The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

ICVs, IFVs, SPGs, MBTs and APCs are all AFVs. :D

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

TSharpe28 wrote: 13 Mar 2022, 10:54 ICVs for Boxer
Why not APC, or TCV?
What about Ajax?

An ICV or TCV can both be an AFV, but they don't have to be. An APC is an AFV pretty much by definition.
A Boxer is Armoured, is armed (so is intended for Fighting) and is a Vehicle. A.F.V.
Likewise Ajax

The key thing is: what does quibbling about the definitions of TLAs help?
[rant]Personally I'm all for calling a tank a tank, rather than the scrabble-esque ETLAs being waved around. As long as the meaning is clear and widely understood.
Much of the convoluted alphanumeric soup is a jargon and as such mostly intended to identify and exclude outsiders rather than convey any useful meaning[/rant]

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

TSharpe28 wrote: 13 Mar 2022, 10:54 ICVs for Boxer
With main armanent of a machine gun??!! APC at best....


mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

An artillery Captain thinks that they artillery should be funded at the expense of other arms? I’m shocked.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

mr.fred wrote: 14 Mar 2022, 16:31
An artillery Captain thinks that they artillery should be funded at the expense of other arms? I’m shocked.
Very true but then you never know he might not be wrong either

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote: 14 Mar 2022, 17:22 Very true but then you never know he might not be wrong either
There are certain tropes that always make me raise an eyebrow when they appear in military commentary
Two of which are the death of the tank and the concept of artillery (or air-power) as a destructive effect in isolation, both of which appear in that piece.

The rest of the piece focusses on the need for more and better artillery, which is a fair comment, but it's undermined by describing other formations as obsolete.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Scimitar54 »

What should be obsolete are “Non integrated” forces ! Specialisms are fine, but an Army must aim (and needs) to be greater than the sum of its component parts.
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacLord Jimjedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

In some scenarios, our Stay behind units would comprise of SF with observers and CVR(T)s. I can see where this author is coming form but relying on human observers operating up to what could be hundreds of miles into Enemy territory is not a truely solid foundation on which to base one's doctrine. What I can see as being needed are intelligent munitions that can be fired at a high trajectory and then identify a number of target which a Gunner will choose from.

Our inventory of Extractor need to be expanded and the weapon system needs alternative warheads and possibly greater range. also believe it should be allocated to BCT or even Battalion level within said Brigades. These would compliment the Battalions mortars or possibly replace them. We also need enhanced tube artillery able to fire a variety of munitions from High Explosive to Sensor Fused Sub-munitions, both rapidly and accurately. All of this is going to take greater resources than are currently allocated to the various related programmes. New money had to be found.

Whatever is done secure communications including Datalinks is going to be vital.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by TSharpe28 »

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -07/135702

As announced by Secretary of State for Defence in 2021, Future Soldier is about facing up to future threats by creating an Army that is more integrated, active and lethal. The operational analysis from Northern Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh that informed the Integrated Review and Future Soldier has been broadly matched by the performance of armour in Ukraine. Nonetheless, we continue to watch the threat and will make policy accordingly.
These users liked the author TSharpe28 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

So when are we ordering the up to date organic anti UAV weapon systems to be allocated to each Battalion/Regiment. Whether you are in a Challenger or a Boxer, an attack by an unseen UAV will ruin your day.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 Mar 2022, 13:09 So when are we ordering the up to date organic anti UAV weapon systems to be allocated to each Battalion/Regiment. Whether you are in a Challenger or a Boxer, an attack by an unseen UAV will ruin your day.
More relevant today than when it was written.

https://wavellroom.com/2021/02/24/the-f ... res-light/
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

For me this is what I was saying in the Starstreak thread that the Light BCT's should be based on Bushmasters and Jackal's with Cavalry jackal and Coyote's fitted like so

Jackal with 12.7mm or 40mm GMG + 4 hero 120 ( Hero would given ISTAR and attack out to 40km )
Coyote with Rapid ranger with LMM for air defence

Infantry Bushmasters as so

APC fitted with 12'7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG on RWS's
C&C fitted with 12.7mm
SP mortar fitted 120mm Mortar and 7.62 GPMG
Air Defence fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with HVM / LMM & 30mm chain gun
Anti tank fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with Spike LR & 40mm GMG
Engineer
Medical
EW
Deep Fires with 8 x Hero 400 ( this has a range of 150km and 2 hour loiter time could be used for ISTAR as well as attack )

this is also what Boxer should get but with 8 round HVM & Spike LR based on the Stormer system

