The British Army has initiated the deployment of over 700 vehicles to Poland for Exercise Steadfast Defender, marking NATO’s most significant exercise since the Cold War era.
This extensive mobilisation involves vehicles from the 7 Light Mechanised Brigade, famously known as “The Desert Rats,” which were loaded onto the 23,000-tonne cargo vessel MV Anvil Point near Southampton on Tuesday.
In a parallel effort, more than 1,500 British service personnel are set to fly to Poland, contributing to a substantial demonstration of NATO’s unity and operational capabilities.
The equipment being transported includes Foxhound patrol vehicles and Jackal 2 reconnaissance vehicles, alongside a diverse array of trucks, Land Rovers, engineers’ tractors, and support vehicles, showcasing the breadth of the British Army’s mechanised capabilities being deployed in support of NATO objectives.
Is this the British armies 1st div that’s being deployed then? Rather than the heavier 3rd div?
Yes, one brigade of it.
To be fair 1 UK Division had been a bit of a gold bag of light Infantry Bdes and CS CSS Brigade elements for many years, with very little fighting power.
16 Air Assault has now moved into it, giving another combat formation with the required CS CSS elements, and 1 UK is being uplifted in other areas.
However, with Foxhound Light patrol vehicles, Jackal in a Light Cavalry Regiment, and a Regiment of Light Guns, firepower is rather lacking.
As other posters mentioned on an earlier thread, one could imagine this Bde having Boxer, including properly armed FS variants, and heavier 155mm artillery including HIMAARS, giving us a proper “Strike” Bde. And with Ajax, Ch3, and Warrior consigned to the Armoured Brigades, where they indeed were meant to be until A2020 Refine under General Carter made a mess of it all, resulting in not enough money when Boxer became the new no 1 priority and the loss of WCSP.
And to add, that would give the opportunity to put the Foxhounds in 4 Bde, which has bugger all, or even give some to the reserves in 19 Bde.
But there you go, a succession of knee jerk reactions and u turns leaves us where we are.
You’d think we would just go all in with Boxer and get an IFV version- doesn’t have to be tracked- something like the Lithuanian armies boxers with a 40mm gun and ideally APS and that would really improve the armies standing power for all mobile infantry infantry regiments be that 1st or 3rd UK division. Boxer production is upto the heady 3 vehicles per month target apparently -so to equip the entire army with a 40mm turreted version in enough numbers will take around 30 years. I’m not against continuous serial production and think this is the right process to follow but numerically the army needs more and quicker.
We talked of this before. Graham and also another poster on Twitter mentioned 60 to 65 vehicles a year once the 2 lines are at full pelt.
That’s not really full pelt, just as much of a pelt as current contracts and finances will allow. It was mentioned a couple of years ago that this could be accelerated further, but if I recall correctly this was in the context of exports.
The Inf in 7 Lt Mech Bde are in Foxhounds, but they only take a commander, driver and 4 dismounts – so not a full Inf Section of 8 men. Quite a limitation.
Perhaps they use 2 vehs to move a section? But does a mech inf bn have enough Foxhounds to move 3 rifle companies? If not what other vehs do they use?
Perhaps Boxer would be better for this brigade – or keep Mastiff (takes 2+6), but snag is no-one to drive the vehicle when all 8 members of the section dismount.
We used them back when we where Light Mech Inf, I think it was 3 Foxhounds per multiple/6 per platoon (I wasn’t in one of the Foxhound coys and this was like…6-7 years ago now so grain of salt), at any rate the fighting coys where all on Foxhound, with the Support Coy on WIMK’s (minus Mortars which was SV) and HQ on SV/Landrover.
Nah if you dismount from a Mastiff you have a six man section, driver and vehicle commander stay with the vehicle, just like in a Warrior.
I think the Light Mech Bns in 7 ( they changed name again didn’t they? ) now have Jackal in the Recc Pltn in Support Coy?
Maybe? All I know is back in 2017-18 it was still WIMIK. Although it just occurred to me that Mortars where on Husky not SV, memory is clearly going lol.
You narrowed down the choices when you mentioned LMInf. I’ve an idea who you’re with now. 😉
I’m surprised it’s taken anyone that long tbh. But then I’ve got a better idea of what I’ve said on here and how it all fits together than anyone else would. 😅
Yes and no mate. I’ve had my suspicions for some time due to other things I’d noted over the years and only now declared myself! And I’m still probably wrong. Though as you know, I do look into things closely when I want to. So maybe I’ve noted things others might not have.
No one can work out what you’re knowledgeable about when you pretend to be a know-it-all about everything 😛
But you got me, time I revealed myself as an RLC supply specialist in 159 Reg RLC. 😂
Come onnnnn, such an elite. 2 OSGs 167 Catering Spt Reg RLC at PW ofG Barracks Grantham surely, with all that sharpshooter and CQB business?
Ah can’t pull the wool over your eyes XD
Thanks Dern. Great info.
Just playing with the math’s if my memory is accurate:
3 vehicles per multiple is 6 per platoon
3 platoon per fighiting coy and 3 coys per battalion plus a few extras for CHQ’s etc would mean 60 Foxhounds for a Battalion. GDUK says they’ve delivered over 400 Foxhounds to the British Army, so lets use that as a floor.
400/60 is roughly enough Vics for 6 and a half Battalions.
7LBCT consists of 5 Battalions (SCOTS GDS, 4 SCOTS, 1 YORKS, 2 ANGLIAN, 1 RIFLES) so already that’s enough to equip the Brigade, however one of those Battalions will always be in Cyprus and I doubt they’ll take their Foxhounds with them.
Even if we up the number of Foxhounds so each section has 2 (+1 for the Platoon HQ) you end up with only about 260ish Foxhounds needed for the Brigade.
Thanks Dern. Maths look OK to me.
Whenever I read a thread by you ORBAT people, I want to do that internet thing where you translate into Japanese and back. Google wouldn’t have a clue what to do with all of your shorthand and acronyms!
