British Army ‘no plans’ to increase deployable divisions

Astute type 45

How do you come to the conclusion that delays and cut backs by Blair and Brown is the fault of Bae. If I win a contract for £X and then the customer changes the number required or the specs I charge accordingly. If the price is higher that’s not my fault.

These are no more expensive than their equivalent overseas (western) units, I don’t think

Boxer is Rheinmetall Land Systems – completely owned by Rheinmetall.

CR3 is RBSL (Rheinmetall/BAE Systems Ltd)

RBSL was formed to handle all BAE legacy platforms and to provide as British based company for Rheinmetall including the Boxer and the Challenger II upgrade. If Ajax ever gets canceled (which isn’t even that unlikely) then we would see the Lynx pitched and not the CV90.

Where is Lynx IFV used? If Ajax gets cancelled, I’d imagine they’d want a lower risk solution and would ask for the costs/pitch of CV90. I doubt they’d be refused or Sweden would be getting the phone call.

Unfortunately, this being the MoD, they’d probably want another two or three year backside-protecting competition before selecting anything.

Adding over 10t on an old vehicle family is like the main reason for the Ajax clusterfuck. Another reason is that GDUK doesn’t have any experience in a large scale production run for something like an IFV – the same can be said about the British BAE part.

The main selling point of the BAE & Rheinmetall joint venture is that all those toys which are supposed to make the Ajax cutting edge are basically off the shelf capabilities for Rheinmetall, which you just need to order with your vehicle. Access to the German portfolio embedded into a British supply lines should make it a no brainer for the MoD – see the Boxer and Challenger III.

Few more than 140 needed though….

Fingers crossed on the 23rd something happens about that.

I’d like to see 40 or so Typhoon Tranche 3s replacing the T1s and then more F35s purchased, and delivered faster. At the very least get another dozen in this year so we can stand up 809Sqn, to give us two squadrons.

Personally, if/when Russian forces leave Ukraine, I’d gift the Ukrainian Air Force our old T1 Typhoons and train their pilots how to fly them.

Much of what I’m saying is cosmetic, but that is what the general public sees and thinks. The perception of preparedness backed up by quality training will allow the British people to feel more secure. The planned 73,000 cap will not be of much comfort to Mr & Mrs average, so I can envisage another 20,000 minimum being closer to an acceptable figure. A new Cold War is already here and how the UK reacts will be closely monitored by friends and foes alike.

Mr & Mrs Average would be reassured by a couple of NLAWs in the cupboard under the stairs or CAMM in a bunker under the nearest business park which would link to a nationwide network. We need the ability to destroy any enemy kit etc. which comes anywhere near territory we might want to defend. If we put it in those terms, which the public can relate to, they will back it with people & kit. Forget talking about numbers which Mr Average doesn’t understand and talk about what everyone is trying to achieve and you might just get a possitive response.

An air raid plan with purpose-built underground facilities may no longer be considered far-fetched for British cities. However, as nuclear missel systems are developed by suspect nations with a global delivery capability, maybe there should be a change of policy? The concept of MAD is not the single outcome, as tactical and limited nuclear hits, could have a narrower focus meaning just London? Most underground car parks in the UK would require considerable modifications to act as effective shelters, but not impossible.
If the Ukraine war has taught us one thing, it’s the vulnerability of modern cities to bombing. There is considerably more glass from highrise buildings and masonry thrown over huge areas causing mass injury as seen on 9/11.

Agreed. The ability to deny airspace to everything from drones to ICBMs would have a multitude of benefits especially in a defensive posture.

It seems likely now that European countires focus on land war is going to be a little sharper from now on. Whilst this is an area we must also have strong capabilities in I think it would not be unreasonable for us to focus on air & sea?

In the future I would agree rogue states are going to be a potential additional threat and we must be able to block attacks.

Germany’s increased defence spending comes decades late and from a very low base. They are playing catch-up.
I do agree however that we need to spend more on defence. The army is the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times.

Currently, there is a zero military threat from Germany. However, the tectonic plates of international politics are a strange beast to grapple with. With energy costs rising exponentially and with limited options national interests can take an unexpected turn. All I say is be cautious and take a holistic approach to defence, as threats can materialise very quickly.

Are those, teutonic tectonic plates perchance?

A bit of both with just the slightest hint of bratwurst?

You must mean that there is a zero military threat to Germany from Russia?
Not sure that is how they see it – they apparently plan to significantly increase defence spending.

The big issue in the years to come is not energy costs but climate change. There will be many millions of displaced people all looking for somewhere to settle and that will cause conflicts globally.

How does the war in Ukraine prove that manpower isn’t the answer?

All the Ukraine war proves is Russia is not a realistic threat to the west, beyond its nuclear one. However the war is far from over and it’s possible that Russia will come out of it licking it’s wounds and learning lessons and being a much more dangerous player after it.

I think we are being too quick to judge, Russia is a very large industrialised country with a lot of resources, they can afford to play an attrition game in any war. We are currently expecting them to try and move their attacks into the Ukrainian cities, but I fear that may be a feint, while what they are really doing is slowly surrounding the Ukrainian armies fighting in the east of the country … if that happens we can expect a quick collapse. We will have to wait and see…

The ages old russian tactics of pound an awe then swamping resistance with numbers of troops

Ukraine is a massive country. Surely the Ukrainian Army will simply melt into the countryside and wage war from there. Provided they can maintain supples of weapons, food etc.they can make it almost impossible for the Russians to move without losses.

It brings back the old chestnut of numbers or equipment. The U.k tries to get both more ships-more money better technology can mean slower growth due to the longer wait to actually take delivery of. TheU.k tries to do both but when it does the result is cuts waiting for the new equipment to be taken delivery of.8,p00 Nepalese went for 400 places in the British army. The manpower is there maybe a H.m.s Gurkha would get us sailors

The Frigate situation is precisely how we should be doing more of our planning. We need some super high tech assets but we also need numbers too. So supplementing the very high tech assets with cheaper and more numerous assets is a good idea. That is not to say that I do not think we need even more.

Look at the US. They have all sorts of air assets. They have astonishing high tech aircraft and then they have other cheaper ones to go alongside. For instance they are currently flying spy aircraft based on private jets around Romania. They are not as capable as the rivet joints but they are cheap to buy, run and maintain and do a good job of filling in the numbers. They then just keep upgrading them.

