FDR – LAND (Formation Recce Regiments Alternative Viewpoint)
This a response to the Think Defence article offering an alternative view of how the Formation Recce Regiment might be organized in my ‘fantasy world’ or a reorganized British Army.
I would essentially keep the Regiments structure as it is today:
(Org chart courtesy of www.armedforces.co.uk)
Recce (Sabre) Squadrons
The biggest change of course would be the replacement of the Scimitar CVR(T) with the shortened FRES Scout variant of the CV90. While I would prefer the Upgraded Warrior to have the unmanned turret from Nexter as developed for the French VCBI, I can see the point of a ‘recce’ vehicle retaining a manned turret with good direct view optics, and giving the vehicle commander the chance to stand up high in his hatch with a pair of bino’s (if the tactical situation allows it).. So, we will go with the CTA40mm turret as suggested for the CV90 FRES Scout bid. With 12 vehicles per squadron, full regiment strength is 36 CV90 Scouts.
Supporting Vehicles
The Spartan APC would be replaced by the ‘protected mobility’ APC version of the full length CV90, with an RWS equipped with a 7.62mm / 12.7mm MG or 40mm GMG as required.
Sampson recovery vehicles, Sultan command vehicles and Samaritan ambulances would be replaced by the similar existing variants of the CV90 that are already in production for various user nations, and these are distributed across the Regimental HQ Squadron, the Squadron HQ Troops and the ‘Fitter’ section as required.
Command and Support Squadron
I would add some capabilities to the Command and Support Squadron. Based on Command Vehicle and protected mobility APC variants, this is where I would put my tactical-mini UAV capability. I think we need a small, tactical system, able to be stowed in an APC, with the command and downlink workstation in a Command vehicle. Preferably something ‘hand launched’ – for the role of the Recce regiment, I don’t think we need longer range or endurance. I would suggest, just as a starting point the IAI Skylark 1 system.
Even smaller is the Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk, being used in Afghanistan by the Royal Artilary for patrol over watch and other roles. You can see how small it is when compared to its laptop ‘control station’
I think we can go with maybe 4 air vehicles and 2 Command Vehicle workstations. The Regiment should also have Rover ground stations and obviously the capability to receive imagery from larger tactical UAV’s and from helicopters etc.
The other capability I would add here is a mast mounted EO and radar surveillance capability, such as that deployed on the Canadian GD built LAV-RECCE (or Coyote as it’s known over here):
See: http://www.gdls.com/programs/lav2_coyote.html
Note that we already use the MSTAR radar, and I believe it is normally deployed on a Spartan APC, also that I am not suggesting fitting this kit to a standard turreted FRES Scout, but to a variant of the CV90 APC, with perhaps 4 vehicles in the Squadron (1 for each Sabre Squadron and 1 spare).
Recce Squadron ATGW and Support Troops
Currently the ATGW squadron is on paper comprised of 4 x Striker ATGW carriers, however their heavy Swingfire wire guided weapons were withdrawn sometime ago. The discussion of what ATGW to deploy into the Squadrons, and how provoked considerable discussion of missile types etc in the comments on the original FDR FRR posting.
I am only going to be slightly radically by suggesting providing anti-tank firepower in the guise of a Troop of 4 x CV90120T medium tanks with the RUAG light weight / low recoil 120mm gun, firing standard NATO APDS-FS rounds. These are also capable recce vehicles in their own right, and provide many rounds than an ATGW system. Of course, in my re-ogranised army, these are also the mounts of our regular Armoured Corps Regiments !
The Support Troop provides 4 x Spartan APC’s for dismounted recce ‘scouts’ for sneaky forward and doing recce on foot. As Spartan can only carry 4 x dismounts, and a CV90 APC could carry 8, we will drop the vehicles down to 2. However I would replace the other 2 Spartans with 2 x CV90 with AMOS 120mm breach loading, automatic smooth bore mortars. This is a truly multi-purpose weapon system with a direct fire capability, and the ability to drop rounds ranging from IR screening smoke (very useful to a recce unit) to the Strix IR guided top-attack anti-armour weapon. Also if we really wanted to add another ATGW to our mix, then the barrels of the AMOS can fire IAI LAHAT tube-launched laser guided missiles. A good idea might be to add a fifth APC to carry additional mortar rounds.
CV90 AMO
A Support Troop conundrum – anti-air capability?
