Thought this might be useful to inform the discussion
Blatantly nabbed from the MoD and reposted to get a broader viewing 
Think DefenceUK Defence Issues and the odd container or two
Thought this might be useful to inform the discussion
Blatantly nabbed from the MoD and reposted to get a broader viewing
I take it back there is some detail!
I wish to be smug for a moment if I may. That the brigades would be stripped of their CS and CSS assets and they’d get these from a pool was a prediction of mine.
Otherwise, interesting, I will read on.
I take it back there is some detail!
I wish to be smug for a moment if I may. That the brigades would be stripped of their CS and CSS assets and they’d get these from a pool was a prediction of mine.
Otherwise, interesting, I will read on.
So excited I double tapped.
The MRAP and PM battalions are interesting. Looks like Jackal is coming back too.
Looks like changes to TA terms and conditions will be consulted on.
Modern kit for the TA too.
Doesn’t say how 16X will be organised.
I guess 24 Engineer Regiment goes as 3 Commando is not needed to deploy as a Brigade now. Perhaps there are more changes to that Bde afoot.
Phil, on smugness
Just been going back through the TD archives, especially the very early posts on a Future Defence Review and it is pretty scary how some of my more hair brain schemes have actually translated into reality.
I have been banging on about retaining a smaller high end striking core surrounded with more forward presence, building local security (upstream engagement) etc for ages
Doesn’t matter if 3Cdo deploys as a whole or not. Somebody has to dig holes tactically and build stuff. I wonder how much input 1SL had on that decision if any.
16 x
Will have
2 para
3 para
1 rirish
Then as their reserve element
4 para
2 para
Who both as of April left the ta brigades they were in and joined 16 x.
Fairly comprehensive. Still a bit lost as to where these adaptable forces are going to be plucked from? Surely there isn’t enough manpower to achieve what they’re planning? Unless “Brigade” is being used as a very loose term.
The armoured brigades are similar to what I have talked about. But the protected battalion in Mastiff is a mistake. Go to two brigades or scrap the protected battalion. There to make use of kit methinks. Unless it is for force protection.
The adaptable forces infantry plot I think is bigger than they have represented.
If you go with what we know and assume 16X and 3 Commando and the standing commitment plot remains the same you have
3 RF Bns
3 RF Bns
3 RF Bns
4 in 16X
1 in 3 Commando
1 Land Warfare Bn
2 Cyprus
1 Brunei
3 Public Duties
Thats 21 battalions which leaves 10 missing. I think 16X is going down to 3 Bns so thats 11 missing. If 3 Cdo drop 1 Rifles then that’s 12 missing.
Two brigades with 3 batts mounted in Warrior.
That’s another good point, where the bloody hell was 3 Cdo in that document? Did I lose them? Not sure as well whether those Light Recce regiments in Jackals are supposed to be TA?
Phil the missing battalions are in the Adaptable Force. 10 regular 15 TA battalions in seven infantry brigades. I think 4 PARA and 2 RIR are now attached to 16 Air Assault so that leaves them 23 battalions.
Chris B 3 Commando is not an army formation, but an Royal Marine Brigade with attached army units.
@ Chris B
On the same theme, why wasn’t the 2300 RAF Reg included? That is in excess of 3 batts of infantry.
Looking at the cavalry regular regiments.
Three CH2
Three FRES Scout
Three Jackel
then there are the TA regiments, logic would suggest one regiment in each role. (yes I know logic used in a defence discussion).
X would rather have the adaptability of three more infantry battalions. Let the RAF Police guard airbases. If deployed overseas use an infantry company.
“Phil the missing battalions are in the Adaptable Force.”
I know that but thanks.
What I am interested in is
(a) what is the model of employment of the AF if it is committed to an enduring brigade level committment, which SDSR and the new announcements confirm. This will reveal if we plan for an open ended commitment or if we are going to have a time limit. From the TA needing to do one tour in 5 years it suggests an open ended commitment model which means there’d need to be enough the in the adaptable pool for 5 AF Bdes to get the regular one tour every 24 months and the TA one tour every 5 years. Will TA combat units make up formed units?
(b) pairing of TA combat units suggests that TA combat units will continue to augment regular units rather than deploy as units themselves – is this correct?
Phil b) pairing of TA combat units suggests that TA combat units will continue to augment regular units rather than deploy as units themselves – is this correct?
That question was asked in the house, the response was that individuals would deploy when needed (as now) but there would be more use of formed units from platoon upwards.
@ Jim,
“Chris B 3 Commando is not an army formation, but an Royal Marine Brigade with attached army units.”
