General UK Defence Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

modern personal weapons, if you can call it that. [backed by] The proliferation of precision and technology

True, but sometimes one will need to counter-attack and mere 8x8s and personal weapons won't cut it.

Going into the ships discussion: we look East and it is 'one front'. Russian perspective is different. They have two operational fronts, facing NATO: Northwest and West. The former is very much maritime and stretching from Kaliningrad to Murmansk. The nature of this one is evidenced by the fact that it got (as part of it) a new, 5th, unified command where the lead is with the Northern Navy.
- that's NATO
- the presidents adventures have meant that the force groups in Caucasus and now also in UKraine have a direct line of command (as has the VDV, which we have seen try to attempt 'one bridge too far' ops to prove its worth and thus the special status

So, as for ships, we should stick to the plans (and while doing that, build up capacity).
Moving to boats, we should step on the gas as much as is feasible. We cannot have same type of gaps as with T & A-boats, in the SSN transition.
Amphibs are coming early in the queue, but here (as has been oft noted) the whole operational concept is changing... so we should bridge the gap - much quicker - with both Albions in use and one Bay made more suitable for rotary aviation. To support one or the other Albion, or all three acting as a task group - backed up by a carrier 'from afar'.

[ArmChairCivvy]

with both Albions in use and one Bay made more suitable for rotary aviation.

Someone proposed exactly this on the "News Only' thread, so would accredit... but the working memory is full and the poster's call sign slips my memory

[SW1]

modern personal weapons, if you can call it that. [backed by] The proliferation of precision and technology

True, but sometimes one will need to counter-attack and mere 8x8s and personal weapons won't cut it.

Going into the ships discussion: we look East and it is 'one front'. Russian perspective is different. They have two operational fronts, facing NATO: Northwest and West. The former is very much maritime and stretching from Kaliningrad to Murmansk. The nature of this one is evidenced by the fact that it got (as part of it) a new, 5th, unified command where the lead is with the Northern Navy.
- that's NATO
- the presidents adventures have meant that the force groups in Caucasus and now also in UKraine have a direct line of command (as has the VDV, which we have seen try to attempt 'one bridge too far' ops to prove its worth and thus the special status

So, as for ships, we should stick to the plans (and while doing that, build up capacity).
Moving to boats, we should step on the gas as much as is feasible. We cannot have same type of gaps as with T & A-boats, in the SSN transition.
Amphibs are coming early in the queue, but here (as has been oft noted) the whole operational concept is changing... so we should bridge the gap - much quicker - with both Albions in use and one Bay made more suitable for rotary aviation. To support one or the other Albion, or all three acting as a task group - backed up by a carrier 'from afar'.

Maybe maybe not, wonder if counter attacks against a similarly equipped opposition may change too as a result.

I do wonder if this is how they lance the Ajax boil.

SSN/r should be the navy’s priority.

I think the RM have got there path right of small unit tactics.

[SW1]

seems to point in the right direction at a high level then cut the things that would make it possible

The 'what' and the 'how'
... takes skill to connect them

In the corporate world, consultants are called in.
- here... it is just the Group Think that carries on (btw. Putin has been captured by his self-selected 'group' and his self-selected library that he has been spending time in 'splendid isolation'). An extreme example; with BAD consequences

AND, PS:
I, too, like Hemeingway and Jules Verne. But don't model myself as the 'lone hero' for the Day Job (emoji here)

A talk on a future concept of fighting from several years ago, it maybe closer to what we’re seeing today in Ukraine that we could of believed back then, maybe this is where we need to go.

https://cove.army.gov.au/article/uk-con ... -land-2035

[Lord Jim]

I think a reasonably equipped modern 8x8 does cut it for offensive operation together with MBTs in a Peer level conflict. There is little to distinguish the capabilities of Tracked and wheeled IFVs these days. Both have advantages over the other, though when it comes to funding wheels win every time. The Finns for example have been operating their 6x6 across the difficult terrain in their country for decades with few problems, and Boxer is far better cross country than those vehicles. Protection is now equal with only the latest much bigger and more expensive IFVs exceeding that of Boxer.

Tactical mobility including that on roads goes to Boxer, and in long distance mobility, tracked IFVs do not even get a look in. WE have already discussed how many HETS the Army would need to mover an Armoured Infantry Brigade, both to the Points and then form them to the area of operations. Even then additional HETs would be needed, otherwise deploying any further units would need to wait for the HETs overseas to return. This is relevant whether you are moving kit to Europe of further afield.

If new money/funding, is provided to field tracked IFVs and their larger support requirements including additional HETs, then fine, but if funding remains tight, doubling down on Boxer is the way to go. Fielding Tracked IFVs means also buying the support versions of the same platform, be it the Command, Mortar or Recovery version. the alternative would be to use Boxer variants as the FV430 series is basically done. As a long shot I suppose we could buy whatever the Australian Army chooses and have them built there.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a reasonably equipped modern 8x8 does cut it for offensive operation together with MBTs

The Finns for example have been operating their 6x6 across the difficult terrain in their country for decades with few problems, and Boxer is far better cross country than those vehicles.