We had the excellent Sentinels and yet we just let them go! They would be a great compliment to the Rivet Joints.

It proves that mobile easy to use kit in the hands of an enthusiastic amateur with a little training can be a serious challenge to more traditional kit & training. We still need people but the kit needs to evolve at a rapid pace, we need it in the right quantities with the people to direct it onto the target.

This does not mean we don’t need an Army and that most what the Army does is a waste of time. We just need it to be properly resourced, trained and constantly adapting. We need new kit in months not decades and we need to be prepared to quickly prototype stuff and throw it away if it doesn’t work and start again quickly.

Thanks. I think our army, which I spent 34 years in, is very well trained and constantly adapts – a pity it is not well resourced (too small, capability gaps, ageing and unmodernised kit).

New kit in months – that should be achievable for simple stuff like uniform items, but not complex AFVs or weapons whether they have to be developed or bought off the shelf and adapted.

Thanks for the reply Graham. Total respect for your 34 years.

What interests me are your views on modern technology and it’s affects on modern conflicts such as the Russo Ukrainian war. We have a situation where kit like NLAW seems to have made a profound difference. Indeed it seems likely that relatively cheap and rapidly produced kit in other areas could well have a similar effect and if fast tracked could be decisive. On the other hand our potential enemies could well learn from this conflict and rapidly upgrade their forces.

I would suggest that we could well enter a technology arms race that the process within our military is not suited to?

Thanks Mark. Some say the best form of defence is attack – an old cliche – and not always true, especially if you have limited numbers or experience in Combined Arms warfare in the offence. Ukraine is in a defensive posture, unsurprisingly – and should major on defensive and ambush strategies and not engage Russian Army in the full-on offence. An enemy, in classic terms, needs 3:1 superiority (locally) to succeed against a defender. Russia finds it hard to make that ratio so is resorting to terror tactics to demoralise the people and force Ukraine to the conference table (again and again) to consider/agree unpalatable terms.
This means high civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure – a high price for Ukraine to pay.

However Ukraine needs to keep defending, and defending well. Urban areas are very hard for a tank army to deal with – it will be interesting to see if Russian columns enter cities anytime soon, or continue to encircle, lay siege and shell from afar. Ukraine needs excellent defensive weapons, including NLAW and also longer range AT weapons, however training would be difficult, but could use Zoom. If Russian Air Force increase sortie rate then Ukraine would have to increase its anti-air response with US-supplied Stingers for point defence and more sophisticated crew-werved wepons for area defence. The West should supply a lot of shoulder launched anti-aircraft weapons, such as Stinger which is easy to use.

NLAW and other man-operated or crew-served weapons might be quick to produce, but complex platforms are not.
Not sure if a technology arms race is imminent because of the Russo-Ukraine war, meaning one where technology gets more sophisticated – but an arms race may start – Germany is just stepping onto that treadmill.

Further investment in more Typhoons with Marte ER would be a very good place to start to increase UK air dominance.

Digital Means Adaptable

“Importantly, the Typhoon’s advanced, reprogrammable EW suite allows the aircraft to react to a constantly-changing threat environment in ways that physical stealth cannot.
Consider today’s threats.

The latest surface-to-air missile systems are having their hardware regularly upgraded, are being networked and can change their behaviour almost instantaneously via software reprogramming.

In short, they are constantly evolving, creating a dynamic and challenging threat environment.

This means that the advantage of aircraft which use traditional physical stealth technology, which is designed to make the aircraft hard-to-observe by threat radar systems, is eroding.

Counter-stealth techniques are on the rise and have been successfully employed as far back as 1993.

This vulnerability against high-end threats with counter-stealth techniques is difficult to address because the basic elements of physical stealth (an aircraft’s skin & surface treatments, internal structure, and configuration) cannot easily be changed.

However, in contrast, the Typhoon’s EW systems, which are readily re-programmable, can evolve digitally to maintain the aircraft’s combat advantage even as threats change around it.”

https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/digital-stealth

“These threat systems are being updated more regularly and are frequently networked, allowing them to share intelligence of the air situation.

EW systems are able to evolve to deal with this dynamic and rapidly changing threat, in a way that fifth-generation stealthy aircraft cannot.

While stealth aircraft are hard to detect, they are not invisible, and counter-stealth technology is developing rapidly.

Moreover, the skin, internal structure, and configuration of an aircraft cannot be easily altered. “You cannot easily modify a stealth platform to counter new high-end threats,” Hewer said.”

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-19/typhoons-digital-stealth-can-evolve-meet-changing-threat

Our armed forces should not be based on Germany. Modern Germany is world’s apart from the one at the turn of last century, and not a serious military threat, economical yes miltiary no, but we choose the economical threat with brexit.

The level of our armed forces needs to be based on the types of conflicts that we will realistically expect them to fight. The focus should be looking at what went wrong in Iraq/afgan and learning lesssons, a big part of that is sheer numbers. We need to get to a point where our armed forces are not over stretched even before the conflict starts.

Given the strategic position of Germany the nation was a vast position in the event of a Warsaw pact war the drawdown if NATO left a gap in the alliance that Germany has never addressed

Given the history, you can’t really blame the Germany public and government for being anti militarisation.

Germany before the Great War was different from that of 1940. I simply suggest the UK ensures we do not create an imbalance as we allowed between the wars.

We should not increase our land component to match Germany. That would be ludicrous. Britain’s main contribution to European NATO is by definition maritime, followed by air, followed by land. And that’s how it should be. Germany by contrast is (or should be) the primary continental land power, also with a good airforce. By contrast, you would not expect them to match Britain in the maritime domain

What is ludicrous is committing bog-standard CH2s and other tied old metal, to a potential war zone. Britain has been a land power for hundreds of years and will continue to be so. As for permitting Germany as a primary continental land power is, exactly what we should not allow! Echoes of the 1900s, which we do not want to witness again.

Germany needs to pull its weight and should be the primary land force in Europe with a robust airforce. UK should be the primary naval force with a land army that can defend UK and provide robust international expedition capability with a very robust RAF. France should be a balance across all three arms.

Poland too should, and is developing, a strong land capability.

Pete, of the 28 European NATO nations, you single out just one Germany) to be the primary land force. I don’t get it. Germany has less than 63,000 soldiers (fewer than our 78,000) and only 226 tanks.
Resurgent Russia is the main threat and has 280,000 soldiers in the army and 45,000 in airborne forces, and 12,500 tanks.
Every nation in NATO needs to supply ground forces; we should not be relying largely on Germany’s tiny army.

