When asked whether there are plans to reverse the decision to cut full-time Army personnel to 73,000, the Government were unusually unable to provide a ‘yes or no’ answer.
This is unusual because dozens of written Parliamentary questions on reversing various cuts made at the last defence review have each time been met with ‘no’ or some sort of flat out denial. Not this time, however.
This could be nothing but I thought it was interesting and I am assuming some of my readers will too.
Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:
“To ask Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans to reverse the decision to cut full-time Army personnel to 73,000.
James Heappey, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence,responded:
“The Ministry of Defence indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.”
Could this be related to the upcoming budget and a potential uplift for the UK’s defence spending? It might not be but I found it interesting nonetheless.
It was the Government’s defence Command Paper, published in 2020, which outlined a significant restructuring of the Army, including an overall reduction in troop numbers from 82,000 to 73,000 by 2025. The plan is that the Army will be reorganised into a “leaner Army”, as the Secretary of State for Defence calls it, under four new administrative divisions of infantry.
Heappey earlier said that he is “confident” that the army is capable of meeting the nation’s requirements.
“Army recruitment this year is up 68.6% on last which demonstrates just what a fantastic career our young men and women can still have in the army. I’m confident that the army is more than capable of meeting the nation’s needs.”
Oh dear.
I think what will happen instead of the 3% a lot of people are asking for is an update to the intergrated review whereby they will continue along the same plans but probably reverse the troop numbers, and ad a few UOR order on top.
Lets see, I think you are right that the numbers will be maintained or a token additional 1,000 added to make the headline of the army is ‘expanding’.
Plus an additional lump sum of a few billion this year and next to assist in current procurement plans.
Cant see us doing much more.
I’m more along the negative tones on this unfortunately, compare us to Germany and Poland. I get we don’t need a massive land army but we’ve got major issues that aren’t being dealt with.
We must be at critical mass on fighter jets with all these deployments.
What’s the navy supposed to shoot at an adversery?
And in 2030 what’s the army going to be driving around in that isn’t boxer?
Totally agree.
We need an army of 120,000 regulars. That was what a very careful study decided (Options for Change) was appropriate to meet post Cold War commitments.
You reference 2030 – is that because it was the original FOC date of CR3? If WCSP is not reinstated, as it should be, then the Infantry will be riding around in Boxer and TCVs; the rest of the army ride around in other vehicles, by and large.
Yes indeed CR3 but look at our options for heavy combat vehicles by 2030 if Ajax doest work out. As many greater heads have regularly pointed out on here the army has got itself into a right pickle on the vehicle front. It needs to choose wheels or tracks, don’t get me wrong I like boxer think it has its place but the current mess with warrior upgrade, yes-no and now Ajax with no alternatives is shameful.
If Ajax doesn’t work out, and I have no idea how long Richard Marsh has given GDUK to sort it out, then we need a replacement recce vehicle asap ie in the next year or two, as Scimitar is 50 years old.
The army has indeed got in a pickle. The army has always had an inventory which includes tracked and wheeled vehicles. It is not either…/or. It is usual to have a tracked infantry vehicle (APC then IFV) to keep up with the tanks. I doubt wheeled Boxer will keep up with CR3. It seems we are spending a lot to get a vehicle that lacks firepower and mobility compared to upgraded Warrior.
But and this is a big but, that study is now out of date, as we have moved from Unipolar a post Cold War world, to an unstable bipolar world, which is in many ways far more of an existential threat to the U.K. and NATO.
Next month or two will be telling. If Russia loses in Ukraine we have moved into a even better position than your unipolar position, since Russia woupd be proven to be a paper army and no realistic threat.
Flip side and the people arguing it’s too early to judge are right and Russia steam rolls Ukraine and then yeah we have a major issue, unless of course brexit meant leaving Europe to its own problems and we retreat this our little isles which would be easy to protect.
Hi Steve the reality is the Russia conventions armed forces are not the big geopolitical player here and a Russia loss or win is not going to really shift the geopolitics. The big factors are
1) Russia likely becoming dependence on China ( which will not change win or loss).
2) Russian mistrust of the west, which again is intrenched
3) China winning a Merchantile war with the west allowing it to fund its massive armament programme over the next decade.
4) the perception of western weakness, including unwillingness to be aggressive, nightly defensive posture and 2 decades of stripping the depth of its armed forces.
The big mistake is to assume that this present invasion is in some way a separate and new thing. It’s not it’s part of a geopolitical trend that’s been in play for 20 years and will be in play until either the western liberal democracies loss hegemonic power and become subservient to a new chinese hegemony ( a new unipolar world in which democracy is a weak player) or a balanced Bipolar world of two stable hegemonic powered democratic and totalitarian. There is a third option which is the end of history and victory of democracy for ever..which has been proven to be bollox.
China is a seperate topic and isn’t a miltary threat to the west, but it is an economical threat. That won’t be counted even by tripping our miltiary, it can only be counted by a sensible long term economical policy that protects local businesses and as at removing over reliance on China. Unfortunately no policitcian is ever going to work on long term plans, as the benefit would be past their sell by date and therefore no use getting them reelected.
It is currently an economic threat and will develop into a military threat.
Why else are they trying to out build the USA? To fight whom exactly?
If they wanted to be the regional power they were already there some time ago.
Yep there has never been a Power in human history that has not backed up economic and political power with the use of military power. The liberal democracies are still the preeminent hegemony, China wishes to create its own preeminent hegemony based on its own political system, which is not really compatible with the west. There are only really three outcomes to this in the end:
1) military and economic balance, for this the west must be ready and willing to fight a general war With China and its allies and win it ( China must be convinced of this). So a form of stable bipolar geopolitics Comes about very similar to most of the. Cold War, up until the 1980s.
2) The west gives up and become integrated into a new chinese hegemony ( that means trusting China will let us keep our own form of government, I think they would as they are not looking for empire, but it would mean accepting others controlled our destiny, which is not freedom to my mind).
3) The west decided it will be the only hegemonic power and becomes more aggressive in every domain, this would be a rerun of the 1980s, but against a highly economically competent corporatists state, which would need a mixture of Reagan like polices in the military domain and trump like policies of industrial protectionism ( But more of a liberal democracies first idea).
There is a fourth option but that is basically one one side decides it has to fight a general war and we get WW3, obviously, that not really an option.
Steve China wishes to become a hegemonic power, it is a totalitarian facist corporatists state that is in direct geopolitical conflict with the west. It will use every means available, from ecconomic, Information, Resource control, control of market access, tec/science as well as a form of military conflict of some kind, if we are lucky it will be to the level of the Cold War if not a general war. But there has never been a conflict of great hegemonic powers that ended through anything other than conflict.
The news out of China lately has been massive debt & default. Evergrande $300 billion+, local government $4-8 trillion, high speed rail $950 billion, etc. Against that are rumours that China has far more gold than they admit to. Official reserves are just under 2000 tons, yet China watchers say the real figure is 20000 to 30000 tons.