Those 6x6 are for bns that are part of bigger formations (with arty, tanks... whatever goes with a bde) . The BGs that are meant for flanking, thru terrain with not many roads are on tracks.

WE have already discussed how many HETS the Army would need

What did we conclude? I seem to remember that the contract is up for renewal this year... the right answer will be revealed

[wargame_insomniac]

I think a reasonably equipped modern 8x8 does cut it for offensive operation together with MBTs in a Peer level conflict. There is little to distinguish the capabilities of Tracked and wheeled IFVs these days. Both have advantages over the other, though when it comes to funding wheels win every time. The Finns for example have been operating their 6x6 across the difficult terrain in their country for decades with few problems, and Boxer is far better cross country than those vehicles. Protection is now equal with only the latest much bigger and more expensive IFVs exceeding that of Boxer.

Tactical mobility including that on roads goes to Boxer, and in long distance mobility, tracked IFVs do not even get a look in. WE have already discussed how many HETS the Army would need to mover an Armoured Infantry Brigade, both to the Points and then form them to the area of operations. Even then additional HETs would be needed, otherwise deploying any further units would need to wait for the HETs overseas to return. This is relevant whether you are moving kit to Europe of further afield.

If new money/funding, is provided to field tracked IFVs and their larger support requirements including additional HETs, then fine, but if funding remains tight, doubling down on Boxer is the way to go. Fielding Tracked IFVs means also buying the support versions of the same platform, be it the Command, Mortar or Recovery version. the alternative would be to use Boxer variants as the FV430 series is basically done. As a long shot I suppose we could buy whatever the Australian Army chooses and have them built there.

I personally feel that Mechanised Infantry need different equipment than Motorised Infantry. For the former, where the Armoured Divisions / Brigades have a mix of Challenger 2 supported by Warrior. For these heavier formations I wish that British Army went for tracked IFV.

For the latter, for medium Motorised Infantry, then strategic and tactical mobility is more important and I feel that wheeled APC / IFV are ideal.

I have noted before that the likes of US Army, Australia, German and Scandinavian forces have gone for a similar split. Both Germany and Australia even use the Boxer whilst US have Stryker for their medium motorised infantry.

For British Army, I have said before that Armoured Division / BCT should be advance deployed to either Germany or Poland or Estonia. Then Motorised Infantry Division / BCT could be UK based and if they are requited to reinforce the former, then Wheeled Boxer would be ideal for aforementioned strategic / tactical mobility - the Boxer are light enough to be shipped via rail or even driven or airlifted to their destination. .

The same would apply if these medium Motorised Infantry Division / BCT need to be deployed to Cyprus / Oman / further afield, then they are light enough to be airlifted.

[Lord Jim]

I personally would prefer to see the Army invest in three Heavy BCTs each with one Type 44 Armoured Regiment and three Mechanised Infantry Battalions with a mix of Boxer IFV and APC as the Infantry Carrying Vehicle, plus further support variants. I would give the Armoured Regiment an enlarged Reece Squadron with four Troops and an HQ rather than a complete Regiment. A Regiment of the Royal Artillery equipped with a wheeled 155mm Self Propelled Guns would compete the BCTs teeth. Each BCT would be rounded of by Engineering, Signals and Logistics' Regiments.

Together with the Recce, Deep Fires BCTs these three would form the often talked about "Division", but more likely the three Regiments would work to a three tier readiness cycles so that one was always available at high readiness and be able to deploy to Poland say in a few days rather then the current weeks.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Together with the Recce, Deep Fires BCTs these three would form the often talked about "Division"

We can do that today, except that
- MRAPS would have to role-play for Boxer (so those bns would be more like mobile reserves)
- and the recce element is also kitted out with outdated err kit

The DAG of course will not have any guns... just rockets. Artillery (proper) can only 'play' at the BG level

[Lord Jim]

Yep that is where I am coming from. So for teeth of 3rd (UK) Division we would eventually need by 2030 at the latest

3 Armoured Regiments (Challenger 3) with increased integral Recce (Ajax).
2 Recce/Cavalry Regiments (Ajax variants).
9 Mechanised Infantry Battalion's (Boxer variants).
3 Royal Artillery Regiments (MAN/Archer poss.)
2 Royal Artillery Regiments (HIMARS).
1 Royal Artillery Regiment (Watchkeeper).
1 Royal Artillery Regiment (SAMP-T poss.).
1 Royal Artillery Regiment (Sky Sabre).
1 Royal Artillery Regiment (SP Starstreak).

[SW1]

[Scimitar54]

I can see the Union Flag, but where does the “Stars and Stripes” come into a UK Brigade HQ ?

[Lord Jim]

Isn't it located on a US Army base near Stuttgart?

[Scimitar54]

Looks like a joint HQ to me then, otherwise why the Flag ?

[SW1]

A brave new world from the bbc

“Nato's chief Jens Stoltenberg has just been speaking at a press conference, where he said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has created a "new security reality" in Europe.

He says Nato's military position must be ready for this new reality.

Tomorrow Nato leaders will start to discuss concrete measures to reinforce security in the longer term, Stoltenberg says.