I should start using NATO unit counters instead of Acronyms, I think I even caught Daniele out once when I showed three dots (…) over a unit counter 😛
You did, I remember! During our medic conversation I think it was. You’ll do well to catch me out on anything related to UK Mil ORBAT or infrastructure, but those flipping symbols I’m not up to speed on at all.
Can’t be helped us using those TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms!)
https://uklandpower.com/2024/02/16/why-the-british-army-needs-to-adopt-a-two-division-model/
Even Nick Drummond is reporting on the swap to two deployable divisions with 16AA going to 1XX now.
Though he buries that in a tidal wave of fantasy Orbat with just “spend” at every corner and no priorities for that spend (I challenged him on twitter when he said SA80 needs replacing and I asked whether that was more or less important than Warrior replacement. He never answers that kind of question.)
He’s also clueless about 11SFA, not that I can throw stones there but he seems to think that it predates ASOB and that ASOB has absorbed its role somehow.
I guess nobody is approving links ATM so…
If you look over at Nicholas Drummonds blog even he is reporting the change to 2 divisions with 16aa in 1xx.
Then again his blog post is fantast orbats with just SPEND in all caps really (he’s bad for it, when he said SA80 needs replacing I challenged him on it asking where he’d rank it in his priorities, ofc he didn’t have an answer), and he doesn’t seem to understand 11 SFA or ASOB (apparently ASOB, which existed first, is somehow taking work from 11 SFA, I don’t know).
Let’s have a look mate. I do follow him on Twitter.
If I’m looking at the right ORBAT Diagrams charts you refer to then yes, fantasy land. He has 2 Med Bdes in each, plus a Light Mech Bde, plus an Artillery Bde, and all the other CS CSS for both.
I think with the change from SIG to ASOB, with 11SFA then being formed to do what the SIG originally did has confused many.
ASOB takes sod all from SFA it works to a far higher level than mentoring foreign forces, as you well know!
I agree with him on the need to get a wheeled recc with the boxers, he suggests a recc Boxer, which ideally should be in their own Bdes like he suggests. Leaving tracked Ajax, Ch3 and an IFV in the Armoured Bdes, per the original A2020 plan before Strike made a mess of it.
He works for Rheinmetal doesn’t he?
I mean he at least vaguely states he’ll get the headcount from…. somewhere. But it’s not exactly a well thought out plan, sadly a lot of ND’s ideas are like this: Great in theory, if the headcount and money could be found, but a bit wishy on the actual “Where it comes from.”
And yes, no surprise he works for Rheinmetal so of course a lot of his talk is “The British Army needs to buy more Rheinmetal stuff.” XD. I do agree that 7 or 4 should be Boxer with a Boxer CRV in their light Cav regiment for sure, having a triangular 1 Div with 16AA light role, 7 Boxer and 4 Foxhound would work. But again…money.
And yeah if anything SFA takes the jobs that ASOB doesn’t want anymore XD
In fairness to ND he does say that Boxet is not ideal for the Arm Inf Bdes and that a tracked Warrior successor is needed, or words to that effect.
Agree that the ORBATs are a bit flakey.
That’s all well and good, but all he ever says is “buy this, and this and this and this and this and this and this.” and when you ask him for what he’d prioritise and what he thinks can be left until later he just kind of shrugs. I’m not a fan of that kind of thinking, because at that point you might as well just repost the BAOR orbat with modern equipment.
Interesting paper by Drummond. I agree with some bits, not others.
His ORBATs seem to be based on an army strength of 90,000+, which ain’t going to happen. But an increase to 2.5% of GDP and a corresponding 15% increase in army numbers would open up some useful possibilities.
I wonder if ND would let UKDJ publish his article as a guest contribution, if George would be willing to facilitate it?
It would give us a rare opportunity to discuss the new army set-up and to educate the naval types on here on 3 letter acronyms etc!
George?
Nice idea. To be fair Dern does ORBAT charts like that too and could do a better job.
Acronyms are across defence, not just the army.😆 Most I’m aware of are actually MoD or try service.
My orbats are unpopular though because I often do things like rob assets from the RM and that ruffles feathers.
If they’re not even a proper brigade any more do they need 24 and 29 in their current mission profile? So I get your idea previously shown which helps to enable 4x.
Ideally, I’d like the RM with their own Brigade with its enablers tasked to Norway, as before. But the Corps has fallen away from that now.
I mean, that’s the thin end of the wedge. Reactions to me suggesting the RMASG move the a Army Brigade, or that Limpstone be closed and training rationalised at Brecon and Catterick where pure horror. Everyone hates on the cap badge mafia until their favourite cap badge comes under attack.
(Tbh this is the biggest issue I have with the RM, because if it was a normal formation moving assets to another brigade as they change role wouldn’t be any form of drama, but no).
Personally I’d like to see 3 Cmdo as a full fighting Brigade, but it’s unlikely to happen again anytime soon as you said, but I’d also like for it to be able to be orbatted into a divison. E.g. 16, 3, and 7X in a division together. But the whole “It’s part of the Navy keep your grubby army hands off it” attitude would prevent that.
Agreed. Why can it not be part of the RN and be put in 1 Div? Opcom would be army but administratively it’s still RN.
We know there exist numerous tri service units with opcom with a particular service.
1 Div as the Global Reaction Force with 3 proper brigades of 7, 16, and 3 gets me excited…..
Would we even need 4 to be outfitted with regular CS CSS then? It could pick up all other roles from the overseas garrisons to providing LI for rear area behind 3Div on mobilisation. Or even reinforce the 1 Div Bdes as needed.
Honestly, I’d probably take units out of 3 Cmdo or 4X and put them into whichever one went under 1XX command. If it was 3 Cmdo 4x would loose a battalion or two so that we didn’t have the rather chonky 16AA and 7 with 4-5 Battalions each and then then 3 CMDO with 2-3. Then yes, 4 would go with 11 and 19 into their own formation to do overseas garrisons and COIN only focus.
11 should 100% have a secondary cadre role btw. Effectively 11 turns into additional ATR’s to form new brigades from conscription/volunteers in the event of the need to expand the army rapidly.
From recollection, we’d them be closet to the more sensible, logical and ordered ORBAT you presented. 3 Divisions, with 3 Brigades each. Warfighting. Reaction. Support.
