As i had imagined and anticipated in the previous posts on Army 2020, all Field Army Engineer formations are being removed from the single brigades and grouped together under 8 Engineer Brigade, under Force Troops command.
"All capabilities have been retained, and in some case enhanced" is the official position. I hope "all" means "all" and not "most". My worries mainly relate to the M3 rigs (mothballed out to 2015 as the RE focuses on Afghanistan, and with their Regiment, 28th, now planned to disband as part of Army 2020) and the long-term retention of the precious, hard-won capability provided by Talisman in the route clearance role. Unfortunately, for the moment there is no greater detail in the exact composition of the force elements.
The greater integration with the Territorial Army reserve personnel is a target, obviously, but the Royal Engineers are not meeting their current targets, and have recruitment and retention problems already now, and this, of course, does little to inspire confidence for the future. As of June 2012, the TA element of the Royal Engineers numbers 230 officers (70% manned) and 2230 other ranks (just 55% manned) with more than 600 undergoing training.
Gabriele
ReplyDeleteYes, "All capabilities have been retained, and in some cases enhanced" really does not tell us all that much, does it? Still, I suppose it's better than some negative message.
I agree that both the M3 rigs and Talisman are absolutely essential assets. I can't really see the Royal Engineers losing their only wide, wet-gap crossing capability and when I read the Engineer-in-Chief's report at the end of last year, I think it mentioned that work was in hand to determine which enhancements to operational capabilities should be retained after the end of combast operations in Afghanistan and that these might possibly include some gap crosing systems(REBS?), the Talisman Route Proving and Clearance system and some protected plant.
I am hoping for some enhancements to the Royal Engineers' mine laying capability. We are pretty bereft in that department, with only the Bar Mine layer really left. The removal of Shielder did not help and I was wondering whether some units of the Volcano mines (if they have been retained) might be fitted to a small number of Terriers or even to trucks for the TA to look after, just so that we had at least some capability in that area.
I am not sure, but i think i read that Shielder was retired together with all of its mine system, so even your interesting TA proposal is probably not feasible.
DeleteThere was a study at the MOD for the future Counter-Mobility capability, but unfortunately i've not heard a thing about it for a looong time. The concept was sound, as it combined modern programme mines for high end warfare scenarios to a range of different capabilities useful in counterinsurgency and stabilization, such as road nets capable to stop vehicles dead on their tracks if they charge towards checkpoints and other devices.
It seems very hard to try to imagine a situation where the British army are going to find themselves laying many minefields. So decreasing the capabilities in that area seems very sensible.
ReplyDeleteSeems much better to focus the limited budget on areas that are likely to be used, rather than some where it would need some major war for them to be any use.
Focusing on increased IStar and weapons like fireshadow, armed Watchkeeper, GMLRS and bringing Exactor/Spike NLOS into the core budget seems like it would be more useful to restrict access to a area, rather than laying a minefield.
I thought landmines are banned in the UK arsenal. The Royal Engineers work would be de-mining, not mining.
DeleteAnti-Tank mines are not banned, and surely not programmable mines such as those used by Shielder.
DeleteAnti-personnel mines are, with the exception of Claymore, which is still in service as far as i know.
Anon
ReplyDelete"Seems much better to focus the limited budget on areas that are likely to be used, rather than some where it would need some major war for them to be any use."
You might very well be right and that was almost certainly the rationale behind the British Army's decision to withdraw Shielder. Unfortunately the history of conflicts we have been involved in shows that we invariably lack some items of kit necessary for a particular conflict, so maybe retaining an all-round capability is not such a bad idea. For instance, for Gulf War One we suddenly had to procure Skorpion minelayers from Germany, extra M548s from the USA and the Aardvark mine clearer. I suppose, though, that in these straitened times something has to go and that you are talking basic good sense.
I rather like your last paragraph, particularly the idea of bringing Exactor/NLOS into the core. It has, I believe, been successful in Afghanistan but would be expensive to bring into the core. We certainly need a long-range precision missile like that in the inventory.
