It has been
in the works for quite some time, and will be a building site for several years
still, but the UK is finally standing up its own Combat Aviation Brigade to
bring some order in the convoluted and overlapping command arrangements of its
helicopter forces.
I’ve known
about this plan for many months, but couldn’t really talk about it before some
sort of official announcement was released. This finally happened yesterday,
even if, primarily because of the pandemic, it was an extremely low-key news.
I’ve been
and I remain extremely critical of much of what the Army is doing and saying
about its future, but for all it’s worth I can certainly say I am a big
supporter of this one move. It is arguably long, long overdue and the brigading
of the units involved in fielding aviation groups in support of british land
forces has long featured in my recommendations for the future structures of the
Army.
The Wings
of what once was 24 Air Mobile Brigade have been chosen as the TRF for the new
1 star command, 1st Aviation Brigade (1st Avn Bde). Fun fact: in my proposals for the future, as far back as 2013, I had seen this coming. It has to be admitted, however,
that it was a relatively easy guess: the other likely candidate was the
Striking Eagle badge that used to be 16 Air Assault Brigade’s symbol until the
return of Pegasus In 2018 and which has stuck around since as badge of the
Attack Helicopter Force.
Back to serious
matters, 1st Aviation Brigade is the main component of a wider
restructuring of Army aviation (known as Project COLINDALE) which has been
very, very slowly progressing ever since 2015.
Primary
drivers for change are the need to generate efficiencies; the need to build a
C2 construct capable to brigade aviation elements in support of a Divisional
deployment, rather than penny-packet groups only suited to brigade or
sub-brigade deployments; and the ongoing review of the infrastructure footprint
of the Army Air Corps.
Notoriously,
all three Services have had to craft a plan to divest a lot of bases, barracks
and land in an effort to achieve savings and enable the modernization of the
remaining infrastructure. Army Aviation is supposed to do its bit in this
project, but decisions on the future footprint remain elusive. Essentially, the
biggest dilemma is whether to close down Middle Wallop or Wattisham, since
Yeovilton is going nowhere and there isn’t a real alternative to keeping
Aldergrove for operations in Northern Ireland.
From what
can be observed from the outside, the closure of Wattisham with the migration
soutwards of the Apache squadrons is the desired outcome, but clearly the
complexity and cost of the move are very much preventing the sealing of a
definitive plan. It is clear that the time for such a move is now, if not
yesterday, since the transition between the current AH1 standard and the new
Block III standard is soon to begin on the flightline, with the first
remanufactured helicopters arriving this year. The Army would like to co-locate
all Apache training phases, currently split between Conversion To Type carried
out by 673 AAC at Middle Wallop and Conversion To Role done by 653 AAC, Wattisham, with the ultimate
objective of also merging the 2 squadrons into a single one (653 AAC).
3 and 4
Regiments will remain otherwise relatively unchanged, each with its two
frontline squadrons and with an uplift to manpower in the ground element to
sustain an higher operational tempo for high intensity operations.
In terms of
Command and Control, aviation groups have so far deployed under the control of
HQs pieced together from disparate Joint Helicopter Command resources, assigned
to the commander of one of the constituent forces. The Commander of the Attack
Helicopter Force has been the core for one such “makeshift” Aviation Task Force
(ATF-1); Commando Helicopter Force provides another (ATF-2) and Support
Helicopter Force (RAF Chinook and Puma 2 squadrons) provide the basis for a
third.
The use of
Force Commanders and augmentees from JHC is no longer judged sufficient as it
lacks the command capacity and battle staff power needed to plan, refine and execute multiple
tasks at the necessary speed, concurrency and endurance.
The
formation of a permanent 1-star command with associated staff also offers the
benefit of providing a “plug-in point” that better enables integration with
international forces and, primarily, with the US Army’s own Combat Aviation
Brigades. Most countries the UK will be working with, have long had a 1-star
Aviation HQ directing employment of Aviation Battlegroups, and others, like
France, have in recent times gone in the same direction.