Not ‘should be’ as in UK should shrink to be smaller than Grrman army is today. ‘Should be’ as in Germany needs to step up and put in place a larger army reflective of its population, geography and economic strength.

The British Army could be smaller than 63,000?! …and I thought 73,000 was bad enough.

Germany should massively increase the size of their forces, but we should not consider them alone to be the tip of the spear. Germany, Italy, Poland and France should provide the bulk of the east-facing armies, although Greece, Turkey and Spain have sizable armies but are somewhat distant from the central region.

By definition? Which definition? Whose definition?
How does a strong RN aid the security of western European nations opposed by Russian land/air forces?

I think Pete is correct. We, by virtue of being a island, should have a strong Navy and Airforce and an effective home defence force and expeditionary army. It doesn’t make any sense for the UK to have large numbers of tanks or infantry to be honest because its not needed to defend the UK or to support NATO.

The UK needs to focuses on controlling the northern approaches to the Atlantic, providing defence of the nation and providing support to those nations who will be engaged in a ground war via highly trained army units and effective air assets.

The thing that Ukraine and numerous other wars have shown us is that civilians when pressed can very quickly turn into somewhat passible infantry. Not as good as our excellent army personnel but good enough to make up numbers, which then allows the professionals to become the point of the spear. With this in mind similar to WW2 numbers of infantry can be made up relatively quickly where in contrast we cannot stand up new frigates or squadrons or CAMM units quickly. I think the Ukraine/Russia conflict has also show the vulnerability of Armor Javelins, NLAWS etc have destroyed them in droves and this is without air power. Throw air-superiority, Apache and Typhoons into the equation and I expect the Russian advance would not only be stalled but devastated.

Shaun, I can’t agree with much of what you or Pete say. Germany does not have an army of the size or readiness to have the main remit in providing ground troops. Their army is smaller than ours, by a long way. To meet the threat of a resurgent and aggressive Russia, we need every one of NATO’s 30 nations to bring as many ground troops as they can fund into the mix. A G7 nation like ourselves can be expected to have a good size, well equipped army (shame it isn’t).
You are right that our army needs to be able to defend the homeland, but it is not at serious threat of being invaded, so I wouldn’t oversell this aspect. Strange that you dismiss the role of Infantry in defence of the UK or to support NATO – they are at the heart of any army and make up the largest proportion. Infantry is indispensible to any operation.
We can probably do without tanks in the defence of the homeland but they are vital to contribute to NATO operations in Continental Europe – we need to be aware that Russia has 12,500 tanks (not all are modern of course) and every NATO nation needs to put tanks into the mix. We have deployed tanks in combat far more often than the Navy has put ships or submarines into combat..and the RAF fighters have scarcely had a dogfight since the Korean War (except for a few weeks in 1982).
It takes the British Army 6 months to train a basic Infantryman (that is the length of the Combat Infantryman’s Course) and longer for Paras and Guardsmen. It is very Dad’s Army to suggest that we should rely on giving a crash course to civvies in the event of General War, and minimise the number of Regulars in the Infantry.

We are much better prepared to retake the Falkland’s now than we were back then.

Even with fewer DD/FF, attack submarines and amphibious shipping?

Yes because the equipment we have now is much more capable. One QEC is has more capability than Hermes and Invincible combined. two type 45s would control the airspace around the falklands entirely with support of the F35. The two Albions and the three Bay classes supported by bulk carriers and supported by the second carrier acting as an LHA could land/deliver a huge amounts of kit and equipment. Assets like the apache, Merlin, chinook etc would add more useful helicopter assets. This couple with Argentinas decline would make it a cakewalk.

Certainly true that capability per platform have increased. However we deployed 6 out of our 28 attack subs on Op Corporate – we could not do that today.

Greta would be happy though…no more global warming to drip about…

Yep, it most defo sort that whole global warming issue, a nice bit of planetary reset if there ever was one.

👍

Spot on.
I believe that the French have atomic weapons because of Germany, especially after the USA rearmed West Germany post-war.

lol no they have them for the same reason we do. Germany is an ally to France.

But we aren’t playing fantasy militaries though and one is more than enough. We could all sit here and say we want 50 frigates and 1000 fighters and 5000 tanks but that’s not realistic or required.

The point being Martin, 115,000 is still a small professional Army, it’s only the fact that it’s shrunk so far below critical mass, that that sounds a lot, is extremely telling!

If the UK still intends to pivot towards the Far East and also meet our NATO commitments, then something needs to be done.

The t3’s forward based at Gibraltar and Singapore and a proper warship presence in the south. Atlantic would restore a fair amount of kudos lost around the world by the loss of former bases like Singapore and Bermuda and Simon’s town

Our interest in restoring some of the army’s numbers is clearly not to resurrect lost cap badges or guard palaces.
The army was reduced to 120,000 in 1991 as this was deemed to be the right size for a post-Cold War army, following an analysis which did not not foretell the more complex and unstable world that has come about – arguably we might need more than 120,000 regulars.
Subsequent, repeated and savage cuts down to 73,000 have been purely at the behest of the Treasury, and are not militarily justified.
Our army is the smallest since Napoleonic times and we could now only deploy 1 or 2 brigades on an emerging operation.

An additional 30,000 would enable us to deploy a division or more to meet the threat of a resurgent Russia and for the army to play its part in global Britain, as the navy already can.
Why is there a need to gut the navy and air force – new money is required.
There may not be 3rd Shock Army in Magdeburg, but there is Putin’s entire army to face now.

Re-establish the Rafsquadron in Gibraltar and a t31forwardbased there I went to gib récentlyI spoke to people who said that because the navy didn’t get. Go there as often as it did in the past the hospitality revenue was vastly reduced.

Yes, Regional Command/ Home Command have no infantry battalions, unless 160 ( Welsh) have any, don’t think so.
We used to have 2,4, and 5 Divisions for the regional stuff before the 2010 massacre.

160 Welsh has had all it’s infantry re-assigned. All infantry Battalions (minus Paras, Overseas and 2 Yorks) are in the BCT’s.

Yep suspected as such.

What do you have 2 York’s under Dern? That’s the new experimental Bn isn’t it?
Is it with the LWC?

