Army Command to 2030

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
J. Tattersall

Re: Army Command to 2032

Post by J. Tattersall »

AndyC wrote: On top of this the MoD changed its approach to agreeing its spending plans which cut its budget totals by £7.6 billion from 2020/21 to 2024/25.
Really? How was the approach changed then?

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

Re: Army Command to 2032

Post by Lord Jim »

AndyC wrote:Army Command Top Level Budget 2019-29 - £14.75 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procuremen
Is this actually real or a suggestion of what could be done with the money?

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Army Command to 2032

Post by AndyC »

AndyC wrote:
Army Command Top Level Budget 2019-29 - £14.75 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement

Is this actually real or a suggestion of what could be done with the money?
Yes, it's real money!

Go to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ficial.pdf and look at Figure 12 on page 35. If you zoom in and enlarge you can measure the spending forecast for each year from 2019/20 to 2028/29.

EPP is Equipment Procurement. This is broken down into Committed (ie. contracts signed) and Uncommitted. In the ten year period illustrated here £4 billion was Committed as at March 2019 and £14.75 billion was Uncommitted.

The Committed amount in Army Command reflects the outstanding amounts owed on Ajax and Apache.

The only new contract, signed in November 2019, was for 523 Boxer MIV costing £2.8 billion.

So, the relevant figures as of today would be £6.8 billion Committed and £11.95 billion Uncommitted.

I've used the same methodology for both Navy Command and Air Command in their respective articles.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Army Command to 2032

Post by AndyC »

AndyC wrote:
On top of this the MoD changed its approach to agreeing its spending plans which cut its budget totals by £7.6 billion from 2020/21 to 2024/25.
Really? How was the approach changed then?
To get the full background you need to read the NAO report here https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2029.pdf

But to summarise, the current Defence Secretary insisted on a more realistic assessment of what the actual budget of the MoD was really likely to be, to gauge what was the real financial position ahead of the in-fighting in the Integrated Review. You can see the changes illustrated in Figure 1 on page 14.

Prior to this assessment Total Planned Spending from 2019/20 to 2028/29 was £188.4 billion.

After this assessment the Equipment Plan Budget was set at £180.7 billion.

You can see in Figure 1 that this amounts to a reduction of £7.7 billion from 2019/20 to 2024/25. It is this figure that has led to a number of spending commitments being delayed effecting the F-35B, Protector, Challenger LEP and Warrior CSP amongst others.

In September 2019 the MoD received a 'one-off' payment of £2.2 billion to cover the shortfall in 2019/20 and 2020/21.

This, however, still left a funding gap of £5.5 billion over the remaining life of this Parliament.

Changing the budgeting to be more realistic was brilliant politics. Stressing how dire the MoD's finances actually were and the number of projects that might have to be cancelled gave the PM and Defence Secretary exactly the ammunition they needed to take on the Treasury and win. And it worked!

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The 2020 Spending Review

Prior to the Spending Review the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.

Restoring the reductions made in the 2019 Equipment Plan budget requires £5.5 billion.

In addition, £2 billion is needed to cover the overspending in the Air Command Top Level Budget as a result of the unfunded purchase of the E-7 Wedgetail.

That leaves a total of £7.2 billion still to be committed.

If this extra funding is divided in the same way as the 2020/21 budget then 55% would be allocated to day-to-day running costs and 45% to the Equipment Plan.

That means an extra £3.95 billion for day-to-day spending, mostly personnel costs. As this represents about 4.5% of existing current spending that would be equal to an additional:
• 3,700 full-time troops
• 1,500 reservists
• 1,100 Royal Navy personnel
• 300 Royal Marines and
• 1,400 RAF personnel.

This leaves an extra £3.25 billion for the Equipment Plan.
For the Army this could mean:
• 2,200 soldiers to re-establish 102 Logistic Brigade
• 1,500 troops to bring the five Specialised Infantry Battalions up to full strength
• 282 additional Boxer MIV
• 155 TCV and FPBA
• 23 extra Warriors to be upgraded
• 1,500 reservists to set up three new reserve Royal Artillery Regiments and
• 54 additional self-propelled 155mm Howitzers.