I am sure most readers would admit that the British Army is not well endowed with air-defence capabilities. Sure we have the Starstreak HVM as our ‘manpads’ and mounted on a variant of the Stormer APC (a stretched CVR(T)). However as the Recce Regiment can be expected to be operating at the ‘forward edge of battle area’ or indeed fluidly operating across an asymmetric battle space, should it have some more AA capability embedded ? There is an AA version of the CV90 with a different turret mounting a Bofors 40mm with the requisite sensors and fire control:
CV90 Air Defence
The ‘dust bin’ on the turret is radar – perhaps we would just use the standard IR Air Defence Alerting Device (IR-ADAD) and replace the Bofors with the standard CTA 40mm – lower rate of fire, but adequate for anti-helicopter ? Of course we could fit the same turret with 8 x Starstreak launchers as used on the current vehicles, and Starstreak is useful against targets other than ‘fast movers’.
For now let’s just say 2 CV90 AA with IR-ADAD and CTA 40mm turrets with high angle capability.
Soft skinned vehicles and ‘close recce’
The Regimental HQ, HQ Squadron and Recce Squadron HQ’s have the ‘Truck Utility Medium – Fitted For Radio’ (TUM-FFR) – or to you and I, the Landover Wolf with Bowman. There has been much support on in comments on previous posts for the use of the Fennek wheeled armoured recce vehicle to provide a ‘close recce’ element. This could be provided by replacing the soft skinned Landover’s in this role. However although my father was Household Cavalry (the Blues) and I have a good friend from the TA who was regular Army Blues and Royals, I have to admit I am not sure how the Landover’s are used. If they are not being used by close recce teams, but are just general purpose runabouts for the HQ staff, then a Fennek procurement is not appropriate. Perhaps Panther CLV would suffice in this role (it has room in back to throw bergens) with its roof mounted RWS conferring additional sensor capability. Otherwise even the Husky would provide 4 under armour seats, radios and some load carrying space in the back.
Note that unlike the original FRR article, I am not suggesting the use of Jackal / Jackal 2 – I would equip the recce platoons of Mechanised Infantry Brigades with these vehicles, or keep them available for FRR use ‘as required’.
Should Combat Engineers be added as standard element ?
Combat Engineers have their own recce troops, we might expect some to be attached to the ‘dismounts’, however in a highly asymmetric battle space, with fluid manoeuvre warfare do we need a little more embedded capability ?
How about a single CV90 APC, fitted with a dozer blade and perhaps a roof mounted “Mini-Python” minefield breaching system, attached to each Recce Squadron HQ ?
The alternative Formation Recce Regiment, vehicles summary:
- 36 x CV90 FRES Scout in 3 x Recce Squadrons
- 12 x CV90120T Medium Tanks in 3 x Anti-tank Troops (1 Troop per Recce Sqdn)
- 6 x CV90 AMOS in 3 x Support Troops (1 Troop per Recce Sqdn)(plus 3 x CV90 APC for ammo)
- 6 x CV90 AA in 3 x Support Troops (1 Troop per Recce Sqdn)
- 48 Recce Scouts (“dismounts”) in 6 x CV90 APC in 3 x Support Troops (1 Troop per Recce Sqdn). This equates to 6 x 8 man full sections or 12 x 4 man ‘brick’ Recce teams for close recce.
- 4 x CV90 APC with mast mounted EO / Radar (in Command and Support Squadron)
- 4 x CV90 APC ‘Combat Engineer’
- 14 – 18 x CV90 Command Vehicles (to replace Sultan in HQ elements)
- 6 – 8 x CV90 APC (to replace Spartan in HQ elements.)
- 4 x CV90 Ambulance (to replace Samaritan in HQ elements)
- 4 x CV90 Armoured Recovery Vehicle (to replace Samson in Fitter Sections)
- 8 x Fennek / Panther CLV / Husky as required (to replace TUM-FFR)
Approx. 111 CV90 variants, plus 8 wheeled vehicles !
A powerful and flexible formation, whadya think ?
27 comments
Post your own
On the same vein, why not just use Challengers instead of CV90120Ts? Sure they are a lot heavier, but with up-armored CV90s as the base vehicle this unit is already “heavy”.
With Challengers, it would be better able to fight for information, armored cavalry-style.
Forgive me, but I cringe a bit when I hear the CV90120T called a “medium tank”. Even fully up-armored, can it stop much more than a Russian 30mm APDS? Even a T-55 could punch a hole in the front of one.
Sounds more like a “tank destroyer” or “assault gun” than a medium tank to me.
