The future form of the Army

[Lord Jim]

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?

I was thinking more fof the infantry in 16 Air Assault and 3 Commando Brigade, plus the units in 6th Division and so on. There would be no need for ATGW Section in the Armoured Infantry of Mechanised Infantry if the Warriors and Boxer if had turret mounted Spike-LR.

One idea I have heard banded about is that Infantry Section in those two types of formation would also not receive 7.62 Sharp Shooter rifles because the suppression role would be covered by the co-axial MG on the IFV!

[ArmChairCivvy]

There would be no need for ATGW Section in the Armoured Infantry of Mechanised Infantry if the Warriors and Boxer if had turret mounted Spike-LR.

The turret launchers near-equate to direct fire whereas the dismounted teams can conceal their locations better
... not only more, but both, = better

The co-ax MG is more formidable than most think (that's what the Russian BTRs only have) as it can utilise thermal sights and other optics, making the weapon fully effective out to its... effective range
- you can't spread the 40mm rounds out like candy to the terrain facing you; you would be out of those rounds by the time you'll really need them

[Lord Jim]

The Infantry will also have MBT LAW and/or Carl Gustav M4s. Retaining the Javelin in the vehicle mounted units is something I have no problem with, but it shouldn't predicate not going for a more modern ATGW like Spike-LR or MMP for the vehicle mounted system. Their man in the loop option gives them a real advantage on top of their greater range.

The use of co-axial MGs again is a good thing I just hadn't thought about it and like my suggestion of removing Javelin from the Infantry could lead to the removal of the Sharp Shooter rifles form the dismounts leading to the same discussion.

One key thing I strongly believe is that with the exception of very specific TES kit, our units should be equipped as if going to war rather than wait until the last minute and start buying and issuing the stuff. For example all the Challenger 2s should train etc. with add on armour, RWS, APS, if they get it, and so on. IED detection kit etc is mission dependant and so should be retained in the TES sets.

I am going to do the 2x2 over the weekend and I think a lot of people are going to have opinions about it. It will be in two parts, the simplest and then the most radical reorganisation with the latter being my favourite.

[mr.fred]

One key thing I strongly believe is that with the exception of very specific TES kit, our units should be equipped as if going to war rather than wait until the last minute and start buying and issuing the stuff. For example all the Challenger 2s should train etc. with add on armour, RWS, APS, if they get it, and so on. IED detection kit etc is mission dependant and so should be retained in the TES sets.

Given that the TES will be dependent on the theatre, how would you manage that? You’ll not want a RWS if you’re setting up for armour on armour in open country. While the future fleet is likely to be smaller, why would it be good to buy sets of TES for all vehicles every time? You’re going to end up with equipment that will never be deployed.

[Lord Jim]

That is not what I am saying. At present our vehicles are basically vanilla before the installation of TES kits. Everything from add on armour etc is in the kits and we have too few of them. What I am saying is that the TES kits should be very theatre specific so for example for the middle east you would have kit to allow the vehicle to operate in hot dusty climate. If you are going into a theatre with a COIN component, the TES would include anti IED equipment and so on. But kit like add on armour, APS and yes the RWS would become general issue to all units for all vehicles all of the time. The RWS is invaluable in built up areas and we are going to be fighting in those in peer conflicts. An MBT will need to be able to cover multiple arc at the same time.

More importantly if we aspire to be able to deploy a "Division" that division needs to be equipped to fight form the start not have to wait for UORs to purchase additional add on armour. Our stockpiles of such kit are not based on large formation warfare and that needs to change. So does our level on ammunition, spares, the list goes on and on. This is why I keep saying the Army needs major investment above and beyond its existing inadequate plans to make it fit for purpose. It might have realised that it need to relearn large scale conventional warfighting but at present is not funded, equipped, trained or organised to do so.

The rate of rotation of units to BATIUS needs to be accelerated and the capabilities of any OPFOR updated. We need to work with the US Army and see if personnel could go across to their Nations Armoured Warfare Training Centre to get a real taste of what peer warfighting is like so that our Generals and senior Civil Servants can see the hole in our capability. Seeing how one of our Armoured Infantry Battle Groups would perform against the OPFOR there representing a current Russian peer force would show some interesting results I am sure.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Seeing how one of our Armoured Infantry Battle Groups would perform against the OPFOR there representing a current Russian peer force would show some interesting results I am sure.

