The future form of the Army

[sol]

The point being, our 148 Chally 3 will likely never fire a shot in anger, so why bother??

Having tanks, even if not in sufficient numbers is still way better than not having them at all. Countries which dropped tanks, like Belgium and Netherlands are now trying to join MGCS as, from Ukrainian experience, there is obvious need for them. Czech is looking for 77 new tanks, Romania, Lithuania and even Estonia are planing to get at least one battalion of 50+ tanks.

None of Vanguard class subs also never shot in anger, fortunately I would say. Still it does not mean UK don't need them.

Slight correction ( I might be wrong) the allocation of tanks is being reduced to 50 per Regiment..

Not really. It should be 58, with 4 squadrons of 14 plus two in HQ. But current situation is far from that, mostly due lack of operational tanks with both KRH and QRH basically a Type 35 regiments (3x11 + 2) and only RTR being at full strength.

Is the Chally 3 price based on the forecast cost, or the actual cost, let's face it, we don't have a great track record here!

It is based on contract value, and so far apparently it is still on budget. For example Norway will pay 1.79 billion euros for just 54 tanks. For 148 UK would pay significantly more. Considering that main reason of only upgrading 148 is lack of money (as the Army actually requested 180-190), it is hard to see how any other option would be viable.

I'll wager the price ends up being 'way more' when they are all delivered.

Isn't it case with any other platform? Not that maintaining Leo 2 or Abrams fleet would be much cheaper either.

[SW1]

You’ll just have more tanks!

Well obviously. Having more armoured formation would mean having more tanks. It is interesting how it works isn't it.

Yes and completely unusable a brilliant use of capital allocation

[mrclark303]

The point being, our 148 Chally 3 will likely never fire a shot in anger, so why bother??

Having tanks, even if not in sufficient numbers is still way better than not having them at all. Countries which dropped tanks, like Belgium and Netherlands are now trying to join MGCS as, from Ukrainian experience, there is obvious need for them. Czech is looking for 77 new tanks, Romania, Lithuania and even Estonia are planing to get at least one battalion of 50+ tanks.

None of Vanguard class subs also never shot in anger, fortunately I would say. Still it does not mean UK don't need them.

Slight correction ( I might be wrong) the allocation of tanks is being reduced to 50 per Regiment..

Not really. It should be 58, with 4 squadrons of 14 plus two in HQ. But current situation is far from that, mostly due lack of operational tanks with both KRH and QRH basically a Type 35 regiments (3x11 + 2) and only RTR being at full strength.

Is the Chally 3 price based on the forecast cost, or the actual cost, let's face it, we don't have a great track record here!

It is based on contract value, and so far apparently it is still on budget. For example Norway will pay 1.79 billion euros for just 54 tanks. For 148 UK would pay significantly more. Considering that main reason of only upgrading 148 is lack of money (as the Army actually requested 180-190), it is hard to see how any other option would be viable.

I'll wager the price ends up being 'way more' when they are all delivered.

Isn't it case with any other platform? Not that maintaining Leo 2 or Abrams fleet would be much cheaper either.

Fair comments, except the slighy tongue in cheek Vanguard argument....

I would say that with Abrams and Leopard, you have a vastly larger user base, with much larger spares backup.

Chally 3 will be entirely bespoke, re-built in tiny numbers with zero chance of export. It's the Nimrod MR4A of the tank world if you like.

I expect spares backup and availablity both to be poor, based on previous experience of MOD penny pinching...

[Poiuytrewq]

Chally 3 will be entirely bespoke, re-built in tiny numbers with zero chance of export. It's the Nimrod MR4A of the tank world if you like.

It would be interesting to know what mixture of vehicles the Army would select if starting from a clean slate tomorrow morning?

Done properly this low point could be seen as an opportunity for meaningful change.

[Rentaghost]

If the intention is that 1st Div should actually be, y'know, useable, that implies some major changes to Future Soldier.

16th AABCT getting re-subordinated, and the chat about changing how the reserves work suggests that the 19th brigade reserves dumping ground approach might change?

A division based around 16th AAB for rapid entry and lighter mechanised follow on forces would make a lot of sense, but would surely involve a lot of re-thinking about equipment levels and light deployable fires?

Still think 11th security assistance is an excuse to find something for a bunch of infantry battalions to do. The Rangers concept works to fill the partnering, training and fighting with allies concept.

[Tempest414]

Could the armoured regiments move to a Type 46 formation with say 3 squadrons like so

2 x CH3 & 2 x Ajax Sqn HQ
3 x troops of 4 CH3
1 Troop of 4 Ajax's

If so we could keep 3 Armoured regiments

[Ian Hall]

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ign=People

[Tempest414]

For me moving 16 AAB to the 1st division makes on sense the first already has 11 infantry battalions 5 in the 7th BCT and 6 in the 4th BCT for me it would be better to move the light Cavalry unit out of the DRF BCT and form 3 good light mechanised BCT's with

1 x cavalry regt
3 x Light Mech battalions
1 x Artillery support unit with 6 x Light guns and 6 x HIMARS
1 x Combat support group = Logistics , REME , RE , RMC

with the 1st division looking like

Div HQ
3 x Light mech BCT's
2 x Reserve battalion battle groups
2 x Logistics regt's
2 x Artillery regts
2 x REME regts
4 x Engineer regts

!6 AAB should stay as is able to support or lead units from the 1st & 3rd divisions, Rangers and SF

Also the 2 remaining infantry battalion would move to the 3rd division

[SW1]

The problem with the future soldier and there brigade combat teams was not the high level idea but the glaring lack of logistics, engineering, artillery and medical units to support the brigades with nearly all relying on significant reserve call ups to make them function.

