The Fuchs make their comeback; Royal Engineers restructuring continues

With the 1st and 2nd Royal Tank Regiments due to formally merge with a parade on August 2, the program to refurbish the Fuchs CBRN Area Reconnaissance vehicles is picking up momentum. The vehicles will be assigned to Falcon Sqn, The Royal Tank Regiment, which will stand up specifically for the CBRN Area Reconnaissance role. Falcon Sqn will start to assembly in Warminster and eventually take over Harlem lines barracks from what used to be A Sqn, Armoured Demonstration Squadron, 1st Royal Tank Regiment. The rest of the regiment will be based in Tidworth as a Type 56 tank formation comprising the armoured squadrons AJAX, BADGER and CYCLOPS, each with 18 Challenger 2 tanks, plus DREADNAUGHT as Command and Reconnaissance Squadron, and EGYPT as HQ Squadron.

Falcon squadron might also claw back the Multi-Purpose Decontamination System (MPDS) vehicles from the 20 Wing Defence CBRN, RAF Regiment, in a real U-turn away from the 2011 plan to disband the Joint CBRN regiment, withdraw the Fuchs from service and maintain a lighter CBRN capability in the RAF Regiment only.

A contract notice has been put up for the refurbishment and re-commissioning of the Fuchs training simulator. The contract also includes a Train-the-Trainer service and a 5-years support package. 
Earlier contracts have been let out to purchase systems for the refurbishment of the 11 Fuchs themselves. A contract covering their reactivation, almost certainly going to be awarded to Rheinmetall, will follow.



Meanwhile, Army 2020 restructuring continues. Today, 1st and 12th Mechanized Brigades have formally changed their titles in Armoured Infantry Brigades as they work towards taking the shape mandated by Army 2020.
The King's Royal Hussars is the first tank regiment to assume the new Type 56 structure, and is preparing for taking up the tank battlegroup role within the Lead Armoured Battlegroup, with its turn at readiness beginning in October.
The 1st Royal Irish is instead undergoing a 9 months training and reset program to become the first fully operational Light Protected Mobility Infantry battalion.

Change in the Royal Engineers continues, as well. 25 Close Support Group, the sub-command inside 8th Engineer Brigade that will control the close support engineer regiments, will stand up on the 1st of August.

The 29 EOD & Search Group is also undergoing internal restructuring. After the stand-up of 821 EOD Sqn, which provides 2 Commando and 2 PARA EOD troops, 350 RE Sqn (Reserve), re-roled to EOD, came under the command of 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD).
33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) is particularly aligned with the Reaction Force, with 101 aligned primarily with the Adaptable Force. The responsibility for the provision of Search support to UK Military Aid to Civil Powers (MACP) has transferred to 11 EOD Regt RLC alongside the establishment of a total of 135 RE posts.

The EOD Group restructured to comply with Army 2020 plans has an IOC target set for April 2015, with FOC in 2019 with the structure shown in the table below.

Colored names denote Reserve unit.

170 Infrastructure Support is also restructuring:

170 Group before Army 2020: the grey units have been disbanded. Yellow is for Reserve

The current structure.

The final Army 2020 structure towards which the Group is working. In blue the heavy, specialized teams which are due to be grouped together under 66 Works Group.

75 Engineer Regiment (Reserve), the unit which is taking up the Wide Wet Gap Crossing capability from the disbanding 28 Regt, will re-subordinate to 12 (Force Support) Group on August 1st.

The diagram in full resolution showing the final Army 2020 Royal Engineers structure is available in my Army 2020 Pintrest gallery.

Fuchs resurrection and a new MBDA concept for future weapons

Fuchs to resurrect? 

The Telegraph reports that, as part of a review into the Army's capability to deal with contingency scenarios (shaped, in this case, on Syria's situation), the defence chiefs have concluded that the early retirement of the armoured Chemical, Bacteriological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Reconnaissance Vehicles, the Fuchs, was a grave mistake. The MOD is now reportedly scrambling to find money from other voices of expenditure to re-direct on CBRN, to bring the Fuchs back out of storage and into an active role. 

If the Telegraph's information is correct, Rheinmetall's technicians have already been called in the UK to survey the storaged vehicles and overview their return to service. The 9 armored vehicles (from an original number of 11, gifted to the UK by Germany on the eve of the involvment in the first Gulf War) used to be operated by the soldiers of 1st Royal Tank Regiment as part of the Joint CBRN Regiment, formed by Army and RAF units. 

The Fuchs CBRN wide area recon / survey vehicle

The Joint CBRN Regiment was terminated in 2011, however, with the early withdrawal from service of the Fuchs and the passage of the whole CBRN role to the sole RAF Regiment (even if a small number of army and navy personnel continues to be part of the team). 
The Joint CBRN Regiment, born from the Labour-led Strategic Defence Review of 1998/99, was based in RAF Honington and comprised 1st Royal Tank Regiment (minus A Squadron), elements of the Royal Yeomanry regiment (Territorial Army), 27 Field Squadron RAF Regiment and 2623 Sqn
RAuxAF Regt. 

