British troops train in Oman

You would be surprised number is not always best.

Ian, what do you mean? If we need 20 tanks for the Trg Org, 10 for the Repair Pool and 28 for the Attrition Reserve – then 36 is not enough! [My numbers are speculative and may be wrong, but they make the point]

Jonno, I learnt in my first week at Sandhurst that classically you need a 3:1 ratio for success in the offence, but that is for very different reasons to the ones you outline. Generally one element is assaulting, one is providing fire support and one is a reserve – but there are other ways to view this. I favour a rule of 4 but that is another story.

Back to your point: In terms of covering upgrades, you have a Repair Pool that supplies the unit with replacement vehicles.

In terms of covering a loss due to breakdown – there is no replacement – you just rely on those great REME guys and gals to get the kit fixed asap – quite a few faults can be fixed in 2 hours and an Engine or Major Assembly Change takes under 4hrs usually.

In case of losses due to enemy fire, you get replacements from the Attrition Reserve. [We have lost no tanks to enemy fire since the Korean war, but should not be complacent].

Two campaigns – hopefully our PM, DS and Parliament realise that we have a negligible ability to commit to two campaigns where one or both are of any magnitude.

Two armoured regiments are a complete joke, I agree – I do not consider 112 tanks is a sufficient number for a modernised and effective warfighting division.

Three T56 armoured regiments is the bare minimum for that division – we have that today (but not in the Future Soldier/73,000 army which reduces to two regts) and 227 tanks, thus 168 tanks with the regiments and 59 tanks split between the Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve and the Trg Org.
Clearly you feel that 59 for the three distinct roles supporting the units should be stepped up to around 132 – maybe you are right.

Not sure what the Omanis would charge us for 38 x twenty-year old CR2s. Maybe £2m each?

To what end – strip for spares? Having bought 386 CR2s and the active fleet having reduced to 227 in the wake of the 2010 Defence Review, we have never been short of tanks to rob for spares (in fact we once had 159 for that purpose!!), although it is always an absolute last resort to cannabalise vehicles and should be done sparingly – it is never the default way of acquiring spares.

A grateful Govt has decided to reduce from 3 to 2 armoured regiments and sack 10,000 soldiers into the bargain. That is why we are only converting 148 tanks to CR2, albeit 148 is too small a number to have enough for a well resourced Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.

If we need more tanks, then that Govt has to do a U-turn, find big money and reinstate the 3rd regiment (equipment, manpower including LAD) and to uplift the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. We should then convert all 227 to the CR3 standard – we don’t need 38 more from Oman.

👍

Graham. I’m not sure if you are engaging or being disingenuous.

I never said reducing a fire team for example.

What you might look at is the multi-capbadge efforts to get a unit into theatre. Some Infantry units have required three cap badges to flesh out their companies.

So, for several years we have always had under manned ‘headline’ units fleshed out by other units.

David. Disingenuous – I hope not – that is not my style. I was trying to put an example of your proposal out there for discussion/consideration.
You seem to be talking about something different now – it was the under-strength army transferring unfilled posts to other services (RM, RN, RAF), which I thought was a good idea and so I posited an example.
Now you talk about an infantry battalion making up its numbers by ‘borrowing’ personnel from other cap badges in order to get to strength for deployment. That is a whole different story.

Hi Sir,

It would be an experienced SNCO infanteer cadre to comment on reducing a fire team, not me, and I’d suggest, not you.

I was not suggesting a reduction in fire teams as such, I said that our unfilled PIDs should have been given up: the Army just would not face reality wrt their manning. And the PIDs were lost.

It would not be my preference to reduce a fire team anymore than it would be my preference to reduce the army by another 10,000. Perhaps my example could have been better chosen, though!

The Army has been sub 10K bods for over 10 years but, Braid would not face the facts and just rolled over to the Treasury.

Gunbuster makes a point about bums on seats, however, in Royal Irish, we needed that number of blokes to perform our duties – there was no gapping.

Taking sections, platoons, companies out of other Bns to augment the main Bn is not the answer – unless it was Rangers or PARA. Both of us were going to take the fight to the enemy.

I’m divided, Royal Irish Rangers should have remained a model for the rest of the British Army on the loss of County lines and the formation of an, effectively, Brigade model of infantry.

Ukraine is chewing through Brigades at the moment – we need the PIDs, seats filled to meet the threat.

I thought that the big infantry Regiments concept was to allow for some flow between battalions of the same capbadge – and Reserve Army soldiers of same cap badge to fill out numbers for a reg battalions deployment etc. Example The Rifles has 4 reg bns and 3 reserve bns. If one reg bn is deploying they can draw on 3 other reg bns and 3 reserve bns for top-up manpower. Can that not happen? Agree that it is better if all bns are up to strength but that is unrealistic.

There you go.

AR should be deploying into role as formed cohesive units or merely acting as BCR?

However, should AR be a stop gap for piss poor Army recruitment AND retention?

No Bn should be underhanded to the extent they take on a Company from a different Bn to make up the numbers.