These proposals have been included in a fully updated and revised main article at the start of this post.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Had a quick look-back to the opening post and the numbers there reminded me of the starting position for the 1998 review (the starting - though it still remains just the target - position for the current IR review added in brackets):

The SDR reorganises the Army’s existing structure in order to conform with the policy of retaining forces capable of engaging in conventional [manoeuvre] warfare but making them more deployable and more mobile. The basic structure of two [one] combat divisions is retained but significant changes are made to the brigade structure. The current force of five heavy brigades (three armoured and two mechanised) and three light brigades (one airborne, oneairmobile and one attached RM Commando) will be altered by converting the 5thAirborne Brigade into a third mechanised brigade (the 12th Brigade).[from 3+3+3 to 2+2+2]

Furthermore:
" three of the existing six heavy armoured regiments and some support units, together 186 tanks and some 2,500 personnel,will be repatriated." and that's about all we've got left by now
AND while in this area the cuts have been more like 50% (against the headline figure of a third when counting deployable brigades)
THE OTHER area where I would be inclined to say that we have cut capacity by 50 % is
"Extensive enhancements are made to combat service support units centred around the formation of two logistical supply chains capable of sustaining two concurrent medium scale deployments and reinforcing the support elements of the six heavy brigades."

Well, just a brief comment and now over to the IR thread, where - in due course - we will see whether the target will be retained or scaled down.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well. I guess the army budget particulars will appear here, so just a quick look at the dates (before they get revised, again):

The 'divisional capability' program to replace also aims to replace the aging AS90 self-propelled artillery. In fact such replacement has recently been put back by another two years.
- initial operating capability was to be in the last quarter of 2026 but is now delayed until 2029
- this 'all or nothing' approach is perplexing; get enough of the wheeled ones for the first Strike Bde... then continue with the wholesale replacement a few years later?

Ahh, but everything seems to be a few years later. OK, once some
of 589 Ajax vehicles have been delivered, it will rapidly lead full operating capability (set for 2025). One can only wonder how that could be achieved in any 'real' sense, if the main recipient (the first Strike bde) will be still years away.
- if Boxer deliveries start 2023 then some Strike experimentation/ training can go on with the actual vehicles that they depend on. But full operating capability is not planned until 2032... there is some serious discrepancy here re: the definitions of what will be achieved in 2025 (with Ajax) and more than a half decade later with Boxer-based formations becoming a reality.
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)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by BlueD954 »

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/army-digitalisation-theia

THEIA will accelerate the delivery of Army digital transformation by; driving coherence; better integration between projects; breaking down silos and realising efficiencies.

***

Mumbo-jumbo.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well the man has left, but he left his imprint. The above is one of these


Vote Leave AI firm wins seven government contracts in 18 ...www.theguardian.com › world › may › vote-leave-ai-fi...
4 May 2020 — Vote Leave AI firm wins seven government contracts in 18 months ... Cummings has for years maintained a blog

What impact will Dominic Cummings have on digital ...diginomica.com › what-impact-will-dominic-cummings...
26 Jul 2019

Why Parliament must ensure Dominic Cummings does not ...www.yorkshirepost.co.uk › News › Opinion › Columnists
19 Feb 2020 — Dominic Cummings's almost manic enthusiasm for data science, artificial ... expensive long-term contracts with outside suppliers
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Two weeks ago the MoD published the Defence Equipment Plan for 2020-30.

Details can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2020

Unlike with previous plans this is just data without any text. This plan represents the situation as it was at the end of March 2020, so before the announcements contained in the four-year Spending Review.

At this time, Army Command had outstanding orders of £7.1 billion committed on equipment procurement for Ajax SV, Boxer MIV and Apache AH-64E.

After these changes the Army still has £11.9 billion of uncommitted equipment procurement which could be spent as below:

Army Command Top Level Budget 2020-30 - £11.9 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement.

£4.42 billion included under SDSR15 but not under contract at March 2020:
• £1.3 billion on providing a new main gun, four Brimstone 3C anti-tank guided weapons launchers plus improved targeting and defensive measures for 227 Challenger 3 in their Life Extension Programme – unit cost £5.75 million
• £800 million outstanding on the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme – unit cost £2 million
• £800 million for an order of 2,747 JLTV – U$1.035 billion; £/U$ rate 1.30 in July 2017
• £685 million at a rate of 136 TCV and FPBA per annum for six years from 2025/26-2030/31 – unit cost £1 million
• £350 million on 100 Heavy Equipment Transporters – unit cost U$4.5 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £285 million for a total of 283 F/ATV and
• £200 million for 350 Wheeled Tankers – unit cost U$ 750k; £/U$ rate 1.30.