Yes it’s really important to remember that China has played a Mercantile strategy in a sublime way. When I was a child they were a backwards peasant society shackled by communism and still recovering from the deaths and disaster that was the cultural revolution ( up to 20 million dead through political social manipulation and starvation). Now they are a global superpower that are only surpassed by the USA and combined European nations of the EU ( although the U.K. leaving has massively damaged the EU more than they will ever admit to, such a mistake to not listen to the needs of your most geopolitically important and powerful member).
But they have not won their Mercantile battle with the west by a long way ( they are a good decade or two off that). We just need to be aware we are actually fighting a Mercantile campaign and start playing and the west will in all likelihood win…our problem has been we did not recognise the game. Which is odd considering the liberal democracies are some of the greatest players of that game, with the US and U.K. having been the two greatest Merchantile powers in history.
That’s a very Eurocentric View. If you include the democracies of the Pacific; eg;, US, Japan, Australia, Philippines, Taiwan, etc as, in reality, part of the Western world of liberal democracies then China is a huge military threat to the West. If you don’t include them then why is the UK sending ships through the Taiwan strait and aircraft carriers into the South China Sea?
Hi Daniel
This is one of the real problems with the NATO treaty, it’s designed to control a specific threat and does not really reflect the likelihood of future conflicts and threats to liberal Democracies. We almost need a new Economic Free trade Ecco is zone and military alliance that is completely liberal Democracy centric and geographically agnostic.
However there has been flexibility. I deployed to Afghanistan as a member of NATO’s ISAF and was awarded a NATO medal as well as my British OSM. NATO has been active in operations elsewhere too – Kuwait, Horn of Africa, Libya etc etc.
They do not only react to Chaper 5 violations of NATO territory.
It seems ironic that NATO was set up in 1949 to prevent the USSR from pressing westwards in Europe. It seems unable to prevent Russia, successor to the USSR, from pressing westwards in Europe in 2022.
What do you mean China is not a military threat to the West? You should read what senior Chinese generals and admirals say on that subject. If China moves against Taiwan, the West is only one who will stop her.
Let us leave that to countries such as the US, Japan, Australia, Singapore, South Koprea, Phillipines.
Right, UK must not be part of the West. It can concentrate on Falklands and uh St Helena.
I was thinking of concentrating on eastern Europe. We don’t have armed forces large enough to be strong in eastern Europe and the Far East, certainly not the army that’s for sure.
Demographics are completely against Chinese hegemony. Their population will half by 2100. Nigeria and India are probably the only two countries than have a chance of reaching these heights and even there it is doubtful. If immigration patterns persist in Canada and Australia CANZUK would have a pretty decent chance of rivalling the USA in the 2100’s as well however this would just enforce the current western dominance. Difficult to say if the USA would be in the “anglosphere” at that point as it will have a majority Hispanic origin.
However in terms of your scenario I can’t see a case for China and Russia both fully liberalising at some point in the 21st century. Much if the support for Putin and Xi is amongst the old ****s many who were born in the Cold War. It will be harder and harder as time goes by to convince people that the entire industrialised world is their enemy. However that’s decades away for sure now.
I do agree, chinese hedgmony is what that nation is after but it still has challenges to achieving that. In regards to demographics this was self imposed and can be reversed. But in reality the liberal democracies all have that problem as well ( most of the population increase is based in increased life expectancy not increased birth rate). I don’t think population increase will be China’s problem, it’s actually the size of the population that will be a potential future weakness as food security becomes a bigger and bigger problem ( it’s one reason it will need Russia as a client state).
in regards to Liberal democracies It’s not just about the nations with an Anglo Saxon culture is about all democracies working together so japan etc.
OK, so we need an army greater than 120,000 as the world is more complex and unstable than that envisaged in 1991. I’ll sign up for that.
In reality I think that is what is needed, we spent pretty much the entire time since the end of the Cold War with and army between 145,000 to 112,000 it was only in the last decade due to austerity that it dropped to the 80,000 mark. It’s the whole what you walk past every day you accept and we have just grown to accept we don’t seem to need an army, airforce and navy that is effective at a large scale. So yep I think we need to be aiming for at least the force levels in army, navy and RAF that we had between 1990 and 2010, as to think we can have less that the geopolitical milk and honey time of the 1990-2010 is quite frankly a delusion of western thinking, in really we should be looking at a 10-20 year plan to return them to 1980-1990 levels as that’s the sort of threat level we will be heading to in the next decade or so.
Would it be feasible and acceptable to reinstate WCSP with a 30mm cannon? There seem to be lots on the market. I read somewhere that the upgrade issue was integrating the 40mm turret; and that the main operational requirement was to enable Warrior to fire on the move. Would a more modest upgrade do it?
Fire on the move, with pin point accuracy, should be no big deal for a 30/40mm cannon these days.
It was doable 30 years ago it just weighed too much to be deployed on the kind of vehicles that you would want it on. It used too much of the weight margin.
The 120mm xm360 turret on the griffin 1 demonstrator is 8 tons, the 40mm CTA on jaguar is probably 3 ton. Both fully stabilised etc.
i do wonder if a 120mm CTA round would outperform the current rounds and remove the need to upgun in the future.
I think the integration of the CTAS 40mm weapon into the turret without reliability or vibration issues can be fixed. The French have made it work. We need to do this for the Ajax project, so engineers are on the case.
Warrior upgrade was not cancelled because of that issue. It was apparently cancelled because no-one had put funding in place for the Production contract and that had not been signed. So it was procedurally easy to cancel. That is a disaster – instead we will have to pay huge money to buy additional Boxers that will not be as good as upgraded Warrior, in terms of firepower and mobility.
‘Procedurally easy to cancel’ ….please tell me this is a wind up! When did expedient become intelligent?
It would be good to see re-instatement of WCSP in the spring budget speech.
Paul, Not sure I follow your point – perhaps you can explain.
A development contract for WCSP was in place and work proceeded over many years, albeit too slowly for my liking. The intent was to move to a production contract but one had not been signed and funds had not been allocated. Hence it was easy to cancel the plan. That’s politics, in fact that’s bad politics.
I do not agree with that having been done in any way. We should have retained Warrior with the WCSP upgrade. As I siad before we will be spending even more money (probably) on buying an inferior capability (Boxer).
Morning Graham, apologies for the brusque comment and thanks for the detail of the process; of which I was unaware.
From what you say it was politically expedient not to proceed to the production contract.
Did the development contract result in an acceptable design which could have gone into production?
I think there were some issues to iron out with the integrarion of the 40mm CTA cannon into the new turret (as there have been for Ajax), so I think it wasn’t fully through the development phase, but nearly so.
Everything else was good to go, I think.