My contention would be that if that is the case, that Bn should be put on notice to disband or amalgamate and hang up their colours.

The PIDs should go to Bns who can recruit – PARA for example…. (shudder) or of course…

…the RMP who when it comes to light infantry policing duties are the best in the world.

I’ll get mi coat!.

For many years AR (then TA) deployed as formed units – battalions etc. Indeed there were even TA Brigades (15 Bde and 49 Bde especially). There seems to have been a trend to row back from that as I understand and for many ARs, especially Infantry, to deploy as individuals either bringing regular units up to strength (polyfilla) before they deploy or as BCRs.

However in contrast to all of that, when I was in Camp Bastion in 2008/9 our FP Coy was a mix – 2/3 AR and 1/3 Reg, commanded by an AR Major – they were superb.

AR has always existed to reinforce the Reg Army, just that the way they do it seems to change. I favour total flexibility and for formed AR units and sub-units to deploy for the largest deployments and for individuals to deploy as polyfilla and BCRs for the smaller deployments.

I agree that if a reg bn is a company short, it should be deleted from the Orbat, and the troops dispersed to make up minor shortfalls elsewhere.

The RN carried certain gaps for years. When it came to reductions they looked at the gaps, determined that the RN had lived without that gap being filled for 3 years so it could live without it permanently and binned the draft off the drafting plot.
The unable to deploy medcats also (rightly) got binned.
You reduce the numbers on the plot without actually reducing the bums on seats numbers.
The problem is you where short of numbers to begin with but now its confirmed!

How long does it take an Army battalion to regenerate for a deployment? I heard it was a 1 in 5 cycle but the RM do a 1 in 3 cycle.

The RN approach is interesting, but sounds risky. If in that 3 years you had not gone to war (and the Navy (great though they are) hasn’t recently done much actual kinetic warfighting – last time 1982?) you might have got away with scrapping posts permanently. Conversely the army could not do that.

When I was serving it was reckoned that about 10% of the army were non-FE, and it wasn’t generally because they were fat buggers who couldn’t pass the BFT. Most carried injuries from training or combat. If the army binned that 10% it would have been harsh and would have worsened the strength figures dramatically.

For a one-shot operation – there is a regeneration period for all units who deployed to fix the kit and replenish CSups and spares. That takes as long as it takes.
For an enduring operation, there was ‘the rule of 5’ meaning that a unit or formation that deployed would be one of 5 and so would not deploy again until those other 4 had deployed in turn. This was not about regeneration at all. It was to give soldiers 2.5 years Tour Interval between repeated tours and was called ‘Harmony guidelines’. Some scarce specialists did however re-deploy more frequently. We could not do ‘another Afghanistan’ now unless we roped in 3 Cdo Bde (reconstituted to be a 3-bn deployable formation) and/or large numbers of army reservists.

The irony in your post Sir, is that Royal did do a tour.

Yes, I deployed at the same time as 3 Cdo Bde on Op HERRICK in 2008 as an individual. I was COS Camp Bastion and my boss was RM.
Royals were also used in NI many times. If the army was large enough it would not have to rely on the Royals – that was my point.

Even start by allowing people to return the pension and other old people benefits if they don’t want them.
Best way to get money is a growing economy and not spend the increase instantly.

Some years ago, the New Zealand government brought in a reduction in state pension payable to people with private pensions. Anyone with a decent private pension got nothing. The gov lost the next election.
The best way to keep the lid on pension costs is to raise the qualifying age to reflect both life expectancy and the number of years spent at work.
The main reason why so much wealth is held by the elderly retired is house price inflation and the fact they have paid off their mortgages.
The real need is to get better value for money from the bloated and in many cases overpaid public sector. Chief Execs of councils and state funded housing associations are paid more than the PM. We still have far too many senior officers on the defence payroll and the bureaucracy of the NHS is wasting billions.

Hi peter, one of the issues with raising the pension age is that it works for some professionals groups but not for most jobs. The reality is it’s not life expectancy you need to look at it’s the healthy life years…the problem we have in the UK is we are ridiculously unhealthy and actually have a really low number of healthy life years ( in-fact I think it’s dropped not gone up) but the NHS keeps us alive despite ourselves so our life expectancy has gone up.

so the UK healthy live years ( how old you are when your no longer really able to work etc) measure for the UK is an average of 63 years… now compare that to Sweden at 73 years. But our average life expectancy is high at 81 years with Sweden at 83 years…so as you can see the average swede has 10 years of being old and frail and can work into their seventies… and not up to much but the average Briton who has 18 years of not being up to much apart from suffering I’ll health and getting frail…Now the US has gone another way and just dropped its life expectancy into its boots ( it’s been losing a year a two a year for a bit now and has reached the shameful level of a life expectancy of 76 years…which is what it was at 27 years ago….the US has an I’ll health epidemic on its hands).

Hi Peter I will take you on one point…that’s the bureaucracy of the NHS…it’s more the bureaucracy of the DOH. The DOH and central NHS England functions that service the DOH have gone bonkers in this administration and there are some savings there.