On land, these measures could include "substantially more forces" in the eastern part of the alliance, he says, at a higher state of readiness.

We will also consider "major increases" to our naval and air deployments, strengthening missile and air defences and also increasing cyber defences, he says.

Stoltenberg points out that beefing up defences in the alliance will require new money, and he has welcomed moves by Germany and other Nato allies in this direction.”

[inch]

Wondering if mini spring statement on the 23rd treasury will increase defence budget ,for something to take to the NATO summit on the 24th in Brussels and show biden who is attending ,and Boris saying look uk increasing budget also not just European countries and especially the headline Germany ,who biden will be buddying upto the Germans as biggest defence spender in NATO after USA going forward

[Lord Jim]

Or they will do a smoke and mirror ploy and drag other spending streams in the Defence budget so they can show that our percentage of GDP has risen whilst they talk about all the new and improved capabilities we will be gaining from existing programme, not mentioning the decade long gap to obtain them nor the reduced capacity.

[SW1]

As they didn’t publish the defence planning assumptions(for what there worth) at the last review it’s hard to judge what new requirements they need to take on against what the force structure can support.

[SW1]

Nato is to substantially increase the number of troops in the eastern part of the alliance and have them at higher readiness, more combat air and increased missile defence systems and well as continuous presence of submarines and carrier strike groups in the nato area.

[SW1]

Sky sabre deploying to Poland at there request

[Phil Sayers]

A couple of US Patriot batteries were also moved there. Precursor to Poland transferring their Soviet era SAMs to Ukraine? According to Wikipedia they have 30 SA-6 launchers and 64 SA-8 launchers so plenty available that could go across the border.

[wargame_insomniac]

A couple of US Patriot batteries were also moved there. Precursor to Poland transferring their Soviet era SAMs to Ukraine? According to Wikipedia they have 30 SA-6 launchers and 64 SA-8 launchers so plenty available that could go across the border.

Just so long as they do it more quietly and more subtly than the aborted transfer of MIG fighters!! More SAM's that the Ukranian army are both trained in and experienced with using can only be good news for preventing the numerically stronger Russian Air Force gettting belated air superiority - I am so glad that it has taken them so long to yet do so.

And these SAM systems appear to have had the added bonus of forcing Russian jets to keep lower and thus vulnerable to the ever increasing quantity and variety of MANPADS such as Stinger.

[wargame_insomniac]

Sky sabre deploying to Poland at there request

I hope this is the start of many such deployments of Sky Sabre - have seen a couple of articles / YouTube videos on this deployment already. I hope the good publicity ncourages the MOD to purchase more units as and when the government allocates additional defence spending.

We should have such units wherever UK Armed Force is deployed overseas, whether permanent bases such as Falklands and RAF Akrotiri, but also providing mobile cover when we deploy troops to e.g. Estonia and Poland as part of the current NATO reinfrcements.

We could also do with some providing immediate air cover to crucial UK bases, although we would need a longer ranged air defence system to have proper National coverage. But the more layers of air defence we can add the better.

[SW1]

Sky sabre deploying to Poland at there request

I hope this is the start of many such deployments of Sky Sabre - have seen a couple of articles / YouTube videos on this deployment already. I hope the good publicity ncourages the MOD to purchase more units as and when the government allocates additional defence spending.

We should have such units wherever UK Armed Force is deployed overseas, whether permanent bases such as Falklands and RAF Akrotiri, but also providing mobile cover when we deploy troops to e.g. Estonia and Poland as part of the current NATO reinfrcements.

We could also do with some providing immediate air cover to crucial UK bases, although we would need a longer ranged air defence system to have proper National coverage. But the more layers of air defence we can add the better.

I think they only ordered 4 batteries worth so with them still re-equipping/training, one in the Falklands and now one in Poland I don’t think they much left for anything else.

[wargame_insomniac]

Sky sabre deploying to Poland at there request

I hope this is the start of many such deployments of Sky Sabre - have seen a couple of articles / YouTube videos on this deployment already. I hope the good publicity ncourages the MOD to purchase more units as and when the government allocates additional defence spending.

We should have such units wherever UK Armed Force is deployed overseas, whether permanent bases such as Falklands and RAF Akrotiri, but also providing mobile cover when we deploy troops to e.g. Estonia and Poland as part of the current NATO reinfrcements.

We could also do with some providing immediate air cover to crucial UK bases, although we would need a longer ranged air defence system to have proper National coverage. But the more layers of air defence we can add the better.

I think they only ordered 4 batteries worth so with them still re-equipping/training, one in the Falklands and now one in Poland I don’t think they much left for anything else.

Yes - hence my comments about hoping that favourable press coverage persuading MOD to purchase more of these units, as they should be readily available to cover any significant deployment of British Armed Forces.

It is an additional cost but hopefully they are learning the lessons from Ukraine about combined arms and integrated operations, with armoured units having proper air defence. This is all predicated on the Government reacting by increasing Defence spending - not on fancy new technology that may / may not work in a decade's time but in field-tested working systems that are available to do a partical job now.