Over 350 troops from the Queen’s Royal Hussars have tested new ways of integrating drones into armoured warfare during an exercise in Sennelager, Germany, according to the British Army.
Exercise Senne Hussar saw soldiers trial the launch of surveillance and strike drones from moving armoured vehicles, with live feeds shared across all troops in real time without crews needing to dismount. The exercise also marked the first field deployment of the Army’s new Find and Strike Squadron, described as the first of its kind in the Field Army.
The squadron combines reconnaissance, drone, and strike troops with the aim of locating and engaging targets faster and at greater distance, according to the British Army.
B Squadron Leader Major Douglas Graham said: “I am converting my Challenger 2 Squadron into the first Find and Strike Squadron in the British Army. Here on exercise, we are developing tactics and procedures and trialling how we integrate ground reconnaissance and the use of drones with precision strike troops to shape the battlefield ahead of us at a greater range than ever before.”
He added: “We are also flying drones under-armour and on the move to integrate the system’s capability into an armoured battle group so we can operate at a tempo unmatched by our enemies.”
Soldiers also trialled sharing live drone data across the battlefield, giving every participant from tank crews to dismounted infantry a common operating picture in real time. The Army said this supports faster decision-making and reduces reliance on voice communications from headquarters.
A new high-cut helmet design was tested for the first time with a field unit, allowing tank crews to clip communications headsets in and out when transitioning between vehicles and on foot without changing helmets.
The exercise used the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer simulator facility at Sennelager before moving to live training, allowing troops to rehearse new tactics in a simulated environment and then immediately apply them in the field.
Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel Gerald Kearse said: “We are turning up the dial on Army modernisation. For me it is really simple: It’s about becoming more ruthlessly lethal. But it is not just about capability replacement. We need to think about how we want to fight conceptually, followed by what we want to fight with.”
He added: “Here in Sennelager we are proving some of the no-regret actions that need to be taken in terms of tactics and form and show the benefits of armoured forces being able to integrate into a digital network.”
All well and good but that reads as yet another SQN of tanks out of the Orbat!
A very topical comment.
Great stuff by QRH, a key indicator of the way forward for armoured formations on today’s battlefield in Central and Eastern Europe.
But armoured formations, combined arms operations (and conventional deterrence) also require mass.
We will not achieve the mass required to live up to the commitments that we have made to our allies (and signed up to) without a major reordering of our financial priorities by this government.
‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.
The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence.
Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom. The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh. This contradicts government and industry claims that renewables are becoming cheaper.’
Systemic reform is required.
It would seem QRH have dropped to a type 44 Regt down from a 56.
If they are claiming B SQN is under armour that only can mean Warriors getting another job until if/when the likes of Ares is deemed fit for service!
Its good they are actually doing this stuff but if the three Armd regts all actually lose a SQN that’s basically a Regt of tanks taken out of service!
Plus ca change etc.
1961: ‘… MoD…encouraging C.O.s to send officers to learn to fly with the AAC…instead of losing them for 5 years, the officers return to fly the Regiment’s aircraft adding a vital third dimension to the Regiment’s reconnaissance capability.’
So, in principle, a recce/strike Squadron (rather than a Recce Troop as previously) is an outstanding idea. The only thing lacking is integral air defence (and it must be integral, IMV, to be practised, swift and effective) which, on today’s battlefield, looks less than ideal.
With only 148 CR3, there is also a problem equipping the four Type 44 armoured regiments that the now immediately required two (square) Armoured Brigade, Armoured Division (-) will need.
But, if each current Type 44 loses a squadron of CR3, by jingo, you’re back in business! And the recce/strike Squadron, using Ajax and providing deep recce strike using drones still, on paper at least, gives plenty of combat power.
This all (in the public domain) seems to derive from a 2021 future soldier paper that is now under revision to incorporate lessons from Ukraine: two deployable Divisions (-), one light, one armoured.
The expeditionary (light) division fights the First Battle / Deep Battle while the manoeuvre division aims to fight the Second Battle / Close Battle. That means, for the Light Division, plenty of cabbying around Central Europe in fast moving wheeled vehicles well in front of everyone else. Hmm…
But this approach was well tested in 2022, during the early stages of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. Ukrainian units in light vehicles with anti-armour weapons and ample UAVs were able to deploy rapidly to create forward screens.
You never know…it might work…
👍🤞
Monro,
You say ‘With only 148 CR3, there is also a problem equipping the four Type 44 armoured regiments that the now immediately required two (square) Armoured Brigade, Armoured Division (-) will need’.
A while back Daniele told us that KRH was to now keep its tanks rather than convert to armoured recce. So the 3rd tank regiment is retained. Why do you think there will be four such regiments? Wishful thinking?
I am only speculating. It is an interesting development…the recce/strike squadron sounds like a good idea/may very well be a runner…and that would seem to require at least some revision to the present Type 44 establishment. Could you man a recce/strike squadron as well as three sabre squadrons within the same establishment, given today’s recruitment/retention exigencies?
Historically, a typical armoured regiment 1950s to the early 1970s comprised only three sabre squadrons.
Monro,
‘Could you man a recce/strike squadron as well as three sabre squadrons within the same establishment, given today’s recruitment/retention exigencies?’