But you have to remember most of the management of the NHS is actually about making the health system as cheap as possible.

Because health care systems are insanely complex and health economics open to so much abuse if you don’t have a fair amount of senior people keeping a lid on it your going to get into trouble…the US is a classic example, the US has lost control of its healthcare economy big time..it basically did not bother paying for any of those bureaucrats…now it spend around about 18% of its massive GDP on healthcare….and it has a really rubbish Broken system that is an international laughingstock ( amongst experts anyway). To put it in context the US government actual pays from its tax base more per head on healthcare that the UK and we get 100% universal cover birth to death..the US govern pays more per head of population just to proved a basic safety nest to some of its population….the US population then pays twice as much per head than the UK government to provide another 70% of its population with healthcare….basically the US system that has almost no Healthcare Bureaucracy managing the system costs pays over 3 times more per person than we do to the NHS ( £3000 per person per year vs £10,000 in the US) I if you compare us to other European peers the NHS is 18% cheaper.

so could the NHS be a bit more efficient yes.but .for years it’s been the most efficient and overall best western healthcare system on the planet ( see the US based Mirror mirror studies that rank the major health systems every year or so) …it’s just recently slipped to the fourth mostly because it’s governments poor grip on social care and training the right numbers of dr and nurses has come home….healthcare systems are literally the most complex systems ever developed they make everything else look like building with Lego they need a lot of Bureaucracy or they collapse.

I actually asked you about this the other day!

The pension age for females went from 60 to 67.

State Pensioners are Not in the wealthiest 20% of society. I are one’.

Not all are are, but many are. I for one have paid into 3 pension pots and when I retire in 4 years I will have occupational and private pensions well above the average family income…do I really need a state pension as well ( nope…..I will simple end up handing it out to my kids TBH) my mother in law is sitting with around £400,000 in the bank and a pension private pension that’s the average wage….simple put her state pension ends up in her savings account as does a fair bit of her private pension.

With pensions I personally think we should remove NI completely and move it into income tax as it’s not a pension scheme it’s simply a tax so let’s make it one. Then I think all pension age benefits should be means tested, savings from that should be split between raising the means tested state pension ( as if it’s your only income it’s to low) and a tax break for low earners ( personally I’m a believer that if your income is at the living wage you should not be paying income tax.

child benefit is another one of those universal benefits I would get rid of.you can have a husband and wife earning £50,000 a year each for income of £100,000 and they will still get £2500 a year in benefits if they have 3 kids…while we have child living in households in abject poverty that is obscene really.

Suggest you Drop-a-Line to No11′. You are obviously astute in money matters and born at the right time. Those of us on AFPS75 are not so fortunate. Means testing is not cheap & yes you could do all of that and it would probably release enough monies to the Defence Budget to get us half an F35.

Well the pension budget is 44billion a year so it’s actually not chick feed…and means testing does not need to be that costly you can link it to tax just like child benefit is….child benefit was once universal now it’s not if your a higher rate tax payer…if it pays to take child benefit of or higher rate tax payer ( which is actually a small budget line) then removing pension based benefits from higher rate tax payers would be equally as easy and cost effective. The government means test the hell out of almost all other benefits…pensions are one of those areas we do need to look at.

I think most of us ex-army who had a long period of service, retired on 1/3 final pay? Not a fortune, and certainly inadequate to pay the mortgage etc.

Lets not forget that if you work and when you eventually get a state pension any Private/Armed forces pension income are taxable. Its very likely that your Armed Forces pension can be taxed in the 40% bracket.

If you means test you would lose a chunk of tax income.
People would work out how to get a private pension that missed the means tested limit and instead either spend their earnings or hide them. Worst case you end up with lots of people without adequate pension cover that need additional State support in latter life which drives the Govt Social Care and support bill higher!

I have not studied economics but am starting to doubt the establishment mantra that you have to have economic growth before you can spend more on defence or other public services. Some of the newer economists like Stephanie Skelton and Mariana Mazzucato are questioning some of the basic concepts like deficit and wealth creation which we have taken for granted since before WW2. I think we need new models which prioritise sustainability.

To be honest at some Point we are going to have to look at our economic model as it does depend on growth… as you cannot in a finite eco system have unlimited growth… it does not work and will end in, well no more growth at all…. There is finite oil we can burn, finite crops we can grow, finite damage we can do to ecosystems extracting resources..finite fish in the sea. At present our economic system is based around the concept of a post scarcity environment ( you can extract and creat never ending wealth) that whole concept is unfortunately bollox and will at some point within the next century or so bit humanity right on its collectively selfish arse.

I understand that ‘growth’ is predicated on free or inexpensive inputs: energy, labour, raw materials, land. I’m hoping we find water on Mars, cos we’re running out here on Earth – using it all to irrigate the soya crops we are feeding to cattle, chickens and farmed salmon.

You’re too pessimistic. People have been saying similar things since at least Malthus. Never underestimate the creativity and adaptability of the human race. Farming, Free trade, Steam engines. the internal combustion engine, the internet. We’ve been proving the pessimists wrong for 20,000 years.

