Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Infantry modernisation: the british army situation and the Allies - UPDATED



The British Army has gone through a three years Platoon Combat Experiment (PCE), started in 2013, that has looked at the weapons employed, the structure of the platoon and section, and at alternative solutions with a particular focus on weight reduction.

The PCE, in turn, was closely connected to the findings of Project HERCULES, a DSTL-led series of qualitative studies into load carriage, examining the impact of weight of equipment on agility, lethality, survivability and cognitive ability. The studies determined that in order to avoid physical and cognitive impairment, the load on the dismounted close combat soldier should not exceed 30% of body weight in fighting order and 45% in marching order.
In Afghanistan, the british soldier routinely carried a 58 kg load, amounting to more than 80% of body weight. Survivability (personal protection, C-IED equipment) amounted to almost 21 kg by itself, with 19% for lethality (weapon, ammunition, grenades etc).
The load in marching order should be reduced to as little as 25 kg, and 20 in assault order or in function of climate challenges and cumulative fatigue.
It is immediately evident that in order to more than halve the carried weight, compromises are inevitable. A series of projects were initiated to try and deliver to the values emerged from HERCULES:

Project PAYNE, named after fusilier Tom Payne of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Normandy in 1944, was created to come up with training, tactics and procedures to try and emulate the relatively lightweight assault load that would have been familiar to the original Payne. In practice, this was the origin of the “Fight Light” tactical direction.

Project ATLAS was born out of the acute awareness that there are limits to the compromises that can be accepted in order to fight light. Timely access to ammunition, weapon systems and other equipment remains essential and so a load-carrying mobility platform is indispensable. A mobility platform is needed to ensure the platoon carries what it needs and can rapidly get back to higher-level Combat Service Support for resupply. In theory, project ATLAS was meant to be open to every kind of solution, including a return to pack animals. In practice, the Army is looking for some kind of vehicle and, ideally, unmanned.

Project SPARTA  can be summarized in “eat your rations, damn you”. It was started to counter the habit of throwing away ration packs and looking for more tasty alternatives. Contingency operations require proper alimentation to ensure the soldier is fit for his mission and “other options”, namely fresh food prepared in FOBs, won’t be available.  

With the end of combat operations in Afghanistan, the army has been busy trying to craft the way forwards for the infantry platoons and navigating the way between UORs, UORs taken into core and long-term solutions.
A major change is now about to take place.


Goodbye LMG

After numerous reports in the last few years, it seems that the time has truly come for the British Army sections to say goodbye to the L110A2/3 LMG, based on the ubiquitous Minimi used in many countries. The decision to drop it from the Section, which has been and is likely to be subject of much discussion and criticism, is due to a perceived ineffectiveness of the weapon in her role of suppressing the enemy.

During the tests of PCE Year 1, the LMG performed poorly: it was determined that 70% of the rounds fired not only missed but did so by such a distance that they did not suppress the adversary. This has adverse consequences on weight efficiency within the section, as it means that each gunner is carrying many kilograms of ineffective ammunition during a period of fighting.

Infantry Trials and Development Unit (ITDU) gave the LMG a second chance in Year 2 (2014) by refitting a number of machine guns with a longer barrel. The British Army employs the short-barreled “para” configuration and it was thought that an upgrade might significantly improve the results. However, ITDU assessed that the change of barrel did not help the LMG. The final recommendation was to remove it from the Section.

The recommendation must not have been entirely well received because the LMG continued to be used for a further three years. On 14 March 2016, speaking at the Soldier Equipment and Technology Advancement Forum (SETAF) in London, Lt.Col. Iain Moodie, SO1, Dismounted Close Combat, Capability Directorate Combat, went on record saying that the “options” for the future of the platoon included losing the LMG but also the GPMG Light Role and the 60mm “commando” Mortar.
The GPMG and Mortar “options” were particularly surprising because, for what little has emerged about the PCE, nothing seems to suggest either  decision would be wise.
Again, someone within the army evidently said “no, thanks”, because all three weapons remained in use. They have since been spotted repeatedly in training exercises.





The first image shows the "legacy" L110, while the three images above show the "LMG FIST" with the FIST 1 STA sights, new forened with rails and grip pod and new buttstock

On 13 March 2018, at the Future Soldier Technology conference in London, it was the turn of Lt.Col. Nick Serle, Commanding Officer of ITDU, to announce (again) the death of the LMG. It seems to have been dropped for real this time, but Serle added that the final confirmation from Army HQ is still pending. The final decision is expected later this year.
Gone is the idea of also removing the GPMG: Serle confirmed that it will be held at platoon level. Obviously we are talking of a GPMG in Light Role configuration. At least one per platoon: there was a time when the British Army platoon included a Maneuver Support element of 4 men armed with two GPMG LRs, commanded by an NCO, but there is no way for now to tell whether a return to such organization is a possibility.

The LMG is swapped out in favor of another L85A2 rifle, but the L129A1 Sharpshooter is also confirmed and the Army plans to order more rifles to ensure the Sections can receive it.
The USMC is at least considering adopting Magpul drum magazines holding 60 or even 100 rounds for use with the M27 IAR, which would help in sustaining the rate of fire. There are no suggestions about the British Army considering an equal move, and it might not even be feasible anyway considering where the magazine of the L85 sits. A drum there might prove uncomfortable. It would be great to at least experiment with them, though. 


SA80A3

The Army has begun the transition from L85A2 TES to newly refurbished L85A3, slightly lighter and more accurate.

The L85A2 “Theatre Entry Standard” was born through an Operation Herrick UOR. The handguard was replaced with a Picatinny Quad-rail assembly developed and produced by Daniel Defense, accompanied by widespread adoption of the vertical foregrip with extendable bipod (Grip Pod). An interim weapon sight adapter system was installed, as well as a Vortex flash eliminator. In 2011, the Magpul Industries polymer-made EMAG magazine was introduced to replace the previous, heavier steel one, achieving a considerable weight saving (from 249 grams to 130), with a million magazines on order over a 4-year period. On a typical load of 12 magazines, a soldier ends up carrying 1.56 kg less than before: definitely not bad.
For a while, the SA80 had the SUSAT sight replaced with the ACOG 4x, but eventually received the ELCAN Specter 4x, selected as part of the Future Integrated Soldier Technology – Surveillance and Target Acquisition (FIST - STA).

The evolution of L85A2 (bottom) to L85A2 TES

The Grip Pod

The quad-rail handguard that is the key component of TES

The A3 modification again replaces the fore grip (Quad rail), which is now attached to the main body only, leaving the barrel free to vibrate naturally, improving accuracy. The other great change is that there now is a full length picatinny rail on top which enables the clipping in-line of different sights. In practice, the day sight should become a permanent fixture, never removed, while night vision aids, digital sights or other tools will be installed in line with the day sight, ahead of it, and used in combination. This development has been on the cards for probably close to a decade, which makes it a source of mixed feelings. Great to finally be there, but embarrassing that it took so long. The A3 also brings a weight saving of 0.150 kg from the TES, which had already driven down the (way too great) weight of the L85 to 5,29 kg (loaded and with sight fitted).



The L85A3 with new quad-rail front end and full lenght picatinny rail at the top for future-proofing the adoption of new sights. Note in the last image the In Line mounting of a night II sight ahead of the day sight. 

Cranfield University had worked alongside the MOD to further modify the L85 and drive down weight. In January 2011, they had delivered prototype P1, complete with picatinny rails at the front, grip pod and ELCAN, weighting just 4829g, a reduction of 461g in weight. The P1A with L123A3 (H&K AG36) grenade launcher, without sights, came at 4629g. Unfortunately it does not seem to have been continued in any way, probably in no small part because the army was planning on a replacement rifle selection beginning in 2014, with deliveries in 2020.

In some ways it is better, for once, to have pushed the L85 replacement programme to the right because the US Army has just launched (again, we should add) a competition for its own new rifle and the adoption of a new, intermediate caliber currently looks almost assured. Considering the effects on NATO of a US decision to abandon the 5.66x45, the British Army is not wrong in waiting out and see what the latest American technological developments will bring.


The Sharpshooter

Produced by Lewis Machine & Tool, the “Sharpshooter” has a 16 inches barrel, a lightweight polymer magazine for 20 rounds, an Harris bipod and fires 7.62 x 51 mm NATO rounds with high accuracy easily out to 800 meters. In Afghanistan it is issued at least on the basis of one per Section.
The initial order, placed in August 2009, was for 440 guns for 1.5 million pounds, but several sources indicate that consistent follow on orders might have already been placed. While the number of weapons procured remains unknown, this August 2012 article suggests LMT had handed over some 1500 L129A1s. Other sources suggest 3000 might already be in service. 

In Afghanistan the L129A1 was also used in response to another UOR, that for a Sniper Support Weapon for the No2 in sniper pairs. The main difference between the Sharpshooter and Sniper No.2 is made up by the sights: the Sharpshooter is fitted with a Trijicon ACOG 6X sight, compensated for bullet drop out to 1200 meters and fitted with a secondary Close Quarter Combat CQB sight on top, the Trijicon Ruggerized Miniature Reflex RMR. The Sniper No. 2 is used with a more powerful scope sight Schmidt & Bender (possibly migrated from the L96/L118 rifles being progressively retired) for day engagement and with OSTI MUNS night sight for nocturnal use. The MUNS (Magnum Universal Night Sight) is an image intensifying night sight that is installed ahead of the day scope and allows engagements out to 700 or more meters at night. The MUNS would appear to be used as night-sight solution for the rifles in Sharpshooter role as well. It can be seen mounted on a L129A1 at minute 4:03 of this Army video.



The L129A1 as Sniper No 2 weapon, with suppressor and appropriate sight. Whether the army is going ahead with this or has changed its mind is not quite clear. 
L129A1 in Sharpshooter configuration, with the ACOG 6x sight. The quest for a fully satisfactory suppressor for the Sharpshooter role isn't over yet. 

Sharpshooter dusk firing, wiht In Line mounting of night sight ahead of the ACOG 

During the post-Afghanistan experiments, however, the good reputation of the L129A1 on operations clashed with unsatisfactory results in tests meant to determine its future role within the army.
The weapon was initially rejected as Sniper No2 solution, but that decision might have been reversed: the L129A1 has appeared in numerous photographs of sniper pairs in training since then. On the other hand, in many other photos the No2s can be seen armed with L85s.
In 2015 the L86 Light Support Weapon made a brief appearance in sniper No2 role in photos from the Sniper Platoon of 1 PWRR. It was a temporary solution on the way to having enough L129A1 in the armory, I was told at the time, but the Sniper Support Weapon solution remains elusive to this day.

