The future form of the Army

[Lord Jim]

Taking that lecture, it seems a trap has been laid for the Government and Mr Cummings to fall into with the next review. Will they forego existing conventional capabilities in order to chase capabilities that are either immature or theoretical. Could this mean that the Army's heavy units and equipment are sacrificed in order to turn it into a medium weight force based around the Ajax, Boxer and MRV(P), supported by a number of very high end capabilities that will eventually arrive in very limited quantities?

[Lord Jim]

Before I start making a proposal as to how I see the improvements needed by the Armoured Infantry Brigades to make them fit for purpose if we retain the 2+2 organisation of 3rd (UK) Division, I must have one final say regarding the differences in deploy ability between these formations and a re-organised all wheeled platform based "Strike Brigade".

If we were talking just about the AFVs then the amount of shipping required would be similar I admit but there is one major difference that must be taken into account. This is how do the vehicles that comprise the Armoured Infantry Brigade get to the ships and then from the ships to the front line? Certainly not under their own steam. To move as rapidly as would be needed to move the Brigade would take at least two hundred heavy and Medium Equipment transporters to get them to the ships and then these would also have to be embarked to transport the AFVs the other side. These will also require support vehicles, personnel and spares to keep them running. This in turn means additional logistical and REME support and their vehicles above the increased number needed to support the Brigades AFVs compared to that of the Boxer based units in the Strike Brigade.

Once in theatre, the Boxer could if needed tap into either the Dutch or German supply chain in an emergency and the vehicle can use many commercial sites for repairs on its auto motive components as well.

Further afield say there should be similar benefit is we ended up working with the Australians, but if we turn up with an Armoured Infantry Brigade, every bit of kit is bespoke to the UK and we will have to bring everything we need with us as well as extending a long and possible vulnerable supply chain back to the UK.

But all of this is irrelevant unless the Army realises that the current Equipment Programme it has embarked upon many give it some shiny new toys but it will still not have any combat formations fit for purpose let alone combat except for its SF and the related SFSG.

[mr.fred]

Once in theatre, the Boxer could if needed tap into either the Dutch or German supply chain in an emergency and the vehicle can use many commercial sites for repairs on its auto motive components as well.

Further afield say there should be similar benefit is we ended up working with the Australians, but if we turn up with an Armoured Infantry Brigade, every bit of kit is bespoke to the UK and we will have to bring everything we need with us as well as extending a long and possible vulnerable supply chain back to the UK.

Except aren’t our Boxers to a unique spec.?

[bobp]

xcept aren’t our Boxers to a unique spec.?

Only 60kw motor think you left a zero off somewhere.

[mr.fred]

Only 60kw motor think you left a zero off somewhere.

I didn’t, but I think that there is a later comment where the author admits that he did.

[Lord Jim]

I believe that ours are actually different in some ways from that of the German and Dutch and could be called the Mk2. I think the Australian Boxers have a similar drive train and suspension. But still there will be more in common between ours and our allies Boxers than different, and far more than say a Warrior IFV and a Puma or CV90 IFV. In both the AI and "Strike" however the large number of trucks, built by MAN will have local support in Germany at least. All of the above though still does not close the large gap between the logistical footprint and transportation needs of the AI compared to a ""Strike" Brigade (Re organised).

Thanks for the info though on the actual differences, it is good to know, and the extra power etc. will be an advantage allowing greater weight of mission module permitting more options for developments and so on.

[Ron5]

I'm curious about the 6 mounting points instead of 4. Hopefully that doesn't mean the 4 point modules won't fit the 6 point UK chassis.

[Tempest414]

I'm curious about the 6 mounting points instead of 4. Hopefully that doesn't mean the 4 point modules won't fit the 6 point UK chassis.

I am sure they will away to make them not fit

[bobp]

I'm curious about the 6 mounting points instead of 4. Hopefully that doesn't mean the 4 point modules won't fit the 6 point UK chassis.

According to the article the four point modules will fit on the six point chassis, and the six point modules will fit on the four point chassis.
What is very different is the power distribution system and I don't know if that's compatible with other countries.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'm curious about the 6 mounting points instead of 4

If you put some rocketry on the back, the whole pod won't fly off when you say 'fire'?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Reading the latest BAR (British Army Review) from p.30 onwards offers an interesting insight into what has been benchmarked to the average of the Armored and Strike JF 25 BGs as for sustainment:" the FCT required less food, water, fuel and ammunition. A CF(L)35 Division could contain circa 16,500 personnel rather than the 27,500 of the Joint Force Division of 2025."

