Army 2020 Refine

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

Lack of good ideas and common sense?
In part. But there also seems to be an institutionalized dread of actually getting into contracts. Programs, all of them, drag on and on and on for forever and i honestly can't understand why. Nor what, exactly, has been done with the budget in the last few years. There is spectacularly little to show on the procurement side, yet the budget figures are far from small. Look at the deliveries underway yearly not even in the french army, but even just the italian one, and i swear i don't know what the british army has been doing with its budget.
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: an institutionalized dread of actually getting into contracts. Programs, all of them, drag on and on and on for forever and i honestly can't understand why.
Close to that; they've tried to change "the rules" so that the army officers, who are the liaison/ the customer would stay in place for long enough so that there would be accountability
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 »

I often think the Army is afraid of placing large contracts for equipment in case something better comes around the corner a year or so later. They always seem to be polishing their crystal balls trying to see into the future at the expense of the present. But they still manage to spend £Ms on never ending assessment and developmental programmes.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

One interesting observation is the lengths the US Military is going to in order to speed up the procurement process, often putting more money up front to save money down the line. This shows the UK MoD in a very unfavourable light with regards to its major procurement programmes. For example the US Army is looking at bringing new platforms into operational service in less than six years from the requirement being issued!

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

The current plans for the reorganisation of the Army's combat formations will leave it in a very poor position to actually conduct operations against peer or near peer opposition.

The two weak Armoured Infantry Brigades will be lacking sufficient Infantry to be effective and will also lose their Recce capability with the retirement of the CVR(T) from service. The Armoured and Armoured Infantry units will no longer have an integral Recce element and the Brigade will lose its Recce Regiment. With the introduction of Boxer, the third unit in these Brigades, current an heavy Protected Mobility infantry Battalion mounted in Mastiff MRAVs will also go as there appear to be no plans to replace the Mastiffs with Boxer when the former are replaced in service. This leave the Brigades with only three combat units plus, at least for the moment an Artillery Regiment equipped worth AS-90 155mm Guns.

On the plus side the Armoured Infantry are to get the much improved Warrior when they eventually are put through the WCIP but at present it appears only the IFV version is to be upgraded, with little information being available on which if any other variants are to receive the relevant improvements. The two remaining Armoured Regiments are also planned to get an improved platform, in the form of an improved Challenger 2, but what this will entail has still not been decided, and like the WCIP this programme is progressing at a slow pace to be kind. The reason for this seems to be partly funding and partly programme management. With the WCIP, there has been endless testing, apparently to ensure the platform is totally bug free when delivered, but one cannot help but notice that these unending trails mask the fact that there is still no production contract for the Warrior upgrade, after almost a decade or development.

The other key part of the Army's future planes are the two "Strike" Brigades. It is well known that these two formations will each comprise of two Regiments of the army's new Ajax Cavalry Vehicle, for want of a better title, and two Mechanised Infantry Battalions mounted in the MIV which has now been revealed to be the Boxer 8x8. This organisation has been decided upon through necessity rather than design. The mix of tracked and wheeled platforms prevents the Brigade form being able to utilise its main objective capability of self deploying at a strategic level, This is because, unlike the Boxer which can deploy under their own power, the Ajax will require a fleet of both Medium and Heavy Equipment Transporters, and there are insufficient number of these to move both Ajax units and any other tracked platforms like artillery in one trip. These HETs and METs are also required to move the Army's heavier units and cannot be in two places at once. The two Mechanised Infantry Battalions are seriously lacking in firepower, and the majority that exists is from dismounted infantry, who are exceeding vulnerable to enemy direct and indirect fire from artillery and AFVs.

The Ajax which provides the bulk of the Brigades firepower has been designed to be a Recce platform jet in the "Strike" Brigade it is two be used as a Light/Medium Tank, a roles for which it is under armed and lacing in protection. In fact the Brigade as a whole seriously lacks firepower in every category, to the extent it does not have any organic artillery and its only indirect fire support will be the dismounted 81mm Mortars in each Infantry Battalion.