Yes, LWC I believe, with the rest of the trials and development units.

Ta.

The issue here is that the public (including the politicians) are watching the Russian Army being taken apart by NLAW and similar weapons in the hands of people with a few hours training. Probably not the point in time to start bigging up tanks just as the blitzkreig was not the time to big up horses.

I think we need to get away from chatting about divisions because it is sending people to sleep. Right now if the Army had the ability to give the Ukrainians an air defence system which could be operated anywhere that would be of value and people could relate to it so that is where the money would be spent.

Russia is losing because it can’t fight a modern war. We need all the components needed for modern warfare otherwise we will be in trouble.Start with what needs to be done and then design the kit / personnel to make it happen.

MarkB, agree absolutely, we need to stop fighting yesterday’s wars. The lessons of Ukraine are NLAW and Bayrakter. We have self defence systems planned for our tanks ok, but we only have high end drones and no domestic producer of UAV. This needs to be remedied. If a Ukraine manufacturer can form a joint venture with Bayrakter why can’t the UK produce a licensed version, when it is clear that drone’s are the future, high, medium and low end.

True. Tho I think drone defence for the whole army is needed. By that I mean AA assets – to firstly detect enemy UAV’s and then to destroy them or at least neutralise them and it needs to be done widely and on the cheap. It’s an interesting technical challenge.

Big lesson is fuel trucks don’t have protection and tanks Ned fuel. Question is is a 120mm gun worth the logistics to get it there.

The endless possibilities of the Maddox drone for the navy has the potential to be a great force multiplayer especially as it has just been tested for missile firing. I wonder if it fits the mission bays of the proposed new frigates

Spot on.

Agreed

Mark, You suggestthe tank is obsolete because of NLAW. I guess you think the manned fighter-bomber is obsolete because of SAMs?
Is Russia losing or are they just making slower progress than expected – they continue to wreak death and destruction upon the Ukrainian population and have caused 2m people to flee and brought Ukraine to the negotiating table several times.

What I am suggesting is that the pendulum has swung back in favour of the defender. The Ukrainians will be able to melt into the countryside where they have vast food supplies and provided they have adequate supplies of weapons filtering in from the west the Russians will find it difficult to move by road or by air. The tank is not helping them win this war like it would fifty years ago. The tanks are vulnerable and supplies are vulnerable and the aircraft are vulverable.

Whilst the Russians are destroying cities and killing many civilians we know from provious conflicts that free people can take a lot of death and destruction before giving up that freedom.

Putin wanted the whole of Ukraine plus much more if he could get away with it. The fact that he is even talking about a deal speaks volumes.

‘if’ a decision is made to increase the Army, via an increase in defence spending, then the first target would be to offer selected individuals in their final year, new selective engagement contracts, annually renewable, with a bonus structure and perhaps additional pension incentives.

Another option would be to offer them Army Reserve positions, on permanent secondment, there are already a few doing this with specific skills that are badly needed. It gives individuals the flexibility to leave too.

If you convinced a third of the annual leavers to remain, with various golden handshakes, then you would start to rebuild the numbers organically.

In the longer term, you need to make the services an attractive proposition for school leavers, so wages, training and living conditions.

Convince more kids it’s a great choice to give them invaluable tools for their whole lives.

If the Boris government doesn’t see the current Russian situation as a rude wake up call to sensibly re-build all our Armed forces to effective levels, then I am genuinely scared, it’s a blinkered 1935 type position, when the government of the day simply refused to acknowledge the rapidly destabilising situation in Europe.

In 1936 we started to re-arm and ‘just’ in time too!

The problem with the Army in todays world is that nobody understands what it is for. It is rare that the public see it doing anything much. The younger generation do not relate to it and it is not a lifetime career.

Now is the time to completely change the aproach. In my view we need to move to a position where millions of people undergo training to operate a range of high tech kit within a military command structure alongside existing education / training / existing occupations. The Army could then draw a far smaller number of permanant roles from this pool of people, paying them very well but not allowing people to lose touch with traditional occupations so that they can move backward and forwards when and if they need to.

The military needs to be part of everyday life for all but the very young and very old.

I would have thought many people would have seen the army fighting Ebola in Sierra Leone, and more recently aiding the NHS fight coronavirus and helping with flood protection and relief.
As far as conventional military deployments, perhaps the public is less clear, although there has been coverage of troops in Estonia on eFP duties.
It sounds like you are advocating conscription? We don’t want that.

I think you have proved the point Graham. People will not join the Army just to sit there waiting for an emergency which happens once in a blue moon. People happily train as first responders on a voluntary basis to help out the NHS but it is not productive to ask large quantities of people to spend 100% of their time on war fighting.

Conscription is a failed concept that serves to put people off the Army. Better to provide the basic skills linked to weekend / summer camps with time off work rather than desperately trying to train recruits in the heat of battle.What I am suggesting would not be compulsory either but there would need to be some from of incentive.

I joined the army ‘to soldier’ as everyone does. In my 34 years as a REME officer I had 6 months in Cyprus on UN peacekeeping duties and 6 months in Afghanistan. I would have liked more than one of 34 years on deployed ops! But no-one gets or expects 100% on ops.
I am still struggling to understand your plan to train civilians in basic soldiering skills when this is not conscription and not joining the Army Reserve (TA, as was).

Graham I think what I am anticipating is that when and as we exit this Ukrainian conflict the Russians will look to modernise thier approach & their kit NATO will in turn need to counter any improvements Russia and/or china makes. I would expect far more kit (smaller maybe) in the form of drones etc.in the battlespace. I can see the need for civilians to have the basic knowledge for how to maintain, set up and use the kit especially for teritorial self defence.. This and more basic soldiering skills might be learnt in advance rather than when your country gets invaded.

I can see the need for career soldiers such as yourself, hybrid reservists but I also sense the need for a larger group of people who already have skills going into the battle who can use & maintain weapons which will make a significant difference.

Hi Mark, I am no longer a career soldier, I left the army in 2009. I remember years ago a phrase ‘smaller, but better’ being applied to the British Army during one of the endless defence reviews – which meant giving up many manpower posts for some shiny new kit (which the army was going to get anyway).
I am not sure if you think British civilians should have this basic military knowledge, but the chances of the UK being invaded are very remote. Very pertinent though to many continental countries, especially those bordering or close to Russia and without the benefit of NATO membership.