In December 2011, the Army moved out of the picture with the Regiment becoming the "Defence CBRN Wing", manned by the RAF Regiment. In the occasion, the Commandant General RAF Regt issued the following message to the Corps:

“On Tue 2 Aug 11, the Secretary of State for Defence agreed to the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) measure - subsumed by a PR11 Option - to delete the Joint Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regt and transfer all of Defence’s specialist CBRN capabilities to the RAF Regt.

The key implications of this decision will be as follows: there will be no impact upon those capabilities currently provided by the RAF Regt (26 and 27 Sqns RAF Regt and 2623 Sqn RAuxAF
Regt, and the RAF will remain the Lead Service for CBRN); the wide area CBRN reconnaissance and survey capabilities, based upon the Fuchs armoured vehicle, will be gapped; all other capabilities currently provided by the Army element of the Jt CBRN Regt (the Multi Purpose Decontamination System, some of the Light Role Teams, and all command and control) will transfer to a wholly-RAF Regt manned Defence CBRN Wg, which will include 26 Sqn RAF Regt, 27 Sqn RAF Regt and 2623 Sqn RAuxAF Regt. Whilst there will be a modest increase to the RAF Regt
establishment, there will be a net reduction of 319 Army posts in the current specialist CBRN Force. The total saving to Defence will be £129 million over 10 years.

The Commander-in-Chief UK Land Forces informed 1 Royal Rank Regt (1RTR) personally yesterday of the decision to cease all Army involvement in specialist CBRN.
No decisions have been made on the future of 1RTR; this will be considered as part of the wider requirement to restructure the Army in light of the recent outcome of the ‘3-Month Exercise’, and is wholly a matter for the Army. 1 RTR will remain at RAF Honington for at least the medium term, while the transfer of capabilities takes place and their future is decided.
 
This decision brings to a conclusion a protracted period of intensive, sometimes understandably impassioned debate over the future provision of specialist CBRN capabilities for Defence. Detailed planning for the implementation of the measure will now commence.
This will be the responsibility of the AOC 2 Gp, on whose behalf I will develop plans for the appropriately timely transfer of operational command and control and operational capabilities, the continued delivery of which remains the Defence priority. This will be done in close cooperation with HQ Land (specifically, Director Royal Armoured Corps) to ensure that Army personnel matters are addressed positively and sensitively.
 
1RTR have made a quite extraordinary (and often largely unsung) contribution to Defence over the past 12 years. They have done so with all the exemplary professionalism and commitment typical of their proud heritage. It has truly been an honour to serve alongside them, and I know that all members of the RAF Regt will wish them every success in whatever the future may hold.
 
As for the RAF Regt, this decision will leave the Corps as the UK’s sole provider of specialist CBRN capabilities for Defence. Clearly, given the circumstances of the MOD’s preparedness to take risk against the deletion of the Fuchs capability in the context of a parlous financial climate, this is the right decision for Defence and it is not the time for inter-Service triumphalism. Be under no illusion that the responsibility placed upon the RAF Regt will be enormous and expectations will be high - we must deliver, and I know that we will, no matter what the challenges that lie ahead.”

The Defence CBRN Wing, which has taken over the number, nameplate and identity of 20 Wing, RAF Regiment, is composed by Wingg HQ, 26 Sqn RAF Regt, 27 Sqn RAF Regt, 2623 Sqn RAuxAF Regt, and a CBRN Operational Conversion Unit (OCU).
The transfer of capability from the Army elements of the Regiment to the RAF includes the formation of 6 new RAF-manned Light Role CBRN Teams (in addition to 2 that the RAF element already provided), the transfer of the Decontamination capability (with the Multi Purpose Decontamination Systems) and of the specilistic CBRN Command & Control capability. 

The 8 Light Role Team (LRT) is a strategically mobile, easily deployed self-sufficient CBRN investigation team. It is composed by 8 men, assisted by a bespoke Pinzgauer 6x6 vehicle fully loaded with CBRN Detection, Identification, Monitoring and Analysis Equipment.
The elements of kit retained to be used by the LRTs comprise both in service and Commercial Off The Shelf equipment, which can be dismounted and loaded onto other platforms. The team is self-sufficient for a period of 3 days, during which it can carry out up to three missions, each lasting up to 8 hours.

A Light Role Team showing off its kit

27 Squadron, Royal Air Force Regiment, holds the Integrated Biological Detection Systems (IBDS) platforms. The IBDS is a detection suite with atmospheric sampling equipment, a meteorological station, chemical agent detection and cameras for 360° surveillance, all housed in a rugged 14 feet container meant for quick air deployability. It can be airlifted by aircrafts and helicopters and ground-dumped or installed on a 4x4 truck. The system is operated by a team of four and comes with its own independent power supply, GPS, NBC filtration and environmental control unit for operation in all climates. 