– I know, thank you anyway. What I meant was that presumably somebody in her Maj’s government asked the question about where the Royal Marines will fit into all of this regardless of what service they are ostensibly a part of. For example with Afghanistan they are rotated through alongside the army and in line with army planning. Surely then the Royal Marines are factored into the Reaction force somehow, as they have been with deployments as light infantry to Iraq in the conventional stages?
I hope that makes sense.
Still not getting my tiny brain around how 3Cdo is loosing its engineers. Especially as 16AAB keep theirs…..
Everybody is building amphibs. “We” concentrate our combat power in 3 armoured brigades. WTF?
I think it is crap.
“at question was asked in the house, the response was that individuals would deploy when needed (as now) but there would be more use of formed units from platoon upwards.”
I hate these sorts of wishy washy answers. It is obvious whoever asked the question was asking it on the same basis as I was, yet they get fobbed off. Infantry has deployed as TA sub units for some time on HERRICK when they did BSN FP. I just wonder how it is all going to mesh together. I know they have a battle rhythm or a generation cycle in mind, but they aren’t hinting at it.
@ x
I think one of the commando engineer squadrons is becoming independent. Whilst why they kept the para engineers appears simple to me. It takes longer to train someone to parachute than it does walk of a boat, although I still would have kept the commando engineers myself.
“Still not getting my tiny brain around how 3Cdo is loosing its engineers.”
They’re not, 24 Commando Engineers was a regiment in name only, they are keeping their now once again independent squadron and their volunteer squadron.
I think 24 lost their RHQ Sqn a while ago and it had been 59 and 131(V) for as as long as I can remember
RE “That question was asked in the house, the response was that individuals would deploy when needed (as now) but there would be more use of formed units from platoon upwards.”
Put together what was said in the House and what Gen. Peter Wall said in the Soldier Magazine (I think The Times printed it word for word, too):
called up reserves might be 10% to begin with, rising to 30% of the fielded force in round 4 or 5 (assuming 6 monthly rotation)
- interesting difference in delivering this message:
–by SecDef to the politicians and the population at large, a division level commitment would be best effort (implying not for long)
– to the members of the Forces (from now on, a Whole Force, with reservists counted in)if a force is still in the field after 24-30 months and reserves make up a third of it, *even a formed brigade was hinted at*, that is not very short term (and different from delivering an enduring, brigade-level commitment)
@ Phil & TD
Thanks.
Without wishing to piss in the porridge, don’t forget sub units changes and disbandments have yet to be announced.
X, I think 24 was nothing but 59/131(V) with a few extra RHQ bods so it seems to be reverting to what it was for ages, in fact when you look at the fact that RM isn’t actually changing all that much the retention of 2 RE Sqns (1 reg, 1 reserve) is not a bad outcome
Yes sub-units will give a much bigger picture.
For example a lot of the CSS and CS capabilities are at the squadron / battery level rather than the RHQ with the RHQ often just assuming a babysitting role.
It’s good to see ARRC finally being chinned off as a traditional Corps organisation. Alas, the final part of the Cold War Army is laid to rest a mere 22 years and 5 large operations after the end of the Cold War.
@ TD
No it isn’t. I have calmed down now.
Re the RAF Reg and RM not changing, these are primarily army reforms, naval and air force reforms will come in due course (I believe, such as Squadron structure and vessles). One thing to remember, not all that number of rock apes are gunners either, but fall under the ‘raf reg’ banner, same with the marines.
We live in a Purple World I keep getting told here……..
The RAF Reg are men with rifles. Of the 3 “RAF airfields” at some level of risk only one is defended by the RAF Reg. I don’t see any RAF Reg squadrons at MPA. I don’t see them defending the SBA in Cyprus. So I think when infantry is being cut it is reasonable to ask how 2300 men with rifles escape cuts when battalions are being cut.
Just to clarify, I wasn’t expecting either the RM of RAF Regiment to be canned or even reduced, understanding that they’re not Army assets. What I was thrusting at is how do the Royal Marines fit into the Reaction Force and/or the Adaptable Force? Surely as the sole Amphibious assault force, they must have been considered in terms of the Reaction Force?
@ ChrisB – “Surely as the sole Amphibious assault force, they must have been considered in terms of the Reaction Force?”
I agree.
@ Chris B re reaction force
Yep I agree. But the Army has decided reaction means Chally2 and Warrior.
I have said lots of times we should have one very well equipped armoured brigade with the regiments assigned for 4 years or so. The other brigades for these COIN type ops and to be able to field a cavalry regiment and an armoured battalion to re-enforce the armour brigade. And then 3Cdo and a Parachute Brigade, not merged, but working in concert.
Hold on there x, as has been pointed out 3Cdo is a naval asset not an army one, so the army has no power to dictate and say “this is what we want to do with 3Cdo”. I just assumed that some sort of consultation had taken place? Or maybe it’s just the rule for the document, that only army units can be named and outlined, while behind the scenes there is a plan for how Naval and Air Force units will be integrated into all of this?
