General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said that the British Army must be ready “to fight war at its most feral”.

General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith said that rapidly evolving and emerging technologies means the Army must change.

“Because soldiering has always been about evolution, and successful armies have always adapted to the changing context, threats and technology,” he said.

Gen Carleton-Smith outlined the strategic challenges of a world facing up to Covid-19, climate change, disinformation, economic coercion and technologically-enabled authoritarian regimes.

“The events of the last 18 months have prompted a timely re-appraisal of many of our priorities – strategic shocks tend to focus the mind. We’ve been reminded of the importance of thinking much more strategically and expansively about the relationship between defence, security and industry, about strategic resilience and the integrity of our strategic base in a much more volatile world.

Which is why what has emerged from the Review is a sharper, harder and more dangerous Army; a more dynamic and active global posture that leverages our network of overseas training hubs and delivers a more persistent international presence. And that means an Army that is more expeditionary and more rapidly deployable, with an emphasis on logistic sustainment; an Army that is more digitally connected and networked, and an Army that’s more specialist; and an Army that when it fights is more lethal, more mobile and much better protected.”

You can read the full thing here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

178 COMMENTS

  1. What emerged was an army on paper.
    It will be a decade before we have an army equipped to fight a peer threat. Until then we better hope drones can do the job and Russia doesn’t annex any further parts of Europe.

  2. Nothing new really. Echoes the Integrated Review papers about more forward presence and makes the obligatory and tiresome reference to being more green.
    The only interesting bit was the reference to getting Ajax right because it’s a game changer.
    Wishful thinking or has some progress been made?

    • At this point I think we (the public) should forget about Ajax, criticising it endlessly won’t make anything better. They’ll either sort it out or they’ll buy something OTS. What interested me however was that the Army would be “much better protected”. This is contrary to most of the expeditionary and light plans that were made. Much better protected implies not only vehicles, but air defences, drone defences, and technological/cyber defence. I think that with a growing economy, a stable commitment to defence, hopefully at 2.5%, we should be looking at a ~$100-120b budget by 2030. 2030s will be where defence really matters, and I really hope we get our stuff together by then.

        • As its yet to enter service and be signed off, and the main issues seem to be Hull build in Spain, Noise, and vibration from the upgraded running gear.
          and the few other niggles,

          Boeing 737 max was in service before the faults were found,

          looking to find fault with everything in the MOD because of designs and development issues.

          Ajax has been fucked with by Top Brass and not by the people who knew what they could deliver.

          IF Ajax cannot be fixed, its wasted money. then we have the right to moan.
          BUT IF WE START AGAIN. would the replacement be any better?

          • Not sure Army top brass had anything to do with creating the Ajax faults – its all down to GDLUK and GD (Spain).

            If we scrap Ajax, there are many options – some better and some not as advanced, but reliable and safe to operate.

        • Agreed the government and the MOD need to be kept accountable for their mistakes and the only way to do that is for the press /public to keep asking questions.

          The only issue is that there are very few facts about what is actually wrong or if it is fixable, whos fault it was etc. I fear we will end up accepting a highly comprised product, to avoid admission of responsibility.

      • I think we all agree that there needs to some real demonstrated improvements in the army’s procurement in particular. A bit less talk and some more targeted action starting right now not in 2030 and stick at it all the way through. No one wants the army underdone.
        So called experts need to now demonstrate some expertness and make some good decisions and acquisitions now and get the army back into better shape. There seems to a wealth of good vehicles, technologies, capabilities out there, just choose the right ones for a change and hold those people, companies, suppliers accountable for it.
        As we say down here, that’s my 5c worth.

    • His job is to protect the country. Putting an effort in to making greener choices (if it it doesn’t impinge on operational effectiveness) and thereby contributing to preventing part of the nation being under water, or facing a wave of climate refuges or resource wars to deal with, is not entirly out with his remit.

      • Utter rubbish. It is obvious that China and major developing countries will increase CO2 emissions over the next few decades. If Britain were to achieve net zero now, it would make no difference to global levels.And that’s if you actually believe the alarmist nonsense in the first place.
        Meanwhile in the real world, we face energy shortfalls even before we start major CO2 reduction policies.

      • The impression I’m getting is that the idea is that the computers, networking and tracks of Ajax and the 40mm cannon would make it the army’s ‘Starship Enterprise’ ….going where no man has gone before sort of thing. It would be the key vehicle in a sophisticated custom , networked approach to fighting. So CV90 for example would not be a like for like shoe in. If it can’t be fixed then a whole strategy is f***kd

        • Capability game changer is one of them vague term you hear tech companies talk about. You can say it about anything that is new, even where the capability has no practical use. Include a Facebook terminal in a tank is a capability game changer, since troops no longer need to use those mobile phones, it’s just not a military one.

          Saying that I think Ajax will be a big step forward for the types of war we will likely fight (peacekeeping /counter insurgency), if they can get it working properly. Although I think putting a proper gun on a boxer would be more so.

  3. One aspect of future Army planning will be a more flexible procurement process that places emphasis on rapid supply, regardless of the origin of manufacture. Obviously, UK companies should get the first call but depending on operational timing, a swift purchase policy should be a top priority. One reason Warrior upgrade and Ajax woes have been in the headlines could be due to restricted MOD options and Government dictates, leading to protracted processes, without urgent requirements, including tight cost controls and stricter lead times, plus engineering competencies?

    South Korea for example is rapidly establishing a defence industry and is already supplying Australia with a new APC. They have thrown their hat into the ring in regards to the UK’s heavy artillery programme, and the same gun has been supplied to a number of countries. The MOD is no stranger to building ships in South Korea as seen with the class of supply ships. I know it’s a prickly subject, but rapid deployment means just that, and a more flexible procurement policy may be the only way to achieve that objective.