Marcase, I tried not to change things too much from as they are now, be that right or wrong, as so bigger, more complex (read that as need to stop longer to get them airborne / landed) are held at higher formations, not needed within this unit. Does not mean this unit cannot utilize their feeds.
Your sensor platoon just seems to have the same kit I suggested, but perhaps more of it ? I have waxed lyrical on EW already – but accept that a minimalist Comms DF capability might fit in somewhere.
More dismounted scouts if required can be provided by recce platoons of infantry battalions (of any type) that are part of the same battle group / task force structure as the recce regiment.
just found this on you tube not recommending it just thought the boffins on here would like to see what others are thinking/developing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XooFmPUt6aA&playnext_from=TL&videos=iA31sBK1Q2E
A few observations.
Four vehicles per plt means two sections of two, so there is always one scouting and one wingman providing cover. The Scout could carry the 40mm plus mast-mounted LRAS/EO/Radar, and the wingman could carry something heavier, such as ATGWs, or perhaps be the CV90-120T.
Stingers are needed, as the Recce Rgt/Sqn is networked, so higher echelons (Bde/Div) can provide early warning, alerting Stinger teams fairly early. Each two-vehicle section would carry one Stinger gunner, this combined with the vehicle’s 40mm ‘slew to cue’ capability provides a good LLADS ability.
The ADA version is a must have; we have UAVs, and so will any Opfor.
Also, the 40mm is large enough for airburst munitions, and that in turn could turn it into a potential mobile C-RAM system (counter rocket/arty/mortar). This will require a specialized radar and new software integration, but those are already available “off the shelf”, vehicle integration is the main hurdle.
Forget about AMOS, take the single barrel NEMO as alternative. Longer barrel too which means more accurate with ‘dumb’ rounds.
Your Rgt is still too light on other sensors IMHO; it’s a “binoc rgt”. I would include AT LEAST an ISTAR company, of at least 60 men.
ISTAR Co (60);
Co HQ (7), UAV Plt (22; 4 TUAV), Sensor Plt (24), NBCR Plt (6; 2 NBC veh)
Very short range ‘throw’ UAVs are nice, you need a larger Tactical variant which can carry larger (heavier), stabilized EO/IR surveillance equipment, can act as a comms relay or can even carry a radar for all-weather surveillance/foliage penetration.
The Sensor plt would include MSTAR radar, SIGINT/COMINT kit and even an EW/ECR jammer.
More dismounted scouts are required, at least one plt per company.
Nothing beats the Mark One eyeball combined with a human brain.
Cheers.
There are a lot of things that UAVs of any stripe cannot do.
Operate in all weathers, check things out up close and personal, look under things are some key elements.
On top of that, the role of Formation Recce is more than just go and have a look at things. You’ve got to be able to stop the enemy recce forces having a peek at your disposition or fight through their counter recce screen to locate their main force.
I think that a troop of scout cars per squadron, possibly switching to a 4 x 3 vehicle structure (3×3 FRES scout and 1×3 Scout cars) would provide the close-in ground-based recce element. With the right scout car, you could carry some engineers and dismounted scouts around as well. The problem in this arrangement might be that the wheeled cars might get left behind crossing bad terrain.
Perhaps an interim idea would be to use light tracks (Spare Spartan or Stormers, if there are such things) with a RWS and improved electro-optics as the close recce vehicles. A future development would be to use SEP or something similar with a hybrid drive
For organics air defence all I would say is hand out some star streak and maybe have a system like the Thales Thor* added to a few of the vehicles which should be enough. Gun based air defence I feel would be a bit slow to react and the rate of fire for the CT-40 gun leaves a bit to be desired in the role. Blokes with MANPADS I think would be even slower as they would need to grab the weapon go outside let it warm up and then attempt to have a pop at the target by that time they might be dead. Basically a vehicle fitted with something like Thor would have the launcher and a remote weapons station with a .50cal machine gun both of which could maybe be controlled via a single console. Hmm woops read the post and the first few comments and started writing this I agree with what B.Smitty said about the system.
About the logistics point that was raised by Sven this is the main reason I like the BAE SEP as it would allow you to lower fuel consumption alongside noise increasing endurance and stealth ideal for recce. The Fennek is something that is a true recce vehicle hands down as it has a decent endurance and can stay out and about without resupply for 5 days I think? Not bad for a reasonable sized vehicle. Maybe in the near future we could end up with a hybrid version of the Fennek with even better endurance and stealth.
