The UK has established a new Arctic operations base in northern Norway as part of the UK’s commitment to security in the High North.
The newly established Camp Viking will serve as the focal point for Royal Marines Commandos, who are considered to be the forefront of Arctic operations and are the go-to unit for the UK when troops are required to operate in extreme cold weather conditions.
While the UK has a long-standing Arctic warfare heritage dating back to the Second World War, the re-emergence of the High North as a crucial theatre has necessitated the establishment of modern facilities for the commandos.
Located in the village of Øverbygd, approximately 40 miles south of Tromsø, the new purpose-built Camp Viking can house all personnel from the UK’s Littoral Response Group (LRG), the commando-led Royal Marines force that responds to emerging crises in Europe.
The Ministry of Defence say that the camp is strategically positioned near a Norwegian Armed Forces base and the established airbase at Bardufoss, where the Commando Helicopter Force operates, the camp is ideally located to deter threats in the region and facilitate a rapid response by the UK to protect NATO’s northern flank and its ally, Norway.
Approximately 1,000 commandos have been deployed to Camp Viking this winter for joint training exercises with Joint Expeditionary Force and NATO allies in the challenging Arctic environment.
The commandos deploy annually to Norway for winter training, you can read more about this here.
We now need to reinstate the numbers and support units that were cut in 2010 from 3 Commando Brigade plus add a 4th Commando unit. Then order two 25,000t LHDs to replace Albion and Bulwark with multi role ships to replace the Bays. Sorry but LRG concept is just a disguise to enable cuts to one of our very best assets. Given the likely addition of Finland and Sweden to NATO I would also suggest this gives the Army the chance to raise a specialist Brigade to work alongside these nations in the high North. This would give our Army… Read more »
Wouldn’t disagree with you there, especially with the ‘enablers’ that are required. However, would personally prefer it if we increased the number of FATV that we are purchasing (60) and equip say at least 2-4 LI battalions with them. @DM pointed out on an early thread that 4 or 7BCT might well be a good fit for such an undertaking. That way we have a force that can support the LRGs with a vehicle that can just about go anywhere. Its not that big a spend for the capability increase that we would get from it. Lots of bits are… Read more »
i think from a U.K. perspective a focus in this specific part of the NATO serves U.K. defence really well and probably allows us to focus on quality rather than quantity, which we are not going to get back anytime soon. For the Army, it would provide a new really important role, which I think they need. Their lack at the very top of a clearly defined role has been part of the problem and this would go some way to alleviate that issue. Unfortunately not replacing the Albions with suitable equivalent vessels will at one stroke remove the command… Read more »
Apologies for the wording at the start of my reply
Quantity is our basic problem SJB. Not being able to handle multiple simultaneous deployments. The inherent difficulties of sustaining, rotating and reinforcing as required. It also adds to recruiting and retention difficulties. A 10 year crash programme is needed to at least double every aspect of the land forces. That includes the amphibious warfare capability of the Marines. (Littoral warfare my derriere.) Suggestion – The Mountain/Arctic Warfare speciality should not be the sole domain of the Royal Marines. It’s the perfect extended role for light infantry regiments. Our Gurkha friends from Nepal excel at it. I must admit the RM… Read more »
Is the M&AWC still around? I thought they were part of CTCRM now.
Ayup Daniele. The cadre will never die😂 but alas they are no longer referred to as such. There are still a few people around who served in what was then the Mountain & Artic Warfare Cadre, and have been through a few different names and acronyms, but it has a new name now, Surveillance Reconnaissance Squadron part of 30Cdo and made up of a few specialties, an emphasis on recce by a ‘however means possible,’ ethos also allows ideas to go from origin to prototype for trial by the ones who came up with it very quickly Which is turning… Read more »
Hi Richard.
Good to see you post. Right, thanks for that. I’m of course aware of the SRS, BPT and so on, and actually, that makes total sense.
Having been on deployments and exercises to Norway I can heartily agree. Weirdly I have never been to the Country when it’s not covered in snow! In the high North it is very easy to stray into Sweden and Russia. There’s nothing but snow covered hills and forests. Yes, I was leading a team that inadvertently invaded Russia when our GPS failed. Luckily, some Russian trappers pointed us in the right direction. With both Sweden and Finland trying to join the NATO family. Is this base really needed? Well yes I think so. In the high north Norway borders Russia… Read more »
Totally agree with you.