The Sharpshooter was assessed as unsatisfactory in its Section role as well. The army found that the 7.62x51 round wasn’t actually that much better than the 5.56 over the same 600 meters distance, while the rifle was assessed more or less incapable to do what it had been procured for: reaching out to 800 meters.
At one point, the Army considered dropping it and resurrecting the L86 in its place: that was roughly the period when it appeared in use with 1 PWRR.

In the middle, "pimp my L86 LSW" edition. For a while, the return of the L86 as the core Sharpshooter solution was on the cards, up to sometime in 2015. 

Eventually, the tests proved that the marginal advantages given by the L86’s longer barrel and bipod were not enough to suggest its return to widespread use due to it being more complex to bring to bear in close combat than the L85.
Fortunately, the problems with the L129A1 have since been solved by modifying the ACOG sight with a new reticle: the previous wasn’t properly ballistically matched to the weapon and ammunition. As of 2016, Sharpshooter is now to be employed with the new L59 High Performance ammunition, which gives it the reach needed.

Standard and HP munitions as produced by BAE for the British armed forces 

As said earlier, the Army is now looking to procure more L129A1. It might already be doing so: on 31 August 2017 the MOD published a contract for 3 years of support, with options for another 2 years, which included arrangements for procuring new batches of rifles.


Suppressors

Initial trials with suppressors were primarily inspired by the need to reduce the number of soldiers suffering noise induced hearing loss (NIHL), but substantial other tactical advantages can be obtained by applying suppressors to the whole range of platoon weapons. PCE Year 2 was, again, a key year. Suppressors for every weapon including LMG and GPMG were issued for trials to Burma Coy, 1 LANCS.
Some comments on the experiment were contained in the regimental yearbook, and from them it appears that the results were good on the L85, Sharpshooter and LSW, while LMG and GPMG suppressors resulted in much increased recoils and severe heat-related problems in the suppressors after sustained firing.


GPMG with suppressor during trials

Suppressors have not yet appeared in widespread use in the British Army but are likely to still be part of ITDU’s priorities. Elsewhere, the US Marines intend to adopt suppressors on every weapon across a battalion, which means giving suppressors even to the .50 HMG. The USMC had already kitted out three full companies in 2016 and deployed one fully-suppressor equipped company in Norway in May 2017, leaving the British Army behind. 


The platoon mortar

The 60mm platoon mortar is not mentioned in the news report coming out of the March 13 conference. The 2016 speech by Lt. Col. Moodie in 2016, instead, had touched the issue: Moodie was quoted describing it as woeful in capacity”, apparently due to a lack of accuracy which prevented a first round hit most of the time. The Lt. Col. Went on record suggesting that a multi-role, reusable shoulder-fired weapon such as the venerable Carl Gustav could replace the mortar giving “first round hit capability” out to 1000 meters, with a multitude of possible effects.

Going back to the PCE Year 2 experiments, however, it is interesting to read in the regimental yearbook of the LANCS how the platoon commanders carrying out the experimental attacks actually sing out the platoon mortar as the best item in their arsenal. 



The mortar and the sharpshooter were the professional killers within the platoon, destroying the enemy at ranges of 600 meters. A result that more or less confirms after-action studies and reports from Afghanistan, where precision weapons and HE did most of the killing. The MOD Operation Herrick study, released (in heavily redacted form) after the end of the combat operations, mentions in the “Combat” chapter that on Herrick 18 a record 90% of all enemy killed were due to snipers and sharpshooters.

The 60mm mortar was procured as a UOR. Indeed, two variants of 60mm mortar were procured, both from Hirtenberger: the M6-640 is used at Platoon level, and is an Hand-Held (HH) ‘Commando’ weapon. In Commando mode it weights around 4.6 kg and is 726 mm long with a 1921 meters maximum range at Charge 3, although the army assesses it as effective out to around 1300 meters.

1 RIFLES training with handheld platoon mortar, September 2017. Reports of the 60mm mortar death were, fortunately, exaggerated. It might still have a short service life, however. 

The M6-895, with longer barrel ( 984 mm, 5.5 kg ) and bipod, is a lighter alternative to the L16 81mm mortar, and as such offered more flexibility in Afghanistan. Mounted with baseplate and bipod, it has a maximum range of 3610 meters, is 977mm long and weights 19,5 kg. The M6-895 can also be used in Hand-Held mode after undergoing a simple 2-minutes conversion. In Hand-Held mode it can be used to maximum Charge 3, with a range of 2100 meters.

The 60mm ammunition is the same, and there is a huge assortment of rounds available: the 1.4 kg HE bomb generates 590 splinters, and there is a Practice round, a Smoke-White Phosphorous with a 90 seconds burnt time, a 90-seconds Red Smoke round, an IR illuminating round capable to provide 35 seconds of illumination over a 1200 meters radius area, and others.   
The M6-640 can be fitted with the same bipod and plate as the M6-895. For both mortars, the maximum rate of fire is 30 rounds per minute.  

The M6-895 was rapidly removed from active use after the end of operations in Afghanistan but the M6-640 for now goes on.
However, keep in mind Moodie’s suggestion about possibly replacing it with Carl Gustav…


Reusable Multi-Role Medium Range Shoulder Launchers (MRSLs)

It hasn’t made the news so far, but the MOD is looking for a new rocket system and has been moving pretty rapidly. Back in January it invited two tenders to make their bids. According to the dates on the document, both bids should have been filed in by march 8. The proposed contract award date was 31 August 2018. The contract would conclude in 2023.

The race is between Saab Dynamics AB and Instalaza S.A, which practically means Carl Gustav M4 versus C90 Reusable. And while the MOD is specialized in weird decisions, it is pretty hard to imagine the Carl Gustav not winning this race after having just been selected by both US Army and US Marine Corps for issue to every platoon.

While there is no certainty that a contract will materialize and there are no numbers given in public about this programme, the contract notice put the contract value in a range going from 24 to 30 million pounds, which suggests a high number of launchers.

If the latest Carl Gustav M4 ends up replacing the 60mm mortar it will not make the Platoon lighter. Even after shaving off a lot of weight (the M4 at around 7 kg effectively halves the weight of the old M2) and length, it is still longer and heavier than the mortar. Ammunition especially is large and heavy and probably represents the real challenge connected with introducing Carl Gustav to the platoon.

Carl Gustav
C90 Reusable 

What the M4 brings is precision and multi-role capability. There is a very wide range of rounds on offer, delivering a multitude of effects. The ADM401 (Area Defence Munition) is a deadly anti-personnel solution containing 1100 flechettes. It was used by the US forces in Afghanistan and was part of the reason why Carl Gustav became popular again. HE and HEAT options exist, as do airburst capability for hitting enemies behind cover, plus illumination and smoke rounds. The HEDP Dual Purpose is particularly suited for use against fortifications and a dedicate anti-structure munition, the ASM 509, is also available.
The US Army has even funded initial studies for guided munitions for the Carl Gustav under the project name Massive Overmatch Assault Round (MOAR).
With the right munition at hand, the Carl Gustav can do everything the mortar can, including reaching out to 1300 meters or even beyond, potentially, with rocket-assisted ammunition (in some case already available). It can also do things the mortar cannot do. But ammunition variety is both a blessing and a curse, since it means having more stuff to carry. And each round is more effective but also larger and heavier than a 60mm mortar bomb.

In reality, the introduction of Carl Gustav will be an exercise in restraint as well as an upgrade. The CG is very unlikely to be used for everything it could potentially do. The US Army has adopted only a few munitions, and the British Army can be expected, for obvious reasons, to do as much.
With the army well equipped with thousands of NLAW missiles which can be distributed as necessary, the Carl Gustav is unlikely to focus on anti-armor tasks. A basic munition with the highest possible multi-purpose effect will be the base round. The flechette roud for anti-infantry capability could also be very interesting. The Carl Gustav would probably become the Platoon’s primary breaching and bunker-busting weapon, replacing the Matador Anti-Structure Munition which is heavy, bulky, single-role and, I dare saying, probably a purchase the army regrets.
Illumination is probably better left to ROCKET HAND-FIRED PARA ILLUM MK3, much smaller and lighter to carry around.
The ability to put up large smoke screens at range, instead, might be important enough to require the relevant CG munition. This kind of decisions will be the complex part of a Carl Gustav re-introduction, in my opinion. The 40mm grenade launcher has a role to play as well, obviously, and the two systems will have to complete each other.

In my opinion, the adoption of Carl Gustav can do a lot of good to the Platoon, although I’m not convinced that losing the indirect fire capability of the mortar is a smart choice. I don’t see a lot of armies rushing towards withdrawal of the 60mm mortar, although in the US Army and US Marines case said mortar is not hand-held but base-plate and bipod mounted and is concentrated within the Weapons Platoon within a Rifle Company. The British Army, unfortunately, does not enjoy the “luxury” of having a permanent, dedicate maneuver support element within the Rifle Companies, and this is a major issue that would need fixing.

The downside of Carl Gustav is weight and bulk, particularly through ammunition supply needs. I believe it will only be truly successful if the decade-old Light Mobility Platform requirement finally gets a proper answer beyond the Quad-Bike and trailer as gap-filler.


The grenade launcher

Moodie was also quoted saying that a standalone multiple grenade launcher was a possible replacement for the current underslung grenade launcher (UGL) capability. For now, no decisions have been taken on this, but the option remains on the table. ITDU is looking into possibly introducing an airburst capability to deal with enemies behind cover. Another attractive option on the table is stepping up to Medium Velocity 40mm grades that would reach out potentially all the way to 800 meters from 300, 400 at a stretch now.
Going with an alternative multi-shot weapon and abandoning the underslung launcher remains an option.

The underslung grenade launcher (H&K AG36, adopted by the Army as L17A1 for use on the L119A1 carbine and as L123A1, A2, A3 for use on SA80) was at first seen also as a replacement of the ancient 81mm platoon mortar, despite reaching only half as far at most. Naturally it didn’t work out satisfactorily and the 60mm mortar was procured under UOR.
The UGL employs Low Velocity 40mm grenades. The High Velocity grenades (40x53) are those used by the GMG, and are obviously unsuitable for the UGL, but several types of Medium Velocity rounds (in 40x46 or 40x51 mm calibers) are available and/or in development. These add quite a lot of recoil force the Grenadier has to deal with, but carry more explosive and double the range out to 800 meters or more.