Which meant that nearly the only fully formed deployable brigade combat team was 16 AAB.

If the latest new structure is to fix this issue within current head count then it need to scale back infantry and armour and scale up the enablers if it doesn’t it shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.

I worry what they maybe going to do because of said lack of enablers and not being one for grasping the nettle is to make them “divisional” assets and strip them out of the brigades and only allocate to the deployed brigade in the hope that all “brigades” under the divisional HQs are not needed at the same time or those brigades are not needing to be rotated.

[Ian Hall]

[Tempest414]

The problem with the future soldier and there brigade combat teams was not the high level idea but the glaring lack of logistics, engineering, artillery and medical units to support the brigades with nearly all relying on significant reserve call ups to make them function.

Which meant that nearly the only fully formed deployable brigade combat team was 16 AAB.

If the latest new structure is to fix this issue within current head count then it need to scale back infantry and armour and scale up the enablers if it doesn’t it shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.

I worry what they maybe going to do because of said lack of enablers and not being one for grasping the nettle is to make them “divisional” assets and strip them out of the brigades and only allocate to the deployed brigade in the hope that all “brigades” under the divisional HQs are not needed at the same time or those brigades are not needing to be rotated.

Yes under FS the 1st will have 2 logistics regiments the 3rd will have 4 logistics regiments and 16AAB will have 1 plus there are 4 more in the 104th Theatre sustainment Brigade under the ARRC

[SW1]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference

And it is so agile it can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets.

Sky Sabre is forecast to reach full operational capability later in the year and we plan to increase the number of our launchers to equip the whole of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery.

At the same time, we’re extending our Short-Range High Velocity and Lightweight Multirole missiles until 2035. Otherwise known as Starstreak and Martlet, these world class missiles have received rave reviews in Ukraine where they have proved a potent weapon against fixed wing aircraft, support and attack helicopters and Uncrewed Air Systems and Cruise Missiles. Their Laser Beam riding technology is now highly in demand.

We’ll be building on these current capabilities to support our armoured and air assault brigade combat teams. Our programme will deliver a new mounted platform – equipped with active sensor radars – to replace our ageing Stormer vehicles for operations in forward areas.

[Ian Hall]

[SW1]

[mrclark303]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

[SW1]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

Beyond a small scale national only operation probably centred on the lead airborne battlegroup we have become a contributory force by default.

[SW1]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

Beyond a small scale national only operation probably centred on the lead airborne battlegroup we have become a contributory force by default.

Absolutely, when your hear all the Whitehall PR bull about a fully configured and rounded deployable Division by 2025, it's all bullshit smoke and mirrors, a Brigade sized operation and that's about it...

[Poiuytrewq]

….a Brigade sized operation and that's about it...

Every time you think the decline has bottomed out and then another review happens.

The difference is this time the dissenting voices are coming from those still in post and direct criticism from the US on the size of the UK armed forces is pretty unique.

On the bright side, not long until the defence command paper is released and really looking forward to reading about the copious amounts of jam tomorrow that’s without a shadow of a doubt just around the corner, guaranteed due to an increase in defence spending to 2.5% GDP only 2 years after the next election…..unless of course the next administration changes the plans in the 2025 review and decides to modernise the armed forces by shrinking them again accompanied, of course with a cast iron commitment to increase defence spending after the general election in 2029….

[Tempest414]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

I take it this is the number without the 4000 Gurkha's if so and if the problem is recruitment and retention then maybe we should look to recruit more Gurkha's increase the number from 4000 to 10000 add in 3 more Gurkha Logistics regts 2 more Artillery regts 1 more Signals regt and one more Infantry regt

[Poiuytrewq]

More dissenting voices.

https://www.forces.net/services/army/uk ... ence-chief

[SW1]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

I take it this is the number without the 4000 Gurkha's if so and if the problem is recruitment and retention then maybe we should look to recruit more Gurkha's increase the number from 4000 to 10000 add in 3 more Gurkha Logistics regts 2 more Artillery regts 1 more Signals regt and one more Infantry regt

It's a very good call.... In many ways, the falling numbers are only part of the issue, the other part is the Army now don't really seem to have a focused direction, they seem increasingly marginalised...

It used to have a real focus on its core capabilities, it's Armoured Regiments and artillery, along with its it's deployable lighter infantry brigades.

Now Armour is being religated to a neche capability, the Army dosen't really seem to have a focus.