Logical. They’ve been involved with UKR I believe?
One more point you may not be able to answer. Where does SOB then sit in this?
I’d heard the European assigned Ranger Bn is allocated to the ARRC in a sort of HAC role?
Do you mean where I want ASOB to sit or where it actually sits?
In your proposed ORBAT. I understand in real life that’s not so simple an answer as I recall we discussed ASOB as much as you were able to previously. I, if you recall, thought in error that it was going into the GRF too alongside FCF and other parts of 1 UK! 😆
And you tempered my excitement somewhat as I’d read the tealeaves very wrong there.
Short answer: If I had my way ASOB wouldn’t be in the Field Army at all.
https://i.imgur.com/XvbkXj3.png
How to make it work with minimal extra spend.
(If you wanted to keep Jackal and just Boxer APC for the Army it would be virtually zero extra spend).
This finally appears! After 11 days.
Yep, saw on your Twitter mate.
The biggest NATO exercise for 20 years and the Great British Army contribution is… a battalion of little unarmed, thin-skinned trucks able to carry just 5 dismounts. Our NATO partners could be forgiven for being rather underwhelmed.
I wonder what part the Foxhounds could usefully play in any near-peer conflict, for which rhey were NOT designed? Skulking around the rear communications zone, while others do the fighting? Escorting supplies up to the frontine or maybe forming a rear defensive trench line?. But a complete misfit for any frontline role surely outside a sandbox war.
I really do worry about the road the army is going down, bringing in wheeled vehicles where tracks are needed – Boxer and now it seems a wheeled thin
-skinned 4 x 4 to take over from Stormer and a light wheeled truck to replace tracked FV-432 in the Armoured Battle6eld Support role.
It increasingly looks like our big contribution to NATO is going to be primarily an unarmed wheeled force capable of only rear area and defensive duties.
I’m sure Gen Carter and chums would have loved to dispose of the Challengers as well, but that would have made mega ripples with the press, public and allies. No doubt they fit somewhere in this brave new battle order… can’t be offensive moves, as the Boxer infantry won’t be able to keep up cross country, let me guess, dug in in the rear defensive line.
We had some good genersls in the past who could do sweeping attack and solid defence, the current lot and the hapless, hopeless MOD are just not at the races anymore.
A Humvee carries 3 Dismounts, is completely unarmoured and has nothing heavier than a HMG or GMG on the roof, yet if you take a few minutes to look it up there is plenty of footage of them being used to launch successful assaults in Ukraine. If you think by comparison Foxhound is useless you’re in for a bit of a surprise.
Davey spoke highly of it when in Helmand.
I’ve hear very few complaints over the years, and squaddies like to complain about EVERYTHING.
I don’t think Foxhound is ‘useless’ at all! IMO it is a great little APC for specific roles. Counter-insurgency patrolling and escort, troop transport, small anti-tank, MMG and LLAD fire support, artillery AOPs and so on.
It is a pity that it can only carry 4 dismounts and that the cost of the vehicle is so high (I remember reading a figure of £900k each, don’t know how accurate that is).
Foxhound has its place but i don’t think that is in the frontline in any near-peer conflict. It is a useful vehicle for patrolling and deploying troops in the rear communications zone and line of communications and for lighter out-of-area COIN ops. A larger, better-protected 6 x 6 version with 6 dismounts, could be a useful battlefield taxi to carry infantry formations up to the frontline/FEBA or whatever acronym they use these days.
If peer fighting in the front line could be assigned to Humvees and Foxhounds, the NATO nations would not be scrambling to acquire new main battle tanks, armoured personnel carriers/AIFVs, armoured SP artillery etc, basically larger, better armed and better protected AFVs.
My concern is that the army/MOD/Treasury are happily buying in lighter wheeled vehicles, while running down the heavier kit that will be vital in any peer conflict. A miniscule tank force of 148, not enough AS-90s to equip 2 regts, tracked Warrior, Stormer and likely Bulldog being replaced by a wheeled APC without a cannon and likely two less well-protected wheeled vehicles.
Our two arm inf bdes, which the US likes to term Arm Bde Combat Teams, look like becoming lighter wheeled entities with a minimum of heavier tracked vehicles. Not exactly ideal to meet a peer enemy.
Again you say that, but much lighter vehicles which fewer dismounts have been making their place in peer-peer high intensity conflict. And unlike a Humvee it has armour.
So: Lets talk about light wheeled vehicles vs armour: You need both. Both have a role in the frontline in a peer on peer conflict. Spending to buy one (MBT’s IFV’s etc) does not mean you are not going to want to have the other as well. Bottom line, even if the taps where opened and we went on a major armour shopping spree, we will not, nor would we want to have, every unit be fully armoured. Armour is hard to keep deployed, maintenance heavy, and fuel consuming. Light forces are not. That has implications both for force projection over long distances, which is the COIN you are talking about, but also for high intensity peer conflict.
If I have a Foxhound Brigade, yes it’s more vulnerable to fires, and I have to be a bit more cicumspect about when I use it, but I also do not need to keep it fed with as much fuel, and repair time, as I would for a armoured brigade. That means I can keep it in contact for longer, both defensively, and for offensive operations in areas where A) I don’t expect quite as heavy resistance as I might where I throw my hammer blow with the armoured units, and B) for raiding, patrolling, and keeping the enemy in contact when the fighting is static.
Thirdly light forces on vehicles like Foxhound and Humvee are going to be needed for exploitation. When the Kharkiv counter offensive was launched, the reason it was so successful was that after the initial breach fast Ukranian units on lightly protected vehicles outpaced the Russian ability to react to them. They got within the enemy’s decision making cycle, and as Russian forces where facing heavier Ukranian Tank brigades, their retreat was already being sealed off by less logistically dependent light forces, causing panick. (As an aside it also means it’s easier to HIDE an offensive, because a major attack by armoured units requires a BIG logistic build up before you do it, so that your AFV’s won’t run out of fuel, you have spare track, ammo, engineering equipment because you need to reinforce bridges etc etc, for a lighter force you still need some of that, but not nearly as much. The less you have to build up, the harder it is for the enemy to spot it, the harder it is for them to anticipate the attack).
