Army 2020 Refine

Can it be considered out dated when everyone (allies and potential enemies still uses it)?
Yes. That's the Thai submarines and an aircraft carrier argument.
If you want/need a persistence physical presence in an area you need armour of some description (in the future that could be a vehicle with plastic armour who knows)
As I keep asking, where and why would you? Where's the threat to UK interests that would require it?
I still think you're being unfair, or at least polemic.

We've already all agreed that threat does not equal risk. So let's stop talking about 'threat', eh?. This is a risk issue. And maintaining a capacity in the absence of an immediate threat is a risk management strategy. Like insurance.

In fact insurance isn't even a metaphor: it's exactly what we're discussing here. And, as with insurance, the more cover you want, the more it costs you. So, if HMG is willing to pay £x, for that insurance, then that's what there is to play with.

And insurance is risk specific. You have building insurance to cover buildings. If the client is persuaded of a need to maintain a mech capacity...

And, maintaining the insurance idiom, it's important to read the small print. IF this capacity has to have a mobilisation time measured in days and weeks, it must exist in some basic form. If it is to mobilise in months, it might get by using more reserves with kit in light pres; if it is to be based on years (the 10 year rule) perhaps more kit can be bought when needed. If it needs to deploy to defend dependencies or support expeditions, more of the budget has to go blue (dark and light). What we wouldn't want is to not read the small print and find out that we have maintained a capacity to do something it can't actually do.

You keep on mentioning emerging threats. There are different academic ways of looking at this but personally I like Frank Knight's distinction between risk and uncertainty. Emerging threats are uncertain. They are dealt with in academia and industry by research. So a bigger budget for DSTL and Green Slime until they are quantified (i.e. Known Unknowns).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I still think you're being unfair, or at least polemic.

We've already all agreed that threat does not equal risk. So let's stop talking about 'threat', eh?. This is a risk issue. And maintaining a capacity in the absence of an immediate threat is a risk management strategy. Like insurance.

In fact insurance isn't even a metaphor: it's exactly what we're discussing here. And, as with insurance, the more cover you want, the more it costs you. So, if HMG is willing to pay £x, for that insurance, then that's what there is to play with.

And insurance is risk specific. You have building insurance to cover buildings. If the client is persuaded of a need to maintain a mech capacity...

And, maintaining the insurance idiom, it's important to read the small print. IF this capacity has to have a mobilisation time measured in days and weeks, it must exist in some basic form. If it is to mobilise in months, it might get by using more reserves with kit in light pres; if it is to be based on years (the 10 year rule) perhaps more kit can be bought when needed. If it needs to deploy to defend dependencies or support expeditions, more of the budget has to go blue (dark and light). What we wouldn't want is to not read the small print and find out that we have maintained a capacity to do something it can't actually do.

You keep on mentioning emerging threats. There are different academic ways of looking at this but personally I like Frank Knight's distinction between risk and uncertainty. Emerging threats are uncertain. They are dealt with in academia and industry by research. So a bigger budget for DSTL and Green Slime until they are quantified (i.e. Known Unknowns).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mmm. Kind of. The thing is, if we're going to talk in risk terms, we have to talk about mitigation of identified risks, Mitigation is the application of measures to address either probability or impact - or, ideally, both - of the negative event's occurrence (where the risk leading to the negative event lies above your risk appetite) to a level consistent with your own risk appetite.

Crudely, you can directly mitigate a risk, yourself, you can export the mitigation of the risk - to insurance or a partner or wherever - or you can tolerate a risk, i.e. leave it unmitigated, accepting it, if you will.

In terms of the Big Bad Bear, the risks he generates are in all five realms - Air, Land, Sea, Space and Cyber. We can't possibly fund full mitigation in all five, so will need either to export or ignore at least some high-level risks and I'd contend that we are best placed to export the bulk of heavy metal Land risks to those with more intimate skin in the game (Hullo, Poland and Germany) and most Space risks to the ally with the greatest capability there (the USA). That leaves us with Sea, Air and Cyber and I'd submit we're well-placed to do direct mitigation in all three realms.

Not to say we ignore Land and Space, just that we look closely at what we actually need in those realms for protection and promotion of the national interest and structure accordingly.
 
Mmm. Kind of. The thing is, if we're going to talk in risk terms, we have to talk about mitigation of identified risks, Mitigation is the application of measures to address either probability or impact - or, ideally, both - of the negative event's occurrence (where the risk leading to the negative event lies above your risk appetite) to a level consistent with your own risk appetite.

