Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

[topman]

But the way I read it about the rangers was they are really about training and operating with local forces in a upstream conflict prevention type role.

Didn’t really seeing them operating with air mobile brigade.

That was my understanding as well.

[Lord Jim]

Could someone be so kind as to put up a link to where the number for unit strength in the new formations is coming from please?

[SW1]

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/form ... try-group/

[Tempest414]

But the way I read it about the rangers was they are really about training and operating with local forces in a upstream conflict prevention type role.

Didn’t really seeing them operating with air mobile brigade.

So are the Rangers not sitting somewhere between the SF and Paras. For me we need to stop dicking around in stead of having 4 battalions of 200 = 800 there should be 2 battalions of 400 with 3 companies in each with one company in each being Parachute trained

[SW1]

But the way I read it about the rangers was they are really about training and operating with local forces in a upstream conflict prevention type role.

Didn’t really seeing them operating with air mobile brigade.

So are the Rangers not sitting somewhere between the SF and Paras. For me we need to stop dicking around in stead of having 4 battalions of 200 = 800 there should be 2 battalions of 400 with 3 companies in each with one company in each being Parachute trained

I have no information other that what I’ve read from the review. They are the specialist infantry group I’ve linked above with the added task that they will be allowed to conduct operations with those they train which I will assume changes the operational, political and legal requirements and hence there move to special end of things.

The security forces assistance brigade seems/sounds like adding another 4 battalions but not allowing them to operate with forces they train and sound like it mirrors the US army units of a similar name.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... n-to-asia/

In fact both the heavy brigade and infantry brigade combat teams of the US army sound very like what we’re doing with the heavy and light mechanised brigade combat teams.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So are the Rangers not sitting somewhere between the SF and Paras.

It's a good question as for using 'catchy' names.

Backtracking a little bit, as for the naming conventions (beg, steal and borrow?)

Rangers 1942; fashioned along the lines of UK commando units
"Green Berets" - The Army Special Forces were established in 1952,
- that makes it another 10 yrs, before the Navy SEALs, and
- 25 years before Delta Force.

These (all but the first one) are all SF... we hear the Rangers will operate (or be able to) 'SF like'
- in the alphabet soup/ naming conventions, it is worthwhile to remember that every other modern U.S. special operations unit in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines was established after 1977

Before we go back to the question by @Tempest (the US Army SF, separate from their Rangers, have had "AB" attached to the units names ever since their formation), it may be worthwhile to consider what preceded 'Air Assault' before the US Army started to consider helicopters as accessible/ expendable as their Jeeps before that, namely what air cavalry was formed to do/ achieve:

"Air cavalry missions typically consisted of
making visual reconnaissance of enemy positions with several scout helicopters and helicopter gunships, then
airlifting a platoon of infantry assigned to the air cavalry unit into battle against the enemy.

Other air cavalry helicopters provided fire support to the assaulting platoon, much as assault helicopter companies provided support to ground units during combat assault operations. In addition to such missions, air cavalry teams performed general reconnaissance missions..."

As we don't have/ can't field the whole plethora of specialised units, the above may help in tracing what our new 'Ranger' and less new 'Airmobile' might add, in the way of capabilities(?)

[ArmChairCivvy]

making visual reconnaissance of enemy positions with several scout helicopters and helicopter gunships, then
airlifting a platoon of infantry assigned to the air cavalry unit into battle against the enemy.

Other air cavalry helicopters provided fire support to the assaulting platoon,

I reread the above, and it started to sound sub-scale; however
Speznats are operating in 1-2 section-sized teams (depending on whether they are out for info - the former - or for sabotage... then the latter; or more)

So instead of cavalry securing the flanks and fighting armoured recce, this option will also be needed. Today as much as in the past.

[topman]

But the way I read it about the rangers was they are really about training and operating with local forces in a upstream conflict prevention type role.

Didn’t really seeing them operating with air mobile brigade.

So are the Rangers not sitting somewhere between the SF and Paras. For me we need to stop dicking around in stead of having 4 battalions of 200 = 800 there should be 2 battalions of 400 with 3 companies in each with one company in each being Parachute trained

Why the need to be parachute trained?

[Lord Jim]

They may or may not be, we just don't know what the new Ranger Regiment will be, how it will operate and be equipped. We know the Specialist Infantry Group is going to provide the manpower and that it may retain the latter's role to train the militaries of allied nations, but very little beyond that. It might just be a change of name or it could be a total transformation say into four full Infantry Battalions that operate along the lines of the US Army's Rangers.

[SW1]

They may or may not be, we just don't know what the new Ranger Regiment will be, how it will operate and be equipped. We know the Specialist Infantry Group is going to provide the manpower and that it may retain the latter's role to train the militaries of allied nations, but very little beyond that. It might just be a change of name or it could be a total transformation say into four full Infantry Battalions that operate along the lines of the US Army's Rangers.

We certainly know it won’t be that.

https://www.forces.net/news/new-army-ra ... now-so-far

The thousand-strong Ranger Regiment will be established by August 2021, and will be "open to anybody in the Armed Forces", according to the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nick Carter.

