tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post1440586335272282012..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: British Army 2025: a proposed concept and structure Gabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-34508499837036545462016-02-26T20:42:55.627+01:002016-02-26T20:42:55.627+01:00Because despite being very light for a 155 mm howi...Because despite being very light for a 155 mm howitzer, the M777 is not quite as mobile as we'd like it to be. That's why the USMC complements it with 120 mm mortars and the US PARAs and infantry BCTs continue to use the M119 (their variant of the L118). Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-66453280530469766932016-02-26T19:26:41.830+01:002016-02-26T19:26:41.830+01:00why 120mm mortars why no 155MM M777 which are a Br...why 120mm mortars why no 155MM M777 which are a British design?markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08888470069853553772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-39079982082031702312016-01-23T17:56:47.412+01:002016-01-23T17:56:47.412+01:00having read F-35 and weapons I wonder about the &q...having read F-35 and weapons I wonder about the "punch" of two carriers :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07817186426484323063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-62614954831717573752016-01-17T21:23:00.923+01:002016-01-17T21:23:00.923+01:00Gaby
"The cost is also ridiculous. It includ...Gaby<br /><br />"The cost is also ridiculous. It includes support for N years, okay, but if comms and thermal imagery are the main changes as it appears, there really is not much to chew in comparison to the cost."<br /><br />Agree absolutely. Thanks for your commonsense response.MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-1415798453081402002016-01-17T20:18:13.049+01:002016-01-17T20:18:13.049+01:00Unfortunately, the two big problems of Chally (gun...Unfortunately, the two big problems of Chally (gun and engine) will not be touched by the LEP, and that is really a big question mark over the whole thing. I'm not sure it is worth bothering. I'm also horrified that we are just looking at yet two more years of concepts, assessments and who knows what. What is left to be "assessed" after years of studies which never go anywhere, i don't know. <br />The cost is also ridiculous. It includes support for N years, okay, but if comms and thermal imagery are the main changes as it appears, there really is not much to chew in comparison to the cost. <br /><br />As for the bridging, the TITAN is just the carrier vehicle. Don't think it will change. The two bridges TITAN can employ are part of the BR90 kit (which is a family of bridging elements with various elements), and will be upgraded to handle much higher weight classes, to account for heavier vehicles. It is the ABLE General Support Bridge element that might also get a replacement truck, as well as the weight class envelope expansion. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-81071392100447102952016-01-17T15:39:43.415+01:002016-01-17T15:39:43.415+01:00Gaby,
Regarding the article “UK Surges Ahead with...Gaby,<br /><br />Regarding the article “UK Surges Ahead with Challenger 2 Upgrade”, the main reason for the British Army’s concern would seem to be the decreasing effectiveness of the L30 rifled gun and its ammunition.<br /><br />If the proposed upgrade is to involve only the turret’s subsystems, then that will not solve many of the problems, will it? At the very least a new suite of ammunitions is required and to be truly effective the gun, and possibly the turret too, need to be replaced. Moreover, the vehicle could do with an upgrade to the power pack and some enhancement of armour too. <br /><br />Has there been any indication yet of what the upgrade will involve? If they intend to spend over £2 million per tank, surely the update is bound to involve much more than turret subsystems, isn’t it? <br /><br />Also have you heard anything more about the “competition to provide the British Army with updated bridging capabilities.” Could that involve Titan as well as the BR90 system? In the case of the latter I have read about the possible replacement of the Unipower vehicle but not much else.<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-73251357421920069432016-01-08T23:49:10.794+01:002016-01-08T23:49:10.794+01:00Thanks for info.
