The future form of the Army

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 13:51 obliged.

now just the navy to figure out what FCF looks like...

[edit] i may have been too quick - as the doc is opaque and vague - and i'll reserve judgment on whether the army has figured out what it needs to look like. [/edit]

Not sure what say about the “detail” seems odd. Sound of it looks like there’s been a desire to preserve infantry cap badges as the main aim

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Rentaghost »

I'm not convinced it really says much more than the original documents released in the Summer.

Deep Strike Recce still doesn't make a huge amount
of sense. Each armoured BCT has its own AJAX recce bit as well, so what is deep strike recce except Steike without the infantry? 3rd Div still will only have two maneuvere brigades. One whole light BCT who's CS and CSS units are all reserve so that is likely the pool of single battalion deployments.

A lot of talk about unmanned platforms and not a lot of detail there either.

Only good bits of news seem to be an extra Boxer battalion and a 2nd GLMRS regiment.


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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by SW1 »

Rentaghost wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 15:51 I'm not convinced it really says much more than the original documents released in the Summer.

Deep Strike Recce still doesn't make a huge amount
of sense. Each armoured BCT has its own AJAX recce bit as well, so what is deep strike recce except Steike without the infantry? 3rd Div still will only have two maneuvere brigades. One whole light BCT who's CS and CSS units are all reserve so that is likely the pool of single battalion deployments.

A lot of talk about unmanned platforms and not a lot of detail there either.

Only good bits of news seem to be an extra Boxer battalion and a 2nd GLMRS regiment.

I don’t think it does add much other than assigning units to brigades. Currently from a public document it’s doesn’t add much to the debate from what we didn’t know already perhaps the units themselves are seeing more reorganisation.

They changed the names of the brigades to brigade combat teams but left the heavy and one of the light without artillery and the light brigade without artillery also has no regular logistics or engineering units assigned just light infantry units. Add to that 16 air assault has now an infantry unit as a light recon strike unit which you would probably says was a role for a light cavalry regiment.

Just highlights even more a lack of enables and artillery and too much infantry for the force structure to be coherent and for the brigades to be truly deployable.

The deep strike recce is the most interesting similar to a formation formed in the gulf war to provide artillery raids and screening force for US divisions. Could argue it’s would be a better contribution to deter Russian than anything else we have

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 16:30
Rentaghost wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 15:51 I'm not convinced it really says much more than the original documents released in the Summer.

Deep Strike Recce still doesn't make a huge amount
of sense. Each armoured BCT has its own AJAX recce bit as well, so what is deep strike recce except Steike without the infantry? 3rd Div still will only have two maneuvere brigades. One whole light BCT who's CS and CSS units are all reserve so that is likely the pool of single battalion deployments.

A lot of talk about unmanned platforms and not a lot of detail there either.

Only good bits of news seem to be an extra Boxer battalion and a 2nd GLMRS regiment.

I don’t think it does add much other than assigning units to brigades. Currently from a public document it’s doesn’t add much to the debate from what we didn’t know already perhaps the units themselves are seeing more reorganisation.

They changed the names of the brigades to brigade combat teams but left the heavy and one of the light without artillery and the light brigade without artillery also has no regular logistics or engineering units assigned just light infantry units. Add to that 16 air assault has now an infantry unit as a light recon strike unit which you would probably says was a role for a light cavalry regiment.

Just highlights even more a lack of enables and artillery and too much infantry for the force structure to be coherent and for the brigades to be truly deployable.

The deep strike recce is the most interesting similar to a formation formed in the gulf war to provide artillery raids and screening force for US divisions. Could argue it’s would be a better contribution to deter Russian than anything else we have
I guess with only two heavy BCTs any "division" we deploy in a neer peer environment is basically a heavily armed reinforced brigade that is relatively light on infantry. One armoured BCT backed up by elements of the aviation brigade and the deep strike brigade.

Basically 50 odd Challenger 3s and a couple of battalions of mechanised infantry surrounded with 3! Regiments of AJAX (two from the deep recce, one from the armoured BCT) backed by two regiments of MLRS and another of SP guns, with however many Apaches in close support?

A lot of heavy metal, but not a lot of mass, if that makes sense? Light infantry in this scenario are really surely only rear security.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by bobp »

Not much in the way of detail as what equipment the future soldier will have, I see Ajax gets a mention, but will its problems be resolved. Boxer also gets a mention but in what versions? I would like to see a AA version as well as remote weapon stations equipped with ATGW.

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 »

Besides moving units around and coming up with some catchy new names there is not a lot in this document to be happy about. The two Armoured Brigade Combat Teams are not able to operate as self contained units and neither are the other BCTs. the Artillery and Air Defence has been grouped together not integrated with the BCTs, and their is no increase in the numbers of either. The reserve Regiment operating the M270 is being upgraded to the same standard as the regular Regiment and hopefully will also gain the planned modernisation programme as well. But by only operating the M270, we are limiting the flexibility to deploy deep precision fires to support deployments outside of Europe effectively. More importantly there in no increase in the size and capability of the Army's air defence units bar the equipping of one Regiment with CAMM. This goes against what was stated in the Command Paper where an increase was touted.