I unfortunately have a slightly less than normal view..my everyday life is assessing what can go wrong and trying to shall we say get people who cannot see the train coming to get off the tracks….it’s sort of left me with a “plan for the worst and optimistic outlooks kill” view..as I’ve seen a far to many dead people and babies cause by the “it won’t happen brigade”. It does make me always assess and consider the worst…not saying optimism is wrong…it’s really important but…sometimes you need the “what if types” keeping it real. I know there are mass murdering poisoners all around and yes your phone, custard cream, bed sheets or a dentist chair may just kill you…( honest I’ve seen or invested all that happen).

Wow well you see people when they’ve well truly effed up. On a personal level that’s always been true. Like the guy back in the stone age who was told lions are vegetarians who love being petted and believed it ! Maybe my ignorance keeps me optimistic. They say the stupid are happier than average at least until it kills them. 😁😂

Yes unfortunately I’m the unwanted guy in the back who’s job it is to point out when people are being idiots….the number of time I’ve had to make statement like “ you do realise what you are talking about is dead babies and grieving mothers”…makes me kind of popular amongst senior decision makers…but someone has to do it.

I have not studied economics but am starting to doubt the establishment mantra that you have to have economic growth before you can spend more on defence or other public services.

is this some kind of joke? Do you want to abolish Math?

No 🙂
It seems to be a matter of questioning some basic concepts. Debt for example:
Stephanie Kelton takes on our approach to debt and spoofs the simplistic metaphors, like comparing national income and expenditure to ‘family budgets’ in an attempt to prove how dangerous debt is. In her upcoming book, The Deficit Myth (June 2020), she argues they are not at all similar; what household can print additional money, or set interest rates? Debt should be rebranded as a strategic investment in the future. Deficits can be used in ways good or bad but are themselves a neutral and powerful policy tool. “They can fund unjust wars that destabilize the world and cost millions their lives,” she writes, “or they can be used to sustain life and build a more just economy that works for the many and not just the few.” Like all the economists profiled here, she’s pointing at the mind and the meaning behind the money.

Sorry but you just wake up from a very long hibernation?
What she says is what all Kenesianists have been saying for almost 100 years…with banana republics all over world as testimony.

If the deficits can be used in bad or good ways they are not neutral. Right there is a logical fallacy.

“what household can print additional money, or set interest rates”

They can, it is called getting on credit. Credit creates money.
Mona Lisa value is 10B$ for western world but probably 1$ for a tribe in Africa or New Guinea or a Inuit or worse.
That is another way to create money, the valuation we made about things.

Explain to me what productivity increase teachers have had in last 150 years. They still teach the same number of students, so how their salaries are better than in the past? Because economy growth…

Morning Alex,
I don’t think you can measure the productivity of teachers by quantity. Quality is probably a better measure. An unacceptable %age of young people leave education poorly qualified for working life.
The concept of value is also exercising the minds of the new generation of economic thinkers.
Described as “one of the most forward-thinking economists of our times,” Mariana Mazzucato is foremost among the flame throwers. A professor at University College London and the Founder/Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, she asks fundamental questions about how ‘value’ has been defined, who decides what that means, and who gets to measure it. Her TED talk, provocatively titled “What is economic value? And who creates it?” lays down the gauntlet. If some people are value creators,” she asks, what does that make everyone else? “The couch potatoes? The value extractors? The value destroyers?” She wants to make in economics explicitly serve the people, rather than explain their servitude.
I can’t judge whether Keynesian theory leads to being a banana republic. I suspect there’s more to it. There’s an interesting article here by Molly Cato, a professor of economics and also a Quaker I believe.
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-deal-recovery-part-15-keynesian-myth
Cheers

One was completely destroyed in Iraq leaving 385. Mid way through 2011 there were 345 in service meaning hopefully at a minimum we could restore numbers up to 345 minus the 14 for Ukraine. The 40 tanks that went out of service before 2011 could be used to bring the 118 that went out of service after 2011, back into the main fleet. They should be in decent condition.
3 ABCT’s each with 88 Challenger 2/3 would probably require a fleet of 350+ Challengers which would be possible if Omani tanks were bought up which should be fairly easy to do.
Taking 350 as the minimum number for our largest possible force and subtracting the 213 CH2 in service and 38 Omani CH2, 99 CH2 would be needed from storage, with a further 59 tanks able to be used as spare parts, helping to rejuvenate the others.

There couldn’t have been 345 tanks in-service in 2011 as the 2010 review reduced the in-service fleet to 227.

It also had the two RTR regiments merge but that only occurred in August 2014.
Similarly 9th/12th Royal Lancers and QRL amalgamated in May 2015.
7th Armoured Brigade re-roled in 2014.

Louis, I am sure you are right but my comment is also right.
227 has been the declared number of in-service tanks since implementation of the 2010 review.