WaylanderThanks for info.<br /><br />WaylanderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-78479553219883680272016-01-08T17:29:49.323+01:002016-01-08T17:29:49.323+01:00I had not heard of such a massive cut in the frenc...I had not heard of such a massive cut in the french stock, thanks for the heads up. <br /><br />The british stock was cut by an over 200 milion value according to a news report, which suggests over 200 missiles will have gone. But the UK had purchased 900 or 950, so the remaining stock, even factoring use in combat, is possibly still around 600, yes. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-50148054732273662652016-01-08T17:12:27.193+01:002016-01-08T17:12:27.193+01:00Hi Gabriele,
According to this Defence...Hi Gabriele,<br /> According to this Defence News article, the French plan to reduce their Scalp stockpile to just 100 missiles? Not sure if that is for both the Armee de l'Air and Marine Nationale. Just wondered if you had heard anything about it?<br /><br /> http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/01/07/engine-support-surges-rafale-flight-hours-exports/78441944/<br /><br />The UK apparently still has a stockpile of around 600 Storm Shadows? (even after the reduction)<br /><br />WaylanderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-7495309828600766652016-01-07T01:20:03.290+01:002016-01-07T01:20:03.290+01:00Could always put those ex-Warrior Rarden turrets o...Could always put those ex-Warrior Rarden turrets onto those former modernised 434/Bulldogs. ~6 Bttns worth of reserves - yet good enough for Mali/Yemen/Lybia?<br /><br />Different Anon.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-46992903961522400062016-01-01T17:39:36.328+01:002016-01-01T17:39:36.328+01:00If I have one observation on this interesting arti...If I have one observation on this interesting article it is that it assumes that the division is 'built up' from brigades rather than first working out what forces the division should have and then dividing these up between brigade HQs, historically the brits have tended to take the latter approach. If they do this again then it might lead to different conclusions about what's in the armored infantry, strike and artillery units. For example, might divisional level recon necessitate armored cavalry being held directly by the division rather than in the armored brigades? (which was the case until relatively recently) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-86303874117399968552015-12-30T16:35:41.063+01:002015-12-30T16:35:41.063+01:00They don't do the same job, as MEADS is more a...They don't do the same job, as MEADS is more anti-ballistic oriented and offers far better capability in that respect. SAMP-T has some ABM capability of its own, but secondary in the end. <br /><br />The purchase of MEADS remains on the cards because the Air Force still wants to acquire an anti-ballistic capability beyond the limited coverage offered by SAMP-T. Whether it will actually happen, is to be seen. <br /><br />And then there is CAMM ER, the Extended Range variant of the british CAMM, to be developed by MBDA Italy and Avio, which is the desired Local Area element to replace SPADA (air force) and Skyguard (Army). <br />So, there is a possibility that the high-end SAM systems will actually be 3 by the end of the modernization. <br /><br />SAMP-T replaces Hawk <br />CAMM ER replaces the Aspide missile in the Skyguard (Army) and SPADA (air force) batteries<br />MEADS is a new ABM capability (and in some way a replacement for the old NIKE Hercules that however left the air force service back in 2006) Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-67092366054798247292015-12-30T16:18:27.830+01:002015-12-30T16:18:27.830+01:00Hi Gab,
I have a question regarding Italian milita...Hi Gab,<br />I have a question regarding Italian military missile defense plan. I guess you the best expert that I can find :) Italian Army has selected SAMP/T as her ground based missile defense solution. The first battery already obtained IOC status and there is even conversation about possible deployment to Trukey for NATO mission. And yet the Air Force is considering MEADS. Italy after all is one of the three nations that have invested in MEADS. What is the rational behind having two competing systems that pretty much do the same job?Joe123https://www.blogger.com/profile/10128982137368716954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-19504931005990126972015-12-29T23:11:53.152+01:002015-12-29T23:11:53.152+01:00Your "combined arms regiment" looks simi...Your "combined arms regiment" looks similar to the FCS concept that the US was designing around 10 years or so ago. In the FCS design, each Unit of Action (brigade) had 3 x Combined Arms Battalions (each 2 x armoured, 2 x infantry, 1 x 120mm Mortar, 1 x HQ, and 1 x Recce company). Each Infantry company had 3 platoons, each of which had 3 x Infantry squads and 1 x weapons squad with 2 x Javelin ATGW and 2 x AGL. Each armoured company had 10 Mounted Combat System vehicles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-63937642403286588982015-12-27T15:49:20.210+01:002015-12-27T15:49:20.210+01:00What you find is civilians play fantasy fleets on ...What you find is civilians play fantasy fleets on line. While defence professionals play fantasy career structure........stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13440640503681625170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-59834150249265496792015-12-27T14:35:02.730+01:002015-12-27T14:35:02.730+01:00Gaby,