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 10:50 For me this is what I was saying in the Starstreak thread that the Light BCT's should be based on Bushmasters and Jackal's with Cavalry jackal and Coyote's fitted like so

Jackal with 12.7mm or 40mm GMG + 4 hero 120 ( Hero would given ISTAR and attack out to 40km )
Coyote with Rapid ranger with LMM for air defence

Infantry Bushmasters as so

APC fitted with 12'7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG on RWS's
C&C fitted with 12.7mm
SP mortar fitted 120mm Mortar and 7.62 GPMG
Air Defence fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with HVM / LMM & 30mm chain gun
Anti tank fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with Spike LR & 40mm GMG
Engineer
Medical
EW
Deep Fires with 8 x Hero 400 ( this has a range of 150km and 2 hour loiter time could be used for ISTAR as well as attack )

this is also what Boxer should get but with 8 round HVM & Spike LR based on the Stormer system
Wouldn’t disagree though I think the other light brigade need to be on something like Viking and I’d argue 16 air assault needs to change focus to being more like the old air mobile force than parachuting. Also maybe have ground launched brimstone instead of spike.

It could allow a battle group in each brigade to be at readiness to support a JEF operation in the northern part of nato area and one in the south.

You could then scale air mobility to support the battle group deployment
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 11:04
Tempest414 wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 10:50 For me this is what I was saying in the Starstreak thread that the Light BCT's should be based on Bushmasters and Jackal's with Cavalry jackal and Coyote's fitted like so

Jackal with 12.7mm or 40mm GMG + 4 hero 120 ( Hero would given ISTAR and attack out to 40km )
Coyote with Rapid ranger with LMM for air defence

Infantry Bushmasters as so

APC fitted with 12'7mm , 30mm & 40mm GMG on RWS's
C&C fitted with 12.7mm
SP mortar fitted 120mm Mortar and 7.62 GPMG
Air Defence fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with HVM / LMM & 30mm chain gun
Anti tank fitted with Thales Rapid ranger with Spike LR & 40mm GMG
Engineer
Medical
EW
Deep Fires with 8 x Hero 400 ( this has a range of 150km and 2 hour loiter time could be used for ISTAR as well as attack )

this is also what Boxer should get but with 8 round HVM & Spike LR based on the Stormer system
Wouldn’t disagree though I think the other light brigade need to be on something like Viking and I’d argue 16 air assault needs to change focus to being more like the old air mobile force than parachuting. Also maybe have ground launched brimstone instead of spike.

It could allow a battle group in each brigade to be at readiness to support a JEF operation in the northern part of nato area and one in the south.

You could then scale air mobility to support the battle group deployment
I would still like to see 3 Light BCT's with two Bushmaster and one could be based on Viking with the above sub types

the only reason for Spike LR is it is the same size and weight as Starstreak so the mod to the Rapid ranger system should be software and cheaper than Brimstone with this said I would over the moon with Brimstone too

16 Air Assault I would add a second Gurkha battalion to it and increase the Pathfinder Troop to a Company I would also add 60 AW-149 to AAC to give them a force of 50 AH 64's , 60 AW-149 & 30 HC-135 allowing 16 AA to have 30 Chinook , 40 AW-149 , 24 AH-64 & 12 HC-135

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

If you are going for a vehicle mounted member of the Spike Family and want something with less range then Extractor Mk2, them Spike-ER2 is the one to go for. It has far greater range than its LR2 Cousin but has the same guidance options and is also the only fully networked ATGM currently available. This means that a missile launched from platform A can be taken over and controlled but Platform, unit B further forwards for a start. The use of secure datalinks means it is very hard for an opponent to try to jam the guidance package as well, from what I have read.

I agree with many of the suggestions above, but I still have not heard of a secure, stealthy Recce package that can operate hundreds of miles behind Enemy lines and provide secure real time targeting information for the Deep Fires BCT, that is besides SF that is. This is important as the most recent Review is betting on the Army being able to hold an Enemy at a distance as well as engaging it rear areas with Precision Strike munitions with a range of up to 500 miles. In a Peer or near Pear conflict, the use of air assets is not going to be reliable, especially some distance beyond the front line. This is certainly the case with persistent air assets, and will only be more so against nations like Russia and China as lessons are learnt form the war in Ukraine.