The IBDS

Another fundamental piece of capability is the Multi-Purpose Decontamination System (MPDS), produced by Karcher. This is a high-pressure, high-temperature water/steam pump, installed on a water tank carried by a Leyland DROPS truck. It is used for the washing and decontamination of vehicles and has been upgraded with the installation of the Direct Application Decontamination System (DADS), which dispenses a decontaminant agent.

The small number of MPDS available brought to a UOR order on the eve of operation TELIC, with the purchase of the Bruhn Newtech/Cristinini Vehicle-Borne Decontamination Capability (VBDC). The system is actually a small, back-worn device that can be carried inside or outside a military vehicle and be employed by a single man to decontaminate the vehicle with the dispensing of BX24 (chlorine bleach) decontaminant through a telescopic brush.

The Defence CBRN Wing also provides two SIBCRA teams: Sampling and Identification of Biological, Chemical and Radiological Agents Military Sampling Team (SIBCRA MST) that are deployed globally to exploit CBRN programme/event scenes, recovering evidence and intelligence to approved analytical agencies in a safe & forensically-sound manner in order to support national strategic decision-making. Notably, the SIBCRA team from 26 Squadron RAF Regiment was in recent times involved in the british deployment of a Radiation Monitoring Team to the damaged nuclear power plant of Fukushima, in Japan (Op PEDIGREE, March 2011). 

The loss of the Fuchs, however, has severely reduced the capabilities of the CBRN force, so much so that a generalist "Detect and Warn" CRN capability, capable to operate on the line of fire, is to be provided by a suite of sensors installed on the FRES SV Scout.

The integration of such a CRN sensor suite on a non-specialized vehicle is a first, for the UK: it has not been done before on other vehicles. 

Scout will have three Radiological detectors - two external and one internal, that will have the ability to calculate the duration a crew will be able to stay in a Radiological hazard area without causing long term illness from the accumulated dose received. There will also be one internal and one external Chemical vapour detector with the ability to detect Toxic Industrial Chemicals.

The sensor suite is meant to create a CBRN report that can be quickly sent up the command ladder thanks to the advanced communications suite of the Scout vehicle. The timely transmission of such reports is meant to cue the intervention of specialist CBRN vehicles and survey teams. The CRN detection capability of the FRES Scout is not a replacement for the specialist kit found in the CBRN force, nor an appropriate replacement for the Fuchs's capability, but it will of course better protect the soldiers on the frontline and enable a faster response. 

The crucial fact remains the gap in capability caused by the retirement of the Fuchs. The highly mobile, armored wide area reconnaissance and survey capability is gone, and the MOD has been well aware of the gap, from the very start. 

Well before the Telegraph's article was written, i first heard of internal reviews and discussion within the MOD over the gravity of the gap introduced, so it is not really a surprise to hear that the Fuchs might be in for a resurrection. 

I very much hope it does return, it would correct one of many errors made in the rushed SDSR, when the need to find quick, easy savings ruled supreme. 

1st Royal Tank Regiment, having left the CBRN arena, is now engaged in a return to armoured warfare ahead of the merge with 2 RTR and the transformation in a single Type 56 Challenger 2 regiment in the Reaction Force. 
A Squadron is about to assume the 18-tanks structure envisaged as part of Army 2020, while the other squadrons are training to return to the Challenger 2, while also serving in exercises and experiments meant to refine the concepts of the new army organisation. Their flag is not planned to be lowered at Honington before next year, though, so one squadron still relatively "fresh" of work on the Fuchs could still be re-directed. 
Otherwise, the call might go out to the TA. 

An armed MALE for us, please   

It was in the air for quite some time, so the news that Dassault, EADS and Alenia are calling for the joint development of a new, european Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) unmanned vehicle is not surprising either. 

This, in a way, signals the failure of the bilateral UK/France, BAE/Dassault "TELEMOS" program. After a very promising start, the bilateral program had very quickly ran aground, with France opening the door to the other european aerospace industries and, at the same time, delaying the actual launch of the program. 

Expected to start already in the summer last year, now TELEMOS appears dead. The UK and BAE have been effectively sidelined, and now a choice will have to be made on wether to join in another european project; go alone, or buy US kit. 

All four nations have requirements (more or less clear) for weapon-capable MALE vehicles. Three of them (UK, Italy and now France) have selected the Reaper. Germany is thinking about it. 

Reaper is considered, more or less by everyone, an interim solution: in the UK it is still only a UOR, funded by Treasury funds that will dry up when operations in Afghanistan end. 