Much better and cheaper to expand what we have. Trouble is RM are RN budget.
Also the new base will allow for persistent training so real seriously deep knowledge of living in those testing conditions is organic.
Having lived in Sweden I can attest to how demanding it is living in that environment but how you adjust your mental preparedness until it is second nature.
Sorry I have to ask, where were u, when u allmost went into Russia.
No Nato forces train near that border.
We were working up in the high North near Kirkenes doing serials with Pumas. If memory serves, the Russian border is only about 10 miles away from the town.
Agreed. Defence on the cheap leads to oppressive authoratarians being emboldend to invade neighbours & make the world a far more dangerous place. The RM are the spear point of our armed forces & reducing them or undermining their roles is reckless folly. We need these highly trained troops along with our other elite units.
As with any spear the handle and the thrower are just as important.
The U.K. should have vehicles, back up troops and be able to resupply the spear as it moves forward.
If the spear needs armoured vehicles that’s where the army show up. If it needs an extra battalion again it’s the army that will fill that gap. More weapons needed it’s the army again.
The navy and airforce doing what they do to help.
With smaller forces, being the best is super important.
100% agree with that, also increase F35 numbers and the CHF and we got a decent force multiplier that serves our current needs, will also act as a deterrent to say Argentina who would be in no doubt our ability to engage in proper expeditionary warfare not done on the cheap like current LRG plans.
Definitely, completely different world now and that **** show that was the 2010 review was only about saving money. Another one of Cameron’s great legacies.
Ask Santa?
I would argue reinstating to something like the force levels prior to 2010 with some increases beyond that in key areas like SSN’s, escorts and MPA’s along with a few other key parts of our defence requirements would not be out of reach. The world isnt getting any safer and I think this could be achieved in line with those increases proposed by the French for example.
Ask Santa?
He will be joining NATO shortly as his official post drop is Rovaniemi, Finland and of course he knows who’s naughty or nice ..
No, we need to pump loads of money in to the army again so we can guard Germanys eastern boarder because they can’t be ****ed spending any money. Atleast that’s what some general who definitely did not **** up the army vehicle procurement said on sky news yesterday😀
Concur. It is ironic that just as the arctic theatre assumes greater importance Four Two Commando is lost to both “Green” and arctic roles, and Fourty Commando is assigned to LRG South and the Med, Middle East. Leaving Four Five Commando as our arctic unit, plus what minimal assets from 3 Cdo and the CHF are assigned. Too small. I support the LRG concept myself IF they are enabled correctly, but if I had to choose I’d prefer 3 Cdo back as a full brigade with the NATO flank Norway role. We have SFA Bde, S Ops Bde, RM LRG,… Read more »
If you resource the two LRGs as they should be configured allowing for some rotating of personnel and the units to allow for other training and deployments then you actually need at least 3 commando units and more realistically 4.
You have therefore just reinstated 3 Commando Brigade before it was knee capped in 2010 for no other reason than to save money.
There is no logic to the LRGs as currently configured and that LRG south will rely on a 40+ year old RFA vessel says it all.
Yep. They lack organic dedicated helicopters for starters.
Depends what the CONOPS for LRG is, are they deploying RM units in the LRG’s as full Commandos or are they maintaining internal cycles; 1 Coy training, 1 Coy afloat/deployed, 1 Coy recovering.
Assume it’s 1 Coy as afloat/deployed, as they’ve formed “Vanguard Company” but not found anything else about it, as is it part of a Cdo or a stand alone formation?
Assumed the former.
Agreed with assuming the former, anything else would require too much admin, probably the coy’s rotate through “vanguard coy.”
Also worth noting that there is a reason the Rangers added an extra Task Group when they re-rolled. Would be very interested to see how the RM LRG’s manage with 3 maneuver Coys.
