 1 x light infantry 1 x Air assault layout like so

Armoured
1 x Cavalry , 1 x Armoured , 2 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 1 x Logistics , 1 x Engineer , 1 x REME

Mechanised
1 x cavalry , 3 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 1 x Logistics , 1 x Engineer , 1 x REME

Light Infantry
1 x cavalry , 4 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 1 x Logistics , 1 x Engineer

Air Assault
1 x cavalry , 3 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 1 x Logistics , 1 x Engineer

This would leave us with 1 x Cavalry and 3 Infantry unit without a home on top of this we could form 2 Reserve Brigades one Armoured and 1 Light infantry layout in the same way as the full time brigades

Now if the army wants a DRF-BCT it has to raise 2 more Artillery regts and a Logistics regt

[Caribbean]

Surely the Armoured Brigade combat teams would be allocated artillery units from the Deep Recce Strike BCT if they were to be deployed at BCT level. I only have sources like wiki to go on, but I don't believe any of the brigades in GW1 had "organic" logistics, artillery and medical services - they were allocated support units as needed, so I'm not sure that I buy this "if it doesn't have units that are part of the brigade, it can't deploy"

I'm also pretty sure that if we were deploying a full brigade, we would be calling up reserves, if only to back-fill in teh UK

[Tempest414]

Maybe but for me having 6 Brigades capable of each generating and Battalion battle group at high readiness or deploying as a Brigade without having to rob units from somewhere to fill gaps is the way forward and if and it is a big if the 3rd deployed as a division the commander could move the artillery into a deep fires brigade under div command if he wished

[Rentaghost]

Maybe but for me having 6 Brigades capable of each generating and Battalion battle group at high readiness or deploying as a Brigade without having to rob units from somewhere to fill gaps is the way forward and if and it is a big if the 3rd deployed as a division the commander could move the artillery into a deep fires brigade under div command if he wished

The US army did have full BCTs with organic artillery but are moving back to having a centrailised artillery group at division level. It makes sense in terms of co-ordinating and concentrating fires onto targets. Also in terms of training, you'd imagine.

But even if you did want arty. At brigade level, it'd still be only deploying a battery or so at lead battlegroup level which doesnt feel like the right echelon for Controlling both the manouvere and fire elements.

The recent army review had 1st DRS as deploying elements as required, and we'd likely still be deploying Surface to Air elements from above battlegroup or brigade level as well. Dont really see the issue with mixing and matching to get the right BG control format.

On another subject, they seemed to be talking about resubordinating 6th div assets to field army? Seems like 6th div is for it - with 16th AAB going to 1st Div as part of a "multi domain global response" force it'll be interesting to see if the Special Ops Brigade ends up with 1st Div or is held in field army, and how the rest of 1st Div is configured if its to be a deployable Div HQ (could you even build a second, light DRS resubordinating Fires and Cav assets in 16AAB, 7th light mech. And the lighter bits of 1st DRS)

[Tempest414]

Maybe but for me having 6 Brigades capable of each generating and Battalion battle group at high readiness or deploying as a Brigade without having to rob units from somewhere to fill gaps is the way forward and if and it is a big if the 3rd deployed as a division the commander could move the artillery into a deep fires brigade under div command if he wished

The US army did have full BCTs with organic artillery but are moving back to having a centrailised artillery group at division level. It makes sense in terms of co-ordinating and concentrating fires onto targets. Also in terms of training, you'd imagine.

But even if you did want arty. At brigade level, it'd still be only deploying a battery or so at lead battlegroup level which doesnt feel like the right echelon for Controlling both the manouvere and fire elements.

The recent army review had 1st DRS as deploying elements as required, and we'd likely still be deploying Surface to Air elements from above battlegroup or brigade level as well. Dont really see the issue with mixing and matching to get the right BG control format.

