General UK Defence Discussion

[Tempest414]

With this being said the 1st Aviation brigade could look like this

2 x Troop & utility regts = AW-139m
2 x Attack regts = AH-64E
1 x UAV regt = Watchkeeper
1 x Logistics suppport group = REME , RLC , RE , RAMC

[SW1]

But what is it intending to support? And in what roles

Are the Paras staying as air assault or are they going airborne if so what are the helicopters moving. Or are they going toward a US rangers formation.

If Apache is being assigned to the strike brigades are they’re enough to support an airborne brigade.

Personally can’t see any budget to replace wildcat with aw139.

Would it better to get rid of watchkeeper and assign personnel to protector instead.

[ArmChairCivvy]

1 x UAV regt = Watchkeeper

Will that be their confirmed home? Started life in RA, JHF has been the caretaker for a while (like it was for army fixed-wing aviation, which planes did not stay long, but continued onward, to the RAF)

[Lord Jim]

Moving the Paras to a more Ranger like formation, where all three Battalions are trained to be part of the SFSG is a direction I would like to dee them go together with the UK based Gurkha Battalion forming 16XX Brigade. All four Battalions would be able to be deployed in multiple ways form Airborne Assault to Air Mobile to ground based operations using similar vehicles to the US Army Rangers.

To support them would be one Regiments AH-64E Apache Guardians in three Squadrons of six, with the AAC's second AH-64E Regiment available to be assigned to support operations by elements of either 1st (UK) Division or 3rd (UK) Division. In order to provide the integral vertical lift to the Brigade, two Regiments of AW149 Utility Helicopters comprised of three Squadrons of six aircraft, and combined being able to lift an entire Battalion in one lift and the majority of its support units including Royal Artillery 105mm Light Guns. Heavier lift would obviously be provided by the RAF's Chinooks.

The Wildcat AH1 Helicopters currently operated by the AAC would be transferred to the FAA and undergo modernisation to adapt them to life at sea. In addition it would be beneficial to allow them to install the weapons "Wing" as per the FAA existing Wildcats, though they would only be cleared to use the LMM initially, and not its heavier brother. The identification and purchase of a suitable gun pod for installation on the "Wing" either singularly or in pairs would also be useful. These could be anywhere for 7.62mm up to 30mm and would compensate for the platform not being able to install the door mounted M2 12.7mm HMG when the "Wing" is installed. Finally the ability to carry up to four Hellfire on twin launchers to supplement the LMM would seriously boost the platforms firepower. These Wildcats would be aims at supporting the force that results from the FCF programme as well as supplement the standard FAA Wildcats in anti-Surface operations.

[RichardIC]

The identification and purchase of a suitable gun pod for installation on the "Wing" either singularly or in pairs would also be useful. These could be anywhere for 7.62mm up to 30mm and would compensate for the platform not being able to install the door mounted M2 12.7mm HMG

Broadly agree on the Wildcat transfer to the FAA. But fixed forward facing gun pods on a helicopter are a bad idea. Having to fly directly at your target when you're relatively slow and low isn't a good plan. With 7.62 you're in deep trouble. The US did it in Vietnam, but they lost over 2,000 Hueys.

Keep out of site and out of range.

[Tempest414]

But what is it intending to support? And in what roles

Are the Paras staying as air assault or are they going airborne if so what are the helicopters moving. Or are they going toward a US rangers formation.

If Apache is being assigned to the strike brigades are they’re enough to support an airborne brigade.

Personally can’t see any budget to replace wildcat with aw139.

Would it better to get rid of watchkeeper and assign personnel to protector instead.

The Aviation brigade is spin in my book a way of the Army putting its flying stuff in one group so it will carry on operating and supporting as is.

16 AA i.e the Paras and Gurkha will also stay the same

3 regt currently support the 3rd division and 4 regt support 16 AA and the RM with one sqn the carrier deployable unit

Yes it is a big ask and I would be happy to keep Wildcat however we will still need some 50 AW-139m split between 3 regiments with the newly reformed 2 & 9 regiments and 5 regt each with 2 sqns

I to would like to see watchkeeper go but replaced by Scaneagle mounted on a Man 8x8 as to make it more able to deploy and keep up with the strike brigades

[SW1]

The Aviation brigade is spin in my book a way of the Army putting its flying stuff in one group so it will carry on operating and supporting as is.