Gabriele and Anon
ReplyDeleteThis is just a brief follow-up to my point about the possible need to retain an all-round capability.
Recently I read that the Syrian leader has stated that he would not dismiss the possibility of employing chemical weapons. He stressed that he would not use them against his own people but would consider using them against any foreign force intervening in his country.
Now I am not saying that military action is likely in Syria. I think it is probably very unlikely but I have seen mention made of it in several places. If such action were to be taken (and I pray to God that it will not be), then wouldn't the Fuchs vehicles we have just ditched be of immense use? We have a Light Role CBRN Team based on Pinzgauer 6 x 6s but they are not armoured. That is one example of what I mean by the need to retain an all-round capability. The unforeseen always crops up. I suppose it is a strong possibility that the Fuchs have already been discreetly disposed of.
Of course they would be useful. I never approved the decision of getting rid of them, and i don't think i'll ever be able to approve it in any way, especially considering that the savings were negligible at best.
DeleteOf course we need to keep a all round capability, and I agree that I would think that the Fuchs should have been kept or a proper replacement.
DeleteBut with minelayers, I just think that in any really imaginable future operation that Britain is involved in, it would be hard to imagine the British army laying minefields. If for no other reason than the bad publicity it would draw. Mines have a very bad public image, so it would open them up to a lot of criticism.
Remember they would never use Anti-Personnel mines due to the Ottawa Treaty. But most of the public wouldn't know the difference between Anti-Personnel and anti-tank, and wouldn't really even care about the difference. The public and press would just think in terms of "mines" and how much hurt they can cause even years after the conflict.
Also maybe I'm wrong, but when taking in account the reactions to them and the technological advances that have been made in other areas, I think that there are better options for the sort of operations that Britain is likely to be involved in. As well as the weapons that I mentioned in my other post, there are ones like ground launched Brimstone, the SMArt 155 artillery shell (that we were meant to buy at one point a few years ago).
These sort of weapons combined with good surveillance, including things like unmanned sensors, seem like they would be able to fill most situations that a anti-tank minefield could be needed for. As well as being useful in a lot of other situations.
I'm fine with using Area-Denial systems different from conventional mines. There are interesting systems already available on the market, such as XM-7 Spider. http://textrondefense.com/products/smart-weapons-ground/spider/index.php
DeleteI'm very fine on having a multipurpose capability such as EXACTOR/Spike NLOS/Brimstone ground launched, or even the SMART.
Fact is, SMART has been cancelled, and it can only deploy from AS90, which is not very easily deployed and is available in ever decreasing number.
Brimstone ground launched is not planned, and EXACTOR is currently unlikely to make it into Core budget post Afghanistan.
I accept that Shielder might not be the best solution going ahead, but my hope is for the Counter-Mobility capability plan and study to be still alive and ongoing.
IEDs have, i think, made very clear how much can be achieved by hampering the mobility of opposing forces.
A mix of lethal and non-lethal solutions for counter-mobility and Area Denial is going to be very useful to a force that is small, getting smaller, and consequently has serious issues with achieving the necessary force density over territory.
The ability to deny areas to enemy control with minimum use of manpower is very relevant, in my opinion.
Anonymous (or anyone else)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. You make some really good points, particularly the ones about bad publicity and how most of the public wouldn't know the difference between Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank mines, and wouldn't really even care about the difference. However, there are two or three points I would like to take up and I don’t necessarily need a reply to these, especially if you have not got the time.
Firstly, there seems to an inconsistency in the British Army’s planning somewhere (and I am referring mainly to Army 2020). On the one hand, the reason they give for the retention of tanks and heavy armour (in reasonably high numbers) is that we should be preparing for the worst scenarios i.e. high intensity war against heavily armoured formations (a la Gulf Wars, I suppose). On the other hand, they do not seem to going all the way and retaining the full range of weaponry that would be used in such conflicts and mine layers would be one of that range. The primary use of mounted dispensers is to place in position anti-tank barriers to counter the mobility of enemy forces in support of manoeuvre operations and friendly anti-tank fire. With such assets, units can place obstacles on routes the enemy is using, leaving other routes open for friendly movement.
