The evolving budget situations: army programs on the (slow) move

1: Of aircraft carriers and OPVs
2: Land Forces

3: Helicopters

4: Force Structure 

5: Reversing bad decisions 

Defense News reports that the Army is about to move, handing out new requests for information for four important programs. None of these four is a new requirement: each has already an history behind, some already stretching over years. The four programs are:

Light Recovery Vehicle: a replacement for the old Bedford-based LRV. The requirement has circulated for quite a while already, but an earlier attempt to select a new platform was eventually stopped, with some 16 Navistar Husky vehicles converted into interim LRV platforms under UOR. British Forces News has a video of the Husky recovery in Afghanistan: these vehicles cover the needs of the deployed force, supporting vehicles such as Foxhound.

The MOD however aims to bring a definitive air-portable LRV vehicles into service by 2016. A number will be assigned to the amphibious brigade as well, thus introducing the necessary wading and winterization requirements. The MOD has already taken vision of some products that could meet the requirement, such as the Penman-EKA LRV, based on a DURO III 6x6 chassis. Another option is offered by MAN Truck and Bus UK Ltd which have created a LRV variant based on the MAN HX60 4x4 truck already in widespread use in the british army. This could be an excellent solution, offering logistical commonality. 

Multi Role Vehicle – Protected (MRV-P): this is the biggest program by both numbers of vehicles and variants envisaged and, of course, by cost. Unsurprisingly, it is also the one program that has been around for the most time, having spent years already languishing through studies, concept phases, trials, rethinks and rebranding.  MRV-P is in fact the child of the failed Operational Utility Vehicle System (OUVS) program, which came to light as far back as 2003.

MRV-P should replace Land Rovers, Pinzgauers and other old and unprotected vehicles currently widely used in a variety of roles within army units. The MRV-P should also introduce a gun towing variant, a new vehicle which shall replace the (already withdrawn) never loved RB-44. For the gun-towing role and for mortar platoons, 650 old Leyland 4-tonne trucks were kept into service with a decision taken in 2011, being preferred over the RB44 TUH.

There are not many new things to say about this long-running program. An article I wrote in June 2012 contains pretty much all the info available, and some analysis, so I suggest you read it. The most evident possible novelty is that there might now be another serious contender in the race, since General Dynamics Land Systems - Force Protection Europe has privately funded the development of a family of Ocelot (Foxhound in british army service) variants based on a cheaper crew citadel made of steel instead of high-end, expensive composites as in the current patrol variant. Known as Ocelot-S, the new family of vehicles offers a wide range of variants, covering multiple roles.

The steel citadel imposes a 1800 kg weight penalty affecting the payload of the vehicle, but is said to enable a significant reduction in cost. The use of steel also reduces the protection level afforded by some degree (GD promises that the protection afforded is “similar”), but the requirement for MRV-P is much more permissive than for the Light Patrol Protected Vehicle, so this would not be a problem.

As I said back in 2012, Foxhound is a very expensive vehicle, and is far from meeting the cost objective set by the MOD. The new variant might go some way in mitigating this issue.

Obviously, with 400 Foxhound in the patrol variant already on order and destined to equip six infantry battalions under Army 2020 plans, basing MRV-P on the same mechanics would simplify training and logistics.

GD is exploiting the experience collected with Foxhound to try and offer an Ocelot-S product virtually ready for british army adoption. The Ocelot-S command variant in fact comes with a General Dynamics UK's (GDUK) integrated communications and battle management system and with Thales' generic vehicle architecture (GVA) kit. Both are already in use on Foxhoud and, to varying degrees, on UOR fleets such as Mastiff, which are now being taken into core.

Other variants on offer include a logistic flatbed cargo vehicle capable to transport two NATO-standard pallets with a two-tonne payload to the rear of a protected two-door cab. Ambulance, general purpose, dog kennel, fuel bowsers, gun towing and shelter carrying variants are all being offered as possible developments by GD, which also says that there is the potential to stretch the chassis to create a long wheel base variant and, in the longer term, extend the Foxhound developing a 6x6 vehicle variant. 

Ocelot S ambulance variant

A proposed Ocelot S APC variant, with stretched chassis (Long Wheel Base variant)

Ocelot S logistic support variant

The Ocelot-S might give new chances to Foxhound, to expand on many additional roles within the british army.

That is, of course, if the cost really goes down a lot, and if the program manages to get funding and progress to actual delivery. 