Moving on the Brigade has no Combat Engineering capability except that provided by the limited number of dismounted engineers, again from with the Infantry Battalion, lacking any under armour capability. to clear mines or cross obstacles.

What this show's is that the current variants planned for both the Boxer and Ajax are totally inadequate to allow the creation of formations that will the minimum level effective in combat. So what does the "Strike" Brigade need to be able to carry out the role the Generals and Politicians aspire it to?

Well to start with the Ajax units should be removed and replace by additional Mechanised Infantry Battalion's mounted in Boxer. Instead the Ajax units should be allocated to the Armoured Infantry Brigade giving each of them their Recce Regiments and integral Recce Section back. This will however result in the number of Ajax family vehicles needed to be reduced by at least a third, but will still require additional variants of that platform to be introduced, especially in the Recce Regiments.

So back to the "Strike", or now more appropriately named Mechanised Infantry Brigades. OF the planned variants of the Boxer already identified, the APC, Command and Ambulance variants, the APC lacks the fire power for peer combat. A Browning HMG might have once been sufficient when conducting COIN or other operations against low tier opposition, but against peer opponents it needs to be augmented by a ATGW that can be operated under armour as the bare minimum. Ideally up to half the APCs should be armed with a heavier weapon such as an autocannon up to 40mm, mounted in the RWS/turret that does not extend into the troop compartment and therefore reduce the number of dismounts carried. The RWS/turret should also carry at least two of the same ATGW as the HMG equipped variant. Each of the three Rifle Companies should contain a combination of both versions of the APC together with a number of the Command variant that can also be armed in either manner. It will be the Manoeuvre Support Company that will see the greatest number of currently unplanned variants though.

To start with there needs to be a Mortar Carrier. This is important as this platform will probably also be used in the Armoured Infantry Battalions to replace the existing FV432 platforms and in its simplest form it would be a turntable mounted 81mm Mortar identical to that found on the FV432 Mortar Carrier. However there is a need for greater firepower and so a case can be made to follow most other MATO armies and use a 120mm Mortar instead of the 81mm, providing both greater range and weight of fire. A turn table mounted weapon would be the cheapest option but also the least effective and most vulnerable. Ideally a weapon able to be fired under armour should be chosen, possibly along the lines of the NEMO weapon system, which also has the benefit of being able to fire in a direct fire mode.

Next the Battalions need a long range, under armour, Anti Tank capability. there are two seemingly obvious choices here. We could either expand the Army's use of the Extractor Mk2 which is already in limited service. Multiple launch canisters mounted on a Boxer module would allow not just long range anti tank engagements but also precision fire against other targets out to a range in excess of 40Km. The other option would be to adopt a ground launched version of the Brimstone 2, already in use with the RAF in air launched form, and will possibly be carried by the Apache Guardian in the future. The be effective in the grounds launched role it will need a man in the loop mode, but luckily an add on for the weapon has already been designed. The multiple seeker head on this weapon would have some advantages over other weapons. Like its air launched brother the weapon could be salvoed against larger enemy formations, direct by laser at target designated by troops deployed forward or by the controller in the launch vehicle against targets identified by other assets or at targets of opportunity.

The Battalion also needs a direct fire support weapon heavier than the 40mm autocannon. This weapon would not be intended to engage heavy enemy AFVs but rather provide support to the Infantry. If a Mortar platform like NEMO is adopted it could carry out this role, but that would take it away from its primary mission of indirect fire. A better solution would be a Mobile Gun System mounting at least a 90mm weapon but possibly one up to 120mm if a low pressure/recoil variant was adopted. Such a weapon would actually have a anti vehicular role and could also fire the new smart munitions being developed of 105mm and 120mm guns, such as the Israeli APAMS.