16 AA i.e the Paras and Gurkha will also stay the same

3 regt currently support the 3rd division and 4 regt support 16 AA and the RM with one sqn the carrier deployable unit

Yes it is a big ask and I would be happy to keep Wildcat however we will still need some 50 AW-139m split between 3 regiments with the newly reformed 2 & 9 regiments and 5 regt each with 2 sqns

I to would like to see watchkeeper go but replaced by Scaneagle mounted on a Man 8x8 as to make it more able to deploy and keep up with the strike brigades

I was more wondering if they maybe be trending back toward the Cold War thinking of the 24 air mobile where by they’re role is to deploy and form anti tank teams to delay opposition advance and secure strategic points

I can only see such a helicopter replacing Puma not wildcat weather it stays in the raf or moved to the army is always an open question.

Puma seems to be being used a lot is scaneagle maybe considered too much aircraft for the extra logistics.

[ArmChairCivvy]

to deploy and form anti tank teams to delay opposition advance and secure strategic points

I can only see such a helicopter replacing Puma not wildcat

Agree. And as opposed to Chinooks dropping platoons to opportune spots, the tactics they then follow, after that happening, are pretty much unchanged
- whereas from the days when we had airmobile blocking teams, the proliferation of autocannons means that such teams, not to be v short lived, must have a reach well beyond autocannon range (and the operators being able to hide/ take cover, too)

[SW1]

to deploy and form anti tank teams to delay opposition advance and secure strategic points

I can only see such a helicopter replacing Puma not wildcat

Agree. And as opposed to Chinooks dropping platoons to opportune spots, the tactics they then follow, after that happening, are pretty much unchanged
- whereas from the days when we had airmobile blocking teams, the proliferation of autocannons means that such teams, not to be v short lived, must have a reach well beyond autocannon range (and the operators being able to hide/ take cover, too)

Yes I wonder if those ugv may play a part specially with a few javelin missiles. And of course setting up FARPs for Apache

[ArmChairCivvy]

FARPs for Apache

With the unmanned teaming capabilities, this is what they say in the US
"allows crews to sit in their aircraft on a FARP and control a [Grey Eagle] UAV some 50-60miles away."
- This means that Apache crews can survey in detail an area of operations, note activity, familiarise themselves with the situation and terrain
– even allow them to adjust fuel and armament load-out – before eventually taking off.

=> an initial 'shock and awe' treatment to an advancing column, and then inserting teams to watch over choke points that the depleted force might decide to try to push thru

"Availability has also risen – with [US] Col Hager saying combat mission readiness was over 90%"
... so not the hangar queen, anymore

[SW1]

FARPs for Apache

With the unmanned teaming capabilities, this is what they say in the US
"allows crews to sit in their aircraft on a FARP and control a [Grey Eagle] UAV some 50-60miles away."
- This means that Apache crews can survey in detail an area of operations, note activity, familiarise themselves with the situation and terrain
– even allow them to adjust fuel and armament load-out – before eventually taking off.

=> an initial 'shock and awe' treatment to an advancing column, and then inserting teams to watch over choke points that the depleted force might decide to try to push thru

"Availability has also risen – with [US] Col Hager saying combat mission readiness was over 90%"
... so not the hangar queen, anymore

Sounds like a modern version of this



Could see how that feeds into the strike concept too.

[Tempest414]

I can only see such a helicopter replacing Puma not wildcat weather it stays in the raf or moved to the army is always an open question.

If we were to replace Puma, Gazelle , Bell-212 , Dauphin with say 72 AW-139m's I would go with 12 to the RAF and the remaining 60 to the ACC split as said into 3 regiments with all based at RAF Benson apart from 9 regt which would be at Middle Wallop as the SF and overseas detachment regt

Puma seems to be being used a lot is scaneagle maybe considered too much aircraft for the extra logistics.

Puma UAV has its place on the battle field however I would replace Watchkeeper with 24 Scaneagle kits each kit comes with 3 x UAV's control station , launch and recovery system. I would look to fit each kit on to two Man 8x8 trucks and have one Artillery regiment with 6 Batteries each with 3 systems. This would allow for one Battery made up of 8 x Man 8x8 trucks 3 x control , launch & recovery systems plus 9 UAV's to deploy with a brigade. This would allow a Brigade to have 3 UAV's in the air 24 /7 if needed

Maybe watchkeeper could be moved to the Navy to operate off the carriers

[Lord Jim]

Just been watching a series of videos on Exercise Lionheart 84 and was reminded how many Milan Firing Posts each Infantry Battalion had allotted to them back then, twenty four! as well as integral MANPADS teams and of course the old M2 84mm MAW. Can someone remind me how many Javelin Control Units a current Infantry Battalion has?

