The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Tbenz
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Feb 2017, 17:47
United Kingdom

The future form of the Army

Post by Tbenz »

Is 16 Air Assault a viable formation any more, bearing in mind its limited mobility, protection and firepower?

More to the point, if I have understood Future Soldier correctly, it is meant to be part of a Global Response Force? Sounds impressive, but how viable is it with an air mobility force of just 8 C17 and 22 A400?

The Royal Marines Future Commando Force concept is in part an admission that 3 Commando Brigade is no longer viable as a deployable formation and therefore an alternative role had to be found.

Perhaps the Army needs to make a similar admission. Scrap 16 Air Assault and use the CS & CSS units to enable a third light BCT. Scrap the Ranger Regiment and instead recruit a fourth parachute battalion to create a Future Para-Commando Force of three battalions?

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 »

We have recently seen in the northern suburbs of Kiev the dangers of airborne forces operating unsupported.

In peer level combats both Marines and Paras are too lightly armed to fight standalone. Ideally they need to be fast reaction first wave to secure an area but for the Army main combat battalions to be following straight behind as a second wave.

In the RN Amphibious thread we were talking about how to replace 7-8 ships given the current IR2021 cutbacks and budget restraints. I suspect the similar situation about whether we have sufficient air transports to rapidly deploy the 16th Air Assault BCT.

The key then is how quickly can the Army Brigades reinforce and take over the position from Marines / Paras? In the context of reinforcing NATO'S Northern flank only. So looking at Scandinavia / Poland / Baltics based on current deployments.

I am guessing they would have to be deployed by Point class ships for the heavier equipment and by Globemaster for lighter equipment. Feels like executing this in practice is stretching our current capabilities.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the way forward is to reduce 16 AA to 2 x Para Battalion Battle groups and move the Gurkha Battalion out 16AA to form a BBG of its own new Light Motorized BBG ending up something like this

2 x Para BBG's

1 x BBG HQ company
1 x Pathfinder Troop
1 x Para Infantry Battalion
1 x Aviation support group
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

1 x Gurkha BBG

1 x BBG HQ company
1 x Gurkha recce Company
1 x Gurkha infantry Battalion
1 x Gurkha Logistics support group
1 x Artillery support group

this Gurkha BBG could then be deployed full time in Poland or Estonia freeing another BBG to deploy somewhere else

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 17:49 Maybe the way forward is to reduce 16 AA to 2 x Para Battalion Battle groups and move the Gurkha Battalion out 16AA to form a BBG of its own new Light Motorized BBG ending up something like this

2 x Para BBG's

1 x BBG HQ company
1 x Pathfinder Troop
1 x Para Infantry Battalion
1 x Aviation support group
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

1 x Gurkha BBG

1 x BBG HQ company
1 x Gurkha recce Company
1 x Gurkha infantry Battalion
1 x Gurkha Logistics support group
1 x Artillery support group

this Gurkha BBG could then be deployed full time in Poland or Estonia freeing another BBG to deploy somewhere else
If these BBG were the direction then I would have one fwd deployed in Brunei based around the Gurkha battalion there and one in Cyprus as these two units are higher readiness anyway.

Not sure on the para ones as I don’t think the airborne is necessarily viable at battalion level or bigger. But certainly a possibility to look at.

But I don’t think we would have more than around 8/9 of these formations
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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 »

Thinking outside the box, but the attached video explains how the Swedish Mechanised Battalions are organised and equipped. How about we treat this as a starter for ten, transpose planned/wished for UK AFVs and see where it could go either in the context of the Heavy BCTs or as a whole new org.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 12 Apr 2022, 17:49 Maybe the way forward is to reduce 16 AA to 2 x Para Battalion Battle groups and move the Gurkha Battalion out 16AA to form a BBG of its own new Light Motorized BBG ending up something like this
I think to remain effective the Paras need to consider a FCF type model, perhaps looking to utilise fast moving airborne company level structures to provide distributed and unpredictable offensive capabilities, and acting as a door opener for a larger Army force by seizing an airport/landing ground. They should train also with the FCF to look at ways of maximising the effect of both structures.

We could call the company level (plus supporting units) Aviation Strike Units (ASUs), aiming for 8 in total, grouped into four Aviation Response Groups (ARGs). Each ARG would have two ASUs on rotation.