In fact there is very little about any of the new capabilities or modernisation programmes required to achieve the Army's transformation by 2035. Yes 3rd "Division" may be reshaped by 2030 but many of its innate capabilities will not be full operational for another five years. This is a great worry. In key capabilities the Army is lacking the mass to be able to fight a modern conflict at any level but the lowest. The preponderance of Light Infantry remains, despite there usefulness in modern combat been questionable. Their only real value is to act as trip wires and as such may have a minimum level of deterrence, assuming additional better equipped units can be sent in time to preserve them from destruction.

The Light BCT has little value and really need to be structured the same as the Light Mechanised BCT, using Foxhounds and any vehicles that emerge from the stalled MRV(P) programme. Properly equipped these mechanised units could be very useful to the Army, being easily deployed in support of its High Readiness or forward deployed units. But like all BCTs they need integral capabilities like precision strike, air defence, field engineering, logistics and signal/EW. All these units need to regularly train together at all levels, not be attached only when a BCT is operationally deployed. I have a feeling this has not been done simply because the Army knows it lacks the mass in those key capabilities.

As a whole the restructuring or transformation of the Army is yet again a budget driven exercise rather than one aimed at countering likely threats. AS a result the mass of the Army continues to shrink and the number of capability gaps increasing. The future is certainly not bright.

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 21:43 the Artillery and Air Defence has been grouped together not integrated with the BCTs,
The gun artillery haven't been grouped together with armoured and light cav. It would appear that 3RHA will convert to GMLRS from light gun as part of new deep strike role.
Lord Jim wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 21:43 More importantly there in no increase in the size and capability of the Army's air defence units bar the equipping of one Regiment with CAMM. This goes against what was stated in the Command Paper where an increase was touted.
I'm not sure we'll see additional air defence regiments, but we may yet see additional air defence batteries or increased equipment.

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Nov 2021, 21:43 All these units need to regularly train together at all levels, not be attached only when a BCT is operationally deployed.
And this is what the BCT will better enable. Previously we have brigades grouped around artillery or infantry or armour. 16XX was one of the few multi-discipline, integrated formations we had.

The new BCT aren't perfect, we simply don't have the capability to have all BCT with all the necessary support arms, but they will be organic when deployed, just like battle groups are today.

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 »

That is my key point, the Army simply does not have the mass in key capabilities to make the BCT structure work as intended. With regard to CAMM we are actually getting fewer batteries than the Rapier it is replacing with around three batteries available to support the entire Army, let alone provide defence of bases from which aircraft and helicopters will operate from. We are only intending to by twenty two firing platforms but only the Battery in the Falklands has actually been ordered, teh rest are still "Pending"! The other two Regiments operate the Stormer/HVM/LMM platform in the case of the Regular unit and the shoulder/Pedestal version in the case of the Reserve unit. Not very impressive and far from increasing our GBAD capability.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by bobp »

Do not know if this has been seen before...

https://www.forces.net/news/future-sold ... tion-plans

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Reading this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/1 ... ia-threat/

I'm left questioning the overlap where the article first states:

"We're going to have a heavy armoured brigade on 'the coninent' for the first time since 2010." (minus the people)

"The Army plans to concentrate the training of its heavy warfighting units of tanks and infantry in Oman." (despite being concentrated elsewhere)

"will reorganise to consolidate armoured forces around Salisbury Plain in southern England" (despite having a armoured brigade in europe and tanks concentrated in Oman)

Maybe this isn't as stupid, incoherent, and fanciful as it sounds, but... i'd have a lot more confidence that the army finally has a grasp of its purpose if the it was able to market the changes honestly!

Does it strike no-one else that we're asking a lot of 140 tanks if we're expecting them to be stored in Germany, concentrated in Oman, and consolidated in Salisbury plain?

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 are looking at 56 Challenger 3s being stored in Germany and at least 18 in Oman for training so that is over half if them allocated leaving the rest to provide enough for training the two UK based Regiments plus ideally have a number in storage to preserve then and allow the fleet to be rotated to even out the mileage.

We may still be able to form a Division on paper but to do so will mean scraping the Barrels and activating every Reserve we have. Ok a little exaggerated but we will only do it if a major war breaks out involving NATO, Gulf States, or our major allies in the Far East, and the later two cases are far from certain.

Finally the BCTs are not self sufficient as all their support units are elsewhere.

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: 26 Nov 2021, 13:05 Well we are looking at 56 Challenger 3s being stored in Germany and at least 18 in Oman for training so that is over half if them allocated leaving the rest to provide enough for training the two UK based Regiments plus ideally have a number in storage to preserve then and allow the fleet to be rotated to even out the mileage.