I am fairly sure that current armoured regiment has 4 sabre sqns each of 14 tanks plus a Recce Troop of 8 vehs (was Scimitar). Plus of course 2 tanks for RHQ…and the support bods.
So that would be 256 men in tanks and recce wagons.
If the new Orbat is RHQ+3 sabre squadrons (each of 14 tanks)+Recce/Strike Sqn in 14xAjax? (and no Regimental Recce Troop?), then you would need only 218 men manning tanks and Ajax.
Ghosts of the past re-emerge:
‘WFM management effectively means that the two Type 58 and the three Type 44 Regiments actually all have just around 30 tanks each for keeping their squadrons trained.’ (post options for change, war in Europe ‘highly unlikely’)
Given the shortage of CR3 and the need for two square armoured brigades to meet our NATO ARRC commitment, am I alone in scenting a monumental fudge about to break cover?
The recce/strike squadron must be a good idea…somewhat diminished if it is used as cover for a shortage of CR3.
But I am tilting at windmills. The more likely fudge is one of the ‘armoured’ brigades only having one (Type 44) armoured regiment (with recce/strike squadron) and, consequently, a below par armoured division (-).
Still, at least there isn’t a war on…
Hi mate.
I’m not sure going forward. I have both KRH and the RTR having a “C&R” Squadron, unsure what that means, Command and Recc?
Kings Royal Hussars.
Regimental HQ.
– HQ Squadron.
– A Squadron. ( The 20th Hussar Sq )
– B Squadron. ( The 14th Hussar Sq )
– C Squadron. ( The 11th Hussar Sq )
– D C & R Squadron. ( The 10th Hussar Sq )
– R E M E LAD
Royal Tank Regiment.
– Regimental HQ.
– E ( Egypt ) HQ Squadron.
– A ( Ajax ) Squadron.
– B ( Badger ) Squadron.
– C ( Cyclops ) Squadron
– D ( Dreadnaught ) C & R Squadron.
– R E M E LAD
The Queens Royal Hussars.
– Regimental HQ.
– HQ Squadron.
– A Squadron.
– B Squadron.
– C Squadron.
– D ( The Black Pig ) Squadron.
– R E M E LAD
Yes but something is not correct here Tanks can now fire guided shells that can hit aircraft as well as other Tanks and if an enemy has that infra red scanner they will quickly lock on to the Tank underneath the drone as the Tank is a higher priority value target, all the drone will do is tell an enemies where our Tanks are, and this news item has told us where another enemy to our soldiers is and it Mr Gerald Kearse he cannot be a Lt Colonel as I’ve seen a picture of him next to NHS workers dressed as a Lt General, perhaps he intended to blame the incompetentcy on the Unit commander after unacceptable losses.
‘My parents were sober living, and often did pray
For their family to abstain from intoxicating drink alway;
Because they knew it would lead them astray
Which no God fearing man will dare to gainsay.
Some people do say that God made strong drink,
But he is not so cruel I think;
To lay a stumbling block in his children’s way,
And then punish them for going astray.
No! God has more love for his children, than mere man.
To make strong drink their souls to damn;
His love is more boundless than mere man’s by far,
And to say not it would be an unequal par.’
‘A New Temperance Poem, in Memory of My Departed Parents’ McGonagall
3 x 14 Tank Sqns.
1 x HQ Sqn.
2 Tanks at RHQ.
44 Tanks.
1 x Find and Strike Sqn.
I’d read F&T will comprise the Regiments Recc Troop ( Ajax if it happens ) with Boxers and a Troop with Javelin ATGW and Drones.
Can the Ajax’s CTA 40mm be used in a counter drone role ? I know there was some concept “Blackjax” (?) vehicle shown which seemed to be more specific for that role. They’re going to need something whether tracked or wheeled and replace the Stormer.
Stormer is almost certainly going to be replaced by Patria, as the carrier for HVM Starstreak.
This has been reported by several sources for some time.
CTA40, I know nothing on the technical side and capabilities of assets, but Davey did indicate that it would be capable as a CAUS asset.
Thanks Daniele. I haven’t seen any image of the CAV Stormer vehicle. But is likely a Moog type 30+HVM/LMM turret that was shown on a Supacat?
No idea!
With the right Ammunition then yes it can.
Jacko, Given that we are getting a mere 148 CR3s, the only way that three regiments can operate is that they reduce to Type 44.
Also, Warriors replaced Scimitars from Apr 2023 as an interim measure in the recce role until Ajax is fielded.
Its OT and not “tanks” but Janes is showing that Finlsnd is ordering 112 K9 Howitzer’s in addition to its 96 it already has. Quite a substantial force that’s tracked. Maybe due to the terrain? Is it wise that the UK is still going all wheeled and not at least a mix fleet? CR3, Ajax, MRLS and some K9 would seemingly go well together naturally.