I hear that 3 tanks were written off (the Iraq war blue-on-blue, the Castle Martin range incident one and another).
The numbers were reduced to 227 in-service tanks in the 2010 defence review, thus 159 were taken out-of-service, of which 80 were scrapped with very little publicity between 2010 and 2018.

So we have 227 in-service and 79 out-of-service tanks.

The 227 is predicated on three armoured regiments but the army is reducing to two armoured regiments (part of the 10,000 troop reduction) hence cannot justify 227 tanks.

Do you have any sources to support that or is it just from your personal experience.
I’m by no means disputing your claim at all but I’d just be interested to read up on that.

I am a bit surprised to be asked to prove ‘my claim’, but here goes:
3 tanks written off – the blue-on-blue in the Iraq war is very well documented
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/26/iraq.rorymccarthy1
https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/comments/3dgqoj/challenger_2_of_the_queens_royal_lancers/

as is the breech explosion at Castlemartin – https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/16359429.inquest-soldiers-deaths-castlemartin-range-concludes/
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/soldiers-killed-tank-castlemartin-pembrokeshire-14918126

The 3rd tank lost is hearsay, I admit.

2010 Defence Review reducing army from 386 to 227 in-service tanks:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-and-security-review-securing-britain-in-an-age-of-uncertainty
Fact Sheet 7:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62489/Factsheet7-British-Army.pdf
Extract from Fact Sheet 7:
In order to meet the Future Force 2020 structure, the Army will:
• reduce by around 7,000 to c.95,000 personnel by 2015, but with no changes to combat units involved in Afghanistan;
• reduce our holdings of Challenger 2 tanks by 40% and our heavy artillery by 35%;
• reduce by one the number of deployable brigades, as we restructure to five multi-role brigades;
• significantly reduce our non-deployable regional administrative structure;
• rationalise our deployable headquarters by reducing the communications and logistics support to Headquarters ARRC and
convert the second of our operational divisional headquarters to a force preparation role.

Reducing army to 2 armoured regiments is in the Future Soldier document. Google is your friend here.

That is all common knowledge,
I was referring to the line where you said 80 CH2 were scrapped with little publicity. I was just asking where you learnt about this and if there is any online information referring to it.

I see. I read about the 80 CR2 being scrapped, from someone on this site. It was apparently said in a Parliamentary answer sometime in 2018.

ARRSE seems to agree with this saying slightly more than 300 are available.
Great shame that they were scrapped.

There is an Establishment figure (the target, the figure required for defence of the Realm) and an actual strength and they will never be exactly the same. The former is the figure for which funding is provided for wages, equipment and accomodation etc – and to which you attempt to recruit and retain against. It is very convenient for the Govt to minimise the effect of a cut to Establishment partially on the grounds of poor recruiting and retention but it is disingenuous:

I might need a salary of £2000 a month to pay my bills but if I only get a salary of £1500 it does not mean that I now only need £1500 to pay my bills!

To cancel the 10,000 cut and restore the army to an Establishment of 82,000 – and to have a strength of close to that number, you do need to improve recruiting and retention – and there are many ways to do that, other than the two methods you describe.

If there are other ways of the Army reaching strength why hadn’t/haven’t they implemented them ?

Reaching strength is all about optimising recruiting and retention.

Recruiting – this has been contractorised (PFI, I think) for over a decade – the service provider, Capita, is useless. It runs a very slow bureaucratic system – it can take a year or more to get a young person into the army and to their Phase 1 training unit – a huge number of recruits just bin it. MoD should sack Capita and go back to recruiting in-house. Why haven’t they done it? Good question – MoD might have to pay cancellation charge and would have to resource army recruiting staff – and admit it made a huge mistake.

Retention – too much outflow. Soldiers disenchanted and leaving prematurely for a whole host of reasons, too many to go into here – some things could be fixed – better food (but would need to sack PFI contractors or bring them to account) and accomodation, could increase the annual leave allocation (but that would produe more work for others in this very small army). Retention bonuses have been tried in the past on very rare occasions – why not repeat – lack of money, I guess.

Unemployment in the wider UK is quite low. When it is high, people flock into the army.

All of the above affected the RN with its Black Hole of recruiting which it suffered from. There are no easy or cheap fixes. Retention bonuses where tried.
In my case as a Tiff, I and lots like me looked at the bonus and the terms of service.

15 K for 3 years return of service.
5k a year
Taxed at 40 % with NI as well.
So say 2500 a year
Divide by the months
208 Quid ish a month
In those 3 years you can expect to be deployed for at least a 60/40 split away from the UK.

Engineers went errr…No thanks I can go outside and earn more than that in a week on top of normal civvy wages so they still kept leaving…Oh and Pay 2000 inequalities didnt help either which has now thankfully been addressed after 15 + years !

Thanks GB. Great answer. There is often a MoD-run Forces Satisfaction Survey – not sure if it is just aimed at those leaving or a wider group. Anyway they don’t seem to do much with the info, like fix the reasons for dissatisfaction.

One demotivating factor for the army since 2014 is likely to have been a lack of real soldiering opportunities, by which the lads mean kinetic op tours.