Differently from the older US M203 grenade launcher, the UK-adopted, H&K AG36 UGL is readily capable to take the longer 40x51 mm grenade, eventually, as its breech does not slide forwards for reload, but swings open sideways. The US forces for once lagged behind the british army in this respect and have since adopted the H&K AG36 as the M320, which the USMC are only putting into service now.
Needless to say, despite having an appropriate launcher the army has failed to make any substantial progress on medium velocity rounds despite them having been around, again, for around a decade.

What the soldiers really do not like is the current sight and Rapid Aiming Module for the underslung grenade launcher, which was procured as part of FIST 1A together with the currently used rifle sights.
It is amazing how often the British Army discovers that the kit that it has literally just procured is not actually good, but we’d better not expand too much on this. It might get rude quickly.
The current UGL sight was provided as a UOR by Istec Services of Hertfordshire, coupled with the FIST-specific Rapid Acquisition Aiming Module fire control system jointly developed by Vectronix of Switzerland and Wilcox Industries. RAAM calculates the distance, angle of declination or inclination, and adjusts the point of aim accordingly thanks to an in-built laser range finder. The problem is that said LRF is slow and keeps the gunner exposed for too long a time. It also makes the whole module bulky and heavy. It can be clipped on and off very quickly, but it is just not proving popular. When everything works it reduces the Circular Error Probable to 5 meters over a 300 meters range, but there is a clear wish for something smaller, lighter and better in general.

In terms of multi-shot stand-alone grenade launchers the most obvious candidate would be the American M32A1. The US Marines, despite being in the process of acquiring the M320 underslung grenade launcher (which can also be configured as a stand-alone system and accept non-lethal baton rounds), might be evaluating the possibility of foregoing the UGL in favor of the M32A1. Recent photos from the so-called “ Über Squad” experiment show no UGLs on any of the M27 rifles in sight, while a M32A1 is present. Über Squad is introducing a wholesale modernization of the USMC Rifle squad with adoption of suppressors on all weapons, M27 IARs for every soldier with the exception of the Sharpshooters who get the M38 (a M27 with the appropriate sight for the new role), new helmets and body armour and hearing protection and night vision comparable to those found normally within Special Forces only.
The M32A1 is already in use, but its distribution varies according to the mission. It is compatible with Medium Velocity munitions.

Uber Squad on the move. Suppressors, M27s, no UGLs. But looking to the left, you can see the barrel of an M32A1 poking out from behind the back of the first Marine in the picture. 




It is easy to see where US Army, USMC and British Army “touch” each other. The British Army is heading from an ideas point of view, having begun tests and reflections earlier than the others in several cases, but it lags terribly when it comes to moving from experiment to widespread adoption.


Light Mobility Platform and whatever it is called this week

Light Mobility Platform has been a thing for many, many years. The idea of having an unmanned load carrier in support of the infantry is just as old. But the repeated attempts to fix a problem partially self-inflicted by withdrawing the Supacat ATMP have generated only failures. And Quad-Bikes, the only system that has stuck around.

The Springer UOR was a complete, utter failure. Purchased in April 2009 and sent in Afghanistan to replace the Supacat ATMP, it was removed from service in March 2011, setting a new record in poor procurement that will probably (and hopefully) last a long time.

The Springer UOR: a complete failure. 

The ATMP was in many ways an absolutely brilliant vehicle. It was fully airportable, partially amphibious, it could easily carry 1 ton and more than 1 and a half ton accepting reduced performance. It had a series of smart add-on modules that enabled it to self-load and move pallets. It could tow L118 Light Gun. It could tow and carry the Air Portable Fuel Containers MK 5.
The ATMP was reportedly suffering from extremely poor reliability in Afghanistan, however, eating up a lot of spares that had to be transported at great cost and risk. Parts of its automotive system were no longer compliant with EU regulations either, and so the decision was taken to remove it from service and sell it some 147 units.

Unmanned ATMP experiments 
In 2005 another load carrier had been procured, in very small numbers, the Roush LAS 100 RE Balter, but it too ended up withdrawn from service and sold off.

The Yamaha 450 Quad Bike with trailer is the only UOR which stuck around. On the sides of the trailer you can see the elements of the short gap crossing equipment.

Polaris MV850 and tactical trailer. A possible upgrade from the current solution. 

The Supacat offer to develop an ATMP 2 was never taken up as the MOD felt that it would have no automotive points of contact with the original ATMP. Somehow, this was seen as a negation of potential logistical advantages (commonality) that were never to be realized anyway with the Springer or Balter. Army logic walks weird and mysterious paths.
Supacat did not give up on the brilliant ATMP and in 2014 it was marketing a “MK IV” derivative. The solution to the army problems is in easy reach, but instead the Army is continuing to trial platform after platform after platform, never getting any into service.

The only UOR that stuck around is the Yamaha Grizzly 450 Quad Bike with trailer, procured for use in Afghanistan and confirmed into service. A November 2016 Written Answer disclosed that the Army had 688 quad bikes. These have also become the mobility platform for Sniper Pairs.

Quad Bike showcased on its Short Gap Crossing solution 

In more recent times the Army has been trialing the Polaris MV850 quad-bike as potential upgrade, along with a high-mobility trailer with 1000 lbs of payload.
DAGOR light 4x4, 6x6 bikes, unmanned vehicles have all been tested and trialed. Lately the focus seems to have been on the Pardus Defence & Security HIPPO X, an impressive fully amphibious load carrier with trailer which can carry a lot of stuff: used in support to a Rifles platoon it can carry 29 daysacks, 54 x 60mm Bombs, 2400 rounds of 7.62 ammunition, 1600 rounds of 5.56, 3 NLAW, 3 ASM, 2 water jerry cans, and the batteries and rechargers for radios and other equipment.
With the addition of a trailer it can support a mortar section by carrying 3 L16 mortars, 312 bombs, 12 daysacks, 1 Jerry can and batteries, for a complete load exceeding 2 tons.
One HIPPO with trailer can carry a Javelin section with 8 reloads or a fire support group with two .50 HMGs complete of 6000 rounds plus a Grenade Machine Gun with 320 rounds.
The HIPPO can generate 5 KW of power which enables it to recharge batteries or provide power for other systems, such as surveillance cameras or, perhaps, a tethered drone for surveillance.
The Army would really like to put into service an unmanned platform for this load carrying role, and at the Army Warfighting Experiment 2018 british soldiers are getting to play with a HIPPO converted for remote control and unmanned navigation.
The Director of Pardus Defence & Security, Lt. Col. (Ret’d) Rob O'Connor,  was commander of ITDU until 2016 and before that Dismounted Close Combat (DCC) Programme Manager within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), so he should have a good idea of what the British Army likes and dislikes. If the HIPPO X can reliably do everything it says on the tin, it could give a huge helping hand to the infantry platoon.


HIPPO X trials 

Unmanned HIPPO X at AWE 2018 

Incidentally, the MOD is looking to procure 14 tethered UAS systems, and if the HIPPO X could truly deploy them and feed them with enough power, it could become, among other things, a movable “observation tower” for battlefield surveillance. Carrying the required munitions, it could enable the Carl Gustav to open up an entire world of possibilities for the infantry platoon. 

Naturally, although Guto Bebb, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence said in a written answer that the MOD is not currently considering following the US Army’s own Squad Manoeuvre Equipment Transport (SMET), the eventual US Army decision will no doubt be noted.


Weapon sights

The British Army’s best weapon sights remain the ones delivered under the now defunct FIST, Future Integrated Soldier Technology, programme. The initial order, signed in September 2009, was for delivery and in-service support of 95 Infantry Company ‘packs’, but in December 2010 a follow-on order of 51 further packs brought the total to 146 Companies.
From that contract come the army received:

The Lightweight Day Sight ELCAN Specter OS4X each man in the Section gets one. It is the intended replacement for the SUSAT, and the plan predicted a gradual retirement of the SUSAT, to be complete by 2025. The draconian reductions to the size of the armed forces in 2010 and 2011 probably accelerated the transition by removing a sizeable part of the requirement. The ELCAN is a 4x sight, and is fitted as backup for close range engagement with the Shield-produced Mini Sight Reflex Red-Dot, said to be the smallest and most compact red-dot sight in the world.


The Fist Thermal Sight (FTS) is a high performance un-cooled Thermal Weapon Sight enabling detection, acquisition & engagement capabilities out to extended ranges, in every weather conditions and even in total absence of any external light source. The FTS is equipped with a 640x480 format un-cooled thermal core, and is powered from AA batteries.
The FTS has an integrated Infra Red Laser Aimer (IRLA) for enhanced target identification, along with the integrated fall-back Close Quarter Battlesight (CQB) red dot sight from Shield, as we said earlier.



The FTS also has the ability to be controlled remotely via the weapon hand guard, again demonstrating an enhancement in the wider integration context.
In each 4-man Fire Team, the FTS was meant to be assigned to the Leader and to the LMG Gunner.

The Common Weapon Sight the Pilkington Kite night sight is a Generation III Image Intensification (II) night sight capable to use starlight or moonlight to provide night vision. In the Army is known as Common Weapon Sight, and has been around for some time. Under FIST STA, the sight was upgraded and fitted with the Shield red dot, and then re-issued. It is used by the Grenadier.

The MaxiKite 2 is the big brother of the CWS, and just as CWS it was already in service prior to FIST STA contract. Like the CWS, it was upgraded and fitted with the red-dot before being re-issued. The Maxikite allows targeting at night over long range (600 meters plus).



The already mentioned Grenadier UGL Fire Control System.



The MOSKITO Commander’s Target Locator: a binocular day/night target acquisition system, weighting less than 1.2 kg and offering 5x daylight and 3x night magnification with a 24 hours of night vision observation duration with a set of batteries. MOSKITO measures range, azimuth and vertical angle, locating NATO standard targets up to 4 km away. In 2014 the MOSKITO was also selected for use by Mortar Fire Controllers, replacing the old LH40C.

The Ruggerized Digital Camera is a sturdy, highly resistant digital camera to take photos or short videos valuable for intelligence examination. Issued one per Section. This commercial off-the-shelf camera produced by Olympus was specified for FIST due to its ability to transmit and receive images from patrols. Weighing only 200 grams (6.4 oz.), it is designed for harsh conditions. The camera reportedly operates even after being immersed in 10 meters (33 ft.) of water or dropped 2 meters.

The Lightweight Infantry Periscope. Produced by Uniscope, Israel, this foldable periscope is issued one per Section and enables soldier to look past a corner without exposing themselves. It is seen as an interim solution: cameras integrated in the rifle sight relaying imagery to a head mounted display were trialed, but judged not yet mature enough. Such capability remains a dream and will likely not be realized before digital weapon sights enter service. The LIP offers a 12-deg. field of view and 3X magnification.