Crudely, you can directly mitigate a risk, yourself, you can export the mitigation of the risk - to insurance or a partner or wherever - or you can tolerate a risk, i.e. leave it unmitigated, accepting it, if you will.

In terms of the Big Bad Bear, the risks he generates are in all five realms - Air, Land, Sea, Space and Cyber. We can't possibly fund full mitigation in all five, so will need either to export or ignore at least some high-level risks and I'd contend that we are best placed to export the bulk of heavy metal Land risks to those with more intimate skin in the game (Hullo, Poland and Germany) and most Space risks to the ally with the greatest capability there (the USA). That leaves us with Sea, Air and Cyber and I'd submit we're well-placed to do direct mitigation in all three realms.

Not to say we ignore Land and Space, just that we look closely at what we actually need in those realms for protection and promotion of the national interest and structure accordingly.
Definitely but it also depends on the UK Government (and PLC) wanting to stay in the top tier with heavy armour. Are they willing to sacrifice that?

Would for example, they be willing to replace 2 x Armd Inf Bdes and 2 x Strike Bdes with 4 x Strike Bdes (with a couple of Armd Regts)
 
Definitely but it also depends on the UK Government (and PLC) wanting to stay in the top tier with heavy armour. Are they willing to sacrifice that?

Would for example, they be willing to replace 2 x Armd Inf Bdes and 2 x Strike Bdes with 4 x Strike Bdes (with a couple of Armd Regts)
If the decision is to mitigate a specific LAND risk and the mitigation means selected is "stay in the heavy metal business" and that's a. affordable and b. brings the risk to within appetite, then sure, why not? If not, then no.
 
I worry about the idea that keeping MBTs and AIFVs somehow keeps us in the top tier where retaining the capability to deploy forces worldwide (one of two nations, note) somehow doesn't.
 
Mmm. Kind of. The thing is, if we're going to talk in risk terms, we have to talk about mitigation of identified risks, Mitigation is the application of measures to address either probability or impact - or, ideally, both - of the negative event's occurrence (where the risk leading to the negative event lies above your risk appetite) to a level consistent with your own risk appetite.

Crudely, you can directly mitigate a risk, yourself, you can export the mitigation of the risk - to insurance or a partner or wherever - or you can tolerate a risk, i.e. leave it unmitigated, accepting it, if you will.

In terms of the Big Bad Bear, the risks he generates are in all five realms - Air, Land, Sea, Space and Cyber. We can't possibly fund full mitigation in all five, so will need either to export or ignore at least some high-level risks and I'd contend that we are best placed to export the bulk of heavy metal Land risks to those with more intimate skin in the game (Hullo, Poland and Germany) and most Space risks to the ally with the greatest capability there (the USA). That leaves us with Sea, Air and Cyber and I'd submit we're well-placed to do direct mitigation in all three realms.

Not to say we ignore Land and Space, just that we look closely at what we actually need in those realms for protection and promotion of the national interest and structure accordingly.
Exactly my point - I'm not up on the threats (or risks) which is why I ask, but to extend @theotherbob's insurance metaphor, maybe we're taking out the wrong insurance cover?

It's fine to go for what @irlsgt describes as a 'balanced' solution, but if there's a readily identifiable and present threat in one of your five areas (air, land, sea, space, and cyber) that puts you at current clear risk and only a vague risk in others, then that tells me you don't want a balanced solution but a targeted one - and even from here I can see an identified and active threat, just as I think Carter can. He just doesn't seem to want to be the one to spell it out, preferring instead to drop hints as subtle as a brick in a paper bag.

Edit: you can buy an awful lot of cyber cover for the real cost of an armd bde (or two).
 
I still think you're being unfair, or at least polemic.

We've already all agreed that threat does not equal risk. So let's stop talking about 'threat', eh?. This is a risk issue. And maintaining a capacity in the absence of an immediate threat is a risk management strategy. Like insurance.

In fact insurance isn't even a metaphor: it's exactly what we're discussing here. And, as with insurance, the more cover you want, the more it costs you. So, if HMG is willing to pay £x, for that insurance, then that's what there is to play with.

And insurance is risk specific. You have building insurance to cover buildings. If the client is persuaded of a need to maintain a mech capacity...