A question is why are we struggling so much to recruit?

Unemployment is under 4%. Young people have lots of options. Armed forces pay and conditions are not attractive enough to attract enough recruits. Some accuse the ‘woke’ publicity as well but I think that’s marginal.

Good points. In addition to the unemployed though, there are a lot of not economically active people out there.

I wonder also, is this a result of the peace dividend? So many will thankfully only have known peace within Europe that the requirement for a strong military is not on their radar as important. Combine that with the strong push to university from school that has been ever present since the 90’s, and where is the pull to get into employment from school?

You could be right about Uni taking a higher % of school leavers since the 80’s or so. But the armed forces have halved in size since then. The people in charge will be reluctant because it will cost a lot of money but I just can’t see anything else than a significant pay rise changing the situation.

Also, while Uni does take a higher % of school leavers, I think a higher % of soldiers have degrees now as well. It’s somewhat surprising how many enlisted now have, if not completed their undergrad, at least attended university.

Plus for the army, a lack of ‘edgy’ op tours since 2014. That’s a huge factor.

Can’t remember where but I read somewhere that Iraq/Afghanistan helped Army recruitment but it hurt retention. A lot of guys signed up because they wanted to experience combat but left once they had. The Army full time strength has been falling since 2010.
MoD F.O.I. question
Request size of the Army, Navy and Airforce from 1700 to 2016.

Interesting. MOst soldiers like to do a fair number of op tours, but not a ridiculous number which impacts on career courses/career development, family life etc.

Many soldiers choose to only do 4 years service so some may have done one tour and then left, on that basis.

A seasoned soldier who has done ‘too many tours’ and is getting grief (including sometimes a demand to quit – ‘its me or the army’) from the wife/girlfriend may jack it in after yet another tour. That was never my issue, which was a moan about the lack of op tours – just two in 34 years.

I like your F.O.I. question – I can help you with the Army info:

https://daysackmedia.co.uk/resources/the-size-of-the-british-army/

Woke I think is marginal, the greater impact I think is retention. You can recruit as much as you like, but if people keep getting fed up and signing off, then you’re buggered.

Whilst I was serving in the RN we had the famous black hole moving through recruitment caused by the closing of basic training. We lost new joiners which meant in latter years we had shortages of LH, PO and CPOs.

It was a horrible time with gaps all over the place . People got promoted who should not have been promoted when they where because they where not ready for the additional responsibility or they where just S**t at their job.
People stuck their notice in an left because they where doing 2 or 3 peoples jobs or you had people with no clue about what they where doing and couldn’t take the additional responsibility and stuck there notice in or reverted. You know things are bad when CPO and POs revert to a lower rate because they are stressed out with the responsibilities of work

When training restarted the RN took anyone and everyone. They lowered the maths and english requirement ( NAMET…remember that anyone?) and undertook “reedin, rightin and rifmatik” for new joiners who needed it. It got the numbers back up, kept the Schoolies in a job and probably instilled a greater sense of belonging to the kids who got the help.

There are no short term fixes.
The Army is going to suffer until it, in RN terminology “Gets it s**t in one sock” again.

Very interesting. I read a report once that said the average soldier who was not in a technical-type role had a reading age of 12 or less. Pretty tragic.

I would tend to agree, the Army struggles to maintain strength in peace time. It wasn’t an issue in the latter part of the cold war, as the economy really wasn’t good in the 1980’s, as many of us remember well.

They moan about it now, try leaving school with 3 million out of work…

This at least ensured a steady stream of young recruits to keep the Army numbers up.

It seems today, it’s the tail wagging the dog, as fewer and fewer youngsters want to join the Army, they are restructuring the Army to reflect the ever reduced manning and trying to spin it as modernisation! All just political smoke and mirrors….

Like just about everyone on here (except the resident Russian morse tappers) I am appalled by the reckless never ending cuts that have reduced the armed forces to the bone.

The reality is, as the RN takes on a Global role with its Carriers at the heart, the Army and Air Force have both shrunk to such a degree, they have virtually become like the Swiss Armed forces, purely defensive in nature, with a minimal offensive capability.

The Government can put whatever spin on it they like, but both the Army and the AirForce are likely to be bit part sideline players in any future allied operations.

OK mate. I was morphing stuff together.

Going back to Strike brigades – nothing wrong with the concept of Strike (killing the enemy at long range with appropriate fires and with the associated cueing), but every brigade needs some sort of strike capability (with equipment suited to the ‘weight’ of the brigade). Just not specialist brigades. I am sure we agree on that point.

Absolutely. As we knowe, the Strike Brigades in the form they were going to take did not meet that criteria, from their light guns in the RA regs to the Boxers divorced from their firepower on Ajax on tracks.

Strike is fine, if it is done correctly and not a hashed job. Other armies have plenty of examples of well equipped wheeled brigades.

Regts are Type 56, so 56 tanks. Then you would need a larger Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve. 227 tanks in total should do it! ie the same number we have today.

Understood. Thx.

