British Army News and Discussion

[RobWilliams]

Indeed, in his day it was Striker which carried 5 wire guided Swingfire missiles with 4km range and 5 more stowed inside the vehicle.

Appears to have been withdrawn as the missile was replaced with Javelin, but considering now Javelin can be vehicle mounted (Kongsberg - the company supplying the RWS - do a Javelin version) that could be an option although I'd imagine you can't do 'rapid fire' with it.

Brimstone 2 anyone?

 

[Bonza]

Indeed, in his day it was Striker which carried 5 wire guided Swingfire missiles with 4km range and 5 more stowed inside the vehicle.

Appears to have been withdrawn as the missile was replaced with Javelin, but considering now Javelin can be vehicle mounted (Kongsberg - the company supplying the RWS - do a Javelin version) that could be an option although I'd imagine you can't do 'rapid fire' with it.

Brimstone 2 anyone?

Could this Javelin variant be more envisioned to operate as per the Fire Support Groups used in Afghanistan to provide overwatch from high ground along an infantry patrol route? I think a dedicated AT variant should provide a measure of mounted capability in the form of turreted (and possibly heavier) missile armament, but if it's designed for "the last war" then I could see why they'd dedicate more space to dismount-fired Javelins, as from the footage I've seen the FSG remain relatively static while providing overwatch, unless mortars or similar force them to relocate.

Bear in mind though I'm going from the very limited impressions I've gotten from battlefield footage so I could easily be making the wrong assumptions about the intent behind the design...

 

[bdique]

I am also a bit intrigued by the idea of providing overwatch for highly mobile tracked recce AFVs by using dismounted ATGM-Teams.

Relocating is slower with such a setup.

As for Spike-NLOS. I am a huge fan of it but it's more of a high precision/high capability artillery support system than something with which one performs AT overwatch.

If one thinks that AT overwatch for recce assets is so important that one puts a specialized vehicle into service one might say that the combination of pure dismount ATGMs with medium range seems a bit strange.

Firefights by overwatch elements tend to be longer ranged.

I can't say exactly how the British Army intends to deploy the ATGM teams, but speaking from the Singaporean experience with the SPIKE...

...you can use these foot-mobile teams for both offensive and defensive missions. It should be pretty obvious for defensive missions - prepare several good firing positions in advance with sufficient cover etc, and co-ordinate with other teams such that as one team fires, the others are reloading/relocating etc.

I've been in exercises where such a set up stalled a simulated OPFOR battalion-sized armoured advance. SPIKE teams were working in concert with SM1s, and it was the ATGM teams that racked up more OPFOR vehicle kills than the light tanks. (Light tanks also suffered several mob/total kills, whilst not a single ATGM team suffered any casualties.) OPFOR took too long to break through, and was subsequently declared dead as enough time was bought for the AH-64s to arrive and mop up.

That was a battalion exercise with IFVs supported by light tanks. With MBTs, I'd think that the OPFOR would have been forced to pull back earlier while causing less casualties to the Blue Force.

In terms of the attack, don't think of using them in a mounted-assault, fire-movement type role. What can be done however is to detach the ATGM teams to the various company commanders, who will deploy them according to his or her will. I have seen aggressive OCs who make the ATGM teams infil with the dismounted infantry so that they can take position as soon as the objective is secured while having some element of surprise. Teams stay in position (i.e. functioning as a Fire Support Group as mentioned by Bonza) until their organic vehicle (often another tracked APC) comes and picks them up, so there really isn't an issue of relocating since once they are set up, they are meant to stay (at least in a localised part of the battlefield), and when they need to exfil, vehicles help them can bug out quick.

Of course, I'm not sure if such a manner of fighting will be relevant to the recce/strike SV, but since there are APC variants out there...I would think that there will be mounted infantry, and consequently the Javelin team will be able to support these dismounts. I don't think there's really a way for dismounted Javelin teams to support the recce/strike SVs when they are advancing (can we just call them 40mm SVs?) and I would think that overwatch for such a battle would be better provided by attack helos, or fixed wing aviation.

Regarding range, I suspect it is a technical thing that involves a trade-off between short flight time (i.e. reduce exposure to passive countermeasures), high hit probability, quick target acquisition, fire-and-forget function...and range. UK might be willing to accept a shorter range for other advantages that the Javelin has, and can bring to the battlefield. In any case, there are many other assets available to the CO at the brigade level to help him take out targets beyond 2.5km...well, I'm boldly assuming that SV-equipped regiments will be supported by AS-90s, as well as aviation assets i.e. AH-64s, but it seems to me to be a fair one.

