Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

[SW1]

https://news.sky.com/story/ew-army-spec ... w-12251093

A new Ranger Regiment is being set up to complement the expertise of the SAS and take on "high threat" missions overseas.

Under the new plans, four infantry battalions will become the new regiment and will be able to operate in environments usually reserved for Special Forces troops.

The force would be expected to range from 2,000 to 4,000 soldiers.

The Special Operations Brigade is being set up after the government's Integrated Review of foreign and defence policy published this week.

A new Security Force Assistance Brigade will also offer training and guidance, the Ministry of Defence said.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A new Security Force Assistance Brigade will also offer training and guidance

I guess that will be the new label for the 5 Special Infantry Bns?

[Tempest414]

maybe time to make 16 AA into a special operations division with

2 + 1 reserve Ranger Battalions
2 + 1 reserve Parachute Battalions
3 Gurkha Battalions

[Repulse]

A new Ranger Regiment is being set up to complement the expertise of the SAS and take on "high threat" missions overseas

Back to the future, let’s call them the “Queens Rangers”.

[Lord Jim]

Hopefully this is actually the revised name and role for what is at present 16AA. It would make sense as one of the Parachute Regiments battalions is already the main component of the Special Forces Support Group. So expanding this to include the whole Regiment, plus an additional infantry Regiment, say the UK based Gurkha Battalion would be logical.

[abc123]

Interestingly, The Times is reporting the creation of a Ranger type regiment in the IR. 4 battalions of 250 soldiers in a Brigade. Recruiting from across the army.
Rebadge of the Spec inf group i suppose?

Battalion of 250 soldiers?

[ArmChairCivvy]

say the UK based Gurkha Battalion would be logical

They are already in 16X (though administratively part of 11 Bde).

[SW1]

Quite possibly is moving of parachute battalions back to being army commandos. A central part of the deterrent force

There is also a throw back to the independent companies of the past for fwd engagement.
I think the IR published has shown very clearly areas where the government want to engage and how it will join up the Armed forces with the other levers of government resource to achieve it and this maybe the first expression of it.

The fact it’s supposed to be all backed up by investing in U.K. science and technology has the chance makes a connection to people’s lives here.

[Tempest414]

4 battalions of 250 soldiers in a Brigade.

Mach better to have 2 battalions of 500 with 3 companies in each

[abc123]

4 battalions of 250 soldiers in a Brigade.

Mach better to have 2 battalions of 500 with 3 companies in each

Don't know, but 250 is too small number. Otherwise, not a bad idea, because real SF are overstreched.

[abc123]

I was just speeding through, to get to the end of all the new comments, so let's trace this one, to the statement now made

We will strengthen the resilience of the position, navigation and timing (PNT) services

in the fresh document:







- if I was a betting man, I would say that in 3-5 yrs time we will 'shape' a Polaris-like deal with the Americans so that we can attach their decoders for the M-signal to all our devices that need to be hardened against GPS faking and/or denial by any OpFor

- l

IMHO, that would be much better course of action, than goeing alone...

[Tempest414]

Hopefully this is actually the revised name and role for what is at present 16AA. It would make sense as one of the Parachute Regiments battalions is already the main component of the Special Forces Support Group. So expanding this to include the whole Regiment, plus an additional infantry Regiment, say the UK based Gurkha Battalion would be logical.

At this time 16 AA is made up of 2 + 1 reserve Parachute battalions and 1 Gurkha Battalion for me bring all three Gurkha battalions and two newly formed Ranger battalions under a newly formed Special operations division to have

2 x Parachute Battalions + 1 Reserve
2 x Ranger battalions + 1 Reserve
3 x Gurkha Battalions ( 2 UK based and 1 in Brunei )

[Luke jones]

Just read the Times article in paper form.

Not to much detail as one would imagine.

They are saying 4 battalions of 250 bods.

Seperate selection course.

Open to every unit in the army but looking for older people that have already done tours, intelligence and skills etc.

We shall see.