Thx.🤞for re-instatement of the project and the budget.
An uplift in numbers of that size flat out isn’t going to happen. Even if it did, an extra ~40k personnel would be better off split between all of the branches
I agree, given the changes in manpower needed for many roles we don’t really need loads more people , we need the current people given the right kit.
key examples are CR3 is 4 person when it should be max 3
an RCH155 boxer is 2 man team and same for the replen vehicle so 4 guns and 2 replenishment is 12 people.
A boxer (or other) with the right unmanned turret with onboard ATW and help from an onboard AI, could provide all the suppressing fire for 4 dismounts, and hold all the stores etc for them to be self reliant for weeks potentially.
the list goes on and for me it’s about getting the fires upgraded and getting the infantry protected and into smaller groups armed with the right kit, the average US marine has £15k of personal equipment, I don’t think we even give our infantry and handgun, which they all should have imo.
If we do increase then I would want the army to maintain its current 82k headcount, for the Royal Marines to increase double and provide a dedicated brigade/small division for the Arctic and the navy and Air Force to get 25% increases in manpower.
realistically our full time force is too small at 149k FTE, it really needs to be around 200-220k to provide the level of reach and capability HMG wants, but all governments don’t want to pay the necessary.
it’s not all about money, the MOD is a basket case, but 3% needs to be the minimum, remember 2% is the NATO minimum and we have many commitments outside of that as well. We also need to treat our service people and their families with far more respect and provide better housing and facilities.
Callum, I know it will not happen. I am a realist.
My point is that 120,000 was the carefully worked out figure for how big a post Cold War army had to be. Subsequent cuts are simply to generate savings and have no miitary justificatiomn, ergo the army is too small to do its post Cold War role.
I wonder what the manpower shortfall in the RN and RAF is? Not talking about whether they are recruited properly. Talking about how many personnel they need to meet all remits.
What would we do with these 120,000 regulars even if we could recruit them? Plonk them in Germany again? Poland and Germany need big armies, we need deployable highly capable forces able to threaten enemy flanks and to provide force multipliers at scale. All of this would be sacrificed to find the budget to get 120,000 line infantry sitting in Eastern Europe. Russia population is tiny compared to NATO and its industry largely non existent. China is the only country that can conceivably threaten the west conventionally and what use would 120,000 British army be there.
A valid point. We lack the strategic transport capability to move the larger formations we already maintain; an army of 120k would be an almost entirely static entity requiring mass forward deployment and the costs and limitations that entails.
I will point out, I don’t think he’s suggesting 120k infantry. I imagine the proportion of personnel in each branch would be fairly similar to today.
Martin, You comment as if 120,000 regulars is an enormous army – it’s not. [I joined the army when we had 180,000 troops].
It is just 40,000 more than we have today. Plonk those extra 40,000 troops in Germany again – yes, why not? [We used to have 55,000 in West Germany and 5,000 in Berlin]. The threat is from a resurgent Russia and so Germany is the right place for those 40,000.
Why do you think I am advocating an army of 120,000 Infantry? Infantry account for 25% of an army’s strength, not 100%. The whole army should not sit in eastern Europe – we have never garrisoned our entire army in one place, anymore than we have stationed our Navy of the RAF in one place.
I know we will never return to an army of 120,000 – just saying that was the size deemed necessary to fulfill post Cold War remits.
If we are stuck with an army of 70,000 as per SDSR 2021, then you are right that we should have very modest ambitions. In addition to PCFs, then a remit for European flank protection and the provision (with allies, no doubt) of a Reserve force for SACEUR held in the west of Germany.
I don’t see that the population size of Russia is very significant. I also don’t see that we should stretch to land operations in Far East Asia.
So you don’t see the point of helping defend south east Asia? Wow wish Australians and New Zealanders had the same attitude as you when it came to defending the uk and Europe during world wars1 &. 2.
Garry, I am not sure I said that ‘I don’t see the point of helping defend south east asia’.
I am trying to be realistic about our force size. With a regular army of 73,000 (as will soon be the case following SDSR21), we should be able to deploy one understrength division, particularly if there is some reinforcement from the Reserve Army. If that is required in Europe against a resurgent Russia, there really is nothing to send to SE Asia.
Well said. Other than accepting the party line, that as an island nation we do not need a massive land army.
Not only do we need a very large and versatile land force. We also require several secure ways to deploy the same at distance. Fighting distant enemies and denying them ground, is a primary aspect of aggressive warfare. Many would argue it is the only aspect that matters if we are to effectively defend our shores.
Considering the current potential antagonists are Russia, ChiComs and Iran. Defeating them will require a direct land assault with all that entails. GB is dangerously deficient in everything and I do mean everything to achieve those aims. Including the means to correct it. Specifically ordinance manufacturing facilities, relevant skills and experience of all kinds.
A rethink about the Army’s current plans is inevitable due to Ukraine. Even if Putin leaves with his tail between his legs, he will probably remain in power. There is no guarantee if he is replaced that his policies will not remain. A cold war is bound to follow and that could take years to thaw? The current UK ground forces are too small for purpose even if they are possibly the best in the World.
A wounded and resentful Putin may be the worst long term outcome. He needs to go!
Wounded and resentful Putin looks likely to come out of this conflict with Donbas, Luhansk, Crimea and a land bridge to Crimea. These constitute the bulk of the industrial economy of Ukraine.
If that is the case Paul, then Russia will replace their own citizens too operate much of the industries there as was seen during WW11 Local people employed in Industries taken over had a tendency too Sabotage said equipment renderings them useless ,
The Soviet era saw large numbers of ethnic Russians populate neighbouring states to mother Russia. Tallin in 70% Russian for example. Guess why UK tanks are deployed there.
What happens though is that ( the majority) of these Russians get to like western prosperity and freedoms. But they often retain their allegiance to the Moscow Patriarch of the Orthodox church. Moscow Patriarch Kirill supports Putin and his flock in Donbas, Luhansk and Crimea vote how they are told. He is the problem. He could bring Putin down overnight if he wanted. But he wants the Kyiv Patriarch to return to his fold. The people in both Russia and Ukraine need to tell their bishops where to get off.
Thanks Paul just thinking how duringvthe Soviet era Atheism was the name of the game for the ungodly kremlin elite and yet the common people still followed the Othodox preachings of the Church ,that faith couldn’t be crushed, After the fall of the Wall the Church came out from the shadows, Putin latched on too this and has moulded the Hierarchy too his will this way he not only has the backing of the church but the congregation, as well they believe what the Patriarch says , Putin being ex KGB is welladversed of having something on them if they don’t toe the Line
Correct, what with the Godless 1928 Plan and 11 years of a 5 day no weekends week Stalin had cut the number of churches from 46,000 in 1918 to less than 200 in 1939. Putin manipulates the weak Kirill and through him ‘the faithful’. Putin fits the text book definition of the anti-christ. It’s difficult to overstate the evil effects of the events of 1917.