 

[Waylander]

I agree completely with you when it comes to dismounted ATGM teams in the defense or in an infantry centric attack. All these capabilities already exist with the Javelin teams of the different UK infantry units.

Recce vehicles tend to be work much more mobile hence my opinion of them needing mobile overwatch elements.
Countries tend to attach tanks and IFVs to their recce screen for this or have mixed units from the get go like the former US Armored Cavalry or German heavy Panzeraufklärer.

I just wondered that the UK introduces a new vehicle which at least according to it's name shall provide AT overwatch for other recce vehicles but puts only dismounted medium range ATGMs into it. So either I get the supposed role of the vehicle wrong or I don't understand the reasoning behind using such a setup for this specific role.

 

[bdique]

I agree completely with you when it comes to dismounted ATGM teams in the defense or in an infantry centric attack. All these capabilities already exist with the Javelin teams of the different UK infantry units.

Fully agree with you.

Recce vehicles tend to be work much more mobile hence my opinion of them needing mobile overwatch elements.
Countries tend to attach tanks and IFVs to their recce screen for this or have mixed units from the get go like the former US Armored Cavalry or German heavy Panzeraufklärer.

True, I actually thought that the 40mm Scout SVs are the recce screen for the Challenger 2s, except that these are really aggressive recce units who will probably be doing a lot of recce by fire.

I just wondered that the UK introduces a new vehicle which at least according to it's name shall provide AT overwatch for other recce vehicles but puts only dismounted medium range ATGMs into it. So either I get the supposed role of the vehicle wrong or I don't understand the reasoning behind using such a setup for this specific role.

Actually I'm starting to wonder if the formation overwatch SV (a PMRS SV vehicle) is meant to provide overwatch for only the other PMRS vehicles, especially the support types i.e. recovery, engineering. I know, I'm being pedantic about the naming of the vehicle, but I cannot see how the Javelin or any other ATGM in general can support the 40mm SVs in a dynamic assault.

 

[ADMk2]

I agree completely with you when it comes to dismounted ATGM teams in the defense or in an infantry centric attack. All these capabilities already exist with the Javelin teams of the different UK infantry units.

Recce vehicles tend to be work much more mobile hence my opinion of them needing mobile overwatch elements.
Countries tend to attach tanks and IFVs to their recce screen for this or have mixed units from the get go like the former US Armored Cavalry or German heavy Panzeraufklärer.

I just wondered that the UK introduces a new vehicle which at least according to it's name shall provide AT overwatch for other recce vehicles but puts only dismounted medium range ATGMs into it. So either I get the supposed role of the vehicle wrong or I don't understand the reasoning behind using such a setup for this specific role.

A quick note, the published range of Javelin isn't it's maximum range. It has demonstrated 4k range capability in testing already and -ER versions with new motors (no doubt to compete with Spike-ER etc) are in the design phase. Perhaps that capability has already been quietly rolled out?

 

[RobWilliams]

Recce vehicles tend to be work much more mobile hence my opinion of them needing mobile overwatch elements.
Countries tend to attach tanks and IFVs to their recce screen for this or have mixed units from the get go like the former US Armored Cavalry or German heavy Panzeraufklärer.

In the UK reaction forces, the Type 56 Challenger 2 regiment includes 3 x 18 strong squadrons plus a command and recce squadron so MBTs do appear to be planned to be included in a recce screen.

Also included in the brigade is an armoured cavalry regiment including 3 x 16 strong squadrons of Scout plus a command and support squadron which'll contribute to the screen.

 

[Raven22]

A quick note, the published range of Javelin isn't it's maximum range. It has demonstrated 4k range capability in testing already and -ER versions with new motors (no doubt to compete with Spike-ER etc) are in the design phase. Perhaps that capability has already been quietly rolled out?

The current Javelin is already capable of firing out to 4000m. What limits the range to 2500m is that is the range at which the CLU can identify and lock onto a target. There are already what are essentially ER kits for the CLU so it can acquire targets out to the max range of the missile. These are in service with various organisations.

Using dismounted javelins for overwatch of mounted forces is bollocks though

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the info about the extended range capabilities of the Javelin. Didn't know about that.

The problem with using tanks of the regular armoured units for the recce screen is that it reduces the strength of the main force which lacks some strength once the enemy has been found.

 

[bdique]

Thanks for the info about the extended range capabilities of the Javelin. Didn't know about that.