£6.85 billion for essential extras:
• £4.33 billion at a rate of an additional 238 Boxer MIV per annum for five years from 2026/27-2030/31 – unit cost €5 million; £/€ rate 1.10
• £800 million for 265 extra Warrior upgrades including 226 anti-tank guided weapons equipped Warriors – unit cost £3 million
• £775 million for 180 155mm self-propelled Howitzers – unit cost U$5.6 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £410 million on expanding the Life Extension Programme to include 72 Challenger MBTs currently held in storage
• £400 million on refurbishing the remaining 13 WAH-64D to AH-64E standard – unit cost U$40 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £100 million to integrate Brimstone 3B and Martlet on to Wildcat AH1 – unit cost £1.5 million per missile and
• £35 million for top-up order of 400 Hellfire missiles.

£300 million of desirable and optional extras:
• £155 million for 1,680 Alternative-Warhead rockets for GMLRS – unit cost U$120k; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £145 million for a new 52-calibre barrel for 72 AS-90.

Army Command TLB spending totals £11.57 billion.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This
AndyC wrote:• £155 million for 1,680 Alternative-Warhead rockets for GMLRS – unit cost U$120k; £/U$ rate 1.30
is long overdue

Whereas this one
AndyC wrote:• £350 million on 100 Heavy Equipment Transporters – unit cost U$4.5 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
will (again) come as a service contract, not that different from outright purchase over ten years, but includes some extras... like crews, who would normally sit around, doing nothing
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 Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

If the above programme were to become reality I would be very happy, though I would prefer to see an ATGW integrated onto the Warrior 2 IFVs rather than a dedicated ATGW carrier.

I also think there is room for a Extractor style weapon system either integral into units or operated by the Royal Artillery. The funding allocated for the addition of Brimstone onto the Challenger 3 could go someway towards this.

The one area not covered that is urgent is the improvement of the Army's Air Defence capability. In addition to additional Land Ceptor units, at least anther Regiments worth, we need a platform to compliment or replace the Stormer/Starstreak & LMM already in service that would included an Autocannon, ideally a version of the CTA optimised for AA use.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

AndyC wrote:£6.85 billion for essential extras:
• £4.33 billion at a rate of an additional 238 Boxer MIV per annum for five years from 2026/27-2030/31 – unit cost €5 million; £/€ rate 1.10
• £800 million for 265 extra Warrior upgrades including 226 anti-tank guided weapons equipped Warriors – unit cost £3 million
• £775 million for 180 155mm self-propelled Howitzers – unit cost U$5.6 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £410 million on expanding the Life Extension Programme to include 72 Challenger MBTs currently held in storage
• £400 million on refurbishing the remaining 13 WAH-64D to AH-64E standard – unit cost U$40 million; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £100 million to integrate Brimstone 3B and Martlet on to Wildcat AH1 – unit cost £1.5 million per missile and
• £35 million for top-up order of 400 Hellfire missiles.

£300 million of desirable and optional extras:
• £155 million for 1,680 Alternative-Warhead rockets for GMLRS – unit cost U$120k; £/U$ rate 1.30
• £145 million for a new 52-calibre barrel for 72 AS-90.
For me if there was 6.85 billion in essential extras

1) 2.3 billion for additional 550 Boxer
2) 1.6 billion for additional 250 Ajax = 100 IFV & 150 APC
3) 550 million for 1000 Bushmaster's = 650 troop carriers , 80 C&C , 100 Engineer , 100 Mortar , 70 Medical
4) 700 million for 150 Man 8x8 Archer 155mm Howitzers
5) 800 million for 50 AW139M for the AAC ( ACC wildcats would be moved to the FAA ) leaving the ACC with 50 AH-64E & 50 AW-139m
6) 500 million for additional Sky Sabre CAMM systems

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Thinking about what has been "Leaked" to the media and what has been discussed here I have been putting pen to keyboard, and putting my revised ideas of the future shape of the British Army as I would prefer to see it. If I do post it here it will be broken down into manageable bites but as a taster this is how I now see 3rd (UK) Division shaping up;
Divisional Troops:

2x Divisional Recce Regiments with Ajax. (One forward deployed in Poland)
3x Artillery Regiments with MAN/Archer.
2x Artillery Regiments with MAN/Himars.
1x Artillery Regiment with MAN/Land Ceptor
in addition various support units and other assets both integral to the Division and detached form 6th (UK) Division)

2x Mechanised Brigades, each with:
1x Armoured Regiment (Type 56) with Challenger 3.
3x Mechanised Infantry Battalions with Boxer IFV.