This brings me onto the next point: No having light forces does not invalidate the need for heavy forces. It is simply that they are complimentary. You need both. You are complaining about Warrior being replaced by Boxer and the reduction of the tank fleet: But neither of these have anything to do with the use of Foxhound in a Peer-Peer role. If anything, the continuing use of Foxhound is enabling the existence of two heavy brigades, rather than just one.You argue for the idea that they should be replaced by something like Boxer, but if we did that then guess what? There goes 12th AI since they won’t have any mechanised infantry. (And whether Boxer should be in the AI is a completely different kettle of fish but again: the existence of Foxhound mounted units have nothing to do with that, and if anything mean the situation is not actively worse in 3XX).
As a final note: If you think that Bulldog being replaced by Boxer is a bad thing, I’m going to take that as you having never been inside either of them, let alone having had to drive either. Boxer might be wheeled, but Bulldogs mobility is, at this point, awful, and with theatre entry packages it will be outpaced by a determined cyclist if it faces a hill. If someday Tracked Boxer becomes available, and the funding to aquire it, then yes it would be nice to see it in the AI units (and btw in the British Army they’re also called Brigade Combat Teams), but that won’t happen until more money is available.
Actually, I know I said a final note but: lets pretend that will happen okay? Just as a thought experiment.
3 UK Div gets enough Tracked Boxers with a 30mm to equip all of it’s infantry. That’s 5 Battalions worth of Boxer[Tracked] (1 MERCIAN, 1 R. WELSH, 1 FUSILIERS, 5 RIFLES and 1 PWRR) purchased freeing up 5 Battalions of Boxer[Wheeled] to go to 1XX and equip 5 Battalions.
7X and 4X withing 1XX consist of 5 and 6 Infantry Battalions respectively. So even if all the Boxers are replaced moved over that’s just enough to equip one of the two Light Mech Brigades. You’d either get 7X giving 4X it’s Foxhounds and moving to Boxer, or you’d just give the Boxers to 4X. Either way, even with a massive infusion of cash to completely re-equip the infantry in 3XX with a new AFV, you’d still be looking at Foxhound in a Peer-Peer high intensity conflict position.
👍 Well explained. On the 5 Bns with Boxer, it irks me it’s not 6! A BCT with 2 and one wity 3 doesn’t sit well in my ordered mind. I like 2 identical Brigades. And pre A2020R as we know they did have the 3, 2 Warrior and 1 HPM on Mastiff.
It irks me too, and frankly I’d prefer to see 1 of 4X’s infantry battalions on some kind of LMPV attached to 12X rather than have the imbalance. My suspicion is because Strike had 2x Boxer mounted infantry per brigade they managed to secure funding/move numbers around and get just enough together to re-roll 5 battalions, but not the sixth one. That’s a relatively easy gap to close as well, adding another (mental maths) 50ish Boxers onto the order shouldn’t break the bank, considering it’s a project that is already delivering.
Agreed. I’m hoping the additional Boxers that have funding will furnish some of that.
Good evening Cripes, Re “Skulking around the rear communications zone, while others do the fighting?”
Would you happen to know how secure our comms are at the moment as there seem to be some conflicting reports floating about online?
Forces. NET
11th February 2024
Bowman radio system to be updated again as Morpheus upgrade remains delayed
“The UK Government is set to update the military’s tactical radio after the current system’s replacement programme was delayed.
In a written parliamentary question, John Healey, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, asked whether the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) procurement department planned to update the radio system.
It comes following delays to the Morpheus programme, which is Bowman’s replacement.
In response, James Cartlidge, the Minister for Defence Procurement, said Bowman was a “capable system having been upgraded several times” – including most recently between 2018 and 2020.
“It will be updated again under the Bowman 5.7 project (commissioned last year as a result of the delay to Morpheus),” he said.
“Bowman’s Out of Service Date was 2026 and this has now been extended out to no later than 2035, and no earlier than 2031, to bridge the capability gap until Morpheus delivers.”
In August last year, it was reported the MOD remained “committed” to the delayed battlefield communications system Morpheus.
This was despite warnings it could become the military’s “next procurement disaster”.
The £330m Morpheus programme, designed by US-based General Dynamics, was supposed to be operational by 2025.
The military did, however, receive a boost to their communication systems last year after an £89 million contract to enhance tactical military communications was announced.
As a result of the deal, soldiers got access to highly secure and state-of-the-art internet capability on the battlefield.”
https://
forces.net/services/tri-service/bowman-radio-system-be-updated-again-morpheus-upgrade-remains-delayed
The new VAMTAC Rapid Ranger that I highlighted last week remember is an interim buy that will expand SHORAD. I fully expect a Boxer variant too in due course with both in service.
I know that VAMTAC is supposedly a stop-gap replacement for Stormer. Looking at the army’s plans for the new mobility vehicles , I think the aim is to replace both Stormer and Bulldog with a medium wheeled vehicle in the 15 tonne class, i.e. more Ridgeback than Boxer).
It might be a good idea to have one wheeled MRAP doing the LLAD and battlefield support roles across all 5 brigades with the obvious cost–saving and maintemance advantages.
Whether it is the right close support solution for the tracked armoured brigades is anothet matter…
Our contribution to NATO will be 3 UK Div.
The issue is it now only has 2 manoeuvre brigades, when Divisions once had 3. I don’t include DRSB in that.
And those brigades are committed to keeping Cabrit as well.
I’m a RN, RAF first guy, but the Army should never have dropped below 100k.
Hello again Cripes, ignore my last comment, I’ve found the answer.
“The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) stands accused of wasting more taxpayers’ money after conceding that it has abandoned a key strand of the struggling GBP 3.2 Bn (EUR 3.73 Bn) Morpheus programme. The failure also threatens to stymie the British Army’s future digitalisation efforts.
However, the failure of the EvO contract will inflict additional and expensive penalties.