The ARGs could be based in the UK, Cyprus, Brunei and Ascension; which when combined with the two LRGs (Nordics and Oman), plus the Rangers (Mali etc) would give a solid forward presence and reaction / door opening capability, allowing the remaining army to focus on structuring as war fighting / garrison BCTs.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

BBG's already operate within 16 AA see Wessex Storm readiness exercise for the 2 Para battle group made up of 1500 troops around 2 Para Battalion with artillery , signals , engineers & logistics

I think we could push 10 BBG's plus 5 Reserve BBG's

2 x Para BBG's + 1 Reserve BBG

2 x Light Mech Infantry BBGs + 1 Reserve BBG operating Viking

6 x Motorized infantry BBG's + 3 Reserve BBG's operating Jackal , Foxhound & Bushmaster

2 of these would be Gurkha BBG's full time deployed 1 in Brunei and the other in Poland or Cyprus. The 2 Light Mech BBGs would rotate deployments in the North and the 4 Motorized would rotate deployments as needed leaving the 2 Para BBG's to rotate as the rapid response BBG.

The core role of the reserve BBG's is to have a Company Response group ready to deploy at short notice for one or two months deployments with the CRG made up of

1 x HQ troop
1 x Recce troop
1 x Infantry company
1 x Logistics support group

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

I’m not sure how real such reserve formations would be they have historically never been deployed as formed units. Perhaps for the reserves it better they focus on specialists particularly in areas of big civil military cross over like comms, IT, medical ect.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

In 2020 7 Rifles Reserve Battalion Battle group deployed to Cyprus for 6 months this deployment was followed by 6 Rifles Reserve Battalion Battle group for the next 6 months as I said I am not looking for the Reserves to deploy a whole battle group but a Company response group ready at 60 days notice

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Scimitar54 »

For Six months ? Their employers WILL be pleased ! :lol:

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 also think 60 days notice for deployment is too much. It would be fine for scheduling peacetime moves but they also need to practice far shorter readiness cycles, though still at a company level and in conjunction with their regular brothers and sisters. The Army as a whole need to greatly shorten its readiness and deployment times, as until we hold an exercise when units deploy and are in their forward position in a week or less with the logistical back up as support units. We should aim to be able to do a full Heavy BCT deployment with all associated units within this time frame and with little notice sometime in 2024 or 2025.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 14 Apr 2022, 01:07 For Six months ? Their employers WILL be pleased ! :lol:
The two Reserve Battalion Battle group deployments in 2020/21 were made possible by the Pandemic and the number of Reserves on furlough and this is why I say the CRG's should deploy for 1 to 2 months

For me if each reserve BBG can hold a Company Response Group ready at 30 days notice all the better

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 »

Thought this was interesting discussion of Rapid Reaction Force and 16 Air Assault Brigade:

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/03/ ... e-concept/

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Thinking about the current fad for BCT's - with the casualty/combat-ineffective flaw exposed in Ukraine.
Versus the 'old fashioned' idea that the brigade is the principle combat grouping in the British Army.

Is there an argument for a Brigade structure than can generate three different BCT's?

Brigade #1:
3x Armoured Cav Regt (1xHeavy, 1xMedium, 1x Light)
3x Infantry Battalions (2xMedium, 1xProtectedMobility)
3x Artillary Regts (1x Tube, 1xMLRS, 1xDrone)

BCT(Heavy) #1.1:
1x Cavalry Regt (Heavy-CR3)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Infantry Company (Medium-Boxer)
1x Infantry Company (Medium-Boxer)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)

BCT(Medium) #1.2:
1x Infantry battalion (Medium-Boxer)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Cavalry Company (Light-Jackal)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)

BCT(Deep Fires) #1.3:
1x Artillery Regiment (Rocket-MLRS)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)
1x Cavalry Company (Light-Jackal)
1x Cavalry Company (Light-Jackal)
1x Infantry Company (Medium-Boxer)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)

And then multiply on this formula.

Stupid theorycrafting, or at least a coherent structure?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by RunningStrong »

What's the role of a deep fires that includes MLRS and 2 infantry companies?

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Great question.
I am equally unsure as to why Deep Fires as currently understood requires two Ajax reg'ts.
I guessing there is some requirement in deep fires for infantry support (and perhaps even a light-cav element).

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Simplified version - same number of battalions/regt's (x9), generating one heavy, two medium, and one deep fires BCTs'.