Oh dear the Iranian parrot has returned, because that argument sure supports them economically and not us. I have tried rationally without using selective statistics to warp the truth, to explain why it’s essentially BS but will try again. China’s data centre growth is now being powered predominantly by renewables, indeed its new generation economic growth now is increasingly moving in that direction and thus its electric technology based growth dominates the World, even Japan is going to them now for automotive tech, they have such a lead. India’s economy despite legacy fossil commitments like China to generate growth that will sadly last years is increasingly going green too, because like us and China they have little gas or oil to exploit and again like us have to buy it on the World market, and as we see Iran can almost totally control that part of the World economy. Few experts claim drilling here will have any significant influence on our energy costs shirt or long term, indeed there is no long term it’s 92% gone and the Oil Companies have previously demanded subsidies, lower taxes and price guarantees to drill more anyway. California’s growth (4% per year growth in low carbon generation) and already at 62% and which after all, outside of Asia, is the West’s only serious economic growth zone, indeed the only real growth zone in the US economy too, shows you can be at the cutting edge of competitiveness and commit to green energy. Indeed in 2024 despite their growth actually reduced their energy consumption by 1% so much for lack of flexibility. Of course stupidly tying electricity prices to gas you could actually argue that gas is being subsidised because no matter how expensive it becomes (it’s the most expensive already most of the time for wasteful electric generation) the power generators can’t lose by investing in it, and indeed what the pro lobby don’t tell us is it will need massive investment if we stick to it, as the gas powered power stations, like all those nuclear stations it replaced from the 90s are approaching end of life too. Investing in new nuclear is damn expensive to the tax payer but does anyone think we shouldn’t? In not doing so has again been a factor in unstable energy costs. I suspect the generators will want that guarantee of price matching kept if they are going to replace those old Gas stations, only extending high energy costs. Of course I can see why many business interests as they have in the US will benefit from new commitments to fossil fuels, but the rest of us shouldn’t be fooled that we will and even if we get a few short term connived crumbs from the likes of of Farage it will only extend the pain for all who won’t be getting back handers.
Seriously what fool believes the answer to high energy costs, mostly due a historical commitment to gas (of which we have little left to exploit anyway locally) and oil, is to commit to use more to gas and oil and delay alternatives. It’s just like a drug addict seeking more heroin the more costly it gets. Yes if a field is ready to go in 6mths I have no problem in exploiting it and get some extra tax from it, but that’s all we will benefit, it won’t lower energy prices, one pro gas/oil expert yesterday on 5Live even admitted it won’t unless we nationalise it, so the only way to get longer term lower energy costs is to remove as much fossil fuel as possible and commit to the new technologies involved, not dying legacy industries. We presently produce the most efficient electric motors in the World here but thinking that their best use is to to pump oil around really isn’t the most common sense answer to any problem.
Dismissing the silly insults, this has all already been dealt with in great detail:
Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations,
and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55
percent between 1997 and 2023. And the share of fossil fuels in global energy
consumption has only decreased from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to approximately 82 percent in 2022.
The scale of today’s energy transition requires approximately 700 exajoules of
new non-carbon energies by 2050, which needs about 38,000 projects the size
of BC’s Site C or 39,000 equivalents of Muskrat Falls.
Converting energy-intensive processes (e.g., iron smelting, cement, and plastics) to non-fossil alternatives requires solutions not yet available for large-scale use.
The energy transition imposes unprecedented demands for minerals including copper and lithium, which require substantial time to locate and develop mines.
To achieve net-zero carbon, affluent countries will incur costs of at least 20
percent of their annual GDP.
While global cooperation is essential to achieve decarbonization by 2050, major emitters such as the United States, China, and Russia have conflicting interests.
To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, governments face unprecedented technical, economic and political challenges, making rapid and inexpensive transition impossible’
‘Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050, Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome’
Vaclav Smil 2024
As for California:
‘Two Northern California cities just learned – again – that local “electrify everything” mandates run into both federal law and energy affordability. California cities Petaluma and Morgan Hill…have repealed or removed their rules banning natural gas appliances in new construction after facing…the reality that forcing electrification could drive sky-high state energy costs even higher.
In January, the DOJ sued Petaluma and Morgan Hill:
“In pursuit of “electrification,” these bans deny consumers reliable, resilient, and affordable energy, as well as the use of commonplace gas appliances for cooking, heating, and other household needs. But natural gas is often the lowest cost and most efficient energy source for uses like these—outperforming electric on both expense and lifecycle emissions’
‘California is losing jobs in core industries that historically powered the state’s economy. The state lost nearly 52,000 tech jobs in 2024, while manufacturing jobs fell by 38,000 between 2010 and 2025, and total finance sector employment declined 10.3 percent between 2019 and 2025.
The number of private sector jobs outside health care is lower today than before the COVID-19 recession.
The state continues to experience a long-term population outflow based on annual U.S. Census data, with hundreds of thousands more people leaving the state each year than are arriving from other states.
The study argues that California’s economic underperformance is driven by high taxes, costly housing, expensive energy, and an overly burdensome regulatory environment that discourages business investment and job creation.’
Sounds familiar?
Half of that sounds like a “professional expert” talking.
It take big time/effort/resource because “i said so”
Vaclav Smil (born 1943) is a renowned Czech-Canadian polymath, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba, and author of over 50 books on energy, environmental change, and technical innovation. Known for his data-driven, non-ideological analysis, Smil is a prominent figure in energy transitions.
You’re wasting your time, Monro is a committed flat-earther. No amount of scientific or economic fact will shake his fossil-fuel faith.
He’s a total f@ckwit.