    • Well I suspect South Korea as any modern defence orientated State has a policy of planning long term on its requirements. It doesn’t simply request and buy a specialist product to its requirements and then forgets about it for 20+ years meaning that supplier no longer has the capacity to design and build a replacement. Ironically the better the original product the worse this effect will be. So we both need to have long term procurement policies to maintain internal capabilities and equally keep those that we do order far more open to export ability. We simply can’t behave like the US who can create new weapons honed to its exact needs while then being able to manipulate them for export and use their political influence and scale to sell them aboard. We need to be more clever and nimble which thankfully in ships at least we finally are to export more of the products we produce thus keeping them current and affordable and finally keep the capacity to replace them. Australia interestingly is planning its future on this basis by ensuring all orders are based on elements of IP transfer and high levels of Australian production and content aiming to become a medium sized military producer in the future. Outside of this core however there is merit in your argument and the two are not mutually exclusive if done well

      • Indigenous tank building died when the UK closed down its capabilities. In many minds, it was a symbolic message that the UK, would in future, buy MBT’s from abroad? Mysteriously, that was not the plan, as no forward planning on the issue was forthcoming, (there wasn’t one)! Challenger 3 is basically a ‘facelift’ using original hulls and a foreign turret. Considering the UK was at the forefront of tank building in post-war years and an exporter of note, why did the UK turn its back on MBT developments?
        In the face of the calamitous Warrior/Ajax programmes, the MOD must review similar products from overseas suppliers if only to cover the shortfall of the aforesaid projects. Short term leasing could be an option including a rapid training component, to cover the lack of Ajax? Warrior need not be withdrawn in such numbers and a minor upgrade could be considered? In essence, nothing should be off the table, whether it’s Japanese, South Korean, or American the British Army deserves the bests without being dogged down by outdated mandates from Westminster.

        • Supposedly all tracked vehicles would merge into the Mythical FRES a sort of 40t Merkava/Namer that would do everything including a variant with a 120mm gun.

        • Why did the UK turn its back on MBT developments?

          The rot set in with transfer of the Design Authority from RARDE Chertsey to the OEM in the late 80s. Wheres the MoD had driven MBT development, Industry chose not to.

          Then the progressive reduction in the size of MBT orders – from 900 Chieftains to about 400 CR1, then about 400 CR2.

          Then the near abolition of upgrades. Chieftain had 11 domestic Marks during its 30 year career; Challenger 1 had few upgrades (the most significant being fitting of TOGS) and no Mark changes; Challenger 2 had few upgrades (most significant being Bowman fitment, a new TI camera and some armour upgrades) and no Mark changes.

          Lack of foreign orders was a disaster for VDS/BAE – many hundreds of Chieftains were sold overseas, but no new CR1s were sold beyond the UK and only 38 CR2s were exported. Several reasons for this, the main one being ‘security concerns’.

          • Evening Graham. A couple of questions to ask if I may. First, someone on this string mentioned the Challenger 3 turret will be made overseas – do you know what armour is planned and who will make it? I read somewhere is will be 2nd Gen Dorchester armour. Is this any good?

            Secondly, the 38 Challenger 2 tanks exported to Oman; are they the same as those used by the British Army in terms of armour protection? The reason I ask is that the Abrams used by the Saudis in Yemen are not to the same standard as those used by US forces. Apparently, this is why there are numerous videos online showing them being destroyed rather easily, by anti-tank missiles. Again, not sure how true this all is but that’s what I read.

            Thank you in advance Graham.

          • I think the turret is being made in Germany. But that is the only the structural part made from armoured steel. The fit out and addition of the Dorchester 2 will be fitted in the UK – I hope! DSTl have been developing Chobham/Dorchester armour and its composition is still “UK Eyes Only”!

            The Saudi, Egyptian and Iraqi Abrams do not have the depleted uranium laminations within the armour. From what I’ve read they use a mixture of spaced and laminated armour, instead of the Americanised Chobham style armour.

          • Thank you again Daveyb. Do you know if the Omani C2s have the same armour package/spec as ours or are they ‘decontented’ like the Saudi/Egyptian/Iraqi Abrams tanks?

          • Hi David,

            The CR3 turret is mainly, if not totally, a Rheinmetall designed turret (I worked on their programme in 2016, but there will have been some changes since then) fitted with their long L55A1 120mm smoothbore cannon. BAE and Rheinmetall set up a JV company, RBSL in July 2019, headquartered at Telford (past home of GKN who made 432 and WR), but with other sites at Bristol and Washington (UK).
            The turret will probably be made at one of those UK sites, probably Telford, rather than at Kiel. It is likely to have a new armour package, possibly of a modular nature, created by an armour team led by Dstl, but I don’t know if it will be 2nd Gen Dorchester such as 2F, 2H or something newer ie 3rd Gen Dorchester? – I suspect the latter. It will almost certainly be the best in the world.Turret is likely to incorporate blow-out panels.

            I too was interested in the poor protection provided to export Abrams and Leo 2s. So many of both types have been destroyed by insurgent forces. I have uncovered no information to suggest that the 38 CR2s exported to Oman had an inferior armour suite to the British tank.

          • Hi Graham – I hope you are well my friend. Thank you for sharing your thoughts; I learned a lot. Armour protection is one thing we do well and I truly hope Challenger 3 is as you say, the best in the world. Is there a reason they wouldn’t upgrade the armour on the hull? Is the hull harder to penetrate than the turret? – or is it because the turret is more likely to take a hit as it’s higher up? Very curious…

            For me, I love reading and learning about armour and the protection each type affords. When you hear from people like yourself who have first hand experience, it fuels my interest even more.

            Thank you again for sharing.

          • The road to ruin has been a long catalog of events and your account clearly demonstrates the reasons. Building almost 1000 tanks is a more inviting prospect than 400, even though the cost was probably about the same? The lack of CH2 upgrades was in part, due to both external and internal debate about the future of the MBT in the British Army. Most of it was nonsense and other vital armour took away most of the possible upgrade budget? Today we have the CH3 a major improvement package but just 148 vehicles? So, the outcome is clear, both sides of the debate won, the only loser being the Army if it’s faced with a protracted land operation with just average attrition rates.

          • There was certainly no shortage of upgrade plans for CR2 (and WR and AS90). Other than minor stuff these upgrades did not happen, but I wonder if it was because the army was having a 20 year debate about the future of the MBT? What was that debate? Who was having it? Why did it last so long? Surely any debate led to such upgrades being considered, designed and planned. Why did they not get implemented?

            I am not sure that other vital armour took away most of the CR2 upgrade budget – the Army did not field any tracked armour over the last 20 years, except for a handful of TITANs and TROJANs in c.2004.

            It seems that there was a total lack of urgency in achieving delivery of upgrades together with a focus (distraction) on delivering many UOR wheeled PM vehicles to Afghanistan and Iraq over much of the period to Oct 2014.

