CF(Land) 2035

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
Post Reply
J. Tattersall

CF(Land) 2035

Post by J. Tattersall »

Conceptual Force (Land) 2035

CF(Land) 35 has appeared in April's British Army Review, page 30 ( https://www.army.mod.uk/media/9038/bar1 ... OCr6GEy3BL )

I guess those who don't like strike brigades may well blow a fuse on reading this. Strike approach plus (!), less emphasis on defeating heavy armour more emphasis on deep defeat of enemy HQs , enablers etc. Battle-groups replaced with 500 strong combined arms Future Combat Teams, Brigade Combat Teams to be 3,500 strong, Division to be 16,500. Well worthwhile having a look at.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by Lord Jim »

The link seems to be busted unfortunately.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by Scimitar54 »

Knocked out by the “Heavy Mob” no doubt. :mrgreen:

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by mr.fred »

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... my-review/

Same old presentism and wishful thinking that we’ve seen since FRES.
“Increasingly Complex Threats” lists a bunch of threats that have been present for the past fifty years or greater
“Technological Opportunities” bets the farm on systems that will make the concept viable, while being among the shortest and least detailed section in the report.
“Continued Resource constraints” makes an interesting statement that personnel, not equipment, is the driving factor for defence inflation. Considering the reduction in size of the Army over the last couple of decades, that’s surprising.
“Deductions” Outlines a desire to defeat an enemy with an array of systems that the army does not have, and is not discussed further other than a hope that ATGW “may” provide MBT firepower in a smaller platform.

And we get the “big, slow and heavy” vs “small light and fast” bit again.

The basic premise isn’t unprecedented. During the later stages of WW2 the infantry were occasionally described as bodyguards for the Forward Observation Officer for the artillery.

Dispersing forces is something that is covered as far back as the defence of duffer’s drift, if not earlier, though one might take issue with the extent. The conceit that this has not been part of military operations for the past century seems a little unfounded.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote: During the later stages of WW2 the infantry were occasionally described as bodyguards for the Forward Observation Officer for the artillery.
Pulling back from the proposition, isn't this much the same as what the Strike Bdes are meant to be - individuals having been replaced by a whole formations as the reach of artillery (of all kinds) is now so different, as is its mobility in order to get to the firing positions/ within range from which the dispersed battle can be influenced in a significant way?
- just to add some statistics, the true-ist form of truth ;) , the two campaigns where the share of officers in the overall casualties has been highest were the 1967 Sinai campaign (tank the decisive weapon, but sensors being lacking the way to observe was for tank commanders to ride with heads out of hatches) and the alluded to later stages in WW2. When, pulling out the promised statistics, 1 in 7 of Finnish casualties was an officer... perhaps looking strange at first as if a whole squad were to be wiped out, there is no officer present.
Explanation: Artillery observation, with authority to call fire, was always headed by an officer, however small the detachment, and in a defensive campaign they were the last to leave positions.
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)

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by whitelancer »

Taking the Strike concept one step further.
As I understand it dispersed operations with smaller lighter more agile all arm groupings, exploiting new technology, such as AI, robotic vehicles, cyber etc. Using speed(tempo) in lieu of mass. The question is how does this lead to, quoting the report:-
... dislocation of the enemy by striking HQs, logistic bases,...…. to bring about cognitive dislocation and defeat.
(Rather brings to mind the German spring offensive in 1918 and France in May 1940.)
What would worry me about this concept is whether the enemy would allow your dispersed forces freedom to manoeuvre, and the reliance on communications to deliver the Fires that will be needed.

Moving to the structure of the force they envisage, its based around the FCTs, with 4 x FCTs per Brigade(?)and 4 x Brigades(?) to a Division. Giving a total of 16 FCT per Division and with 48 in total allowing for 3 Divisions. Unfortunately their is very little detail about the FCTs, will they all be identical or will they vary within Brigades or between Brigades. Perhaps the latter as they say:-
The force design maintains the premise of the ‘rule of four’ in its orbat with a specific covering force, assault force, echelon force and reserve force.
What type of platforms do they envisage, light, medium or heavy, a mix? Would Ajax and or Boxer be suitable? With an emphasise on dispersion how would the CFTs be broken down, into what size and over what sort of area. While I wouldn't expect a complete orbat or any thing like that a little more information would have been useful.

To sum up, I did find it interesting, both the concept and the type of structure envisaged, whether they have merit remains to be seen.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: The force design maintains the premise of the ‘rule of four’ in its orbat with a specific covering force, assault force, echelon force and reserve force.