God doesn’t start Wars but he allows them too happen Putin just changes the Text too his advantage
Good point. Didn’t the Orthodox churches vote, some time in the late naughties that the main point of reference (read their version of the Vatican) would be Kyiv and not Moscow?
Yes, an evangelical ( in the context of the orthodox church = different patriarchs) held in Istanbul in 2018.
Note the comment about political consequences ….
https://research.aston.ac.uk/en/publications/the-ukrainian-national-church-religious-diplomacy-and-the-conflic
It’s already being reported by the people of Mariupol that they are seeing people on the streets that aren’t locals. Look how soviets turned German Danzig into Russian Kaliningrad.
As does the Cuckoo
You might be thinking of Konigsberg.
Yup hands up, you’re right!
Definitely reverse the damned cuts! That’s the least that is needed!
Then retain all 227 Challenger 2s and upgrade the lot to Challenger 3.
Scrap Ajax, get a refund and instead purchase Puma IFVs from Germany.
Order the full 1,500 planned Boxers and get some 105mm direct fire and RCH155 155mm artillery variants into the mix, at least 150 of each to replace L118s and AS90s.
I would throw in…give the army wildcats martlet. The integration work has already been paid for by RN. Let them hit supply line targets of opportunity while Apache deals with armour.
Great point Pete. As long as Wildcat has defensive aids to survive over a contested battlefield awash with MANPADs?
Good idea. I think FAA Lynx and TOW did ok in Iraq.
Surely FAA did not operate Lynx/TOW – that was AAC.
From the RN MOD web site.
“After the Falklands, the squadron moved to Yeovilton and received Lynx armed with TOW anti-tank missiles – the two would be a mainstay of operations for the next 25 years.
3 BAS became 847 NAS in 1995 – and in that guise enjoyed arguably its finest hour during the 2003 invasion of Iraq when Lynx destroyed more than 40 enemy targets – including heavy armour – around Basra during the battle for Iraq’s second city.”
Thanks Paul. I thought I would have picked up on that in my service days (1975-2009). I am surprised that the navy thought the fleet would encounter that many enemy tanks and that the AAC in Germany in the middle of the Cold War could spare any to be released to the FAA.
All hands to the pump situation I expect. I wouldn’t have known had I not recently watched a TV program which covered in detail one of the engagements with a skilful Iraqi tank commander.
Who needs tanks when you have a stock of 10,000 NLAWs? Well 8000 after donations to Ukraine.
NLAW range – 400m and fired by very brave, unprotected, dismounted men/
Tank 120mm range – up to 4.7km and fired by very brave men from a virtually impenetrable armour coccoon – and which can replocate at speed in minutes.
A bit tongue in cheek perhaps, but you get my drift.
Because:
From a Light Role Infantry commander
Every day is a school day. Thx 😊
Absolutely Bob, that’s spot on. A true layered force mix is the answer …
From the Ukrainian perspective, that means putting your NLAW’s in the back of 4×4’s and on roof tops and they can ( and are ) making a big dent in Russian armour. Shoot and scoot…
The UK is apparently sending Starstreak systems too, so expect a big rise in downed Russian helicopters and a bigger threat to fast movers too….
Putin can’t win this, he can’t occupy a population that refuses to bow down and is being re-supplied with weapons by the West all the time.
The question they are asking themselves in the Kremlin tonight is how do we disengage from the growing mess in the Ukraine without loosing face…
The Ukrainians are a truly remarkable and incredibly brave people…
You must have friends at the Treasury. They will love us having lots of cheap NLAWs instead of 148 CR3s.
As we know, you need both.
Indeed, a false choice; just to get things out in the open.
Yes. NLAW is superb but there are better things to use against better opponents.
It is also worth thinking about the overlapping radius of zones you would need to NLAW away an armoured front as opposed to tanks as opposed to field launched AT missiles. Assuming there is redundant overlap of fire etc.
Doing any length with NLAW requires crazy numbers of operators etc
So NLAW is an excellent ambush weapon not a battle field control munition?
I think I once counted that there were 20 ways to kill or disable a tank. NLAW is just one way and is superb at killing a tank or at least getting a Mobility killl from a concealed position at up to 400m. Gives the Infantry excellent close-in capability.
Other weapons are of course required that provide fire out to longer ranges and from protected platforms (own tanks).
I don’t think anyone is saying that NLAW alone is going to do the job of defeating a tank army.
The only bit I would disagree with is “virtually impenetrable”. Armour is only really there as part of the equation, not being seen, moving Quickly and killing before being killed are as important that the armour bit. There is always something on the battlefield that can kill a tank that’s to slow or not hiding.
My use of the word ‘virtually’ set the qualification on the word ‘impenetrable’.
There have been anti-tank weapons from WW1, as there are anti-aircraft, anti-personnel, anti-bunker weapons. Every man, AFV, artillery system has several counter-systems. We know that.
The tank is the best protected vehicle on the battlefield but not invulnerable.
To date no CR1 or CR2 has been destroyed by enemy action.
Latest NLaw are 600m moving and 800 static with absolute maximum range of 1000m. Starting to get out there with good overlap from javelin. Go Nlaw, Javalin and Brimstone and you have very impressive overlapping capabilities.
Thanks Pete. Good update. I wonder if we gave Ukraine those more capable NLAWs.
Dont think so Graham….understand NLaw has 20 year shelf like and the original batches provided were +/- 15 yo already. so might as well give Ukr those than scrap them in 5 years. Probably save a fortune in disposal costs!! Dont know where the cut off was from shorter to longer range or even if the UK bought some of the longer range. Dont know. Sure they will be buying a few more in the not to distant future.
Paul we had an initial stock of 20,000 NLAWs. 3600+ donated to Ukraine. Couple of hundred used for training/ combat in Afghan. We should still have approx 14000 left. Besides they are manufactured in Belfast. We can just order some more as UOR. If we havent already done so.
Ah, ok, thx. I imagine given their performance in Ukraine the orders will flow in. 🙂
Puma IFV is not a recce vehicle.
You advocate fire support for dismounting infantry from a Boxer 105mm, rather than the conventional 25-40mm cannon – the ‘105’ would soon run out of ammo at that calibre and I you don’t need that weight of calibre to defeat enemy IFV/APCs – or did you have other targets in mind?
I must have misunderstood, sorry. I was thinking more of a self-propelled light artillery to replace the L118 Light Gun. I think I misread and misunderstood that variant.
There is this option:
“The mechanized fire support variant of the Lynx KF41 IFV, dubbed the Lynx 120, merges a scalable large-caliber turret concept and the 120mm smoothbore cannon with the Lynx KF 41 chassis.
Rheinmetall says the vehicle benefits from reduced weight, simplified architecture and an open ‘plug-and-play’ capability for future upgrades.