Secondly the weapons you suggest, brilliant as they are, would not guarantee long-term 24hour a day “no-entry” protection of an area. The missiles and projectiles have a short-term effect at best and the UAVs, Watchkeeper and Fire Shadow, good as they are, have a limited time in the air or on watch, as it were.
Thirdly, the Shielder, according to an MOD description of the system carries mines that “have a programmable life, at the end of which they self-destruct.) The also have a dispenser control unit to provide fire signals, testing and arming of the self-destruct mechanism. Some modern mine systems are also built with the facility to switch the field off or on but I do not know whether the Shielder/Volcano is one of these.
Anonymous (or anyone else)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. You make some really good points, particularly the ones about bad publicity and how most of the public wouldn't know the difference between Anti-Personnel and Anti-Tank mines, and wouldn't really even care about the difference. However, there are two or three points I would like to take up and I don’t necessarily need a reply to these, especially if you have not got the time.
Firstly, there seems to an inconsistency in the British Army’s planning somewhere (and I am referring mainly to Army 2020). On the one hand, the reason they give for the retention of tanks and heavy armour (in reasonably high numbers) is that we should be preparing for the worst scenarios i.e. high intensity war against heavily armoured formations (a la Gulf Wars, I suppose). On the other hand, they do not seem to going all the way and retaining the full range of weaponry that would be used in such conflicts and mine layers would be one of that range. The primary use of mounted dispensers is to place in position anti-tank barriers to counter the mobility of enemy forces in support of manoeuvre operations and friendly anti-tank fire. With such assets, units can place obstacles on routes the enemy is using, leaving other routes open for friendly movement.
Secondly the weapons you suggest, brilliant as they are, would not guarantee long-term 24hour a day “no-entry” protection of an area. The missiles and projectiles have a short-term effect at best and the UAVs, Watchkeeper and Fire Shadow, good as they are, have a limited time in the air or on watch, as it were.
Thirdly, the Shielder, according to an MOD description of the system carries mines that “have a programmable life, at the end of which they self-destruct.) The also have a dispenser control unit to provide fire signals, testing and arming of the self-destruct mechanism. Some modern mine systems are also built with the facility to switch the field off or on but I do not know whether the Shielder/Volcano is one of these.
Shielder is still in service. The whole gamut of heavy force structure is still in service and is being enhanced.
ReplyDeleteAs for armoured CBRN vehicles, I can't see their utility. CBRN in that context is about chemical recce and avoidance of contaminated areas or understanding the threat in that area. I don't really see what advantage being armoured brings, there's no need for them to be in DLOS with any enemy forces.
"there's no need for them to be in DLOS with any enemy forces."
DeleteOf course there is no "need" for them to be in line of sight, but the possibility of them having to operate in the line of fire is very high. It's extremely unlikely that a chemical attack on deployed military forces is not followed by a more "kinetic" kind of attack.
And the Shielder is no longer in service as far as i know. I read of its retirement in a 2010 or 2011 document, and i did not hear anything about rethinks on the decision.
But i would be glad had they changed their mind. If you have any evidence that you can share, it is more than welcome.
Fuchs was for wide area CBRN operations which is very low threat at the moment as there are few if any potential enemies that could sustain a wide area CBRN threat to our ground forces. Heavy forces can operate in a localised CBRN environment without specialist CBRN teams using their own CBRN drills, kit and recce TTPs. Seeing as CBRN is a tier one threat (and wide area CBRN threats are not) I am sure that should a wide area threat become more plausible then the capability can be re-generated quite quickly. The body of institutional knowledge on CBRN matters is actually being enhanced all the time.
ReplyDeleteI have seen nothing that says shielder is out of service.
Anonymous
ReplyDelete"Shielder is still in service. "
Well, in that case I don't know why they are selling off the Stormer vehicles that carried Shielder at Withams (20 of them!) Any mention of it has been removed from the Royal Engineers' section of the MOD/Army website, although not from the General Equipment section but they are generally behind. Have a look too on the "Plain Military" website. According to people there (some still serving, I would imagine, it went out of service over a year ago.