A key complement for the weapon sights is the Laser Light Module MK3, procured in 2014 with a 28 million framework contract with Rheinmetall for 7000 systems in the first production batch. It can accurately point to targets 800 metres away, and weights just 244 grams. Compared to the earlier LLM, it retains its zero more effectively, has a more powerful visible and IR laser and adds strobe effect on the torch for a 'less than lethal' effect option when conducting room clearances.

LLM MK3

For the future, the Army looks to in-line sighting night sights that will be slotted ahead of the Elcan on the new full-length rail on L85A3. New sights fusing Imagine Intensification and Infra Red plus the ability to share data should be acquired by 2025; while for 2030 the army hopes to get all the way up to augmented reality to provide the soldier with improved identification and targeting capabilities.
The British Army already supported, funded and trialed a variety of advanced sights, including the Qioptiq SAKER fused II-IR sight and the Digital optical Weapons Sight (DOWS) plus the Support Weapon remote View optic, or SWrVo, developed by Qioptiq and istec. Such digital sight projects, dating back to 2013, exploited technology borrowed from Smartphones in order to provide the soldier with a clearer image of the target through techniques such as contrast enhancement and image sharpening.

This was the aspiration back in 2011. The dates have changed, the general direction of travel has not. "FIST 2" no longer exists. FIST 1, which delivered the sights seen earlier, will remain the only FIST to deliver something. The MOD now talks of Integrated Soldier System, and the monolithic, "soldier of the future" programme as originally envisaged under FIST is now a more flexible collection of projects and studies. 

During 2016, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) has been working with industry partners, Roke Manor Research, QinetiQ and Systems Engineering and Assessment (SEA) successfully demonstrated the integration of multiple sensor and navigation aids for the benefit of the dismounted soldier:

The Dismounted Close Combat Sensors (DCCS) system uses inertial and visual navigation sensors when GPS signals are not available. Taking the last known GPS location, DCCS combines information from visually tracked features captured by a helmet camera and inertial sensors, accurately calculating where an individual is, allowing people to be tracked in buildings and tunnels.DCCS can also help to prevent so-called ‘blue on blue’ incidents where friendly forces are mistaken for the enemy. The system allows commanders to track not only the location of personnel, but GPS, inertial and magnetic sensors on the weapon also accurately track where it is pointing. Reliable knowledge of both the location and the weapons direction instantly identifies if friendly troops are being targeted.A combination of camera, laser and orientation sensors mounted on the personal weapon will allow them to highlight targets to other troops, unmanned aerial vehicles and aircraft at the press of a button. This will be quicker, easier and less confusing than giving verbal instructions; it is also extremely accurate. The system has many other uses such as identifying wounded colleagues, the location of civilians and potential helicopter landing sites.In addition, acoustic and camera technology automatically identifies where enemy weapons are being fired from, even if the individual hasn’t seen or heard it being discharged. This information is provided to the wearer and to commanders, allowing them to take appropriate steps to deal with the threat.


Snipers


The L115 designation in British Service indicates the Accuracy International AWSM (Arctic Warfare Suprt Magnum) rifle in .338 Lapua Magnum caliber. The first rifles purchased were known as L115A1 LRR (Long Range Rifle) and saw extended usage in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, fitted with a Schmidt & Bender 3-12x50 PM II optics.

The L115A2 followed, and introduced several improvements, such as Tan colored body, Harris bipod, fluted barrel and suppressor. It was effectively a prototype for the further enhanced L115A3.   

In 2007 the Sniper System Improvement Program kicked in, and in November the MOD announced the selection of a new standard sniper rifle for Army, Royal Marines and RAF Regiment, with the placement of a 11 million pounds  order in March 2008 to Accuracy International for 580 of the new, improved AWSM variant, the L115A3.
The new rifle came with a more powerful optic (with twice the magnification, at x25 against x12), the Schmidt & Bender 5-25x56 PM II. Other improvements include a suppressor to reduce the flash and noise signature, a folding stocks for improved ease of carriage, an adjustable cheek pieces assembly for more comfort and better eye alignment with the telescopic sight, a Butt spike or ‘monopod’ to enable the shooter to observe the target area for extended periods with minimal fatigue, a new adjustable bipod and 5 round box magazine.
The L115A3 would finally entirely replace the L96 family (L96A1, L96A2, L118A1) in 7.62x51 mm, increasing range and lethality with the adoption of the more powerful Lapua Magnum round.
L115A2 rifles are similar enough to the final A3 configuration that they were converted to A3 standard, but the legacy L115A1 LRR (Long Range Rifle) was not modified.

L115A3 


The purchase of the new rifle was followed by the Sniper Thermal Imaging Capability program, for the purchase of suitable night sights. Two products of Qioptiq were selected: the SVIPIR2+ as Thermal Sniper Sight, which is mounted ahead of the scope. The VIPIR2S+ is issued as night sight for the Spotter (also known as No.2) and can be handheld or mounted on a tripod.
The SVIPIR2+ is designed to operate in total darkness, being a Thermal camera and not an Intensifier sight (which needs at least a little external light source) and enables engagements out to 1200 meters at night and/or in foul weather, fog or dust cover. It is also fairly light and small compared to other comparable systems, but with the defect that it needs 4 AA batteries at a time, and empty them in as little as 6 hours.

SSIP also covered other elements of the sniper’s equipment, from special tripods to other bits of kit: one is the Vectronix PLRF 15C Pocket Laser Range Finders, ordered in 2007. PLRF15C can lase a target out to around 5 km, and it includes a DMC Digital Magnetic Compass feature. This small addition provides a wealth of additional data: azimuth or bearing, inclination or elevation; horizontal distance and height difference – not only between the observer and an object, but also between two remote objects A and B.

Most armies also field snipers with heavy and anti-material capable rifles, such as the french Hécate II FR-12.7 or the american Barrett. .50 Sniper rifles are used by Canada, US, Italy, France and many others.
In the Italian “medium-weight” brigades, the Infantry Company is given a sniper team of two men (same model used by most countries, UK included), with the sniper equipped. The plan is to give the “sniper” a .50 Barrett, while the “spotter” gets a SAKO TRG 42 in the same .338 Lapua Magnum caliber of the L115A3.  

The british army does not normally field this capability in its infantry battalions. A number of rifles in .50 caliber are used by British Forces, but only in niche roles: EOD, Special Forces and Royal Marines have access to this kind of firepower. A number of Barrett rifles are available as L82A1 Infantry Support Weapon. The Accuracy International AW50F .50 with folding stock was also procured, and put in service as L121A1. It used by Royal Marines in counter-smuggling, as it can disable a boat with a shot well placed, but it is also use to shot at IEDs from the distance.  

The modernisation of this capability was to come through a second chapter for the Sniper System Improvement Program. A requirement was published for an Anti-Material capability provided by a semi-automatic 12.7 mm rifle to complement or replace the existing arsenal. In 2009, this requirement was estimated in around 50 rifles. Deliveries had to be made in 2010, and the selection was down to two competitors: the Accuracy International AS50 and a modified M82A1 Barrett variant. The requirement was specifically for a .50, semi-automatic, accurate enough to enable the sniper to engage sequentially 5 targets in 10 seconds. The rifle would have to immobilise a vehicle engine and penetrate laminate and toughened glass by day, out to a minimum requested range of 1800m, with a desired range of 2000m.  
AS50 and M82A1 were selected for final trials, with 8 rifles of each type requested for appropriate evaluation. Unfortunately, I’ve been unable to find further information, and I don’t know if this branch of the Sniper System Improvement has ever progressed in any way, or if it fell victim to budget cuts.

A wider adoption of Anti-Structure Precision Rifles is worth considering, as such heavy caliber weapons have gained a lot of recognition during operations. The US Army and Marines identified the .50 sniper rifle as one of the most important capabilities they had available in Iraq, where the sniper war was incredibly complex and ferocious.



Fixed Directional Fragmentation Weapon (FDFW)

Externally very similar to the Claymore, and pretty much identical in concept, it has been put into service as replacement for the M18A1, which is no longer manufactured.


The new weapon comes from Finland. Procurement began in 2014.


VIRTUS and PETREL

The VIRTUS (Formerly Personal Equipment and Common Operational Clothing or PECOC) programme is ongoing. Much visibility has been given to the new helmet and load carriage system in delivery, but we should always keep in mind that the programme is meant to deliver a lot more. VIRTUS is meant to be completed and evolved through three “pulses”.

Pulse 1 is what we have seen so far. Head and Torso sub systems, from helmet to tactical vest and load carriage. Overall, VIRTUS includes 50 items consisting of Head Subsystem, Load Carriage Subsystem, Hydration Subsystem, Extremities Subsystem, Torso Protection Subsystem, Chassis Subsystem and Pouches Subsystem. The Scalable Tactical Vest and the new helmet by Revision are the most notable items. The helmet is 350 g lighter than the previous MK7 and comes with a universal mounting shroud for the mounting of night vision devices. A counter-weight makes it more comfortable. 








Pulse 2 (also known as Project SAKER) is (or at least was) meant to improve tactical agility. It is about delivering new and improved ballistic plates which maintain or improve protection levels while significantly reducing weight. Female-specific plating is also expected. SAKER should deliver in 2019. The MOD has put out the request, which names an initial requirement for 21000 operational plates and 21000 training plates plus a 5% margin as spares. Options are included to reach a total of 86.245 plates which represent the full requirement.

An option for the refurbishment of up to 107.000 existing Osprey 2 plates was also included. This is unlikely to generate the kind of weight reduction that was the point of Pulse 2 but might be a cost-effective way to provide high protection levels to personnel other than dismounted close combat soldiers.

Pulse 3 of VIRTUS is the most ambitious and complex, as it is meant to introduce Man-Worn Power and Data. The integration of a power and data infrastructure in combat clothing has been the subject of much talk and study in the past few years. The idea is that MWPD will improve situational awareness and lethality while reducing weight by removing the need for multiple batteries to be carried for everything from radio to weapon sights.
In 2011 the British Army was thinking of adopting “powered rails” on the rifle, which would connect to the MWPD to enable weapon sights to receive power and data without having to integrate their own battery at all. Pulse 3 is expected to deliver in the early 2020s, but having doubts about it is more than legitimate.
During 2016, SEA its team partners conducted a series of demonstrations as part of the Delivering Dismounted Effect (DDE) DSTL Research project. In particular, they investigated the technical feasibility, benefits and costs associated with integrating power and data onto the weapon and helmet.