The RAF's Reapers could survive if they are included in the forces that the UK will continue to maintain in Afghanistan after the end of combat operations. When Herrick 21 ends, in 2014/15, all remaining british activities in the country will be known under the collective name Op TORAL. Mainly, it will be about training and the already famed "Sandhurst in the sand" accademy for the preparation of afghan officers. However, it has already been suggested that the Reapers could also stay in Afghanistan, flown by pilots based in Waddington, to ensure the safety of the british personnel and to offer support to the ANA.

The other option is bringing the Reaper into the core defence budget, as an interim (or perhaps even definitive) solution to the Scavenger requirement. It has been suggested that, in this case, the Reapers would not be cleared to fly in british airspace, so they would be stored in their deployment containers and all training would be done with simulators (or in the US, as happens now). The RAF could accept the Reaper as a final solution because it has built a facility in Waddington for their control from UK soil, and it has received support to employ weapons from them. Indeed, the US are helping the UK integrating the Brimstone missile, to replace the Hellfire currently employed.

Italy did not consider the Reaper as an "interim" capability when it purchased them, but now it has changed its mind, because the US have turned down the request to provide weapons for the italian unmanned air vehicles. 

France is ordering up to a dozen Reapers as well, but they will be strictly unarmed and flown from the US, so that they are considered only an interim stop-gap. 

Interesting times ahead: decisions will have to be taken.

A new concept weapon from MBDA 

MBDA has launched its Concept Weapon for the year 2013. The system this time is a vertical launch artillery missile, in two different variants, for use from ships and vehicle or even containerized launchers. The CVS 302 HOPLITE weapon system is formed by the HOPLITE L, weighting 135 kg and equipped with a multimode seeker and a boosted kinetic energy penetrator capable to defeat hardened targets, and by the HOPLITE S, a slightly lighter and simpler effect, with a simpler, non boosted kinetic energy penetrator and a LADAR (LAser raDAR) seeker. 

The missiles are capable of flying at a maximum speed of over Mach 3, granting them devastating kinetic power on impact and allowing them to fly out to 70 km in less than two minutes, flying low under the radar horizon, or to 160 kilometers in around four minutes at high altitude. 

The video shows the missiles fired by launch cells that resemble that of the CAMM air defence missile. In fact, a single Sylver VLS cell is shown filled with a HOPLITE quad-pack. The missile also appears to share the Cold Launch feature of the CAMM, as evidenced by the launch from the inside of a container and from the cargo flatbed of what appears to be a high mobility truck that very much reminds the Supacat platform originally intended for roles such as LIMAWS(G), LIMAWS(R) and FALCON.

The vehicle launcher is, again, remarkably similar to the CAMM vehicle launcher, with two independent blocks of missiles. The blocks are larger (8 missiles each instead of six) but otherwise identical, as appears identical the foldable, mast-mounted data link antenna. 

 

HOPLITE launchers: vehicle, palletized / containerized and quad-packed in a ship's VLS cell

The HOPLITE itself is apparently just marginally bigger than CAMM (the HOPLITE L is 3,75 meters long, while the HOPLITE S is 3.2 meters long, around as much as CAMM). Probably it is just longer, but with the same diameter and, consequently, same canister size. 

The concept is very interesting, but it is only a concept, and aimed "at the 2035". Every year MBDA launches a new concept, and this shows that good thinking is going on, but i would very much prefer to see a project adopted and brought forwards to actual delivery. 

Anyway, i see with pleasure that the Cold Launch feature is being exploited in the way i suggested already long ago, to enable the use of new weapons and systems from vehicles, containers and, that is my proposal for CAMM in particular, from helicopter-mobile pallets.  
The Cold Launch, the sensor-agnostic nature of the new weapon, the data link employed to cue them, are crucial features that enable "artillery and air defence in a box", with a lot of firepower packed tightly into a palletized, stand-alone launcher that can be deployed on ships, lifted onto vehicles, or carried under slung from a helicopter from ship to shore, for example, to quickly deploy air defence missiles around a beach during amphibious operations or in other scenarios where quick solutions with limited logistic footprint are necessary. 

HOPLITE is a promising sign that the advantages of CAMM's features are not going to stay limited to the sole air defence weapon. 
Quite a lot of possibilities at easy reach!

Priorities...?

A new rocket attack launched by the Taliban has hit Bagram airfield, with five rockets hitting inside the perimeter, causing three dead and the destruction of one parked american Chinook helicopter.
Mortar and rocket attacks are still very common on FOBs, and the british forces have experimented rocket attacks on airfields, with Kandahar being hit in 2005 with the loss of an Harrier and the damaging of a second, temporarily removing 20% of the air support available, at the time represented by 6 Harriers.
Attacks on airfields, with mortars and rockets, are a daily thing around the world, and they are a plague that has not yet been defeated. Attacks as successful as this last one on Bagram or the 2005's attack on Kandahar are relatively rare, but we should not forget that there are other effects to the RAM (Rocket, Artillery, Mortar) offensive: mainly, the enormous number of precious "boots on the ground" that become tied in to the protection of the airfield.