Writing on X/Twitter on 15 December, military analyst Francis Tusa pointed out that the current Bowman communication system will not only have to go through more updates, but will now probably have to be initially fitted to the British Army’s future armoured vehicles – such as the Ajax reconnaissance vehicle, Challenger 3 main battle tank and Boxer Mechanised Infantry Vehicle – instead of the next-generation radios they should have received under Morpheus.”
https://
euro-sd.com/2023/12/major-news/35641/uk-mod-kills-morpheus-contract/
Seem to remember all the exact same issue when Bowman came in. In fact I’m struggling to find any form of communication system or IT project anywhere in the world that did not do much the same then once introduced became the sturdy reliable backbone that had to linger on for years longer because the next project was delayed.
It has always been the same, Clansman was late, Triffid and Ptarmigan was also late. I am not really sure on what the issue with Morpheus is but I suspect it is possibly in the area of network security.
It appears that the MoD want Morpheus to operate along the lines of a smart phone where the user down loads an app for the requirments needed. A good idea in principle a nightmare in network security.
I wonder if this would be any better.
“Hanwha Systems has the unrivaled track records and capabilities in Korea’s military communication area, leading the development of future military communication networks.
Hanwha Systems is solidifying its leading position in CDL, by simultaneously performing TICN System Program, the subscriber based mobile communication system, and the next generation military communication system program, which will provide backbone networks for military satellite communication.
The future battled field concept is being transformed into network-centric warfare in which all army, navy and air forces’ weapon systems are connected by communication networks and all battlefield situations are shared real time to enable integrated command and control via networks. We will continuously provide the optimized solutions for the future battlefield environment by using our cutting-edge defense technologies in TICN and satellite communications fields.”
https://
hanwhasystems.com/en/business/defense/c5i/communication_index.do
Foxhound’s V Hull, armoured spine protect critical parts such as the crew compartment, engine, fuel tank and transmission, which deflects any blast away from the pod, thus protecting the occupants and key components.
Ceramic armour provides fairly good protection for the crew cabin.
They are not unarmed – they have 2 Gimpys.
Foxhound LPPV is an appropriate vehicle for the Lt Mech bde.
What part could a Patrol Vehicle play? Patrolling? Conveying Infantry to a new location? Providing fire support from its 2 Gimpys.
I share your concerns in your third paragraph.
Not sure why you think 7 Lt Mech Bde from 1 (UK) Div is our only army contribution to NATO – the main contribution is 3 (UK) Div…plus 16 AA Bde…plus the 1st Aviation Brigade etc etc
Please find this article by a French journalist. It is rather in line with my mindset.
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/02/14/military_programming_law_2024/
The budget of France in defense is way to low for the security environment that is in front of us. People start to think that we will need to increase rapidly our spendings to face the threats that are ahead. UK and France will have to increase the submarine fleet. In France we may have to expand our nuclear arsenal, fighter fleet, number of MBT, ammunitions and ground to ground missiles, even nuclear one to face the threat posed by Russian and Iran to some extend. Their is no time to waste. We cannot do it alone and the only serious military partner in Europe is UK.
I hope grounds for cooperation can be found between executives of your country and my country.
Apparently we are sending 51 challenger tanks to take part. According to the sky news app anyway.
That’s impressive. In the future when all 148 are updated to C3 standard, that’ll be a third of our available fleet- shows we need all 200+ C2s upgraded to C3 standard just to be sure/ careful and cover potential contingencies. I cannot understand any logical argument against doing this, the cost for a country such as the UK is negligible vs the potential gain.
Considering the cost of just £800 million for the C3 upgrade it seems very prudent to me to upgrade all the rest to C3 standard for a few hundred million more. If a tank like C3 gets knocked out there is a very high chance the crew survives.
Under the current set up that highly trained crew would have to go to the rear echelon and start digging latrine trenches as there would be nothing else for them to do.
Jim, I assume you don’t work for HM Treasury!
If a CR3 tank is knocked out and the crew survive they climb aboard a tank from the Attrition Reserve. In the CR3 era that Reserve is small: I suspect that if we are in General War, then tanks in the Repair Pool and the Trg Org might be moved to boost the Attrition Reserve.
[Historic footnote, but not irrelevant. The CR2 fleet was ordered just after the Cold War ended – it was deemed we needed just a mere 386 of them for the new post-Cold War world! That world is now far more dangerous!]
Funny that Graham, danger levels have increased massively, right across the board in 25 years, but somehow 148 MBT’s is now apparently acceptable??
Curious.
Yep, funny too how there has been no shrinkage of MP numbers, numbers of hospitals, schools and associated staff etc etc.
The military is the easy target for cuts yet those politicos bang on about the defence of the Realm/People being the first duty of Government.
Good evening Nevis, would you happen to know what future drone protection system we will acquire for CH3? I know that new Armour is about to be installed.
Jan 2024
“RBSL integrates modular armour onto Challenger 3 main battle tanks. Following integration trials in 2023, the new modular armour system will improve the survivability of the British Army’s only 24-hour, all-weather, protected MBT.”
SEOUL — Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA), a Norwegian supplier of defense and space-related systems and products, has established a strategic partnership with Hyundai Rotem, the producer of South Korea’s main battle tank, K2 Black Panther, to develop unmanned turrets and drone protection systems to be installed in next-generation tanks and wheel-type armoured vehicles.
KDA products such as digital integrated systems would be applied to Hyundai Rotem’s K2 tanks and K808 wheeled armored personnel carriers. The K2 tank has combined an auto-loaded 120 mm main gun and advanced composite armor with hard and soft-kill active protection systems.
The K808 vehicle is provided with a remotely controlled weapon station armed with a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher or 12.7 mm machine gun.
There is also a 130mm main gun on the drawing board it appears.
South Korea unveils design concept of future K3 MBT Main Battle Tank
https://
armyrecognition.com/defense_news_june_2023_global_security_army_industry/south_korea_unveils_design_concept_of_future_k3_mbt_main_batle_tank.html
I have not heard of CR3 having a specific drone protection system.