Exactly the point I often make. Until the ORBAT changes considerably, which I highly doubt it will, more than that is pointless.
Restoring to 227 updated CH3 in a saved KRH would be a great outcome.

👍

I’ve said it before but:
1x Type 44 Regiment in 1 DSR to finish the mimicry of the old American Cav Regiments please.

Yes, I recall. I’m in agreement. Can we have some extra CS CSS for them too? 😉

I think you are absolutely right to think out of the box. The detractors would say that the army is so small and no commitments have been dropped so they would not have time to spend on this further education.

Many soldiers in the technical corps have trade qualifications of course. There is also the NVQ scheme which was adopted at least 15 years ago for all ranks including officers, and across all Arms & Services, and this was seen to be especially useful for the ‘teeth arms’.
I know little about T-levels so they could be a good idea.

A key thing to do is sack Capita who do an awful job of recruitment and bring that back in-house.

To coin a phrase ‘take back control’.
Apparently the govenment want to phase out BTECs and replace them with T levels – technical vocational qualifications which stretch from 16 up to degree. Seems like the perfect opportunity to get in at the start…propose syllabus/ modules/skills – launch courses, advertise….

When would you get your soldiers to study for those T-levels? How many hours per week would they need for studies and for how long?

Dunno..I’m just winging this. ..🙂. But say there was there were syllabus modules on topics like IT or logistics or mechanical engineering for example. The army could certainly teach and,/or deliver supervision / theory/ practical experience of these subjects all the way from basics through to degree level. If these T levels are at the embryonic stage they should be influencing the syllabus content…get in at the inception.

Soldiers requiring IT, logistics or mechanical engineering knowledge and skills for their job get it anyway in Phase 2 training and modular courses thereafter. You are talking about FE for all, as I understand it so as to improve the appeal of an army career. Worth exploring but who would do the training (other soldiers with the skills, but they are needed back in theri units), how long would it take and could soldiers be released from theri core task to do it?

Hi Graham, I don’t know. All I am saying is that it is an avenue worth exploring further. Maybe it will lead to the creation of a new entity. How did police community support officers come into being – versus special constables? Sometimes the solution to a problem is something that doesn’t exist now.

To be fair, you do get civilian qualifications in line with your promotion, you just have to do the paperwork.
eg a Cpl will get a level 5 City and Guilds qual in Leadership and Management just from their standard career path, CSM’s get the equivilant of a Masters Degree.
Plus your ELC’s which you can put towards whatever further education you want, plus your SLC’s that you can easily put towards skill courses if you so choose…. so what you’re suggesting is practically a reality anyway.

Thx. Maybe promote these new T levels more in the recruitment ads?

Nothing new about it, SLCs and ELCs have been around for longer than I have. Trade qualifications have been around for a while too, and are listed if you look up the roles you are interested in.
eg: just casually clicked on the first role that came up on the British Army website:
https://jobs.army.mod.uk/roles/royal-electrical-and-mechanical-engineers/vehicle-mechanic/

and when I scrolled down to job requirements, immediately after it lists:
Qualifications you could get after training

• Level 3 Advanced Apprenticeship in Engineering Maintenance
• Level 5 Higher National Diploma in Engineering
• Qualifications at different levels, in Leadership and Management
• Car and HGV licenses + Opportunity for tracked vehicle and plant licenses

Right, what I am saying is that the army should make much more of this in recruitment. Its a real, competitive asset.

I guess, but how? TV ads need to be short and snappy, you can’t really list huge numbers of quals that various trades can, or can not get.

What am I, an advertising executive 😂
I dunno….something like this.
The Army needs more technical soldiers at all T levels to degree. If you are physically fit and want to develop technical, teamwork and leadership skills and the resilience to deploy them under pressure in defence of your country we want to hear from you. Student loan or a life – your choice.

Shortages ? Do you mean shortfalls ? If yes we won’t know till it gets in the hands of operational units.

No, sorry, I was a bit cryptic. When you were discussing pay you mentioned that increases should be focussed where there are shortages…( of manpower). I was asking if you had a view on where these are.

No worries. On specific trades we’re having a hard time with that would be better discussed by someone with personal knowledge and experience but in general terms we need to improve retention of experienced personnel at all levels but especially Petty/ Warrant Officer level.

Good morning, Quentin D63, 140hp extra for Lynx and the KF41 weight is approximately 44 tonnes. A bit more oomph is always welcome though!

Redback 1000HP and the combat weight is 42 tons.

We are donating £3.2Billion to Ukraine this year and possibly next, why not give them more Chally 2s and three instead?

Ukraine would have a steady supply as we take on UK Black Panthers to replace them.

“Hyundai Rotem also passed through the “door opened by Poland” and offered very good conditions to Warsaw. Thus, on July 27, 2022, the Armaments Agency of the Ministry of National Defense in Warsaw signed framework agreements with the Korean Hyundai Rot for the purchase of 1,000 K2/K2PL tanks and with the Korean Hanwha Defense for the purchase of 672 independent K9A1/K9PL self-propelled howitzers.