1st
Aviation Brigade, based in Middle Wallop, will be born out of the progressive
merging of the current Attack Helicopter Force (AHF) command element (the
overarching command sitting above 3 and 4 Regiments AAC) with the Aviation
Reconnaissance Force (ARF, essentially the overarching command element
overseeing 1 and
5 Regiments AAC) and later of the Watchkeeper Force (WKF) as well.
Instead of
having separate AHF and ARF forces, the Avn Bde will instead be a deputy
commader in chief for the ATTACK and one for the FIND functions.
Watchkeeper
will continue to be operated by 47 Regiment Royal Artillery, which continues to
work on equipping and training 4 equipment batteries. The change of command
won’t be particularly dramatic since 47 RA has been under Joint Helicopter
Command control already since 31 august 2016, when it resubordinated from 1st
ISR Brigade as part of efforts to overcome the problems that have tormented
this UAV capability in its work up to full service readiness.
Under the
31 (HQ) Bty, 10 (Assaye) Bty and 43 (Lloyd’s Company) Bty were the first
subunits to become operational with Watchkeeper, and have since been joined by
74 (The battleaxe Company) Bty and finally by 57 (Bhurtpore) Bty, which
resubordinated from 32 RA during 2019.
From 2019, Watchkeeper is finally cleared to fly from Boscombe Down. Intense operations are ongoing also from Akrotiri, Cyprus. |
1 Regiment
AAC has had to abandon all ambitions of eventually re-activating 669 AAC and
672 AAC squadrons on AW-159 WILDCAT, as had once been planned. These ex Lynx
units have now disbanded, leaving the Regiment composed of 661 and 659
Squadrons, plus 652 as training unit delivering both Conversion to Type and to
Role. The regiment will have the ability to force generate as an Aviation
Battlegroup for deployment.
4 Regiment
AAC has under command 656 and 664 Squadrons on Apaches. The first is the
specialist in Apache shipboard operations and the primary supplier of Attack
Helicopter support to 3 Commando Brigade. 664 is primarily aligned to 16 Air
Assault Brigade. The regiment will increasingly contributed to the max output
required by Division scale operations, however. It should eventually take
responsibility also for the combined CTT and CTR training unit, 653 Sqn.
3 Regiment
AAC has the Apache squadrons 662 and 663. Both Attack Helicopter regiments will
have the ability to force generate as Aviation Battlegroups for deployment.
5 Regiment
AAC will oversee internal security operations (essentially, Northern Ireland
and Special Forces support) and will also oversee aviation support to training
overseas (7 Flight in Brunei and 29 Flight in BATUS). The regiment is otherwise
made up by 2 squadrons; 665 AAC operates Gazelle helicopters from Aldergrove,
while 651 AAC operates fixed wing ISLANDER and DEFENDER aircraft from the same
base. Since 1 April 2019, however, 651 Sqn has been transferred to the RAF and
once the new arrangements eventually reach Full Operational Capability, 651 will
be removed from the Army’s order of battle. 665 AAC is instead intended to
re-equip with a new helicopter replacing Gazelle. The expectation is that a
small number of H-145 helicopters will be acquired for the role. Some could
also replace the Gazelles of 29 Flight in BATUS, Canada.
658
Squadron, which operates in support of the SAS with Dauphin helicopters, will
sit under the regiment but clearly its actual line of command is somewhere
else.
The Brigade
also commands 6 Regiment AAC with its 4 squadrons of reservists (675. 677, 678
and 679) who backfill ground support roles positions and provide war
establishment uplift to the manpower of regular squadrons.
The
training regiments (2, 7 and 9) of the Army Air Corps will not be included in
the brigade. With WILDCAT training delivered directly by 1 Regiment AAC via 652
Sqn and with the same approach eventually planned for adoption by 3 and 4
Regiments with 653 AAC taking over all phases of APACHE training, it is
expected that 7 Regiment AAC will fold its remaining functions into 5 Regiment
AAC (training for the successor to Gazelle and oversight of overseas flights)
and then disband. There are no firm official dates yet for this to happen; the
main obstacle being the enduring inability to agree on whether to vacate
Wattisham.