Now we need to look to he skies and the threat posed by Aircraft, Helicopters and UAVs. A gun based weapon System should be adopted t compliment the Starstreak/LLM platform operated by the Royal Artillery Air Defence Regiments. Their existing platforms should be replaced and the Starstreak/LMM launchers mounted on a Boxer Module. In the Infantry Battalions a weapon such as the Sky Ranger would meet the need. Any gun chosen must be able to fire Sensor Fused Ammunition like the Swiss AHEAD. This greatly increases the hit probability and increases the efficiency of ammunition usage. Such a weapon is also very effective in the ground role.

The Infantry Battalions also need a integral recce capability. This could be met by adapting the APC variant with additional/improved sensors including a mast mounted EO/Ground Surveillance Radar pod. Even with this the vehicle could still carry a number of dismounts if required.

Finally for now the Infantry with need a engineering and recovery variant of the Boxer. With extendable stabilisers and a crane if sufficient load capacity, this platform would not only be capable of carrying out traditional roles such as changing an engine, but also sap out Mission Modules if needed on the Boxer.

Out side of the Infantry Battalions additional Boxer variants will be need such as the SHORAD SAM variants already mentioned. To allow the Brigade to cross obstacles a Combat Engineering vehicle and vehicle launched bridge will be required. The former will need to be able to mount a mineplow and/or Dozer Blade and its mission module should contain launchers for at least two medium Line Charge Launchers to blast passages through identified mine fields. Ideally this vehicle should also be able to be controlled remotely. A Armoured Vehicle Launched Bridge (AVVLB) able to span gaps of up to 12 meters should also be adopted. Larger gags and water obstacles would be handled by armoured truck launched bridging equipment or even the Army's M3 Amphibious Ferries.

In addition to the Recce variant embedded within the Infantry Battalions, a NBC Recce variant to replace the existing Fox vehicles should he seriously considered. A general Cargo Carrier would be of great use across the Mechanised Brigade and other units, carrying everything from ammunition to replacement engines. Such a platform would allow easier and safer supply of units at or near the front. The platform should have DROPS capability (or whatever the current system is called), and possible a powered 4x4 trailer to increase its load capacity.

Well that just about covers what the Boxer programme needs to deliver, next I will turn my attention onto the Ajax which could be more radicle.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

So with the British Army gong big on the Boxer, forming eight Mechanised Infantry Battalions and using the platform to replace the majority of the FV432 series in other units from Royal Signals to Royal Artillery, to the Armoured Infantry, this has allowed the vehicles from the Ajax family to return to their true home, that of the Armoured Infantry Brigades.

Each Armoured and Armoured Infantry units would receive a Recce Section of eight Ajax and Each Brigade would receive a Recce Regiment to provide its eyes and ears. With this change though the number of vehicles from the Ajax family required is roughly half what the MoD has contracted for, leaving almost three hundred surplus to requirements. In addition there is a need for the configuration of the existing variants to be amended and for new variants to be procured.

First let us look at the Ajax. This is a much larger platform than the Scimitar CVR(T) it will replace. This combined with the likely increased effectiveness of enemy ISTAR weans the ability of the Ajax to manoeuvre unobserved around the battlefield is likely to be reduced. This means the platform may have to fight for intelligence far more than was believed necessary with the Scimitar. This leads to the firepower, speed and protection of the platform. Its speed is adequate for a platform of its type, but if rubber tracks were adopted the audio footprint of the vehicle would be reduced allowing it to move faster without its position being positively identified. Knowing you are out there is different from knowing where you are. As for protection, again the Armour Packages available for the Platform vary from adequate to superior to other platforms in its class, depending on what addon packages are installed. The addition of an APS though would be of great benefit, not just to he Ajax but to all members of the family as the role of the Regiment would be to be at the front of the Brigade. Regarding firepower, the 40mm CTA Autocannon will be one of the most effective weapons of its type once in service. However other countries are looking at installing larger rapid fire weapons of 50mm or even 57mm on their Recce platforms and Infantry Fighting vehicles. Other nations also mix MBTs into their Recce screens so the Ajax needs a weapon with a longer effective range and bigger bang. The obvious option would be to fit the Ajax turret with a number of ATGWs and for the British Army this would mean the Javelin. The Javelin is still being improved as its current form is being surpassed by newer weapon such as the French MMP and the latest versions of the Israeli Spike Family. Commonality is always a good thing, but not essential. Remember in the past the British army, at the same time, used the Milan, Swingfire and various members of the TOW family. We would need to choose the best missile for the role requirements, and this would also be fitted to some of the Boxer variants instead of Javelin.

