Army 2020 Refine

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

Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

Army 2020 Refine is the restructuring the Army will face to deliver the SDSR 2015's idea of a Land Force focused on one-shot Division level war operations, with one division HQ, 3 brigades (up to 2 armoured and 1 strike) plus divisional supports (including some extra infantry battlegroups for rear area protection etcetera).
We know very little still about the plan, but the other day general Carter has spoken to the defence committee and some things began to emerge, including:

- Indicative Strike Brigade structure: two cavalry regiments on Ajax (armoured brigades to lose their cavalry element as a consequence, almost certainly, as there are not enough vehicles to do otherwise) and "probably" two infantry on MIV.

- Ajax will be the "medium armour" element of the Strike Brigades. So, more fighting than recce. That's a shame, after spending all this time developing it exactly for recce and cancelling the actual FRES Medium Armour element which was once supposed to deliver a combat vehicle with a 120mm gun...

- Backpedaling on Reserves. Not realistic to depend on them "routinely", return to a more "war reinforcement"-like concept, at least in most roles (medical units, as we all know, are a special case).

- A new force generation cycle on 4 years rather than 3, with one Armoured and one Strike brigade at readiness any one time. How it is supposed to work, i sincerely can't quite imagine.

- 2 to 5 infantry battalions will be gutted to recoup manpower to reinforce units needed for the deployable brigades / division. These battalions will drop from 561 personnel, all-ranks, all-trades (Army 2020 light role infantry battalions) to "around 300", and will be tasked for "defence engagement" and training abroad. They will have "more officers, more NCOs, more linguists, more specialists" to carry out the role. We'll see: the real point, and Carter himself made it quite clear, is that they need more manpower elsewhere, but they are not allowed to disband battalions whole due to goddamned capbadges, so another fudge had to be invented...


Here the post i've written a few days ago about the hearing and the emerging situation, with a few additional comments and observations: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... tions.html
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by LordJim »

If have also heard this called Army 2025

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

The correct name is "Army 2020 Refine". That's how the army calls 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
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by whitelancer »

I think the formation of specialist defence engagement units is a very good idea. Expecting normal units to take on the task with little or no special training is unlikely to produce the best results. However where will the "Defence Engagement Battalions" obtain all the Officers and NCOs they require to carry out their tasks? They will need to obtain the normal training and experience obtained from being in a normal unit. Their will also be a requirement for some to have specialist knowledge in particular areas, for instance logistics , signals, combat engineering etc.
It will be interesting to see how these units are organised and manned!

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I think something was lost in the translation re "Strike Bdes".

Here's the American idea for them (and streamlining manpower for more effect, more broadly):
http://douglasmacgregor.com/SenatorCotton.pdf
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)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by LordJim »

The Army has lost the plot with its reorganisation. It knows it needs to do so but simply has not the funding to do what is needed so is playing musical chairs with what it has to give an appearance of modernising. Beside the high readiness light brigades I wouldn't be surprised if we struggle to deploy a reinforced Heavy/medium brigade if the balloon goes up, stripping both Armoured and both Strike brigades to get sufficient serviceable equipment and manpower.

Would it be better to have three permanent Brigade HQs and one Divisional HQ and then a pool of units to draw on as and when needed? for example;
2x Armoured Regiments. (Challenger 2)
2x Armoured Cavalry Regiments. (Ajax)
4x Armoured Infantry Regiments. (Warrior)
4x Mechanised Infantry Regiments. (MIV)
4 Airmobile Infantry Regiments.
2x Light Cavalry Regiments. (Jackal/Foxhound)
1x Heavy Artillery Regiment. (AS90/GMLRS)
2x Light Artillery Regiment. (M777)
2x AAC Regiments. (AH-64E/Wildcat)
1x AD Artillery Regiment. (CAMM)
1x Armoured Engineering Regiment.
2x Light Engineer Regiments.
2x ISTAR Regiments.
2x Signals Regiments
etc.

The only way I can see the Army getting the kit it desperately needs is for it to shrink further, with the reinforced Brigade being the maximum deployable formation together with one of the two light brigades be it the Airmobile or Marines. The more usual deployment would be a battlegroup sized at a reinforced Regiment level. We would still be able to provide a high level HQ for a multinational formation including UK assets especially in a NATO context.