"The whole gamut of heavy force structure is still in service and is being enhanced."
Well, if it is, that is excellent news!
Maybe they have gone then, maybe there are less of them. I don't know, perhaps another system will be introduced.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my points on CBRN though.
Gaby,
ReplyDeleteAs you have raised questions about the future of the Talisman system in several posts, I thought I would just send you the following information:
If you go to the site for 101 Regiment, Royal Engineers Regimental Association: (www. 101erra), you will see that the last part of the description of the regiment’s work concerns the future of Talisman. Not only does it say that it is believed that 101 and 33 Engineer Regiments will each operate four enhanced Talisman Troops but there is a detail to the effect that it is probable that Talisman will be developed further in the near future with one or two 'Terrier' vehicles, and a 'Husky' vehicle equipped with ground penetrating radar. Whether that is the ‘Husky’ vehicle already in service with the British Army or whether it is the dedicated mine clearance vehicle (developed from the ‘Chubby’?), I don’t know. The latter, I would suppose. I know it is not conclusive proof that such things will happen and it would need verification from another source but it seems nevertheless like good news. First the Fuchs and the M3 Bridging rigs have been saved and now (seemingly) this.
That would be absolutely fantastic news, thank you for sharing this. Really thank you.
DeleteI'm able to give you a bit of news myself: the army is apparently going to have no less than 5 batteries on Stormer HVM, of which three batteries are regular ones, in 12 regiment, and 2 reserve in 106 regiment.
12 Regiment currently has only two Stormer batteries, i'm trying to find out the identity of the third.
Both 12 Regiment and 106 Regiment will also maintain a LML battery each. The regular battery with LML will provide high-readiness support to 16 Air Assault brigade.
We need to know the fate of REBS with some certainty, and then we'll have a good idea of the fate of all major items.
As for what Husky they mean for the Talisman troops, i don't know, but it should be the specialized Husky vehicle: using the british army Husky TSV as platform would put the crew in too much risk: it would be a step backwards from the current PANAMA unmanned Land Rovers, which might not be the best integrated sensor carriers, but being remotely operated at least they don't put limbs at risk...
The Terrier might replace the HMEE, rather than complement it: HMEE was indeed originally intended as a UOR-procured interim solution on the way to Terrier. It was procured due to the gap between CET going out of service in 2008 and Terrier coming in.
Of course, it is also possible that they will keep a number of wheeled HMEE around to complement the tracked Terrier, though. Can't say for sure.
Gaby
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for the reply.
Good news on the Stormer HVM too. Looks as if some senior officers are seeing sense.
Didn't you show a diagram in one of your posts which included REBS, suggesting that it might very well be included in the the future core? Can't remember which post.
The website I gave you had some images of equipment, which included the mine-clearance version of Husky, I believe.
All we need now is 20,000 more regulars and we shall be there! Some hopes!
Yes, REBS figured in that army graphic: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.it/2013/12/the-evolving-budget-situation-force.html
DeleteI really believe it is staying, but it would still be nice to have a confirmation.
Gaby,
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention in my previous reply that it is also good news that the regular battery with LML will provide high-readiness support to 16 Air Assault Brigade. That is a formation that has been hollowed out enough, with loss of infantry battalions, engineers and its air defence unit. Nice to see that something is being done to rectify this. Presumably the LML battery will not be officially a part of 16 AA Bde, but support "outside", as it were, ready to come in?
Yes, i think there will be no official inclusion in the air assault brigade, but the battery will generate an air defence element for it.
DeleteGaby
ReplyDeleteJust to confirm my earlier piece of information concerning Talisman. It's all out in the open now. Look at the latest issue of "Desider" (available on the MOD website). That confirms that Talisman is being taken into core and the additional good news is that the Mine Wolf unmanned machine will be a part of it.
Saw that, and it is promising. There is also new mention of the capability uplift / renewal planned for the near future. Good stuff.
Delete