            We will have just 138 tanks, ie just three Type 56 Regiments plus Training Fleet and Attrition Reserve. Whilst some or even many of those may be deployed operationally to the Middle East or the Balkans again in the future, their primary role should be in the Central Region of Continental Europe but in a formation held in rear in reserve, rather than being deployed forward.

          • Surely the primary role of an MBT is to punch a hole in enemy lines to allow lighter armour to follow behind?

          • Yes, in the offensive, but NATO is inherently defensive in posture (but of course do counter-attacks).

            But what I suggest is that very large numbers of European NATO armour which is in situ on the Continent, is centre and forward. The smaller British armoured assets which will take time to deploy to the continent acts as a strong reserve (a counter-force) from the rear, ready to swoop forward as required.

    • I don’t think that’s the direction of travel. The Defence Industrial Strategy announced a move away from purchasing internationally at the cheapest price. Instead,mirroring the National Shipbuilding Strategy, the aim is to rebuild domestic capabilities that have been lost. Makes sense but requires a coherent long term equipment plan,something the army has so far failed to achieve.

      • I would not knock your line of thinking, however, both Warrior Upgrade and Ajax supposedly were coherent and long-term programmes!

        • But both depended on setting up new production facilities because all of the major afv manufacturing sites had been closed down.
          A long term land industrial strategy will need to look 25/30 years ahead and, like NSC, have a clearer idea of what will be needed when and who will build it.
          Our current woes have been exacerbated by the failure to maintain and upgrade our existing afv fleet. That is a!most criminally negligent.

          • The drumbeat of orders just did not happen for tracked AFVs following the end of CR2 production, excepting for the production of a handful of TROJANs and TITANs c.2004
            The Navy understand this drumbeat production so much better.
            The failure to upgrade is criminal. When I served, Base Overhauls of A Vehicles happened roughly every 7 years and new technology was duly inserted at the same time.

    • South Korea are underestimated and forgotten by so many, granted they do and did get loads of defence help from usa but they do build, design and field great gear. I wish the UK was more like SK sometimes, we used to design and build everything…and field an army worth fielding.

    • the issue is the Procurement is there to protect the public purse, and if you ever worked with it, it would drive you nuts.
      It is to stop the MATES RATES and favors, value for money and meeting the Procurement process.
      BUT putting money back into the UK Industry and taxpayers is a bonus if we lose that capability and don’t rebuild it.
      its gone

    • There has never been a ‘Buy British’ mantra with defence equipment. RfP go out to foreign and domestic manufacturers. The winner of the bid is the cheapest compliant bid, irrespective of country of origin. Sure, there is during the bidding process, a discussion about local content, manufacturing in the UK under licence etc etc etc – quite a fair amount of equipment is foreign in origin.

  5. A “better-protected” army that has deleted its MICV capability and will rely on Boxer instead? A “more lethal” army that has just 150 MBTs (and only 60-some sets of active protection systems), dated SPGs, little in the way of GBAD?

    Pray tell me more…

    • I agree, especially as they are now talking about using Warrior as a interim replacement for CVR(T). How hard would it be to reinstate the Warrior upgrade programme? Egg on face for a week or so, but at least the vehicle doesn’t deliberately harm the occupants.

      I am hoping that sensible heads prevail and the RA get the Archer system mounted on a MAN 8×8 truck, sooner rather than later. This will be enough to keep up with the Boxer and the truck has a decent off road capability. The Archer can be operated by 3 dudes/dudettes and can lay down some serious fire at 9 rounds per minute. Plus crucially its air transportable. However, I also believe that their should be 2 x 155mm artillery systems, one for the light highly mobile role and the other to support the heavy brigade. Unfortunately, the days of upgrading AS90 to Braveheart are long gone, so the K9 Thunder is probably the best option.

      With regards to GBAD. The introduction to Sky Sabre, is a major step in the right direction. The issue is its a static system, so can’t be used on the move. The SHORAD using Starstreak we currently have could be better. The Stormer is an ok vehicle and with a total of 16 missiles, has a bit of duration. Mounting it on Boxer or even Warrior should be more than doable. However, the missile system can only be used on one target at a time, it can’t be used against missile threats and is expensive to use against a small surveillance drone. It can be improved!

      By including a CTAS 40mm autocannon with the missiles, it will give you the option of local fire support against lightly armoured vehicles and infantry. But also with programmable and proximity fuzed shells useful against cheap drones. Starstreak itself could be improved. The missile itself Keeping its Mach 4+ speed, could loose the three darts and just be one missile. This will allow a higher explosive content, but also allow room for an additional imaging infrared (IIR) sensor. Or alternatively, use a Lidar for both the search and target tracking and thereby keep near unjammable he laser guidance.

  6. Lots of talk not backed up with actions.

    More lethal, mobile and better protected? Seriously?

    Tanks cut to a useless number, by the time they are upgraded they won’t be cutting edge anymore, more than half fitted for but not with active protection.

    Ajax a farce, possibly stop gapped by a vehicle due to retire in a role it was never even designed for!

    Said vehicle due to retire has no superior replacement lined up.

    Actual combat troop numbers could fit in a non league football ground.

    Recruiting issues, retention issues, morale at an all time low.

    The British army is now woefully incapable of doing anything more than world class ceremonial duties.

    • You added a very similar post just the other day. I’m beginning to wonder if you are a real person or a bot from foreign lands here to spread boom and gloom at any opportunity? Because your assessment of the British Army and the Armed Force’s is way off. Anyone who uses the ‘Army could fit in a football stadium’ as a way to describe it’s capabilitys is both ridiculous and amateurish.

      • You also do similar posts where if you dont agree with the official view, you must be a troll.
        The army is a shambles, it just gets smaller with every review, while asking it to do more.
        People do have different opinions and use different language, the army can fit into Wembley now once all the cuts have happened.

        • And that’s the total numbers, for every combat soldier there are several in supporting roles. The actual combat force is becoming so small its not worth of the title Army.

          • CS and CSS has always been a larger requirement than the combat arms, didn’t you know that? I take it you haven’t served? No matter how s all the numbers get their will always be a smaller ration of combat arms to support arms, in every single modern western military.

          • Bloody predictive text, “no matter how small numbers get their will always be a smaller ratio of combat arms to support arms”

        • To be fair Wembley has capacity for 90,000 seated plus 15,000 standing, so even the pre-2010 army could fit into that.