For the MRV-P program, Supacat offers its SPV 400 vehicle, and its proposed 6x6 variant, the SPV 600

 

The requirement for a new battlefield ambulance which Defense News quotes should be known (if it hasn’t undergone a new change of acronym already!) as Future Multi Role Battlefield Ambulance. This vehicle, which would replace the venerable Land Rover-based one, could actually end up being just another part of the MRV-P if a suitable variant on the same mechanics can be delivered.  

Defense News’s article is confused in this passage:

Starting with a lightweight recovery vehicle that the MoD’s Defence Equipment & Support organization said it wants in service by 2016, the British military is looking at adding a multi-role vehicle-protected (MRV-P), a protected battlefield ambulance and a vehicle able to carry a protectable palletized load system by 2020.

Only the MRV-P program is big enough to qualify for what is called a Category A program, with a value of £400 million (US $660 million) and above.

The fourth machine, a lightweight air-portable recovery vehicle, which will need to be able to wade ashore in support of Britain’s commando forces, is in the assessment phase and replaces the elderly Bedford-based machine.

The highlighted paragraph clearly is talking of the Bedford Light Recovery Vehicle, but erroneously suggests i("the fourth machine") that it is talking of the "vehicle able to carry a protectable palletized load system by 2020."
I'm not sure of what exactly this could be. A small vehicle to move pallets, especially around helicopter landing zones, replacing the horrendous Springer and the old Supacat "Super Cat" ATMP, or actually the long-delayed replacement for DROPS? I'm inclined to believe it is the replacement for DROPS, but we'll need confirmations going ahead.

A replacement for the DROPS truck fleet is another long running program. The last time it surfaced, it was known as Non Articulated Vehicle Programme. Previously, it had been known as Heavy Load Distribution Capability (HLDC).

The old DROPS trucks are unprotected and no longer adequate to operational scenarios. In Afghanistan, the container carrying capability has been covered by the Enhanced Palletized Load System. The EPLS was obtained converting a first batch of 90 HX77 MAN Support trucks before ordering an additional 87 newly produced, with 31 being used for the establishment of a training fleet. At least 10 EPLS trucks have been used as platforms for the carriage and employment of the Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System  (REBS) in british army service, while three more such trucks were handed over to New Zealand in late 2012, which urgently needed them for its own REBS purchase. It is unclear if the three trucks have then be replaced by new ones in the british army. Even if they have, there are at most 167 EPLS vehicles for the transport of palletized supplies, plus 10 fitted with the REBS bridgelayer system. 167 vehicles, or less, to replace a fleet which up to recent times had counted 1400 Leyland Medium Mobility Load Carriers and 375 Foden Improved Medium Mobility Load Carriers. A large reduction in the requirement is evident, but certainly it has not reduced enough to make 167 vehicles enough to cover it all. 

 

EPLS in action

EPLS will be taken into core as interim replacement for DROPS (which has seen its OSD advanced from 2021 to December 2014 in the SDSR 2010), but it is obvious that the army badly needs to either purchase more, or select a definitive replacement and procure it. Quickly. 

As for "enhancing performace" of the UOR fleets, the Defense News article probably refer to the work already announced to convert some of the vehicles into command and communications variants, as well as for restoring the vehicles to full efficiency as they come back from Afghanistan.
It might also refer to the fact that the vehicles will be stripped of the RPG cage armor and thus made narrower and lighter to be able to move on UK roads and to reduce wear and tear. It can be expected that the reduction in weight and bulk will result in improved manoeuverability. But of course, the additional armor would be fitted again right away for deployment, so this would be a rather virtual "enhancement".

The MOD has recently disclosed the total numbers of UOR vehicles, of various types, that will be taken into core:

71 Coyote

325 Husky

441 Jackal

439 Mastiff

169 Ridgeback

60 Warthog

It is not clear if the Wolfhound vehicles are being counted in the “Mastiff” total, or if they have been left out by the list. Up to 130 of them should be available.

Keeping track of the exact number of UOR vehicles purchased over time has been very complex, but Defense Industry Daily has tried. According to their data, the total numbers of vehicles of the various types purchased for operations are:

97 Coyote

351 Husky

462 + Jackal

506 Mastiff (Wolfhound included?)

168 (some order slipped under the radar?) Ridgeback

115 Warthog 

14 Buffalo vehicles have been purchased for the TALISMAN route clearance system of systems. I'm still waiting for an official confirmation of some kind about their future. They are being brought back from Afghanistan, but there's no certainty yet on whether or not they will go into core, or into storage. 