Until this gap can be adequately filled we are going to have to fight in the more conventional way with conventional units but they light or heavy. Light units do actually have a relevant role in even Peer level conflicts, but they need mobility, unlike the Infantry Division that would have complimented the heavy Division in BOAR in the Cold War. This was the reason for the introduction of the Saxon, and this was never introduced in the number needed. Such Light units would also need far greater firepower than they currently have. A Light Infantry Battalion for example would need at least double the number of Javelin launchers it currently has as well as greater integral indirect fore support than the current six to eight 81mm Mortars. The need for effective integral Air Defence is a must as is such formations having integral Combat Engineering, ISTAR capabilities and the units being fully networked within and without. They will need support form the heavier units as well as Divisional level assets. Similar increased capabilities are also needed in the Heavy BCTs as a matter of course.

Rather than having one in every three Infantry Battalion equipped with Viking, the reminder with Bushmaster, I would rather have one entire Light Brigade Combat Team equipped with the platform and be ear marked for Nordic areas. This BCT would take over the more conventional fighting responsibilities from the Royal Marine Commandoes, but would regularly train with the latter.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 18:42
I agree with many of the suggestions above, but I still have not heard of a secure, stealthy Recce package that can operate hundreds of miles behind Enemy lines and provide secure real time targeting information for the Deep Fires BCT, that is besides SF that is. This is important as the most recent Review is betting on the Army being able to hold an Enemy at a distance as well as engaging it rear areas with Precision Strike munitions with a range of up to 500 miles. In a Peer or near Pear conflict, the use of air assets is not going to be reliable, especially some distance beyond the front line. This is certainly the case with persistent air assets, and will only be more so against nations like Russia and China as lessons are learnt form the war in Ukraine.

Until this gap can be adequately filled we are going to have to fight in the more conventional way with conventional units but they light or heavy
This is an argument for procrastination.

500 miles is very much into the strategic range and likely more fixed targets in nature not the deep battle. Data sharing thru a airborne network with potentially fwd loyal wingmen type drones and reconnaissance ground teams passed thru a airborne command node to long range fires is along the lines of the US Army HADES program as an addition to purely covert teams is an option, as is loitering munitions or things like brimstone with seekers designed to make the final choice. If anything the past few weeks has shown it’s how some can overegg the opposition to justify ever more exotic must haves.

There is a also a discussion I think around defence or invasion forces. We have been obsessed with Blair’s expeditionary and his forces for good adventures perhaps to attempt to justify a budget. Perhaps time now to re focus on defence and deterrence and not giving up territory we already have and what that may look like. Russian has thrown 70% of its combat power into Ukraine and the Ukrainians with relatively simple weapons and outnumbered have caused havoc. A lot of what is required is already out there.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 22:40 500 miles is very much into the strategic range and likely more fixed targets in nature not the deep battle. Data sharing thru a airborne network with potentially fwd loyal wingmen type drones and reconnaissance ground teams passed thru a airborne command node to long range fires is along the lines of the US Army HADES program as an addition to purely covert teams is an option, as is loitering munitions or things like brimstone with seekers designed to make the final choice. If anything the past few weeks has shown it’s how some can overegg the opposition to justify ever more exotic must haves.

There is a also a discussion I think around defence or invasion forces. We have been obsessed with Blair’s expeditionary and his forces for good adventures perhaps to attempt to justify a budget. Perhaps time now to re focus on defence and deterrence and not giving up territory we already have and what that may look like. Russian has thrown 70% of its combat power into Ukraine and the Ukrainians with relatively simple weapons and outnumbered have caused havoc. A lot of what is required is already out there.
All the UK armed forces are going to have current or immininent capablity gaps, some lasting up to a decade, but it seems as if the Army's Future Soldier programme has been inflicted the biggest cuts now/soon in return for the potential promise of future technology in the hopes of bridging these capability gaps.

We are not going to be in a position of intervening overseas other than as a more limited and focussed reinforcement of our NATO allies. So we need the MOD and Army high command to themselves focus on what we can realistically accomplish. Reinforcing Norway's Northern flank with one RM Commando transported by LRG North, maybe advance deploying one Armoured Brigade Combat Team to Scandinavia / Northern Europe (such as our current NATO reinforcement of Estonia), and via strategic airlift Globemaster III and RFA Point-class shipping, to be able to transport the rest of the division to be able to reinforce the advance deployed BCT.

Now the chances are we are carrying out this deployment in a defensive position rather than an aggressive adventure. But the fact that we are going to have to do it at a distance of 1,000 miles (if to Poland) / 1,500 miles (if to Estonia) / 2,000+ miles (if to Finland) provides it's own challenges.