What type of platforms do they envisage, light, medium or heavy, a mix? Would Ajax and or Boxer be suitable?
FCTs being 500+ of course will need supreme 'orchestration' as for the fires to be there and realise the benefits from their manoeuvreing.
- by 2035 Ajax/ Boxer will only have been in service for ten years (and that is not a weighted average!) so they will have to figure in this, perhaps not in the way foreseen for the Strike Bdes

The big question comes from aggregating the FCT numbers (strength) upwards to the next level formations that will need to provide those fires et al;
How can you reconcile such numbers with an "orbat with a specific covering force, assault force, echelon force and reserve force".
- for other than for reserve force I find it hard to imagine that the units held for each of those would have a homogeneous make 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)

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: The big question comes from aggregating the FCT numbers (strength) upwards to the next level formations that will need to provide those fires et al;How can you reconcile such numbers with an "orbat with a specific covering force, assault force, echelon force and reserve force".- for other than for reserve force I find it hard to imagine that the units held for each of those would have a homogeneous make up
Not very clear is it.
It may be that each FCT has a specific role within the Brigade i.e., as the covering force, assault force etc. or it may be that instead each Brigade is given these roles within the division, perhaps its both! It was stated that the FCTs would be all arms, so I assume they would all be composite units. However how much it would vary between each FCT. No idea, but I assume their would be some variation given the roles mentioned above. I could see for instance that those designated for the covering force could have a large percentage of Robotic and Automated Systems (RAS). Using the rule of 4 the FCT could have 4 squadrons each with a manned HQ and CS and CSS elements with 4 troops each with 4 RAS. Maybe not!

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by Lord Jim »

As the article summarises CF(Land)2035 is still 17 years away but it might as well be 170. The resources required are not available to allow such a transformation, and the idea of Brigades acting as Divisions and having a Corps level headquarter etc. seems like somebody put something in the tea of those assigned with developing the strategy! The Army is falling into the trap is looking too far ahead and trying to come up with a "Revolutionary" solution as against an "Evolutionary one. It needs to look to the near future and manage the huge task of replacing or updating the vast majority of its AFV fleet and getting the Army into form that will be viable in a peer conflict, which it current plans do not. Thinking too far ahead only causes confusion and causes existing programmes to become victim of people trying to second guess what will be needed 20 years from now rather that the next 5 to 10.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by whitelancer »

Lord Jim wrote:The resources required are not available to allow such a transformation, and the idea of Brigades acting as Divisions and having a Corps level headquarter etc. seems like somebody put something in the tea of those assigned with developing the strategy!
That is essentially what is happening now, Look at 3rd Division, its little more than a container for the deployable elements of the Army, with no real structure, 16 Air Assault brigade is no more than a light infantry brigade with no helicopters despite its name. As for the recently announced 1st Aviation Brigade it seems little more than a container for the AAC. As for 1st Division it seems to be their as a home for a mix of regular and reserve units with no other home. Looking from the outside their seems a total lack of any real structure or coherence. At least CF(Land)2035 has that. As for a Corps HQ this seems eminently sensible, if for no other reason than to act as the basis of a Joint Force Headquarters.
Lord Jim wrote:The Army is falling into the trap is looking too far ahead and trying to come up with a "Revolutionary" solution as against an "Evolutionary one. It needs to look to the near future and manage the huge task of replacing or updating the vast majority of its AFV fleet and getting the Army into form that will be viable in a peer conflict, which it current plans do not. Thinking too far ahead only causes confusion and causes existing programmes to become victim of people trying to second guess what will be needed 20 years from now rather that the next 5 to 10.

I certainly understand your point of view the Army really does need to get itself in order, never the less it always needs to be looking ahead otherwise it will fall behind then you will need to come up with a revolutionary rather than evolutionary change.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote: Look at 3rd Division, its little more than a container for the deployable elements of the Army, with no real structure, 16 Air Assault brigade is no more than a light infantry brigade with no helicopters despite its name. As for the recently announced 1st Aviation Brigade it seems little more than a container for the AAC. As for 1st Division it seems to be their as a home for a mix of regular and reserve units
3rd D deployable... higher readiness, on average?
1st Aviation Bde; why is that difficult when we have had 1st Artillery Bde for years as the home of...?
Future of 16X? ... Tell me, in light of what the above referenced Bde may or may not do
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)

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:3rd D deployable... higher readiness, on average? 1st Aviation Bde; why is that difficult when we have had 1st Artillery Bde for years as the home of...?Future of 16X? ... Tell me, in light of what the above referenced Bde may or may not do
I'm not entirely clear what you are asking but I will do my be best.