[Luke jones]

Also army is looking to stand up and deploy one battalion next year to Africa, maybe Somalia or Mozambique

[SW1]

If you take a lead from the IR then you could expect them heading this way

“We will work in partnership with South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana in particular to further our shared prosperity goals, our democratic values and our security interests. South Africa and Nigeria are regional powers with global reach through international fora, with which we share common values and commercial and development interests: together they account for 46% of GDP in sub-Saharan Africa and for 60% of its trade with the UK.
The UK shares significant security and counter-terrorism concerns in the Horn
of Africa with Ethiopia and Kenya. We will invest further in regional stability, moving towards closer defence cooperation with Kenya, and Ethiopia if the situation there allows. We will deliver the UK-Kenya Strategic Partnership, building on our deep, historic relationship.”


Though the commitment to Mali is of similar size

[Clive F]

will each of the "new" 4 Ranger battalions have a name from one of the regiments that is being disbanded (eg Black Watch Rangers) thus meaning itonly takes 250 soldiers to keep the name alive?

[abc123]

will each of the "new" 4 Ranger battalions have a name from one of the regiments that is being disbanded (eg Black Watch Rangers) thus meaning itonly takes 250 soldiers to keep the name alive?

Along with a high officer billet?

[ArmChairCivvy]

They are saying 4 battalions of 250 bods.

Seperate selection course.

Open to every unit in the army but looking for older people that have already done tours

I bet the 350-strong Sp. Inf. Bns are v NCO heavy as they are there to train and instruct.
- these guys will be a quick in&out force (250 in a Coy), so how many Chinooks loads would that be... if you make it too many bods, you won't have enough of the long-range G Chinooks

- and in the US Rangers, once you have taken the course, then some also do 'Airborne'
... nothing to stop us doing this in reverse: have platoon-strength "pathfinders" for the Rangers, just like Airborne (pardon me: Parachute) forces have for their Ops

with South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Ghana in particular to further our shared prosperity goals, our democratic values and our security interests. South Africa and Nigeria are regional powers

- certainly
- once those two have been taken out of the list, Ethiopia stands out:
1. to bottle up (together with Kenya) the AQ branch in that part of the world, and
2. though the current leader of Ethiopia has close pals in Eritrea, the latter have sold out to China... there may be a need to bottle up that too (though difficult for a navy base, as the ships sail in and out)

[Repulse]

Quite possibly is moving of parachute battalions back to being army commandos. A central part of the deterrent force

Would agree - also interesting that the Times mentioned that the Ranger would “pass information to the RMs that would do the fighting”. Must admit I thought the FCF more aligned to the a lot of the roles mentioned for the Rangers with small section / troop / company level force structures.

However, if the Rangers frees up Parachute Regiment to act as an Army Commando Brigade then I think that’s a good thing.

Taking Tempest414’s point around a Special Operations Division, in addition to the UKSF Group, Rangers, Future Commando Force it would be good to see a highly mobile Division capable of global deployment by air or sea. Perhaps made up of the Parachute Regiment (3 battalions + 1 reserve), Ghurkas (3 battalions) plus a wheel based Strike Brigade (3 cavalry regiments). This would then be the main expeditionary force, backed by 3rd Division held at lower readiness.

[ArmChairCivvy]

what's now coming out in these two documents, at a digestable pace, has not been costed
- so the 'real' review would (thus) still be WIP?

While we are all munching on the tid-bits that have been let out to the press
... I will carry on with my theme (at the top)

RUSI (by Paul O’Neill is a Senior Research Fellow in Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute)
"entirely consistent with the prime minister’s view of the UK as a superman ready to assume global leadership.

Overall, the authors have done a pretty good job balancing themes and plotting a direction that reflects the current range of threats and opportunities while remaining coherent with existing directions of travel. The review manages to name check most of the important things"
- yes, I agree
- and, from a journalistic POV the first 114 pages, of course, only make up the headline
... will the text that follows fall in line?