Just as with the IFV variant of the Lynx, the new vehicle can be equipped with modular protection modules for a ‘mission-specific response to ballistic threats, improvised explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators and artillery fire’, Rheinmetall stated.”
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/rheinmetall-launches-lynx-120-for-mechanised-fire/
Lynx 120 mechanised fire support vehicle. (Photo: Rheinmetall)
Ajax isn’t a IFV. It’s a recon asset. Granted the army will have more recon vehicles than anything else. The recon vehicles job is to scout ahead, find where enemy are, snoop etc etc. And if firing starts get out of there quickly. Pop smoke and hit reverse. Not a perfect role for a noisy heavy Ajax. But that’s what it is.
If they get it working which I am hopeful they will it will become a valuable assets to replace the scimitar.
What warrior ifv and bulldog is going to replaced by is anyone’s guess. If it’s wheeled probably boxer. If it’s tracked??
Boxer, as the ABSV project way back in the day, was only ever going to replace FV432 (which evolved into Bulldog) and Saxon.
Then the project became MIV and was stated that 500 Boxers (a mix of variants) would be replacing Bulldog and Mastiff – Contract Award in 2019, I believe.
I am sure that it was clearly stated by MoD in the wake of the 2021 Defence review that Warrior IFV would be replaced by Boxer, although what was not clearly stated was which variant.
The first thing the MOD should do is get rid of Capita and bring back proper army recruiting offices
100% agree, they are a real waste. have folks in there that have served. So much better for the new potential recruits in all services.
Agreed. Big burly bloke dressed in his uniform. You don’t want to join them son. Here do this test and we’ll see if your thick enough to join the infantry. (No insult intended). See the doctor, cough, sign the official secrets act. Off you go to basic training. Nowadays someone was telling me their application took months. Its no way to run an army.
My son was all set to join up, they took so long to process his application that he thought sod this, it was actually near on 3 months before they came back with a date for his assessment centre and that was then cancelled twice due to covid before he decided against it.
We have also moved on from 1985.
Don’t hold your breath, it’s up for renewal and they want the model to go tri-service
Good god. What is there to think about? Clearly defence expenditure and troop numbers across the board have to go up.
I am very surprised theee has been no announcement on an emergency defence review. I guess BoJo and Sunak are hoping the Ukranians will do all the fighting and dying so they dont have to take account of the frankly crazy capability gaps and lack of numbers/ strength/ lethality and attritional reserve in the UK armed forces.
They are sitting on the fence waiting. If Ukraine falls then we are back to cold war. If it keeps fighting and dying then they dont need to do anything. Thats the impression I am getting at this time.
Downing street and Westminster elite havent woken up to the perilous state of UK armed forces. Brought about by their own incompetence and ignorance.
Is the small matter of money and paying for it, im sure the calculations are being done as we wont want to fall from the ‘Global Britain’ status and with Germany now outspending us that is a problem.
We sustained much higher defence spending throughout the cold war…….
We did, but that was then and this is now. The money that was spent on defence is now spent on other areas, what do we do cut those areas to pay for defence or increase taxes?
Neither will be a popular choice.
Properly tax on-line retailers. Maintain the cut to foreign aid. Get a rebate from the Track and Trace supplier who clearly overcharged by several £bn – and from the companies that supplied sub-standard PPE. Cancel the MPs pay rise. Use the seized oligarch’s money. Cut the bail-out money to Scotland (Barnett formula). Increase VAT on luxury goods.
Properly tax on-line retailers – We’re trtying to attract investment, not chase what we have away.
Get a rebate from the Track and Trace supplier who clearly overcharged by several £bn – If it can be proven that they overcharged then why not, but how would you do that?
and from the companies that supplied sub-standard PPE – Rushed (and cronied) procurement, we forgot the buyer beware maxim!
Cancel the MPs pay rise – Why? Does everyone who’s due a pay rise have it cancelled?
Use the seized oligarch’s money – Illegal!
Cut the bail-out money to Scotland – where to begin with this!!
If we are to increase funding for the armed forces (and I sincerely hope we do so), we need some serious and grown up thinking as to how we achive it whilst keeping GB Ltd ticking over and solvent.
Meanwhile Graham Moore I suggest you seek a sub-editing role at the Daily Mail.
Perhaps we could see your ideas?
Firstly, please accept my apologies for the tone of my response. Our continent is in a perilous state at the moment and I think it is the responsibility of us all to gauge our rhetoric and in particular how we refer to our own ‘internal challenges’. Referring to ‘bail-out money to Scotland’ isn’t particularly helpful in furthering the debate, nor in demonstrating a sense of unity.
Secondly, whilst accepting that there is a great deal of inefficiencies in how the public purse is spent, I don’t believe that by addressing these we can close the gap sufficiently to fund the uplift that our armed forces need. We can certainly do things better and more efficiently and we should be looking at every opportunity to do so, (and for the MoD that includes the future for Ajax), however what’s needed is new money, and that equates to taxes.
We’re already planning an uplift in tax to fund the NHS and care services. What’s needed in this country is a serious debate (not a part political squabble, nor a battle of dogmas) on what our priorities are as a nation.
This forum is focussed on the military, hence the canvassing and views expressed. I suspect that I could view a Health & Care forum and see equally valid views for increased spending, similarly, Law & Order forums will have their views on what’s needed.
There’s not enough money (even with the hike in NI contributions) to do everything that everyone wants, so we really need to decide what’s really important.
So my own tuppence worth is this:
1) Drive efficiency (not cuts!) into existing public structures (and that includes MoD).
2) Determine what our strategic spending priorities really are (not just what will win votes at the next election).
3) From a MoD perspective – cull the dinosaurs that are destroying our capabilities for the sake of historic loyalties to a cap badge/cadre.
4) Properly plan and manage military capability rather than equipment.
Rant over… but my key messages would be… let’s all be careful over the language we use (particularly at this time), and for every new thing we do, we’re not doing something else that may as equally valid/required. Someone has to decide priorities and it shouldn’t be just political expediency.
You make some very good points and I clearly was intemperate and created divisions (not the army formations!).
I don’t see ferociously effective efforts to save historic capbadges – most Infantry and Cavalry units have been amalgamated in the last 30 or so years – not many historic (meaning those hundreds of years old) have survived.
First duty of Government is to protect the nation’s citizens – yet this attracts a very low spend by %age of GDP marker. Stripping out the fudges and creative book-keeping, I reckon we spend 1.6-1.7% of GDP on defence.
Personally, I’d completely scrap foreign aid. Ban any jobs related to diversity/woke nonsense right across the country & slash & burn HR departments to the ground. That and completely scrap the net-zero madness.
I’d give fracking the green light and open up any new gas fields we can in the North Sea (more taxes). I’d even consider opening up coal mining again (more taxes).