Anyhow in the wider scheme of things could we not just rely upon UAV’s both fixed and rotary wing alongside a decent fleet of Fennek scout vehicles, the UAV’s provide over watch and guide the Fenneks. Anything that needs checked on the ground a couple of Fenneks could appear with the required people to check a bridges condition or investigate something a UAV has seen from the air. The way I see it is in future there are going to be at least a couple of layers of aerial surveillance over any area which should be able to gather the majority of the information with their ever better sensors. Anything they cannot find out or if they find something and more information is needed they should be able to pass the location and current information over to recce units using Fenneks to have a closer look. It would be much cheaper and sneakier than dozens of 25+ ton armoured vehicles running around the place doing attempting to do recce when chances are they might have been spotted.
I am puzzled. Why the focus on the CV90? FRES SV takes that role, surely?
Why 120T versions for anti-tank? Wouldn’t ATGW firing from defilade be more suitable? Current organisation for FR is that the ATGW troops carry Javelin, which combines a powerful and low signature ISTAR asset with a powerful and low signature anti-tank weapon.
I like organic UAS. The small ones are probably small enough to operate out of the back of the FRES scout, which would put the capability right at the front edge, so you don’t need to get as close or move as much, both of which risk betraying your strength.
As has been noted before, UAS are increasingly used for recce roles, so there is sense for some kind of anti-air capacity, if only to act in the counter-recce role. Fore these small targets, a missile capable of hitting them (Starstreak2?) or a cannon firing rounds that are sufficiently likely to hit (AHEAD or similar shrapnel-style systems would seem logical, or a prox fuse if you can get it). Cannon and hit-to-kill missiles have an advantage in that they can be used in the ground role as well.
OK, then five max MRSI fire missions for AMOS if we assume that the ammo loadout would be the same as on paper. You’d still end up firing many small fire missions instead, unlikely to be quicker than 14 rpm – and that’s the RoF of the very compact & light CARDOM.
AMOS is overengineered, overweight, high centre of gravity, overly expensive, huge -> difficult to hide, adds maintenance requirements and all this essentially for a second barrel that adds nothing but RoF that you’re unlikely to be able to exploit in a recce outfit that’s far away from all logistical support. Its only effective advantage is that it’s overly sexy on the internet.
Take the lighter AMS or another turreted system if you insist on a low angle fire capability.
AMOS could do about three maximum MRSI attacks before its ammo and the ammo carrier’s ammo were out. It’s a hyped system with superficial attractiveness. its price is extreme, its weight is extreme, its size is extreme, it’s de facto not air deployable in almost all aircraft and its crew cannot exploit the RoF to good effect without an ensured ammo resupply.
Look at CARDOM for a seriously good AFV mortar system.
Sven asked some questions – caveat to responses, I was not attempting to change whole way British Army fights, from doctrine downwards, just update the current FRR structure with new vehicles and some limited new capabilities:
Sven asked “What about SigInt (direction finding)” – I recently dealt with that in a comment on another post. Currently we keep SIGINT at a higher formation level. If DF kit that can cope with enemy having spread spectrum / frequency hopping radio kit is available in small enough package, then sure, why not.
Sven asked: “Are satellite communications/short wave radios available in command vehicles?” The BOWMAN battlefield communications system provides kit that covers lots of frequency bands and modes of operation. I don’t know what is currently in a Spartan, but I would suggest tactical SATCOM is not out of the question, alongside VHF, UHF and HF voice and data capabilities.
Sven asked: “Why do Recce Troops have four vehicles? Three is a proven composition in other armies.” I dunno, what you asking me for ? :-) Just copied the existing orbat…….
Sven asked: “The AMOS turret is impressive (and expensive), but what is the second barrel good for? ” It allows AMOS to do 26 rounds per minute, and do a 14 round “simultaneous point of impact” – rather devastating firepower to get ones forward elements out of the pooh ? I can find only one source which qoutes CV90 AMOS as carrying 90 rounds – only 3 minutes of maximum continous fire, but quite a few short sharp fire missions, and I would have a lot of those rounds as Strix, maybe LAHAT, as I noted in the article.
Sven asked: “What is the CV90 AA supposed to accomplish?” A rhetorical question I presume ? However I take your point about where it could / should be employed.