Another variant of the Ajax is to be used in the Ground Based Surveillance role. This vehicle retains the 40mm CTA, bit I would suggest that it be fitted with a mast mounted EO/GSR pod to increase its observation range. In addition it should be able to carry and launch a number of small UAVs to provide over the hill observation should the need arise. The other Ajax based variant will be the Joint Fires Control. This platform in addition to the existing equipment fit would benefit from the ability to co-ordinate and even control UAVs operated at Brigade and possible Divisional level.

Moving to the non turrets versions of the Ajax family there is the Athena Command and Control vehicles that will replace the Sultan CVR(T) in both the Recce and Armoured Regiments. Then there is the Ares Personnel Carrier that will replace the Spartan CVR(T) in its multiple roles and then the Argus Engineer Recce Vehicle, Atlas Recovery Vehicle and the Apollo Repair Vehicle. These will preplace the Sampson CVR(T) and a number of the legacy FV$£" series still in service. But as yet there is no direct replacement for the Samaritan CVR(T) Armoured Ambulance planned, though this requirement could be met by a Boxer variant, and most importantly there is no replacements for the Striker CVR(T) in the ATGW Over Watch role. It is the latter that needs to be corrected to allow the Recce Regiment sot be fully effective. As with the Mechanised Infantry, today we should be looking at a weapon in the category of Exactor Mk2 or a ground based development of the Brimstone 2. This would not only be able to provide the ATGE Over Watch capability, but allow the precision engagement of high value time critical targets identified by other units within the Regiment.

All of the above should allow the new Recce Regiments to maintain roughly the same structure as the legacy Regiments, which was certain fit for purpose. But with the additional capabilities the Ajax family will bring these units will definitely be up to the task of providing their parent formations and above with the ISTAR needed for peer conflicts now and in the future.

Now the elephant in the room, what to do with the three hundred odd Ajax family members that are not required to meet the programmes above. Well one option would be to use the them as the basis for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle to replace the Warrior. This is going full circle as the Ajax has been develop form the Spanish/Austrian ASCOD IFV platform. Certain important modification would be required, such as reducing the size of the turret ring to one of a more conventional size but on the whole this should not be a lengthy of costly process. As for the Turret, well we have spent a large amount on the new turret for the Warrior as part of its Capability Improvement Programme and it would be a shame for this to go to waste. The Turret is the main part of the WCIP and its installation into a modified Ajax hull should be a relatively simple operation once the turret ring is the correct size. One further alteration I would recommend would be for the new Turret to be fitted with two or more ATGW of the same type selected for the Ajax for many of the same reasons. To equip all four Armoured Infantry Battalions and provide a number to BAATUS and provide a reserve pool, the approximately three Hundred surplus Ajax hull is more than sufficient and will give the British Army and new IFV full integrated into the digital age.

So that is the Ajax and the Boxer sorted out, net I need to resolve the remained issues with the planned new equipment for the British Army and look at filling some of its remaining capability gaps

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by RunningStrong »

The Turret is the main part of the WCIP and its installation into a modified Ajax hull should be a relatively simple operation once the turret ring is the correct size
Ignorance is bliss, eh?