You don’t know the difference of a fact from an untestable theory like Global Warming turned into an unfalsifiable one like Climate Change- something that always happened- so anti–scientific.
You are more akin to a cargo cult member, you hear the tag science and scientist and it is automagically right.
Don’t occur to you limits in knowledge.
Please explain for example what caused the giant Euro draught of 1540?
Now tell me if it occurred today what most scientists with access to media would say caused it?
Yeah Climate Change, so much for science…
There’s always one big-mouthed cult-member who is either too stupid to understand the science or too committed to his position that he refuses to accept scientific facts against it. My bet is you’re the former.
If a drought like 1540 occurred today it wouldn’t be attributed to man-made climate change by scientists. Because one-off unusual events can be caused by any number of natural phenomena.
Instead of looking at blips they look at trends over far longer timelines. So over the last 800,000 years carbon-dioxide has varied between 175 and 300ppm, that is until the mid 1770s. Since then it has steadily and unrelentingly increased to over 422ppm as man has increased the level of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere. More carbon-dioxide in an atmosphere increases average global temperatures and causes lasting changes to climate. Of course while the planet warms, some locations could see cooling. So if the AMOC collapses due to the dumping of fresh water from melting Greenland glaciers into the North Atlantic then the climate in the move to being more like that of Nova Scotia.
No doubt if it happened you’d claim it was proof the planet was not warming, because you’re too stupid to understand the difference between causes and effects. You’re wobbling your head over one-offs like 1540 (an effect) while sticking your head up your own arse when it comes to rising levels of carbon-dioxide (a cause).
But like I said, you’re probably too stupid to understand this. I wrote it for anyone else who happened to be reading this thread.
“If a drought like 1540 occurred today it wouldn’t be attributed to man-made climate change by scientists.”
Haha, even some big fire season they attribute to Climate Change. Any increase or decrease is attributed to Climate Change that it why it is a non falsifiable anti scientific theory.
“So over the last 800,000 years carbon-dioxide has varied between 175 and 300ppm, that is until the mid 1770s.”
So you want to defeat your own argument ? the climate changed wildly in this period, Greenland was green with forests inside your 800000 years period,
So are you admitting that climate can change significantly regardless of CO2? So what changed Greenland Climate?
If you don’t know the answer to that the only thing you can say scientifically is that there are large unknows in Climate Science.
– i will refrain from the reliability and precision of those measurements as we going in the aging icecore-
Yeah, definitely stupid. You’ve read about 1540 in some fossil-fuel funded press release and are going to ban on about it even though you do t understand it. 🤷🏻♂️
As I pointed it, climate can change for any number of natural reasons. It’s just never changed so much and so quickly before. To understand that you have to look at causes, but you’re too dumb to differentiate between causes and the effects, which is why you’ll forever chase your own tail.
But with your stupidity there’s also a large of dishonesty. Because while you seize on the natural variation in carbon-dioxide that I point out, you completely ignore the relentless spike upwards that’s occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Selective picking of the results you think prove your position is neither scientific or honest.
Yes Greenland was once covered in forests – 2 million years ago which is 1.7million before modern man.
More dishonesty.
” It’s just never changed so much and so quickly before.”
How do you measure quickness reliably for 800000 years when proxys are so imprecise?
And for only 1ºC* or even less in 100 years for a climate history of 800000 years that had much bigger changes. Change that you and no scientist can explain.
*Not even 100 years ago the earth had enough temperature measurements. The Pacific is just 1/3 of earth area…
Notable that your insecurity makes you have to resort to insults.
It’s called science, something you’re too stupid to understand.
For anyone reading who is open-minded enough and intelligent enough to understand basic science, this is a good reference – add the 3w for a URL
climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
I am still waiting for your explanation for the reason(s) of past 80000 years of significant climate changes that you said had no intervention by CO2.
So what are the reasons for that climate changes?
If you and scientists don’t know then the Climate Science is missing an huge amount of necessary knowledge about its subject.
Excellent news. I wonder if the task and equipment will be handed over to Ajax in due course.
Since we have whole Regiments of “armoured cavalary”, aka reconnaissance why do we need to convert a squadron of tanks to do essentially the same thing? Or is it a way to surreptitiously reduce the the number of Tanks per Regiment with some bollocks about new capabilities.
Probably expedient. Maybe an upgrade of a T44 Armoured Regiment’s Recce Troop to Squadron size while freeing up three squadrons of CR3 to form an additional Armoured Regiment? That should give us two square Armoured Brigades formed into an Armoured Division (-).
It’s not much but it is something…
The Army was to lose the KRH and reduce to 2 Armoured Regiments, as part of A2020 and Carters cuts.
Now that’s beem rescinded, and numbers going down, a T44 Regiment was inevitable.
Sounds like T44 will shortly be T30…
I have not heard the Regiments are reducing to just two Armoured Sqns.
148 Ch3 leaves 3 x T44 Regiments plus 16 spares, doable but zero reserve and minimal for training, trials.
And zilch for the RWY, the sole reserve Regiment.
I am, of course, only speculating because it is an interesting development…the recce/strike squadron sounds like a good idea/may very well be a runner…and that would seem to require at least some revision to the present Type 44 establishment.