Telegraph and the Express reports have both suggested that Johnson and Sunak are resisting any new(post Ukraine) increases in defense spending and the need to stop the cuts,citing the recent defense spending increase as sufficient i sincerely hope this is mere speculation and not fact, but i am not holding my breath !!!

Yes, it’s a reasonable aspiration. I always prioritise RN, RAF and Intelligence/SF before Land but at minimum we should have a fully resourced deployable Division to contribute alongside Poland Germany who could and should contribute more here.

Even the 2010 cuts kept the rule of 5. The 3 Armoured Infantry Bdes plus 2 brigades from 1 UK Div that in theory were deployable as the CS/CSS elements for them existed, albeit with some reserve elements in the assigned RA and RE Regiments.

So there were 5 RA, 5 RLC, 5 RE, 5 RAMC Regiments and 5 REME Bns for these bdes.

Those enablers in the 2 deployable Bdes from 1 UK Div were cut in the 2015 SDSR and the dawn of the Strike Bdes lunacy.

What enablers remain in 1 UK Div now are mostly in 102 Logistic Support Brigade.

HMG spin will NEVER pull the wool over my eyes and every cut actioned by HMG over the last 30 years should be shouted from every roof top by journalists who really should know better and hold HMG to account.

Totally agree, the cuts, particularly under Cameron and to the present were a disgrace and totally unjustifiable, in my opinion, they have left this country very vulnerable to a suddenly and negatively changing world situation, which are now seeing, it was reckless, complacent and foolish and they should have been held to account for these actions by the media and Parliament

No, we don’t want conscripts.

Could you imagine the political and social fallout in the UK if even the suggestion of that came up.

Be so many applications on disability living allowance to try find an excuse not to take part be unbelievable.

The Finnish are deeply impressive Jonathan and I think Ukraine has been a rude shock to the Russian Military. Any move against Finland would leave the Russians absolutely mauled.

I’m beginning to think the Russians will be forced to the negotiating table, the losses are already heavy, they will go through the roof as they move on Kiev.

The rumours of Chinese pressure on Russia to stop persist.

The Chinese are deeply concerned with the War, especially as it’s gone seriously south and see the dire possibilities of war between the West and Russia, or a limited war that Russia can’t win that bleeds it out, possibly leading to a destabilising Russian federation, again really not good….

The Russians are already looking to China with the begging bowl out..

There’s ‘huge’ negatives for China and I expect them to really start putting pressure on Putin to stop and withdraw…

It’s simply not in China’s interests for this to continue, I hope there’s backroom talks between China and the USA, you never know, it might actually make Chinese / Western relations better, as Russia going full ‘North Korea’ , is in no-ones interest.

If they attempted to move on Finland Sweden would have to enter the fold immediately to help hold the line. Russia would not have a chance in that terrain.

I agree Russia is running out of weapons to use and isnt really gaining ground. Financially its now in a complete mess and as you say China really doesnt want to be in this position right now seeing the unification of the West against Russia.

Russia / Ukraine has kicked off over the course of 9 years plus, it’s not something that has suddenly happened

And how many people actually saw a full-scale invasion of Ukraine coming from 2014? Very few.

If you take it from the point where Russia started building up their forces along the Ukrainian border it was a few months.

Even at 9 years, that’s no a long time to be able to build up an army. To recruit 100,000 or so soldiers and officers, to train them, equip them etc. Not to mention that all that experience gained from hundreds of years of fighting, once lost, is lost for good.

Even with the current army it would be difficult to significantly expand it even in 9 years, not if you want it to be a credible force and not just cannon fodder.

I think many did, hence why Ukraine massively increased its miltiary. It’s wasn’t a surprise when Russia invaded Crimea, it was known for years that russia was considering it. Wars don’t happened over night, there is normally years and years of build up and polictical wanglering.

If we had a border with a potentially aggressive neighbour, which Ukraine has had since Putin took charge, you would expect not sensible policticans to start building up defenses. Ok sensible and policticans don’t go together but if you didn’t then you only have yourself to blame. We don’t currently have any aggressive neighbours.

Clearly history has taught us that successive UK govs like getting involved in foreign wars and so we should gear for that.

Again, though; you can’t build an effective army from scratch in 9 years.

Thanks OR, I don’t usually do trick questions! Thousands of old tanks cost a lot in maintenence and fuel, and not all those tanks are old. We need a tank fleet of sufficient numbers and quality to counter this large threat. The tank will only be obsolete when our potential enemies have disposed of them.

I believe your analysis is pretty much spot on. This is the first time a modern Russian army has come up against a near peer enemy .
I think your observation of the
“ dumb” NCOs is right, it fits with Putin’s apparent policy of not letting people who could challenge him get into positions of power.
I read an article by a retired Anerican General who thinks the Russians are going to run out of time, ammunition and men within ten days. And as long as the west keep supplying the Ukrainian the Russian army will be in serious trouble. His analysis fits the facts. They are already moving away from guided to dumb bombs. If this is the case my concern is what will Putin do, get out of Dodge or scorched earth ?

It was always previously assumed ( possible exception of N. Korea) that the heads of state of nuclear armed countries were rational actors. At best, Putin seems paranoid and delusional, the worst analysis is that he is vengeful and genuinely crazy. It’s a very real concern.

I said when Putin raised the spectre of nuclear weapons that he had found the flaw in the MAD doctrine. Mutually Assured Destruction works as a deterrent if both sides are sane people that realises both side lose big in a nuclear exchange. Enter Putin who is Bat Shit Crazy or at least gives an Oscar winning performance and MAD falls apart because he appears to genuinely not care about his people or country, he will continue to escalate until someone calls his bluff. He is not going to back off. The world is locked into a global game of chicken and we dare not flinch first and I am not sure I want to be around for the inevitable collision !!

For the first time in way WAY too long, defence will be an issue in a General Election !! Defence spending needs to go south of 3%. Many programs need to be accelerated and expanded. Eg Challenger Mk3, typhoon radar upgrade . More F35s and hulks above and below the water. Ukraine should be seen as a wake up call .

Perhaps. But the Russian mindset is to accept large losses of personnel. Though through social media this may be changing with the younger population. Hence why its being turned off.

Don’t forget we are only seeing one side of the story, as Ukraine has given a lot of free press access, whereas Russia has not.