And, maintaining the insurance idiom, it's important to read the small print. IF this capacity has to have a mobilisation time measured in days and weeks, it must exist in some basic form. If it is to mobilise in months, it might get by using more reserves with kit in light pres; if it is to be based on years (the 10 year rule) perhaps more kit can be bought when needed. If it needs to deploy to defend dependencies or support expeditions, more of the budget has to go blue (dark and light). What we wouldn't want is to not read the small print and find out that we have maintained a capacity to do something it can't actually do.

You keep on mentioning emerging threats. There are different academic ways of looking at this but personally I like Frank Knight's distinction between risk and uncertainty. Emerging threats are uncertain. They are dealt with in academia and industry by research. So a bigger budget for DSTL and Green Slime until they are quantified (i.e. Known Unknowns).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mmm. Kind of. The thing is, if we're going to talk in risk terms, we have to talk about mitigation of identified risks, Mitigation is the application of measures to address either probability or impact - or, ideally, both - of the negative event's occurrence (where the risk leading to the negative event lies above your risk appetite) to a level consistent with your own risk appetite.

Crudely, you can directly mitigate a risk, yourself, you can export the mitigation of the risk - to insurance or a partner or wherever - or you can tolerate a risk, i.e. leave it unmitigated, accepting it, if you will.

In terms of the Big Bad Bear, the risks he generates are in all five realms - Air, Land, Sea, Space and Cyber. We can't possibly fund full mitigation in all five, so will need either to export or ignore at least some high-level risks and I'd contend that we are best placed to export the bulk of heavy metal Land risks to those with more intimate skin in the game (Hullo, Poland and Germany) and most Space risks to the ally with the greatest capability there (the USA). That leaves us with Sea, Air and Cyber and I'd submit we're well-placed to do direct mitigation in all three realms.

Not to say we ignore Land and Space, just that we look closely at what we actually need in those realms for protection and promotion of the national interest and structure accordingly.
That makes complete sense to me, especially in terms of Roles #3 and #4. But what about Roles #1 and #2?

As you say, it's about the customer's appetite/averseness to risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mmm. Kind of. The thing is, if we're going to talk in risk terms, we have to talk about mitigation of identified risks, Mitigation is the application of measures to address either probability or impact - or, ideally, both - of the negative event's occurrence (where the risk leading to the negative event lies above your risk appetite) to a level consistent with your own risk appetite.

Crudely, you can directly mitigate a risk, yourself, you can export the mitigation of the risk - to insurance or a partner or wherever - or you can tolerate a risk, i.e. leave it unmitigated, accepting it, if you will.

In terms of the Big Bad Bear, the risks he generates are in all five realms - Air, Land, Sea, Space and Cyber. We can't possibly fund full mitigation in all five, so will need either to export or ignore at least some high-level risks and I'd contend that we are best placed to export the bulk of heavy metal Land risks to those with more intimate skin in the game (Hullo, Poland and Germany) and most Space risks to the ally with the greatest capability there (the USA). That leaves us with Sea, Air and Cyber and I'd submit we're well-placed to do direct mitigation in all three realms.

Not to say we ignore Land and Space, just that we look closely at what we actually need in those realms for protection and promotion of the national interest and structure accordingly.
Exactly my point - I'm not up on the threats (or risks) which is why I ask, but to extend @theotherbob's insurance metaphor, maybe we're taking out the wrong insurance cover?

It's fine to go for what @irlsgt describes as a 'balanced' solution, but if there's a readily identifiable and present threat in one of your five areas (air, land, sea, space, and cyber) that puts you at current clear risk and only a vague risk in others, then that tells me you don't want a balanced solution but a targeted one - and even from here I can see an identified and active threat, just as I think Carter can. He just doesn't seem to want to be the one to spell it out, preferring instead to drop hints as subtle as a brick in a paper bag.

Edit: you can buy an awful lot of cyber cover for the real cost of an armd bde (or two).
Fair enough. So you balance your risks by also keeping DSTL, GCHQ etc up to speed.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Exactly my point - I'm not up on the threats (or risks) which is why I ask, but to extend @theotherbob's insurance metaphor, maybe we're taking out the wrong insurance cover?

It's fine to go for what @irlsgt describes as a 'balanced' solution, but if there's a readily identifiable and present threat in one of your five areas (air, land, sea, space, and cyber) that puts you at current clear risk and only a vague risk in others, then that tells me you don't want a balanced solution but a targeted one - and even from here I can see an identified and active threat, just as I think Carter can. He just doesn't seem to want to be the one to spell it out, preferring instead to drop hints as subtle as a brick in a paper bag.