Whilst 60 Trophy APS have been ordered for CR3 I am sure that all CR3s in the field army will get it – could Trophy take down drones I wonder? Also, if approaching drone can be seen in time by turret crew, then secondary armament could engage (7.62 mm coaxial L94A1 chain gun and 7.62 mm L37A2 machine gun).
Thanks, Graham, it appears not in its present form.
Trophy
“The system is currently incapable of defeating kinetic energy anti-tank weapons. Current and future systems based on technologies that resemble the cancelled MGM-166 LOSAT technology and the compact kinetic energy missile (CKEM) designs – are able to easily defeat the Trophy system.
The Trophy system have a donut-hole like window of vulnerability to attacks from directly above, or the slow speed of the drone and the gravity-dropped grenade might have caused it to be filtered out by the Trophy’s sensors.
In October 2023, Hamas used civilian DJI and Autel quadcopter drones, which dropped shaped-charge grenades to damage or destroy several Merkava tanks.”
Morpheus upgrade is cancelled at a cost of £3.2 Billion. 🙄
Well, a drone is not a KE anti-tank weapon – it is a quite slow moving unmanned aircraft.
So Trophy may be able to defeat it, even if its sensors, radar and data processing computer needs some fine tuning.
As for the possible window of vulnerability to attack from directly above, Trophy really wants to be engaging the drone before it is directly above the tank.
We won’t know details of Trophy’s weaknesses for sure – all highly classified. I am just saying that Trophy might be tweaked to take on drones – who knows?
More than possible I would have thought Graham.
France is developing Diamant, an active protection system to cover wheeled of tracked vehicle. The system is way lighter than all existing systems and likely cheaper. It is meant to be ready in 2025/2026. The goal is to enable all our wheeled vehicles to go to the front line and survive. May be it is a good solution for you too. France’s Jaguars and APC use civilian component to be cheaper to build (1M€ per vehicule) and easy to maintain by civilians. Hence we have 3000 of them, more on the way, but with one challenge: unable to go to the front line of high intensity conflict and survive. That’s why Diamant is developed. May be a way to go?
Hello Math, It sounds very promising, we’re certainly going to need something that’s for sure.
SK Have developed their own APS I believe, I wonder if it is any better at defeating these types of threats.
“At the heart of the K2’s armament is the Rheinmetall 120-mm/L55 smoothbore gun, produced under a South Korean license. Its notable feature is the automatic loader, facilitating projectile loading while on the move and over uneven terrain.
This ensures a consistent firing rate of up to 10 rounds per minute, enabling the tank to sustain its fire for about three minutes with its 40-round ammunition capacity.
The main gun supports various munitions types, including upgraded indigenous tungsten APFSDS kinetic energy penetrators and multi-purpose HEAT chemical energy rounds. This assortment of ammunition equips the tank to adapt its tactics to different combat scenarios.
In addition to its main armament, the K2 is equipped with a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun and a 12.7 mm K-6 heavy machine gun. These supplementary weapons expand the tank’s capabilities in engaging infantry and lightly armored targets, enhancing its tactical versatility.
The tank’s defense capabilities include composite armor and an Active Defense System employing Explosive Reactive Armor blocks. This layered approach enhances the tank’s resilience against a range of threats.
The K2 also utilizes a millimeter-band radar system, functioning as a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS). This system detects incoming projectiles and permits the deployment of Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke (VIRSS) grenades to disrupt tracking mechanisms.
The K2’s armament integrates advanced systems to enhance its combat effectiveness. An advanced fire-control system (FCS), in conjunction with a millimeter-band radar, laser range-finder, and crosswind sensor, ensures precise targeting. The tank’s crew benefits from day/night and thermal vision capabilities, bolstering situational awareness.
A collective nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) protection system safeguards the crew in hazardous environments. Additionally, an automatic fire suppression system and atmospheric sensors address internal fire risks and potential threats.”
And a state-of-the-art communication system it would appear.
https://
hanwhasystems.com/en/business/defense/c5i/communication_index.do
Just asking but do perchance drive a Kia or Hyundai ? You seem to be very knowledgable on SK products !
Oh and does the K2 come with a 7 year warranty ?🤔
🙄
It’s called looking for what’s available now, that actually works, rather than waiting for the 2030’s, and work share plus, SK spinoffs to boost the economy.
Here are just a few examples.
“The Redback program is expected to provide approximately AU$9 billion worth of economic value across the country, with 600 direct jobs and more than a thousand jobs throughout the Australian supply chain and AU$5.7 billion expected to be generated in Victoria alone.”
“Production at the plant in Dąbrowa Górnicza started in August 2021 under the name of SK hi-tech battery materials Poland, after a 21-month period of construction. In Europe, which is considered the cradle of electric cars on the global automotive market, SK hi-tech battery materials Poland was the first company to acquire a separator production base with an annual production capacity of 340 million m2.
This is the number of separators, thanks to which, it is possible to equip over 300 thousand electric cars; this product will be supplied to global manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries.
By 2024,SK hi-tech battery materials Poland plans to create a thousand new jobs with a declared investment budget of PLN 7 billion. The factory will achieve an annual production capacity of 1.54 billion m2 of separators, and thus will achieve the largest production capacity of separators in Europe.
A second plant with an annual production capacity of 340 million m2 is under construction, with plans to start commercial operations in 2023.
The third and fourth plants – each with an annual production capacity of 340 million m2 – are also under construction. As a result, SK technology’s global production scale, including Korea, China and Europe, is expected to reach a total of 2.73 billion m2 per year.
SK technology supplies separators for the world’s largest battery producers. The demand for high-quality separators increases with the increasing demand for high-density stable lithium-ion batteries. SK technology separators are a product that meets the highest safety requirements and are appreciated on the European market for their high quality.
SK hi-tech battery Materials Poland is developing dynamically, implementing projects to strengthen electromobility and contributing to the growth of Poland’s position as a European production leader in this promising industry. The investment is a contribution to the development of Polish industry, but also of significant benefit to the local community.”
Add the KF-21 Boramae to Poland’s South Korea Shopping Wish-List
https://
defense-aerospace.com/poland-interested-in-joining-south-koreas-kf-21-fighter-program/
I know we have discussed this before mate, but 60 trophy systems suggests they never intend to deploy more than one Regiment operationally.