“Speculating” = “making shit up”
when you’re concerned…
‘Croquard had all the appearance of his calling,
But on this particular morning he was rudely bawling.
So the other soldiers laughed, for their spirits felt gay,
As his jokes…’
Jack o’the cudgel, McGonagall
As recon will sure be becoming increasingly drone essential, one might actually question what role on the future battlefield Ajax will have without them, but I will leave real insight on that front to those more closely related to the forces and how they operate. But it has to be said since Ajax was developed (especially considering its delays) drone technology has changed beyond any understanding at that time. I fear it might be in danger of us preparing for a war and proposing platforms comparable to what we knew in the late 1920s that turned out to be a war in the 1940s, which as we know in many, probably most cases bore little to no resemblance to what was known when those decisions were being made.
I have no issue with drones, in fact the opposite. I’m just thinking that this capability should be incorporated into our existing reconnaissance units since that’s their job. It’s great being aware of the enemy but you still have to do something about it one you have spotted them.
The employment of drones, recce, attack and counterdrone, will be ubiquitous, integrated into recce across the piece, including within armoured regiment recce squadrons (where once there was only a recce troop).
From the article above:
‘We are also flying drones under-armour and on the move to integrate the system’s capability into an armoured battle group so we can operate at a tempo unmatched by our enemies.’
I agree.
I think reconnaissance will be done by drones in future, not 38 tonne behemoths.
It’s potentially obsolete before it’s entered service.
It’s interesting there seems to be a massive reevaluation of combined arms warfare post Ukraine. Estonia have just cancelled a plan to spend 420 billion on new IFVs and will be spending the cash on anti drone, anti air and awareness capabilities..
As someone said the drone is now the lord of the battlefield, killing far more than artillery.
It seems drones have now utterly shifted the conflict in three key areas
1) tactical land
2) littoral naval
3) conventional strategic attack
All three areas have been turned into essentially mass attrition warfare.
Based on that and I ask because I would like to understand better, what role will Ajax have and even if it still has what changes will it now need to carry that role out usefully. Not more weight one hopes. I just wonder if a more flexible and cheaper platform built around drone usage might be better now or within years. Any guesses? R
But once you have established local, area, battlefield low and ultra low air superiority/supremacy, how do you counterattack to regain territory?
I suppose the question is actually now.. can you even do that. With the battlefield flooded with cheap drones is it possible to get that ultra low level air superiority.. it seem to me that essentially on land and in the littoral we have hit a 1914 moment and nobody realty knows what to do about it.. but I’m getting the impression that even western armies are coming to the conclusion that mass drone attacks makes traditional combined armed attacks essentially ultra high risk endeavours… as is sending your navy into the littoral.
When we are looking at the Baltic states I suspect they are moving to a fortress policy after looking at Ukraine.. make Russia bleed for any gains stall them and then bury them in strategic attacks until you can force them to the peace table.. I don’t think NATO would now want to try and retake land in the Baltics is to isolated and manovering in a drone environment now seems to be how armies die. instead I suspect they will use Europes greater wealth and potential industrial capacity to force its return through essentially strategic peer warfare ( bombing and strangulation)..
It’s all happening not as 1914 but as 1918 onwards, the birth of the land/air battle, but this time with low and ultra low level micro air:
‘Ukraine’s efforts to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technologies advanced in 2024, with the development of drones capable of locking onto targets identified by operators during the final phase of flight prior to impact. This helped neutralize Russian electronic warfare jamming technologies, which typically seek to disrupt the connection between drones and operators. Ukrainian developers are now working on the next stage in the evolution of AI-driven drones. The goal is to produce a new generation of drones that utilize artificial intelligence not only at the final targeting stage, but throughout their flight…Ukraine’s drone units are already beginning to move beyond the initial concept of “one drone, one operator,” and will be looking to transition toward more widespread use of drone swarm technologies…’
Plus ca change…
The U.S. Navy just sent two ships through the Strsits of Hormuz…
Mate they sent them through because there is a truce in place at present.. so the USN did a transit when Iran agreed not to shot at them…. Let’s keep it real.. if the USN push a transit during a hot engagement I will take it back.
Real exchange:
‘Navy warship 121. This is Sepah (IRGC) Navy station. You must alter course and go back to the Indian Ocean immediately. If you don’t obey my order, you will be targeted…Attention all vessels. Attention all vessels. Attention all vessels in Oman Sea. This is Iranian Sepah Navy. If you see any warship in your vicinity, keep a distance more than 10 miles from them because I am ready to open fire on them without any warning,”
‘US Central Command (CENTCOM), two destroyers — USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG-121) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) — successfully transited the Strait of Hormuz and entered the Arabian Gulf as part of ongoing mine-clearing operations.’
12 April 2026
Were they fired at… no because Iran needs to keep the truce going. You knot very well the outcome would have been far more high risk if both sides were still just shooting at each other… as I said they only went through during the truce.. dress it any way you want.
I’m not dressing it. I give the exact exchanges above. IRGC command and control is pretty much stuffed and drone operators may be none too keen with F 35/F 18/A 10 loitering aloft.
That is my point. Air superiority gives you the freedom to manoeuvre and AI directed counterdrone swarms are already achieving local low level air superiority in Ukraine.