An argument for a Brigade structure than can generate four different BCT's:

Brigade #1:
2x Armoured Cav Regt (1xHeavy, 1xMedium)
4x Infantry Battalions (3xMedium, 1xProtectedMobility)
3x Artillary Regts (1x Tube, 1xMLRS, 1xDrone)

BCT(Heavy) #1.1:
1x Cavalry Regt (Heavy-CR3)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Infantry battalion (Medium-Boxer)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)

BCT(Medium) #1.2:
1x Infantry battalion (Medium-Boxer)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)

BCT(Medium) #1.3:
1x Infantry battalion (Medium-Boxer)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)
1x Cavalry Company (Medium-Ajax)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Tube-Archer155mm)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)

BCT(Deep Fires) #1.4:
1x Artillery Regiment (Rocket-MLRS)
1x Infantry Company (ProtectedMobility-MRVP)
1x Artillery 'Company' (Drone-Armed)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by RunningStrong »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 03 May 2022, 14:32 Great question.
I am equally unsure as to why Deep Fires as currently understood requires two Ajax reg'ts.
I guessing there is some requirement in deep fires for infantry support (and perhaps even a light-cav element).
Because AJAX is the ISTAR land platform that will find and fight for the target information.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we should have the two heavy BCT's like so

1 x Cavalry Regt = Ajax
1 x Armoured regt = CH3
2 x Mech infantry Battalions = Boxer
1 x Artillery support group = AS90 , MLRS , UAV , Air defence
1 x Logistics = RLC , RE , REME , RMC , RSC

One Deep Fires BCT

2 x Cavalry Regt = Ajax
1 x AS-90 regt
1 x MLRS regt
1 x Motorized Infantry Battalion
1 x Logistics support group

Six Battalion Battle groups

1 x Cavalry Company = Jackal & Coyote
1 x Infantry Battalion = Foxhound & Bushmaster
1 x Artillery support group = SP 105mm , Brimstone from Bushmaster , Air defence , UAV
1 x Logistics support group
These users liked the author Tempest414 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 »

Regarding Ajax, you could also say that the Army is trying to find a use for all the vehicle on order under the existing contract. The tried the "Strike" Brigade idea and now we have the BCTs. If the Ajax is going to fight for information its needs some heavier direct fire support as well as that form tube artillery. The GMLRS will be after targets much further back and mainly relying on UAVs for target identification, possibly SF as well.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

well maybe the two regiments within the deep fires should have 10 or so 105mm or 120mm fitted Ajax plus some Brimstone over watch

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Rentaghost »

In terms of the 'warfighting' division component of the army. I think Future Soldier anticipated or followed the US army 2028 vision which seems to be rowing back from the fully self contained BCT that they've had to now, and are grouping their artillery together at divisional level for operations.

A typical heavy US army division is 3x maneuvere brigades, an aviation brigade, a div arty group and a cavalry/recon group.

Likewise, pushing a brigades worth of artillery down to the combined arms battalion level hasn't seemed to work that well for the Russians where it seems that the stress on their C2 is hindering the responsiveness and flexibility of their fires units.

So, I think the deep fires brigade is the right overall trend. The innovation if you want to call it that is moving the GMLRS from corps level down to div level, and having the cavalry group directly employed by that brigade.

So I tried to to think what a battlegroup would ideally look like, I think for the modern battlefield and bearing in mind the 2035 concept force, the current Future Soldier is shy of integral precision strike (based on the see yo 30km, hit at 15km) and light on UAV support.

On the former, there is the organic battlegroup overwatch program. It's pretty obvious that ground launched Brimstone should be part of that, I'm less clear on whether it should include loitering munitions or we should rely on a mix of recon UAVs + Brimstone.

On the latter, we have Desert Hawk 3 and Watchkeeper. For the heavy BCTs though and to provide the necessary ISTAR for the precision strike element we need something in between. I imagine Watchkeeper will be primarily supporting the deep strike GLMRS force, and Desert Hawk is really for infantry close support and I don't think they have the necessary range or endurance. Ideally we want something - probably catapult launched in terms of size/weight - with an operational range 30 to 50km.

Precision strike in this draft would be 10-25 Brimstone on a suitable platform - Boxer or even a iso container launch from a MAN truck.