Kandahar airfield, crucial for the prosecution of operations in Afghanistan, is protected by a multinational force of over 700 men, the force of an Armoured Infantry Battalion in the british army.
This always includes a RAF Regiment field squadron for force protection.
The rationale of this is that patrols and defensive operations happen outside the wire, expanding the safe perimeter around the base to a distance that makes mortar and rocket attack virtually impossible.
This is an effective method, but a resource-intensive one. 

The inner layer of defence is provided by artillery locating radars and sensors (the UK urgently procured 34 Lightweight Counter Mortar Radars LCMR from the US for operations in Afghanistan) that provide a warning for the troops to get to cover before the shells hit. The radars are also meant to cue the fire of C-RAM defense systems, but the UK has not deployed any to Afghanistan, while a number of Centurion systems (naval Phalanx 1B modified and mounted on trailers) were leased from the americans and employed in Afghanistan by joint-services batteries made up of Royal Artillery and Navy personnel.

The investment in C-RAM systems is relatively little, even in the US. In the UK, with the end of the deployment in Iraq is also ended the brief but important story of C-RAM for the deployed army. Germany is the only european country seriously addressing the C-RAM requirement, with the MANTIS system, probably the best one available at the moment. Italy's Oto Melara is working on the Porcupine system, with an italian army order anticipated, but budget issues are slowing down the process and adding uncertainty.
The RAM threat, however, has not gone away, nor it has been defeated. It continues to eat up resources and it continues to cause losses.

But the attention of most is not conquered by relatively little, dumb rockets hitting land airfields, which could well be civilian ones soon or later, causing far worse bloodshed. No. Most press, most "experts" and many commenters like it more to try and sell the argument that the aircraft carrier, the floating airfield which featured in all conflicts after the end of the Second World War, is "vulnerable" when not even "obsolete", using the infamous chinese ballistic anti-ship missile as the new big bogeyman. An untested system of which we know little, but that is apparently proving almost as successful a deterrent in the mind of some as a nuclear arsenal.
This made even more ridiculous by the fact that, for years, we have been told by the same experts of the superior technology of the Western alliance, first against the (fearsome, but nonetheless downplayed) russian anti-ship missiles and then against China's own technology.

This new fear of the anti-ship missile reminds me of the UK Defence White Paper which, as early as 1957, talked of a future in which combat airplanes would cease to exist, replaced by Surface to Air missiles, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. 55 years later, that forecast sounds like a drunkard vision, and for the foreseeable future there will still be manned and unmanned airplanes flying.
Or the never-ending talk of end of the tank age, with the MBT "obsolete" and "useless" due to the menace of anti-tank missiles: reality shows that the battle tank is still going strong, with thousands of MBTs in production and with new models coming online, with Russia due to put in service a new type by 2015 and with the Asian countries putting their own new tanks in service.

The new movement of thought saying that the aircraft carrier is obsolete is even more ridiculous than those others, because it focuses on the carrier, but does not expand to the other surface vessels. How come, those are not vulnerable to anti-ship missiles? If they aren't because they can shot down the missiles, then the carrier isn't vulnerable either, when escorted, and no one would send one on a solo mission during war.
So, what is the explanation? Also, if we removed the "vulnerable" carrier from the equation, wouldn't the other surface warships be even more vulnerable because left without air cover?
If the carrier is doomed, then surely even more so is the Amphibious ship? What should we do, buy navies of sole submarines?

The aircraft carrier is actually less vulnerable than most other platforms. A succesful attack against an aircraft carrier hasn't been seen since the war in Korea. The UK itself failed to find and sink the argentinian carrier ARA 25 de Mayo in the Falklands in 1982, when the submarines failed to locate her.
As we know, the carrier had located the british surface fleet instead, and only the weather prevented the launch of the heavily loaded Skyraiders from her deck.

How many countries in the world have a realistic chance of finding, targeting and striking an aircraft carrier at sea? Excluding allied countries, the list comes down to China and Russia. But in such a conflict, against one or both of these two major powers, there is nothing that would not be "vulnerable". Still, i know i'd prefer to be on an aircraft carrier than in an airport exposed to artillery, direct land attack, ballistic missile attack (we should not forget that Russia and China and Iran and other countries deploy a formidable array of tactical ballistic missiles, with Russia having used its Iskander as a tool of aggressive diplomacy against Poland already more than once), air attack and so along.

In most realistic war operations against minor countries, terrorist organizations and so along, the aircraft carrier would be nearly untouchable.