Something has to give as the current plan is all smoke and mirrors, and will bite us on the ass if put to a real test. The Army top brass need to man up and tell the powers that be that the current situation is a non starter. They also need to explain that current equipment procurement programmes are not going to deliver what the Army actually needs. Money is short so it has to spent on priority items and not on programmes that are continuing more to save face and provide positive spin for public consumption. The Army need the originally planned variants of the Ajax family reinstating within the current contracted numbers so reducing the numbers of CTA40 equipped vehicles. The MIV must also be procured in the variants actually needed for balanced units. The Army's new CAMM systems need to be on something other than a Lorry and most importantly all of the above plus the Warrior upgrade and Challenger 2 LEP (If we have to) must be delivered faster. If number have to be reduced to make it affordable so be it. A smaller Army that is properly equipped is much more preferable to a paper mash up (being polite) the current plans will deliver no matter how positively it is spun.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Frenchie »

You are right LordJim, but It seems to me that it is not money that you miss, it is a guideline, because the share of GDP that the United Kingdom attribute to the Ministry of Defence is more important than that of France. This story of FRES, UV or SV, MIV, MRV-P has no sense. Nobody seems to know what will be the missions of the British Army and what will be the armaments programs that correspond to the missions. It's very strange.
I do not make comparisons because we have equipment out of age, which we should have replaced ten years ago.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

given army 2020 is being over taken by events and it looks like heavy armour is now back in vogue again I would suggest abandon the aid to civilian power shit and concentrate on high end war fighting and pass that type of mission to where it belongs OXFAM and the Department for overseas development.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:I would suggest abandon the aid to civilian power shit and concentrate on high end war fighting
I think that the Army should remain expert in certain aspects of "aid to civilian power shit" as part of their key expertise. Things like "delivering large quantities of supplies over broken infrastructure to a displaced (or transient) population"
"delivering medical care in austere conditions to large numbers of injured persons"
"maintaining security for itself and others amongst potentially hostile civilian populations"
"repairing, constructing and otherwise providing infrastructure in support of its mission"

And that make sure that OXFAM, the Foreign office &c are
a) aware of this expertise
b) charged for it when it is used to support their jollies

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

yes they can move large ammounts of supplies over broken infrastructure to transient groups.....Its called resupplying battle groups
Delivering medical care to injured people in austere condition yes again delivering medical care roles 1-3 to battlegroups
Yeap delvering protection to support units of battle groups
Yeap delivering engineering support to battlegroups

yes that capability can step down to supporting civil power when it isn't needed for supporting high end war fighting excellent. And yes the likes of OXFAM and the DFID & FCO should have to pay to use army resources. But there shouldn't be units dedicated to it until the warfighting capability is rebuilt.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:But there shouldn't be units dedicated to it until the warfighting capability is rebuilt.
What, no logistics and support units? They are part of the *shudders* "war fighting" capability.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

war fighting takes logistics support and as tellic showed we were better at it than the americans having to lend them the bulk of our transport as they outshot their logistic chain. But what logistics we have should be supporting our troops not entire units dedicated to civilian support

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:war fighting takes logistics support and as tellic showed we were better at it than the americans having to lend them the bulk of our transport as they outshot their logistic chain. But what logistics we have should be supporting our troops not entire units dedicated to civilian support
What logistics we have should be able to do either or both as required. To completely eschew the civilian aid aspect would be harmful for two reasons:
1) It would encourage the other agencies to develop their own capability and deny the army the funding stream
2) dealing with civilians (displaced or otherwise) is very likely to be part of modern conflict, even if it's just to get them out of your way or to make sure that they are not a good place to hide hostile spotting teams.

FuNsTeR
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 19 Jun 2015, 21:44

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by FuNsTeR »

this constant restructuring of the army has to stop the army needs time to stabilise, these constant changes effects moral on the long run

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by LordJim »

Well civilian support is an ideal role for the TA Logistics Regiments. Its a bit like the floods in Africa a while ago where the RAF was asked to provide helicopters for relief work by another agency. When said agency was asked to agree to actually pay the running costs they threw a wobbly and when to the press all guns blazing. It is fine to support agencies but they must contribute to the cost of day to day running, equipment and for operations. So use some of the £14Bn aid budget to equip 2 TA Logistics Regiments and make them available when needed, otherwise they support UK units in home defence.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by mr.fred »

LordJim wrote:Well civilian support is an ideal role for the TA Logistics Regiments.
I would say that logistics support is an ideal role for all logistics regiments. Why does it matter for whom the supplies are intended?
LordJim wrote:Its a bit like the floods in Africa a while ago where the RAF was asked to provide helicopters for relief work by another agency. When said agency was asked to agree to actually pay the running costs they threw a wobbly and when to the press all guns blazing. It is fine to support agencies but they must contribute to the cost of day to day running, equipment and for operations. So use some of the £14Bn aid budget to equip 2 TA Logistics Regiments and make them available when needed, otherwise they support UK units in home defence.
Depending on the agencies in question, they'd probably have a tantrum in that scenario as well. It would be preferable all around to have the entire pool of logistics, engineering and security support available at some kind of knock-down rate (and a little political support) and the consequences of not taking the UK package spelled out quite clearly*. If nothing else, it would save you a bit on training budgets if you could make the deployments to the safe areas regular enough.