          And, of course, that’s just the soldiers. Yes you can fit every soldier in the British Army into Wembley, but you can’t fit all their equipment in, too, and it’s that that really counts.

        • The Army is in transition from fighting insurgency wars with countless UOR’s. To preparing itself for the next conflicts and the next generation of kit. It takes time, it doesn’t happen overnight.

      • Very real with eyes wide open as to the absolute shambles the countries defences are at the moment. Unlike some of you fan boys who thinks all is well despite the fact our army couldn’t control ground from a bunch of rag tag goat herders armed with decades old weapons and no armour or air support.

        God help them if they ever had to go up against a peer level force!

        We’ll be part of a coalition the fan boys say. Actually what you mean is we’ll show up to show moral support and let the US do the heavy work.

        You might think that’s good enough. I don’t!

        The Raf is in no better a state. So low on numbers its use in any signifiant war is now reduced purely to UK air defence.

        Only the navy shows any sort of ambition. If only they had some firepower that shows them to take out enemy ships. Surely what must be a core most basic of capabilities!

        It’s an absolute embarrassment of incompetence and penny pinching every direction you look. You need your eyes open though to see it, not buried in the sand…

        • You lost me at fan boy. It’s very obvious you know very little. You talk like a bot who still dreams about the ORBAT from the 70’s.

          • Pointless exercise pointing out the collection of failures to those who refuse to see them. Carry on pretending all is rosy if you feel better that way, I’ll leave you to it.

          • My head is in reality, about what we can afford and what is coming down the line. The Army is restructuring after 20 years of insurgency conflict and countless UOR’s. It takes time to restructure for potential future conflicts and we need the new tech or we will be left well behind regardless of numbers. We have genuine would class kit in service and coming down the line. And I’m talking about all 3 services, not just the Army. I’d like to see more numbers, and the Army has a lot to sort out. But we can still achieve far more than any other EU nation. The evacuation of Kabul was a good example of what we can do at very short notice. It isn’t the 1980’s anymore, and we are not going to fight Russia or China on our own. To say our Armed Force’s are effectively not up to the job just because the numbers are not what you would like to see is a very short sighted view. We are not going to get a massive increase in defence spending apart from the 24Bn that has just been announced, but that only just covers the 190bn equipment budget over the next 10 years. If our Force’s don’t have the kit, we will be told to stay at home, regardless of numbers. In a perfect world we would have both, but we don’t. Capability keeps us at the top table, numbers don’t. I’d love to see the Army back up to 100k or more, or the RN escort fleet back up to 30, but it’s probably not going to happen. So you can be bitter about it and worry about what fits in a football stadium, or review the equipment plan for the next 10 years, and understand what the future battle space might look like.

          • The Football stadium Analogy was just for comparison, being at Wembley when full and realising the whole British armys almost 20,000 smaller just makes me disappointed.. and realise numbers actually do matter in lots of areas. Yeah they can have the best gear known to man but if they don’t have the numbers then we are weak…

          • Look pal, we can probably all agree we would like more numbers, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Not without a direct threat to the UK mainland. But if we can’t plug into the American system, and stand shoulder to shoulder with them on the battle space, they will tell us not to bother showing up, regardless of numbers. We all have opinions about the Americans, especially after the last couple of months in Afghanistan. But they are still a super power. And we need the kit to work with them. Boots on the ground are to low, but we are going for quality over quantity. And we can only do so much with a 44bn annual defence budget. Lots of big Army’s around the world, most can’t deploy beyond there own borders. 👍

        • The real kicker is how much we spend on defence and what we actually get for it… look at what, Russia, France and even Italy and India get for their money.…far far more..

        • Britain deployed too few troops to Helmand province due to politicians capping the numbers – this always happens. In the Falklands conflict the politicos only wanted us to send one brigade against 10,000 firmly established enemy most of whom were defending high ground. So we sent a BG+ ie 3,300 men to Helmand (of which just one third were teeth arms, mainly 3 PARA) in Apr 06, a province the size of Wales. In April 2007, the number of British troops was increased from 3,300 to 5,800 men but that still was not enough – the job needed an infantry division.

          The US bailed us out and sent a USMC Bn to Helmand in 2008 then a further 11,000 Marines there in Spring 2009.

          We achieved a lot with a small force. Brig Ed Butler considered that the Taliban had been tactically defeated in summer 2006 – then they regrouped over winter, changed tactics and posed a bigger threat.

          Harsh critics bemoaned the perceived slowness of getting UOR PM vehicles to Afghan.

          As politicians love to say ‘Lessons have been learned’ – but have they learned the most crucial ones? – deploy a lot of force (early), put the troops in the right place (some have argued we should have gone to Kandahar province instead), provide the right tools for the job – and don’t do mission creep.

    • M,
      Do you not think the Geo political situation has changed from what it was during the 50s,60s, 70s, 80s?

      The threat from hoards of Soviet Union tanks heading west has gone, that is why the entire western world went down the path of disarmament , (Have to admit there is a lot of similarities how Western leader reacted to that, just as Western leaders did to the rise of Nazis Germany)

      So to that end where exactly do you think the next conflict which concerns the Uk will arise? Will it be with a neer peer or will it be in conjunction with a raft of other western nations in a policing action under the remit of the UN.

          • Ha ha! We shall see. Flodden was apparently was of the battles fought by the Holy League against France, the Pope’s attempt to reign in France. Sound familiar😂

          • Wow that’s way over my head. I thought we were just comparing battles where one of us kicked the crap out of the other. LOL

          • Well indeed we are I guess. But have to say I am blown away by this AUKUS thing; a body blow for France in NATO just when Putin is turning off gas gas taps and Germany looks likely to vote socialist.

          • If you believe it is NATO which has maintained the post war peace in Europe rather than the EU then it’s a concern if France leaves the NATO command structure. This AUKUS move following the completion of the Russian gas pipeline to Germany might indicate, like the withdrawal from Afghanistan that the US has lost patience not only with ‘forever wars’ but also with nations failure to defend themselves. The US needs Australia to pull its weight constraint China in Asia and it needs Europe to cease relying on the US to defend itself against against Russia. Germany is about to vote socialist and needs Russian gas. They and we need to start building Thorium reactors.
            Politically and militarily we need to maintain trusting relationships with both France and the US. AUKUS could be the trigger for an EU army which right now would be led by France.
            Putin must be lapping this all up.