The Jackal totals are broken down as being:

202 Jackal 1

120 + Jackal 2

140 Jackal 2A

A variety of support equipment related to these fleets and also purchased under UOR, has been brought into core, including CHOKER and 69 Pearson Engineering Super Light Weight Rollers.

It is not mentioned in that article on Defense News, but the british army Small Arms Corps journal mentions the fact that a program has been started for a replacement Mortar Platoon carrier vehicle for Light Role infantry battalions. Unfortunately, there are no details available.

A replacement for the FV432 Mortar Carrier in use in armored infantry battalions will also be needed but is never mentioned openly: my guess is that it could perhaps figure as part of the Armored Battlegroup Support Vehicle (ABSV) conversion of surplus Warrior IFVs that is in the concept phase. 

As the US Army wrestles with the problem of replacing its M113 variants, the turretless Bradley offers a capable and relatively straightforward solution. The UK, faced with the need to replace the FV430-series vehicles, could follow the example replacing (at least a part of) them with the "turretless Warrior" under the ABSV name.

Lastly, it is worth reminding that at DVD 2013 the MOD started looking around for a light, air droppable vehicle which can fit ready to go inside a Chinook and that would be used for C-SAR missions (and special forces work, i'd suppose?), as part of an ambition to rebuild a Joint Personnel Recovery Capability from 2016.

There are a lot of requirements begging for attention, and also several programs starting, re-starting, or just trying to move ahead, out of the infinite successions of concept and assessment phases, studies of all kinds, and costly delays that keep coming.

We will see how much manages to actually go ahead and deliver.

The evolving budget situation: force structure - UPDATE

1: Of aircraft carriers and OPVs
2: Land Forces

3: Helicopters

Big and small changes have taken place in the structure of regular units, and more changes will happen in the coming months and years. Unfortunately, tracing all of them is complex, as we don’t have a published sub-unit level scheme announcing the changes that will take place. One was printed for the Reserves (which incidentally gave us some information on a few interested regular units which got directly touched by the changes) but none for the regulars, so keeping track of each change is a matter of keeping up with each little hint dropped in MOD publications, as well as the news about disbandment parades on websites and social media connected to the forces.

Air Assault

Serious change has been underway within 16 Air Assault Brigade with its reduction to just two regular army manoeuvre units (2^nd and 3^rd PARA) plus the reserve PARA battalion (4^th PARA). The supporting formations within the brigade have morphed to adapt to this new structure and to the needs of delivering, on rotation, a air assault battlegroup at high readiness.

7 Royal Horse Artillery has lost two batteries, with V Bty disbanding and going into suspended animation and with H Bty (Ramsay’s Troop) moving to 1 Royal Horse Artillery to become a Precision Strike battery (with GMLRS and Exactor).

The regiment retains a total of three batteries, with I Bty (Bull’s Troop) as HQ Bty and F (Sphinx) Bty and G (Mercer’s Troop) batteries in the Light Gun role, each with 6 guns plus Fire Support Teams. The two gun batteries have been reinforced in their support and command elements so to be better able to deploy autonomously in support of the battlegroup at readiness.

The brigade’s logistic regiment is growing in establishment fro 500 to some 650 men by gaining command of 47 Air Despatch squadron (in Brize Norton) and 65 Logistic Support Squadron, which is moving into Colchester. On the other hand, one of the air assault close support squadrons is disbanded (15 Sqn), leaving 24 HQ & Sp Squadron plus two close support squadrons, one for each regular battalion (63 Sqn and 82 Sqn).

23 Air Assault Engineer regiment is also restructuring and shrinking by some 130 posts. 12 (Nova Scotia) HQ Squadron has been disbanded, and its relevant capabilities have been redistributed to the remaining 51 and 9 Squadrons, which are becoming larger and more independent, so that they can best support the formation, on rotation, of the battlegroup at high readiness.

7 REME battalion has also undergone some changes and adjustements, being more closely integrated with 132 RLC Aviation Supply Squadron: the Motor Transport platoon of 7 REME has been absorbed by 132 Sqn. 7 REME retains its three Aviation Companies (71, 72 and 73).

It remains very disappointing how the brigade has been run down in strength. The reduction to just two manoeuvre units plus one reserve battalion for reinforcements is highly questionable: not only does it greatly reduce the effectiveness of 16AA as a deployable brigade, but it seems to be a source of strain and difficulty even in the stated plan for the generation, on rotational basis, of a battlegroup at readiness, as there are effectively only two battalions, two artillery batteries, two logistic squadrons and two engineer squadrons which will take turn, in and out of high readiness. This seems very likely to put the brigade through some serious operational stress.