Edit: you can buy an awful lot of cyber cover for the real cost of an armd bde (or two).
I should state that that balanced force I described is the land balanced force...... the other arenas need to be balanced too
 
I worry about the idea that keeping MBTs and AIFVs somehow keeps us in the top tier where retaining the capability to deploy forces worldwide (one of two nations, note) somehow doesn't.
I should have said the top tier on land

No point holding forces if you can’t deploy them! Especially when the threat/risk could be outside Europe
 
.
They were in BTR from SFOR in Bosnia, not BMD, and not airborne / desant / forces - the commander on the ground was Gen Viktor Zavarzin, a very tubby two-star. The only special /desant forces in the area were British and Norwegian (FSK).

Avatar aside, you're way off the mark.
See above, but BMP and BMD are very different, used very differently, by very different troops (although I do realise you're not confusing the two).
Is there any subject you're not ignorant of ? Perhaps it's fairer to say that you know just enough to be dangerous about ?

First off, the desant is a type of manoeuvre rather than a piece of kit. Look at Kutuzov's parallel pursuit of Napoleon for an old school pre helicopter example. The Sovs and now Russian addition of units in the ORBAT which can be moved via helicopter or airdrop does not preclude bog standard Motor Rifle troops from getting their deep battle on. Which is what they did.

Secondly, you miss the point about the BMD completely - which actually illustrates the ignorance in Western forces I was referring to, so well done you!

Please feel free to come back with half a page of drivel based on some random googling;, I shan't read it.
 
Is there any subject you're not ignorant of ? Perhaps it's fairer to say that you know just enough to be dangerous about ?

First off, the desant is a type of manoeuvre rather than a piece of kit. Look at Kutuzov's parallel pursuit of Napoleon for an old school pre helicopter example. The Sovs and now Russian addition of units in the ORBAT which can be moved via helicopter or airdrop does not preclude bog standard Motor Rifle troops from getting their deep battle on. Which is what they did.

Secondly, you miss the point about the BMD completely - which actually illustrates the ignorance in Western forces I was referring to, so well done you!

Please feel free to come back with half a page of drivel based on some random googling;, I shan't read it.
Having been A/Tk pl comd, Milan pl comd and IO in a 7 Fd Force bn, mistaking a BTR for a BMD would be like David Attenborough mistaking a hippo for a wolf, and unfortunately for you there just happened to be some photos of the BTRs at the airport in Mike Jackson's autobiography that I'd noticed when looking something up in it for @Andre (IIRC) earlier.

You were talking utter nonsense, so why not either have the grace to admit it and move on or the sense to keep quiet instead of burbling even more nonsense about the tps involved.

What the Russians weren't doing, even with the wildest imagination in the world, was "using specially designed desant forces" - that, if anyone's, was the British and French plan. The Russians were simply using regular motor rifle tps from SFOR in their regular BTRs, straight off the streets - probably the least appropriate vehicle for "specially designed desant forces" it'd be possible to find!

Another village has been deprived of its idiot.
 
Having been A/Tk pl comd, Milan pl comd and IO in a 7 Fd Force bn, mistaking a BTR for a BMD would be like David Attenborough mistaking a hippo for a wolf, and unfortunately for you there just happened to be some photos of the BTRs at the airport in Mike Jackson's autobiography that I'd noticed when looking something up in it for @Andre (IIRC) earlier.

You were talking utter nonsense, so why not either have the grace to admit it and move on or the sense to keep quiet instead of burbling even more nonsense about the tps involved.

What the Russians weren't doing, even with the wildest imagination in the world, was "using specially designed desant forces" - that, if anyone's, was the British and French plan. The Russians were simply using regular motor rifle tps from SFOR in regular BTRs, straight off the streets - probably the least appropriate vehicle for "specially designed desant forces" it'd be possible to find!

Another village has been deprived of its idiot.
Irony truly is dead for you, isn't it?
 
I asked this before but leaving aside the light infantry tasked to 16 AA Bde, PD, SIBs, Cyprus, Brunei.

How many (other) light infantry battalions are required?

If any (should the priority be to fully man the combat formations)?

And how should they be organised? A regional Bde type structure (as is) or a number of all arms light inf Bdes (possibly with much of that capability coming from the reserves)?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top