The figure of 60 Trophy systems being ordered is now a very old one and I would be surprised if that figure had not been uplifted, particularly in the wake of the war in Ukraine.
The figure of only buying 60 units was clearly a savings measure – I don’t think you can definitively conclude that the army/the MoD/the Minister always intended that 3 (UK) Div would leave a tank regiment behind at home when deployed for warfighting against a peer opponent.
Yet I see that the figure of 60 is close to the figure of 56.
I would imagine that the other 88 CR3s would be FFBNW. Much like HMS QE is FFBNW Phalanx. In time of impending war someone would no doubt put in a rush order for extra Trophys and pay the stupendously higher price that the manufacturer would charge. Thats how MoD operate. The economics of the madhouse.
That doesn’t fit with the statement that 7 Lt Mech Bde is deploying (or part of it anyway).
Seems so, based on this quote:
“Britain will send more than 50 tanks to Eastern Europe to take part in the largest NATO war games in a generation as warnings grow about the threat of all-out conflict with Russia.
A majority of the ageing Challenger 2 main battle tanks will be transported by rail via the Channel Tunnel from the UK, but 12 tanks will be brought out of storage in Germany – where they are based – to join the exercise, it is understood.
British forces are already sending hundreds of other types of military vehicles by ferry to Germany for the opening phase of the four-month exercise, called Steadfast Defender, which began at the end of January.”
Ah yes! Just as the imbeciles thought it a good idea to get rid of the rail capability in 2010.
A slither remains in a STRE.
7 LMBCT does not have an Armoured Regiment. So either parts of 12 and 20 are taking part of that report is wrong.
I’d guess the former.
Side note: We need a major infrastructure project to get our loading gauges to European Standards, both so we can link our normal rail systems in with Europes, but also so we can deploy Challengers to the continent in a single rail move.
Knowing Network Rail and the cost of things.
The Tanks are now at Tidworth as you know, with but the Ludgershall branch and loading bay remaining of rail access.
Had this discussion before with Graham and unsure of the requirements to load Tanks.
I do wonder how practically useful these are. They are months if not years in the planning, whilst if a war breaks out it would need deployment in weeks at best, but more likely days as politics will delay things to the last moment. Panic around sorting logistics for large deployments, at pace is what they should test
I cant imagine the armed forces would ever struggle to deploy if they had a year or more to plan it out.
Steve, Are you wondering how useful exercises are in general, or this particular one, or one involving 7 Lt Mech Bde? I don’t really follow your train of thought.
The exercise in general or at least if it achieves its aim. It’s aim is meant to be to test readiness of nato forces. To me if you want to do that then it needs to be a surprise test. Issue a statement to the brigade on the day the exercise starts, stating something like Russia has crossed the Latvian border, you need to deploy as fast as possible to Estonia to stop further attacks on nato and see how it plays out getting forces into place both from a rapidly deployment of light forces and slower reinforcement of the heavy gear, along with creation of the supply chain. Seeing how long it takes at each stage and testing how this stacks up with the plans and where assumptions don’t play out in practice.
If Russia had done it prior to attacking ukraine, they would have realised their supply chain was completely unfit for purpose. They did multiple scripted excerices like this, but because it was scripted, issues were masked.
I think NATO had to rationalise surprise exercises after Able Archer in 83 spooked the Soviets and almost caused WW3.
That being said would be really useful to see a light mech brigade deploy in rapid fashion possibly using the channel tunnel and driving right across Europe.
The US have done some similar exercises with Striker brigade.
Okay, so how are you going to organise several nations coming together for training at short notice? How are you going to standardise TO’s and OM’s without lead time? How are you going to get permission to use docks, rail lines, and border check points with military force without prior permission.
In the event of war a lot of this becomes non issues. “We need to use Gdansk Port to unload an armoured brigade” gets the answer of “We can let you have it tomorrow” in war, but in peace it’s “Well we’ve got a lot of container ships coming in on the 4th, and all the piers are booked up till the 14th so, maybe we can let you use a RoRo pier on the 16th?”
“Well couldn’t you plan it in advance and keep it secret from the troops?” You might ask, but here’s the thing, while you might be able to keep a secret from a foreign army, keeping a secret from your own army is REALLY hard. Practically everyone is “compromised” and at least a few officers and SNCO’s will have “friends in the butts” so the word will get out to the troops. And even if it didn’t, do you know what’s really good for retention and moral? Suddenly telling everyone to cancel all the plans they have for the next six weeks because they’re (surprise!) off to Poland. Again, you do that in war it’s kind of understandable. You do that regularly as part of “testing readyness” and people won’t want to do that job.
On your last paragraph: Every exercise is scripted. Surprise or not. This is the big misunderstanding about military training, people seem to think “effective military training” is like paintball with two sides just released into a field until last man’s standing. In reality exercises to a degree have to be scripted in order to provide the correct training: All well and good for a enterprising officer to launch a surprise attack on a village, but if the attack is so much of a surprise that the exercise organisers haven’t put enemy in the village then there’s not much point.
Very easily. You split the excerice into two teams. You have a central team organise all the permissions in secret, based on the plans that must be already designed for deployment into any country around the world and which the deploying forces will no doubt follow. For nato those plans will be defined on a multinational basis already.
However even in a war situation those permissions will need to be sought, its not like sovereign nations and politics stop at the start of a war.
It’s a logistics puzzle peace or war time and that needs to be practiced properly.
I literally addressed your first paragraph in my initial response.
In fact I also addressed your second paragraph as well. If I give you the benefit of reading your posts could you please do the same to mine?
I did read it. Don’t get me wrong I know it would be hard to achieve and expensive but frankly Russia had demonstrated its not optional and if you read what went wrong in falklands/iraq/afgan all have massive training issues highlighted around logistics.
I doubt there is a political will to do this, since when Russia attacked Ukraine all we sent was a token force that was incapable of fighting on its own. If that didn’t get the politicians to act nothing will outside boots on the ground in Dover by enemy forces.
If you read it why did you raise objections that where directly addressed in it?