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Not really. As stated the turret ring on the Ajax is larger than is usual for a vehicle of its type as the need to be able to fit a large calibre gun of between 105mm and 120mm was part of the original requirement. Altering the design and manufacturing the IFV variant with a standard diameter turret ring would not be a major issue as t would be returning the dimensions to the original specification of the ASCOD 2

The turret on the WCIP is a self contained unit not reliant on being married to he Warrior hull. Yes it gets some data inputs for said hull but these could be provided by a modified Ajax hull. Of course we could use alternative turrets and even large RWS for an IFV variant, but the fact that we have paid for the development of the Warrior Turret and it uses the CTA 40mm means it should seriously considered. The existing Ajax Turret is too large, especially the space it takes up in the hull, and would reduce the number of dismounts to a maximum of four.

When I say relatively simple I am not meaning you can simply drop the turret into the hull after reducing the turret ring, but the work required would not be a major problem or too expensive and would give the British Army a new, dully digital and capable IFV that would last for decades.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: When I say relatively simple I am not meaning you can simply drop the turret into the hull after reducing the turret ring, but the work required would not be a major problem or too expensive and would give the British Army a new, dully digital and capable IFV that would last for decades.
You assume too much.

The whole point of AJAX is that you have a fully networked platform that allows the transition of information between crewstations, weapon systems, ISTAR equipment and C4I.

All of which are spread across both turret and hull. All of which are significantly different in their requirements or their application to WCSP (as they are intended to fulfill different roles).

It would be a complete waste of time to re-use the warrior turrets because they have not been designed in anyway to interface with the AJAX sub-systems.

So you could go for a simple, power and analogue only interface, but then why even bother having a manned turret at all?

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by mr.fred »

RunningStrong wrote:It would be a complete waste of time to re-use the warrior turrets because they have not been designed in anyway to interface with the AJAX sub-systems.
One would hope that they were Def Stan 23-09 compliant and could interface.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:It would be a complete waste of time
I disagree. You would be building the IFV based on the Ajax from the ground up. It would be better to look upon it as an ASCOD 3 with the turret from the WCIP and the hull of the Ajax with its improved drive train etc. It would be a simpler platform as the majority of the digital upgrades would be in the turret not spread around the whole vehicle. I am not suggesting taking a Ajax already build, modify the turret ring, install the Warrior turret and try to squeeze in six dismounts. The whole point of my proposal is that if we moved the Ajax family to the Armoured Infantry Brigades we do not need nearly three hundred of the platforms under contract. Rather then cancel them and the problems this ensues, why not convert them to an IFV off the production line to replace the Warrior. There are problems with the legacy Warrior hulls as has been documented and so to avoid a possible "Nimrod wings won't fit", situation why not start with a clean sheet.

The possible future I am suggesting reduces the Army's AFV fleet to basically three main platforms with a small number additional platform like the Terrier as well. Any Ajax based IFV will also have a substantially longer service life than a reworked Warrior, and the platform has substantial growth potential built into it again unlike warrior. We have not yet signed the production contract for the Warrior but we have for Ajax. I am pretty sure if asked GD could produce an Ajax IFV using the work done on Ajax and on their submission of the US Army's optionally manned vehicle programme to have a working demonstrator/prototype up and running by the end of 2020 and could assemble the vehicles as the same location as Ajax with little difficulty.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:It would be a complete waste of time to re-use the warrior turrets because they have not been designed in anyway to interface with the AJAX sub-systems.
One would hope that they were Def Stan 23-09 compliant and could interface.
You've completely misinterpreted the standard. It's not to ensure you can just rip apart systems and play Frankenstein, it's so that you have clearly defined interfaces to allow expansion and substitution. But you'd know that if you worked in system design and integration.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: - You would be building the IFV based on the Ajax from the ground up.

- I am not suggesting taking a Ajax already build, modify the turret ring, install the Warrior turret and try to squeeze in six dismounts.