It is very good to read your practical thoughts of how the LRGs might work but what I can’t get my head around is the usefulness of one Coys for LRG(N) in particular. If we need to deploy 45 Commando to Norway as we are currently I am really struggling to understand the practicality of a single Coys in that same scenario. Indeed if the LRG’s are based on rotating Coys why not adopt it for exercise Joint Viking? It feels like a Coys is too big for the SF role but not large enough for anything else. I am… Read more »
It’s competing demands and manpower pressures really. So to have an entire Battalion on high readyness you basicially need a 1-in-3 ratio (One Battalion training, one on high readyness/deployed, one recovering). Even with all three Cmdo’s available, that would mean 3 Cmdo would be able to deploy 1 LRG. So a full Battalion at readyness is beyond the RM’s capability really. So, you can either have two smaller LRG’s constantly available, or manage 1 large LRG 66% of the time. Add in the fact that the Navy doesn’t want to do amphib, it has enough on it’s plate funding the… Read more »
Thank you for such a thorough response, which I can only agree with. I suppose my real annoyance is how in an era of a very small British military footprint anyone could think it would be a good idea to reduce the size of RM’s who alongside the Para’s are the UK’s spearhead units. They are nearly always the first to deploy, undertook a disproportionate high number of deployments in Afghanistan and similarly provide a high percentage of U.K. Special Forces. Forget the ability to carry out amphibious operations they should be one of the last units in the British… Read more »
My apologies to those of you who have read my posts on other similar and related articles recently on here for repeating myself.
They, and the Paras are very often first to deploy because they are lightly armed, and therefore easy and cheap to keep on high readiness. It’s MUCH easier to keep a unit that only has to worry about small arms and 81mm mortars current, competent, and in service than it is to do the same for a unit that needs to maintain Foxhounds, Jackals, or Boxer. It’s also much easier to transport them. You also can’t forget politics: E.g. The Army did not want the Paras or Marines in Telic 1, they wanted to deploy 2 Armoured Brigades, the inclusion… Read more »
A good response but a few points. The Royals were in Afghanistan in two operations before Herrick so they were definitely on the ground ‘early’ with the Paras. Given their limited number the Royals and Para’s certainly carried a disproportionate number of tours in Afghanistan. The marines were easy to deploy because they were on exercise in the region on those amphibious ships everybody seems so keen to scrap, which happened to be the same ones used off Sierra Leone. We used helicopter assault at Al Faw in Iraq from Ocean and Ark Royal. We also used a lashed up… Read more »
I suggest you count operational tours of other units and take amalgamations into account: as I said before, the Marines aren’t that special in terms of their tour numbers. The Marines are easy to deploy because of their lack of equipment, they happened to be on exercise there perhaps, but if they hadn’t? Light Role from Kenya. As for HAF: Anyone can HAF, as repeated attachments by the Royal Irish and various Helicopter Assaults during Herrick have demonstrated. Certainly don’t need the RM for that, nor do you need an Amphibious Assault capability (see the two very big carriers we… Read more »
You obviously have a bit of a beef with the Royals but I think that is healthy, however, i am not going to count tours for either them or the Para’s to prove a point. All of those who served were equally brave and deserve recognition. As for using a 65,000t carrier as an assault ship it might look good in an exercise but would be insane in anything other than a humanitarian mission. The use of drones has added to that risk and is never going to happen. The accommodation and adaption of one of the carriers was wisely… Read more »
I don’t have a beef with the Royals, I’ve served with them and generally a good bunch. I prefer them to the Paras in fact, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re not worth the expenditure. It’s not a beef, it’s pragmatism and realism. Depends? You could keep it a light mechanised brigade relatively easily, but then there’d be no point in dedicating it to the Scandinavia, (remember 1XX is the UK’s exped forces that would be used if anything enduring where ever to happen, since that’s effectively just 7X right now… if 7X is dedicated in the north,… Read more »
I am glad you are not CDS and what you have said about the RM’s could equally be said about the Para’s. You have to forgive my sense of humour but I have read a fair bit of what is available about the Rangers, which you are right isn’t much. I get the concept and certainly a good idea to work regularly across the globe with partner nations but if there has been such a need why has it taken until 2021 for them to be formed. Whilst they have received new equipment and more training I can’t help but… Read more »
Except that the Paras do not have a completely seperate training pipeline, separate training establishment, separate promotion and battle courses, seperate equipment procurement and seperate doctrinal school. So my main objection to the RM doesn’t apply at all to the Paras. The thing is: It hasn’t taken until 2021 to address the need. The expansion of SF has been a fairly constant running theme since 2000. That’s why SRR was created to take over specific tasks from the SAS, that’s why SFSG was created to support the SAS, and that’s why the Rangers where created. So it’s not like this… Read more »
Well that serves me right for reading too fast and not actually responding to what you had clearly written. That’s what happens when you reply whist walking the dog.