If we are talking vehicle based battlegroups, then I do see that there will be (need) more vehicles fitted with a layered protection system otherwise they won’t survive! Which is where active protection systems (APS) against anti-tank weapons are merged with counter unmanned air systems (CUAS). DE&S have already started on the vehicle CUAS, where they are looking at expanding the capabilities of the remote weapon system (RWS). I believe they are looking at giving RWS the same targeting ability used with the SMASH sighting system fitted to an individual’s weapon. However, the sight only works at relatively close range. You really need a decent stand-off range, so you have more time to engage multiple targets before they get too close and overwhelm you.
There are two main forms of sensor to give you stand-off range, the first is based on optical devices usually operating in the IR spectrum, though UV ones could also be used. However, as the Ukrainian Stormer’s using the ADAT IR sensor found out. Yes, the sensor can detect first person view (FPV) drones, but they get really close. Making it difficult to engage multiple drones before becoming overwhelmed. The clear benefit of the IR based sensors is that they are passive, so won’t give your position away when being used. The major downside is that they are significantly affected by environmental conditions, such as rain, snow and dust.
Active sensors such as radar or Lidar, unlike passive ones (non networked anyway) can be used to generate the full targeting information, i.e. range, elevation, bearing and velocity of a target. That a RWS could then use to engage a drone. However as it’s transmitting, there is a chance that an opponent could detect it and map out your location. The answer to that is use radar with much narrower beams, faster sweep rates, ones that do random frequency hops and have a wider operating band. Lidar is similar to radar in this respect, but relies on the ultra narrow beam and sweep rate to avoid detection.
Of the two, radar is the more robust and probably cheaper system to use/make. Especially if an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is used, that uses at least 4 fixed panels to cover the 360 field of view. As there are no moving parts, unlike Lidar. Off-the-shelf Lidar uses tiny mirrors positioned by small electrical motors to sweep the beam. These can be incredibly delicate and probably not really suited to being mounted on a vehicle bouncing over fields etc.
Due to the really small radar cross section of FPV drones, you really want to be using a very high frequency radar, either operating in the Ku-band (12 to 18Ghz), the Ka-band (26-5 to 40GHz) or preferably the W-band (75 to 110GHz). W-band is called millimetric radar as the operating wavelength is 4mm to 2.7mm. This means it should be capable of getting a return off really small metal objects such as fasteners etc. Also at these frequencies, carbon fibre is really reflective, which is a bonus, as most FPV drones contain a lot of carbon fibre in their construction. However, W-band will suffer significantly from atmospheric attenuation, so its detection range without a lot of oomph is quite short. But with careful design and cooling, you can easily detect objects around 5km away, from an antenna array about the size of a credit card.
Because of the beam size, the radar can very easily swamp digital processing due to the about of data it generates, as it can quite literally draw the objects it sees. However, with today’s processing power this could be a bonus. As it could be used as a pseudo overlaid all weather reality image to the crew with their heads in the vehicle, thereby giving them better situational awareness.
A question that has not been answered is how well Ukraine’s tanks could do if fitted with the Trophy or Iron Fist APS? Prior to the large scale introduction of FPV drones, I believe they would have made a massive difference, as Russia were overly reliant on anti-tank guided weapons to stop Ukrainian tanks. Trophy in particular had shown right up to the Hamas incursion into Israel, that it gave 100% protection to the crew. However, Hamas did find its weak spot which was directly overhead the vehicle. This blind spot was in the process of being fixed, before Israel invaded Lebanon. Hezbollah have now found another way of getting through APS, which I believe is through overwhelming the APS with drones and anti-tank weapons. The main problem here is that the system is probably not detecting the drones far enough away from the vehicle, as it uses an X-band radar, so it doesn’t have time to cycle through the effectors magazine after firing. Iron Fist may be a better solution, as the grenades can be propelled further than Trophy’s shotgun like effectors. But they really need to use a higher frequency radar.
I feel that APS does still have its place on the battlefield, but it needs to be expanded into CUAS. Where the radar is linked to the vehicle’s RWS, and where the machine gun can engage drones at a better stand-off range. A more effective means of taking out these types of drone, would be using a 40mm grenade machine gun (GMG) firing timed air burst ammunition. As the round doesn’t need to hit the drone, the burst of shrapnel might be enough. Plus if drones are flying in close formation, air bursting rounds might be able to a take a few out. This system would work equally well when the vehicle is being used offensively as defensively. Further, if fitted to Ajax, the vehicle’s main gun could also be used against drones, using airburst rounds.
One area that neither side in the Russian-Ukraine War have used yet, is the non nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP) weapon. Publicly, these weapons exist, but I don’t believe they have ever been used in a conflict. There effect is in part determined by the amount of explosive used to initiate the pulse. So compared to the secondary effect from a nuke, their EMP range and strength is fairly weak, though can still fry anything without decent shielding within a 200m radius.
Russia as part of its WARSAW pact tactics, would use nukes to clear a path through NATO’s defences, but also use the EMP from the nuke to kill off any NATO communications, to try to stop/hinder a counter-offensive. I believe Russia (Soviet Union) were the first to make the first NNEMP weapon.
Technically speaking, A NNEMP would have a couple of months of unconstrained usage, before either side could develop a decent counter through hardened and shielded electronics. Which might be enough time to counter the drone threat to enable a breakthrough.