          • We will. Despite the french, US and us all being notorious for duplicity, we’re Allies and will be for the foreseeable

          • Its a long shot that AUKUS (about presence by those 3 nations in Indo-China and building SSNs for Australia) is the trigger for an EU army.
            There has been a Eurocorps which includes a 6,000 strong Franco-German brigade, since May 1992. This could expand into an EU army. If so, we would not be members – so that would mean we would only join NATO actions in Europe. Would a future EU army ever be put under the command of NATO – would the French allow that?

          • On balance probably agree about likelihood of EU army. I suspect the calculation by Johnson and Biden was that the deeply embedded Anglo-French and Franco-US forces working relationships would ensure this tiff would blow over. At the risk of engaging in a ‘forever war’ it might be good to deploy more UK troops to Mali who are saying they will make good any ‘security shortfalls’ resulting from reduced French presence by hiring Russian mercenaries.
            There are two issue with the way this was handled. Firstly, if the Australians had decided, as they have a right to do, to go for nuclear subs they ought to have told the French they were going cancel the current contract and evaluate Barracuda, Astute and Virginia. The French would probably have seen which way the wind was blowing but it would have been polite.
            Secondly why was it necessary at all to lead with the announcement of AUKUS? That’s like saying we are forming a new exclusive club; you are not invited and your submarines are not wanted.
            There are lots of technical and industrial reasons why Astute or Virginia derivatives would come out as winners in a fair competition. There was really no need to behave so badly towards the French.

  7. Plodding and directionless is how the piece struck me. If Ajax is still on life support “we’ve got to get Ajax right” heck what does death look like? And then “rapid incubation and adoption” and “solar farms at bases around the country”. Yadda-yadda waffle-waffle all in pretty pink.
    That the top structure of the British Army needs to get a grip is what I see and read.

  8. Sharper. Harder. More dangerous.

    With no IFVs soon.

    APCs incoming armed with a RWS masquerading as an IFV.

    Recc assets 40tonnes and years away from service, if ever.

    Minimal RA assets. Cut to the bone.

    Minimal SHORAD assets. Cut to the bone.

    A division in name only.

    Infantry battalions of 250. 300 men.

    A S Ops Bde with no enablers, yet.

    An AAC with 34 Wildcat and 50 Apache, which equates to 32 Apache front line use.

    16AA Bde a paper tiger as it’s enablershave been reduced.

    An army which is the opposite of what the army’s own CF2035 aspires to.

    “With an emphasis on logistic sustainment”

    Having cut the tail and the RLC repeatedly.

    “More expeditionary and more rapidly deployable”

    How? With so few helicopters, and less aircraft ( Herc cuts )

    “An army when it fights is more lethal, more mobile, and better protected.”

    More lethal? Our armoured vehicles have a machine gun on the roof, and the RA Is outraged and outgunned. An army needs firepower, not just people at computer screens engaged in cyber ops.

    More mobile? What, by being on foot? As that’s what the majority of the infantry are, and with Armd inf btns going and MI btns numbering 4, that leaves Foxhound.

    The top brass seen to be in some sort of parallel universe with reality. The Army had been in a mess since 2010, and has emerged in even worse state.

    Lets see what the future ORBAT and unit structures are when they’re released.

    • You can’t say that. The ra ra brigade on here will be shooting from the hip at you daring to question the powers that be.

      All is rosy you know, all is great, we don’t need a capable military anyway according to them.

      • I can get away with it as I also highlight the numerous positives, regularly, so when I’ve not taken the meds and go off on a rant I think the regulars forgive me.!

        But let’s look at the reality on the ground at this point in time behind the words.

        If one looks back at previous reviews the words are always similar. More agile, leaner, meaner, and so on. This time the agile has been dropped for “Mobile”

        • Correct, you know your numbers and your capability, and know what’s real and what’s PR. Every poster on here knows your worth mate and take your posts with real interest and expectation. Unfortunately posters like Marked are just trolling and moaning, with an embarassing lack of subject matter knowledge. Keep up the good work mate.

          • Respect, my friend.

            Whatever the CGS is saying, I hope that the autumn ORBAT announcements give us something to build on with some decent uplifts to match the words.

    • Hello Daniele, with warrior upgrade cancelled, Ajax with problems and low tank numbers would it not be logical to go all in with boxer?, it will be built in UK, and being modular you could build any variation you want, 120mm mortar, 120mm gun, I think it is called direct fire support or tank destroyer there? and obviously put proper gun/atgw on it for infantry, you could then do battalion with 3 rifle, 1 mortar and 1 gun company plus recon etc. It would suit if you play in the desert again, it would suit if playing a reinforcement role in Europe because you cannot rely on train to move and not enough heavy transport truck so can drive from France fast with less issue than track vehicles. Tanks can catch up when they can but at least Infantry have something to support them Maybe I am missing something

      • I’d go for that, but from what I hear there is no additional order coming and the 500 or so we have ordered are it. That is far less than the 1500 or so number mentioned by MoD if options for more were taken up and other vehicles replaced.

        Having said that, i also feel that a genuine IFV with cannon as we planned with Warrior upgrade is more suitable for accompanying armour, for a host of reasons outlined by military veterans here.

    • Agree entirely. I think the upbeat,jargon laced statements from senior military leaders add to the problem. Either they believe what they are saying, in which case they aren’t very bright; or they know it’s nonsense but say it anyway to enhance their career prospects under a government addicted to the same kind of unrealistic optimism.
      Parallel universe indeed!
      Cheers

    • I agree Daniele and will go further

      where are the 2.5k JTLV’s the army was supposedly getting, great vehicle at a great price point with some amazing capabilities that could have been pursued.

      why did we not take advantage of what seemed to me at least to be the deal of the century and buy 200 Apaches to replace the 68 that are knackered due to over use. Surely if t is in such high demand we should get more, as opposed to tanks that HMG refused to deploy to Afghanistan due to cost.

      The British army is full of light infantry battalions because they are cheap, but with so few actual infantry now we need to rationalise, regenerate and give them kit that gives them the edge, in the volumes they need.

      we don’t have a clear strategy we are again trying to imitate the USA without having anywhere near the required budget, yet have the capability to do more with what we have, we just have to be brave decide what we need and resource that.