We were supposed to have well equipped lighter formations, but deployable Artillery and APC's have been left to wither on the vine...

The Army got screwed over with the likes of Ajax and Wildcat, when it needed proven and affordable and off the shelf solutions.

Ajax is now so bloated, it has to be partially stripped to air transport, ridiculous, we are buying more MLRS, because they are available cheap and secondhand, instead of new HIMARS, smaller and air deployable.

Still no focus at all on air deployable, rapid reaction forces.

[SW1]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

I take it this is the number without the 4000 Gurkha's if so and if the problem is recruitment and retention then maybe we should look to recruit more Gurkha's increase the number from 4000 to 10000 add in 3 more Gurkha Logistics regts 2 more Artillery regts 1 more Signals regt and one more Infantry regt

It's a very good call.... In many ways, the falling numbers are only part of the issue, the other part is the Army now don't really seem to have a focused direction, they seem increasingly marginalised...

It used to have a real focus on its core capabilities, it's Armoured Regiments and artillery, along with its it's deployable lighter infantry brigades.

Now Armour is being religated to a neche capability, the Army dosen't really seem to have a focus.

We were supposed to have well equipped lighter formations, but deployable Artillery and APC's have been left to wither on the vine...

The Army got screwed over with the likes of Ajax and Wildcat, when it needed proven and affordable and off the shelf solutions.

Ajax is now so bloated, it has to be partially stripped to air transport, ridiculous, we are buying more MLRS, because they are available cheap and secondhand, instead of new HIMARS, smaller and air deployable.

Still no focus at all on air deployable, rapid reaction forces.

The land forces have the personnel numbers to get a focused and concentrated structure but it will take a cap badge bun and a redistribution to enablers but it would also need to whack a number of “HQs”

As mentioned

If you wanted you could under 3 div hq place

1 armoured brigade configured as per a US armoured brigade (challenger, Ajax), 2 wheeled medium brigades on boxer configured similar to a us army Stryker brigade.

And under 1 div HQ place

16 air mobile brigade and 3 commando brigade

All units properly constructed and all with full regular enablers.

With SF unit continuing as is.

[mrclark303]

It comes as no great surprise, the reality is the struggle with retention is slowly pulling numbers ever downward anyway.

I have a feeling that by 2030, 70,000 will be an 'aspirational' number, with numbers sliding towards 65,000...

I don't see anything to turn that around being proposed by anyone, it will mean a reliance on the AR for all but the smallest of operations.

I take it this is the number without the 4000 Gurkha's if so and if the problem is recruitment and retention then maybe we should look to recruit more Gurkha's increase the number from 4000 to 10000 add in 3 more Gurkha Logistics regts 2 more Artillery regts 1 more Signals regt and one more Infantry regt

It's a very good call.... In many ways, the falling numbers are only part of the issue, the other part is the Army now don't really seem to have a focused direction, they seem increasingly marginalised...

It used to have a real focus on its core capabilities, it's Armoured Regiments and artillery, along with its it's deployable lighter infantry brigades.

Now Armour is being religated to a neche capability, the Army dosen't really seem to have a focus.

We were supposed to have well equipped lighter formations, but deployable Artillery and APC's have been left to wither on the vine...

The Army got screwed over with the likes of Ajax and Wildcat, when it needed proven and affordable and off the shelf solutions.

Ajax is now so bloated, it has to be partially stripped to air transport, ridiculous, we are buying more MLRS, because they are available cheap and secondhand, instead of new HIMARS, smaller and air deployable.

Still no focus at all on air deployable, rapid reaction forces.

The land forces have the personnel numbers to get a focused and concentrated structure but it will take a cap badge bun and a redistribution to enablers but it would also need to whack a number of “HQs”

As mentioned

If you wanted you could under 3 div hq place

1 armoured brigade configured as per a US armoured brigade (challenger, Ajax), 2 wheeled medium brigades on boxer configured similar to a us army Stryker brigade.

And under 1 div HQ place

16 air mobile brigade and 3 commando brigade

All units properly constructed and all with full regular enablers.

With SF unit continuing as is.w

Totally agree, unfortunately General waxed mustache Bluster the third, is more interested in maintaining as many cap badges as possible and ensuring we have more top quality horses than tanks....

The Army needs to be reorganised along USMC lines in my opinion, air deployable battle groups with an excess of modern firepower.

[mr.fred]

The Army needs to be reorganised along USMC lines in my opinion, air deployable battle groups with an excess of modern firepower.

We don't have the airlift to sustain a combat capable battlegroup, so we'd be better having some air deployable formations that can be supported by our airforce while the bulk of the army is mechanised and has adequate artillery and logistical support to prove a credible conventional force to support our interests overseas.

Demanding everything be air deployable also requires that they be air supportable, which is more difficult. It's the same lack of thinking things through that led to FRES.

[sol]

... we are buying more MLRS, because they are available cheap and secondhand, instead of new HIMARS, smaller and air deployable.

Considering air deployability, there is no advantage going for HIMARS instead M270 for UK, especially with retirement of C-130.