A v good idea (though ANG may have taken all the remaining slots as they are now getting exposure more often)
- China has fitted out a whole bde to emulate a fully digitised Stryker bde (and the comments suggest that it has been doing v well as an OpFor)

[Lord Jim]

A v good idea (though ANG may have taken all the remaining slots as they are now getting exposure more often)

But it would show the US Government that we might actually be once again serious about being a full on ally able to operate with them once again at a similar level of capability once we implement the lessons we would learn, and be good for both countries militaries. Use the kit from BATUS possibly?

Return the favour and have a large joint UK/USA/Canada live fire/sim exercise up at BATUS later on

[Lord Jim]

Well it is time to look at the 2+2 organisation for 3rd(UK) Division as favoured by quite a few here as opposed to the more radical proposition I made a while back. Retaining the two Armoured Infantry Brigades is going to place a burden on the Army which as always is going to require significant new investment to make these formation fit for purpose as combat unit in a conventional Peer to Peer conflict, which is their reason for being in the first place.

When I looked at this I couldn't come up with just one proposal, so I have settled on two. This is in theory the simplest option and retains the Warrior post its Capability Sustainment programme, as well as a reduced number of Ajax platforms and most importantly the retention of the Challenger 2 after it has gone through a long overdue modernisation programme, in this case based on the proposal from Rheinmetall including the new turret but also powertrain.

With option one the three existing Armoured Regiments would be increased to four, but they would now comprise of only three Tank Squadrons of fourteen tanks each plus a Recce Squadron of eight Ajax Recce Vehicles (see below). The existing CVR(T) and FV432 platforms would be replaced both by variants of the Ajax and Boxer. This would give each Armoured Infantry Brigade two Armoured Regiments as opposed to the current planned one.

Moving to the Armoured infantry, each Brigade would still only have two Armoured Infantry Battalions, but these would be reorganised to be larger and more effective. The key platform will be the Warrior(CSP) but the existing vehicle as designed will need further improvement in firepower. Whilst design work has been done to install a number of Javelin ATGWs as used by the dismounted Infantry, this weapon is starting to shoe its age and limitations. There are far more modern weapon systems now out there and for its vehicle mounted ATGW I believe the British Army should look to a system Like The Israeli Spike-LR, already in use with many of our allies, or the recently introduced French MMP. Both have nearly double the range of Javelin and have a man in the loop operating mode in addition to the now standard fire and forget mode. Adding such an ATGW to the already formidable CTO 40mm Case Telescoped Auto Cannon will make the Warrior one of the most powerful Infantry Fighting Vehicles in serve with NATO or our other allies.

With the reorganisation, each Infantry Platoon would now comprise of four six man Sections as opposed to the three at present, each mounted in a Warrior(CSP) Each Section would be equipped with four L85A3 rifles with optical sights, one L7A2 General Purpose Machine Gun (GPMG) in the Light Machine Gun role, one L129A1 Sharpshooter Rifle and two stand alone L123A3 40mm Grenade Launchers (GL). The Warrior would also carry a combination of up to six L2A2 NLAW or L2A1 Anti-Structure Weapon dependant on the mission and terrain. At Platoon Head Quarters, there would be the Platoon Commander's Group, mounted in a Warrior(CSP)

Each of the three Infantry Company would comprise of three such Infantry Platoons, and these would be under the Company Command Group which on addition to the Command Staff would include three L7A2 GPMGs in the sustained fire role. These would be carried in Two Warrior(CSP)s and be supported by Atlas Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV) and a Combat Engineering Vehicle (CEV) this being a variant of either he Ajax or Boxer.

Supporting the Infantry Companies would be a Manoeuvre Support Company which would contain a Mortar Platoon of six Boxer 120mm Mortar Vehicles identical to those listed under the reorganised Mechanised Infantry Battalions, and a Light Air Defence (LAAD) Platoon equipped with eight of the same Boxer variants as listed in the reorganised Mechanised Infantry Battalion. Finally there would be a Recce Platoon equipped with eight Ajax Recce vehicles (see below).