2 Regiment
will carry on delivering the early phases of AAC personnel training in 668 and
676 Squadrons.
9 Regiment
has been recently stood up at RAF Shawbury as part of the Defence Helicopter
Flying School and has taken under command 670 AAC and 60 RAF Squadrons. It
works alongside 2 Maritime Air Wing which delivers training through 660 AAC and
705 NAS squadrons. This arrangement will carry on.
The aviation
brigade will deploy under 3(UK) Division for major divisional operations and
will deploy scalable C2 elements and associated Aviation Battlegroups or Units
of Action for smaller scale contingencies. The Brigade will be resourced to
operate with “at least” 4 Avg BGs and will be able to take under command
non-british formations.
In
particular, it is assumed than in any “max effort” scenario requiring 3(UK)
Division to be fielded, 1st Aviation Brigade would have to deploy
the vast majority of all frontline helicopter fleets, as it is expected than
the Littoral Manoeuvre helicopter force (the Commando Helicopter Force with the
MERLINs of 845 and 846 NAS plus the WILDCATs of 847 NAS, reinforced by 656 AAC
with APACHEs and some CHINOOKs for heavy lift) would be required to operate as
the same time as the main ground-based force.
Air
mobility up to Company level is also assumed as requirement for Rear Area
security: during a Divisional deployment, a Light Brigade formed out of units
from 1st (UK) Division would deploy with Rear Area security roles.
It is
assumed that 2 Squadrons of CHINOOKs, for up to 26 helicopters in total, would
be deployed for such a large scale operation. If massed together for a primary
operation, these helicopters could easily airlift a whole air assault battalion
in one wave. If realized, this ambition would mean deploying more Chinooks than
are found normally in American CABs.
24 Apache
would also be the target, same number as are found in an attack battalion
within an American CAB.
The main
weakness of british aviation is naturally Medium Lift. Wildcat has extremely
limited lift capability, while the small number of Puma HC2s is expected to be,
for the most part, busy with Special Forces requests. The Americans,
conversely, employ large numbers of Black Hawks, including several permanently
tasked with CASEVAC / MEDEVAC role. French, Italians, Germans and others count
on large numbers of NH-90 for the medium lift, but, with the sole exception of
Germany, are in turn much weaker in terms of heavy lift.
Apart from
the new and enhanced capabilities of command and execution of multiple
concurrent operations, the Brigade will benefit from a substantial
restructuring of 7 Battalion REME, which also includes 132 Squadron, Royal
Logistic Corps, combining Equipment Support and repair with logistic
sustainment of the deployed force.
Regimental REME
workshops within 1, 3 and 4 Regiments will be restructured and strengthened
with their own Equipment Support platoons and vehicle platoon for sustaining
increased tempo of operations in the field.
On top of
those organic resources, 7 REME will provide a 2nd line of Aviation
Close Support in the field, with two Aviation Companies (71 and 72) and a Field
Company specializing in Recovery (70 Fd Coy). 73 Aviation Coy relocated to
Yeovilton in the last few years and will merge with 1 AAC regiment’s workshop
elements to provide organic support.
1st
Aviation Brigade is very much inspired by the US Army’s own CABs, but, for the
moment at least, will continue to suffer of some of the typically british
over-convoluted and overlapping layers of command and inter-service
arrangements.
Somewhat counter-intuitively, for example, the brigade does not
seem destined to include 244 Signal Squadron, the designate aviation support
comms units, which remains more loosely at JHC level, despite the unquestioned
need for Communication and Information Support. I fully expect experience in
the field to eventually lead to the resubordination of said squadron into the
brigade, regardless of what the assumptions are right now.
More
significantly, while 1st Avn Bde will have very significant organic
FIND and ATTACK capabilities thanks to WILDCAT, WATCHKEEPER and APACHE, it
won’t have direct day to day control over Manoeuvre helicopters as the CHINOOK
and PUMA Squadrons are part of the RAF.
Connection
with these crucial elements will be maintained through the higher level of
command (Joint Helicopter Command), and deployed support helicopters will fall
under 1st Avn Bde control during operations. Even then, it is acknowledged
that “support helicopter squadrons have less organic life support than attack
and recce formations and are not expected to manoeuvre in the same way”.
Similarly,
the brigade won’t have direct control of the Tactical Supply Wing and Joint
Helicopter Support Squadron.
This once
again brings into focus the unhelpful awkwardness of having the troop carrying
helicopters, quite frankly, sitting under the “wrong” Service. I don’t intend
to denigrate the RAF’s commitment to the Support Helicopter Force, much as I
will be inexorably accused of doing exactly that. I believe I’m simply stating
a fact of life.
