Strike is a buzzword that seems to be applied to anything the UK defence sees as cutting edge. For instance the STRIKE brigades are innovative and forward looking according to the MOD. The littoral strike ships are a brand new way of thinking. The Joint Strike Fighter is the most cutting edge of technology.
It is nice to see that there is at least someway of trying to generate interest in the forces and evolving them for the future. However, how much is spin? and how much is credible and achievable considering current plans and financial constraints?
Taking the UK's army STRIKE brigades, medium weight combat capability is not new, else where the French, USA and Russia have had capabilities in this area for sometime.
The UK is talking big and looking into key enablers such as mobile data and command and control, however I think this is very much running before we learn to walk! If the French or Russians were looking at these capabilities then that is a fair evolution. However the very basics are that you need to be able to deploy a credible force and not only quickly but in a fashion that doesn't expose you to immediate defeat.
The army is also in the position as to where its main armoured capabilities have seriously dated components. With the resurgence of the Russian threat. There is the call for the army to update both the Challenger 2 and Warrior fighting vehicle types. These are currently the backbone of the heavyweight armoured deterrent of the UK armed forces.
A lot of commentators say that we shouldn't look to acquire both STRIKE and update the heavy armour. I don't subscribe to this, but I recognise there is the issue of cost. To me both the navy and the air force have had massive projects with investment the army has had some projects but they have been hit and miss, and except for UORs no real significant money has been invested since probably CH2 and until Ajax. This to me needs to be recognised and addressed by the government. The army needs to modernise and needs a large influx of investment, this could be done on a short term basis with STRIKE as the project - if we cough up money for UORs why not prevent the cost of these UORs by spending in the first place? In fact it should be recognised due to the plan of rapid deployment UOR's are virtually irrelevant for STRIKE anyway.
Another reason to continue with STRIKE and heavy armour is as in peer operations 1991 wheeled medium and heavy tracked formations worked together well such as the French protecting the vulnerable left flank. Done properly STRIKE has a part to play in seizing targets of opportunity and potentially more strategic targets to make the enemies tactical position untenable. The combination could become battle winning. But...
One of the first issues is one that everyone is aware of and that is the inclusion of Ajax a tracked reconnaissance vehicle within the STRIKE brigades. I have a multitude of concerns regarding this as do many others.
First of all reconnaissance assets surely should be some of the first in place. If Ajax is waiting for HET to be available, then to loaded on to HET whilst boxer is sat ready to self deploy I am unsure how this will work? Also you're adding another vehicle the HET that may breakdown.
My only hope is that adopting either rubber band or segmented tracks will allow effective self deployment - but I have my doubts that rubber tracks would convert Ajax to MIV.
Adding of Ajax will therefore likely add 2 vehicle types adding to the logistics burden (I will cover this again later).
My other concern about Ajax in STRIKE is it seems to be there for direct fire support and not for it's intended mission of reconnaissance - it stinks very much of we are buying these where can we fit them in, furthermore basing any brigade where the main firepower is a 40mm cannon does not inspire confidence or fear in the enemy.
What is worse is there seems much reluctance from the army to add ATGMs to armoured vehicles. This made sense in the past where the launching vehicle had to guide the missile and wait for impact, but most ATGMs are now fire and forget. This development would allow the vehicle to shoot, fire smoke and scoot pretty much as you would with a gun. Therefore to me the first easy win solution to increase firepower would be to add MMP/other advanced ATGMs to the 40mm armed vehicle - but even this doesn't seem to be in the line of the army's thinking at the moment?
However, with ECM, APS and other countermeasures I would be concerned if ATGMS are the only option. Therefore a direct fire version of Ajax or MIV should be pursued.
Also in the recce role Ajax plans not to be seen and therefore not engaged. As such APS and other such defensive measures have yet to be explored. These could be added later but don't come as standard as they would with any new MBT/IFV that is expected to fight. It will therefore be interesting to see how this is prioritised.
Getting away from Ajax and on to other proposed assets of the STRIKE brigades. As well as lack of firepower (more later) and protection the other big issue for the success of STRIKE will be logistics.
I have a concerns on the selection of the MRVP current plans mean this capability will be made up of 3 vehicles and could easily be made up of one type. Instead of procuring JLTV, Bushmaster and HMT600 recovery, we should be looking to one solution. Ideally the fleet should consist of 3 fleets of vehicle: AFV, Armoured support, logistic. There will of course be the odd extra here and there but this should be kept to the minimum and away from critical capabilities. This should help with needing less parts and ease of maintenance. To me we should really be considering the 3 options below and dropping JLTV and probably more controversially Bushmaster.
Eagle
The eagle vehicle is available in both 4x4 and 6x6 with large number of variants already designed. It would be the choice for a quick off the shelf purchase
HMT
Again HMT offers both 4x4 and 6x6 an advantage is the HMT600 has been chosen for recovery. However unfortunately supacat seem to have missed the opportunity in developing further designs. I would also be concerned in regards to protection and growth potential of the platforms (although this maybe unfounded due to the amount of equipment in the recovery variant), however I don't believe it has the electronic vehicle architecture.
Foxhound
Only offers a 4x4 chassis although a long wheel base version is designed. The foxhound is very capable but also due to heavy use of composite materials very expensive. An alternative steel variant is available. An advantage is also as Boxer has interchangeable pods. One potential issue is that the vehicle has a high silhouette. Again unsure of electronical architecture
Different option? 6x6
Another approach maybe to keep JLTV and adopt the both 4x4 and 6x6. If the savings are as significant as promised then for ambulance, troop carrier and other direct fire roles could be carried out by something more significant such as Patria 6x6. In fact seeing as STRIKE may not always be facing it's enemy this maybe the best option.