      • Vanished from the DCP. I suspect that they want to by British, at several times the cost, to a cost effective vehicle in number. Same issue I highlighted with Leonardo, Future Medium Helo.

        • As expected Daniele and demonstrates the real problem for me. Buying 2.5k vehicles is a big strategic decision and it can’t just appear and disappear from view as that makes it look as if it not needed.

          I never get a sense with the army that the have a list of the equipment they need and work down that list, but you can see this in the other services and also th difficult choices they make to get that capability into ops (P8 a prime example as is T26). The army though seem to kick the decisions down the road and then box themselves in to sub optimal decisions

          We all want more and better and are right to push for that on this and other forums, but even the latest sound bites coming out of the army seem
          Muddled and confused.

          We could for instance get the replacement for 155mm gun on a boxer or HX3. It does not seem a difficult decision once you agree that that capability is required. So why aren’t we? Loads of other examples which I know you know

          My view is let mainland Europe defend the plains and the uk should concentrate on the northern flank. Realistically we can do that well on top of our other commitments. But I don’t think we can do it all

          • I like your last point, but I expand it. Perhaps we should see if we can cover both north and south flank (Mediterranean) and provide a reserve for the central front in Europe – and be the bridge for Reforger troops from the US. If we can’t do that (‘regional Britain’) we have no right to think we can do ‘global Britain’.

          • Actually that’s what I see us doing and why I think the regulars should be a boxer / Apache force. So we can get to the fight quickly.

            I also think we should increase the size of the Royal Matines by 50% just to fully round this off

            Was trying not to turn my post into war and peace but you are right.

            I think we can do this with 72k but we really do need to buy boxers with better weapons fit and each boxer needs to be an CISTAR hub much in the same vein as Ajax.

    • All the yank Mastiffs, ridgebacks ect are getting scrapped, 800 odd we have, shouldn’t we keep them? Even as a reserve force? We have gotten rid of 1900 Army vehicles recently with more cuts to come..

    • Hi Daniele – to build on your informative commentary. I note the 4 light infantry brigades have TA infantry shadow battalions assigned, alongside the regular btns. The TA btns however seem to have no artillery assets, only the 105 mm guns assigned to the regular units. Seems short sighted?

      I also fear for the future of the AAC Gazelles . I see them being quietly retired without replacement., as the RAF receives the Puma replacements, and the AAC bells and Dauphins.

      • Hi mate.

        Many sided question, and a background to what has happened to the army over the last decade helps. And it is not so much short sighted regards the guns to infantry, but the way the army is structured.

        Many TA units are paired with a regular counterpart. Even 3 (UK) Division has Reserve infantry battalions assigned, in the Armoured Infantry role, without their own armoured vehicles.

        Most brigades of what was Theatre Troops, then Force Troops, now 6 Division, with other brigades moved elsewhere into 1 and 3 Divisions, have both regular and reserve regiments. These units can be understood best as what were known as Corps Troops, the enablers from the CS and CSS arms that enable the infantry and armour to fight, in all arms brigades.

        The reserves are in theory meant to mostly supply individual squadrons, companies, batteries, to augment their regular counterparts on operations. Some areas I believe the reserve unit is meant to deploy in its entirety, like in 2 Medical Brigade, where almost all the Field Hospitals are TA/Army Reserve.

        The RA regiments you mention are mostly grouped in 1 Artillery Brigade, they are not assigned to individual battalions in the Infantry brigades, so maybe that is why you do not see them listed. In the field the brigades break down into all arms battlegroups anyway. In addition, Light Guns are not assigned to those brigades you mention.

        In fact, in one of the big issues facing the structure of the army, the CS and CSS units, the “enablers” you might have seen me bemoan so often, have been cut so much 1 UK Division has very few of them, certainly not enough to enable its brigades to be deployable all arms formations. That is another story and goes back to SDSR2010.
        What few enablers we have from the RA, RS, RE are supporting 3 (UK) Division, and the brigades in the corps troops.

        So you won’t see regular artillery regiments supporting those light infantry brigades…..they don’t have any! Nor any Royal Signals, nor any R Engineer regiments. They are assigned elsewhere.

        On the Light Gun. The TA have I recall 3 Regiments of Light Guns. This marries nicely with the 3 regular regiments, 7 RHA, 3 RHA, and 4 RA.
        In deployments they are meant to supply troops or in war entire additional batteries.

        The regular units are assigned to 16AA Brigade, and the other two, 3 RHA, and 4 RA, are a bit up in the air at the moment. They are ex AS90 gun regiments, victims of defence cuts, and given the LG instead. They were meant to become the regiments supporting the 2 “Strike Brigades” which was in itself ridiculous as they lack the range and weight of fire, and are not self propelled. Other nations wheeled brigades have heavier artillery.

        But now that shambles is history we await the future army ORBAT to find out where they sit, probably with the LBCTs.

        On the AAC Gazelles, they mostly went years ago. They formed the mainstay of the AAC along with Lynx in 3 regiments.
        Few remain, small individual flights overseas, some with D Avn, 665 Sqn in N Ireland, and I believe a couple with UKSF are all that remains anyway. There was a TA regiment, 7 AAC. yes, they were cut too. The Reserve AAC regiments have no helicopters of their own now.

        The loss of Gazelle is not so bad when one thinks of their role as observation and recc helicopter, we have other ISTAR assets that can do that better now, Watchkeeper, for example, and the high tech systems on Apache.

        Long winded reply, I could go on. Following the ORBAT is an endless task as they keep cutting, changing, merging, or renaming it!

        Cheers.

    • Ouch Daniele! That hurts to read, but it is the God’s honest truth.

      How many ORBATS have we seen since the 2005 Defence Review? I have lost count. Too much chop and change.

      Also, I wonder how much of the UOR Protected Mobility fleet has not been taken into core – and disposed of (quietly), leaving us with not quite enough.

      …and why is it taking until 2030 to achieve FOC of CR3?! No sense of urgency.

      MoD need to issue a timeline showing when all the kit will be delivered, and then work out how to plug capability gaps.

      • Yep, Future Army Structures. Not fully implemented before…

        SDSR 2010 with A2020 chopped lots.Not fully implemented before….