Meanwhile Japan is looking to replace its AH-64 Apaches with unmanned aerial vehicles…
It has to be asked if drones are achieving more kills than artillery because they are superior or because there isn’t enough artillery to go around so drones are filling the gap. Ukraine has made it very clear that they want more artillery, but building guns and shells is harder than drones. The reality is probably that both are needed, the challenge if finding the balance and meeting it.
This might work. But let’s see what happens🤔
Would an Armoured Find and Strike Squadron with drones not suit faster vehicles than a CH 2/3? I see future issues, again with speed, and too heavy for use
Hmm If we have these and separate drone units, we get layered capabilities
It seems a step in the right direction
Patria?
The recce/strike squadron will have Ajax or…
Ajax and Boxer, so I read.
Funny really but as I understand it Ukraine likes their armoured vehicles fast and small for the drone infested battlefield… ironic when you look at what the British Army has ordered…
You do have to wonder how the whole deep reconnaissance strike concept could work in the 21c drone infested battlespace.. when essentially you have a 40km deep line of engagement you cannot move in without risk of dying.. I’m not sure how the deep recce works in that environment .. essentially a good idea in a battlespace of manoeuvring battle groups where you can manoeuvre around them and use artillery strikes using your better awareness .. a bit of a death-sentence when your encountering a drone every few minutes.. and under attack every time you try to move.
I’m not sure either. Maybe it will be refined and the ISTAR sensors in the mobile ground segment, so Ajax, moved elsewhere, leaving more Drones to do that.
With the money spent, they need to find a use for it, even as a traditional recc asset attached the Armoured and Mechanized formations.
It alao occurred to me yesterday that Wavell has vanished. Unless it was only ever an internal Army thing not for public consumption.
The transparent battlefield ends battlefield maneuver.
Yes it does seem to, some people seemed to tried to brush off Ukraine as different from what would happen in a NATO battlefield, but I think it’s finally sinking in that tradition 20c warfare concepts are dying under the pure mass of drones..
Apparently Russia now produces 2 million first person drones a year, and deploys and uses up many thousands per day. That’s a profoundly different type of battlefield that anyone could have envisioned 5 years ago.
So the Tactical battlefield has changed out of all recognition.. I think Hedgehog-2025 was NATOs last gasp at seeing how its traditional manoeuvre battlegroups would work in a drone saturated battlefield.. essentially they did not. It’s no surprise that Estonia the host of Hedgehog-2025 ( which really did have NATO in conniptions) , has rethought its 500million investment in its traditional battle groups IFV into anti drone and information systems.. just keeping its older IFVs going.
Then you have the strategic battlefield.. Russia is now producing 5000 strategic drones a month and firing them off.. 5 years ago all the UK really had to worry about was an SSN getting through and lobbing 20 cruise missiles maybe once a month or so.. with a few goes of Russian strategic bomber squadrons before they were destroyed.. essentially spitting in the wind against a large country.. manybe trying to attack a couple of core military bases but that would be it… now the nation faces the potential of Russia lobbing thousands of strategic range drones at everything every month until the UK folds.. that’s a very very different type of war. It’s blitz vs sending out your armed forces to do and die.
Finally you have the maritime drone impact on the littoral.. this is massive for the UK as one of the great maritime advantages the UK has is where it’s parked essentially the Norwegian Sea, Baltic, North Sea, Irish Sea and even the uk Iceland, Greenland gap is all essentially littoral type environments that are controllable by drone fleets. The big issue it that NATO does not shoot first and the power of the drone in the littoral is really a shoot first advantage as they don’t have the speed/endurance to keep contact and engage at will.. this would allow Russian SSNs to run fast into the Atlantic before the shooting started, forcing a more traditional blue water fight.
But essentially Drones have now changed everything.. and drone production may just be a new metric of deterrence ( after all Putin knows first hand how nasty they are)
Patria?
Will they be looking at putting a counter drone capable 7.62/12.5mm/RS6 type RWS on the CR3s? Would it even possible?
Hypothetical, but if Badenoch said she’ll increase the Army by 20K would this involve more tanks, IFVs and any other goodies?
I would much rather see a couple of extra fast jets squadrons, AEW aircraft, strategic conventional weapons that can attack Russian and ground based air defences and advanced patrol ships/ frigates as well as a massive investment in weapons, Drones and CCS CS for the army we have…. 20,000 more soldiers for the army is such a lowest common denominator vote for me zero thought statement.
💯 % agree. It is sooooo easy for clueless politicians to just say, increase Army by X amount, throw away comment that sounds good to a layman to appear serious when in fact nothing of the sort.
The items you list, add GBAD, and reduce the headcount expansion from 20k to 5K, all of them CS CSS.
Would solve 4 Bde nicely, and give some meat behind the other paper Brigades as well.
The problem is this:
Mission: ‘Role 2: Deter and defend in the Euro-Atlantic: providing one of two Strategic Reserve Corps to NATO, in line with NATO’s Regional Plans, ready to deploy rapidly from the UK to anywhere in the Euro-Atlantic area. The Army must also sustain its contribution to NATO’s forward presence in Estonia and Poland.’
Means: ‘…we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade
Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time.’