Experimenting with power and data solutions installed directly on the rifle 

Connected to VIRTUS is also Project PETREL, which is about procuring new protective and safety clothing specifically meant to be worn together with VIRTUS body armour and load carriage system. This would include shirts, pants, protective underwear, footwear, and other articles and accessories.
An invite to tender was issued in November 2017 with a proposed contract award date of October 2019.  


Tactical Hearing Protection

INVISIO, in partnership with Marlborough Communications, won the THPS (Tactical Hearing Protection Systems) contract in August 2015. The S10 Tactical Hearing Protection Systems for the Dismounted Close Combat User (THPS DCCU) is an in-ear hearing protection and communication system for use on a single radio and consists of an in-ear hearing protection headset with control unit housing the electronics for situational awareness and impulse noise protection.

The system achieved IOC in 2016, 5 months ahead of schedule, and follow-on orders have been placed to progressively outfit personnel from all three services.



A Freedom of Information answer explained that the requirement for hearing protection is for 280,666 units, broken down in Basic User (BU) - 250,000; Specialist User (SU) -9,800; and Dismounted Close Combat User (DCCU) -20,866 systems. The contracts for the BU and DCCU are for 4 years from 2015 to 2019, with an option to extend at the end of this period, (3x1 year extensions), if required, potentially taking the contracts to 2022.
 The SU contract should have ended in Autumn 2017, as the Armed Forces have enough inventory to cover them for two years. The contract will be reviewed at that point.


Dismounted Situational Awareness

DSA is intimately connected to the (much wider) MORPHEUS project which is about evolving the army’s ability to communicate on the battlefield. MORPHEUS is a 3.2 billion, long-term project brought forwards by Army HQ in conjunction with Joint Forces Command and is intended to evolve the current BOWMAN capability. In itself, MORPHEUS is part of the even wider Land Environment Tactical Communication and Information Systems (LETacCIS) programme.

MORPHEUS is not trying to replace everything at once. That was BOWMAN’s approach and, for a series of reasons, it encountered great difficulties. BOWMAN currently comprises:

The Common Battlefield Applications Toolset (ComBAT) provides the C2 interfaces, enabling messaging, reports and returns. It supports planning and situational awareness, but has not been met with any real enthusiasm due its complexity and unfriendly interface.

Special to role Battlefield Information System Applications, enabled by the BOWMAN infrastructure, exist to manage the communication needs of the various elements of a fighting force. There are a GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence) BISA, there is Makefast (Combat Engineering), FC (Fire Control for the Artillery) and a CBRN BISA.

Bowman and ComBAT and Information and Platform BISA (CIP) collectively form BCIP to provide a secure digital voice and data communications service and infrastructure from individual platforms to headquarters.
There have been several successive evolutions of BCIP, with the latest release being the 5.6, which is being fielded beginning this year. General Dynamics received the 23 million development contract in March 2016. It is enabled by some 12.000 new data terminals procured in a 75 million contract also announced in March 2016. It introduces a new Battle Management System and a ComBAT mod based on Windows 8.1 with a much more intuitive user interface.



BCIP 5.6 is the base for MORPHEUS. The first element of the MORPHEUS programme is EvO: Evolve to Open. In April 2017 the MOD signed a 330 million contract with General Dynamics to take BCIP 5.6 and evolve it to an open, modular system architecture that will enable all future evolutions, both of the software and of the hardware. Under MORPHEUS, the MOD becomes the design authority, the true owner of BCIP. Under TRINITY, which should achieve Initial Gate definition this year, will do the same for the FALCON system by BAE, to ensure the army can modernize its high bandwidth backbone network.
The two systems will no longer by tied to the original vendor. In the MOD words:

this allows individual components to be commercially competed separately and gives complete ownership of the capability to the MOD. MORPHEUS will then deliver Defence-driven (rather than industry-driven) rapid spiral development of applications and regular technology updates to incrementally improve capability.

With the EvO partnership in place, the MOD has published in August 2017 an invite to tender for industrial partners for the development of a new Battlefield Management Application.

On the hardware side, the Tactical Internet Backbone Radio is the key project which will deliver the
Replacement for the current High Capacity Data Radio HCDR.

DSA slots in this whole process. Through the ruggerized touch pad, the dismounted user can share information much faster, plan, and achieve much greater situational awareness of both own forces and enemy forces position.

Meanwhile, L3 has been selected to deliver the new Joint Common Remote Viewing Terminal, using ROVER handheld transceivers and ROVER 6i transceivers. The handheld device enables the dismounted soldiers to receive and re-transmit Full Motion Video (FMV) and Real Time Motion Imagery (RTMI). 



The system has replaced the earlier ROVER 4-based solution, including the StrikeHawk capabilities which had been procured with a UOR to enable the direction of air support fires in Afghanistan. Fire Support Teams, JTACs, special forces users are receiving the new system.


UAS

The British Army briefly led the way in terms of UAV capability for the infantry with the UOR procurement of the micro-helicopter PD100 Black Hornet. Unfortunately, during the year 2016/2017 the MOD decided to withdraw the Black Hornet from service. This is a decision that remains hard to explain and that goes in the exact opposite direction compared to what is happening elsewhere. The USMC is outfitting every infantry squad with its own drone; the US Army is going much in the same direction. By the end of 2017 the Australian Army purchased the second generation Black Hornet 2 with the aim of giving it to every infantry platoon.



Black Hornet training before the MOD withdrew it from service 

The British Army, conversely, took a retrograde step and risks taking another as well since to this day there is no strategy for the replacement of Desert Hawk III, the battlegroup-level UAS capability. 32 Royal Artillery regiment is already planned to disband in 2021 when the UAS is expected to go.
Plans for its replacement are very much up in the air. The Royal Marines tried to get a Joint Mini UAS programme off the ground early, back in 2016, because the Desert Hawk III struggles in rainy days and in the littoral environment. The Royal Marines clearly need something that can operate even when it’s wet, but in absence of a budget, the Joint Mini UAS did not take off. The Army expects that, eventually, something will take the place of the DHIII but time passes and no programme takes shape. Different Corps are positioning to secure control of such a new UAS capability, with the Artillery and the RAC (namely the recce cavalry part) both interested.




Desert Hawk III detachments in action. The Royal Artillery had for a while hoped to roll Warthog into service as a carrier for UAV detachments, MAMBA radar and other roles. When that failed to secure funding, the FV432 got yet another role piled on its shoulders. Post 2021 Coy and Battlegroup level UAS capability remains a question mark. 

Meanwhile, British Army soldiers at AWE 2018 have been qualifying on the Instant Eye quadcopter, selected by the USMC for its squads. Black Hornet itself, despite being out of service, continues to appear in photographs whenever the MOD talks of innovation and was observed in the last few days being tested by Royal Armoured Corps, specifically Ajax Sqn, RTR. It is gone, but not forgotten, and we might still end up surprised by a new MOD U-turn.

4 SCOTS gets to work with Instant Eye at Fort Benning for AWE 2018. The USMC squads are all receiving their own Instant Eye. 

The MOD is working to procure up to 14 tethered UAV systems with a minimum endurance of 12 hours, but this is more likely tied to Base-ISTAR considerations, aka the security and defence of bases and fixed installations. Tethered UAVs should provide a less conspicuous option compared to the large aerostats.


The Sentinel MP-4T is a tethered UAS being experimented during AWE. The british army is looking for up to 14 tethered UAS. 

  
Platoon structure  

It appears more and more necessary to think about how to reorganize platoons for the future. The introduction of Carl Gustav and the desire to retain at least one GPMG LR in each platoon might require the beefing up of the “command” element, even if CG comes at the expense of the 60mm mortar. The addition of drones, including for load carrying, will exacerbate the need for more personnel.

PCE Year 2 experimented with a return to the principle of 4 which was so familiar to the army during world war two. The experiment, however, was strictly “manpower neutral”: rifle platoons from Burma Coy, 1 LANCS, merely moved from a structure on 3 sections of 8 to one on 4 sections of 6.
The results were mixed: the platoon commanders liked a lot the extra flexibility given by having a fourth section, but on the other hand felt that 6 man sections tend to become combat ineffective too quickly when, for whatever reason, there are losses in personnel.
Naturally, the original principle of four in the British Army was founded on 4 squads of 10 men each.

Where the British Army will be forced to adopt dismounted sections of six is in the armoured infantry. Warrior, especially after CSP, cannot realistically carry more than 6 dismounts. Having intimate support from the vehicle means that redistributing the load when there is a casualty is less of a concern, but does the section stay combat effective? The risk is having platoons of 3 sections of 6 each, not even platoons of 4x6, unless a new organization is adopted and reflected by the number of vehicles to be upgraded. Novel solutions might be pursued by mixing within the platoon one or two “turret-less” ABSV APC, ideally obtained from “surplus” Warriors. Such an APC would probably carry 8 dismounts, helping to keep up the strength of the dismounted combat element.
But is the army able and willing to consider this kind of adjustments?

British Army infantry needs to rethink its structures more radically. Not just at platoon level but also at company level. Doctrinally it is accepted that training and capability at sub-unit level is becoming more important, not less, but the only way to achieve more is to restructure much more radically.

Of course, in order to truly modernize the infantry, in absence of a big uplift in manpower (not just funded but realized, something simply impossible with the current state of recruitment and retention), the only way the British Army can evolve is by cutting a few infantry battalions to make those that remain more realistic and fit for role. You can already see where the problem is.


L16 mortar

All the way back in 2013, Jane’s reported that the British Army was contending with noise: the L16A2 was no longer compliant with EU regulation, and although waivers were contemplated, the army was looking into perhaps adopting the Blast Attenuation Device, a “baffle” similar to a flash hider, which the Americans installed when they adopted the L16 as M252 back in the 80s.
The work was to be carried out in conjunction with a large scale replacement of L16A2 barrels, approaching the end of their useful life, with new barrels, ideally longer, offering greater range.

Unfortunately, 5 years later, no progress is apparent on either front.


What happens elsewhere?

The USMC is changing its structures in significant ways: as it introduces the Carl Gustav it is withdrawing the SMAW rocket launcher from the rifle platoon, and indeed cancelling the assault infantryman course and role. The assaulters with the SMAW used to be part of the Weapons Platoon found in every company, but will now be removed, leaving “only” the M240 7.62mm machine guns and the 60mm mortars. Every platoon will have its own Carl Gustav, while the SMAW and the “assault” mission will go to reinforced engineer units, which will support infantry companies with detached sub-units.
The USMC is introducing an unmanned system operator as well, and considering changes to the make up of its 13-man squad (section equivalent). It could potentially shrink to 11 or 12, but it might also grow to 14.
A 12-man squad would transition from from three fire teams of four Marines to two of five, plus systems operator and squad leader.
The 11-man option would maintain three fire teams, but made up of three soldiers each, plus a system operator and squad leader.
The 14-man option would maintain the current configuration unchanged, adding the systems operator on top.