The aircraft carrier is "vulnerable" in the sense that, while it is much harder to hit in the first place, it can take less damage than a land airfield. An airbase can't sink, and a cratered runway can (normally) be restored quite quickly. A carrier can sink, or more realistically she can be forced out of action since repairing damage to the floating airport is undoubtedly more challenging (but not impossible, as the second world war showed more than once).


However, the vulnerability of an aircraft carrier is most likely to be tested in a major conflict between major powers. In such a conflict, you can't expect many things to stay out of trouble, and a land airfield wouldn't at all have an easier life. It would not sink, no, but it most likely would be devastated nonetheless.

In more realistic scenarios, most enemies worldwide do not have the capability to harm the aircraft carrier at sea.
While in the meanwhile, the list of successful attacks on land airfields is long and growing constantly. And i'm not speaking just of assaults on Pakistani bases, but of attacks on airfields held and fortified for years by british and american forces.

Lastly, there is no real alternative to the aircraft carrier just as there isn't much alternative to using land airfields. We will need both until the airplane, manned or not, remains indispensable for the war effort, and the airplane is here to stay, i think we can all agree on this.

I think someone has gotten its priorities wrong. If i have to point the finger to indicate which airfield is the most vulnerable, the one i'll point to is not the floating one.
Before throwing money into anti-ballistic missiles for Type 45s (which are anyway desirable for the future), i'd much prefer to see investment in an effective C-RAM system, thanks.

Some precious snippets of info

The Royal Navy yearbook for 2011/12 contains more info than most ministerial statements, when one reads it. There's many very interesting snippets of first-class information laying here and there all over its articles, and i'm going to report them all here, because they are of clear interest.

Opening statement by minister Philip Hammond

I know this is a difficult time for the Armed Forces as we act to bring the Defence budget into balance and restructure for the future, but the adaptable posture set out by the Strategic Defence and Security Review is the right way to ensure that we sustain the capabilities and skills required to protect Britain now and for the long term. This, of course, includes the ability to project power at considerable distance – before, during, and after any military intervention – and this means Britain must remain a maritime power.

Maritime power not only protects vital trade routes and, therefore, prosperity, it also enables us to gain access to, and operate in, other domains in far-flung parts of the world in support of a wide range of national and international objectives. It provides choice and flexibility without necessarily committing to a footprint ashore.

Sea-basing can overcome the challenges associated with securing access, air-basing and overflight permissions for combat operations. So I am clear that the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, deploying the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and a mixed helicopter force, will be an integral part of Britain’s future armoury – an armoury that will also consist of Astute-class submarines, new Type 45 destroyers, upgraded maritime helicopter fleets and, soon after 2020, Type 26 Global Combat Ships, all enabled by new Fleet Support Ships.

This will be an impressive and capable Fleet – one of the most powerful in the world – but it is the skill and commitment of the sailors and marines that will provide this hardware with purpose and direction. As this publication shows, the United Kingdom needs the Royal Navy, now and in the years ahead. I am determined that, as we move forward together, our national ambition is matched by our maritime ambition, to ensure that Britain remains strong and secure.

CVF - Carrier Enabled Power Projection

Initial work carried out by the ACA has shaped planning assumptions, as well as identifying a strategy outline. Given that block build work on QUEEN ELIZABETH is now well advanced, a decision to retrofit catapults and arrestor gear would inevitably cause major disruption to the programme.

Instead, HMS PRINCE OF WALES – the second-ofclass, for which manufacture activities began in May 2011 – will be configured for CV operations from the initial build stage.

Construction of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH will continue in the meantime. This will maintain momentum on the programme, allowing the first-of-class to prove the platform, power and propulsion, and mission system; provide crew training; and achieve rotary-wing clearances.

QUEEN ELIZABETH will then enter a state of extended readiness around 2019, when PRINCE OF WALES is accepted from build.

To support the conversion demonstration phase, the MoD and the US Navy have signed an agreement under which the US will provide the UK with engineering and technical assistance, in order to help define aircraft launch and recovery equipment requirements. The UK has decided to use the same EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) that will equip the US Navy’s next carrier, USS GERALD R. FORD (CVN-78).

The yearbook of course makes no mention of a u-turn reversing the u-turn and still talks of the F35C. The most interesting bit is that the studies for CEPP have come up with a LHA capability estimate. The CVF is described as embarking a Commando battlegroup (no less than 600 men) with a squadron of 12 F35C, at least 12 between Chinooks and Merlin helicopters and 8 Apache.

Type 26 frigate

The yearbook confirms that the Flex Mission Deck is present. Probably sized, according to BAE data, to take up to 11 standard containers or 4 12m boats.

The yearbook also tells us of the current preferred propulsion option, which is for a CODLOG solution on 4 diesels connected to two large electric motors, generating cruise speed as high as 18 knots, with a direct drive gas turbine for sprints of minimum 26 knots.

Other options have been/are considered, including an integrated all electric solution or a wholly diesel one.