By my estimates, that would give the MOD £22 bill a year to raise defence spending to 3.3%/3.4% and a nice lump sum to plug in capability gaps. From there we could raise defence spending upto 4.5% over the next 20 years.
Overseas Aid too countries with a far better Space agency than ours yet we still give them Aid time they stood on their own two feet Feed their population or send satellites to Mars ?
Well the NHS is a basket case of inefficiency, duplication and waste, so there’s a good start.
You could probably shave £20b of their budget by stopping health tourism, boob jobs, Brazilian butt lifts, penis extensions, and more importantly, using buying power to ensure one hospital doesn’t pay £50 for a product that another pays £5 for?
I had a small local business once near a military base that will remain unnamed but even I was shocked by the budget allocated to things that were beyond the core requirements. It always seemed there was more money for glitter and fireworks than there was for the serious stuff.
Yes I know having an Armed Forces base in your community is a two way street, they need goods and services from the locals, and the locals benefit from their presence, but if it was on the ‘company card, there were no questions asked.
Totally agree on the NHS, I know a number of people who work within and the stories are ridiculous.
Sadly paying for the idiotic things that you mention seem to be part of peoples ‘rights’ these days. Its like everyone I see who is on benefits and cant afford anything moaning constantly all seem to have i-phone 13 pro’s, im still on an i-phone 5 and have worked all my life.
Sad indication of ‘want’ taking priority over ‘need’ but thats modern life I suppose!
Do please give some examples of profligate spending by your nearby military base.
Agree. Clearly taxes have to go up. The fairest thing to do would be to clamp doen on tax avoidance (step 1, estimated that would bring 14 billion a year into the exchequer) and put up incone tax by 1% for the next 3-5 years to get our military in order of battle. After 3 years sustained investment we probably could wind down without leading to cuts.
I think just put taxes up. 1% on income tax added for 3 years to sort out the mess the military are in.
I work for the NHS and have had below inflation payrises for 15+ years. So personally dont care if they add 1% onto income tax. Wouldnt notice the extra cost as it can be added to increased cost of living across the board not being matched by pay rises.
Would prefer to have a decent armed forces able to face down crazy psychopathic dictators then a military that could potentially be defeated in a war by a peer opponent through lack of numbers and lethality.
Inflation is soaring. Interest rates will follow. Taxes are already going up. Adding another 1% would be punishing to many.
The only long term solution is a hard look at what we want and need the state to do. There are lots of worthy causes but we need to be a lot more critical of these and generate a list of democratically agreed priorities.
We could cut the number of roadsigns and cameras by 50%. That should simplify driving and save a few data centres and contribute to net zero.
The government is supposedly increasing corporation tax from 19% to 25% next year. I say just bring that forward to now.
I’ve also never smoked but I’d say legalise and regulate cannabis; tax it at the same rate as tobacco, and that’s a few £billion extra into the kitty.
I think instead of just raising or cutting tax they need to look at new avenues of taxation, like above.
Hi Steve,
As a small business owner you panicked me there.
You are correct but I believe that if you do not have more than £250,000 nett profits per year then corporation tax remains at 19%.
Wealth tax to fund equipment. Offer graduates remission of student loan in exchange for 3 years service. Job done.
HMG found many billions for Track and Trace.
Certainly did, but that was before the country had to fund a long drawn out pandemic and we didnt have all the loans for furlough to pay either.
Sadly I dont think is much left in the bank to pay for more.
Isn’t Chelsea FC unexplained wealth?
How is it unexplained?
😂
Totally agree. At the very least the forthcoming cuts must be reversed. At the VERY least……
There’s a spring spending review on the 23rd of this month so I think they’re waiting for that.
To be honest it doesn’t matter if Boris and Rishi announced today that they’re doubling the defence budget; it wouldn’t make any difference in time for Ukraine. They’ll either win or lose with what they have and what we and the rest of NATO currently have to supply and support them with.
If the defence budget goes up, even significantly, there won’t be any noticeable changes for a year at least.
There is a great deal of shuffling papers at MOD main building at the moment. Expect bluster and fudging and the same old statements from government. Nothing will happen anytime soon and typically the government is hedging its bets.
They have to do something. “We are leading the world in supporting Ukraine and standing up to Putin blah blah blah” and “by the way, we are cutting our already tiny military” don’t go well together…….
Not sure what there is to get exicted about. A PM asked a question and got no answer.
I think we could see some announcements from the Chancellor during the spring statement about defence spending.
Just seen reports that the Gazelle’s are now being replaced by 30 HC135’s
Goldilocks
Could you give us anymore in this?
Is this different to the Puma replacement order,?
See my reply to Goldilocks, if its approved. HC 135 is the Airbus light helicopter. Puma is a heavier machine, medium class. Airbus have bid for the Puma replacement and I believe have made the shortlist with Leonardo (AW 139/139 line) and Sikorsky Blackhawk. Assuming UK build it would be a competition between Broughton and Yeovil.
Very. It has nothing to do with it.
FMH requirement replaces Puma and 3 other types, not Gazelle.
The MOD already operate the H135 and the bigger H145M with the training Squadrons at Shawbury. Using it in the light utility role is in my opinion a no brainer. As training, logistics and support are already in place. That can be easily ported over to the Army Air Corps.
The Puma replacement program is too replace the entire Puma fleet, the Griffin’s in Cyprus and the Bell 402’s? in Kenya and Brunei as well the Dauphins operated for the SAS. Hopefully with Black Hawk’s. Gazelle had nothing to do it,
30? I read it as 5 helicopters purchased as gazelle replacement
hallelujah, maybe the penny has dropped!!Now we need Politicians to be honest and fully understand the importance of maintaining a strong, capable and professional fighting force without the fair weather changes that have been made over the years.
Is it any surprise that Putin has chosen this time to strike when he sees NATO armed forces atrophied to this level?
The MOD needs some common sense knocked into it.
A gaping hole in our forces always invites enemies looking for opprtunities.
Not being forthcoming with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is not that unusual for this government. I imagine life at the Treasury is interesting at the moment, although perhaps not quite as interesting as in the Russian Ministry of Finance.
All this talk of an uplift to the defence budget is academic. If the MoD did get more money, the blob would be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of bigger office empires and more seniority. Much of it would go towards rectifying past cock-ups and covering up disasters that we are unaware of. For every £100, £50 would just disappear….
Extra manpower and training would be the most cost effective way to spend any more money. More Army kit should be bought off-the-shelf. The Russians outgun our artillery yet there are excellent solutions immediately available. Every attempt should be made to get more Typhoons airworthy and with the ECRS2 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar. As discussed here ad nauseam, the Norwegian off-the-shelf anti-ship missile should be bought. We need to get more ammunition, missiles and combat engineer kit.
I fall into the camp that holds that WW3 has already started. We may not have much time to prepare.