USMC Instant Eye system

The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle is the new workhorse for the USMC 
The M38 is the USMC's current Sharpshooter solution. Being essentially an M27 with a different sight, it is in 5.56mm. 

The USMC is also adding an extra 8 men to the scout-sniper platoon, increasing the number of elite marksmen and reconnaissance specialists. This is a rational response to the already mentioned finding that snipers and sharpshooters have been responsible for most kills of enemy combatants. The British Army has been working to more closely associate the Recce and Sniper platoons and had at one point begun a programme to train all recce soldiers on the L129A1. It is not known whether this is ongoing or if budget cuts have prevented it from progressing.

The French Army, during 2015, had come up with an interesting “Next Generation Infantry Regiment” ORBAT before the whole exercise was overtaken by budget uplifts which authorized the recruitment of thousands more soldiers, leading to Europe’s largest infantry regiments.
Their Next Generation infantry battalion would have still been far larger than even the largest infantry battalion the British Army has (the armoured ones, at around 730 personnel all-ranks, all-trades). With four combat companies each, the NG regiment was founded upon Companies of 156 personnel each, of which 17 in the Command element, 99 in three platoons of 33 men each, plus a Weapons group of 40.

Next Generation Infantry in french sauce 

This would have seen platoons with a 3 personnel command element plus three sections of 10 each, well supported by the company level weapons element composed of command element of 3; an anti-tank element of 7 (in the French case armed with the newly procured AT4CS. The British Army in contrast would distribute the NLAW directly to the soldiers within each platoon and section); a mortar element of 14; a sniper element of 9 and a machine gun element of 7.
The regiment / battalion weapons company was 92 strong, armed with a further machine gun element and an anti-tank group with longer range missiles (MMP in the French case), plus a 30-strong platoon that the French call the Section d’Aide a L’Engagement Debarquè, which is not only a reconnaissance element but a quasi-special forces element for complex interventions such as hostage rescue. They can be trained as commando parachutists or commando mountain specialists.

The French conclusions are not necessarily the correct one, but the absence of a fire support element within the british infantry companies is, in my opinion, a major weakness.
Similarly, the firepower that can be expressed by a company of Marines, intimately supported by its own weapons platoon with M240 machine guns and 60mm mortars, is a completely different world when compared to the british army ever smaller rifle coys.

It must also be noted that the US Army simply no longer trusts the 5.56 to be lethal enough against the more advanced body armour being fielded by Russia. Last year it had launched a tender for an interim buy of a combat rifle in 7.62mm, and although it didn’t eventually progress it can be seen as a confirmation that whatever comes after the M4 will not fire the 5.56 round.


The US Army has since released a Prototype Opportunity Notice (PON) for its Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR). Technically, the requirement is for replacement of the M249 SAW, the American variant of the Minimi. Up to five prototypes will be funded, and the requirement wants to combine the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a rifle.
It is the first element within the Next-Generation Weapons System programme which would also eventually include Next Generation Squad Carbine (NGSC), and a squad designated marksman rifle. It is expected that a new intermediate munition, either 6.5mm or 6.8mm, will feature.

M110A1 
In the meanwhile, the US Army is procuring thousands of M110A1 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) in 7.62x51 to serve as alternative to heavier, larger sniper rifles and to serve as marksman rifle within infantry sections.


UPDATES 

Sniper capabilities 


LRPAS spares: Babcock DSG Ltd, acting as agent on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defence, intends to place a framework agreement for the supply of spares and accessories for the Long Range Precision Anti-Structure rifle, indirectly confirming the relative health of this niche capability area.
The Royal Marines are sometimes seen with the AW50 heavy rifle, while the M82 Barrett also seems to be available. Unfortunately there is no detail available on the distribution of either weapon and the exact status of the inventories.

New chassis rebuilt onto the more modern chassis of the Accuracy International model AX, which was unveiled in 2010 in response the USSOCOM's Precision Sniper Rifle (PSR) solicitation. The main advantage of the new chassis is the number of standardized rails available for easy installation of advanced sights and accessories, correcting the L115A3’s main weakness, which is the need for bespoke, add-on mounting systems for sights and accessories. The new design of the folding stock makes the rifle more compact in folded configuration and introduces a pure pistol grip.

The AX chassis and stock are very distinctive. If the A4 upgrade goes ahead, future photos will make it obvious. 

The AX series (the base chassis design is highly modular and can be adapted to all calibers, up to .50) has supplanted the AW series in production. The MOD’s interest for the new chassis was immediate and already in 2015 it had been reported that the arsenal of L115A3s would be upgraded, despite being just 6 years old. So far, the L115A3 continues to appear, unchanged, in all the pictures published by the MOD, but the “A4” refurbishment is reportedly going ahead, so we could begin to see the “new” rifle over the coming months.

Photo of a Royal Welsh sniper pair from Estonia during recent deployments. The L129A1 is used as Sniper Support Weapon, but the S&B sight seems to have been abandoned in favor of the fixed ACOG sight. The lack of a suppressor (selection still ongoing) is all too evident. The L115 is still in A3 configuration. 


The existing AW50s in 12.7x99 mm caliber, part of the LRPAS solution, are reportedly destined to receive their own AX chassis.  


Army 2020 Refine and the rebuilding of Light Role infantry battalions 

Army 2020 notoriously had to dramatically downsize all light role infantry battalions in order to limit the number of battalions being disbanded. Light Role establishments went down to just 560 personnel, all ranks, all trades (around 501 from the Corps of Infantry), with the paired Reserve battalions expected to fill the gaps not just on deployment but, as much as possible, during training as well.
Needless to say, the arrangement proved next to unworkable. The battalions, so dramatically downsized, have at first attempted to shave one rifle platoon from each Rifle Company, with the reserves supplying the missing platoons. When this proved unsatisfactory, the Machine Gun Platoon from the Support coy was broken down into support platoons with 6 GPMGs each, assigned directly to the rifles companies, to make up somewhat for the lack of the tactically indispensable third element of maneuver.
Eventually, the battalions surrendered and concentrated the surviving platoons into two rather than three infantry companies. The third rifle company has become the “ISR company”, integrating the Recce platoon, Sniper Platoon, Anti-Tank platoon, intelligence and signals elements.
The six battalions of “Light Protected Mobility” infantry, mounted on Foxhound, followed much the same path: they had just 20 personnel more than the Light Role units. Parachute battalions were around 660 strong.
Armoured infantry battalions were around 730 strong, while Heavy Protected Mobility battalions were a bit smaller, at 709. Gurkha battalions were roughly in line with the other light role units, at 567.

Army 2020 Refine introduces substantial changes: the Light Protected Mobility role ceases to exist as a permanent specialty, with Foxhound held centrally and assigned prior to deployment. Part of the Foxhound fleet has been absorbed by the RAF Regiment, which is converting two of its six field squadrons, 1 and 34, into Light Armour (Wheeled) formations.

The “Heavy Protected Mobility” infantry is due to become mechanized infantry as Mastiff is replaced by the as-yet unselected Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV); armoured infantry battalions go down from 6 to 4, although supported by four reserve infantry battalions training, for the first time ever, in the armoured role, on Warrior.

Four battalions become “Specialised Infantry Battalions (SiBs)”, permanently tasked with defence engagement, primarily through Advise and Assist approach. These four battalions shrink to an establishment of just 267 as part of the process.

Light Role infantry battalions benefit from the manpower released by the SiBs, rebuilding the platoons lost under the earlier iteration of Army 2020.

Unit Liabilities as of March 2018 are as follows:

1st Battalion Grenadier Guards
560
Keogh Barracks, Aldershot
1st Battalion Coldstream Guards
560
Victoria Barracks, Windsor
1st Battalion Scots Guards
708
Mons Barracks, Aldershot
1st Battalion Irish Guards
559
Mons Barracks, Aldershot (actually Hounslow since 2015) 
1st Battalion Welsh Guards
580
Elizabeth Barracks, Pirbright
The Royal Scots Borderers 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
267
Palace Barracks, Holywood
The Royal Highland Fusiliers 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
628
Glencorse Barracks, Penicuik
The Black Watch 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
628
Fort George Barracks, Inverness
The Highlanders 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
707
Bourlon Barracks, Catterick Garrison


52nd Lowland 6th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
472
Walcheren Barracks ARC, Glasgow
51st Highland 7th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Scotland
472
Queens Barracks ARC, Perth
1st Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
726
Barker Barracks, Paderborn
2nd Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
551
Alexander Barracks, Dhekelia Garrison, Cyprus (actually Cottersmore, returned during 2017)
3rd Battalion The Princess Of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's And Royal Hampshires)
472
Canterbury ARC
4th Battalion The Princess Of Wales’s Royal Regiment
459
Redhill ARC
1st Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
560
Salamanca Barracks, Episkopi Garrison
2nd Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
560
Weeton Barracks, Preston
4th Battalion The Duke Of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire And Border)
581
Preston ARC
1st Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Fusiliers
732
Mooltan Barracks, Tidworth
5th Battalion The Royal Regiment Of Fusiliers
537
Anzio House, Newcastle Upon Tyne
1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
560
Royal Artillery Barracks, Woolwich
2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
589
Kendrew Barracks, Cottesmore (actually in Dhekelia, replaced 2 PWRR during 2017) 
3rd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment
582
Bury St Edmunds ARC
1st Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th, 33rd/76th Of Foot)
728
Battlesbury Barracks, Warminster
2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment
580
Somme Barracks, Catterick Garrison
4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (14th/15th, 19th And 33rd/76th Foot)
580
Worsley Barracks, York
1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment
732
Picton Barracks, Bulford
2nd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (Worcesters And Foresters)
560
Dale Barracks, Chester
4th Battalion The Mercian Regiment
427
Wolverhampton ARC
1st Battalion The Royal Welsh
732
Lucknow Barracks, Tidworth
3rd Battalion The Royal Welsh
404
Maindy Barracks, Cardiff
1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (27th [Inniskilling], 83rd, 87th And The Ulster Defence Regiment)
628
Clive Barracks, Tern Hill
2nd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (27th [Inniskilling], 83rd, 87th And The Ulster Defence Regiment)
537
Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn
2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment
662
Merville Barracks, Colchester
3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment
662
Merville Barracks, Colchester
4th Battalion The Parachute Regiment
562
Thornbury Barracks ARC, Pudsey
1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
567
Sir John Moore Barracks, Shorncliffe
2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles
640
Tuker Lines, Brunei
The London Regiment
450
St Johns Hill ARC, Battersea


1st Battalion The Rifles
628
Beachley Barracks, Chepstow
2nd Battalion The Rifles
628
Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn
3rd Battalion The Rifles
744
Redford Infantry Barracks, Edinburgh
4th Battalion The Rifles
267
Lille Barracks, Aldershot
5th Battalion The Rifles
732
Ward Barracks, Bulford
6th Battalion The Rifles
472
Wyvern Barracks, Exeter
7th Battalion The Rifles
425
Reading ARC
8th Battalion The Rifles
449
Eden Armoury, Bishop Auckland



CORRECTIONS added to the list: the MOD, as frequently happens, has made a poor job of keeping track of unit moves. Corrections have been added to show the true basing of battalions. Thanks to Graham Watson for bringing my attention to the incongruences.