I will certainly be on here over the weekend having a nose around although the articles are normally only added during the week.
It is a really good source of news and articles, which most of the main stream media seldom if ever touch.
Cheers
I didn’t want to, but I couldn’t help but bite here, this is a belter! Seems a bit like you have a serious bee in your bonnet about PARA Reg, and the RM, especially so? There are so many holes in your appraisal that to go over them individually would take an answer that would probably exceed the character count limit! Safe to say though, the ‘facts & figures’ you allude to regarding just about all, apart from maybe, “They, and the Paras are very often first to deploy because they are lightly armed” is extremely misinformed, a little insulting… Read more »
Had a lovely polite conversation with SJB, along comes little Richard with his Para complex and opens wi8th name calling. Not even going to bother reading the rest if your opening like that. I have less obnoxious ways to waste my monday.
Name calling? Really?
It makes no difference to me whether you read or not, but if you are looking for a less obnoxious things to waste your Monday on, maybe run through a scenario or 2 which includes being able to back up a statement(s) or what you write if someone questions you on it , or is this just a one way forum where people make comments without challenging perceived or otherwise inaccuracies?
Genuinely, what is a PARA complex?
2 Para have been training in Norway so maybe something they will lead on.
Woop! I get a chuck up! BTW Daniele, the British Army website updated it’s Ranger Regiment page, so there’s a little more information there if you want it. Some of the info is slightly wrong (eg the ranks for some of the roles), but thought you’d be interested. I have mixed feelings about the LRG’s. If they’re supposed to mirror ASOB, go Arctic and Indo Pacific while ASOB takes the middle ground, then I fail to see the need for amphib; ASOB is virtually continously deployed, and physical proximity of a Task Group on board a ship doesn’t strike me… Read more »
Of course. I value you’re knowledge and experience, to learn more myself. 👍
So these are conversations I remember.
Will look, ta.
So I finally got round to looking at the Ranger page.
Picked out of interest: The LSOTC, had not known of that. Assume that is not a new name for PATA but elsewhere and not OS so will have to do some digging.
Also of interest the regional alignment of specific Bns, now I see why you suggested one of the LRGs covered further east.
You’re right it’s not PATA, it’s not even a training area.
There was some talk about making a SpecInf focused training area in BATSUB, but that died before it got off the ground I think. Kind of like the “Regional Hubs” that where suggested but then quietly shelved.
Yes, plus the only reason I can see for having a coy fwd deployed on a ship is if you’re planning to deploy to islands without good infrastructure.
Yep. Found it. Wasn’t hard, and location makes sense.
I fully agree and I don’t think anyone believes we again need a Corps of four armoured divisions based in Germany; we need to accept just having a single warfighting ‘armoured’ division. We are well capabale of the High North tasks, but let us reinstate 3 Cdo Bde as you suggest.
In fairness wasn’t it 3 Armoured Divisions and 1 Light Division (with effectively 4 brigades being TA), well beyond our ability now, but some of the regular brigades where litterally just 2 Armoured Regiments and an infantry battalion.
I recall, of the 3 Armoured Divisions, the forward pair, 1st and 4th, one of the 3 Brigades would be infantry heavy, with 2 Battalions and an Armoured Regiment, while the other 2 Brigades were Tank heavy, with 2 Armoured Regiments and a single Infantry Battalion, as you described. They all had a Bde Sig Sqn, while other CS CSS was held at Divisional level, like the Armoured Recc Reg, CS Eng Reg, and DAG and assigned to the BGs accordingly. 3 Div was in depth to support the other 2, don’t recall it’s Bde ORBAT but think 2 Bdes… Read more »
Dern, I was going back to pre-82, when 1(BR) Corps comprised 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Armoured Divisions. In 1982 2nd Armd Div was re-titled 2nd Inf Div and moved to the UK headquartered in York, its armour stayed in Germany and was redistributed amongst 1, 3 and 4 Divs.
2 Inf Div had two TA Bdes (15x and 49x) and one reg bde – 24 Inf Bde, headquartered in Catterick. I was BEME 24 Inf Bde. That bde was unique in having SAXON GS and 24 Milan FPs per inf battalion rather than the usual six.