And given that we are going to have to acquire and build new MBT, new IFV, new Recon AFV, new SPG artillery, new MLRS, new engineering vehicles, all the while whilst improving our intelligence, signals, transport and logistics and developing drones, and integrating all of the above into one cohesive force, I think even such a limited focus on deploying our forces is going to recquire extra funding and heck of a lot of planning / training / organising for us to be able to do it all seamlessly as and when required, in say a 24-48 hour notice period.

We are going to just have to forget doing any significant deployments further afield than that limited focus on Scandinavia / Northern Europe for the forseeable future.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree on where the focus of the UK Armed Forces should be. Non NATO deployments should be limited to LRG (South) and the Army's planned Ranger Regiment. Obviously UKSF will also be deployed either alone or with either or both of the above.

As for the rest of the Army, I am beginning to believe that it needed to be increased in size to have at least three Mechanised (Heavy) BCTs and three Motorised (Light) BCTs, representing 3rd and 1st (UK) Divisions respectively. These would be supported by the Special Forces Group and 16 Air Assault Brigade and specialist units like Combat Engineering, Artillery, Logistics, and ISTAR Units, allocated as required.

We currently have enough Challenger 2s that is all were upgraded to the planned Challenger 3 configuration we could allocate one to each Mechanised BCT. Where significant increases would be required is the number of Boxer variants including new ones, and the purchase of a platform to equip the Motorised BCTs alongside the existing Jackals and Coyotes. We are looking at totals of at least 800 for both platforms.

Moving to Artillery, the M270 GMLRS (36 in total) is perfectly fine especially when it receives the planned modernisation, for use in Europe if it is pre positioned with the required number of HETS, around 40. These form the core of the planned Deep Fires BCT along with the Ajax. The latter also need to be prepositioned with sufficient HETS to move them adding around 100 more to the requirement. From this it is easy to see that the availability of HETS is going to be crucial to the deployment of even pre position assets, requiring around 140 HETS to also be prepositioned as part of the Deep Fires BCT alone.

If however we cancelled the planned modernisation of the M270 and purchased Around 60 HIMARS using the MAN HX chassis, we would have a platform able to conduct all fire missions the modernised M270 would be capable of but far easier to deploy as well as maintain. In addition training costs would be significantly reduced and we would have two full strength Regiments rather then the two "Cap Badge" sized ones planned. One Regiment could be pre positioned whilst the second would be able to reinforce the first or support operations in other areas. As for Ajax, well if the purchase goes through we will still require a significant support chain including the HETS to carry out deployments when necessary.

Well that is the Rocket Artillery side of things looked at, not for the Tube Artillery. Whatever platform replaced the AS-90 will have to be able to effectively support both the Mechanised and Motorised BCTs. This makes a wheeled option the front runner due to their ease of deployments as well as significantly reduced support and training costs let alone cheaper to purchase in the first place. With wheeled SP Artillery there are two categories. First there are those with basically a towed artillery piece bolted onto a Lorry Chassis. This covers systems like the French Caesar. These have the advantage in that they are lighter then other options, further easing deployment but have the disadvantage in that the crew are exposed and they take longer to come into and out of action. Research has shown that in a Peer level conflict counter battery fore can be expected in as little as 90 seconds from the first round being fired. Because of this the second type of platform has advantages. These are the platforms that basically take the turret of a tracked system and place this in a lorry chassis or that of a wheeled AFV. The Archer is an example of the first and the RCH155 the second. Whilst in the first category loading can be assisted, in this category it is possible to have fully automated loading, with the crew never leaving the protection of the vehicle. The use of magazines bth increases the rate of fire and the speed in which the platform goes into and out of action. In the case of the RCH155, test have shown it can be planning the next fire mission including location whilst already conducting a mission so each fire mission os from a different location. More importantly it can conduct a fire mission in under 120 seconds.

With all of the above there is possibly an exception. On of the Motorised BCTs ideally should always be allocated to reinforces northern Norway, this roll rotating through the Motorised BCTs every five or so years. This formation would therefore have specialised equipment like Vikings and Snow Speeders instead of wheeled platforms such as Jackal. For artillery a tracked platform would be best but the BCT could be equipped with 120mm Mortars and missile systems like Extractor Mk2, mounted on Viking variants as an alternative. This formation would basically take over the role that was carried out by 3 Commando Brigade. It would train regularly in Norway with elements of the Royal Marines in their new role under the FCF as well as Norwegian and other allied troops including those not currently NATO members. I would also recommend that a Battalion of 16 Air Assault Brigade with dedicated aviation support should also be allocated to operations in Norway.