I did read somewhere a few years ago that t...Gaby,<br /><br />I did read somewhere a few years ago that the Scimitar 2 vehicles were based on the Spartan hull but I had completely forgotten about it. I had grown to thinking that all variants were built along the same lines as their predecessors. So thanks very much for informing me about that and about the limitations and advantages of the later-generation vehicles.MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-81869886834740115252015-12-26T21:44:59.258+01:002015-12-26T21:44:59.258+01:00The Scimitar MK2 uses a Spartan APC hull, that'...The Scimitar MK2 uses a Spartan APC hull, that's why it is taller. And it reaches up to 12+ tons, so you can't pull up one beneath a Chinook, like you could with the old ones. That also means greater specific pressure on the ground, aka reduced mobility in some circumstances. On the other hand, it offers better crew survivability (and probably comfort). Those are (some of) the factors that would have to be considered in choosing, eventually, to retain old or MK2 CVR(T). Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-4975797548369031552015-12-26T20:10:39.900+01:002015-12-26T20:10:39.900+01:00Gaby,
Many thanks for your reply. I can now for ...Gaby,<br /><br />Many thanks for your reply. I can now for the first time see your reasons for approving the move of aviation out of 16 Air Assault brigade.<br /><br />What you say about CVR(T) Mk2 is also very informative.<br /><br />Thanks once again.<br /><br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-1248055629011409162015-12-26T19:32:03.841+01:002015-12-26T19:32:03.841+01:00I do approve the move of aviation out of 16 Air As...I do approve the move of aviation out of 16 Air Assault brigade. The brigade should stay and will stay closely involved with the aviation community, but it was always not actually helpful to have the whole apache force within the brigade, when the Apache force is committed to providing support to a whole other range of formations, 3 Commando included. I see the helicopters as a different thing from artillery or brigade logistics: the UK cannot afford to allocate helicopters exclusively to one brigade. An aviation-centric JHC with all the helicopters and all the specific supports will be better able to provide aviation packages to whoever needs them, while 16 Brigade can fully focus on its own end of the business. <br /><br />As for CVR(T) Mk2, they are an obvious candidate for staying. However, the MK2 is considerably taller and heavier. While this brings advantages in some areas, it brings problems elsewhere: they are not Chinook-transportable like the old ones and might be harder to air land / air drop. It'll be a matter of evaluating the pros and cons. <br /><br />As for Rarden, i don't know if such "interim" solution would deliver significant savings. It depends probably on how long it would last before a new gun was rolled in. <br />The gun itself is probably still okaish, the problems are feeding and lack of stabilization in the legacy platforms. Hard to say if the Rardens could be successfully re-employed in an unmanned turret on MIV. Might be worth considering, but i don't honestly know. Those with the details should work out the pros and cons, again.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-35481153606085543882015-12-26T18:57:13.162+01:002015-12-26T18:57:13.162+01:00Thanks Phil. I forgot to say season’s greetings t...Thanks Phil. I forgot to say season’s greetings to everyone. Now some last points.<br /><br />As you say, Gaby, the US Army is intending to put 30mm cannon onto its Strykers to provide more powerful fire support and you quote the French experience in Mali. Do you think that the Rarden 30mm, due to come off the CVR(T) family when those vehicles go out of service, might be a possibility as a short-term fit for the MIVs? I don’t know much about the state of the Rardens but I know that some pundits consider them to be obsolescent. However, the Rarden has proved to be a more than useful gun over the years it has been in service and might possibly last for the first five or six years of the MIV service, until we can find the funds for something more modern. We must have plenty of ammunition left!<br /><br />That leads me to the second point. The vehicles often referred to as “new-build” CVR(T)s or the “Scimitar 2 family”, only entered service about four years ago and must have a lot of life left in them. The term “new build” is apparently something of a misnomer as, although the hulls are new-build ones, some other parts are not. However, these are agile, fast, very mobile vehicles, which are light and air portable. And we do have sixty (approx.) of them. As you say, “ideally, a small number of CVR(T) vehicles should be retained for 16 AA Brigade, to give a small, highly mobile, highly deployable armour element which could prove invaluable in some situations.” It would surely be a massive waste to bin such vehicles while the need in 16 AA Bde is still there. <br /><br />The last point I have been into several times previously. It concerns the fact that with the emphasis so much nowadays on formations ready to move at ultra-short notice (e.g. “ready to go within 48- hours” etc. etc.) and to “hit the ground running”, surely the relevant brigades and battlegroups should be integrated as much as possible along the lines of the Combined Arms Regiment. To me, it makes little sense to have support units in other brigades or formations apart from the manoeuvre brigades. As you say, the doctrine should be to structure as you fight” Those who believe that the British ]Army is infinitely flexible and adaptable are, I think, ignoring the importance of making formations as integrated and cohesive as possible. If that happens, such elements as ethos, efficient communication, etc. etc. follow. Otherwise why create an amalgam like 16 AA Brigade, which has operated very efficiently over the years?