To make things worse, 299 (Parachute) Engineer squadron, the Reserve squadron tasked with support to 23 AA Regiment, is being removed from the control of 23 Rgt to be instead re-subordinated to 21 Royal Engineer regiment, no later than December 2016. This seems to make no sense at all, as the squadron will be assigned to a line engineer regiment: it is not clear if the idea is to have the squadron having “double loyalty” to two regiments and two rather different roles at the same time, or if the squadron will eventually cease to support the Parachute engineers. In both cases, the change makes very little sense as it further reduces the effective resources available to the air assault brigade to sustain its demanding force generation cycle.

The reserve artillery battery which used to support the Air Assault Brigade, 201 Bty, 100 Royal Artillery regiment, is to be disbanded and put into suspended animation “not before April 2014”, weakening the artillery resources of the brigade as well.

Finally, this new, unwise “rule of the two” is rumored to be on the cards for the Apache helicopter fleet as well, which is widely expected to reduce from 6 to 4 squadrons, in two “binary” regiments. After all, if the regiment stays, all is fine, isn’t it? Much easier to hide sub-units disbandment to the general public. One day, if things continue down this path, all that will be left will be “regiments” with the consistency of companies.

Commando

Support to 3^rd Commando brigade has been, and very possibly still is, a battlefield over which Land Forces HQ and Navy HQ are fighting an underground war. The Navy has had some success in this war: while 1^st RIFLES was moved out of the Commando brigade, the Navy successfully resisted the plan for disbandment of 148 (Meiktila) Battery, plan which was put forwards by the Army but shot down in the later negotiations.

The Army 2020 plan however contains the announcement that 24 Commando Engineer Regiment is to disband. The regiment was stood up in 2008 in order to give the brigade much needed organic engineer capability, indispensable for brigade-level deployments, with the Army keen to continue using 3^rd Commando in Afghanistan. The regiment was to expand over time, forming a second field squadron (56 Cdo Sqn) in addition to 59 Cdo Sqn and 54 HQ & Sp squadron.

56 Squadron actually never managed to stand up, and in the Army 2020 plan, the regiment is to be lost, with 59 Squadron returning to be “independent”, complete with some of the capabilities currently provided by 54 HQ & Sp Sqn.   

In practice, the regiment would shrink from an establishment of 360 / 380 down to around 270 by the summer of 2014

54 HQ & Sp Sqn includes a reconnaissance troop, a support troop, a signals troop a motor transport section, a resource cell, a training team and a construction supervision cell. 59 Commando Engineer Squadron is made up of 3 field troops and a support troop.

With the disbandment of the regiment, 59 Cdo Engineer Squadron would have to expand to inherit at least a part of the capabilities of 54 HQ & Sp.

However, the last word might have yet to be said regarding 24 Engineer Regiment. Lieutenant Colonel Leigh Tingey, commanding officer of the regiment, wrote on 1^st November 2012 that the decision to disband the regiment has not been accepted by the CO 3^rd Commando Brigade, nor by the Commander General Royal Marines (CGRM) nor by Navy HQ, signaling that the war was still on within the MOD and offering a ray of hope for the future of the formation. I’ve not been able to find any indication of the state of this war, but it is worth remembering that the Army 2020 document as published said that 24 Cdo Engr would be removed by the ORBAT “not before April 2013”. Of course, that indication is vague enough that it could happen any time in the future, but nonetheless we are in December and the regiment is still in place.  

The commando battalions are planned to rotate into high readiness (5 days notice to move) to form the Lead Commando Battlegroup, which also has to include artillery, logistic and engineer resources. It is evident to any observer that a single engineer squadron won’t be able to generate more than a troop of 30 men or so for the support of a 1800-strong battlegroup. This is ridiculous, and it is only logical that the Royal Marines and Navy HQ revolt against such a plan. The Army, on the other hand, is likely to require that the Royal Marines and Navy provide the manpower and funding to keep the regiment going (and hopefully actually standing up 56 Squadron as well). And this will be very challenging for a navy that already struggles to fit inside a (ridiculous) mandated manpower total of 30.000.