The new Special Operations Brigade will replace the existing Specialised Infantry Group, and the Army hopes to be able to deploy it by 2022.

It will see soldiers take on roles usually carried out by Special Forces personnel, operating in high-threat environments to train, advise and accompany allies.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What baffles me is that as the 4 bns are (initially) drawn from the Special Inf. bns,
somehow 5 x 350
transforms into 4 x 200
... was the forming of the 5 bns still only in process, or
will there be training teams housed also in other brigades?

It is becoming a tad clearer now:
"The new Special Operations Brigade will replace the existing Specialised Infantry Group, and the Army hopes to be able to deploy it by 2022."
- what is still missing is the 5th bn, Gurkha, for which the recruiting was reported to be going well
- where has that one gone? There is a detached company in Sandhurst, to give the cadets a good run. May be the manpower will backfill for that number in the two main bns... or more likely, in the one in the UK. Lots of new housing is just completing on the grounds that were sliced off the Shorncliffe garrison as part of Defence Estate 'rationalisation' - an opportunity to take a long lease (rather than buy upfront) straight from the developers.

[SW1]

What baffles me is that as the 4 bns are (initially) drawn from the Special Inf. bns,
somehow 5 x 350
transforms into 4 x 200
... was the forming of the 5 bns still only in process, or
will there be training teams housed also in other brigades?

It is becoming a tad clearer now:
"The new Special Operations Brigade will replace the existing Specialised Infantry Group, and the Army hopes to be able to deploy it by 2022."
- what is still missing is the 5th bn, Gurkha, for which the recruiting was reported to be going well
- where has that one gone? There is a detached company in Sandhurst, to give the cadets a good run. May be the manpower will backfill for that number in the two main bns... or more likely, in the one in the UK. Lots of new housing is just completing on the grounds that were sliced off the Shorncliffe garrison as part of Defence Estate 'rationalisation' - an opportunity to take a long lease (rather than buy upfront) straight from the developers.

Possibly into the Security Force Assistance Brigade?

[abc123]

But why not just establish additional battalion or two of Para regiment? I presume that they probably should be able to do 90% of things of these future Rangers ( and 100% with some additional training) and have the prestige and tradition and organisation?

[Tempest414]

Why the need to be parachute trained?

The point of having a Rangers regiment for me is they sit between the special forces and the dedicated high end infantry like the Paras and commandos and there for take on some operations that in the past SF units would have done to this end and in line with the role laid out I would say at leased a company of Rangers should be Parachute trained to allow them to air drop in somewhere train and work along side allied groups

Lets also be clear the Commandos and even the RAF Regiment have parachute trained troops

[topman]

Why the need to be parachute trained?

The point of having a Rangers regiment for me is they sit between the special forces and the dedicated high end infantry like the Paras and commandos and there for take on some operations that in the past SF units would have done to this end and in line with the role laid out I would say at leased a company of Rangers should be Parachute trained to allow them to air drop in somewhere train and work along side allied groups

Lets also be clear the Commandos and even the RAF Regiment have parachute trained troops

I think you're getting hung up on the name of the unit. Just because other countries have similar names units doing xyz, doesn't say we have to have them doing the same thing.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That is true as we have (outside of what carries the AB label) units that can be parachuted, starting with the SFSG (some of the RAF Rgmnt folks in there) but also the 2 Sqdrn within the RAF Rgmnt itself.
... and then whatever assets, from the present-day Commander Bond to the actual SF we can field

[Tempest414]

I think you're getting hung up on the name of the unit. Just because other countries have similar names units doing xyz, doesn't say we have to have them doing the same thing.

You may well be right and at the end of the day it is just a point of view

[Lord Jim]

I think one change from the Specialist Infantry Group is that the Ranger detachments will deploy as combat formations, able to fight if required to, even when deployed to conduct training missions. The fact that we now have another tier to the SF layer cake in addition to the SF themselves and the SFSG probably means we are going to stretch these assets even more and having the Rangers will allow the SF to delegate some of their duties to this Regiment.

[ArmChairCivvy]

one change from the Specialist Infantry Group is that the Ranger detachments will deploy as combat formations, able to fight if required to, even when deployed to conduct training missions. The fact [is]that we now have another tier to the SF layer cake in addition to the SF themselves and the SFSG

Yes, and with a £125k per 'dismount' on the ground that sounds good, as an investment.

That video is good all thru (the general in full camo, with a background of an 'antiques' desk might be discordant, though... and of course the reporter/interviewer being in a full studio, with screens showing the world markets crashing down was made up, too),
but rather than just the explaining, the real msg was in the last minute of the 11.

[ArmChairCivvy]

One big omission in the three installments of the IR that we have received so far was the Army's new Comms & Battle Management solution.The status and prospects of this biggest project the Army has - before perhaps the Boxer contract will be upped - were surveyed in the 6/2020 Issue · European Security & DefenceARMAMENT & TECHNOLOGY

... to latest contract award, which makes the cumulative spend 10% of the original cost estimate:
" in September 2018, Elbit Systems was awarded a contract worth US$54.3M in 2019 values. This covered the delivery of the MORPHEUS battle management component. Contemporary reports stated that the contract covered the award of a ‘fieldable' Battle Management Application (BMA) to fulfill part of the MORPHEUS requirement. For all intents and purposes, the BMA (Battle Management Application) performs a similar task to the COMBAT software application furnishing BOWMAN. It is intended to be used by all echelons of the manoeuvre force to facilitate mission planning, execution and to enhance situational awareness. The BMA provides a common operating picture to commanders at all echelons.