At Battalion Headquarters Level we would see the HQ Section mounted in either the Boxer Command Vehicle of the Athena Command vehicle, a Area carrying an Infantry Section in the security role, two Boxer Armoured Ambulances and a REME Platoon in four Apollo Armoured Repair Vehicles. The last unit that would be part of the HQ Company would be the ISTAR platoon, mounted in Boxer vehicles and equipped with a number of UAV systems to provide the Battalion and Company Commander a broader view of the battle space day or night and in all weathers, as well as being able to keep Brigade or even Division in the loop.

The nest unit within the Brigade will be an Armoured Recce Regiment equipped with vehicles from the Ajax family as well a small number of Boxer variants. Each Regiment will comprise of a Regimental Command and Support Squadron and three Recce Squadrons. The latter will comprise of three Recce Troops each of four Ajax Recce Vehicles and a Command Troop containing two Athena Command Vehicles, an Atlas ARV and a Boxer Armoured Ambulance. The former would contain a Guided Weapons Platoon with six Precision Fire/Over Watch platforms based either on the Ajax or Boxer platforms and mounting a weapon system such as Extractor Mk2 or Ground Launched Brimstone, and a LAAD Troop with six Boxer LAAD vehicles as described in the Mechanised Battalion, and finally a Surveillance Troop mounted in Ground Based Surveillance variant of the Ajax Recce vehicle which add a telescopic mast mounts a powerful Electro Optic Camera system and a Ground Surveillance Radar system, in addition to the stand Turret with its armament and sensors.

Looking more closely at the Ajax, like the Warrior in its current configuration it lacks firepower, and like the Warrior(CSP) I would propose the these vehicles also have a number of ATGWs added to the vehicles, of the same type chosen. The support variantsL134A1 of the Ajax family would all be equipped with a RWS mounting either a L111A2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun (HMG) or an L134A1 40mm Grenade Machine Gun and with a night fighting capability.

The Brigade would also have an artillery Regiment to provide indirect and long range precision fire support, but this is already being discussed at length in anther thread. What is obvious is that the existing AS-90 155mm Self Propelled Gun is no longer competitive, and in fact substantially outclassed by weapon systems already in use with possible adversaries, made worse by our lack of up to date targeting and detection systems, and those we have are few in number. The Brigade would also get support from Detachments from Divisional Units and even for units located within 6th (UK) Division, such as Area Air Defence, ISTAR, Engineering and other assets.

Well that is my rough proposal for the first version of a reorganised Armoured Infantry Brigade, I welcome your constructive feed back. Feel free to point out anything I have missed that you deem important for the formation to be effective as well as any changes to equipment and make up.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think it is a good call to leave the specifics and their pros and cons to the parallel artillery thread, so my comments should be read as judging the beyond line of sight firepower in total.

It may be worthwhile to define, or rather classify the criteria:
- integral short-range indirect fire support,
- brigade medium artillery for counter-battery fire, and
- divisional long-range rockets for shaping the deep battle short of battlefield interdiction by the RAF (or in support of it, perhaps with a shorter reaction time from spotting to firing),
so here we go

Supporting the Infantry Companies would be a Manoeuvre Support Company which would contain a Mortar Platoon of six Boxer 120mm Mortar Vehicles identical to those listed under the reorganised Mechanised Infantry Battalions

Agree with under armour mobility (required), but rate of fire has an important bearing. Should one go for an AMOS type of solution, then a single vehicle can provide an artillery battery type of initial effect... meaning that from a total of six three pairs could be manoeuvreing or firing, in turns. For your alternative (with slower rate of fire and remembering that mortars are predominantly area effect weapons), I would say the split would have to be 2x3, which inadvertently would narrow the commanders choices and force him to pre-guess more; you can't always guess right and then the support might take too long to arrive and have effect.