Sven said: “A LtCol in command of a force that has as many AFV as three mech infantry battalions? There are so many generals and colonels in modern armies; a Colonel should be available for such a large force.” – Yes well, take it up with the Army Board, its not my doing….. :-)
Sven said: “The fuel consumption of a CV90 fleet is roughly five times as large as for a CVR(T) fleet. The road range of a Scimitar is afaik 450 km, 320 only for a CV90. A quarter range loss? Range = endurance = ability to operate independently and without a organic fuel supply element. Was this checked in detail?” – Nope not checked at all, out of scope as far as I am concerned. Reality is FRES Scout is ASCOD (right now at least) which I am sure also has worse fuel consumption than Scimitar – but then as all alternatives are better protected = heavier = worse fuel consumption than current CVR(T) we are stuck with this dilemma whatever. Good point ref logistics non the less !
Some videos for you mortar fans out there
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WMp6c3LTxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnlB5mrigyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiLHhCqt7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdsUlr1674
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qln3hVoe8qA
Am no expert on formations but it does seem like a lot of vehicles, is there an opportunity to get UGV’s or unattended sensors involved for some of roles?
Also can’t you get 2 rounds to arrive at the same time by changing barrel elevation, you’d need a fire conrol system and a flick loaded but its doable
The second barrel is to ‘double tap’ to that rounds arrive at the same location in quick succession. It also allows you to use two different ammunition natures
Why the second barrel?
Why not?
A scout force is going to need maximum firepower for tiny periods of time.
Its not going to need sustained firepower for long periods of time.
What about SigInt (direction finding); a recce force that’s in between and at times behind OPFOR could learn much about OPFOR by SigInt DF. This is especially true because it’ll be dispersed and that would yield much more accurate locating.
Are satellite communications/short wave radios available in command vehicles? Are the command vehicles communication nodes? I ask because that would add significant risks to them and you probably wouldn’t want the CO in one of them.
Why do Recce Troops have four vehicles? Three is a proven composition in other armies.
The AMOS turret is impressive (and expensive), but what is the second barrel good for? You’ll run out of ammo very quickly even with 1/2 ammo carrier per AMOS vehicle. Recce forces are by design ahead and often separated from the main body and its supply capacity.
What is the CV90 AA supposed to accomplish? Its air defence radius is about 3, maybe 4 km (helos).
That woudn’t suffice to protect three dispersed recce troops. It could at best protect (or warn) the Sqd’s rather large support & HQ elements (if they stick with the SPAAG).
A LtCol in command of a force that has as many AFV as three mech infantry battalions? There are so many generals and colonels in modern armies; a Colonel should be available for such a large force.
The fuel consumption of a CV90 fleet is roughly five times as large as for a CVR(T) fleet. The road range of a Scimitar is afaik 450 km, 320 only for a CV90. A quarter range loss? Range = endurance = ability to operate independently and without a organic fuel supply element. Was this checked in detail?
Is the Thales MMS turret still in development? If used here, you could have ATGMs and Starstreaks on the same turret.
You could then combine the 18 vehicles dedicated to AT and AA into common AT/AA Support Troops of 6 MMS vehicles (1 Troop per Recc Sqdn). Each vehicle could carry either Starstreak or ATGMs or both, as the situation dictates. If the air threat was low, you could carry more ATGMs and fewer Starstreaks.
If you decided to use an NLOS ATGM like Spike-ER here, you could get by with a lighter vehicle (lowering the Troop’s log footprint), since it could stay out of direct-fire engagements.
Plus, the powerful EO/IR sensor on the MMS turret would be a useful surveillance tool on its own.
I’m going to question GBAD again.
It kind of makes sense on a ship, its a big target, in the open.
Well thats not true, it does make sense.
On the battlefield, if we have air superiority, a 40mm autocannon isnt going to have anything to do, but if we dont have air superiority, whats a 40mm autocannon going to do?
If we could cheaply integrate a MANPAD onto the command tanks, it might be worth it for catching the odd one that gets through.
Sven, its not an article dealing with doctrine, as you note its an updated TO & E based on modern vehicles, so you could say that doctrine and missions should be considered to be exactly the same as they are now for the current Formation Reconnaissance Regiments.
That’s about the TO&E. TO&E is supposed to be based on doctrine.
What doctrine for employment did you think about?
Just in case I wasn’t clear; this was supposed to be a hard-hitting question. An alternative TO&E makes no sense without mission & doctrine.
I can’t see many operations in the future being carried out in contested airspace so I think the main air defence requirement for the future will be for fixed locations against mortar and rocket fire and for mobile formations against UAS and loitering munitions which can still be deployed even when you have air superiority. For me then, this comes down to a gun based system pure;y on economic grounds and possibly held at a higher formation and deployed as necessary
“Yes if you want to deploy Stinger AS WELL that’s fine, but not rely on defending a mechanised unit with MANPADS!!!!”