Observation of the list shows a number of battalions that have already received their manpower uplift,  going up to an establishment of 628 which is the new Army 2020 Refine for Light Role formations. Reserve battalions, with some exceptions such as 4 PARA which is a particularly well recruited unit and has been allowed to expand further, are organized for an establishment aiming at around 400 to 470 personnel. 

1 PWRR and 1 Yorks for now remain on Warrior and in armoured role, but the first is planned to eventually revert to Light Role while the second will become a mechanised infantry formation within STRIKE. 
Armoured infantry battalions, mechanized battalions and Specialised Infantry Battalions are easily recognizable by virtue of their establishment figure in the list. As the restructuring progresses, 2 PWRR and 2 LANCS are due to become specialized units, shrinking to 267 personnel each, and other infantry battalions, beginning with 1 LANCS, will receive their uplift towards 628 / 630. 

The Gurkha battalions in the Air Mobile role within 16 Air Assault brigade has received a significant uplift, up to 640. In 2016 it was revealed that the brigade of Gurkhas would stand up a number of new sub-units in all its different units, reverting earlier cuts. 

Mechanised Infantry battalions are expected to grow up to around 740 as part of the new army plan, and 3 Rifles reflects this. In December 2017 a Written Answer disclosed a change of plans within the STRIKE project: 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade will now become the first Strike Brigade by 2020 and will comprise the Household Cavalry Regiment, the Royal Dragoon Guards, 1st Battalion Scots Guards, and 3rd Battalion The Rifles.

Earlier plans had instead been centered on the creation of a separate “Strike Experimentation Group” that was to stand up during 2017 with the Scots Guards and the Household Cavalry. In 2019 they were due to be joined by King's Royal Hussars and 4 SCOTS, and at that point the Group was to become a brigade, picking a badge. 1st Brigade, converting from the armoured role, was to be the second Strike Brigade.  
The two formations as originally envisaged would have included:

First Strike Brigade - Household Cavalry, the King’s Royal Hussars (converting in 2019 from Challenger 2 and becoming the first “medium armour” roled Ajax formation), the Scots Guards and 4 SCOTS.
The second strike brigade would have comprised the Royal Dragoon Guards, the Royal Lancers, 3 Rifles and 1 Yorks (converting from Warrior).

The plan was changed during 2017 with the decision to use the whole 1st Brigade as Strike Experimentation Group and, consequently, as first Strike Brigade.
The second strike brigade, which does not have an identity yet, would include the Royal Lancers, King’s Royal Hussars, 4 SCOTS and 1 Yorks unless further changes follow. 


34 comments:

  1. Great article!
    How do you judge that the "experiments" come to conclusions different than the "feeling" among the troops?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how such a mismatch is even possible. What i feel like saying is: if you do tests on the ground but then ignore the feedback, you end up with things like Springer or the aiming module for the grenade launcher. Bought, paid for, and badly received by the users and more or less quickly rejected.

      Delete
  2. From MikeW:

    Hi Gaby

    You say: “The Carl Gustav would probably become the Platoon’s primary breaching and bunker-busting weapon, replacing the Matador Anti-Structure Munition which is heavy, bulky, single-role and, I dare saying, probably a purchase the army regrets.”

    I find this a little difficult to understand, as the Matador is still in service with the German and Israeli armies today, isn’t it? (Although I must confess that I have not seen much mention of it recently in British Army equipment lists, etc.) Maybe it will only be brought out in higher intensity conflicts? Have you heard any talk of dropping it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, i haven't heard anything specific about it. It is my educated guess, really. The ASM probably works well once in use, but carrying it around must not be pleasant. It made spectacularly few appearances in photos, news reports and everything from Afghanistan even though it was procured specifically to be used there, and that does not suggest much love for it.

      Delete
  3. "The French Army, during 2015, had come up with an interesting “Next Generation Infantry Regiment” ORBAT before the whole exercise was overtaken by budget uplifts which authorized the recruitment of thousands more soldiers, leading to Europe’s largest infantry regiments. "

    You're still pretty far away from Europe's largest infantry battalions. One Finnish Jäger Coy alone has almost 300 soldiers and battalion has about 2000 soldiers.

    Replacing indirect fire with direct fire weapon might not be the best decision. There are much more obstacles than simple brick wall which need to be shot over and only mortars provide succifient ability to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From MikeW:

    I forgot to say in my first comment that this post of yours is excellent: really well researched and with a massive amount of informative detail. Thanks very much.

    You remember me saying the other day that I was confused over the various versions of the LMG. Well, this time my question concerns the different versions of the GPMG. You imply that the GPMG will be retained at platoon level to help provide suppressive fire. You add that “Obviously we are talking of a GPMG in Light Role configuration.”

    Now, back in the Nineties, an era I know better than the modern age, the GPMG was used only as a sustained fire weapon (SFMG), its “light” role in the infantry squad being taken by the 5.56mm L86A1 Light Support Weapon (the LSW). Now, what I would like to know is this. I am sure that I have read somewhere and I can’t remember where, that a new lighter version of the GPMG was being developed just a few years ago and that the British Army was interested. When you say that “we are talking of the GPMG in its Light Role configuration”, would that be the older “light” version, used as a squad weapon, as I have mentioned above, and fired using the folding bipod (as opposed to the tripod for the SFMG version), or the “newer” light version, which I am convinced is not simply a figment of my imagination!

    At one point I was even thinking there might be an overlap between the new lighter version of the GPMG and the heavier version of the LMG (the 7.62mm version). Does this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GPMG LR never really vanished. Afghanistan brought it back in full force: if you follow the link to the Project Payne presentation by the army you'll see that at one point the standard section in Afghanistan had 1 GPMG LR and 2 LMGs.
      There should still be plenty of GPMGs to employ. Unfortunately, the interest for a lightweight GPMG did not, in the end, bring to new purchases, so, at least initially, the old GPMG will be the sole option.

      The fate of the small number of "Maxi-Minini" in 7.62 (176 original UOR with options for as many as 500 more which i don't think were ever exercised) is uncertain. I believe the Director Special Forces took ownership of them. L130A1 should be the designation. Never heard much about them since they were procured.

      It really is FOI material. Sniper No 2, numer of L129s, fate of Anti-Material sniper rifles and of the 7.62 LMG are all good questions for a FOI, but being an italian rather than british citizen it would not be right for me to put forward a question which would require british taxpayer money for an answer.

      Delete
  5. MikeW It's not a fiction of your imagination, about a year ago I was on a DOSC and H&K showed up with a stand of weapons that they wanted to "show off to the troops" (maybe to create some positive buzz that would help sell contracts to the MoD?)

    Amongst other things they had the L85A3 available for us to play around with, 416's and.... a Lightened HK FN MAG.

    MR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From MikeW:

      @Anonymous (March 20 at 9.23 pm)

      Many thanks for the info you provided on the weaponry H&K turned up with. I might be in my third dotage but it is reassuring to know that I had not just imagined the existence of a “Lightened” HK FN MAG.

      @Gaby

      When you say in the article that the Infantry Trials and Development Unit gave the LMG a second chance in by refitting a number of machine guns with a longer barrel, presumably that would be a longer barrel for the 5.56mm version and not the 7.62 mm version (in the light of what you have said about the (unknown?) fate of the "Maxi-Minini" in 7.62)?

      If the LMG is dropped, won’t the suppressive fire capability, either in the section or at platoon level then be extremely light? From what you have said it might amount to only one machine gun (GPMG) at platoon level, together with some Light Support Weapons (SA80 A2 is not much more that an assault rifle with a longer barrel, is it?),and a few UGLs. Or have I got all that wrong? We seem to be about to ditch a lot of good weaponry.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely, the trial was done with the LMG in 5.56, just with the longer barrel and possibly a different buttstock too.

      As for the loss of suppressive firepower, well, yes, that is the worry. Suppression will have to be done through L85A2. Not even the LSW, the LSW is gone and forgotten. The L85A2 with grip-pod and free floating barrel is supposed to suppress through accuracy. The Army says that losing the LMG won't truly damage them as she is so "ineffective". Do i agree with that assessment? Not really. But this is how goes, all the same, unless Army HQ denies its final approval later this year.

      Delete
    3. LSW's are still floating around though, even in teeth arms units they're sitting in armouries, probably for people in the A1 Echlon rather than the actual infantry lads. So if they did for some reason want to bring it back they *could.* The question is why would they want to though?
      MR

      Delete
  6. Great post and a very interesting read

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you go onto the Royal Tank Regiment Facebook page there is a 15 Second video using Black Hornet with the following information: BLACK HORNET | Soldiers from AJAX are experimenting with the use of nano unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to provide greater situational awareness when troops are in static hide locations. The BLACK HORNET UAV provides real time video and still photograph capability at a distance of up to 1km, allowing the operator to get eyes on to potential enemy threats without leaving their hide location. So it is not completely withdrawn and can be used by units if required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw that. It is mentioned (but not linked) in the article. I've tried asking them about the trial but did not receive an answer.

      Delete
  8. Fantastic post and a very informative read. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great article sir ! Sooo many different problems and issues to address eh ....

    Like you I think Infantry should only be "light" for a reason - i.e. Para's and RM. While Armoured Infantry might be down to a 6 man dismount section, they should be backed up very closely by a 7.62 chain gun and a 40mm cannon. Of course AIFV mounted mortars, ATGW and MANPADS are all deficient, but....