More of the integral indirect fire support would be with the recce formations

Guided Weapons Platoon with six Precision Fire/Over Watch platforms based either on the Ajax or Boxer platforms and mounting a weapon system such as Extractor Mk2 or Ground Launched Brimstone

and considering the first priority to engage OpFor armour at a distance and with precision (OverWatch) I would say that this is the right call.

artillery Regiment to provide indirect and long range precision fire support, but this is already being discussed at length in anther thread. What is obvious is that the existing AS-90 155mm Self Propelled Gun is no longer competitive, and in fact substantially outclassed

I'll offer a translation (might get it wrong ) that even though AS90 in close support role remains effective and in mobility is on par with other elements of armoured formations, it does fall short in counter-battery role and also in keeping up with (mainly) wheeled formations
- like you I will leave the choice of kit (supplementary or total replacement; that is part of the choice and should be steering it)
- BUT what I will say is that it cannot be left to divisional fires only to do counter-battery; obviously they do other things as stated with the criteria, at the beginning, but at the same time the opening contribution does not deal with to what degree 1 Artillery Bde assets should be preallocated (and neither should they be as along with the training aspect, the point of centralisation is flexibility in dishing out the supporting resource... until it's 'all gone')

[Tempest414]

Adding such an ATGW to the already formidable CTO 40mm Case Telescoped Auto Cannon will make the Warrior one of the most powerful Infantry Fighting Vehicles in serve with NATO or our other allies.

Could adding ATGW every third Warrior and something like 4 or 6 LMM to the rest work

[Lord Jim]

but at the same time the opening contribution does not deal with to what degree 1 Artillery Bde assets should be preallocated (and neither should they be as along with the training aspect, the point of centralisation is flexibility in dishing out the supporting resource... until it's 'all gone')

A very valid point and I may have a compromise. Regarding the Artillery I believe with should be expanded to two Brigades so that one is always stood up. Each Brigade would contain one HIMARS Regiment, two Regiments of 155mm Tube Artillery and a Air Defence Regiment equipped with both Land Ceptor (2 Batteries) and Starstreak (2 Batteries). The reason for the last one is that it provides a layered defence with the final layer being the LAAD Platoons in individual units. The Headquarters of all the Artillery Regiments would contain a UAV platoon to provide an integral target location and assessment capability

When ever a formation deploys at least one Artillery Regiments is deployed with it so a Brigade would get a dedicated 155mm Regiment, but if a large formation were deployed additional Regiments would go as Divisional assets, so in a nut shell Artillery support would be scaled.

As for the LMM being fitted to some vehicles instead of a ATGW, I would like more information behind this idea. From my standpoint the ATGWs are there to deal mainly with Heavy Armour and their man in the loop mode allows them to engage from full defilade which is useful one the target has been identified by the infantry and the co-ordinates passed to the vehicle. LMM would be a direct fire HE weapon, but the CTA40 has quite a good HE capability already, not as large as the LMM but useable and with the proposed re organisation come with a sensor programable fused option which I do not think we have actually adopted at present to save a few pennies.

[mr.fred]

As for the LMM being fitted to some vehicles instead of a ATGW, I would like more information behind this idea. From my standpoint the ATGWs are there to deal mainly with Heavy Armour and their man in the loop mode allows them to engage from full defilade which is useful one the target has been identified by the infantry and the co-ordinates passed to the vehicle. LMM would be a direct fire HE weapon, but the CTA40 has quite a good HE capability already, not as large as the LMM but useable and with the proposed re organisation come with a sensor programable fused option which I do not think we have actually adopted at present to save a few pennies

8km range and a larger warhead. You could also use it in an anti-air role, a la Bradley Linebacker.
As for fitting it in lieu of ATGW, that would depend on it being cheaper. Is it cheaper to have a simple launcher and add a laser designator or have a more precise one required for lock-on before launch?
If you want to avoid the cost of fitting ATGW to every vehicle, you could have a multi-purpose launcher that also serves as external stowage so you could fit NLAW or ASM, which infantry vehicles would carry anyway.

[Caribbean]

You could also use it in an anti-air role

As I understand it, LMMs strength is that it is a) cheap, b) simple to use, c) man-portable, and d) can be used against light armour, drones and helicopters equally, making it a highly useful infantry weapon. I can see it's main use being to counter small drones and helicopters, rather than light armour, as the CTA40 should be more capable against that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

making it a highly useful infantry weapon.