- Rather then cancel them and the problems this ensues why not convert them to an IFV off the production line to replace the Warrior.
You would effectively be cancelling the AJAX project as your intentions would require stoping the now rolling AJAX production line whilst starting a whole new design. How would that be any help to the existing manufacturing capability that has been built up?

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the hulls are manufactured in Spain and shipped to the UK to allow assembly, so the UK line would not shut down and yes there would be a adjustment in the Spanish line as they altered the turret ring back to hat of he existing ASCOD 2 standard, but it is going to take the UK line quite a while to deliver the necessary 280 odd Ajax variants for the two Regiments and Recce sections, so they have that time to make the adjustments. Yes there will have to be trials etc. but the ones carried out on both Ajax and Warrior CIP were excessively long as they programmes basically were treading water.

All I am suggesting is a way to get the most out of the roughly 600 Ajax we are contracted to buy. We do not need four Recce Regiments, and even then we need additional variants to make the formations viable. They have no place in a Mechanised Brigade that is supposed to able to self deploy over long distances. We haven't the METs or HETs to move them those distances and anyway most of these are going to be needed to move the follow up heavy Brigades. There use as medium tanks, due to their weigh t class is a joke. Given the organisation of Russian Recce formations they would be up against MBTs in any conflict and have no weapon except a few dismounted Javelin teams to deal wit them. They has little or no Air Defence, and so have no means of neutralising enemy UAVs or helicopters beside play at being a large bush!

As part of a Armoured Infantry Brigade they make far more sense but with us only having two of these we do not need the four Regiments plus additional vehicles. And so we are left with the fact we are still under contract to buy nearly 300 Ajax variants we do not need in this scenario. I am sure the manufactures would be far happier selling us 300 odd ASCOD 3s based on the Ajax and their submission to the US Army's Optionally Manned Vehicle Programme than getting involved with rejigging to contract and their supply chain to build only half what they thought they would.

In addition LM are happy as they still get to sell the Army the turret they developed for the Warrior, which is where the bulk of the WCIP contact value is, and even get more cash as we ask them to add an ATGW to some or all of the turrets. But then again this is just a theoretical scenario of one way to move things forward and provide the British Army with effective platforms and a far more viable force structure compared to the fag packet effort we have now.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I felt a need to comment (and top up the coffee!) before the second major piece:
Lord Jim wrote:This leave the Brigades with only three combat units plus, at least for the moment an Artillery Regiment equipped worth AS-90 155mm Guns.
- yes, call them battle groups. With a third of the tanks and some artillery (incl. some GMLRS?) in reserve
Lord Jim wrote:one cannot help but notice that these unending trails mask the fact that there is still no production contract for the Warrior upgrade, after almost a decade or development
- they do that, but the real 'thing' being tested is not the functionality, but whether the old hulls will save money... or squander it (over the life) in 'Nimrod-like' quantities
Lord Jim wrote: the Ajax will require a fleet of both Medium and Heavy Equipment Transporters, and there are insufficient number of these to move both Ajax units and any other tracked platforms like artillery in one trip
- yes, a big constraint, but talking about Ajax (in isolation), a HET will take two
Lord Jim wrote:Moving on the Brigade has no Combat Engineering capability except that provided by the limited number of dismounted engineers
... Theatre Troops Command was just named something else; would that sort of specialty be parcelled out, just like the more specialised artillery is?
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 »

On the Combat Engineering front we need to develop a medium weight family of vehicles, to support the Mechanised Brigades when they deploy. the current heavy platforms based on the Challenger chassis are far too heavy to be readily deployed and lack intra theatre mobility to keep up. The Terrier Combat Engineering Tractor (CET) is lighter but again being tracked will have difficulty operating over the distances expected from the Boxer.