In terms of weapons fit, the yearbook is quite clear about the RN's want to fit the Type 26 with a new medium calibre gun, capable of firing long range, precision guided ammunition. It is very much the identikit of the Oto Melara 127/64 with Vulcano ammunition, especially since the BAE 127/54 rival has been badly damaged by the US cancellation of the guided ammunition meant for it.

Fitting TLAM long range land attack missiles is "subject of further studies" (read: we are trying to get money for it, won't be easy), but regardless of the decision on TLAM it remains the RN's ambition to have the Type 26 fitted at build with a large VLS silo (24 cells) in which land attack missiles and the future anti-ship missile would be carried.  

The Type 26 frigate is to "reverse" the Type 45 situation (20% of technology carried through, 80% new kit) by de-risking most of its mission system thanks to the Type 23 mid-life upgrade program.

Type 26 will inherit from the Dukes the Type 997 radar (Artisan 3D), the Type 2087 towed sonar (8x) and its command system will be a derivation of the current DNA(2)/CMS-1.

The adoption of proven, in-service kit for almost 80% of the ship's systems is meant to keep costs and risks down, as there is no margin for error in this crucial program.

Astute SSN  

The article confirms that Astute is compatible with the Chalfont special forces delivery equipment (the american-made Swimmers Delivery System used by the Navy SEALS; the UK has 3 of these mini-subs). This restores an insertion capability that the Special Boat Service had temporarily lost since 2009 when HMS Spartan, the only submarine left in the fleet capable to employ the system, was retired.

Helicopters galore  

There is no uncertainty or hesitation in the yearbook about the Merlin MK4 (HC4): the navalization of the RAF's HC3 remains planned, and entry in service with the Commando Helicopter Force after transfer is planned by 2016 when the Sea King bows out.

An unspecified number of Royal Marines personnel has already trained on the Merlin HC3 last year, and 2012 is to see a further 12 pilots and 35 maintainers training on the type.

The Merlin HM2 is to be in service by 2013, and as part of Crowsnest it will take on the AEW role as replacement for the Sea King ASaC 7 by around 2016.

It is not clear if all the Merlin HM2 fleet will be able to re-role for AEW when needed, or if only one of the two "carrier squadrons" (814 and 820) will have its helicopters "modded" to take on the role. The choice of the HM2 as all-doing platform is due to advantage the Lochkeed Martin proposal, which sees the fitting of two radar pods (Vigilance pods) in place of the torpedoes on a normal Merlin HM2. The system is run through the 2 already present consoles, with option for adding a further 2.

AgustaWestland and Thales have changed their offering (which was to deploy the current Searchwater "bag from the rear ramp of a Merlin HC3) by proposing the installation of two rails on the side of the fuselage allowing the radar bag to slid upwards for landing and deploy downwards for use in flight, with a 360° field of view. The Westland proposal might be disadvantaged by the need for a complex software integration of Cerberus into the existing HM2 consoles, something that Lockheed (which is carrying out the HM2 upgrade) has bipassed by developing Vigilance literally on the Merlin HM2 all along.

My biggest worry is that the 30 Merlin HM2 are going to be very, very busy covering all the tasks and getting all the calls.

Without a dedicate replacement for the Sea King MK7, the Fleet Air Arm will also end up losing two squadrons and quite a lot of personnel.

847 NAS, the squadron that flies recce and light assault/attack missions in support of 3rd Commando brigade, will be the first squadron to convert to the new Wildcat helicopter. It will fly 6 Wildcat AH1 helos in the Army configuration, and will convert on them in 2013.

The first Wildcat army squadron is planned to enter active service in 2014. 652 squadron, 1st Regiment AAC is thought the be the first squadron to convert to the new machine, but changes could still happen, especially since the 1st Regiment AAC, based in Germany and flying the old Lynx AH7, is in my view very much on the firing line of the incoming army cuts and restructuring. I expect it to be closed down. Note that this is my gut feeling though, so don't take it as Truth coming from the sky.  

Between 2013 and 2017 the Royal Navy will receive its 28 naval Wildcats, which will go into 815 NAS. In-service date for the Wildcat navy is 2015.

Successor SSBN

Delightful info dropped in about this delicate subject of which we otherwise hear very little, as well.

The yearbook confirms that the Common Missile Compartment being jointly developed with the US has 12 missile tubes, but that studies are ongoing for developing a variant of it with just 8 tubes, as mandated by the SDSR.

One has to wonder when the US will eventually grow tired of constant rethinks, between F35 and Trident. And i also wonder, knowing how much these design activities cost, if it is worth it to tamper with a design that has been ongoing for a few years by now, or if the cost of developing the smaller "child" module will negate any real saving from being obtained.