1st Aviation Brigade is two things, an administrative home for most of the AAC, and a deployable Brigade HQ. What its not is a Brigade and doesn't become a Brigade until it has some units allocated to it. While it can expect to deploy with some elements of the AAC under command it doesn't know before hand which they will be, how many Apaches or Wildcats will it control? What RAF or RN/RM assets will it have allocated? What about its role, will it primarily be involved in providing logistic support, perhaps it will be engaged in air assault missions, maybe with 16 Air Assault Brigade or maybe not. Perhaps it will be engaged in offensive air operations, either independently or as part of another formation. Or will it have to perform some or all of these tasks? The ultimate in flexibility!
Now I accept that it is a step forward, but its only a step. Until it has all the forces it needs under its command, including any from the RAF it will be a Brigade in name only.
16 Air Assault Brigade should form the basis of a Light Division, primarily for out of area operations. Designed to be delivered by air, their are plenty of units in 1st Division that would be suitable.

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

Re: CF(Land) 2035

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:16 Air Assault Brigade should form the basis of a Light Division, primarily for out of area operations. Designed to be delivered by air, their are plenty of units in 1st Division that would be suitable
On the "should" side of things, we are totally ;) agreed about that.No wonder one of the two Gurkha bns is assigned; they come as close to mountain troops as we have (the RM has only a Mountain Cadre, which is to preserve the expertise of the instructors)... the other one is near one of the two Jungle Schools we have. And these two bns rotate, so lets count: air assault (despite the punch they pack, I am sure a helicopter can take one more of them as compared to bods from any regular army bn :) ; jungle, as in acclimatised theatre reserve... and mountains (in the end, they were all borne in the mountains).
OK, enough of waxing lyrical , next:
whitelancer wrote: 1st Aviation Brigade is two things, an administrative home for most of the AAC, and a deployable Brigade HQ. What its not is a Brigade and doesn't become a Brigade until it has some units allocated to it
While I totally agree, I actually don't know that. Do you have a source?
whitelancer wrote:What about its role, will it primarily be involved in providing logistic support, perhaps it will be engaged in air assault missions
Well, one thing is clearly said: the Bde brings army combat aviation under one roof. Support helicopters are a clearly defined category... except when they are doing air assault (an Americanism, anyway. A lot of army units were doing air assault - at times - in A-stan. But 99% of the the time they couldn't... no equipment. Even 16 Air Assault Bde did not have its own helicopters for this; I believe when its predecessor was tasked with filling anti-tank gaps by moving ATGW teams quickly into position things were better. But that's defence - not assault.
So, we have borrowed an Americanism (will it live on?) while this is a totally British affair, modelled on:
Each man that’s in the side that’s in the field goes out and when he’s out comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes there are men still in and not out.
:wtf:

Without making the post too long, all kinds of transitions have preceded the current state of affairs:
- first the army fixed wing aviation was put under JHF (' a new home'); So were the Watchkeepers (err, fixed wings :) )
- in no time at all the manned fixed-wing a/c went on, to the RAF (' a new home'); anyone know where the Watckeepers are now (they started their life as an asset of the RA)?

As we started with 16X, half of its Apache strength (definitely ' combat aviation' - in fact one of the only three combat arms of the Army) is designated to our quick reaction formations... would go nicely with the out-of-area Ops thinking being primary
- the other half, though, has been designated to support the deployable division
... if all of this - with the ins and outs - hasn't changed again :?:
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: CF(Land) 2035

Post by Lord Jim »

I have a different slant on this. 6th Division as we know is home for all the Army's "Oddball" formation, and is tasked with providing the majority of the asymmetric capabilities that the Army needs moving forward. It also contains the "Specialist Infantry Group", (SIG) and is home to the reserve component of our Special Forces.

I would propose that the SIG be re organised as a true Infantry Brigade, but be equipped in such a way that up to half its Battalions can act as Motorised Infantry, mounted in various versions of the MRV(P), as complimented by specialised variants of the MAN 4x4/6x6/8x8,would the components of 1st ISR and the 1st and 11th Signals Brigades that are also part of 6th Division. I would then add 16 Air Assault to the Division together with the Army's Special Forces Group and finally, 1st Aviation Brigade. The latter Would have one Apache Regiment, the sole Wildcat Regiment and a new Regiment equipped with a Utility helicopter able to carry between twelve and eighteen fully equipped Troops. The Wildcats would be reconfigures for the Light Attack/Recce Roll, by fitting improved sensors and the "Wings" from its naval cousin.

This would give 6th Division the assets to conduct out of area operations against both conventional and asymmetric threats. It would work closely with 3 Commando Brigade and Staff from all three services would be part of a Joint Services Tasking, Movements and Logistics Branch, which would for example;

Co-ordinate the allocation of assets allocated to the Division from outside.
Co-ordinate training to ensure all components of the Division and outside assets are familiar with each other doctrines.
Co-ordinate the movement of assets by air, land and sea to wherever they may be required.
Co-ordinate the logistical support for units deployed on operations at whatever scale.

Post Reply