Not entirely sure whats going on over there across the pond…The world is getting more complex and dangerous, not less. I can understand a scale-back of the regular components if you expand the reserves. Better to have something rather than nothing.
The Germans utilized their Landwehr reserves in the Franco-Prussian war to great effect. The ability to quickly mobilize and train forces off the street is something that shouldn’t be taken for granted.
Waste of money if they just build out more light infantry battalions, we need more CS and CSS units for this to be meaningful in any way.
Bravo. Above all.
But they’re not as sexy as Tanks and Infantry.
Of the CS in sure artillery will get some excited. The RA has been neglected for decades.
Yeah, arty could do with some love! I’ve commented on a couple of other posts on here that we could do with a second air defence regiment, but frankly at the moment I’d settle for a new wheeled SPG and maybe some more MLRS for existing units.
Yes.
1 new RA wheeled missile regiment with Brimstone replacing Striker capability.
1 new MRAD Regiment, doubling the Sky Sabre capability.
1 new SHORAD Regiment with AA guns. Also need a serious UAV capability.
Sure we will see an uplift in spending but we shall see if it’s spin or serious given the gaps.
Interesting that you want some AA guns- do you have a shortlist of favourites? I have to admit, I’m not familiar with any.
I’d personally putting something like Stinger or HVM on a mobile platform and stick it with the forward elements, let Sky Sabre provide a larger bubble further back.
I like the idea of ground-launched Brimstone, although I’m not sure whether it has the range to be located back with the RA positions? Any thought of developing that “secondary” ground attack capability from CAMM, then we’ve got a common platform for MRAD and precision fires out to 25+ km?
I don’t, no. I’m not that knowledgeable.
On putting HVM on a mobile platform this already exists with Stormer, Starstreak combination with 12RA. The 3 batteries support our 3 armoured infantry brigades and another battery supports 16AA Bde.
Sorry, you’re quite right. But I’d also consider something similar on a smaller wheeled platform- similar to the US’ Avenger concept. That way, armoured and mechanised get the Stormer and the motorised infantry get the “UK Avenger”.
Absolutely, if we are now finally sticking with mostly wheeled they need something.
Bit of topic but what’s folks opinion on the four squaddies who’ve left to go fight in Ukraine?
Just sounds like they are avoiding the question to avoid negative media articles. Keep everyone guessing until the crisis is over and then send out the confirmation that the cuts are still going ahead. If there was any thoughts of a defence review, Boris would be yelling it from the mountain, about how q review will happen to ensure we have a world beating armed forces, the usual nonscence
Let’s hope this is actually a sign that our political classes have now got it into their noddles that we have moved from a post Cold War unipolar, end history, forever victory of liberal democracy (Francis Fukuyama and the “end of history and the last man“ concept may ironically have so weakened the west as to be the root cause of its end).
For the last 10-20 years We have been steadily moving to a bipolar unstable world of Aggressive powers. With challenge by generally fascist leaning and totalitarian corporatist states ( not to be confused with western liberal capitalism ) against the hegemony of the western liberal democracies. It was always going to end in open warfare, this conflict is not even the opening shots (we are about 4 wars down the line and multiple uses of chemical weapons), but the west has buried its head and only invested in the military to a sort of no war in 10 years level, even when its clear we are likely heading to a general war at some point.
They have also ignored the communication, technology and Mercantile war that’s been waged against it.
in effect the ruling classes in the west have deluded themselves in the name of money and not spending money. We can only hope they have woken up and realise:
1) we are in a bipolar unstable geopolitical world and will be faces with Constant lower level or regional warfare as the powers try to get access to resources, strategic assets and markets. This will require both immediate enhancements to all domains of secure and military as well as a more combative aggressive approach to geopolitical conflict ( the power that only reacts is doomed).
2) Realise that the Mercantile element and china’s roll in this is the greatest strategic geopolitical threat we face and the west needs to cut itself from china’s production ( protect our own markets ) and combat China’s ongoing securing of raw materials and attacks on our production and tec/science knowledge base.
3) Prepare the western military, civil defence and general populations understanding and will in regard to the possible need to fight a general war between to major hegemonic powers within a decade.
We have the opposition parties on board so it is time to DO something; reverse the cuts to the Army, reverse the recent cuts to the ‘day to day operational’ budget, speed up the Type 26 production (they started first of class in July 2017), and order an additional batch (48? for now) of F-35’s. Get the Type 45 power issues fixed ASAP and Sea Ceptor and the Mk 41 VLS fitted at the same time. Then do a new defence command paper to prioritize mid to long term needs… I know wishful thinking…
Let’s not count our chickens. It’ll be quite difficult for the Government not to do something with the budget but how much and whether there will be a rethink on the direction of the army remains to be seen.
if nothing else I hope there is a significant uplift in the purchase of the Trophy APS. It’s pretty obvious that armoured vehicles are susceptible to shoulder launches anti tank weapons, particularly in built up areas.
i would like to see a big uplift in that, plus Boxer numbers and lethality, more Land Ceptor, more CH3, a lot more artillery, plus a big investment in enablers. Not much point spending loads on sexy stuff just for it the stuck in a massive slow moving convoy now is there.
On the one hand I still think our natural position and strength should be focused on the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force leading an expeditionary posture and providing critical enablers to our friends and allies who are more land-centric.
On the other hand 73,000 is just too small to do anything meaningful! 100,000+ is now too ambitious and unbalanced but 80-85,000 regulars would be a good level.
2 divisions comprised of 1 heavy, 1 medium and 1 light brigade a-piece should be achievable if resources are allocated wisely!
So what will we have to cut in order to avoid the reduction in troop numbers? I hate to be cynical but there will be no new money. If the Telegraph is right, the rumoured uplift in defence spending will only be to cover the weapons that were supplied to the Ukraine from MOD stocks; there is no mention of an increase in the overall defence budget.
To be honest the tax returns have been better than forecast so the government does have head room. The question is will it provide a one off capital uplift or will it be an annual uplift or both.
My person view is we need a paradigm shift from a we will have peace to a we will likely need to fight a general war. So that’s a capital uplift to up arm what we have, speed up programme ect and an annual uplift around numbers going forward ( squadrons, deployable brigades and navel units).
So that’s a good few 10billions as a lump sum and an ongoing uplift of defence spending to 3-4%.
When comparing the numbers in the Armed Forces now with yesteryear, people tend to forget how many jobs at 3rd and 4th line have been civilianised.
I suspect the Government and MoD are going to have a thorough evaluation of worked and what didn’t in the Ukraine-Russian war once the dust is settled. So we’re liking to see anything from minor tweaks to major changes with regards to the army.
The only sure thing at the moment is the U.K. will be buying more anti-tank weapons given the success they’ve had. Presumably we might see an uplift in the importance of maintaining current U.K. military vehicle given the number of breakdowns the Russians have suffered.
More kit is on the way!