I will also
immediately acknowledge that it is, at the moment and in the foreseeable future
at the very least, almost unthinkable to prospect a transfer of CHINOOK and
PUMA in Army hands. The effects on manpower could admittedly be disastrous if a
well established RAF “family” was broken up, dramatically changing the career
prospects of those who serve into it. Moreover, the Army is the Service that is
most severely struggling with recruitment and retention, as well as grappling
with decades of accumulated obsolescence across its structures and vehicle
fleets, leading to a budget which is already broken as it is. As a consequence,
I am NOT recommending a transfer at this time, although I will forever remark
that it should be an objective for the future, perhaps to be incrementally
implemented alongside the purchase of new build CHINOOKs to replace the oldest
airframes in the coming years (assuming that the ongoing CHINOOK Capability
Sustainment Programme does survive the new Integrated Review, of course).
Transferring
capabilities is difficult, but not impossible: the already mentioned case of
651 AAC is an example, and the transfer of MERLIN HC3 to the Navy is another.
What I am
unashamedly urging is the immediate consideration of alternative joint
solutions to bring the Support Helicopter Force into the Aviation Brigade and
to restructure CHINOOK and PUMA 2 ground support / life support elements to
deliver a more homogeneous capability for manoeuvre and flexible basing. As of
now, APACHE and WILDCAT units are aiming for an increased ability to deploy
forward and switch between Forward Operating Bases and multiple FARPs to
operate in bitterly contested scenarios, while CHINOOK and PUMA 2 remain more
decisively tied to availability of a better established Main Operating Base.
In
addition, I believe that any honest appraisal of the resources available would
conclude that creating a coherent Aviation Sustainment Battalion by combining
Tactical Supply Wing, JHSS and 132 RLC Sqn is the sound thing to do. 7 REME
could then focus entirely on Equipment Support.
Finally,
proper planning should go into an integrated plan for adjusting / expanding the
warfighting establishment as required, with Reserve support coming both from 6
AAC Regiment and from Royal Auxiliary Air Force formations. 1st
Aviation Brigade will indeed include 6 AAC Regiment in its structure exactly
for that purpose, and RauxAF elements connected to the Support Helicopter Force
will, in a way or another, end up involved in any case.
Better to
properly develop the arrangements in peacetime than scramble later when
deployment time comes.
24 Airmobile Brigade maybe?
ReplyDelete"The aviation brigade will deploy under 3(UK) Division for major divisional operations"
ReplyDeleteThe brigade includes 4 Regiment AAC which supports 3 Cdo Brigade (not part of 3 Div) and 16 Air Assault Brigade (not part of 3 Div). I don't find this Aviation Brigade a clear structure, although the Brigade staff should be an improvement on the current structure.
1 aviation bde + Strike bde combo = awesome !
ReplyDeleteThe Strike Brigade is weak in anti-tank weapons. Every Infantry section has an AT weapon, but short range. The medium range weapons in the battalion AT platoon are not vehicle mounted for use under armour, and are vulnerable to mortars and artillery when out on the ground. Attack helicopter support is a possible response to this weakness.
DeleteA strike battle group contacting tanks could send a request up the chain of command to Brigade. That would be passed on to division. Depending on plans and current tasks, an order could be sent to the Aviation Brigade. Then an aviation battle group would be allocated and would lease with the strike battle group for current friendly and enemy locations. This not an ideal process for me.
"lease" the strike battle group is something the Tories might do, if I am being very cynical. I meant "liaise".
DeleteYea but strike isn't meant to deal with tanks or modern armour. If one needs to deal with modern armour then an armoured battle group would be added or an armoured infantry brigade sent instead. While there are many thousands of T72 / BMP spread around the world most of these have old armour that can be dealt with quite adequately by a land component force that includes a strike bde at its core. Remember also that in a divisional context strike's role is one of manoeuvre support and one can expect its assets to be chopped to the armoured infantry brigade(s) and vice-versa. I do take your point on aviation it can reduce, but not yet fully replace, the dependency on ground based anti-armour.