The problem with using tanks of the regular armoured units for the recce screen is that it reduces the strength of the main force which lacks some strength once the enemy has been found.

I didn't know that these ER kits are already in existence, thanks Raven22

Agree about the point of using armour for recce screen, but I was always under the impression that on the digitised battlefield you could call up backup real fast - faster than what can be achieved through voice protocols anyway. The effect is to produce a 'localised' massing of fires faster than the enemy could expect.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for the info about the extended range capabilities of the Javelin. Didn't know about that.

The problem with using tanks of the regular armoured units for the recce screen is that it reduces the strength of the main force which lacks some strength once the enemy has been found.

In this day and age the long range guided missiles like Spike-NLOS can make an ideal overwatch/recce screen. They can double up roles with the <20km indirect fires and also long range direct fires (out to line of sight) because the missiles can be fired like a Javelin with fire and forget. You can even mix the guidance mode during the missile flight.

The Israelis have rebuilt some M60 tanks into Spike NLOS systems for this role (with a fake gun barrel). The M1 Assault Breacher arrangement could be easily converted to such a role with 20 or so missiles replacing the GV and a EO system fitted to the turret with a mast (the Israeli Spike M60 has an elevating mast for its direct fire sighting system). Or you could easily fit similar arrangements to the roof of the Scout SV and have the crew sit in the hull.

 

[Waylander]

I really like the capabilities the Spike-NLOS gives to a force. With a couple of launch vehicles in the back one can reach out and touch at enormous ranges providing quick and lethal AT support out to more distant screening units.

IIRC the Japanese have a similar system in service mainly for coastal defence duties as an anti landing craft tool.

As for modern networking capabilities reducing the need to assign heavy hitters to your recce screen. One surely can mass critical assets faster and more accurate but physical distances remain the same. And unless one attaches some heavy hitters to your screen one is screwed when the ligher scouts stumble upon something they can't handle by themselves. A very good intelligence picture won't bring the heavy assets faster into position to support the scouts.

 

[Volkodav]

Can't understand specifying a dismount only capability when you have a perfectly good vehicle, assigned to carry the dismounts, that could just as easily be used to mount the system.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can't understand specifying a dismount only capability when you have a perfectly good vehicle, assigned to carry the dismounts, that could just as easily be used to mount the system.

$$$$$$ or in this case £££££££

 

[bdique]

I really like the capabilities the Spike-NLOS gives to a force. With a couple of launch vehicles in the back one can reach out and touch at enormous ranges providing quick and lethal AT support out to more distant screening units.

IIRC the Japanese have a similar system in service mainly for coastal defence duties as an anti landing craft tool.

Will agree that such a precision strike capability would be the commander's dream. In fact, the British already have a M113-mounted Spike NLOS system (Exactor), but I cannot seem to find any information regarding where they fit in the current British ORBAT. With that sort of range, the Exactor would sound more at home with the Royal Artillery than as a formation overwatch.

As for modern networking capabilities reducing the need to assign heavy hitters to your recce screen. One surely can mass critical assets faster and more accurate but physical distances remain the same. And unless one attaches some heavy hitters to your screen one is screwed when the ligher scouts stumble upon something they can't handle by themselves. A very good intelligence picture won't bring the heavy assets faster into position to support the scouts.

Actually, I kind of regret bringing up vehicle network capabilities since I've only tinkered around with early versions that were probably more useful to the brigade commander than to the CO...but I'll leave it at that.

In any case, the whole point is that in a perfect situation, everyone, not just your individual IFVs or MBTs but even support units at the battalion level (mortars, ATGM teams, ambulances, repair and recovery units etc.) and above (heavy artillery, attack helos, UAVs) will be 'plugged-in'. Everyone will have access to the 'big picture', improving the situational awareness for all blue forces. So the point is to react faster - the physical distance will always be there, but at least you clear up the fog of war, so that should improve reaction times, and help make smarter decisions (send the units that are actually nearer to assist, rather than units that the OC thinks are nearer).

I will acknowledge that this technological hurdle for ground forces is a whole lot easier said than done, but R&D in this area is what sets modern militaries apart from the rest.

Of course, having organic big guns does help, but with the downsizing/streamlining of most modern militaries out there, that may be a luxury rather than a necessity.

Can't understand specifying a dismount only capability when you have a perfectly good vehicle, assigned to carry the dismounts, that could just as easily be used to mount the system.

$$$$$$ or in this case £££££££

Yes, costs, but I believe it is also because ATGM mounts take up space that could be used for storing more rounds.