I agree on the face of it, Russia’s troops seem to be inept in contact and force protection. Hopeless with their organisation and supply of their logistics. But with an Air Force who on the face of it cannot properly support their ground forces or neutralise Ukraine’s radar guided air defences. Yet they are still pushing on and encircling Kyiv and other key cities. In the South where the best of Ukraine’s troops are, they have held up the Russians. But they have not prevented them from taking most of the south coast of the Sea of Azov, with Mariupol besieged and just about hanging on. Soon we will see Mykolaiv encircled and Russia moving westwards towards Odessa and northwards along the eastern bank of the Dnieper river to reach Kyiv from the south.

Their doctrine is reverting to type, whereas they had believed it would be an easy ride to Kyiv and the local population would support them. They have quickly learned that this is not the case! The fighting will turn to look more like how they operated in Chechnya and Syria, where winning is all that matters. The use of indiscriminate artillery fire will play an ever increasing role. Collateral damage will be part of the playbook, to install fear, panic and degrade morale. Ukrainians will most likely be encouraged to leave the area.

It is very doubtful that Ukraine will now get the Polish Mig-29s. However, if they can get more TB2s. These can be used to keep targeting and disrupting the Russian artillery and the supply convoys. Perhaps also include a few over the border strikes on airfields and depots. In reality, Ukraine can only hold up the Russian forces advance. They don’t have the air support for a large scale counter offensive. The bridges over the Dnieper river are their main line of defence. Which means if they are blown up or taken, then the east of the country will be cut off.

Are you suggesting that Ukraine shouldn’t take seriously thousands of dead people? It’s a bloody war and getting bloodier all the time! You need to take it seriously. You can’t brush off their forces when they are killing people. You can say they aren’t as good as yours or they aren’t as disciplined or moving as fast as you’d expected, but bodies rotting in the streets must be taken seriously. Hospitals and schools bombed, serious. The slow destruction of a country, serious.

And do you think they won’t learn? Aren’t learning?

And still the trolls spout the whole NATO must stop expanding (which would be a neat trick when NATO hasn’t moved east since 2004). People swallow it and repeat it. They talk about giving Putin what he wants. I worry that decision makers have already been influenced.

And I can’t see the funny side of the joke.

I believe that initially none of the Boxers were to be turreted, however MoD is reassessing that. If all the firepower of the current Warrior Platoon were to be replicated then every Boxer in APC role should be turreted, but I bet that won’t happen as the story goes that 2 x Ajax may be added to the Platoon to provide firepower.
True that not all Ajax family would be turreted, just the ones called Ajax ie the recce/strike version.

The Russians are bogging in numerous all-wheel drive vehicles – tracked vehicles are better at traversing deep snow, ice and thick, deep glutinous mud. You can’t move an entire battalion out of mud with a handful of recovery vehicles and maintain timings.

You may be right about the mud. I don’t think so, but it might be that’s a price we have to pay to still have strike brigades that can fight for 48 weeks of the year in two years, as opposed to all the weeks of the year next decade. Shouldn’t a recon vehicle be able to figure out where the mud is before getting stuck in it?

I’m not against Warrior’s life being stretched until CV90 or Ajax comes on stream. But I don’t think the strike brigades should wait on the tracked, er, track of the plan, when wheels can be delivered with less risk. (Admittedly not no risk though.) I think we have to choose between expanding the Boxer’s role and going for Warrior CSP. I pick Boxer.

I think turrettng any of the Boxers would be a huge shift in policy, and would be seen as an admission that Ajax is all but dead. That’s why they are reluctant.

My point about mud was related to likely Boxer performance not recce vehicle (ie Ajax) performance.

Why do you favour Boxer over upgraded Warrior (WCSP)? You pay a lot more dosh to get a vehicle that is an APC not the superior IFV, that probably will lack a turreted cannon and will have inferior mobility and may well bog in.

You do realise that Boxer is an infantry carrier (APC) and not a recce vehicle, as Ajax is? Your last para suggests a muddle. If we buy turreted Boxer for Infantry carriage we still need a recce vehicle for the Cav (Ajax or similar).

Boxer is a modular platform. Call it an APC, a MIV or whatever you like, it can still function as an IFV. The A3 Boxer has a higher-rated maximum weight (38.5 tons) than the Mk 4 CV90. Its engine is pretty much the same as that in Ajax (both MTU 600KW). How you fit it out determines the role — over half the Aussie Boxers will be turretted reconnaissance.

“If we buy turreted Boxer for Infantry carriage we still need a recce vehicle for the Cav (Ajax or similar).”

Yes. We would. I’m in favour of Boxer recon for the strike brigades. That wouldn’t preclude buying tracked recon for the armoured brigades. Using Ajax for both was a dodgy compromise.

Why Boxer over WCSP? First, we are getting Boxer anyway, and they may get stuck in the mud anyway. Pairing them with Warrior means they’ll both move at the speed of the slower in all conditions. For strike, speed is key. Second, Warrior is the past. If we were keeping Warrior for another 20 years, I might choose differently just for convenience sake (the same dodgy compromise).

On the other side of the equation, we’d probably have WCSP functioning before Boxer recon, and we really need stuff that functions asap.

Hi Jon, I accept that Boxer can be described as an IFV if it has a turreted cannon (otherwise it is an APC) – and can keep up with CR2/CR3. Hopefully both the firepower and mobility of the Boxers that we buy for the Infantry are up to those standards. I would prefer to keep Warrior and upgrade it to WCSP – probably cheaper than buying turreted Boxers instead. I don’t see that Boxer and Warrior could be paired?

If Ajax can’t be fixed, we need another vehicle for recce – and it could be wheeled – but I have always said that a recce vehicle needs to be agile, low-profile/low signature, equipped with excellent sensors and comms – be almost impervious to bogging in and to have an effective self-defence weapon in case its location is compromised. Boxer CRV would not meet my criteria for low-profile/low signature but I am not in charge of procurement!

We need a Strike vehicle if Strike is still an in-vogue concept. Ajax is not the right vehicle for that. I do not approve of the multi-roling of Ajax (recce and strike). In my view a strike vehicle must be able to defeat at least light and medium armour and strongpoints at long range – 4000m plus. It does not provide suppressive fire to cover dismounting Infantry – the Infantry’s IFVs do that. Ideal if the Strike vehicle could also defeat MBTs.

That makes sense.