DeleteFor me however the big question is what comes after strike? It's in service date is roughly the middle of this decade and it's not unreasonable for its basic philosophy and structure to endure for about 5 to 10 years or more. But what then, more of the same or perhaps in an age of robots, information manoeuvre, non-kinetic energy weapons and true deep strike artillery perhaps a really, really radical rethink of hitherto cherished military structures as well as of personnel numbers?
What is STRIKE meant to deal with, then...? The Army insists it is NOT meant for Mali, but exactly for the kind of high intensity scenarios which will have all kinds of armour roaring around, from wheeled to tracked.
DeleteEven assuming it can avoid the massed MBT formations, there is not a realistic way to avoid confrontation with enemy medium forces, wheeled or otherwise, which are all much more heavily armed.
It is one of the many holes in the STRIKE narrative which continue not to have any kind of answer.
Aviation of course help, but again we have been told that STRIKE is meant to deal with the kind of scenario in which A2AD negates availability of air support. If this is the premise, yet the solution to all problems continue to be "we'll do it from the sky", all logic is gone from the discussion.
The Army really, really, really needs to decide what STRIKE is, and what it is realistically good for.
I guess you'll have to wait for the new Land Operating Concept / next war for the answer. https://www.army-technology.com/news/british-army-modernisation-challenge/
DeleteThis is the major-general's speech from the MoD.
Deletehttps://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2020/01/british-army-at-the-international-armoured-vehicles-conference-twickenham-20-23-january-2020/
When I read it I was reminded of Gilbert and Sullivan's modern Major General.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSpFksJ9LQ
To be clear, the army is developing a Land Operating Concept. Thousands of millions have been committed to buying Axax and Boxer but the army has not a scooby how to use them.
DeleteScouring what the army publishes in search of a concept which is a bit more solid than a long list of buzzwords is a painfully frustrating and useless endeavour. I've read the Land Concept 2035 article in the latest issue of the British Army Review, and it isn't much better.
DeleteGabriele you say "I’ve known about this plan for many months, but couldn’t really talk about it before some sort of official announcement was released". So how did you know about it before the announcement then?
ReplyDeleteI have been given the chance to read some of the papers which led to this development, over the past year or more.
DeleteFrom MikeW:
ReplyDeleteHi Gaby,
A very informative article indeed. I wanted, however, to ask the following question about the British Combat Aviation Brigade.
I was under the impression that the Apache AH.1s were originally sent to Wattisham because they would be nearer the centre of 16 Air Assault Brigade’s activities at Colchester. With the formation of a Combat Aviation Brigade, will the role of 16 Air Assault Bde be changed to any great extent, in terms of units, personnel and kit or will it retain its present role as Britain’s Rapid Reaction Force?
You see, it was not so long ago, if memory serves me correctly, that the Brigade began losing units and capability to a quite perturbing extent . They lost their HCR element (D Squadron), and suffered losses to their Artillery, Air Defence, Signals and Engineer capabilities. I suppose that a parachute capability of some kind will have to be retained but I was wondering whether the Brigade’s foremost purpose will be kept. From what you say, the formation of the Combat Aviation Brigade has more to do with the organization of “brigade aviation elements in support of a Divisional deployment, rather than penny-packet groups only suited to brigade or sub-brigade deployments”, so will the formation of the new Brigade really affect 16 Air Assault Brigade very much at all? After all, we still very much need a rap,id deployment formation, don’t we?
For several years, the Attack regiments were directly part of 16 Air Assault, as you probably remember. But that is no longer the case. Essentially, 3 Regiment has spent the last few years focused on Divisional work, and 4 Regiment covers the Air Assault and Commando battalions at readiness.
DeleteThe fate of 16 Air Assault depends on decisions in the SDSR. The creation of 1st Aviation Brigade in itself doesn't change 16 AA's role. If anything, i think the use in combination of 16 and 1 brigades could deliver better results.
But as always there are calls to do "things" with 16 Air Assault's elements. One proposal is having all of the Para battalions following 1 PARA as "Ranger-like" special forces support / SOF capable units. If this happens, it might mean there is no longer an air assault task force.
Or it might mean the task force gets a new organisation and maybe more resources.
At the moment, we can't know.
Ahead of an SDSR, and particularly now that the COVID 19 situation has crashed down upon us all, you can't know what will happen.
