Army 2020 Refine

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Any new (?) money injected into the Forces (here: the Army, specifically) should give some leeway in the thinking on force packages under various scenarios as these will have to, loosely, be based on the more permanent structures, in order to gel quickly and properly when fielded.

A good pointer is a news piece Gab picked up over a year ago, about aligning the sharp edge of army aviation with the higher readiness units:
" 4 Regiment [AAC] is assigned permanently to support of 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando, with 664 Sqn specializing in Land Air Assault and 656 Sqn in Maritime operations.

3 Regiment [AAC], on the other hand, will align with 3rd UK Division. Details are still to come, but it seems reasonable to assume that its two frontline Apache squadrons will be required to align to the Armoured and Strike Brigade that will hold Readiness every year."

So, from 2+2 bdes (heavy/ medium) 2 can be generated fairly quickly (30 days?), whereas from the two early entry Bdes (augmented by the Bde of Gurkhas) we will get "what the label" says - though initially not at bde level
- all come with [one sqdrn of] "flying tanks" in support - according to the release, if that is the actual implementation, too
- may be the reduced number of Apache airframes (when they are all brand new, about at the time when the AH Mk1s retire from service in 2023/24) can generate 4 sqdrns worth. I won't go back to the "Hangar Queen" statistics from the Afghan days as the operating conditions were fairly unique. In the longer run, though, an incremental order (already in thoughts, though not in funded plans?) would be called for
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: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Incremental orders is what we should be doing for nearly all air and land projects already, so if you have an underspend one year you can place order for something on the wish list and so on. Yes I did say underspend and we still do it even in this era of tight budgets. More importantly the budget must always be allowed to roll over and the Treasury not allowed to try to get its grubby hands on it to use elsewhere.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

How about some of these for 16 Air Assault?

http://www.janes.com/article/81500/rafa ... evelopment

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by benny14 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Does it come down to the question: Tanks+crews
... or
Replacement crews?

Anyone thinking in terms of replacement crews, to a depleted unit, having their knocked-out tanks coming back from the work shop and re-crewed is not thinking "properly" for the type of speed that warfare of this day will have (?)
RWY is been expanded on the reserves side with the increase. If it came down to a full Division deployment, we would most likely see the regiment deployed to beef up the other regiments or act as a division reserve.

Silver lining is that we dont lose a whole regiments worth of tanks. Hopefully the other 36 are kept in storage, or wishfully thinking, they beef up the two regular regiments.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by benny14 »

Updated infantry manpower stats.

Requirement for 14,670. Currently at 12,850, which is 1,820 under cap.

Image

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -10836.pdf

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The stats continue the tradition that Gurkhas are not 'regular' soldiers, albeit part of the army.
- I wonder if they found the 600+, to fill additional, authorised billets?
- the 700 boost for the RN was well advertised (even though 200, within it, were actually conversions of officer billets)
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)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by benny14 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- I wonder if they found the 600+, to fill additional, authorised billets?
Not sure. Gurkhas at 3,150 as of April this year, up from 2,914 in January.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

A couple of interesting articles in the papers today, Daily Mail actually. The first was by Tim Collins where he stated he believes the Armed Forces and the Army in particular are in real crisis. With over one in ten soldiers Obese, political correctness out of control and drug taking almost endemic exacerbated by a Top Brass unwilling to take the necessary actions to correct these issues. The second was regarding the Royal Marines and the fact that Marines are complaining that their accommodations are getting cramped due to space being allocated for female accommodations and facilities even though there are still no females in the Marines. It was stated that from over a hundreds applications only twenty or so women were selected to go through preselection training and not one has yet passed. Well at least the Royal Marines are maintaining standards. No cure is in sight and all three services are affected as there simply is not the political will to take action that may appear non politically correct and harmful to the prospects of Senior Officers. This si not good and it is something the MDP will not affect.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Wet-gap crossing capability stays where the rivers are (now that we are out of Iraq):
"23 and 412 Troop became part of 75 Engineer Regiment and both units moved from Hameln to Minden to share facilities with their Bundeswehr counterpart, Panzerpionierbataillon 130, at Herzog von Braunschweig Kaserne."
- does not say how many bods; but all of the M3 rigs (or more properly: vehicles)
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
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

23 is growing back to Squadron strenght from next year. Probably adding a second regular troop with the third being 412 with reservists, i guess.