    When it comes to the "general purpose" infantry battalions there is that whole infantry version of the iron triangle in play here. Mobility (carried weight and vehicle) versus protection (personal and vehicle) versus fire power. If the infantry is being carried in an 8x8 MIV or even an MRV-P (lets say Bushmaster) then their protection is pretty good, their theatre/tactical mobility is good, and hopefully their firepower could be stepped up due to the vehicles being used to carry the extra "stuff". So if we discount MIV mounted battalions in the so called "Strike" brigades for now, the majority of our infantry might, if they are lucky be moved around the battlefield in an MRV-P, or a J-LTV. For ops where those vehicles are too big, or won't handle the terrain then the experiments suggest an Hippo-x type vehicle per rifle platoon, manned or unmanned, should help with load carrying, and so again help us with increasing the fire power no ?

    So that leads us to your comments about Platoon and Company structure. I would be up for reducing the number of battalions (all Public Duties to some form of full time Reserve ?) to increase the numbers within the remaining infantry battalions. The US Army and USMC could guide us:
    1. Keep 3 x 8 man rifle sections
    2. Keep the 4 man platoon command element
    3. Add a "Support Section" 8 men with 3 x GPMG LR and the commando mortar ? (or reduce it to 6 if you want to replace the short barreled mortar with the MSGL)

    The real expense to this is adding an extra vehicle to each platoon. However I believe the new version of the Bushmaster can have 10 pax / dismounts, so maybe we can keep the cost of extra vehicles down, by distributing the bodies in section vehicles.

    At the Company level perhaps the USMC model, adding a Support weapons section with 2 x long barrel/tripod 60mm mortars, and 2 of those CG mk4's for direct fire? Only 8 more guys.....

    All of these enhancements would "easy" but it's all linked in a complex fashion - MG's at platoon level, who is carrying the 7.62 belt? Multi-Shot Grenade Launchers, who is carrying the grenades? How many, and how much does that weigh ?? Suddenly the weight is creeping up again, and so then we are right back to vehicular assistance.

    Don't forget the existing battalion elements like 81mm mortars, Javelin ATGW's and 40mm GMG's in the Support Coy. Vehicles also make the difference to the logistical sustainability of the formation, and its firepower.

    I am fairly sure you have posted some years ago, but how is Italian infantry organized / equipped as a comparison ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Would seem logical to tie discussion of Platoon/Company structure with Battalion Structure. For instance make the Armoured Infantry Platoon an HQ Squad, 4 x 6 Rifle Squads and a HW (GPMGSquad. Combining on the ground to provide 3 decent size maneuver elements, 2 x Rifle, 1 x HQ & Weapons. 3 x Platoons Plus a HW Platoon (mortars & ATGW) in a Company. Two such companies would probably have as many Warriors as a current Battalion, but it would economise on support elements and be far stronger on the ground. Combine with 2 x Squadrons of 18 x MBT, plus a Battle-Group Recce Troop. Three such Combined arms BG plus Recce Regiment, supported by 4 x 8 AS90 tubes - and have two of these brigades in 3UK Div. Give each Battle-Group a specific designation based on old Armoured Brigade titles, and let each Company/Squadron be cap badge specific - thereby preserving titles, but within the context of an integrated titled Battle-Group (1st Armoured, 8th Armoured, 22nd Armoured etc. - take the Brigade Titles from previous Armoured Divisions (I would suggest 7th and 11th personally). This would mirror the armour/infantry pairings that worked so well in the last war (Normandy onwards anyway).

    Then UK 1st Div is reduced to (say) two Brigades composed of similar large multi-role battalions with proper levels of suitable Divisional support (we are probably talking about the entire Division being fully wheeled here).

    Then combine the Air Assault, Commandos, Special Forces and a Light Role Infantry Battle-Group type Brigade into a 3rd "Strike" Division with all the type of support needed for rapid overseas deployment.??

    ReplyDelete
  11. One thing really baffles me. UK has the second highest defense expenditure among NATO members. According to NATO's own figure, in 2017 UK spent roughly 55 billion dollars equivalent on her military. France is a distant third with approx 49b USD. I don't see folks loudly complaining lack of resources of French armed forces. With a significant smaller budget, the French is able to maintain a larger land force. Her navy operates a carrier strike force. Fully independent deterrence with a larger nuke arsenal. And not to forget the French also possesses more comprehensive space capability. How come?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be careful in comparisons, the UK has taken the conscious decision to pay a premium for equipment it believes are often superior to its cross-channel neighbour's (e.g. F35, Ajax, Astute) including many things which are just too esoteric to come to the attention of the media, but are still very expensive. This is driven by the UK's stance that it needs to have a capability for high-intensity warfare and be as integrated as possible with the US. There is also the matter of the cost of UK military personnel which is high compared with continental counterparts (e.g. the x-factor added on top of salary, boarding school allowances, married quarters, and a particularly generous pension). These things soak up the money.

      Delete
    2. Really interesting article Gabriele. Is it just me or does the British army's platoon structure seem to be reverting to what it had during the cold war? Also do you expect its lessons to be read across to the RAF Regt and Royal Marines, or do you think they'll go their own way (like Commando 21)?

      Delete
    3. That will be interesting to see. There will be influences, but they might well decide they do not agree with certain approaches.

      Delete
    4. Interesting article in this week's JDW on 42 Cdo in their new MOC role. Apparently they'll be arming with C8s.

      Delete
  12. Gabriele
    Could you outline which 4 reserve infantry battalions are now training on Warrior and do you have anymore information on this?
    Will the paired battalions actually have decent access to these vehicles or could it be more like a once a year familiarisation exercise?
    Regards
    Luke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reserve battalions are:

      5 Fusiliers (paired to 1 Fusiliers)
      3 R Welsh (paired to 1 R Welsh)
      7 Rifles (paired to 5 Rifles)
      4 Mercian (paired to 1 Mercian)

      The battalions will be re-subordinated so they sit under the two armoured brigades.
      Access to Warrior seem pretty decent from the social feed of 7 Rifles and 5 Fusiliers. Lately images of their training on Warrior have become prominent.

      Delete
    2. Seems like abit of decent news. Im ex 2/3 Royal Welsh myself and i know 3 R WELSH are very glad to be back paired with the 1st Battalion as opposed to Welsh Guards.
      Hopefully they will get plenty of time on Warrior.
      Presumably they would provide one companies worth of bodies on operational deployment?

      Delete
    3. Probably that's the top end of the scale, more or less.

      Delete
  13. Gabi do you know what is going to happen with 20th AI? Obviously they are loosing 4 Scots and RDG to one of the Strike Brigades, and 1 PWRR is going to convert to light role and Cyprus. So that leaves QRH and 5 Rifles. Any word on which Battalion will be assigned to the second Armoured Infantry space?
    MR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last plan published was as follows:

      20 Bde
      Queen's Royal Hussars
      1 RRF & 5 RRF
      5 Rifles & 7 Rifles

      12 Bde
      Royal Tank Regiment
      1 Mercian & 4 Mercian
      1 R Welsh & 3 R Welsh

      Delete
    2. Ah cheers. Follow on question: Who do you think might end up as the new CGS? Unfortunate we ended up with Sir Nick in charge of *everything* but hopefully we'll end up with someone better in charge of the army at least?
      MR

      Delete
    3. I really wouldn't know how that might go.

      Delete
  14. IMO UK have to many specialised infantry batallions: three Paras, four commandos, two batallions od RAF Rgt worth of squadrons, marine brigade recon, paras pathfinders and so on. All require their schools and regiment ethos and take a lot of money to keep running. at the same time army is strugling to keep rest of infantry up and running with some very curious solutions. If specialised troops were pooled togther in lets say ranger-like regiment with four operational and one specialised troops batallions (pathfinder,brigade recon/raf,para,marine artillery spotters/raf,para,marine engineers...) it would end up with one operational batallion and another one full bn in emergency or with one company sized unit for SF support. One school, one regiment ethos, one way to enter regiment, more money for equipement for them, more man power for propper logistic, combat engenier, artillery, command units, one pool for SF, etc. That is 9 or 10 full strenght batallions for a brigade instead existing two and a half brigade of 15-20 batallion in name units. UK will never again have WW2 large airdrops, beech assaults or assaults of any type on its own, but it is investing a lot of scarce money into those missions. Even Falklands didnt have combat amphlanding or paradrops or even airassaults, just elite doing regular infantry job. Tactics and jobs of regular and elite infantry units wasnt much different in Afghanistan too. Well, this is just a thinking because I see a lot of proposals with infantry units and there is room for freeing some men to beef up menpower, however there is space in elite units for menpower AND money (less hi-payed jobs etc).
    I would appreciate if you would write something about current French army and their infantry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all Specialised Infantry Battalions does not mean the same as what you are alledging it to be. Para's, Marines, and RAF Rgt are infantry with specific roles. This is different from what Spec. Inf is, which is an advisory/training force. Not the same thing. Also Marine Brigade Reco? I assume you mean 30 Commando Group?

      Anyway shockingly most role focused infantry like Paras, Parapathfinders, Marines, 30 Commando Group etc are already pooled together in Brigades. Hence 16 AA is all airmobile units. 3 Commando is all Amphibious Units. Specialist Infantry Group will be (you guessed it) all SPIB.

      While some capabilities are questionable (no the Paras will probably never *parachute* into an area) other capabilities aren't: The ability to operate in a littoral environment (Btw was pretty important for the Royals in the Falklands, it's also worth noting that most of the British Army during the Falklands was tied down in NI and Germany so the units that went where the only ones that where free... fast high readiness units) is going to be key, hence the need for a Amphibious Brigade, don't water that down with troops not trained for amphibious role, let alone troops whose job is to train and lead foreign troops ala SPIB. Same with Air Assault, no more parachutes but helicopter maneuver was used extensively in Afghan by Paras and other units in 16 AA.

      MR

      Delete
  15. Two questions

    1) What are the advantages of the Carl Gustav M4 vs C90? One seems to be much lighter than the other so there's got to be a comparison between them that goes beyond the range of ammunition available.

    2) Could the L85A3 eventually be re-engineered into a new calibre if the US were to shift calibre?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles?
    I mean, what you say is valuable and everything.
    But think of if you added some great graphics or videos
    to give your posts more, "pop"! Your content is excellent but with pics and videos, this website
    could undeniably be one of the best in its niche.

    Very good blog!

    ReplyDelete

Everybody can comment on this blog without needing a Blogger account. It is meant to keep the discussion free and open to everyone. Unfortunately, anonymous accounts keep the door open for spammers and trolls, so i'm forced to moderate comments and approve them before they appear. Apologies for the inconvenience.