The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by topman »

All that is detail that can be worked out later, how do you know what equipment and training to provide if you don't know what their role is ?

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

I should hope by now someone knows what there role will be plus there training and equipment needs. Given what we know which I agree is not a lot but what is known is size around 1000 and task to join the roles of the SIG's and the SFSG i.e training and combat support of allied nations given this there equipment needs should be quit low i.e infantry weapons and light vehicles

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 »

Think more along the lines of the equipment the SF are issues with, especially regarding communications and integral ISTAR capabilities.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes comm's and intel too I am sure they will also get asses to 7 wing helicopters when needed as said before a lot will depend on what kit the allied force has maybe a good start would be to transfer the 24 Bushmaster's over from the SAS plus some Toyota Hi Lux and Land Rover WMIK

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 »

They'll probably make do with some "Tricked out", Foxhounds and Jackals to start with, until the actual results of the MRV(P) programme finally surface. That programme does seem to have gone awfully quite now we have all buy left Afghanistan.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

Foxhounds maybe but the Jackal's maybe to much for most tasks plus we need the Jackals for the Light cav and RAF Reg

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote:They'll probably make do with some "Tricked out", Foxhounds and Jackals to start with, until the actual results of the MRV(P) programme finally surface. That programme does seem to have gone awfully quite now we have all buy left Afghanistan.
I would tend to agree with that. The defence command paper talks about a budget of £120m over the next four years to equip the Rangers, which is reasonable, but would not, I think, leave much for other kit if they were to replace all the vehicles with something new.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Tempest414 »

However we will need all the Foxhounds and jackals for the light BCT's as that is all they have and this is why I put forward transferring the 24 Bushmasters we already have plus say 100 Land Rover WMIK which we also have and getting some plan Hi Lux's maybe 50 or so

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 »

It seems only one of those BCTs is earmarked to receive a full compliment of vehicles as described. Equipping three or four Companies deployed on Training and Mentoring Missions should be easily done, as they will have priority over the Light BCTs anyhow, with the Latter really having to wait for the MRV(P) programme to actually deliver an actual vehicle. How long has that programme been going now?


Some or the kit we might even see is some of those new modular Foxhounds bought before the MRV(P) arrives to also boost the Ranger's capabilities, as well as the Regiment getting the L119A2 like the SF and Marines, together with the appropriate GL. Other kit might include the M4 84mm RCL, almost as a trials unit as well as the 7.62mm Minimi Mk3 as also used by the SF.

If the Regiment does actually stay at 1000 personnel they giving it such equipment will not cost much at all including trained and spares.

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quite a good run through,
this bit is probably of most importance:
"Harry Lye
@harry_lye
·
4h
Dstl is prioritising the MCCO capability with Lockheed Martin, MBDA and Thales, all providing insight into potential concepts, including a Boxer-mounted VLS system and an Ajax vehicle equipped with a 50kg missile such as Brimstone or Hellfire."

Interestingly the common denominator between Boxer and Ajax, based on the above, would be Hellfire
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

Of course we could go and by off the shelf as the Israeli Spike family already has 5th Generation (Swingfire was 2nd Gen and Javelin is 3rd) weapon systems in service with the Israeli and also many NATO countries. Spike MR2 and LR2 are already manufactured in Europe as well.

Don't get me wrong If we can produce a family of systems that are manufactured in the UK it will be great, but as always will the extra cost of developing such systems and establishing a manufacturing site be carried solely by the Defence Budget?

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:the Israeli Spike family already has 5th Generation (Swingfire was 2nd Gen and Javelin is 3rd)
What was 4th gen and what are the differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:Spike MR2 and LR2 are already manufactured in Europe as well.
May be in Lux? Or Switzerland? Both v cheap manufacturing bases
mr.fred wrote:what are the differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th?
Marketing?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

If brimstone is an option then there is no other choice

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 »

mr.fred wrote:What was 4th gen and what are the differences between 3rd, 4th and 5th?
Mainly guidance options as well as warhead performance and other small improvements. Regarding the former it is the addition of "Man in the loop", or "Lock on after launch", capability using fibre optic cable and/or datalink. The range of equivalent weapon is also usually greater through improvements in rocket motor technology.

Regarding 4th Generation, the very latest version of Javelin is said to be in the category as are the latest Russian weapons and the earlier generations of the Spike family. A ground launched Brimstone would reside here unless an optical guidance capability was added in which case it should then be classified as 5th generation.

besides the latest Spike family members, the French MMP and the US successor to TOW and Hellfire will fall into the 5th Generation, I believe.

The preference for UK manufacturing that now is included in all major procurement contracts is likely to exclude the Spike family form any competition for new ATGWs for the Army and really puts MBDA in the driving seat. In principal and company wishing to sell its wares to the MoD must be will to build a production line or team up with a UK company at no extra cost to the MoD. How this will affect procurement in the long term we will have to see.