All exercises are useful. They are the only way to practice skills involved in warfighting at scale and with allies. The aim of the exercise has not been explicitly stated in the article. It is clear though (or it can be inferred) that it is intended to exercise national contingents in deploying from home bases to a distant location in Europe (Poland), to integrate with other NATO forces and to practice the conduct of defensive and offensive operations against an OPFOR that may well be representative of the Russian army.
As others have said all exercises in peacetime have to be planned and stage-managed. I have been involved in exercise planning (sub-units and units exercising in the UK and a major joint force deploying to and exercising in Oman, Exercise Saif Sareea 2) and the work is detailed and can take many months if not over a year. That does not invalidate the experience.
There is no such thing as a surprise major exercise – by a OSCE confidence building measures Treaty [Helsinki Final Act (1975) or Vienna Declaration] we have to notify the Russians well in advance if we are holding a significant exercise. Various practical measures (well explained by others) need to be set up before a major multinational exercise can occur. You could not deploy a unit in less time than its Readiness level.
What did used to happen though was the NATO Operational Readiness Test (ORT) in BAOR/BFG times. A NATO team would descend on a unit usually in the wee small hours of the morning and call Ex Active Edge. That was a surprise crashout but at unit level and to a relatively local area in Germany. It was very useful – not sure if it is done today, or anything like it.
Even if all they were doing is loading up their gear and moving to Germany to go on the lash it would be immensely valuable. Half the battle is learning the logistics.
Also in a peace time army if your not doing stuff like this troops get very board and leave the service.
Then there is the invaluable experience of just integrating with other NATO militaries.
Also in many ways these exercises are much harder to plan than combat because almost every detail of the battle scenarios must be planned where in combat the plans are often made on the fly.
It’s more that logistics chains and stocks can’t be properly tested in a real war breaking out scenario like this. Take the falklands the logistics worked but it was a mess, they struggled to find stuff and packing all the helicopters onto one ship etc all resulted in loss of life because they didn’t have time to do it in an organised manor. It worked but almost went very wrong because of it.
Also what is am not sure on is what went wrong early on in iraq/afgan, when they didn’t have enough machine guns/ body armour/etc to go around. Was that a logistics failure or a stock failure. Either way the issue wasn’t identified early enough and resulted in deaths.
You never can fully test logistics and stocks in an exercise however, the Falklands is a prime example: You could never have exercised that war because it would have meant taking up a lot of civilian ships from trade, which A) would drive even more ship owners away from flagging their ships British since not only might they loose their ships for a war, but also for random shitty exercises, and B) doing so would damage the economy. In a war both A and B are acceptable compromises, in a peace time exercise they aren’t.
Yeah for sure can’t fully test it, but from what I read the Falklands logistic problems started whilst the equipment was still in the UK before they ever made it onto the ships. You know if your going to need to deploy a large force at speed your going to need merchant ships, just not enough military options, so sooner or later it will happen again. Channel tunnel alone isnt sufficinent as dont have the movers on the other side. As such you can still test that, just without the final step of loading dozens of ships. Can test getting all the equipment to ports in an organised manner.
You can also break an exercise into two. First stage moving all gear to ports. Second stage you know how long it will take to load and unload that much equipment and so you can pause the test whilst you slowly move all the gear to the target port and then restart using phase release of tbe gear as if it was being unloaded.
In a real unplanned war situation the initial light element will be there in a day or two and then it’s going to be a logistic challenge to continue to supply them as they fight at the same time as reinforcing them.
And what makes you think we don’t do that when we deploy a light infantry formation to the continent to fight? Have you ever been involved in moving a unit overseas for an exercise? Because I have, quite a few times.
Also the light element won’t be there in a day or two, a week is pretty optimistic. VHR light forces are generally held at 48hours notice to move, and that’s a small percentage of the over all light force. But yes, it’ll be a logistic challenge to keep them supplied. You know what’s going to be the main part of that challenge though? Not “getting stuff to the ports and unloading the ships.” It’ll be trying to de-congest European Highway and rail-networks as every army and their dog tries to get troops and supplies to the front. Again, not something you can excercise without causing massive economic disruption which nobody is going to tolerate in peacetime.
Also stop using the Falklands war as an example it does you no credit: Aside from the fact that it was over 40 years ago and the armed forces have changed a lot since then, there’s also the fact that it was a War on the other side of the planet that the armed forces didn’t expect to fight, and was fought with literally anything that happened to be available and not already committed to the BAOR or Op Banner.
The Falklands logistic problems.
In 1982 we were in the middle of the Cold War with a large presence of army and RAF in Germany – and had a sizable operation going in Northern Ireland, Op Banner. All focus was on these 2 operations, including their logistic and engineering support. The navy meanwhile was concentrating on largely exercising ASW warfare in the eastern Atlantic and the western approaches.
No-one could reasonably expect us to have pre-existing a logistics set up to deploy a huge tri-service task force 8,000 miles to the South Atlantic, and maintain it for several months. What we achieved on Op CORPORATE verged on the miraculous. The logistics had to be set up at virtually no notice and in a few days. You could not expect everything to be perfect logistically. That it was far more succesful than problematic spoke volumes for a ‘can do’ attitude and solid professional skills by all 3 services.
On the bored troops front, for sure fully agree but that wasn’t the aim of this excerice. Plus I would guess sending them to Asia or America etc would work way better, as they can’t take cheap ryanair flights there, and wouldn’t cost a whole lot more. The old join the armed forces and see the world doesn’t work as a pull as much as it used to do due to cheap personal travel, especially not in respect of Europe.
What happens if there is a Nuclear.Biological or Chemical (NBC) attack. I know Soldiers have personal NBC kit but would they have enough time to get it all on after dismounting from a light unprotected APC. Unlike Warrior that has NBC protection for all sealed inside.
CBRN not NBC. First of all if you’re deploying into a theatre that has a CBRN threat the brief will be given to the troops and then a CBRN dress state will be issued, Category 0 (which is mask carried, suit and boots stored with the unit) through to Category 4R (suit, boots, gloves and mask worn), so if a CBRN attack happens you should already be at a high dress category.