Until we can live up to our NATO land army commitments, there is a gaping hole at the heart of NATO’s conventional deterrent.
An increase of 20,000 soldiers is not a number plucked out of thin air.
This is where we need to get to:
‘Although it has not yet been published, the British Army’s revised “Future Soldier” strategy plans to adopt a two division model. 1st (UK) Division will be a light division with two light mechanised brigades (7th and 11th) plus 16th Air Assault Brigade, while 3rd (UK) Division will be a heavy division with two armoured brigades (12th and 20th) plus 1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike brigade.’
That is a requirement for three more deployable brigades, roughly equivalent, all in, to 20,000 extra men.
At the moment there is (again) massive overstretch:
‘We are delivering at 130% of our capacity. We are delivering the same outputs at the same levels of deployment that we did from an Army that was 20,000 bigger than it is now.’
That is, frankly, the only real start point at which Britain starts to regain some credibility as a military power.
Hi Monro.
A few gentle corrections if I may.
The two Brigades for 1st Division are indeed 7 Light Mech, but also 4 Light Brigade, not 11.
11 Light Strike Brigade is part of a separate formation, alongside 77 Bde and the ASO Bde.
Regards the DRS Brigades, 3 Divisions DRSB gas changed identity to 3 DRSB, in line with its parent Division.
1 UK Division also now has “new” DRSB, and takes the 1 DRSB identity.
Of course, there are no new units for this Brigade, it just robbed the previous DRSB of some of its formations.
Both Divisions also have a Logistic Brigade, 101 and 102 OSBs.
The UK also provides Corps Troops for the ARRC, 1 Signal Bde, 104 TSB, 8 Engineer Bde, 2 Medical Group, 7 AD Group, RMP Group.
I think an extra 20k is unrealistic, much as I agree they’d be great to have.
I’d rather we aim for a more modest, but realistic, 5k uplift and target the CS CSS areas that we badly lack. 4 Bde, for example, is bereft of regular CS CSS.
I’m very impressed with your clairvoyance.
‘Although it has not yet been published, the British Army’s revised (revised from the published 2021 ‘Future Soldier’ strategy) ‘Future Soldier’ strategy plans to adopt a two division model.’
Are you giving us a sneak preview?
Clairvoyance!
No mate, most of that orbat has been the set up for years, and some recent changes can all be tracked down if you research enough like I do, including the simple task of following the right twitter feeds who have lots of OSINT and the occasional insider snippets, such as revealing Rapid Sentry before most knew it existed.
The movement of some supporting Bdes from the Field Army ( now renamed Land Forces, another pointless rebranding ) into the ARRC was widely reported.
The Army is now so small essentially the bulk of the Field Army is in the ARRC, one of the SACEUR reserve Corps ypu mentioned.
The designation changes with 1 and 3 DRSB are on Twitter.. The “new” Bde exists, there is a photo of it’s formation parade with the two named Brigade commanders in attendance.
Official army announcements? Zero publicly, AFAIA, and looking at the Army website is a waste of time for any serious researcher, changes happen long before any updates, and the details are lacking.
My sceptical side often thinks….by design.
The army orbat looks good on paper, better than the mess it was before with so many Bdes shoved into 1 Division.
The problem remains the Divisions are now 2 manoeuvre Bdes strong, where before they were 3, some of them are paper Brigades with no CS CSS without listing reserve formations in their orbat, and considering they are tied to providing Cabrit, and evdn sent to Ukraine if our ignorant PM had his way, hardly a reserve.
Yes, we are too small.
Great stuff! I think a reorganisation has to take place as per the SDR Army Corps NATO commitment to give us a three brigade armoured division and a three brigade light division together with a further recce/strike brigade. That will require 20,000 extra soldiers but it cannot happen without significant budget increases and, under this government, net zero subsidy, that seems unlikely.
Monro, we have had just two deployable divisions (and no more) in the Field Army Orbat for decades, albeit they have flaws. 1st and 3rd division. We provide to ARRC the commander, HQ, those two divisions and Corps troops – that has been the British remit since ARRC was created (morphed from 1(BR) Corps in 1992. Other nations provide other divisions.
This is not some clairvoyant aspiration. Certainly those two divs need structural reorganisation and equipping with modern equipment and some manning gaps closed, but that is second order. The two divs exist now as tangible entities.
No-one believes that the British Army has two deployable divisions, certainly not CGS:
‘…we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade
Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time…we are delivering at 130% of our capacity. We are delivering the same outputs at the same levels of deployment that we did from an Army that was 20,000 bigger than it is now.’
Overstretch creates long term problems of retention, recruitment and shortened equipment lifespans.
As I say, nothing will happen to ameliorate this situation for at least the next three years.
Lord Robertson…you know the rest…
“Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff failing to confirm that the British Army could deploy 1000 troops to the continent of Europe.”
Are we sure she didn’t just mean £20k?
Things like this may be the death knell for Ajax. Undecided whether that’s a good thing or not. But it would give army and HMG an excuse to bin it.
Ajax will be the drone trucks. That said since a Spike NLOS can have 30km range and in the future more, i also can see them as precision strike artillery of sorts.
Them = Ajax with Spike NLOS or equivalent.
Nope you are still going to need armoured vehicles for the crews in the Sqn