Would be nice to know how 3Cdo fits into the jigsaw.
Chris
3 Cdo is indeed part of the Reaction Force, with a battle group based on a single Commando and supporting elements, transported by 1 x Albion, 1 – 2 Bay and the LPH, as part of the “high readiness” elements – the other being a battle group provided by 16 AAB.
X – with 6 x Point class available aren’t we the only European military that could actually move / deploy an armoured brigade by anything other than an Autobahn based “road trip” across continental Europe ….? (Well quicker than having to arrange the leases for available mercantile capacity).
Also in many respects its better to train 6 battalions for high tempo armoured manouvre warfare,
And then if you really need to, refresh them in the basics of infantry foot work, and deploy them without their Warriors.
So where are the MLRS batteries the most useful firepower the army has? 39 Regt has been ‘disappeared’. Seems odd given the statement in the preamble about changing the balance between suppression and precision. Perhaps its putting MLRS btys into field regts. Incidently the CS etc in the armd inf bdes will be under divisional c0mmand, I sense that some posters hereabouts aren’t too au fait with how armies actually organise!
0n the whole its a fairly rational plan except for the excessive number 0f infantry bns. The interesting questi0n is whether the Reg/TA pairing is going to extend to the arty, ISTAR (mostly arty – 3 reg regts), engr, etc bdes.
Interesting that within the 3 RF Brigades there is an “Armoured Cavalry” Regiment, while the recce symbol is shown. This must be a deliberate decision by MoD, as there is no one who does not know the distinction. There’s some pretty deep disquiet on the regimental forum (registration required and not visible to outsiders) about this, particularly if it implies a move to fighting for information as a default, rather than a last resort if sneaking about doesn’t work.
@ Obsvr,
I don’t think MLRS was deployed in Gulf 2 (it certainly was in Gulf 1 – I had lots of fun asking for various grid squares to be removed) – this very much surprised me. It’s not really a precision weapon system.
James, I read it just as having to find a pair for the term Light Cavalry (which also now appears in ORBAT), RE
” particularly if it implies a move to fighting for information as a default, rather than a last resort if sneaking about doesn’t work.”
- nicely puts a lid on the number of SV Scouts that will “have to” be ordered, too
- more of the recovery/ command post/ combat engineering/ ambulance versions… or is that just wishful thinking
“0n the whole its a fairly rational plan except for the excessive number 0f infantry bns.”
A contingency against a Scottish secession?
“Don’t worry chaps, we’ll muddle through”
jed,
“with 6 x Point class available aren’t we the only European military that could actually move / deploy an armoured brigade by anything other than an Autobahn based “road trip” across continental Europe ….? (Well quicker than having to arrange the leases for available mercantile capacity).”
Other European countries have thought about this too:
http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/International/ARK/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50104.htm
@Anixtu
Interesting that with the Albion,Bays and Point class ships available the UK still had to use a Danish Ark to transport military equipment.
@ Red Trousers
But we live in the era of the UAV, the intelligence gathering panacea don’t we? We don’t need FRR do we?
I had wondered about it too. As an outsider I read it as perhaps the UAV (and other assets) takes on some of the reconnaissance load and that with fewer “tank” regiments there is a need for the “cavalry” to do more fighting. And if that is the case perhaps the ASCOD is a tad under gunned. Smacks of a fudge. Why was I thinking about? Because of that Mastiff mounted protected battalion which makes no sense no only in terms of mobility but in firepower too. And then I looked for firepower and saw this wonderful formation called cavalry….
@ Jed
I would humbly suggest given the logistics load of a light infantry brigade per month (17,000tons source Brassey’s) the Points would be better employed helping support 3Cdo if the balloon went up. The tonnage and weight of cargo to support an armoured brigade is considerably more. Moving armoured vehicles in the first instance is only the start of the problem. Consider how quickly an armoured brigade is actually able to stay in the line against a peer enemy. We tend to forget how quick GW1 was and the weakness of the enemy in GW2. Personally I see ground troops being used in less than war situations either like Sierra Leone or covering evacuations in “hot Libya” type scenarios, and really as “place markers” who gets across the beach quick enough to plant their flag. I think the cost of one MBT, let alone running it, would buy an awful lot of ATGW. Considering the speed I think events will happen and the geographical extremes I wonder where the peer armoured threat comes from. And if we say that us being armoured trumps their being light well that is flawed because I think the war would be over by the time our tanks get there. But……….