So, as for the topics of some controversy upthread, let's quote from Dr Jack Watling (also of RUSI, but with focus on land warfare):
" continuing a small footprint counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan, seeking to stabilise partner governments through capacity building, while increasing counter-terrorism operations in the Sahel, then it follows that the UK is expanding its commitments, without deploying sufficient resources to expect to resolve and thereby draw down from any of them. This broadening activity"

Back to Paul O'Neill:
"Even if all future technology needs were known, this would be short-sighted, but the fact they are not makes it more concerning. A truly integrated review would have taken a broader perspective and been more tolerant of pure research. It would also have focused on improving UK education more generally, not just in relation to attracting global talent."
- basically saying that we are taking wild guesses, to resource new (gvmnt research) ventures
... which is the exact opposite of what China is doing: they define 20 key technology areas for the future military capability ,make the universities compete for (what basically is unlimited) finance, AND like in any activity wrapped within a great degree of uncertainty, let the sieve work its wonders, in whittling down the number of projects to proceed . Wheat & the chaff process (throw it up in the air, and ) will not QUITE work in this.
- so at this end of the spectrum: UNDULY descoping activity before knowing (enough) about other alternatives

It's only Saturday ... we'll get to see, soon

[SW1]

Quite possibly is moving of parachute battalions back to being army commandos. A central part of the deterrent force

Would agree - also interesting that the Times mentioned that the Ranger would “pass information to the RMs that would do the fighting”. Must admit I thought the FCF more aligned to the a lot of the roles mentioned for the Rangers with small section / troop / company level force structures.

However, if the Rangers frees up Parachute Regiment to act as an Army Commando Brigade then I think that’s a good thing.

Taking Tempest414’s point around a Special Operations Division, in addition to the UKSF Group, Rangers, Future Commando Force it would be good to see a highly mobile Division capable of global deployment by air or sea. Perhaps made up of the Parachute Regiment (3 battalions + 1 reserve), Ghurkas (3 battalions) plus a wheel based Strike Brigade (3 cavalry regiments). This would then be the main expeditionary force, backed by 3rd Division held at lower readiness.

I would say my thoughts follow largely ACC post above. I think that 3 division will almost solely be about countering Russia.

The “global” element for defence will be small scale, highly specialist and sophisticated in nature and with a view to building capacity and supporting nations highlighted in the IR.

[Repulse]

I think that 3 division will almost solely be about countering Russia.

I would agree - but countering a hot war against Russia held at a lower readiness in the UK, and as a seed corn to build up a larger force with notice. Countering Russia grey-zone operations will be the forces we are discussing.

[Poiuytrewq]

A general point but it's interesting how little negativity there seems to be from virtually everyone regarding what has been leaked from the Integrated Review so far.

Hope it continues post Monday.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I hope so, too.

Hubris is never far, though. Consider a quote I pulled into my post

a pretty good job balancing themes and plotting a direction that reflects the current range of threats and opportunities while remaining coherent with existing directions of travel. The review manages to name check most of the important things"
[...]
the first 114 pages, of course, only make up the headline

When I pointed out a hole (there might be a 'plug' for it in Act 2), there was a stern counter; with a quote of a sentence expressing 'an intention'.

[SW1]

A general point but it's interesting how little negativity there seems to be from virtually everyone regarding what has been leaked from the Integrated Review so far.

Hope it continues post Monday.

Not a mission when whichever sacred cow is sacrificed. But as a document I think the IR is well thought through and provides a clear understanding of what the government wants to do and how it intends to do it.

I think that 3 division will almost solely be about countering Russia.

I would agree - but countering a hot war against Russia held at a lower readiness in the UK, and as a seed corn to build up a larger force with notice. Countering Russia grey-zone operations will be the forces we are discussing.

I don’t think they should be at lower readiness or that seed corn to scale is realistic. They show Russia that with our allies we’re serious about nato border integrity. However ultimately they are a force that buys time for cooler heads to prevail prior to a nuclear exchange. They are useful for contingency against another desert storm style operation too.

I would agree, the forces were talking about are for what in the past we’ve called guerrilla warfare (grey zone) against whoever. A deterrent to taking it to a conventional war and always in demand.