I don't see it being because of 1st Avn Bde, in any case. If it happens, it'll be its own cut. Let's hope it does not happen.
From MikeW:
DeleteHi Gaby
Many thanks for your reply, which was clear-sighted and sensible as usual. I’d just like to ask a further question, which is this:
The Watchkeeper units seem a little short of support vehicles and equipment - only the odd Pinzgauer towing vehicle shown. What happened to the 21 Viking vehicles promised as support/control vehicles for the Watchkeepers? Have they gone to the Royal Marines?
I must admit i'm still not sure what happened to the planned Viking-mounted tactical posts for Watchkeeper. They have certainly not transferred to the Royal Marines; either they were never, in the end, acquired, or they are kind of a well kept secret because they never really get mentioned at all, these days.
DeleteReally don't know what exactly happened there.
Interesting article, personally I think 16AAB should be disbanded. The parachute regiment could then re-role into an enhanced battalion commando/ranger type group, with a small attached arms element (artillery, signals, engineers, surgical capability). I served with 16AAB in the early 2000s and there was nothing that 16AAB could do that any other light infantry brigade couldn’t (ok parachuting, but, this is a dead method of delivering a war fighting capability). Even calling it elite was a bit of a stretch; approximately half of all arms P Company applicants pass the course, as opposed to a third thirty years ago.
DeleteReduce the paras to enhanced battalion level, provided them with additional training and make the unit a true elite.
Will this aviation brigade under JHC or 3rd Div for administrative control during peace time?
ReplyDeleteFor now at least, it looks like JHC. A move under 3rd Division in the future would not surprise me, though.
DeleteAn interesting thought is whether 1 aviation and 16 air assault brigades might eventually form a divisional sized formation, either as a standalone permanent formation or as forward elements under temporary control of 3(UK) Division?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is overly likely to happen. I could see a Division standing up handling the two brigades in a really major deployment under ARRC Corps command, though.
DeleteAn off subject question for you.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Italy will seek to integrate more with EU Defence or with NATO and like minded allies? If the latter would Italy benefit from joining the JEF and/or might it seek closer defence cooperation with the UK, and if so what might that look like? A slightly long question I know.
Italy has a big and important defence industry sector. Something that people often seem to forget. Even if you count Leonardo Uk "out", Italy makes a lot of stuff in defence. So, on the industrial side, it does not like being sidelined. Germany and France sought to screw italian industry on FCAS, and Italy went with the UK's Tempest as a consequence.
DeleteSomething similar could happen again on plans for new MBT and IFV, potentially: it very much depends on whether the UK is interested, has the money and can make for a good partner.
As for military integration during ops, at least as long as this government lasts, Italy will play along with Europe. But the military will ensure that integration with NATO remains, so on that front the answer is, really, it'll seek to do both.
Hello Gabrielle,
ReplyDeleteFantastic blog as always,slightly different topic and question, do youk know want happened to the CFT tests for the Typhoon. Did they work well, or not as good as first thought. I thought the RAF were interested in them at some point
Many thanks
Hello and thank you!
DeleteAs for Conformals on Typhoon, the tests must have not gone well because all has gone clear on that front. Reportedly they had too much of an impact on flight control and no one wants to spend money on trying to work in the fixes. In fact, while trying to convince the germans to spend money on a Typhoon "ECR" for electronic warfare, Eurofighter tried to push for new under-wing fuel tanks and for making "wet" pylons which currently are only for dry stores.
That is proof that Conformals are very unlikely to come to Typhoon, unfortunately. Otherwise they would never even try to offer such a convoluted alternative.
Hi Gabriele
ReplyDeleteIs there any news about testing of the CFTs for the Typhoon , did they work, and not as well as planned. I know the RAF were interested.
Many thanks
Hi Gabriele
ReplyDeleteHow is the Italian infantry structured are they the same as the British with individual cap badges or numbered, I spoke to a ex Sergeant in the british army and he reckons that everything is heading towards a single cap badge, would you agree with him or do you think thinks will stay the same
Hello there,
DeleteIn Italy i'd say we work in a way perhaps closer to France's one. We do not have multiple battalions being part of a "Regiment" with a capbadge. Our battalions have regimental identity and can have both a number and a name, as they are named after their predecessors. There is no "capbadge religion", however, and when a traditionally tank regiment recently changed role and became a recce cavalry formation, it completely abandoned the previous identity and picked up that of a famous cavalry regiment of the past. I guess you could say it's done more like the RAF would do with a Squadron badge. The British Army would never do such a brutal change. It would come through some kind of "merge" with everything being re-examined including the belt and regimental tie...