As well as streamlining vehicles practical logistics need to be considered. Innovations or extra thought/efforts will need to be made in order to reduce the reliance on traditional more vulnerable logistics vehicles as well to increase autonomy.
For instance design and addition of external stowage bins to fit the side of boxer would increase the amount of ammunition, food, water and fuel the vehicle could carry. If it is a non turreted variant then consideration should be given to roof racks. It would pertinent to use these supplies first, both so they don't get damaged and also consideration could then be given to filling the side stowage boxes to increase side protection.
Other than the spearhead elements consideration should be given to give MIV/MRVP off road trailers as this again could considerably boost logistics.
The use of UGVs is likely to significantly increase however it seems little has been done in looking how to carry and deploy these systems. They could be fitted on a trailer or have a dedicated carrier. However the former is unlikely to be mobile enough in the battle area and the former would be expensive and if that one vehicle is lost the UGV capability is lost. Another option is to try and fit it inside and alongside the troops, however this will compromise space and reduce troops.
One out of the box possibility could be to mount the UGV on the roof and if armed potentially the UGV weapons could be synchronized with the vehicle. This could be a complex option but if enough time is spent on the details it could be win win with more firepower and little cost in terms of space and any electronic systems on the ugv could charged from the main vehicle.
For standard vehicles (i.e.man trucks) consideration not only needs to be given to high tech solutions such as unmanned convoys but also to more basic items such as trailers, articulated units. Things such as artillery rounds and charges need to be packed in such a way that they can readily be used to resupply systems. Possible use of DROPS, GPS tagging and rws may be worth exploring in order that supplies could be left on a short term basis where they are needed but camouflaged and protected.
Mobility issues
Another concern/challenge and this may sound odd as the Boxer is extremely capable, but I also have concerns regarding mobility and by this I mean inter theatre mobility an in theatre mobility. Having watched some of the operations in Mali and Afghanistan. I was amazed at how long it takes to get columns of vehicles from place to place under the threat of IEDs or potentially mines in a more conventional context. Considering their impact they are surely going to employed by any adversary in future conflict. Add to this special forces ambushes etc.
Another threat to mobility would be political and permission to cross countries to get to the battle area. If the way around this is sea deployment how different is STRIKE to heavy armour with better logistic support?
Real thought needs to be implemented in to how STRIKE and it's logistics tail counter this threat to preserve its main attribute of mobility. Effort needs to be made to get full, effective and persistent UAV cover of the full planned routes and to procuring vehicles with the necessary sweeping equipment as well as the necessary tactics, planning and support to be able to dynamically route.
The brigade will need effective bridging and engineering support to create alternative routes.
Where the threat can't be avoided STRIKE brigades need effective measures to deal with them extremely quickly and current approaches don't seem up to the task.
Momentum and mobility needs to be maintained. Another issue with mobility is dealing with breakdowns which considering the distances STRIKE is to cover these will be inevitable. Again similar vehicle types will help, but there needs to be sufficient recovery assets in place and ideally those that can keep the formation moving.
At some point bases will be needed either that or significant investment will be needed in resupply by air.
Firepower
Firepower of the brigades needs to be heavily increased and due to lack of protection it should at least equal, if not go above that available to standard heavily armoured brigades. As although STRIKE has strategic mobility tactical mobility is likely to at most on PAR with an armoured brigade. Firepower therefore needs to be the defining element.
Systems and function
120mm direct fire - troop fire support, tank destroyer
120mm mortar - indirect fire support, anti armour, counter mortar fire.
MBDA missile launcher - overwatch, indirect mass armour destruction, air defence
155mm - long range fire support, counter battery support
HIMARS - deep strike and destruction of high value targets, counter battery,
40mm - self defence, troop support, anti vehicle, air defence?
The below systems to be divided amongst the MIV ifv
MMP/javelin - anti tank self defence
30mm 230lf - fire support
LMM/starstreak/AUDS - anti light vehicle, anti UAV, air defence
For those on the IFV variant I would use the MOOG Reconfigurable weapon station where possible to standardised and easily upgrade/downgrade weapons when needed. The system also allows where tactically advantageous to mount weapons on the JLTV.
Air defence should entail both short range and medium range systems. I am concerned however with the current form of sky sabre and will it meet the demands of STRIKE.
The components are all there and good but it seems to be designed to stop setup and then engage. This means potentially STRIKE would also need to stop every so often to keep within the air defence bubble. Therefore to me camm needs to be employed on a system that keeps in with STRIKE and to give the best cover be at the front - this therefore points to a variant of Boxer as the missile Carrier.
Another blogger suggested camm be integrated with HIMARS this idea got me thinking and actually this is a good idea, but I think it puts air defence in the wrong place. I would therefore suggest that the MDBA long range indirect anti-tank fires Boxer vehicle be the carrier - it looks as if MBDA are using common parts between the missiles anyway.
This would only leave a decision where to place the radar system to me a small number with ground surveillance capabilities should be on Boxer. The remainder would be on either eagle/JLTV or a MAN Truck variant.
In summary STRIKE is promising and a worthy capability but there are challenges and the budget is probably the biggest issue to me this needs to be looked at as doing what is correct and proper ramther placate decisions already made. In short money needs to be made available. The most important part of STRIKE maybe political will and support. This is not only for the budget but also the forethought and use of DFID budget to aid deployment. For example looking at likely areas for deployment and ensuring allies are in place or that countries could be persuaded/incentivised to allow safe passage. Prepositioning of supplies will also need to be considered.
x