There is also a project in the early stages for a replacement for M3 in 2027.

Not bad for a capability that was on the verge of being entirely divested in 2010. Army 2020 was an abort.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

That is good news, now we just need a medium weight capability based on either Ajax or Boxer to give a more deployable but similar capability to the relevant units especially with regards to bridging.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

Afraid it is going to be the 12 REBS sets on MAN SV and that's it...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote: Probably adding a second regular troop with the third being 412 with reservists, i guess.
That's the kind of 'Rule of 3' I'd like to see more, when we are talking about heavy kit. Saving some of the 'Cold War dinosaurs' for a rainy day (3rd tank rgmnt, in the form of Yeomanry; do the same with GMLRS and SPGs). All to be kept in the large A/C garage in Germany and every now and then taken out. for a walk in Truppenübungsplatz Senne.
Gabriele wrote:Afraid it is going to be the 12 REBS sets on MAN SV
I guess you have to account for the drivers separately
but to me using the M3s can be done in a very parsimonious way as for manpower:
" control functions have been automated allowing the crew to be reduced to three.

A single two-bay M3 can carry a Class 70 tracked vehicle, where two M2s would have been required for this task with additional buoyancy bags. Eight M3 units and 24 soldiers can build a 100 m bridge in 30 minutes " from a posting on July 19, 2018 by Liam, Editor, Warfare.Today
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

On the Argus thread there was a mention of the deployable division not being funded. Yes it is slow, painfully so, but:
- for 2 tank regiments and bde cavalry going, as well as the Mastiff -mounted bns
you get
- 2 whole bdes, with twice the number of inf. bns

And, less easily discerned, it seems that the DAG (artillery group) is on its way back (drawn from the 1 Bde).

16X got one LI bn permanently assigned (again). So there would be 5 bde-sized (though small-ish) manoeuvre groups, further capable of splitting into BGs. Not bad, 2013 and today just seem to be apart "by an eternity".
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: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

And how many barrels would have to have their bottoms scraped to get a Division in to the field. Many experts still think we can only actually deploy a single Brigade that is fully equipped and supported let alone a division. So many units are either missing key items of equipment or what they have is barely serviceable. Until we hold a Multi Brigade exercise to show what we can and cannot do with what we have it is only a paper exercise in my view.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Many experts still think we can only actually deploy a single Brigade that is fully equipped and supported
That was certainly the MRB and rule of Five for indefinite rotation... resulting in little bit of this, that and everything. But no good for anything.

On a different note, will the next concoction (or "output") be called Refine 2.0 or Joint Force 2025? Losing track of all these labels (with their quick succession).
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Many experts still think we can only actually deploy a single Brigade that is fully equipped and supported
That was certainly the MRB and rule of Five for indefinite rotation... resulting in little bit of this, that and everything. But no good for anything.

On a different note, will the next concoction (or "output") be called Refine 2.0 or Joint Force 2025? Losing track of all these labels (with their quick succession).
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: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

The Army Brass just need to accept the "Divisional Deployment" is now fantasy and work on having one or possibly two brigades equipped to fight in the short term, and then the MoD has to decide whether 3 Commando or 16 Air Assault should receive the resources needed to make it fit for purpose, with my vote going to the former. The latter then dissolves with the Para units joining their sibling in basically becoming "Ranger" units to support the SF.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:And how many barrels would have to have their bottoms scraped to get a Division in to the field. Many experts still think we can only actually deploy a single Brigade that is fully equipped and supported let alone a division. So many units are either missing key items of equipment or what they have is barely serviceable. Until we hold a Multi Brigade exercise to show what we can and cannot do with what we have it is only a paper exercise in my view.
I mean, in these times of HORRIBLE Russian threat to the West, second ( or third or fourth ) military force in NATO can send- 1 ( ONE! ) tank battalion to do something in relativly short time? Really serious deterrent... :clap: :clap: :clap:

GDMT, if you have put Dmitry Rogozin or Sergei Shoygu as Defence Secretary of the UK- they wouldn't be so sucessful. :?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Vehicles... 2000 of them were taken to the core after a decade+ of redirecting purchases.
- none of those seem to figure prominently in the plans

So instead, we have/ will have regular rgmnts/ bns
4 with Ajax (500+),
2 with CR2 (100-200),
4 WR (you could go from establishment strengths and get 200-ish; the rest of them as ABSVs), and
4 MIV (300-500)

Reshuffle this deck of cards:
an armour rgmnt more often than not supported by armoured infantry in 2 to 1 proportion
1 CR2 +1 WR + 1 MIV => a total of 2 of these
- each with a recce Ajax element

Still only a weak division.