[SW1]

[Lord Jim]

I wonder if we should consider the Griffon 6x6 for the MRV(P) Phase 2 programme. This plus the JLTV for Phase 1 would be a good foundation for equipping 2 Brigades of 1st (UK) Division, for use in a variety of roles from overseas mentoring to peace keeping to COIN and so on allowing 3rd (UK) Division to concentrate on getting its act together.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I guess one needs to believe that something is on its way to 'arrive' as 100 patrol Landies
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuWzmHIXYAQ ... me=900x900 been given to the Lebanon.

[Tempest414]

I wonder if we should consider the Griffon 6x6 for the MRV(P) Phase 2 programme. This plus the JLTV for Phase 1 would be a good foundation for equipping 2 Brigades of 1st (UK) Division, for use in a variety of roles from overseas mentoring to peace keeping to COIN and so on allowing 3rd (UK) Division to concentrate on getting its act together.

Why would or should we buy Griffon 6x6 at 1 million euros each over Bushmaster at 500, 000 dollars each, Both carry a driver +9 both have good protection both are able to take a RWS Griffon is based on a 6x6 commercial truck chassis Bushmaster is designed from the ground up as combat vehicle

[ArmChairCivvy]

Bushmaster at 500, 000 dollars each

is that USD or AUD?

[Tempest414]

Bushmaster at 500, 000 dollars each

is that USD or AUD?

US I believe so if we take that and turn it into pounds today 500.000 US is about 370.000 pounds so 500 Bushmasters could cost 185 million. Now today 1 million euro's is about 870.000 pounds so 500 Griffon could cost 435 million pounds so is the Griffon 500.000 pound better vehicle than Bushmaster or put another way for 500 Griffon we could get 1150 Bushmasters enough for 14 battalions using the rule of 80 vehicles per battalion

[ArmChairCivvy]

turn it into pounds today 500.000 US is about 370.000 pounds so 500 Bushmasters could cost 185 million.

Thx, the real question would be the comparison to say Eagle 2 or any other current runner up for the Batch 2 order... if we ever get past the Batch 1 (by now costing more per vehicle??)

[Lord Jim]

Why would or should we buy Griffon 6x6 at 1 million euros each over Bushmaster at 500, 000 dollars each

Just an idea if we are to move towards greater interoperability with French forces in the future. The French are kindly developing all the variants of the Griffon we would need to equip a Motorised Infantry Battalion, and with the use of many commercial part the vehicles will have exceeding low running costs. But as I said it is just an idea.

[Tempest414]

The French are kindly developing all the variants of the Griffon we would need to equip a Motorised Infantry Battalion,

One could say the same of Australia and Bushmaster with

Troop carrier (1 + 9 )
Command
Assault Pioneer
Air Defence
Mortar carrier
maintenance
Ambulance
IED
Direct fires weapons
plus they were working on a EW type

If the money is there I would be happy with ether but if money is a problem then I would go with the tried and tested Bushmaster

[Tempest414]

turn it into pounds today 500.000 US is about 370.000 pounds so 500 Bushmasters could cost 185 million.

Thx, the real question would be the comparison to say Eagle 2 or any other current runner up for the Batch 2 order... if we ever get past the Batch 1 (by now costing more per vehicle??)

Cost of Eagle was 972.000 dollars to the Danish Army or 697.000 pound so 500 Eagle would cost 349 Million nearly 2 x Bushmaster

[ArmChairCivvy]

One or the other (btw, was that for Eagle 2, as the Danes bought them as patrol vehicles and we have other intended uses?) this batch 2 purchase could well complete before the main batch, as per DefenceNews published interview in Aug 2020:
"

A second MRV-P package, unrelated to JLTV, involving purchase of larger vehicles for ambulance and general purpose duties is still in competition.

The demonstration deal has not been officially announced but radios, electronic countermeasures and other equipment are among the items specified by the British for trialing on a modified JLTV.

Mike Ivy, the senior vice president for international programs at Oshkosh Defense, confirmed the work is underway."
but in the same interview expected contract in Dec 2022!

[Tempest414]

btw, was that for Eagle 2, as the Danes bought them as patrol vehicles and we have other intended uses?)

It was for Eagle V 4x4 so I can only see the 6x6 costing more