UK MoD selects L3Harris SDR with Special Forces among likely users
“The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will procure an undisclosed number of Falcon IV AN/PRC-163 software defined radios (SDRs) from L3Harris Technologies, the company announced on 7 March.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/c4isr-command-tech/latest/uk-mod-selects-l3harris-sdr-with-special-forces-among-likely-users
Ukraine War: Ben Wallace announces UK govt will send more weapons to Ukraine for country to defend itself against Russia
“He continued: “In response to a Ukrainian request, the government has taken the decision to explore the donation of Starstreak high-velocity manned portable anti-air missiles.
“We believe that this system will remain within the definition of defensive weapons but will allow the Ukrainian force to better defend their skies.”
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-ben-wallace-announces-uk-govt-will-send-more-weapons-to-ukraine-for-country-to-defend-itself-against-russia-12561623
Funny, I was just thinking just last night, with all the talk about no-fly zones and air defences, that Starstreak could play a role.
How much training is needed to operate these though and, if it is non-trivial, how will that be done? The first anti-tank stuff was delivered before Russia invaded so as I understand it UK personnel could be in Ukrainian to do the training but with the current concerns about the risk of drawing NATO in as a direct combatant I would suspect that’s not an option now; they’re even nervous about UK soldiers going AWOL to fight in case someone is captured and the situation misrepresented by Russia.
Maybe it’s not an issue and RTFM (“read the f*#%ing manual”) is sufficient but if not then maybe Ukrainian military cross the Polish border to take possession and before crossing back into Ukraine get trained up, basically a “train the trainer” thing, so that they can train the units getting to deploy Starstreak?
How good is Starstreak?
I see that they are Mach 4, 5-7 km range, and 6000-7000m ceiling, with 3 sub-munitions.
And that we have quite a lot of them based on the 7000 production total.
And that the number of NLAWs sent to far is 3600.
The only issue I can see with Starstreak is that whilst very accurate not only is it short range, but the operater has to keep his sight on the target. (Willing to be corrected if wrong) Which will require training
The rest such as stinger and the Grom are fire and forget with people already trained how to use them already in place.
The advantage for the Startstreak is, it cannot be jammed
I believe they are quite easy to train people on but I may be wrong. The Ukrainians will certainly appreciate them and if users can be trained properly it is a far superior missile to stinger with longer range and much faster.
Those A holes have just bombed a maternity and childrens’ ward. A new low, what absolute b@stards! Surely the UN needs to step up now, what’s the point of it otherwise. Failing that I’m starting to think NATO has to at least warn Russia that any more of this and the gloves are off.
Are you fucking serious? The UN really needs to take some form of action now as the Russians behaviour is disgusting.
That headline.
Of course this is all theoretical, the army been nowhere near its alleged size of 82,000 for years due to recruitment problems. The 73,000 figure seems to be an acceptance of that, as it’s roughly what the size of the army has actually been.
This isn’t surprising though, the British Army has always had low numbers during peacetime, I suspect no more fighting in Afghanistan also has affected the number of people signing up.
I suspect/hope we shall see the number of Challenger 3 increased from 148 to 250 with probably “about” 5,000 extra troops allowing to formation of a third “Heavy” Brigade. The Heavy Brigades will have an armoured regiment and recce regt, three motor battalions in Boxer with integral air defence, engineering and close artillery support Regts (K9?). That would allow a 1 in 3 rotation with one Brigade at high readiness. Then you have 1 x Airborne and 3 smaller “Light Role” Brigades with again a 1 in three rotation with the Airborne, SAS and 1 x Light Role Brigade at high readiness. I think discussions around another 20,000+ troops are just wishful thinking as we also need to confirm the next tranche of F-35B and keep increasing the size of the Fleet and re-arming the RN.
Morning Phil. A quicker and cheaper way of upping troop numbers is to spend more money and recruit more Reserves. Regulars in the main speak derisively of Reserves for various reasons but it must be remembered that many armies the world over are comprised of volunteers. In Southern Africa during the Bush wars(politics aside) the SA and Rhodesian armies were renowned for their fighting skills as indeed were the Boer irregulars during the 1899-1902 conflict!! I am sure the “Territorials” could be upgraded to fill in allowing Regulars to occupy the front line first or even at the front line. Look at Ukraine and how their fired up Reserves are performing
Worth remembering that in terms of a land threat the Russian border has moved from the middle of Germany to east of the Vistula. Therefore there are other countries more immediately concerned with increasing their land forces than we are.
A leaner army means smaller army. Same goes for air force or navy. Hopefully they will not be any leaner than now. For a while…
Numbers whilst important are not the Army’s biggest issue. It needs to get its structure and equipment issues sorted out first. Even a 73,000 man army if organised and equipped properly could and should be formidable.
Unless they reverse the crap standard of living (PAYD/Accommodation etc.) not enough people will be able to be recruited to replace those that are sick and tired of how crap the Army is now.
When as a defence of Army cuts it was described a “leaner Army” one actually disolved ino Hysterical Laughter. When the tank force was reduced to 150 odd servicable units and only those upgraded to todays requirments and then completed in 6/7 yeras , and then the Boxer foul up one ,wondered who the buffoons were who determined the future of our Armed Forces , Well we do now dont we the Defence Sec and And Admural Radikin et al , WEll i must admit that
The Defence sec has redeemed hinself on the reaction to the Ukrane crisis.
However the so called defence review on which our strategy is based for the forseeable futureis proved skewed , so here we go again another reveiew perhaps and what about the Ar force
it was the cry was for more ships and now perhaps a bigger Army
Your guess is as good as mine
Not in anyway agreeing the army should be smaller, but the challenge is that the army had been about 5,000 people below their agreed strength for years because they couldn’t get people to join / not leave (which of course made this a cut on paper but not in reality, and therefore quite easy to do for the bean counters as no one had to be got rid of)
So the issue is you could say the army is 100,000 but if you can only convince 78,000 people to be in it then that’s how big the army will be. No doubt there’s loads of reasons for this from the army not having a clear vision, the treatment of our soldiers in the aftermath of two conflicts and the fact there are just better options on civvie street….
My personal view is a properly equipped army with fewer troops would be better then having 5 or 10 thousand more soldiers driving about in soft skinned land rovers…
Sometimes soft-skinned vehicles are appropriate for the mission.
Reversing tranche 1 typhoon cuts, purchasing more F-35s, upgrading all Challanger 2s, cancelling army cuts, coming to buying all additional 900 Boxers, ensuring like for like replacement of Hercules with airbus atlas and fitting type 31s with anti ship offensive weapons is what is needed.
I think proposed cuts to the army will be too difficult for the government to swallow. I think they’re going to need to find more money. Increased defence spending is popular, defence cuts whilst Ukraine burns is unpopular and I think that will force “the shopping trolley prime minister” to do the right thing.