<br /><br />However, that does lead me on to something that seems inconsistent. You say that recent changes have meant that 16 Air Assault Bde now has all the ground units, while the JHC has all the major aviation units and you seem to have approved of such changes. Those changes surely move away from the idea of integrated, cohesive formations which you seem to be propounding here. Or have I got that wrong? Is it different with the aviation elements?<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-54007807817727630002015-12-26T17:13:51.371+01:002015-12-26T17:13:51.371+01:00All might be. The army so far sure hasn't shar...All might be. The army so far sure hasn't shared any kind of detail. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-57279036370219986022015-12-26T16:36:11.465+01:002015-12-26T16:36:11.465+01:00Hi Gabriele,
And seasons greetings to one and all....Hi Gabriele,<br />And seasons greetings to one and all.<br />Just to put my cynical boot in,<br />I did wonder if the infantry battalions in both the armoured and strike brigades might be reduced to two infantry company's or to two platoons in each company?<br />Would that then be enough vehicles for 6 warrior and 6 MIVs battalions?<br />Or is the 2nd strike brigade to be without vehicles when its not active? 'The army able to deploy a division of 2 armoured and ONE strike brigades'<br />PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-88913121525189199732015-12-26T14:52:28.869+01:002015-12-26T14:52:28.869+01:00The number of MIV vehicles depends also on the var...The number of MIV vehicles depends also on the variants covered. If 40+ Warriors are enough in a battalion, it is just because many variants other than IFV are covered by FV432/ABSV. But if MIV has to come with its own mortar carrier variant and everything, the number needed goes up substantially. Not to mention that there should always be a margin for the training fleet and some reserve. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-59515246883529771202015-12-26T14:48:37.640+01:002015-12-26T14:48:37.640+01:00Right some more points and questions.
I quite lik...Right some more points and questions.<br /><br />I quite like your suggestion for keeping (and even increasing!) cap badges. It has always seemed a corollary of many pundits’ arguments that cap badges must inevitably be lost if amalgamation takes place, but if, as you say, the tank and infantry elements could keep their “battalion” status within the CAR, then they could preserve their respective capbadges while being combined into the new units. <br /><br />You say that “ideally, the Strike Brigades should have 3 infantry battalions on MIV, but it takes quite some optimism to imagine the British Army having enough funds to purchase the hundreds of 8x8s needed for such structure. “ Well, I have read in two different sources that the likely buy is something in the area of 300 MIVs. Would not that suffice for 6 infantry battalions (50 per battalion?). Or would that be grossly insufficicent? Alternatively, as you say, a light battalion, mounted on Foxhound, in each brigade, might be the solution. <br /><br />Agree with your suggestion that the Royal Artillery should buy a stock of the Alternative Warhead rockets, “which replace the submunitions with an enhanced fragmentation payload with zero risks of residual Unexploded Ordnance on the ground and restored wide-area attack capability. That is, of course, if the money is available. As you say, the US Army is beginning to put these munitions into service, and it can only enhance the capability once again of what is already a fine weapon system.<br />MikeWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-57142471010621330322015-12-24T18:45:05.550+01:002015-12-24T18:45:05.550+01:00It is true that the remaining LADs would have to g...It is true that the remaining LADs would have to grow somewhat. More accurately, they would have to change to reflect the fact that tanks and warriors would be found within the same regiment, so that Challenger recovery vehicles would have to be added. <br /><br />Overall, with one brigade being "downgraded to wheels" and the other two going to six CARs, significant REME numbers would be available to fix the second Strike Brigade. <br /><br />The mortars would be self propelled, absolutely. They would be carried in the tracked ABVS and the wheeled MIV respectively. <br /><br />As for the MIV, the armoured brigades should not include MIVs, unless the Army decides to expand use of some wheeled combat support variants (ambulances, command posts, maybe) to cut back correspondingly on ABSV conversions. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.com