The residual?
2 Ajax + 2 MIV
= a march-ahead force, thereafter to be used on flanks (not as the main effort), or
= independently deployable, with some LI/ RM elements to beef up infantry numbers, to "somewhere" outside Europe, while keeping the 'powder' dry
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: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Being unable to sleep, I thought I would revisit the idea I hade for the restructuring of the British Army, taking into account the current equipment programmes and trying to limit the tweaks needed to get thing into better shape.

First the whole idea of the Strike/Mechanised Brigades needs to be binned. The current three Armoured Infantry Brigades should be retained, and reequipped with the new and modernised platforms coming on line in the near future. This would leave each Brigade organised as follows;

1x Armoured Regiment (Challenger 2 CSP)
1x Heavy Recce Regiment (Ajax)
2x Armoured Infantry Battalions (Warrior CSP)
1x Mechanised Infantry Battalion (Boxer)
1x Heavy Artillery Regiment (AS-90)

All of the above are on order or soon will be. The Warrior BASV programme would not be continued with support variants of the Ajax and Boxer fulfilling the roles of the legacy FV432 and CVR(T) variants still in service with these Brigades.

The one tweak I see as a priority is the incorporation of the up coming Javelin ER on a number of Ajax Turrets, fitting each with a minimum of two but ideally four. This new variant of the Javelin has double the effective range of the current version, and is mainly aimed at vehicles, whose improved fire control systems will allow the 4000m+ range to be fully utilised. I would equip eight Ajax in each Regiment with such turrets forming an Anti-Tank Section, replacing the current dismounts. In addition a Mission Module should be developed for the Boxer to allow the same turret to be mounts and again, eight of the vehicles would be allocated to each Mechanised Infantry Battalion. The Armoured Infantry would have some Warriors fitted with mounts similar to those that allowed Milan to be fired from the back of the vehicle to that they can use their Javelins whilst mounted if needed. Held at Divisional level would be the Army's GMLRS Regiment, Armoured Royal Engineers Field Regiment and it,s two Air Defence Regiment, one with Land Ceptor and one with Starstreak, though I would transpose the launchers on to a Boxer Mission Module. Finally there would be the other support Regiments such a Signal, Logistics, ISTAR, Medical and so on but these would support he Army as a whole, using a combination of Boxer and JLTV platforms.

Where I really what to concentrate in on the Army's light units.

The first change would be to incorporate all three Parachute Battalions into a single Regiment once again These would train and operate in the same way the US Army Rangers currently operate, with one Battalion tasked with supporting the Special Forces on a rotational basis. They would all retain both their Airborne and Air-mobile capabilities and would be the Army's first responders to any emergency. All three Battalions would have increased firepower in the form of additional Javelin teams, Carl Gustav M4 RCL and other weapon systems that other units may not have access to, as well as specialised Light Armoured Vehicles based around the JLTV. The Army's Wildcat Regiment would also be dedicated to this formation, with the platform being modernised to ensure they are suitable for their new role, including increased fore power and sensors.

The Second change would be to reorganise 16 Air Assault into a hybrid Brigade. It would comprise four light Infantry Battalions but they would be equipped with numerous variants of the JLTV giving them the capability to operate as light (Motorised) Infantry. Each Brigade would also include a Light Artillery Regiment equipped with RO 105mm Light Guns. In addition two of the Battalions, on a rotational basis would be qualified in air-mobile operations as would a contingent for the Artillery and other supporting formations. This would allow the Brigade to operate as flexibly as possible. Ideally a second such Brigade would be formed, and together with units form the Parachute Regiment would the Army's Rapid reaction force. These formations would rely on existing weapons systems such as Javelin, the HK GMG and M2 for much of their fire power but when combined with units of the AAC would be far more potent than existing Light (Role) Battalions and far more mobile. One could even say these are lighter cousin of the currently planned Strike/Mechanised Brigades.