What is really needed are CET, Assault/Breaching and Bridging variants of the Boxer. However the German Truck borne Bridging system could be an alternative, as the MAN chassis used would be far cheaper and have the mobility to operate with the Boxer units. The system is rapid to deploy and can handle anything up to a Leopard 2A7 or Challenger 2. In a similar vein, an "Armoured JCB", could perform the CET role as long as it has the required speed ad range to self deploy, though it could go on the back of a MAN 8x8 instead. So only the Assault/Breaching vehicle able to clear mines and obstacles may have to be based on the Boxer, and even here some of the equipment purchased under UOR for Iraq and Afghanistan may suffice in the interim if ewe have retained it.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Anyhow, SkyNews have got hold of the latest stats and we seem to be a bde - with all possible extras thrown in, with it - short as 7000 below target is quoted, and
" the army has experienced the biggest fall in personnel in recent years, all three services are below-strength - the Royal Navy desperately needs to recruit more sailors to serve on the two new aircraft carriers".
- that's what happens when exercises are cancelled in order to pay for EP shortfalls... takes a real war to get deployed :?:
- while catching up with these pages I read that RN shore jobs are going 'to sea' and the RAF can simply throttle down their a/c deliveries - and as a bonus allow their training pipelines to catch up so that there is someone to operate the kit, once it arrives
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 »

One of the Army's other top priorities for the next decade is going to be the total overhaul of its precision fire capability. At present every systems in this category used by the Royal Artillery is outmatched by any peer opponent, be it the famous 105mm Light Gun or the Heavy tracked GMLRS.

The conflict in Ukraine has shown the importance of a number of capabilities. Range is probably the most obvious but the integrate of ISTAR assets to find targets in real time has been taken to a new level with these assets being devolved down to company level or even lower. This means almost any enemy unit at almost any given level can identify and prosecute an enemy target with overwhelming indirect fire rapidly and effectively. Any units can access artillery from mortars to large 240mm MLRS systems far faster then was possible only a few years ago. We are also evolving in this area but the British Army has chosen to concentrate its fire direction capability in specialise units which will be attached to formation as required, but will we have enough to match the Russian capability of doing so down to Company level?

Another key capability is the need for artillery systems to be able to "Shoot and scoot". With the increasing rapid ability of a peer opponent to locate and conduct counter-battery missions, Whilst towed artillery still has a role in lower intensity conflicts, at peer level they have become a very endangered species.

The next key capability is in the title, precision. With the exception of its GMLRS and limited number of Extractor Mk2 systems the British Army no precision artillery munitions. To this it lacks effective tube artillery rounds beyond High Explosive, Smoke and Illumination. No cargo rounds are in service capable of delivering submunition either dub or smart.

The British Army needs to rectify all of the above and some additional requirements as a matter of the greatest urgency or face its troops not being supported by its own Artillery and being vulnerable to that of the Enemy.

The MoD has begun to look at a replacement for the AS-90, that will provide the tube artillery support to both the Army's Armoured Infantry and new "Strike" Brigades. This puts additional requirements on any replacement, the main one being it must be able to self deploy over large distances, as must its support vehicles. This effectively removed any tracked system from the programme, and by default pointing the way to a wheeled, possibly truck based system

This same restriction also affects the Army's most effective system the GMLRS. Though still vulnerable and with its current munition becoming out ranged by that of possible peer opposition, it system still has a bright future though in a lighter form, namely that of the US design HIMARS. Yes this system has only half the rockets per platform of the legacy tracked platform, but it is also more mobile, requires less maintenance and can most importantly self deploy.

However the Army's programme to replace the AS-90 is both blessed and cursed. It is blessed because there are a multitude of new 155mm artillery systems available out there to choose form. It is cursed because the majority of these offer little range advantage over the AS-90. But there is hope if the Army is will to wait for a number of years. The US Army is spending huge amounts of resources to increase the range and effectiveness of its artillery, from Self Propelled Guns with a range of 100km with precision munitions to a strategic Artillery gun with a range of nearly 1000km. IT is developing new munition s for its GMLRS and HIMAS with greatly increase ranges of over 500km, as well as looking to adapt the SDB family to be fired form the standard six round module. This, with a range of over 140km and a variety of guidance systems and warheads available should off a substantial capability increase that is cost effective.