The Royal Marines will also have to face an increased workload as P Squadron, 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group, disbands by the end of the year. The 167-strong squadron, manned by Navy personnel and not by Marines, stood up in 2010 to provide Force Protection teams to embark on RN and RFA ships, especially in a counter-piracy perspective. The disbandment of this squadron means that the commando battalion in its “standing tasks” period will be asked to provide such teams for use on ships, making the Marines even busier. The force generation cycle was meant to see one Commando at High Readiness, one training for its turn in high readiness, and the third “resting” after its own turn at high readiness. The disbandment of P Squadron changes this substantially. In the words of Jane’s in the special report on the future of the Royal Marines:

In developing the new rotation, it was originally envisaged that the third Commando unit - the one 'out' of the role - would be engaged in low level training and would take on the numerous support tasks that continually arise, including support to training courses and ceremonial duties. In reality, however, a much greater number of functions has had to be absorbed. A significant one of these is the ship protection task previously undertaken by a predominantly naval squadron within 43 (FP) Cdo RM, a squadron that is being disbanded. This task covers the provision of security for naval vessels when alongside, and some boarding tasks in low threat environments.

The net result of the accumulation of these tasks is that the third unit is now classified as the 'standing tasks Commando' rather than the 'out of role' one. As this unit is also heavily committed, the overall effect is the need to generate about 1.7 units of tasks from the three units.

To make things worse still, like with the PARA, the reserve artillery battery assigned to the Commandos is change role completely, moving into 104 Regiment to work with mini UAVs, and 131 Independent Commando Engineer Squadron is to resubordinate under 32 Engineer Regiment, creating the same contradictory situation as with 299 (Parachute) Squadron.

In practice, the high-readiness brigades, despite the high demands placed on them in terms of readiness and force generation cycles, are being, in a way or another, weakened and deprived of important supports which will make it challenging to achieve all what is asked out of the formations. Both brigades, in addition, have been severely weakened and their viability as deployable brigades is questionable. Both would need consistent reinforcement from other formations (a third manoeuvre battalion for 16AA, with associated supports; appropriate engineer resources for 3^rd Commando) in order to properly deploy in the field as 1-star formations. The rationale of these changes is, to say the least, questionable.

Royal Signals

The Signals are undergoing significant change as most of the surviving regular regiments become Multi Role Signal Regiments (MRSR)  as the brigade and division-organic signal formations are removed, with the exception of 216 Signal Squadron in 16 Air Assault brigade, which will stay.

In practice, the Royal Signals resources are being centralized in the two signal brigades, and will be assigned only for training and deployment.

The MRSR build upon the experience of the “campaigning” regimental organization developed to support Operation Herrick with a constant rotation of Signal units to the rule of the 1 in 5. The regiments becoming MRSR are:

1 Signal Regiment
2 Signal Regiment (including one Queen’s Gurkha Signal Sqn)
3 Signal Regiment
16 Signal Regiment
21 Signal Regiment

Each of these regiments, once the restructuring is completed, will have 3 Field Squadrons and 1 Support Sqn. Each MRSR is being equipped with the FALCON system, with at least 11 FALCON detachments being assigned to each regiment. Once deployed in the field, the MRSR will be tasked to provide the whole spectrum of communications needed by the manoeuvre force and its HQs. How exactly Real Life Support will be delivered to brigade and division HQs is still being worked out.

216 Signal Squadron has undergone a restructuring to better support the force generation cycle required for the formation of the Air Assault Battlegroup. Curiously, 216 has been restructured on 3 Comms Troops, from 2 previously, with the re-instatement of Charlie Tp. The squadron also has its training wing and Motor Transport / Light Aid Detachment troop.

1 Signal Regiment [ex-Signal regiment organic to 1^st (UK) Division HQ) will see the squadrons 201 and 212 merging to form a single squadron the identity of which is not yet know. 200 Signal Sqn (ex organic squadron of 20 Brigade HQ) will come into the regiment, providing the second Field Sqn, with 211 Sqn being the third. The HQ & Sp squadron completes the new-look MRSR. The regiment will transfer from Germany into Beacon Barracks, Stafford, under PROJECT BORONA.

21 Signal Regiment is losing its special role of Air Support regiment, and two squadrons: 244 Sqn transferred under command of 30 Signal Regiment, while 43 (Wessex) Signal Squadron (Reserve) transferred to 39 (Reserve) Signal Regiment.

21 retains the HQ & Sp squadron, plus 214 and 220 Sqn. The third Field Squadron will be 204 Sqn (ex organic squadron of 4 Brigade HQ) which has disbanded in its current form and will stand up in its new format by 2015.