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Mainly guidance options as well as warhead performance and other small improvements. Regarding the former it is the addition of "Man in the loop", or "Lock on after launch", capability using fibre optic cable and/or datalink. The range of equivalent weapon is also usually greater through improvements in rocket motor technology.
I understand that Javelin is considered to be Gen3 and conceivably adding man-in-the-loop could make Gen4.

Small improvements generally don’t make for a generation change, unless you’re selling something.

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 »

Well there must be something added to the weapon system to have the latest referred to as 5th Generation. Weapons like the US Army's replacement for TOW, the French MMP and the latest versions of the Spike family are all referred to as such. Maybe they should be 4.5Gen I do not have full access to the details on these weapons just what is out in the public domain.

What this does not change is the fact that the Army appears to be looking to fund the development of a new family of ATGWs in co operation with industry instead of seeing what is already out there and could more readily be introduced into service, to gain the much vaunted "Lethality increase" that has been often talked about since the Command Paper.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

From the tweet quote by @SW
"3XX’s focus will move to a different type of warfare, looking at the deep battle: (something our adversaries have become excellent at). This is exciting modernisation."

Doctrines are written to address defeating the current enemy and emphasize current capabilities; however, doctrine also establishes principles that drive modernization and make the results 'gel'. E.g.AirLand battle addressed how to defeat the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe utilizing current military capabilities, driving to enhance battlefield interdiction, command and control, and target acquisition.
- starts to sound familiar (and worked well in a totally different Iraq context, because there had been enough time for the 'gel-ling' to settle in"

However, attrition versus maneuver is not an intellectual choice.
"The same Generals who so brilliantly dashed across France were suddenly forced back into conducting attrition warfare. Nobody doubts General George Patton preferred maneuver, but maneuver warfare is not doctrinal choice; it is an earned benefit." - as per Gnrl William Depuy in 1989, about AirLand Battle

Just like the US Army in the 1980s retrieving Tukhachevskii’s deep battle timeless principles :
the complementary forms of air and ground maneuver, operational reach, operational fires, operational shock, and offensive initiative,
we now seem to be doing the same (as per the tweet, moving on from 'the sledgehammer'), but our aim is somewhere around 2030... abt half a century later
- again as per the tweet, the OpFor has been busily at 'this' since the 1980s (with some interruptions, admittedly)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 »

Well we seem to have finally got a set of logical and effective doctrinal aspiration for how we want the Army to operate in the 2030s but there is little out there on how we are going to get there over the next ten or so years. This leaves too much space for tinkering by people who will be in place for only three years tours, as well as funding fluctuations. As I have said elsewhere we will have to keep our fingers crossed for a decade, as will the Army.

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

CSG speech to Atlantic council






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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

The actual interview


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A very impressive general... could fill in on any part of the IR and its weasel words.

Three things struck me (more so than in the backgrounding documents):
- greater national resilience - something I've been banging on for the last ten years (as all actions have seemed to run to the contrary)
- national resolve; I guess on these pages 'no more' needs to be said about that
- and third, East Africa does not seem to be just a loose example, but a solid plan. From Afghanistan to Mozambique (the latter is not a chance mention) and from Somalia across most of Sahel; it is a threat that is building up
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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 fully agree, as seem to be the usual practice the Army is looking to leap ahead in capability whilst sacrificing capabilities that are still and will still be needed. To maintain a deterrence capability you must have a certain conventional mass, as that is what a potential enemy sees, but the Army keeps shrinking to allow for "Transformational" capabilities that will come tomorrow.

One good point was the prepositioning of equipment in Europe to allow the rapid deployment of force. Does this mean at least one of the Heavy BCTs and the Deep Fires BCT being either prepositioned or deployed in Germany reversing the post 2010 SDSR plan? Another could be that as training with Allies is far more important that national training, could BATUS be closed and the focus move to Germany, Poland and Norway? Finally on the positive side the great emphasis on interoperability, will this mean will wll rapidly follow the US Military if they adopt a 6.8mm family of weapons and even the .338 as a new Machine Gun calibre to replace the L7 GPMG and M2HB HMG?

I was a proponent of cancelling the WCSP but only if it was replaced by evolving the Boxer into a platform with similar capabilities to an IFV with a medium autocannon and integral ATGW. The way the Army states that they are looking at increasing the lethality of the Boxer but that it will not be used a an IFV is very confusing as an example. The Command Paper mentioned increasing the Army's Air Defence capability but that it all that has been said. Again we seem to be looking at something that may be delivered post 2030.

There seems to be a total disregard for the common ideology of preparing for the worst cast senario, and instead preparing for the threat we can afford to face.

As usual the whole Command Paper seems to be full of the best intention but very very little substance, often best described by a phase involving Fur Coats.

Post Reply