In short, the army reconfig would produce a " FCT {Future Combat Team, details below*} structure within CF(L)35 [that] delivers 16 sovereign FCTs within the division and three comparable divisions; giving a total UK manoeuvre force of 48 FCTs.
- This contrasts with the JF 25 modernised division which delivers 15 battle groups and assumes subordination of a US BCT and DK BG"

What has been trialled in wargames has resulted in "the FCT, consisting of approximately 500* personnel that will deliver the mission sets attributed to today’s Armoured Infantry (AI) Battle Group of circa 1,250. It will be a combined arms force, with fewer personnel but increased manoeuvrability, firepower and sensors, delivering more combat mass"

Echoes of fighting faster and more dispersed as per the discussion on the USMC renewal thread. This Land force component is not competing with JF25, but rather is a concept for how to refine the structure once we first reach that interim milestone
- shouldn't be a day dream as it was directed by the Executive Committee of the Army Board (ECAB), though not endorsed as yet
- for realism labelled ten years down the road... but one can decide to proceed faster

[Lord Jim]

The Army has always been churning out new doctrines, some good, some bad for years. The problems always seem to arise when they try to fill out the concept and decisions on personnel and hardware have to be made and the funding secured. This often leads to indecision and takes time and before anything solid emerges the next idea arrives on the scene and the process begins again. "Strike" has been remarkably resilient though, but as it stands it still has a whiff of a desperate plan to find a role for the hundreds of Ajax platforms on order, and currently creates weak "Motorised" infantry formations using the Boxer rather than the needed balanced "Mechanised" formations to keep costs down. The whole thing has not been thought through at present and needs an urgent rethink before deliveries of both platforms start to take place.

[jimthelad]

Strike could be fixed if we commit to a larger number of Ares fitted with 12 pack of Brimstone and fitting the already developed twin Javelin ER ATGM launcher to the Ajax. Fitting the CT40 and the same to some of the Boxers and using a 120mm SP mortar platform would provide the requisite firepower. We cannot overmatch the RF and Chinese formations but with Brimstone we can degrade the Arty/support echelons that are essential to their function. Everyone is obsessing about tanks; they are bloody useless if you cant fix and degrade the opfor prior to committing them to battle. Using Brimstone with a range of 30km + and autonomous targeting would root out and destroy the spg/ rocket arty they need for their operational doctrine.

[Lord Jim]

I would say that we could do better than Javelin, say Spike-LR. Javelin really lacks the range and other capabilities the Spike and other systems like the MMP are now bringing to the table. We should keep it in its current role at the infantry's ATGW but for vehicle mounting look for something else. the Spike has already been integrated into a number of platforms with little difficulty so it that part should not be too costly.

As for a turret of the Boxer, we need to look to a unmanned turret with both a CTA40 and at least two ATGW. Retaining a full eight man section of dismounts will be a definite benefit. Whatever for the Boxer Mortar carry takes if we retain the Armoured Infantry Brigades then it will also equip the Armoured Infantry Battalions in common sense prevails.

All of the above a part of a growing list of capabilities etc. that the Army is going to have to fund to enable it to fight a peer opponent, even when operation with allies. My worry is these will either not be funded or repeated pushed to the right, possibly relying on a future UOR programme for them to be achieved, which would be a disaster if the planners are basing this on the belief they will have plenty of time to do so.

Still working on the 2x2

[ArmChairCivvy]

If u have Javelin teams jumping out of the back, will it not make sense to carry the same reloads for them and the turret launchers?

[Ron5]

Is the army not looking for a Javelin replacement? thought I saw a line for that in the budget. If so, Spike has to be the hot fave.

[Timmymagic]

Is the army not looking for a Javelin replacement? thought I saw a line for that in the budget. If so, Spike has to be the hot fave.

I'd have thought the MMP would be the clear pole sitter. It's made by MBDA, and they'll set up a UK line for it (like they did with Milan).

[Ron5]

On a different note, I wonder if it would be a good idea in the aftermath of kung flu, for the MoD to prioritize spending in the UK and to re-negotiate deals to increase UK supplied content? i.e. fund UK jobs.

So CR3, Boxer & Ajax over JLTV & Apache.

Maybe force increase in Boxer UK content. Cancel MRV(P) stage 2 as that's almost certainly going to be 100% offshore build.

[Ron5]

Is the army not looking for a Javelin replacement? thought I saw a line for that in the budget. If so, Spike has to be the hot fave.

I'd have thought the MMP would be the clear pole sitter. It's made by MBDA, and they'll set up a UK line for it (like they did with Milan).

Well that would be more in line with my second comment of the day.

[Jake1992]

Just wondering how many Ajax and it’s family would we roughly need if we went to 4 strike based around boxer all wheeled and 1 heavy armour to attach when needed ?
If less than the current planed order would it not be wiser to scale back the order to suit the above and use the savings to buy enough of the needed variants of boxer to make strike what it’s really meant to be ?

Would it also not be an idea to start to look at the 120mm direct fire Ajax to help make up for the cut in MBTs instead of the very large number of Reece variants ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Spike vs MMP in Oz: https://defense-studies.blogspot.com/20 ... -atgm.html

Haven't heard how the same head-to-head went in Sweden... though there they want also the infantry to carry 'it' - whatever the it turns out to be

[Timmymagic]

Cancel MRV(P) stage 2 as that's almost certainly going to be 100% offshore build.

The answer to MRV(P) could be Supacat...you just hope someone in the MoD is listening..

[Timmymagic]

Spike vs MMP in Oz

So essentially it won because Australia were using an Israeli battle management system and the Lance turret.

[Ron5]

Cancel MRV(P) stage 2 as that's almost certainly going to be 100% offshore build.

The answer to MRV(P) could be Supacat...you just hope someone in the MoD is listening..

Or more Boxers

Stripped down of course.

[Lord Jim]

Ideal for the early batch(s) with the RWS if we up gunned later ones. Then just purchase a number of Ambulance modules to cover that angle.