I don't know. It seems unlikely to me that we are going to see a single badge anytime soon, but i do hope the capbadge religion is progressively given up in favor of a greater focus on capability rather than ties.
Thanks for your reply Gab
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you, with one part of the army holding the rest to ransome because their inability to see beyond their own cap badge.
My mate the ex serjeant ( infantry) said to me his local regiment he wanted to join got disband in 1967 and therefore the one he was a cadet with also went belly up in the 1968 reforms.so technically the local regiment system as been dead for years ( and they are his own words) Me thinks it's time to move forwards and like you said time to restructure so the army has the capabilities it desperately needs.
I mean when we are told that we are out gunned and out range by the men in charged of the army, what the hell has been going on in the upper
Echelons of military power.
Yes we might have a smaller size force than we want but at least give it the equipment that it needs to provide the power and punch it richly deserves.
Do you Gab have info on what sort of budget the front line forces of the army operate on and the costing of equipment that you think the army should be procuring that enables us to live within our means.
Playing estimates with the cost of weapon systems is always very hard, because we have only partial visibility on contracts and, of course, most of them can't really be considered in isolation but require control over infrastructure, munitions, training costs etcetera. It's hard to come up with numbers.
DeleteHello gabriele,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the reply regarding typhoon CFTs. I have another query regarding the challenger 2 engine. I saw in another forum from a few years ago that perkins, the existing engine maker, were making alterations to the engine including a new diesel common rail that would increase power. This would mean a new engine , such as the mtu, would not need fitting. Have you any news on the existing engine upgrade if any?.
Many thanks again
I know that some touchups for the engine are planned as part of the CSP, but i'm afraid i do not have real details. I'd love to know, though.
DeleteHi Gaby
ReplyDeleteWhat's your thoughts on the combined arms battalion concept or is it just another name for a battle group.
And if there is force structure model for the British army that would be worth copying from another country which one would that be.
Many Thanks
Hello,
Deletesince the Combined Arms Battalion is pretty much a permanent battlegroup, it much more closely reflects how the soldiers actually operate once deployed. I'm very much a supporter of the CAB concept, because permanent arrangements allow better training and closer relationship between the components. I've actually written quite a bit about this in the past: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2016/08/british-heavy-armour-for-future.html
Hello baby, again great content as always on this and twitter, reference you tweet on the voyager boom, do you know roughly , if at all the cost of fitting a boom to the voyager. Would it be more than say 50 million dollars an aircraft, or less , or even more.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks
Hello.
DeleteNo, i don't know what the cost would be. But 50 million is a hell of a lot; i'd expect definitely less than that.
Au contraire, knowing aviation I think you could add 0 for such a modification and still have to pay more, that is a cool half £ billion +. The question then is whether there's something more pressing you'd rather spend a cool half £ billion on?
DeleteSorry Gabriele , predictive text disaster along with not reading my message properly. My apologies
ReplyDeleteNo worries.
DeleteInteresting blog.
ReplyDeletewonder how the aviation bde will link into the div OSG in HQ ?
ReplyDeleteBe interesting to have an article on 16 air assault brigade in the light of the appearance of the new aviation brigade. In particular what the former might look like after SDSR20.
ReplyDeleteHi Gab
ReplyDeleteConcerning the utter incompetence of the MOD
top level military officers in dealing with procurement with the eye watering sums of money that they are over budget with, which will cost us the taxpayers a fortune.
Do you think that all large procurements should be given to professional negotiators who have the skills to play hardball with industry to get the right equipment for the budget that we have available.
Because it seems to me that industry are shafting These Military professionals and civil servants at every opportunity. I might be a bit cynical in thinking there seems to be a element of the old boys network involved in procurement with these people perhaps all going to the same types of schools and universities
Hello Gab,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any further info or a link to Project COLINDALE? Thanks and regards!