2 Signal Regiment has the support sqn plus 219 and 246 Gurkha Sqn. A third squadron will be added, possibly another of the squadrons that so far had been organic to manoeuvre brigade HQs.

16 Signal Regiment is in the same situation, with Support Sqn, plus 230 and 255 Sqn. The regiment is also moving to Beacon Barracks, Stafford, under PROJECT BORONA.

3 Signal Regiment has the squadrons 202, 206 and 258 plus Support Squadron.

The 5 Regiments will come under the direct command of 7 Signal Group itself part of 11 Signal Brigade.

Specialist ICS enablers will be one of two functions commanded by 2 Signal Group also part of 11 Signal Brigade and include:

10 Signal Regiment (ECM(FP)/ICS Infrastructure) comprising 225, 241, 243, 251 and 81(V) Sqns.

15 Signal Regiment (IS) comprising 233 (Global Comms Network), 259 (Global Information Support) and 262 (Logistic System Support) Sqns.

299 Signal Squadron (Special Communications)

The support to UK and National resilience will be commanded and delivered as the second function from within 2 Signal Group.

It will include:

R SIGNALS TA Regiments
251 Signal Squadron, 10 Signal Regiment

1 Signal Brigade will command the support to both HQ ARRC and the JRRF comprising

22 Signal Regiment (comprising Sp Sqn + 4 Fd Sqns ( one QGS Sqn)). The Squadrons are:

-          217

-          222

-          248 Gurkha

-          252

-          Sp Sqn

30 Signal Regiment (comprising Sp Sqn + 4 Fd Sqns ( one QGS Sqn)). The Squadrons are:

-          244 (coming from 21 Regiment)

-          250 Gurkha

-          256

-          A new squadron to be determined

-          Sp Sqn

ARRC Support Battalion.

Other EW and ICS Support. Outside of our Signal Brigade Structure R SIGNALS will retain support to EW/SI and ICS support other specialist areas.

These include:

11 (Royal School of Signals) Signal Regiment – under command of Defence College of Communications and Information Systems (DCCIS).

-          1 (Ouston) Squadron – Disbanded 6 May 2013

-          2 (Catterick) Squadron

-          3 (Harrogate) Squadron

-          4 (Military Training) Squadron

-          5 (Maresfield) Squadron

Elements of 5 Sqn are being redistributed with subunits in the other squadrons. The long term goal of the internal reorganization is to provide a through-career view of both operator and technician training within one sub-unit remit.

14 Signal Regiment (EW) – part of 1^st Intelligence and Surveillance Brigade (Sp Sqn + 4 Fd Sqns).

-          223

-          224

-          226

-          237

-          245

-          Sp Sqn

The regiment, which is high in demand, formed a fifth field squadron (224) in 2004 to better meet the need of constant deployments at squadron level in Afghanistan. In another very questionable decision of the Army 2020 plan, one of the five squadrons will be lost. Not clear yet which one is to go.

The regiment will find a new home in MOD St Athan base.

18 (UKSF) Signal Regiment (no change in structure).

-          SBS Signal Squadron

-          264 (SAS) Signal Squadron

-          267 (SRR) Signal Squadron

-          268 (SFSG) Signal Squadron

     63 (SAS) Signal Squadron (R)

216 (Para) Signal Squadron.
628 Signal Troop. British contribution to 1st NATO Signal Battalion (1 NSB).
660 (EOD) Signal Troop.
JSSO.
DE&S – Continued support to various parts within DE&S.

The Signal Troops (661 and 662) organic to the HQs of 101 and 102 Logistic Brigades are disbanded.

Royal Artillery

Judging from the restructuring going on at 3 Royal Horse Artillery regiment, the Adaptable Force artillery units will only have 2 gun batteries as they reduce to an establishment of just around 370 men.

3 RHA is keeping all its batteries, but J (Sidi Rezegh) Bty is losing its guns, presumably to remain as a second Tac Group battery of sole Fire Support Teams.

Expect 4 Royal Artillery to suffer the same fate.

3 RHA

-          J (Sidi Rezegh) Bty. Becomes Tac Group Bty as it loses its guns?

-          C Bty. Light gun.

-          D Bty. Light gun.

-          M Bty. Headquarters.

-          N (The Eagle Troop) Bty. Tac Group Bty.