All of the above is certainly achievable. It will require some programmes to be reduced in numbers or the make up of the vehicle fleets altered before delivery and the number of JTLVs purchased will probably be towards the top end of what has been discussed, but the key thing is that the amount of any extra funding should be manageable. The Army retains the ability to fight all levels of warfare and can tailor the formations it would deploy to meet the expected threat.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:All of the above is certainly achievable.
I agree, it looks to be an achievable reorganisation broadly within the parameters of the current budget framework.

Did it cure the insomnia? :D

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:cure the insomnia? :D
... starting to read the 585 page Divorce Agreement is a sure-fire med

Unfortunately the MoD approach is the opposite: small fragments of information (more often one can discern what is actually :( happening from supplier announcement texts) so that no one on the outside is in a position to criticise the 'master plan'. Or even to be able to tell if one such exists
- seems to be contagious between branches of Gvmnt. But in business they do say that 'the company ethos' emanates from the top 8-)
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:no one on the outside is in a position to criticise the 'master plan'.
Sir Humphrey who, I presume, is more "on the inside" than most has 'charged' with all the remaining (present tense ;) 150 or so Challies, and dropped a hint as to the scaling of teeth and tail:
"a globally deployable division is something that would stretch the Army considerably. It would require the bulk of available forces to be deployed, and if done would probably disrupt the Army deployment plot for years to follow as a result due to the need to refocus a significant amount of units on a new task.

This sort of capability would realistically take some months to deploy, and also place pressure on the existing logistics and support force, which is structured to sustain two ‘strike’ brigades"
Sure, we are fast forwarding to 2023 and beyond here, but that seems to be the plan.
- raises the question about the 2+2 bde Deployable Division and where will we have got to (by that time) with the Whole Force idea and structuring reserves to support the other half of it... that seemingly 'can't be deployed'
- just a matter of text formulation; or, a Freudian slip?
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: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

What concerns me at the moment is that too many people have too much invest in the current Army 2020 Refine, for it to be amended in any appreciable manner.

No one seems to be ready to accept that for agile forces to work, they have to be obviously agile, but also have to hit like a tonne of bricks when they do engage. At present the "Strike Brigades are in a situation where half the formation lacks mobility over distance and so is not as agile as the other half. This means either the Infantry have to be tied to the Recce, reducing their agility or the formations split. In both cases all units concerned have a severe lack of fire power density. In high intensity warfare I see the formation as a recipe for disaster AKA "Speed Bump" that will be able to get in position to throw themselves in front of the Enemy, lack the agility to get out of the way again and well we know what happens then. Of course if they have been deployed ahead of the AI brigade, they will also lack Artillery support except that provided by allies.

Whilst all this is going on the two AI Brigades are at beat unloading in theatre, at worst still embarking in the UK, and by the time they are battle ready they are the sole formations left from the UK's only Division. Of course the two "Strike" Brigades could be held back until the AI Brigades are ready, but that again defeats their reason for being, but it would increase their survivability quite a bit.

The best we can hope for I am afraid is for nothing to happen before 2025, have the planned programmes deliver what is planned including a decent CR2 CSP, and then sit down at look at what hole still exist and try to fix them. At least with having Boxer, this will be a relatively easy affair as we will only be looking at extra modules in the main, that provide additional capabilities, though looking to have some commonality with the Ajax fleet would be a bonus.

So in theory by the end of the 2020s we could actually have a true warfighting Division as long as other hard decisions have been made to free up funding, like disbanding at least half of the Light Role and training Infantry Battalions for example, as well as disbanding the two Tranche one Typhoon Squadrons as of 2020 being another.

I suppose those who advocate a Global Role for the UK will point out that It is the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force that are our primary tools backed up by the Royal Marines but after the Defence of the UK and its territories, the UK's next highest defence commitment is to NATO and that included, on paper at least, a sizeable ground component. As unglamorous as it may be they UK has got to increase its spending on the Army, as what is has already committed to is the bare minimum needed to undo years of neglect whilst fighting wars we never planned for.

Post Reply