The Army has a large number of equipment programmes all seeming to need funding now. With Artillery, though there is a need to increase its capability in this area, waiting a few years might actually help the situation both with this category and across the whole equipment programme. In the mean time attention maybe should be focused on the fire support allocated to the Country's light forces, namely 3 Commando and 14 Air Assault Brigades. The 105mm Light Gun is no longer up to the task and the Infantry battalions need a system heavier that the 81mm Mortar to provide their integral artillery. The latter should be retained for certain operations, but a replacement programme should be started now, looking at every thing from larger mortars, light weight 155mm guns and even Unmanned Ground Vehicles capable of being transported inside a Chinook and able to carry both weapons and ammunition. But the re equipment of these two formations is another post.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

https://www.janes.com/article/93827/pol ... e-vehicles
The Army should keep an eye on how these perform during Defender Europe 2020. Maybe a limited quantity together with their trailers would be of use to the Paras. We should also have a very close look at the US Army's Mule UGV for the Paras as well, especially if it will fit inside a Chinook.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:https://www.janes.com/article/93827/pol ... e-vehicles
The Army should keep an eye on how these perform during Defender Europe 2020. Maybe a limited quantity together with their trailers would be of use to the Paras. We should also have a very close look at the US Army's Mule UGV for the Paras as well, especially if it will fit inside a Chinook.
When do the paras airdrop? :lol: :crazy:

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Well the RAF still practice doing so, though I have seen some interesting videos of them losing a number of Land Rovers through equipment failures.. Saying that I am a proponent of reorganising 16 Air Assault into a formation more like a US Army Ranger Regiment, still retaining the SF support role, but looking at reinforcing the Paras Airborne capability and so on.

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:reorganising 16 Air Assault into a formation more like a US Army Ranger Regiment, still retaining the SF support role, but looking at reinforcing the Paras Airborne capability and so
Lot's of terms, but how would that (and everything else) look as for

- airborne
- air-landed, and
- air assault?

To take some parallels:
US has an airborne division which is half the size of their (dedicated) air assault division
and
Russia's 'airborne' formations, once you drill into them, are one third airborne and 2/3s air-landed (with kit suited for that to get done in one fell swoop, rather than in drips and 'drops' to a prepared runway
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)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by jimthelad »

Russian airborne units (they have 2 constituted currently) are divisional sized airmobile units. The key is in the term airmobile. The ORBAT is set up to deliver shock units in Btn size to seize and hold a dropzone and exploit a breakthrough with air-dropable armour. The initial units use light vehicles and artillery to effect the hold down phase and allow support from what was frontal aviation. Ideally these would still be under the cover from their FLOT long range artillery such as Frog series weapons). Their BMD series vehicles are very good but they take about 15-20 mins to unload and prepare on landing, this is not something that is easy to do under fire. The UK units use landrovers which can be deployed in under 90s from arriving at the drop pallet and the Russian initial landing units use similar.

Often Soviet doctrine called for Spetsnaz deep penetration units to provide diversionary attack or assist in drop zone security. I think this is now the Little Green Man approach as seen in the Crimea and Ukraine so i would assume this is still their doctrine.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Lord Jim »

Russian has developed a new series of air droppable platforms for the newer and heavier AFVs that are now equipping their Airborne forces. They are also dropping the vehicles with the crew inside to they can literally drive off the platform once landed.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by jimthelad »

Well the crews are either retarded in the metaphorical sense or have blind faith in their gear!!! If they are in the cabs then who unstraps the mountings under fire.Also no Airedale would allow engine start up in the plane. I saw the YouTube video last year and thought it was a tad staged. No western unit would ever do this due to high fail rate of chutes. A Lapes tray was trialled with the Sheridan and a crew at 30ft and 130kt IAS from a herky bird in the US but the crew all had whiplash.

Post Reply