Currently the other major role of the Royal Artillery is Air Defence. This requires reorganisation. Short Range Air Defence with systems like Starstreak and any purchase guns based options, should become integrated into the units that comprise the Mechanised and Motorised BCTs. The Royal Artillery would retain control of Sky Sabre though at least double the current order is required. Most importantly the needs to be a Long Range Air Defence System operated by the Royal Artillery, filling a Capability Holiday that has existed for decades even though a offical requirement has existed during that time. Either Patriot or SAMP-T would readily meet this need. Batteries for Unit(s) equipped with such a system would be categories as deployable or fixed. In the latter category, batteries would probably be located on the Falklands and northern Scotland or Shetland Islands. on a permanent basis. In the former case such a deployment could negate the need for Fighter Aircraft to be permanently stations in the Islands. In addition to Air Defence, these unit(s) would also have the role of the UK's land component of its ABM capability, the other being modernised T-45 or its successor the T-83 possibly.

I have not mentioned countering UAVs yet as this is a complex issue. There are various categories of UAV with greatly differing capabilities. Some can be countered by "Soft", means such as jamming or hacking their control data links, whilst other are "Hard", such as using Auto Cannon or Missiles. Just as important these UAVs have to be detected, and it has been shown that normal Air Defence Radars can have difficulty tracking these. A web needs to be cast over friendly units to track and neutralise enemy UAVs be they high altitude observation platforms or small hand launched vehicles. The responsibility for this rests not just with the Royal Artillery but also Royal Signals and the front line Combat Units. The planned networking of the Army will greatly help in this matter amongst others, but the hardware needed must be a priority,

Well that is my latest six pence worth, is it on target or way off? :D
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Firstly I would agree that we need 3 of each Heavy and light BCT's with

3 x Heavy BCT's

1 x Armoured squadron = CH-2/3
1 x Cavalry regt = Ajax
2 x Infantry Battalion's = Boxer
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

2 x Light BCT's ( the 3rd light BCT would have the same look but based on Viking )

1 x Cavalry = Jackal & Coyote
2 x infantry = Bushmaster
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

16 Air Assault

1 x Pathfinder Company (with 4 Platoon's )
2 x Para Battalions
2 x Gurkha Battalions
JHC Support = 24 x AH-64 , 32 Chinook , 40 Aw-149 , 24 HC-135
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistic support group

For me we the Boxer , Bushmaster & Viking's need to have common systems like Starstreak and still would go for Spike LR 2 as it is the same size and weight as Starstreak and gives a 5 km + range and for me a Mix of Hero 120 and 400 gives the Cavalry and infantry a organic ISTAR / strike out to 40 or 150 kms dependant on hero used

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by TSharpe28 »

Regarding the Future Soldier Orbat ie https://www.army.mod.uk/media/15057/adr ... _30nov.pdf

From a FOIA

"I can advise that 3 Regiment Royal Logistic Corps will not be a part of the Army’s Future Soldier structure."

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

This is where a lot is dependent on what you wish to do. Essentially what do you want to deploy and sustain within the context of nato and what do you wish to do beyond that. As an example NATO is an organisation of 30 countries if each country could provide 5000 personnel then numerically you would have a force roughly equivalent to that which Russia sent into Ukraine which is the majority of their combat strength and in the most part the NATO force would qualitatively be far superior. This is not a return to countering the 40 divisions of the soviet army.

You can then decide to consider what it will look like and my point about deterrence, defending forces or offensive ones. On the list above I would say just because we have had tube artillery which now needs replacing should it be simply a newer version of what went before or should it be something different say more rocket artillery with different missile options?

In terms of deterrence we can see what’s being moved more ground based air defence, surveillance aircraft and fighter patrols, there a logistics requirement to back that up and it maybe in more than one area. Like wise with ground forces weve a battle group in Estonia and I think Poland. If your wanting to sustain that with readiness, full training and surge capability then in ground forces world I believe the number is still 5 to 1 ratios for personnel.

In the context of nato and Ukraine if 5 weeks ago as a hypothetical had we sent a light cavalry regiment say on cvrt and a infantry battalion on say foxhound (with as many javelin and switchblade as they could mount) backed up by both a mlrs and land ceptor battery with a reaper orbit and typhoon cap overhead to hostomel airport with the supporting arms to sustain it and nato allies had sent say a dozen similar sized forces to various strategic locations around Ukraine would putin of drove in over them? Personally I don’t think he would, for the very same reason we won’t put a no fly in place now escalating to one end.