We may still be able to form a Division on paper but to do so will mean scraping the Barrels and activating every Reserve we have. Ok a little exaggerated but we will only do it if a major war breaks out involving NATO, Gulf States, or our major allies in the Far East, and the later two cases are far from certain.

Finally the BCTs are not self sufficient as all their support units are elsewhere.
A division of what though, we haven’t deployed more than a single brigade of armoured since the 90s and only twice outside of Europe for decades.

The question is what should be our contribution to nato. I’d argue we’d be better off stationing an armoured cavalry regiment in Germany than a tank one.

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 would say the planned Deep Strike Recce BCT would be the obvious choice for a Brigade actually stationed in Europe, rather than just having the kit stored there.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by whitelancer »

BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS.
Deployable forces are being re-modelled around Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), creating
more self-sufficient tactical formations and providing more options for decision makers. BCTs
integrate the full range of capabilities but at the lowest possible level including artillery,
un-crewed aerial systems, cyber, air defence, engineers, signals and logistical support. New
BCTs include 12 and 20 Armoured BCTs, the new Deep Recce Strike BCT, 7 Light Mech BCT
and 4 Light BCT.
The above is from Future Soldier, I thought it worth quoting as its an illustration of the nonsense in that document. To start with the BCTs are not self-sufficient rather they contain only the core of the brigade, everything else has to be allocated either from within 3 Division or from the wider Army. This includes artillery, un-crewed aerial systems, cyber, air defence, engineers, signals and logistical support. The BCTs can only integrate capabilities at the "lowest possible level" if they are first allocated.

In truth the BCTs are a sort of half way house between independent Brigade Groups and Brigade level Battle Groups. Whether that means they have the advantages of each organisation while minimising the disadvantages or have the disadvantages while minimising the advantages is an interesting question.

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's all smoke and mirrors to hide the inherent weakness for the Army.

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 »


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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by TSharpe28 »



Defence Secretary
@BWallaceMP
has confirmed that Her Majesty The Queen has approved the new appointment of Chief of the General Staff.

General Sir Patrick Sanders will succeed General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith with effect from June 2022.

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

British Army and its future force

Post by TSharpe28 »

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -28/131089

The 2021 Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper outlines the Government's plan for Defence. It recognised the unprecedented challenges posed by geopolitical shifts, including intensifying competition between states, a widening range of security threats, and rapid technological change.

The Future Soldier publication, published on 25 November 2021, outlines the future restructuring of the Army. The Army will consist of 73,000 full-time personnel and will move to a whole-force strength including fully integrated Reserve of over 100,000 personnel from 2025. The Army will become more agile and designed for permanent and persistent global engagement. The Army will be leaner, lighter, faster to respond, and more effectively matched to current and future threats. It will be integrated across domains, with allies, and ever more globally engaged.

We will continue to ensure we are threat-led and review the capabilities of the Armed Forces accordingly.

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

Re: British Army and its future force

Post by Lord Jim »

So the Army will be smaller, with fewer capabilities, have AFVs that have insufficient protection and firepower, though they will know they are under fore and from where far quicker so they may be able to withdraw in time.

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

Re: British Army and its future force

Post by TSharpe28 »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Mar 2022, 19:45 So the Army will be smaller, with fewer capabilities, have AFVs that have insufficient protection and firepower, though they will know they are under fore and from where far quicker so they may be able to withdraw in time.
Depends if you call Boxer or Ajax AFVs.

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

Re: British Army and its future force

Post by Lord Jim »

I do and thought their protection levels are good for the type of vehicle they are, their firepower is definitely insufficient for the roles they are being tasked with, in my opinion.

User avatar
Beth
Site Admin
Posts: 40
Joined: 28 Feb 2020, 14:54
England

Re: British Army and its future force

Post by Beth »

TSharpe28 wrote: 11 Mar 2022, 03:18 https://questions-statements.parliament ... -28/131089

The 2021 Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper outlines the Government's plan for Defence. It recognised the unprecedented challenges posed by geopolitical shifts, including intensifying competition between states, a widening range of security threats, and rapid technological change.

The Future Soldier publication, published on 25 November 2021, outlines the future restructuring of the Army. The Army will consist of 73,000 full-time personnel and will move to a whole-force strength including fully integrated Reserve of over 100,000 personnel from 2025. The Army will become more agile and designed for permanent and persistent global engagement. The Army will be leaner, lighter, faster to respond, and more effectively matched to current and future threats. It will be integrated across domains, with allies, and ever more globally engaged.

We will continue to ensure we are threat-led and review the capabilities of the Armed Forces accordingly.

STAFF NOTICE:
Topics merged.
For any general site or moderation queries, please feel free to PM me.
Help keep UK Defence Forum online

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

Re: British Army and its future force

Post by mr.fred »

TSharpe28 wrote: 12 Mar 2022, 02:04 Depends if you call Boxer or Ajax AFVs.
What else would you call them?

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

Re: The future form of the Army

Post by TSharpe28 »

ICVs for Boxer

Post Reply