Therefore a heavy BCT battlegroup would look like:

1x HQ company
1 x cavalry/recon squadron with support group to tube artillery in deep fires brigade
1 x CH3 squadron
1 x medium UAV battery
1 x Precision Strike battery
3 x mech infantry company
1 x support company
1 x EW group
1 x REME group
1x close support Logistics Company
1 x Royal Engineers close support company

I think you would need 3 infantry companies rather than the usual mooted 2 because of my preference for the strike and UAV batteries requiring an extra degree of protection, and to maintain the necessary number of infantry for maneuver. This could either come from adding an extra Boxer battalion above the current published plan or from a light mechanised battalion since the principal task would be force protection rather than maneuver and armour support. You would also need to make sure the armour regiment had the right number of sabre squadrons to furnish each battle group.

I appreciate that's getting to be quite a big structure - a full infantry battalion with two armour squadrons and two batteries of UAV and missiles plus support elements...

Overall that would give you 4 x battlegroups per heavy BCT for a total of 8 under 3rd Division.

The mech infantry battalions I would take the opportunity to get a medium cannon turret on your basic infantry vehicle - an unmanned turret with CTA40 and Javelin missile as standard.

I would also consider a 105mm direct support vehicle per section or platoon.

Since each Boxer would now have a highly potent ATGW and with the proposed precision strike battery providing long range over watch/degrading of enemy forces the support company would veer more towards close range organic uav and anti air support. You would still have your mortar platoon (120mm under armour) but the other company elements would be the Desert Hawk UAV (or whatever replaces it) now pushed down to the infantry from the RA, and a manpads missile platoon.

I think that would give you a battlegroup with a lot of flexibility for different levels of fire, ground and air reconnaissance with good depth.

I think you could split the aviation brigade into two brigades (numbered 3rd and 1st, unimaginatively to support respective divisions)

The notional 3rd combat aviation brigade would have:

1 x regiment (3 squadrons of) attack helicopters
1 x regiment of Wildcat recon helicopters (get these up to naval standard with link 16, air to surface radar and possibly Martlet)
1 x regiment of Watchkeeper
Additional "purple" elements from RAF tactical lift.

The deep fires brigade would mostly be untouched.

2 x tube artillery (I am not hating the idea of Boxer mounted 155mm)
2x GLMRS (please upgrade purchase to have enough to equip 3 batteries without relying on reserves)
1 x ISTAR regiment
2x cavalry regiment

Obviously, the 2 Ajax regiments are supposed to fight for their information but to me they look a bit exposed without infantry support. These regiments would definitely need to look a bit different from the Ajax units in the heavy BCTs, having extra overwatch capabilities (Brimstone, again?) And requiring some extra enablers to function.

It does strike me that if you pushed the Boxer equipped battalion count from 5 to 6 (as per above) and then to 7 or 8 and used those extra battalions to mix with Ajax you'd have your original strike concept back.

Whether you'd want to do that, or convert one Ajax regiment back into CH3, buy the extra boxers and equip a 3rd heavy BCT is a matter of budget and what works.

If it was the former I'd split the strike element from the arty to give:

2x heavy BCT
1x strike BCT
1 x arty brigade
1 x aviation brigade

Or

3 x heavy BCT
1 x arty brigade
1 x aviation brigade

In the first implementation you have a more strategic divisional level screen, in the second, all recon happens at brigade/battlegroup level with one of those battlegroups being pushed out to do screening/recon.

In all of this I assume the division is a 'one shot' force, intended not for fighting for months at a time. I think that is realistically the best we can do.
These users liked the author Rentaghost for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Interesting thread





These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

The problem with the British army looking at the US army divisional model is it simply doesn’t have the force structure to train let alone deploy as a division. Even a whole U.K. brigade training or deploying to a single location will be the exception rather than the norm so it will need to practice ensuring smaller formations are fully formed and organised.

It looks like an armoured brigade will deploy this summer but into several geographically different areas across Europe this going fwd looks like what will need to be practised and organised.

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1430
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by NickC »

Lockheed has been awarded $429 million contracts for its artillery rocket launchers for its new long range > 500 km PrSM, Precision Strike Missile replacing the shorter range ATACMS

$224 million for upgrade to the tracked M270 to A2 standard which includes 44 for the British Army, secondly $205 million for new wheeled HIMARS launchers .

Desider April '21 reported £315 million budget for the Multi Launch Rocket System, including composite rubber tracks, a vehicle camera and a radar system and plans to develop a new Fire Control System, needed for the PrSM, collaboratively between the US, UK, Italy.

Presume the MoD £315 million budget includes the PrSMs?

From <https://insidedefense.com/insider/lockh ... -contracts>
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Post Reply