2x Motorised Brigades, each with:
1x Cavalry Regiment with Boxer CRV.
3x Motorised Infantry Battalions with MRV(P).

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

So would you still have 120mm nemo fitted Boxers for the Mechanised mortar platoons and skyranger boxers for air defence

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by military »

The Boxer contract, with production stretching to say 2032, for 500 vehicles has already been signed with KMW and Rheinmetall and there are no CRV and IFV versions. At this point we need to work with the Ajax and Boxer variants that are under contract.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes and no the question will be what happens to Warrior if the upgrade is canned will the army have to go on with Warrior as is untill 2030/35 or do we buy more Boxer's with the IFV & CRV module's plus as talked about for me we should work to fit 120mm Nemo to Boxer to allow mortar fire support on the move and with its ability to fire flat out to 2.5 km add a anti amour / bunker capability

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:ability to fire flat out to 2.5 km
The effective range in that mode is out to 1 km.
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 Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

In an urban environment a range of 1km os more than enough and this si where the direct fire capability is most likely to be used. Don't forget in theory there will be Challenger 3s running around as well to provide direct fire support equipped with that new programmable HE round as well.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I fully agree; was just correcting the 'over-optimism' as for direct fire capability.

NEMO is like turning a rifle (a mortar) into a semi-auto. And as you say it can also be used like the https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6e/33/11 ... a4ad0c.jpg,
where the stub 75 mm's shell would have fallen much short of the power of a 120mm mortar bomb
- without being 'single purpose' like the Royal Ordnance L9 used for combat engineering, particularly the demolition of defences, later (aptly :) ) renamed 165mm L9 Demolition Gun.
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 Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:renamed 165mm L9 Demolition Gun.
Imagine a Challenger 3 "Street Fighter" with the L9 together with a co-axial CTA40, APS, additional protection, multiple options for mine ploughs, dozer blades, multiple MGs and sensors. Sort of a modern day Centurion AVRE. :D

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Imagine a Challenger 3 "Street Fighter" with the L9 together with a co-axial CTA40, APS, additional protection, multiple options for mine ploughs, dozer blades, multiple MGs and sensors. Sort of a modern day Centurion AVRE.
I don’t think I could imagine anything quite so ridiculous.
For a start the CT40 feeds and ejects through the central axis so any coaxial arrangement necessitates placing the other weapon eccentrically to the elevation axis. The torque generated by firing any decent sized gun would be enormous and the sweep of the weapons for any decent elevation range would make for a rather large turret.
Then there’s the L9 demolition gun. A whole new weapon and ammunition for a very specific task and which is of marginal use for anything else. I doubt that it would be of much more use than a 120mm tank gun even at it’s optimised task, beyond having a larger danger area. If you desperately need a larger, lower velocity HE round I rather suspect that you could create one that fits the 120mm by telescoping it further into the case and making it drag stabilised.
Most MBTs have scope to add RWS to them, but if you are adding weapon systems who is operating them?

There are already numerous engineering fitments to go on the front of existing MBTs

If you really want large quantities of HE applied to a static target, it would be better to fit a designator or similar FOO gear to the existing classes of vehicles and get the RAF or RA to loft a big smart munition at it.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:If you really want large quantities of HE applied to a static target
We could borrow from WW2 and do an applique solution attached to the sides of a sufficiently tall and reasonably protected vehicle like this one https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAW
- only one of the six heavy rockets needs to hit... job done :thumbup:

And no specialist vehicles, standing idle 97% of the time.
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)

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
mr.fred wrote:If you really want large quantities of HE applied to a static target
We could borrow from WW2 and do an applique solution attached to the sides of a sufficiently tall and reasonably protected vehicle like this one *broken link*
- only one of the six heavy rockets needs to hit... job done :thumbup:

And no specialist vehicles, standing idle 97% of the time.
You could, but I think a designator for off platform munitions would be as good for most situations. More so for urban operations when you consider danger areas and collateral damage risk from dumb rockets.

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

Re: Army Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:More so for urban operations when you consider danger areas and collateral damage risk from dumb rockets.
I was just trading up from 120mm mortar bombs, thinking of bringing down bigger/ thicker walls
... we could also trade down: the new 40mm uses first two rounds to make the hole, and the third one places an airburst to the inside space
= fine&dandy; if the hole actually had been made
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)

Post Reply