        A2020 Refine in SDSR2015. More chopping and “refining” ( Cuts )
        Not fully implemented before…

        DCP2020!! Now talking of the “Joint Force 2025” then the “Conceptual Force 2035”

        Key take away from all. Cuts happen at once or quickly, any improvements take years to arrive ( the carrot ) and are changed before they are implemented.

        Example, the army COULD have sorted Challenger, Warrior and Ajax upgrades before blowing its budget in 2015 with an obsession with wheels and Boxer.

        Doing bit by bit PROPERLY before jumping to the next, leaving nothing done properly to completion and sub optimal fleets everywhere underarmed.

        As for MoD giving a timeline. This happens in other countries. What, how many, and when, year on year. There is no real oversight by Parliament holding them to account, the PDSC is toothless, and HMG and the MoD actually like the secrecy I feel as it stops the ultimate exposure of their own failures.

        Army is a mess. Simple. Gloss words by Carter and the CGS won’t change it.

        IF ONLY there was a journalist at Main building who could grill them properly who knew their onions. Their speeches seem unopposed, and the media, we know how hopeless most defence journalists are.

  10. When the 1SL speaks I get the feeling there’s substance under the soundbites, but this guy feels like it’s sound bites all the way down.

  11. It always gets me how we can fit ALL of the British Army all of the Royal Marine commandos all of the RAF Regiment all Special forces ect into Wembley Stadium, And still have over 10,000 seats available…

      • Exactly, much like ships too just because we have say 20 doesn’t mean they are available.

        I heard the Royal Navy’s ships spend far more time at sea and on Ops than almost any other Navy, I Suppose numbers aren’t everything and availability is a huge factor in a navys strength.

        • The Navy work on the rule of 3, so those 20 ships mean we would expect about 7 to be available for new ops.

          I personally work on my own rule of 4 for ageing vessels – which is even more troubling.

      • “Front line combat numbers, actual fighting source we can field” WTF was that chuff, so civvy, so troll, so never served coming out with that garbage, that NO serving or ex served would come out with. Hilarious, sad, lonely but hilarious. Even smacks of overseas bot troll……

      • True. Only 70% of the army is in the field force, another chunk are Permanently Committed Forces, and 10% of individuals are non-FE.
        Of whats left ie those who are truly deployable for new operations, only 25% are Infantry, the tip of the spear.

        • Well if it bothers you that much, signing on is probably the best way you can solve it. Much more effective than chatting absolute guff that anyone actually serving will just roll their eyes at.

          • Again you don’t have to have served to have views and criticise our military, and the way the Military’s going and the way it treats it’s vets no wonder more don’t want to serve. And sometimes “guff” gets people talking and isn’t so bad.

          • In this case it just makes you look like someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So yeah, it’s bad.

            In other words you don’t have the spine to back up your words with actions, not at all a shocker.

  12. Our likely enemies in the future have large standing armies and good equipment. We can no longer use the excuse we will only fight as part of NATO as recent events in Afghanistan have shown. Our forces for the future whilst relying on new technology may not be adequate to deal with the threat. If we can’t increase our numbers we must ensure that what we have are the best in the World. The way things are going in procurement seems highly unlikely.

    • I never realised the actual size of their Army compared to ours.

      People’s Liberation Army Active personnel 2,185,000 (2021) (ranked 1st) Reserve personnel 1,170,000

      (2020) Expenditures Budget $209.4 billion (2021) (ranked 2nd)

    • The actions of President Biden regarding withdrawal from Afghanistan hopefully don’t mean we distrust the US in future. We can expect to deploy on future NATO operations in perpetuity.

      We just can’t fight on our own, except for small scale British interest operations ie Sierra Leone, Falklands.

  13. He honestly sounds like a middle management nonentity. A meaningless buzzword here and there lots of words with no actual content. It’s obvious why he’s got so far in the Army.

    • Considering he is ex DSF and I believe 22 SAS I’d hope there is more to MCS than that.

      Perhaps Carter has rubbed off on him too much now he’s up stairs at Main Building.

      • There are a lot of Officers who’ve served in SF’s. It used to be the Para’s box they had to tick but not for a while now. Doesn’t make them good or bad it just looks good when your looking for promotion. Can’t say whether that’s why he served in SF but he wouldn’t be a rarity if it was.

        • Have to disagree to an extent, as the Officers who come through selection are best of what is available. Just getting through Officers week while the rest of the lads, after the hills, are arseing about at pontrilas doing dry jungle drills, is impressive, with half failing. First posting as Troop commander, and then coming back as Sqn boss, then looking forward to Regular CO or AR Regt boss, makes them best of what is available. However I have to concur that after that, further promotion does mean toeing the line a little bit of to much. But Smithy has a decent background and attitude, we need to wait and see.

          • You’ve got first hand knowledge I haven’t. I hope your right if there’s one thing the Army needs now more than anything else it’s someone with integrity prepared to speak truth to power even if it upsets the people they work with.

          • He did ok as 16 AA head shed, and has had a decent career, but yes the worrying thing is as always when they get to his level it becomes an almost political position, towing the political line. And if not they will find someone who will!

  14. Sounds like the kind of guff you expect to hear really. I accept I’m cynical of this ‘High Heidyin’ speak, so maybe a hard sell but I’m not hearing anything that is going to give my a chubby on.

  15. The army’s biggest problem is that it is to heavy. There are more officers and NCO’s than privates in every division. The army has 145 brigadiers for god’s sake. Cut the chaff

  16. Here’s a thought-for the UK to equal the USA’s standing Army per capita, a force of 95 000 would be the equivalent, so prior to recent cuts the difference was not great, however the Americans have a far better and bigger set of Reserve forces in their National Guard and formal Reserves. Reserve forces have played a huge part in the Defence of nations worldwide as have irregulars(!) Here in South Africa, the old SADF was 90% composed of conscripts and was an effective force of note. The UK needs to rethink and spend much more on their Reserve units to fill the gap created by the slimming down of the Regular Army. The ladies love a man in uniform-(not joking they really do according to my wife who knows about these things😂) so how come the youth of modern Britain are not coming forward in bigger numbers to volunteer as “Territorials”? Too busy playing video games or mugging old ladies?
    Seriously though-surely from a population of close to 70 million the Army can find 50 000 men and women to help fill the gap and learn some new skills to take them through life. How about some very limited conscription or offering Army service in lieu of sanctions for minor criminal offences. Not suggesting a modern Black and Tans but a new look at an old solution

    • I think reserves are perfect for the heavy armour capability, as training can be done on simulators and driving centres strategically placed around the country and who doesn’t want to drive a tank or armoured vehicle in their spare time.

      given the time it takes to generate an armoured force (c.6 months) this also gives the reserves plenty of time to get ready and for everything to be put in place.