Cue me being flummoxed at the idea that the armoured brigades where even smaller before.
I think maybe that redistribution of armour enable some, if not all, brigades in Germany to be square brigades. We sent a square bde to GW1, I think.
GW1 was
7X
-Royal Scots DG
-Queers Royal Irish Hussars
-1st Staffords
4X
-14/20th KRH
-1 R. Scots
-3 Fusiliers
QRL directly under the division
and then 4 Infantry Battalions under theatre command. The orbat chart I have of the BAOR (1989) states that (not including TA) only 22nd Armd was square, the rest triangular.
I can only assume that’s accurate because god knows where they got their data from.
Thanks Dern. Good info. I’m impressed you have a 1989 BAOR Orbat chart!
Yup
Get some nice log burners, open fires, comfy sofas and make it a really nice place to go.
Commandos are some special super soldiers.
I hope the army have some cold weather units.
I guess we will see what comes out this review thing. It’s the best time for the army to define its roles etc.
What happens to the base after that?
“In an 8 March announcement, the UK Royal Navy (RN) said Camp Viking will remain open for 10 years, as Norway does not host permanent bases for foreign soldiers.”
In 10 years they establish a new base in the new state of Murmansk that wants to join NATO 🙈
That will be after Mad Vlad has tripped and fallen out of the six floor window in his bungalow?
😂 after accidentally jamming 2 kitchen knives in his spine, when peeling potatoes!
LOL
Nice one Mr Spanker 😄 “The Kremlin is aware that Russian forces “are not going to win in Ukraine” and key figures are beginning to turn on the tyrant, Russia expert Olga Lautman says. The researcher has claimed that Putin is “losing control” and that Wagner Group boss Yevgeny Prigozhin could try and replace the Russian president. Lautman told Express.co.uk: “Putin humiliated Russia and the military because he showed the Russian military’s power was nothing but propaganda. “Obviously the people around him have realised that there is a problem, and are at least privately questioning, ‘Where is he taking us?’… Read more »
During the 80’s & 90’s 3 Cdo Bde RM deployed to Norway, its cut backs that have now meant very few RM’s are CWWT, also a lack of amphibious shipping, taking away two Bay class was a travesty.
Does the UK have 1000 commandos? Back in the day when the armed forces were taken seriously, Army regiments trained for arctic warfare, like whichever battalion it was from the Royal Anglian Regiment.
I don’t know if any Army regiment does this now?
The Corps of RM is nearly 6,000 strong, excluding reserves.
Commandos in an infantry role of course a smaller number.
I’m not aware of any Army units of any size in the arctic role, but there are various minor elements. SAS Mountain Troops, elements of the RA, RLC, AAC, and tactical ground units that support the RAFs SHF, and then the Navys CHF, all of can and have deployed to Norway on exercise.
All soldiers from the Army, in 29, Cdoe log, 148 etc are who are commando trained, the vast majority have done at least one trip to Norway and hence have experience of the region. But agree it’s yet another neglected skill set which we are now addressing 👍
Is the M&AW Cadre still about mate? I thought they’re instructors at CTCRM now?
I’m not sure at this time mate, I’m deffo a little out of date on those boys! But damn we have to admit what a nails course and what professionals in their trade they are. Years ago there was a series on them, 80s possibly, I could be wrong but remember something along those lines long time ago! It all seemed a bit cold for me…..😂👍
👍
AWIC’s is running and now taking Army applicants from outside 3 Cmdo too, not sure how widespread the uptake in the Army is though. Slots seems few and far between.
Unfortunately your comments are moot.
The country is broken and cannot afford to fix itself.
NHS, Elder Care, Policing, Transport, Education all need urgent investment as well as reform.
Until Whitehall learns to buy off the shelf as well as develop our own capabilities in a vastly more cost effective way. I doubt any funding increases will be forth coming.
I’m looking at you, FRES, Housing, the Carriers, F35 etc etc
6 tents, 18 camping chairs and a shed load of hexi cookers…….all ready to go, on budget and on time 😇😂
Good News we are doubling down on our defence budget and going for an Army of at least 200,000 with 20,000 strong Royal Marines.
All very nice! However will the armed forces receive the boost they need from the government? I don’t think so! It seems the government is far away removed from reality!
Chamberlain syndrome! Nothing learnt from the past and the wishes of the command ignored!
Comments awaited!