I don’t think we should get out of armour completely. We should just recognise that the next time we use it will be a GW1/GW2 re-run. We can’t do any more than that now; GW1 put the Army under strain for 3 tank regiments and 3 Warrior battalions. Therefore we don’t need the depth of armour. Better one brigade with “pimped” Chally3 and everybody mounted in Warrior and it all networked. All well rehearsed and all at the top of its game. Assign the regiments for 4 to 5 years. You might join the Army and only see Salisbury Plain and BATUS but heck a lot countries have military that don’t go anywhere. Then with the Points, leased, and STUFT will we have enough shipping to move it when we want at short notice. And that leaves the rest of the Army to join the RM and Para’s being ready to go anywhere light when there’s a need. I see Army2020 as a bit Cold War.
Finally, to use that much hackneyed phrase and in joke here, “WE ARE AN ISLAND DON’T YOU KNOW!!” At a fundamental level let those with land borders worry about big heavy tanks and lots of heavy AFV/MICVs I am not anti-armour. I think the Army has missed an opportunity to hone and concentrate armoured power to a level perhaps only the US can match.
I also find it odd that the likes of the Danes and Canucks find uses for tanks in Afghanistan, we don’t, and then the Army basically rebrands 1 Armoured Div as the answer to our land forces needs for the next couple of decades. That says there to me there is little imagination in the Army’s upper echelons.
@RT
The international treaty on ‘bomblet’ munitions meant that all UK dumb MLRS stocks of ICM are being destroyed (the situation with the AT4 rds is less clear). However, for the past several years GMLRS has been used, several hundred rounds in Afg. This is precision, ie 10 fig coords reqd, and pleasingly accurate, I realise this may be a bit beyond cav competancies
Unfortunately the large order for the 155mm ‘death to panzers’ son of SADARM shell was cancelled a few years back, but perhaps resurrection looms. I have to say that I’m not over enamoured by 155mm Excalibur (now cleared for service with AS90, or at least demonstrated compatibility), GMLRS delivering a substantially larger pile of HE is preferable and the Loitering Munition gives improved flexibility, but almost certainly at higher cost.
@ Red Trousers – Interesting observation; I noticed in the French armoured thread they talked about the Sphinx as a cavalry vehicle and the Crab as a recce one. Asking as a civvy interested in military tactics/strategy do we currently have armoured cavalry and what is their role? How is this seperate from recce units?
Obsvr, how do you see the pros and cons of FireShadow (which is looking like it might not be taken forward) and an armed Watchkeeper/Reaper type capability
Personally I don’t understand why we don’t have ground forces organised in battlegroups from the outset. That’s the formation they’ll need to fight under if deployed in small or medium-sized operations isn’t it? So it should be the formation they train under and “live” under.
It also makes sure we maintain the correct balance of assets to work cooperatively together: x MBT + y AS90 + z troops + etc.
We should then “design” battlegroups for different terrains/adversaries/threats along with the logistics needed to deploy them. Maintenance would, of course, be centralised for economic reasons.
I’m no expert and even less so on land forces but these “battlegroups” seem akin to “airgroups” and although we always seem to go on about a TAG (Tailored Air Group) they’re nearly always the same when push comes to shove and a few TAG formations is all we ever really needed to “design” – for the differing circumstances we may face.
The reason I say this is that I think that the current way the British Army is organised is outdated and entrenched in our history of having a large empire and huge armies. The RAF in contrast it relatively new and does not suffer the same problem. The Royal Navy is just a shadow of its former self anyway so has morphed into essentially a single battlefleet.
Ouch – this is uncomfortable for both the army and myself…
Simon said “The reason I say this is that I think that the current way the British Army is organised is outdated and entrenched in our history of having a large empire and huge armies.”
No. For over two centuries when Britain rose from second tier European power to the world’s first super power we had a SMALL army and a LARGE navy. The idea of large British Army is a 20th century invention. The period of decline and European fixation. We may not have a Empire, but we are still dependent on trade with far flung places, and just as a LARGE navy was useful to an empire it is still useful to a second tier nation dependent on trade. Unlike a LARGE army.
PS: Nothing annoys me more than Europhiles who call those like me Little Englanders.
http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/map_of_the_british_empire_in_the_1920s.png
@ Simon,
the reason for not battle grouping permanently is that is far more efficient in terms of logistics and individual training – you concentrate similar assets and needs into one place. When you go out of barracks for collective training, you match up Squadrons or Companies into Battlegroups and then train together. Personally, I’ve never identified an issue with it.
We had this discussion on TD a month or so ago. Someone (can’t recall who) got most insistent that permanent BGs were the way to go for reasons that appeared to be nothing more than a sense of neatness. Myself and others were unable to persuade him.
I think you’ll find that the RAF is also pretty similar – it keeps Tornadoes in one Squadron, Pumas in another and AWACS in a third. They all come together for operations, but back at home it makes life easier for the maintainers and trainers if they are not trying to fix different aircraft types, or train crews on different equipment.