The last stand of the Landie: put a triple launcher for these on the back, and it will be welcomed everywhere

[jimthelad]

It worked with Milan for us. Light very mobile, but very exposed!

[SW1]

making it a highly useful infantry weapon.

The last stand of the Landie: put a triple launcher for these on the back, and it will be welcomed everywhere

Why not on the back of a jackal

[Lord Jim]

Could the three round Starstreak pedestal launcher be adapted to fire both missiles?

[Caribbean]

Could the three round Starstreak pedestal launcher be adapted to fire both missiles?

I believe they both have the sam eform factor and can use the same launcher

[ArmChairCivvy]

How come I think it has been done already, but whether
- for LML launcher (already in service), or
- MMS or Rapid Ranger (are they still only proposed?)
is a bit unclear to me.

Gr2Gr LMM's blast-frag and armour penetrating warhead would seem preferable to Starstreak's purely kinetic penetrators. All publicity seems to be directed to getting RN Wildcats up to speed for dealing with swarming boats, though.

[Tempest414]

My thinking behind LMM on some Warriors is it is a good cheap all rounder I maybe wrong but I think I saw somewhere it was about £3000 per round and is useful against light and medium armour , UAV's and Helicopters so maybe half the Warriors could be fitted with ATGW's and the other half with LMM giving them good all round cover.

[Caribbean]

All publicity seems to be directed to getting RN Wildcats up to speed for dealing with swarming boats, though.

The RM's have been trialling/ training with them in the ground to air role as well

[Lord Jim]

The three round pedestal launcher with both missiles would be a good fit for both the Royal Marines and the units within 16 Air Assault Brigade. However the role of each missile would be different as would the optimal placement of the launchers.

As for the fitment of the LMM on the majority of Boxer, Warrior and Ajax platforms in lieu of ATGW, whilst useful it does not meat the need for a weapon to allow these platforms to engage Main Battle Tanks if needed. The CTA40 can engage many of the targets applicable to the LMM though at a shorter range and with the proposed reorganisation each company would have a number of optimised LAAD platforms to cover the air threat. There are very few medium let alone light AFVs that can withstand a hit from the weapons APFSDS round form the front.

[SW1]

How does a blank fitting of LMM change the future form of the army?

Ultimately the army in broad brush strokes has two requirements deploying from the UK to counter Russian moves into NATO areas and deploying from the UK or around the UK to deal with state or non state irregular warfare.

It will have to construct a force and decide on a scale to do that with a budget outlook that is at best no worse than today. Which means what it’s currently got on the books is unaffordable without adding anything new.

I dont see talking weapons fit outs until It’s got an idea what it can afford and how that turns into plans to get from ancient equipment now to something remotely modern in the next 5 years.

[ArmChairCivvy]

deploying from the UK or around the UK to deal with state or non state irregular warfare.

Agree that blank fitting does not, but for your second task even the earliest units could arrive with https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/ ... 40_001.jpg
which can be airdropped (with the Pinzgauer) or can be driven off an LCVP, and thus have with them direct fire out to 8 km and cover against CAS (whether jets or helos, no matter as long as they don't fly too high and have use of stand-off weapons)

[Lord Jim]

I dont see talking weapons fit outs until It’s got an idea what it can afford and how that turns into plans to get from ancient equipment now to something remotely modern in the next 5 years.

That has been the whole point of proposals. The Army as it is now and including its current equipment plans, will produce four combat Brigades that are not fit for purpose, lack a multitude of essential capabilities and without a major investment of new money will only get worse. The proposals are based on what I believe the Army needs to be able to readily deploy and combat both a Peer opponent or those of a lesser threat such as a non state group.

I understand that until the Government pulls its head for out of its backside and realises that Defence is under resourced and the Army is basically having to replace its entire AFV fleet and regain core conventional capabilities before it even starts looking at more asymmetrical ones such a Cyber, and it does need both not one or the other, and that substantial new money is going to have to be provided. If it doesn't then committing the Army to any major combat operations would amount to murder with soldiers be sent into conflict, with the powers that be knowing their kit was not up to the job and that they lacked essential capabilities resulting in unnecessarily high casualties.