Meanwhile, in August 2018, the MoD published a request for information regarding a MORPHEUS systems integrator to take the programme to its so-called ‘Main Gate' decision. This is MoD jargon for the point at which the ministry decides whether or not to financially commit to the entire programme. This decision was originally schedule for December 2020. As the discussion below states this date, like several others associated with MORPHEUS, now seems almost certain to slip. Beyond this, a further contract worth US$6.5M was awarded to TP Group to provide additional support to the overall MORPHEUS initiative. There was no further information as to what precisely this covers.

Dream or Nightmare?The RSI's presentation stated that the MORPHEUS architecture is expected to be deployed from 2023 although this date will now be in flux. Moreover, the existing BCIP 5.6 configuration of BOWMAN was expected by the MoD to remain in service until 2028 to allow the transition of the British Army's brigades from the BOWMAN to MORPHEUS architecture. With the delays to MORPHEUS looking all but certain, it would not be unreasonable to assume that BOWMAN will remain in service for some years to come, possibly up to the end of the decade and beyond. The anticipated costs for MORPHEUS may also increase. Back in 2014, the MORPHEUS programme was expected to cost US$5.4Bn at 2019 values."

[ArmChairCivvy]

It might be the time to stop pretending with that 'inclusive' approach to what Europe is?

Borrell went to Moscow, and they made ... a "show".

Two, err 'Presidents' of Europe go to see the "Turkeys" and guess what
... these people behave as if the other side were the turkeys.

Kick these fuckers out; cancel the Turkey-EU customs union
... make them kow-tow and and ask for forgiveness

That is a more actionable thing than what can be done with Russia:
Khodorkovsky was believed to be the wealthiest man in Russia, with a fortune estimated to be worth $15 billion
- now all of that minus 0.5 bn is with the 'Putin family'
... even though there has been an int'l Court resolution on the confiscation of the property; and every year 0.8 bn interest is accruing, while waiting for the reversal

Next step:
Putin's manoeuvres around Ukraine
= we do what ever we want (ehmm: that Treaty about Conventional Forces?)

[Lord Jim]

The more I read what has been released regarding the Integrated Review and the Command Paper in particular, the more it seems to simply have the right sound bites and make the right noises but has very little actual substance. In the future such Reviews should present their results in two sections, the first containing what will be achieved in the period covered by the review, over the next five years. This will include the delivery of systems, the placing of contracts and so on. The second part would cover things that are further down stream like on going developmental programmes and such like. There maybe some crossover between the two such as milestone being reached in some programmes that will not be completed during the five year period.

This would give a far clearer picture than what we get now, which is pretty bad compared to what other nations release, listing exact number of vehicles, Ships and Planes that will be ordered a well as wheat is likely to be delivered, for an example.

[Clive F]

The more I read what has been released regarding the Integrated Review and the Command Paper in particular, the more it seems to simply have the right sound bites and make the right noises but has very little actual substance. In the future such Reviews should present their results in two sections, the first containing what will be achieved in the period covered by the review, over the next five years. This will include the delivery of systems, the placing of contracts and so on. The second part would cover things that are further down stream like on going developmental programmes and such like. There maybe some crossover between the two such as milestone being reached in some programmes that will not be completed during the five year period.

This would give a far clearer picture than what we get now, which is pretty bad compared to what other nations release, listing exact number of vehicles, Ships and Planes that will be ordered a well as wheat is likely to be delivered, for an example.

I agree, but will not happen as it will be to transparent for the Politico's and MOD.

[Lord Jim]

The constant mentioning of being in "Competition", is an train of thought. Does this mean we are going to learn to play by the set of rules Russia and China have written? I think we need to especially at present when those two are test the new US President as to how far they can push and get away with it.

NATO needs to arrange of joint manoeuvres with Ukraine in the west of that country in addition to stating its on going support and putting sanctions in place. The Germans need to put an indefinite halt on that Gas Pipeline, or as a minimum not turn it on when completed to deny Russia revenue.

The US, Japan South Korea and other nations need to continue to aggressively counter China's claim to the South China Sea and beyond, but sending not just single warships but joint Task Forces through these areas, as well as reinforcing the fishing rights to these waters by confronting illegal fishing and apprehending the boats and crews caught.

Yes this will raise the level of tension but if we and out allies do not raise the bar then our efforts to deter actions both above and below the Article 5 threshold will be seriously undermined. We must once again get to a situation where everyone understands that if one side does A then the other side will do B, reducing the size of the "Grey Zone" whilst also contesting it on a continual basis.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Been otherwise occupied; has anyone noticed any hints of what the promised 'by the summer' next installment will contain?