But that is all the British Army is essentially doing with Starstreak. Handing out the Stinger merely passes down the responsibility for air defence from the Royal Artillery to the troop itself, without involving a specialist vehicle and crew.
Ok, the British Army may be getting it wrong with regards to air defence, and we may be over-reliant on the RAF to maintain air superiority.
The CV90 with a CTA cannon and bolt on Starstreak would be a similar concept to the M6 Linebacker, which is a Bradley with four Stingers instead of TOW, albeit less radar I believe. The US Army is to retire these vehicles soon.
My question would be, ‘If the US is thinking of retiring this concept, why do you propose we adopt it?’
Hi Guys
Due to the time difference Admin posted this ‘overnight’ for me – thanks Admin, and thanks for finding better photos :-)
Richard and Phil – I have done my job by getting debate going on local air defence :-) I have only once played with a Stinger training round on a Dutch minesweeper during the mid-80′s. I think the training burden might be just as great for Stinger as for Starstreak, other than that I have made my suggestion in the article, so I will leave the comments to battle it out ….
I have provided Admin with another article and it exposes my ideas for Warrior. I would collapse the Warriors into six Armoured Infantry regiments and they would get all the Warriors of all variants, hence needing a Repair and Recovery CV90 for the FRR.
As for wheels, I am not really sure we need them at all. If the Landrovers are purely liaison vehicles with no real ‘recce role’ then keep them. If they are used for close recce then maybe Fennek or Panther is better than Ocelot, as they are lower slung, lower profile (smaller targets). However when it comes down to it the combination of dismount scouts creeping through the undergrowth and the integrated UAV capability may mean we don’t need vehicles for close recce in this formation ?
Thanks for the positive comments !
as an afterthought reading the comments, this is where the ocelot could come in, bowman FFR’s are notorious for having no room in the back and obviously lookng like an explosion in a sphagetti factory!
With it’s pod system the bowman can stay plugged in, which is a good thing as constant removing/replacing cables damages connectors and weakens cable. Also the time factor in removal/installation of bowman equipment would be negated. The vehicle if in camp could be fitted with a flatbed or L/R type rear for general duties
I have noticed in press releases that the ocelt and the supacat are being trialled at the moment, with the quotes being the UK designed and built supacat and the US ocelot, no bias there then!
apart from that crack on jed!!
Noion to Admin, can we have an edit function please. As when I use my Laptop as now I make way too many typo’s and would love to be able to correct them!!!
Yeah I know I could just take more time and care in the first place!!!
Jed, I think you have got this just about bang on.
However, I do disagree with Richard on the Stinger suggestion! I do believe we need a dedicated mobile air-defence vehicle. My ideal would be a AAA (Bofors or CTA 40) but with 4-8 Starstreak/LMM bolted on the side. My view is that we ought to have both Radar and IR-Alerting systems. Yes if you want to deploy Stinger AS WELL that’s fine, but not rely on defending a mechanised unit with MANPADS!!!!
With regards to the soft skinned vehicles, why mix tracks and wheels in this formation?
I don’t profess to know what FFR’s are used for these days. When I was in, its was just a platoon radio vehicle and as such should be a CV90. If you want a smaller lighter vehicle why not use Viking/Warthog types?
With regards to mixing Warrior and FRES, well that’s the rub.
The Warrior really should habe been replaced as well (Yes I know it has still got life left in it) but they could be transferred to the TA along with the FV432/Bulldog, thus giving them equipment of their own (like the Germans do) so they can join in as a complete battle group should the need arise.
Jed, what do I think? A comprehensive assessment, well done.
Just a couple of things:
With regard to anti-aircraft capability, I would be tempted to avoid a dedicated vehicle within the troop as it would add an additional strain on the logistics. It would be uesful, but it would also add a significant cost element.
I’d be more tempted to provide the troop with Stinger MANPADS. No doubt this will attract derision from other commentators, but hear me out. Yes, we already have starsteak as the MANPADS, but this is a sophisticated set up with designated vehicles and trained crews. I would utilise a number of Stinger operators within the troop pretty much in the same way we have a designated marksman. A few men trained up within the troop could provide an ‘air sentry’. I’m sure 22 Mobility Troop would take Stingers with them when out on large scale ops, I’m sure a recce sqn could be quite capable of doing the same.
Support vehicles: as we’d be getting rid of the Samson, rather than have a CV90 recovery vehicle, I’d stick with the Warrior FV513. Having one recovery vehicle in the system is logistically better than having two.