      Outside of a small force to maintain the vehicles and provide specialist logistics and leadership this is probably the best way of keeping this capability going in such a small force.

      • I think the Reserve Army is perfect for light role infantry, not complex armoured warfare, which is more than driving a sim.

        • I would disagree with you on this Graham, only in that I think the reserve is very capable of handling this complexity.

          the main reason for this suggestion is time and frankly the fact the UK does not seem to want to deploy heavy armour unless it really has to and with only 72k in the main force can we afford to have a large part of this sitting around on the off chance they get deployed?

          my proposal states SIM’s plus regional centres strategically placed around the country to put it into practice (so evenings on a sim, weekend on the real thing), plus I would add an annual trip to salisbury plain, Germany or BATUS on rotation.

          This capability will need time to bring to maturity, but I think it is worth at least taking a look at.

          Outside of some special force type units (Marines/Paras) I just don’t see light infantry as a viable asset anymore.

          what is really disappointing is the army themselves aren’t coming up with any ideas (not saying mine are any good but at least I am trying to get more from less without sacrificing our people due to bad kit)

          • It is true that there are Army Reserve members who are trained as BCRs for AFVs such as CR2. I believe this is at the level of the individual, thus I don’t think we have an Army Reserve tank crew, let alone a tank troop or squadron.

            The UK does not want to deploy heavy armour? Perhaps you are just thinking of Afghanistan. We were quite happy with WR as a show of force and to let Denmark and Canada wield the MBTs for their show of force.

            In a wider sense we have deployed MBTs kinetically a lot since 1950. MBTs have seen more action on the battle field than frigates or destroyers at sea (excepting for a few weeks in 1982). More British MBTs have engaged enemy MBTs and other armour than RAF fighters have engaged enemy aircraft in dogfights.

            I am sure you are aware that we will not field anything like a 72k army on operations – the most we could field might be a division(-).

            Light infantry not viable? Many examples were they are useful – Falklands, jungle ops, MACP ie Public Order/Counter-Insurgency/Counter-Terrorist ops, MACC/MACM (NHS support, flood relief, driving HGVs/fire engines), base security/Force Protection, Public Duties (ceremonial)….

          • “I believe this is at the level of the individual, thus I don’t think we have an Army Reserve tank crew, let alone a tank troop or squadron.”

            Royal Wessex Yeomanry have this role. Not sure if they have complete crews or individuals. They do get to play with Tanks at SPTA but don’t believe they have their own complement.

    • The reserves problem for as long as I can remember is the absolute hostility of the regulars especially senior officers. Without exception whenever savings are called for the reserves are the first to be thrown under the bus. The attitude seems to be that the reserves are a mortal enemy and existential threat to the ‘real’ Army. Until that attitude changes there’s no chance of a usable reserve. When you look at the US and their National Guard it’s incredible especially when you consider the idolisation of the US forces within the UK forces. But it doesn’t include reserves.

      • I understand that in general the Reserve Forces cannot match the skills of most Regulars, especially the specialist Units who have far better training, time on task and equipment than part time soldiers and obviously reservists should defer to their professional counterparts but there is no need to have snooty nosed officers denigrate or deride volunteers many of whom have varied talents. In our Unit in the old Natal Parks Board run under paramilitary lines in those days,we had a broad range of members including many ex Rangers from all over Southern Africa, specialists in many fields of conservation and serving Policemen and military personnel. We backed up the front line in the full range of tasks-anti-poaching,enforcing the Ordinance,undercover work etc.. We were generally treated as a valued asset particularly as we volunteered our time out of love for what we were doing. I have retired from my unit but currently the Honorary Officers give vital service including having their own base in the Hluhluwe Umfolozi Park and are engaged in anti-poaching and repair work to fences etc..

          • ..a job you love! Well said! Game Rangers in the old days were paid a pittance but gave their lives 7 days a week for their passion for the wilderness. Not to abuse George’s hospitality here but briefly, Honourary Officers were not issued firearms-Parks Board regulars utilised a variety of hunting rifles and R1’s (a local development of the old Belgian FN) for the more serious jobs of confronting poachers. We carried personal sidearms. My weapon of choice was a snub nosed 38 special with semi jacketed rounds for personal protection. If I was in an area where dangerous game occurred as in the Tugela Biosphere where we owned a small share, I carried a 45 ACP loaded with full metal jackets as a weapon of absolute last resort against Rhino although could never imagine using against them and in any event probably would not have been firepower enough to stop one!!.Several NPB Rangers were injured or killed by not choosing to to use a rifle against a Rhino!
            Forgive ramblings. Could really tell you some stories that you would think were fabricated but absolutely true😀

          • ..choosing not to use a rifle because of the rarity of both species, especially the Black Rhinos.
            The 45 ACP round might give a large mammal like a Rhino a headache unless targeting a soft area. It was carried more in the hope that the noise of discharge would stop a charge in its tracks!!😀

          • Last word. Some of the Zulu rangers shouted “Baleka”(Zulu for Run away) when a Rhino charged and more often than not-they did 😂
            I will shut up now-promise

          • LOL. My last word will be to assume ‘Baleka’ means something a bit more robust than ‘run away’

      • An interesting ‘take’ and not one I have experienced. When I was at Camp Bastion the FP Coy (the OC being a TA officer) was from 6 RIFLES, a TA company, augmented by a Platoon of Regulars. They were very professional and most had done far more op tours than I (a Regular) had. FP was later done by a RAF Regiment FP Wing – we much preferred our TA people.

        Reservists are lower cost than Regulars so it is surprising if they are first to go under the bus when financial cuts are required.

    • The UK Reserves need to be restructured, we have shown that we can’t provide many reserves for overseas deployments.
      We need to structure them around MACA within the UK and get a “job shopping” ability so we can deploy individuals to tasks.

      The US National Guard works because of American views on the military, both corporate and individual. It doesn’t work the same in the UK.

      • We’ll agree to differ. I’m possibly cynical but I believe the reason we don’t have anything like the National Guard is by choice and not cultural.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here