4 Royal Artillery currently has six batteries. How the regiment will transform is not yet clear.

    6/36 (Arcot 1751) Bty, (was resubordinated to 4 RA from the disbanded 40 RA regiment) Tac   Group Bty
    3/29 (Corunna) Bty,
    129 (Dragon) Bty, (was resubordinated to 4 RA from the disbanded 40 RA regiment)
    88 (Arracan) Bty,
    94 Headquarters (New Zealand) Bty
    94 Bty (Lawson’s Company).


On disbandment, 40 Royal Artillery had its batteries re-roled and re-subordinated to other regiments.

6/36 (Arcot) Battery - subordinate to 4 RA as Tac Group Bty
38 (Seringapatam) Battery - subordinate to 19th RA as Tac Group Bty
49 (Inkerman) Battery - under Joint Ground-Based Air Defence, armed with Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP)
129 (Dragon) Battery - subordinate to 4 RA
137 (Java) Battery - subordinate to 26th RA as Tac Group Bty


On 22nd of June 2012, 49 (Inkerman) Battery became an independent battery with both RAF and RA troops in the orbat. The battery now uses the Land Enviroment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP) used to deliver a significant improvement to battlespace management for the British Army, LEAPP operates 5 SAAB G-AMB radars to detect, track and identify air contacts and produce a complete local air picture. 

Royal Engineers

The regiments 21 and 32 will lose a regular squadron each as they become Hybrid regular-reserve regiments. 

21 Regiment currently has: 

7 Headquarters and Support Squadron
1 Armoured Engineer Squadron
4 Armoured Engineer Squadron
73 Armoured Engineer Squadron
Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Light Aid Detachment 

As it becomes an Hybrid regiment, 1 and 4 Squadrons become Field Squadrons, and 73 Sqn is due to disband. Two reserve squadrons come under command: 103 Field Squadron (located in Newcastle) and 106 Field Squadron (located in Sheffield). NOTE: the reserve squadrons given by the british army website are different from those announced in the Reserves plan. Under the Reserves plan, 21 Regiment was to get 103 Field Squadron and 299 (Parachute) Squadron.
There might have been a plan change inspired by common sense, for once.

32 Regiment currently has:

2 HQ & Support Squadron
26 Armoured Engineer Squadron
31 Armoured Engineer Squadron
39 Armoured Engineer Squadron
Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Light Aid Detachment

As it becomes an Hybrid regiment, the armour will be lost and one squadron will disband, but we aren't yet told which one. According to the Reserves plan, 32 Regiment was to take command of 131 Commando Engineer Squadron and 106 Field Squadron. Now 106 Squadron is instead assigned to 21 Regiment, apparently. 
We will have to wait and see how the plan has changed. 

The Air Support regiment, 39 Royal Engineers, in Kinloss, has had 10 Squadron disbanded in Leeming, but will gain command of 65 Squadron in Kinloss in summer 2014. 65 Squadron used to be part of 28 Royal Engineer regiment, which is however disbanding. The final structure should thus be:

34 Field Squadron (Air Support).
48 Field Squadron (Air Support).
53 Field Squadron (Air Support).
65 Field Squadron (Air Support).
60 Headquarters and Support Squadron (Air Support).
REME Workshop.   

The two EOD regiments are restructuring to become hybrid as well, both lining 2 regular and 2 reserve EOD squadrons. The new structure is as follows:

101 (EOD) Regiment

-          22 HQ & Sp sqn

-          17 (EOD) Sqn

-          21 (EOD) Sqn

-          221 (Reserve) Sqn

-          579 (Reserve) Sqn

33 (EOD) Regiment

-          EOC Group Explosive Ordnance Clearance

-          821 (EOD) Sqn – this squadron has two Commando and two PARA EOD troops

-          51 (EOD) Sqn

-          217 (Reserve) Sqn

-          350 (Reserve) Sqn

The restructuring of the EOD force is meant to take good note of the lessons learned in the vicious fight against IEDs in Afghanistan. Much better integration, even in peacetime training and structures, of RE and RLC EOD, Search specialists, ECM operators and Search Dog Teams from the Military Working Dogs Regiment is the final objective.

One question yet to answer in this area is the future of TALISMAN. Will this route clearance system be brought into core? How, if it is, will it be distributed and employed in training?

Hopes for the long-term future of TALISMAN come from a slide of the June 2013 presentation given by Lt Gen Chris Deverell, Chief of Materiel (Land) and Quartermaster General during the RUSI Land Warfare conference.