I don’t think any kind of warfighting is in vogue anymore, just Rangers and being nice; Strike brigades aren’t in vogue. I think they were originally modelled on US Stryker infantry brigades, but the new Deep Recce/Strike BCTs don’t have infantry or Boxers in there anymore, just Ajax and Artillery. We’ll see how that pans out. Tune in again next year for another nattily named ORBAT, when Future Soldier becomes Super-Duper Starship Trooper.

I don’t know anything about the profile/signature of the Boxers — I don’t think they all come with that Union Jack paintwork. 😀 As enemy sensors get better, I’m not sure we can rely on low profile alone. Anti-air and active protection systems will be the order of the day. US is working its way down the line with lighterweight versions of Trophy, and the Bradleys are getting something. Maybe Boxer will too, beyond the Thales system, which is more an alert RWS than active protection.

It would be an interesting and amazing world if no-one fought wars anymore, except for Russia and Ukraine – except that Wikipedia has a different view -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

Strike brigades died out before they were formed – interesting. Perhaps the problem was that no-one really knew what Strike meant. Except that the word has survived in the Deep Recce/Strike BCT, as you say. Is it just about Ajax engaging some light armour with its 40mm and during a lull in firing, calls in some arty fire (or fires as they like to say, now).

Ajax or Boxer CRV as our recce vehicle is very large profile – which is worrying. They will be spotted rather easily. Point taken about being spotted by clever enemy sensors as well.

It will not be in the middle of a NATO group, it’s part of that group. But the simple truth is it’s a constabulary vessel that is now operating as part of a groups of warships right next to a highly unstable conflict zone. That is completely anti the point of these ships and it’s not appropriate for it to be deployed in that way.

It should be moved back. Into the western med.

It’s important to remember what are the threats in the eastern med. at present Trent in in the same seas as 3 Russia slave class cruisers. With Present tensions we should not be keeping a constabulary vessel in the same sea as those slava class cruisers.

At least one of those cruisers is currently off the coast of Odesa. The war is moving West.

We have a population of at least 30 million people aged between 18 and 50. Are you saying we can’t recruit enough people from this group? Well you’re right, but why is that the case? How do we incentivise people into joining up and also encourage those currently serving not to leave early?

When I was serving, we kept getting told that money is the reason people leave (after a pay freeze of 7 years), but it was more to do with “time out of bed”. Which meant more time deployed and not at home. When we were asked for ways of making service life better, most people put down better pay and conditions. So clearly the brass weren’t listening, as there’s always fresh meat for the sausage factory! One of the replies we made was to increase manpower. As this would mean there would be more personnel to share the burden of being deployed for 6 months or more. Something that they probably do not take into account when reducing manpower. The requirements have stayed the same if not increased, so you are expected to do more to fill the gaps. Which puts a massive strain on family life.

One of the biggest problems is with after service training. A lot of the times you do not have the time to get on courses, as you are still expected to do you job (as a specialist) and the courses you do want to get on are too expensive. When you get to terminal leave you are still part of the “Squadron’s” strength and your place is gapped. So it appears on paper that the Squadron still has the right amount of manpower. Which only gets properly filled when you leave. Whereas you should be placed into a holding Squadron, so that your place can be immediately filled.

Pay is an issue, there’s no denying it. Compared to the job I am currently doing, the pay is significantly more and the responsibility a lot less. This is a big incentive to leave the service. How can the MoD compete with the civil sector? I don’t believe it can directly. But one of the ways without increasing the actual pay, would be tax and healthcare incentives. Such as lowering the income tax and NI for those serving, which means there is more money in you pocket at the end of the month. Another incentive would be healthcare for the whole immediate family. I don’t know how long it took for my wife and children to find a dentist after we moved from one unit to the next. But if healthcare was provided to you family, this would be a major worry dealt with.

But the biggest gripe that they need to sort out is time out of bed. On my last couple of years in service I was practically away from home 9 months out of every year. There simply is not enough personnel to do the tasks and requirements asked of us. This is what broke the straw on the camel’s back for me. Being told after I got home, in a month’s time I would be away again. When the MoD drops the manpower, those left behind have to do more. There is no way around it as the commitment remain the same. Yes it looks good with the Treasury and the brass say we can be more flexible. But that is BS. It stifles promotion as there’s less slots available above you. It means you are deployed a lot more and it makes people leave! It also means more contract staff are employed to do the work previously done by service personnel. As the work still needs doing and contract staff can be employed more cheaply. Which is another kick in the teeth, as lot of these people are ex-forces, earning more than the service person they may be working with and are never deployed!

But the reservists need sorting out too. There simply is not enough of them to refill sufficient losses if we are in a major conflict. The other problem is that in the RAF in particular, there are no aircraft techies as reservists. As they cannot maintain currency on type. I think this is the same in the Navy engineering branches. The Army does allow RE and REME reservists. God forbid it should ever happen, but if the Chinooks and their ground support were wiped out in Lithuania. The RAF does not have any spare capacity to backfill the numbers of lost personnel. You can easily buy replacement Chinooks, trained manpower is a lot different.

It is a similar issue with infantry training. It takes years of training to be competent with not only a weapon system, but also with battlefield situational awareness. You can be taught it, but it is a skill that needs learning. Don’t freeze when you hear a shot, don’t pop you head above wall, don’t walk along a sky line don’t bunch up in a group etc. You can teach conscripts to fire a rifle in a few hours. But tactics and the employment of firepower needs lot longer. Unless you pushed into conflict and learn on the hoof. But then expect significant losses.

Therefore, reservists need a very good foundation that can be developed through time. My thoughts are that a sort of National Service is reintroduced, but different to the 1950s etc. Where people are selected and then trained in one of the service branches. But initially they are given a two to three years of regular service. Then either elect to stay in or go reservist. Where as a reservist they follow a similar pattern to the current scheme.

However, instead of just basic training, we also include vocational and academic training much like a sixth form college. Where they would be taught additional skills that can be used in the civil sector. But unlike college they would be on full pay and benefits. Could this be a large enough incentive?

I don’t like the idea of any form of national service. The biggest problem with conscription or national service is that you get people who don’t want to be there, milling around for 2-3 years and doing the minimum required. They’re not good for much more than cannon fodder, as Russia is finding out currently.

The problem of cutting troop numbers leading to overworked soldiers who don’t stay in, resulting in further losses, is a cycle that needs breaking. There is no quick fix but I think getting more recruiting teams into schools, colleges and universities is a good start; promote the armed forces as viable careers.