On another subject, they seemed to be talking about resubordinating 6th div assets to field army? Seems like 6th div is for it - with 16th AAB going to 1st Div as part of a "multi domain global response" force it'll be interesting to see if the Special Ops Brigade ends up with 1st Div or is held in field army, and how the rest of 1st Div is configured if its to be a deployable Div HQ (could you even build a second, light DRS resubordinating Fires and Cav assets in 16AAB, 7th light mech. And the lighter bits of 1st DRS)

Many thanks we know from future soldier that there will be 6 Artillery regts 2 x AS-90 , 2 x M270a2 and 2 x L118 we also know that there is enough infantry to have 6 brigades with 3 battalions in each so if artillery was held at Division then each division could have 3 regts each with something like the 3rd having 2 x AS-90 and 1 x M270 plus a Reserve M270 regt and the 1st having 2 x L118 and a M270 regt plus a reserve L118 regt

This could allow the 3rd to have

5 x Cavaly , 2 x Armoured , 9 x Infantry , 3 x Artillery , 4 x Logistics , 4 x Engineer , 4 x REME units plus 1 x cavalry , 1 x Armoured , 4 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 2 x Logistics , Reserve unit

and the 1st to have

2 x Cavalry , 3 x Recce Strike , 9 x Infantry , 3 x Artillery , 4 x Logistics , 4 x Engineer , 3 x REME , units plus 1 x Cavalry , 4 x Infantry , 1 x Artillery , 2 x Logistics Reserve units

[sol]

... plus 1 x cavalry , 1 x Armoured ... Reserve unit

... units plus 1 x Cavalry ... Reserve units

Again, there is no reserve armoured or cavalry units in the way you are presenting it. RWY will not have enough tanks to work as a formed unit nor it is intended to work as a fully formed unit. Just like all three TA recce regiments which are all intended and equipped to provide just one squadron plus personnel replacement/reinforcement to their associate regular regiments.

[Tempest414]

... plus 1 x cavalry , 1 x Armoured ... Reserve unit

... units plus 1 x Cavalry ... Reserve units

Again, there is no reserve armoured or cavalry units in the way you are presenting it. RWY will not have enough tanks to work as a formed unit nor it is intended to work as a fully formed unit. Just like all three TA recce regiments which are all intended and equipped to provide just one squadron plus personnel replacement/reinforcement to their associate regular regiments.

Quite right but they would be the 1st & 3rd divisions reserves

[wargame_insomniac]

Should we be spitting up M270a2 and future SPG?

Given the range of the former's missile ranges making it most appropriate to be a divisional asset at more strategic level.

Whilst the latter should work more closely with armoured and mechanised units whether we go for Archer or a different SPG at a more tactical level.

[Caribbean]

could you even build a second, light DRS

That thought keeps crossing my mind - we even have a potential basis for it, with the 14 Archer systems & plenty of light cavalry for the recce function. Add some more Archer and a lightweight wheeled GMLRS (LIMAWS springs to mind) and it would transform the expeditionary capabilities

[Rentaghost]

Should we be spitting up M270a2 and future SPG?

Given the range of the former's missile ranges making it most appropriate to be a divisional asset at more strategic level.

Whilst the latter should work more closely with armoured and mechanised units whether we go for Archer or a different SPG at a more tactical level.

All a question of money but would it make sense to split the missile type up: i.e. Land Precision Strike and GLMRS (ext.) In the DRS regiments alongside the SPGs giving you a range of 40km to 150km with varying capabilities but have a different formation with a regiment with the PrSM missile mounted on relatively austere wheeled platforms, a targeting cell working with theatre level intelligence, and a long range SAM battery or more to provide that operational level strike capability?

[Tempest414]

We also need to workout where and how Brimstone overwatch fits into the battle groups if it is part battalion manoeuvre company how will this free up artillery

[topman]

[downsizer]

I'm shocked I tell you.

[Tempest414]

Things have gone very wrong in 2019 Marham look on track it looks like it has fallen apart

[Poiuytrewq]

Things have gone very wrong in 2019 Marham look on track it looks like it has fallen apart

£53bn annual budget and no hot water.

It’s totally unacceptable.

[Ian Hall]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/form ... curity-act

[Poiuytrewq]

Hopefully a step in the right direction.

Probably best to start with the hot water.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defe ... -personnel