The yearbook does not expand on this factor, but i remember reading somewhere that the CMC modules for the british SSBNs could be built in the US and shipped through the Atlantic for assembly in Barrow. Does feel a bit off with me, but if it was to be confirmed i wouldn't be amazed.

Sizeable american content will be present due to the selection of the PWR-3 reactor for the propulsion. The reactor has more advanced safety features than the PWR-2 used on Vanguard and is more advanced than even the PWR-2 Evolved that powers the Astutes.

Surprisingly, the yearbook states that the replacement SSBN will be slightly larger than Vanguard, despite having just 8 or 12 tubes against 16 for the Vanguard.

It must be noted that the new launch tubes will be larger, though, to make room for future uses (multiple revolver launchers with TLAM missiles, unmanned vehicles, and the eventual Trident II D5 replacement, planned for 2040 at the earliest and known as Trident II E6): the Vanguard tubes are 2.21 meters in diameter, and the new ones will probably be over 3 meters wide.

The PWR-3 is also probably a bit larger, and, like with the Astute, the need for more comfortable accommodation for the crew is probably a factor in the growth.

Anyway, the growth is to be kept at a minimum, since the current Vanguard infrastructure must be viable for the Successor as well: the new submarines will be able to employ the same ship lifts, which are used to take the entire boat out of the waters of the River Clyde.

Very interestingly, the yearbook notes that the main design features are frozen: there's already a definitive guideline plan for the submarine. And it draws heavily from the Astute SSN. According to the report, the SSBN will have the same control systems (adjusted for the size difference, of course!), the same sonar fit (so the excellent 2076 with all its arrays) and the same tactical torpedo system, which suggests that the front of the subs, sizes aside, will be very similar, with the same systems and arrangements and even with 6 torpedo tubes.

Is it an indication that the call for a more dual-role submarine, capable to act as SSN/SSGN is being listened to? Possibly, yes.

The commonality with the Astute is so relevant that, according to the report: "A crew trained for an Astute class would slot fairly easily into the new missile boat."    

That's one very sensible approach. By 2016, main gate decisions will have to be finalized, so that more substantial long lead orders can be placed, to keep the program moving on schedule.

Moving on schedule and sticking to a firm, clear plan is simply VITAL for avoiding cost growth and other issues.

Regarding the other two Services, i've been sadly able to find less new and substantial info. The Army's plans are still very much walking in the air and looking nervously down with the fear of falling off the sky at any moment. And this won't improve until the new force structure is announced.

However, a couple of very small but good info are that there's a program, Project Outpost, likely to soon fall under management by the new Joint Forces Command, that aims to select some or all of the base-ISTAR technologies employed as 'Cortez' system in Afghanistan. This ranges from mast-mounted thermal cameras to the Boomerang shot detection system to ground-observation radars mounted on towers all the way up to 5 aerostats used in Afghanistan to provide an unblinking eye in the sky capable to stay in the air for a couple of weeks to constantly survey the area around a FOB.

Who's read my army pieces know that retaining Cortez for the future is, in my view, a must. I've even proposed putting it in a regular/TA royal artillery mixed regiment as part of a Joint Force Protection Brigade.

I don't know if my suggestion will ever be followed, even from a distance, but the RAF Regiment is working closely with the Army on Project Outpost, and this is what i envisaged all along with my FP brigade proposal.  

Another bit of kit that is to be retained at all costs is the G3-supplied, containerized Role 2 hospital of Camp Bastion. The 3500 square meters containerized structure features an operating theater that supports two operating tables; six high-dependency beds; two isolation beds; a CT scanner; and two general wards to provide care facilities for up to 32 people.

The complex also contains an X-ray room, pathology lab and primary health care facilities with six treatment rooms and two rooms for dental surgeries, along with office space, toilets and staff refreshment areas.

I've heard nothing about keeping this in the long term, but i hope that the right decision will eventually be taken in time.

Another program going on is about identifying the UOR vehicles to be brought into core budget. Apparently, Talisman is high in the list of what the Army wishes to retain, and again i applaud this, because it is a capability to retain and cherish. Jackal is another vehicle thought to have a long future ahead, and lots of attention is going into Mastiff and Ridgeback as well, obviously. There is very little info about the current planning, but an article i've read seems to suggest that the smaller, 4x4 Ridgeback is favorite.

Mastiff presents serious compatibility problems with the british roads, and this is a bigger issue than one can think at first, apparently.

Regarding the already mentioned RAF Regiment, it remains planned that, by 2015, 2 out of 8 Field Squadrons will disband. A "proportionate" cut in the 8 reserve Field Squadrons is being determined and planned out.

Meanwhile, the Joint CBRN Regiment, after losing the Army participation (two squadrons from 1st Royal Tank Regiment, driving the now retired Fuchs) has been restructured and renamed 20 Wing CBRN, RAF Regiment.   

Among the programs for the future is the acquisition of an NBC-proof Role 3 field hospital.