Ultimately I feel the points this conflict reinforces is you want to deny your enemy territory by getting there rapidly ahead of them and holding his forces at risk with systems that’s make his calculations such that the forces he must commit to overcomer them are too high. Essentially the basis which drove FRES 30 years ago and when they get there you need to be able to supply and sustain it.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by TSharpe28 »

Royal Artillery some battery changes

https://www.thegunners.org.uk/uploads/G ... ersion.pdf

1st Regiment RHA will gain L (Nery) Battery RHA as a Tactical Group Battery from 3rd Regiment RHA

3rd Regiment RHA will re-role to the MLRS with C Battery RHA and D Battery RHA equipped with M270 launchers. J (Sidi Rezegh) Battery RHA will become the Regimental Headquarters Battery as J (Sidi Rezegh) Headquarters Battery RHA and the title of M Battery RHA will be placed into suspended animation.

7th Parachute Regiment RHA will be restructured. Its gun batteries will be; F (Sphinx) Parachute Battery RHA, G Parachute Battery (Mercer’s Troop) RHA and I Parachute Battery (Bull’s Troop) RHA. The Regimental Headquarters Battery will become H Parachute Headquarters Battery (Ramsay’s Troop) RHA. In addition, N Battery (The Eagle Troop) RHA will join the Regiment as a Tactical Group Battery from 3rd Regiment RHA to become N Parachute Battery (The Eagle Troop) RHA.

19th Regiment RA will gain 19 (Gibraltar 1779-83) Battery RA as a Tactical Group Battery from 26th Regiment RA.

32nd Regiment RA will gain 42 (Alem Hamza) Battery RA, as a fourth MUAS battery.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Moved over there from the Amphib Thread

I have been thinking over night about SW1's idea for the 1st Div having Battalion Battle groups (BBG's) over BCT's and it could work but what could we be looking at here if we go down this road for me I would like to see

2 x BBG's equipped with Vikings rotating deployments in the North
1 x Reserve BBG equipped with Vikings for re-enforced company level op's

4 x BBG's equipped with Jackal , Foxhound & Bushmaster
2 x Reserve BBG's both equipped for re-enforced Company level op's

what should a BBG look like

1 x Cavalry Company
1 x Infantry Battalion
1 x Artillery Support group
1 x Logistics Support group

all in all around 1500 troops

Re-enforced Company

1 x Cavalry Troop
1 x Infantry Company
1 x Logistics support group

All in all 250 troops
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqSW1

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 11:36 Moved over there from the Amphib Thread

I have been thinking over night about SW1's idea for the 1st Div having Battalion Battle groups (BBG's) over BCT's and it could work but what could we be looking at here if we go down this road for me I would like to see

2 x BBG's equipped with Vikings rotating deployments in the North
1 x Reserve BBG equipped with Vikings for re-enforced company level op's

4 x BBG's equipped with Jackal , Foxhound & Bushmaster
2 x Reserve BBG's both equipped for re-enforced Company level op's

what should a BBG look like

1 x Cavalry Company
1 x Infantry Battalion
1 x Artillery Support group
1 x Logistics Support group

all in all around 1500 troops

Re-enforced Company

1 x Cavalry Troop
1 x Infantry Company
1 x Logistics support group

All in all 250 troops

My thoughts were not a million miles away from that. Reason being we are going to need forces we can deploy quickly and that are logistically light so that we can sustain them while supporting allies in 2 or 3 different locations at the same time. We just don’t have the scale to do that at brigade level. But if you organised into battlegroups you could more easily keep one fwd deployed without creating overstretch.

I would suggest a couple of things on your structure one an enhanced battalion HQ with extra signals and humit capabilities to command the whole force.

More controversial I’d also add a para company (assigned form 2, 3 para) added to each formation they would conduct path finder role, special observation and high value target attack. Which would mean 16 aa wouldnt exist.

The artillery group would be a battery sized element, i would also add a watchkeeper unit of 4 air vehicles to the force.

The infantry battalion itself would look a little like the makeup of 24 brigades, infantry battalion from the end of the Cold War. Having 42 javelin teams initially and maybe down the line the javelins are replaced with a similar number of these https://www.army-technology.com/analysi ... hemis-ugv/
Increasing firepower significantly.

Post Reply