I’d say a minimum 5% pay rise for all armed forces personnel of all ranks is also needed, to keep pay competitive, and better rewards for staying in. I don’t know how it works in the forces but perhaps a bonus for every 5 years you stay in there, that increases, so the 10-year bonus would be larger than the 5-year bonus, and the 15-year bonus would be larger than the 10, etc.

Perhaps more needs to be done to encourage leavers to join the Reserves; keep their current rank, joining bonus etc.

It kind of depends on the numbers you want the National Service to provide the military. If you wanted the whole population trained as per Sweden and Finland. Then yes, you will get those who are not suited to the military, but if you only required 250,000. You could still use basic training to test and select the best suited. Those who weren’t selected could be used for other National services.

I think the scheme could be introduced similar to how we currently have the education rule. Whereby from 16 to 18 you are supposed to be undertaking further education, depending on your individual circumstance. From 18 to 21 you would be required to do National Service, that could also include college/university, healthcare, civil service etc.

The idea is to get enough personnel trained to meet the reserve numbers. I whole heartedly agree, conscripts thrown into conflict will be cannon fodder.

My thoughts would be that those chosen under the National Service scheme would be similar to US National Guardsmen, whereby during training they can only serve within the UK within the 1st and possible 2nd year period. Those that have elected to stay as a regular can then serve overseas after this period has been completed. However, after doing the 2 years period as a elected reservist, they can be eligible to serve overseas.

The idea is not only to get the required number of reservists. But also to impart life skills to those under training. If we included some academic and vocational education along with the full pay. Could that be sufficient incentive to not only increase the number of recruits for regular service, but also those needed for reserves?

There have been schemes in the past for time in service bonuses. These did help, but it didn’t stop people from leaving.

Depending on the length of time served, you automatically become part of the reserves. But not an active reservist. Say you signed on a 12 + 6 years contract. That would be 12 years in active service, then at any point in the following 6 years you could be called forward again. If you’ve done 22 years plus service, generally you aren’t required to serve again. At this point a lot of the infantry lads are suffering from knee and back issues, due to marching/tabbing/yomping with heavy bergens plus battle kit.

Jonathan, very thoughtful comments. I reflect on the irony that NATO was created in 1949, the West having lost eastern Europe and the Baltic to the USSR, to prevent the Soviet Union from encroaching further westwards and hold them in check – in 2022 NATO is unable to prevent Russia invading westwards against an innocent and neutral country.

Echoing your point about Chamberlain who continues to get a very bad press for appeasement aka trying to negotiate an imperfect form of peace in Europe with a dictator. However, as the pre-war chancellor he was a champion for rearmament. Wiki: “By 1935, faced with a resurgent Germany under Hitler’s leadership he (Chamberlain) was convinced of the need for rearmament.[64] Chamberlain especially urged the strengthening of the Royal Air Force, realising that Britain’s historical bulwark, the English Channel, was no defence against air power.[65]
During the 1935 General Election campaign, deputy Labour leader Arthur Greenwood had attacked Chamberlain for spending money on rearmament, saying that the rearmament policy was “the merest scaremongering; disgraceful in a statesman of Mr Chamberlain’s responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments.”
If it weren’t for Chamberlain, we would probably not have had the Spitfire and Hurricane to use in 1940, not to mention the other hardware. It need hardly be added that it was Chamberlain as PM who declared war on Germany, and ‘persuaded’ France to do the same.

I digress, perhaps. The guard had been dropped – few thought Putin would invade Ukraine at all, let alone on a wide scale, invading the entire country rather than just the Donbass. There is a paralysis as regards military response, yet NATO has deployed operationally outside Article 5 on numerous occasions.

Additionally and outside NATO ‘politics’, the USA and UK are under obligation to assist Ukraine militarily under the 1994 Budapest memorandum – is supply of weapons enough to meet our remit?

Finally, I doubt that our current Chancellor will do, later this month, what Chamberlain did in 1935 and opt for 9%GDP spend on Defence or anything remotely amounting to a sizable increase.

good comments from both of you – we have all been party to the appeasement that has been going on – not least sice 2014. We have provided weapons , and associated training- but we have turned a blind eye to many issues. allowing Russian money in London , UK poisonings , Georgia , Syria, Crimea – the list goes on so we are not whiter than white .
If we extract oursleves from Russian money & gas then thats one thing, what going to happen with The Chinese money…bugger all thats what…
We have just had our hostage in Iran freed – what drove that , nothing to do with the appeasement of a new nuclear deal was it by any chance.
What about Saudi – 81 beheadings journalists chopped up …but Arms sold, & they can buy a premier league club.
Still as long as 50k Geordies are happy and we can buy cheal oil and phones who goves a fuck hey…Money makes the world go round.
As for Chamberlein yep he wasn’t the appeaser some (cough Chrchill) would have him made out to be ,but as for Sunak I would put money on him doing nothing to increase defence spending- unless hes got family in the trade of course.

Yes very good points on Chamberlain, he did his best to get a peace deal, but at the same time he was not siting back and hoping it would be fine he had turned up defence spending to 3.75, by 1938 ( he only became prime minister in 1937) and the very moment the Hitler invaded the rump Czechoslovakian he put the county on a 9% gdp and war time economy. That was before Poland, it’s easy with hindsight but to say we should have gone to war in 1938 but the reality was the 10 year rule had not been reversed by previous administrations and Chamberlain new very well we were not ready for a war and we had no allies who would support a war ( France was entirely defensive and a broken nation before the war started). Finally we could not change the outcome for any of those nations next door to Germany.

I also agree about the Budapest memorandum, we and the US did guarantee Ukraines sovereignty. It’s actually a real mark of how little you can trust the western powers and I don’t think in the long run it did anything good that the U.K. and US did not actually follow though. Knowing what was likely to happen we should have done a lot more a lot earlier to make sure Russia would not risk trying to take another chunk out of UKriane ( but insight is easy) and we should have been pushing a lot more to remove Russian from Ukraine’s boarders ( the invasion of UKriane started 7 years ago and we did almost nothing.

But we have done more than most, it’s just that we have done more in the slightly more than nothing of other western nations.

If the west does not get its Geopolitical mojo back very soon we will all be looking to China as the worlds leading light and I don’t want that as it will make the world a very dark place.