 

[RobWilliams]

You're right bdique, AFAIK EXACTOR remains the domain of the Royal Artillery and is a highly secret capability, before it was officially published as being in service it had been in Afghanistan for some time and there was huge amounts of rumours about the UK having it.

As far as ORBAT, before funding was secured and it was moved into the core budget they had hoped to secure them for the 'reaction' forces. Each mechanised brigade is to have their own artillery in the form of AS90 (3 batteries at 6 guns a battery I think) and GMLRS (6 launchers), the RA wanted that supplemented with an EXACTOR troop of an unclarified size.

 

[swerve]

I really like the capabilities the Spike-NLOS gives to a force. With a couple of launch vehicles in the back one can reach out and touch at enormous ranges providing quick and lethal AT support out to more distant screening units.

IIRC the Japanese have a similar system in service mainly for coastal defence duties as an anti landing craft tool.

Type 96 Multipurpose Missile System.

 

[bdique]

You're right bdique, AFAIK EXACTOR remains the domain of the Royal Artillery and is a highly secret capability, before it was officially published as being in service it had been in Afghanistan for some time and there was huge amounts of rumours about the UK having it.

As far as ORBAT, before funding was secured and it was moved into the core budget they had hoped to secure them for the 'reaction' forces. Each mechanised brigade is to have their own artillery in the form of AS90 (3 batteries at 6 guns a battery I think) and GMLRS (6 launchers), the RA wanted that supplemented with an EXACTOR troop of an unclarified size.

Well if each mechanised brigade has a battery of Bravehearts then the Scout SVs can breathe a little easier when the enemy resistance gets tougher (tho I think not much can withstand the 40mm to begin with)

In fact, I'm surprised tt the GMLRS is a brigade asset. I expected it to be a division asset.

Also, it seems like there's no PRMS mortar carrier version?

 

[RobWilliams]

Well if each mechanised brigade has a battery of Bravehearts then the Scout SVs can breathe a little easier when the enemy resistance gets tougher (tho I think not much can withstand the 40mm to begin with)

Technically the AS90s aren't Bravehearts as that was an upgrade program to move from 39cal to 52cal barrels but following from unsatisfactory charges (they were going to be more powerful but produce less barrel wear) came to the floor it gave the MOD an excuse to kill it.

It's the regular 39cal barrels for us, ~24.7km range which can move to 30km with guided munitions.

I've been hearing good things about what the CTA 40mm should be able to do, hopefully it delivers.

In fact, I'm surprised tt the GMLRS is a brigade asset. I expected it to be a division asset.

Yup, it appears the goal of Army 2020 is to make each brigade deployable alone with the appropriate support structure and this includes the associated logi/artillery/eng support.

Also, it seems like there's no PRMS mortar carrier version?

Yeah, ours are currently based on the FV432 vehicle and a program to replace them has rarely been mentioned - if at all - publicly, however it's possible our current mortar carriers will be replaced under the ABSV program.*

ABSV stands for Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle, this program is based off of using surplus Warriors created from budget cuts and removing the turret and using these for command/control roles and ambulance roles currently fulfilled by the FV430 family.

As a program, it's not really set in stone and plenty of rumours making the rounds, it's expected to hit Initial Gate before the end of the year where the program aims will be released and some projections have made 2019 as the planned for (i.e still subject to change) ISD.

Even rumours of an ATGM armed variant of ABSV exist.

Looks like the MOD are - thankfully - looking to assemble the majority of the Scout SV vehicles in the UK rather than in Spain. It's asked GD to crunch the numbers. There's an option to have 100 assembled and painted in Spain with systems integration and testing to be done in the UK and the remainder to be fully assembled etc in the UK (489 vehicles).

Makes me wonder about the future of UK AFV design/manufacture, whether when Challenger 2 and the AS90 need replacing if we could do that ourselves in house or team up. Frankly i'd be extremely happy with the idea of partnering with Germany.

*scratch that, BAE has publicly demonstrated a turretless Warrior in a mortar carrier configuration so i'd now put the ABSV down as the replacement.

 

[Waylander]

Well, the last joint UK-German vehicle programs didn't go so well...

FMBT got cancelled and resulted in the MBT-80 program (cancelled...) which then resulted in the Challenger 1. We got the Leopard II...

The Boxer program resulted in the Dutch and us getting the Boxer and you opting out and getting...errh...nothing so far...

Although we seem to have gotten the better deals after the projects broke up the overall history is less than stellar. On the other hand I doubt that any country in europe is able to finance a new MBT programe all by itself these days.