The slide shows a variety of UOR material that the Army is bringing into core (simulation training, Mastiff, Ridgback, Warthog, Wolfhoud, Husky, Jackal, Desert Hawk III, Geo Intelligence solutions, portable radio SATCOM and, in the Force Troops mix, the photo of Mastiff Protected Eyes with mine-roller (an important component of MASTIFF) can be seen. Hopefully, it signals the intention to retain TALISMAN as a whole package.

Also worth noticing is the presence of the photo of the REBS (Rapidly Emplaced Bridge System). Around a dozen such systems have been procured urgently for use in Afghanistan, mounted on HX-77 EPLS trucks. At least 10 were available on the eve of Herrick 14, with 5 systems used for training and five more deploying to Afghanistan.

Bringing REBS into core is likely to be a way to (partially) answer to the requirement for a Medium Weight bridgelayer for the support of FRES SV. The REBS has a military load class (MLC) of 50, so it can support a fully laden FRES Scout. It can only, however, bridge 14 meters gaps, and it is installed on trucks which of course aren’t the same thing as a tracked armored vehicle.

Anyway, much better this way than having nothing. However, on the eve of the publication of the SDSR, the Royal Engineers quantified in 77 tracked vehicles their Medium Weight, FRES-related manoeuvre support requirement for bridging, mine breaching, digging and battlefield shaping. It is not clear if Terrier was considered part of the solution to this requirement, as, save for bridging, it can cover all other roles.

Conclusions:

Many changes are yet to come and be detailed, but this update wants to track, as much as possible, the changes at sub-unit level within the regular army. It also wants to highlight the massive reductions in Combat Support and Combat Service Support capabilities available to the army, to make more people aware that, while understandable, the fury for the loss of historical infantry battalions has no real sense. The uncomfortable reality is that political considerations have messed up Army 2020 even more than it could be expected from such a massive cut, exactly for limiting the loss of capbadges, containing in “just” five the number of infantry battalions to be lost. I’m fully convinced that, given freedom of choice, the army would have cut more infantry battalions in order to deliver a better balanced force: as it stands, the army has more infantry battalions and more brigade HQs than it can actually deploy and support in the field. The tragicomic situation of the two High Readiness brigades is an example. The removal of signal elements from 1 and 2 star headquarters, with new solutions for Real Life Support having to be literally invented somehow is another stark reminder.

The many Infantry battalions of the Adaptable Force have also been cut down in establishment to cut manpower while retaining a non realistic number of separate formations. The british infantry battalions, of all types, are becoming some of the lightest (in terms of both manpower and firepower) in NATO and perhaps in the world.

In other words: if the situation of CS and CSS units is not fixed, the last thing the army needs is more infantry battalions. The Chief of General Staff, general Sir Peter Wall, has (very carefully and mildly) admitted that there is a problem in this area, speaking to thedefence committee in early November 2013:

Q343 Derek Twigg: You mentioned in one of your answers a few minutes ago that obviously this is putting pressure on certain areas in terms of resilience, but you have to find contingency for that. Could you expand on where those pressure points will be on resilience, and are you absolutely confident that they can be dealt with?

General Sir Peter Wall: Yes, I think that in our force structure we are conscious that we have made certain assumptions about the balance between Regular, reserve and contractor logistics, and if those assumptions turn out to be incorrect, then we may find that the dependence on Regulars-because of the threat situation or the tempo of operations, or some other unforeseen sort of delta-is greater than we would like. In that situation, we might have to enrol people from other parts of the Army to do transport functions and things like that.

We can see increasing pressure on the demand for communications bandwidth in the tactical space. We have taken account of that in our design by pro rata reducing the Royal Signals by considerably less than the 20% average, but even so, I can see that demand growing as a consequence of the changing nature of the way that business is done in the future, which is not so much a function of size, but of the changing character of the way we do things, with an increasing dependence on high-resolution imagery for targeting and things like that. I can see that happening. I think in the gunners and the sappers we also might find that they are running a little bit faster than we would like and some of their other cap badge counterparts, but that has often been the case in the previous structures of the Army, depending on the nature of the specific operation and where the emphasis lies.

It will appear extraordinarily mild an admission, and it is, but keeping in mind how rare it is these days for the top brass to acknowledge any specific problem caused by cuts imposed by government, and considering that Philip Hammond was sitting at the general’s side, it becomes a very significant admission.  

I would expect army officers (retired and non retired, to moan about THIS problem, not about the loss of infantry battalions, as painful as those are.

We should all be aiming for a powerful and capable army, not for capbadges.