*something like, if you try to cheapskate your way through the mission with local lowest bidder, you may find your insurance isn't valid and you'll be liable for corporate manslaughter if it costs you any people.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by LordJim »

Going by that the last two Governments are liable for Corporate Manslaughter for the way the ran the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and the many avoidable casualties due to in adequate equipment and manpower levels! However that is for a different topic.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

LordJim wrote:Well civilian support is an ideal role for the TA Logistics Regiments. Its a bit like the floods in Africa a while ago where the RAF was asked to provide helicopters for relief work by another agency. When said agency was asked to agree to actually pay the running costs they threw a wobbly and when to the press all guns blazing. It is fine to support agencies but they must contribute to the cost of day to day running, equipment and for operations. So use some of the £14Bn aid budget to equip 2 TA Logistics Regiments and make them available when needed, otherwise they support UK units in home defence.
The Army reserve Logistics regiments are needed to reinforce the regular regiments for deployment. Thats how they are designed peacetime/mobilised establishments are quite different. Same in the medical services except the medical also provide more of the specialists than the regulars. And in the time frames needed to support aid operations you can't mobilise and train large numbers of reservists up to the required standard.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: The Army reserve Logistics regiments are needed to reinforce the regular regiments for deployment. Thats how they are designed peacetime/mobilised establishments are quite different.
You mean they merge, even though peacetime unit numbers are "independent"?
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)

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Frenchie »

I have a little difficulty to follow the logic of these choices.
Choose a 38 tonnes vehicle to do recce missions while the Scimitar weighs 30 tonnes less.
Do not create a real armoured division.
Make a battalion of wheeled vehicles in an armoured brigade. Yes, France too but it's a mistake.
Want to make two brigades quickly deployable with very heavy vehicles.
It's a bit confusing.
I don't want to give lessons, I don't have the military knowledge, but these are choices that are not in the military tradition of the British Army.
I'm sorry if I shock people on this forum, but I'm worried about the MoD choices.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

the MoD & the army are making some shocking choices and hiding the full extent because the public understand very little about defence and are even less interested in it and ministers and the treasury are well aware of this.

Try asking an MP a few basic questions about the army, navy or RAF I suggest they couldn't answer them. I would suggest mine would as he's a former Army officer and involved with the defence comittee.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Frenchie »

I think that the MoD makes these choices for the public.
The MoD chooses heavy vehicles to reassure the public, because of the war in Afghanistan where the British Army had many dead.
And then there is a question of money, if the MoD chooses heavy vehicles they will be necessarily expensive.
This has the consequence of having fewer vehicles, then a smaller army.
For example, if the MoD chooses the German Fennek as a recce vehicle, there is more money to equip armoured infantry battalions and create an armoured division and a more suitable material for the Strike Brigades.

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

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Gabriele »

That infamous bastard of the Chief of Staff wants to be really, really sure that the Army loses MBTs and his successor can't stop the madness. King's Royal Hussars will be in the first Strike Brigade. As an Ajax regiment.
Congratulations, UK: you are officially headed to be the top-tier NATO country wilth less tanks and tank formations.

The Army will not gain a brigade, it loses one: 32 Royal Artillery, 35 Royal Engineers, 2 medical, 33 field hospital will, in fact, be "rationalized". There won't be anymore the support units to support a 5 in 1 rotation of brigades abroad for an enduring operation.

This whole affair is even worse than expected.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by Spinflight »

I think what we are seeing is actually a sort of deliberate vandalism. Hoping to generate news stories highlighting how short of cash the armed services are. Sounds bonkers but it's the only way I can rationalise the decisions being made.

It certainly worked with the RN losing ASMs but doubt it will with the Army.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Army 2020 Refine

Post by marktigger »

gabriele can you tell me the establishment of 33 field hospital or 22 field hospital or 34?

They are "Nameplate" units they hold one of the field hospital sets the British army has (like to guess how many of them there are?) and a cadre of staff.

Post Reply