Less than a month later, on August 26, the first executive contracts were solemnly signed in Morąg. These include the purchase of 180 K2 tanks to be delivered in 2022-2025 and 212 K9A1 self-propelled howitzers to be delivered in 2022-2026.”

My guess is that arms shipments are co-ordinated / sanctioned by NATO.
I would send 50 CR2 and make sure they could be replaced by buybacks from Oman. But several Leopard users might each want to donate 5 or 10. Politically it looks better to get 5×10 Leo’s from different countries. Keep donations from Germany , UK and US to a minimum perhaps?

Nigel,

There are no CR3s at the moment – the first don’t get finished and released until 2027 (IOC), by which time the Russo-Ukraine war may well be over.

You must think the Treasury to be very generous to fund the purchase of hundreds of Korean tanks for the British Army to replace hundreds of CR2s gifted to Ukraine, when they have already stumped up £800m for the CR3 project. Treasury ain’t generous, sorry to say!

Graham,

Their armed forces will need modernization once they become full members of NATO when the war finishes. This has been mentioned quite a few times in the past.

We are gifting them £2.3Billion this year which can be replaced by tanks instead that they so desperately need.

What would we would get from this? as I posted above:

K2 Black panther (and partnering with the next-gen K3) along with K-MLRS and to consider the Redback IFV. The workshare alone would make this a desirable option and create a solid base for continued production going forward.

we are already looking at the British variant of K9 Self-Propelled Gun and would no doubt start receiving this equipment before 2027.

NATO would want guaranteed peace before Ukraine’s membership applicaion could be considered. The application process can take many years. They will certainly have to restructure and transition towards modern (non-Soviet/non-Russian) equipment.

We are spending £2.3bn on military aid for Ukraine this year. Not sure what you mean by ‘We are gifting them £2.3Billion this year which can be replaced by tanks instead that they so desperately need’. The £2.3bn of military kit we are giving Ukraine is of many different items not just tanks.

‘What would we get from this?’ Again I don’t understand that. What would we get from sending Ukraine £2.3bn of military kit? Some thanks?

Then your points about K-kit for the British Army. We might get K9 SPGs to replace AS90s – or might get something else K9s seem good and there is sadly no British contender. Delivery seems to be quick. So K9 has a good chance.

K2 Black Panther – as I said we are buying CR3. Contract signed, RBSL has got though the 2 design reviews and are about to build prototypes. No way is that going to stop.

Redback IFV – we are buying Boxers of unknown type to replace Warriors in the IFV role. Not sure if we have signed a contract, we could switch to Redback.

Re-gifting, are they paying us for the supplied equipment that we send or at a later date? I could be wrong on this.

Deduct from the £3.2 billion+ and increase the number of Challenger 2 tanks they receive instead plus the other equipment that they require to make up the balance.

The unit cost of a Challenger 2 “new” was £4,217,000 so we could easily afford to give them more and replace these instead and (backfill) with the K2 Black Panther.

I’m guessing their value would be £2M per unit now.

What would or could we potentially get from this?

Tanks that match or exceed that of Challenger 3 quicker, K9, Redback, K-MLRS and a very large workshare no doubt if we opted to go down this route.

“Ukraine will receive capabilities worth millions including tank spares, uncrewed air systems, electronic warfare, and air defence, from the first package of multi-million-pound funding from the International Fund for Ukraine (IFU).

The first equipment package was agreed by the UK, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

These partners, along with Iceland and Lithuania, have contributed a collective total of more than £520 million to the fund.

With an expected value of more than £200m, the first package will include vital capabilities in the form of artillery ammunition, maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and spare parts for equipment, including Ukraine’s current tanks.

“Bilaterally, the UK supported Ukraine with £2.3 billion of military support in 2022 and the Government has committed to matching or exceeding this in 2023.

Since the start of the year, the UK has already committed to providing Ukraine with a squadron of 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, including training, ammunition, and spare parts; AS90 self-propelled guns to boost Ukraine’s long-range capability; and hundreds more air defence missiles.”

I just came across this which was somewhat troubling.
“A senior defence official has admitted that many of Britain’s military upgrades and new weapons programmes are “really horrible and broken”.

The shock admission from Andy Start, the chief executive of defence equipment and support at the Ministry of Defence, came as MPs probed multiple failures in buying new kit for Britain’s armed forces at a time when Ukraine is begging for more supplies.”
LINK

Hi Nigel, I had not heard any reports of our billing Ukraine for the kit, so assumed it is all gifted.
We paid £4.2m a copy for CR2s in 1998 (ISD) or therabouts. How does that mean we can ‘easily afford to give them more and replace these instead and (backfill) with the K2 Black Panther’. I don’t get that. If we give UA all of our CR2s, cancel the CR3 programme (which would cost us many £m in cancellations charges), then pay for 148 or 227 K2s plus the initial spares pack, training aids, special tools etc etc – how is that ‘easily afforded’? Good luck with making that case to HM Treasury.
BTW, some call the K2 the most expensive MBT in the world at $8.5m a copy and thats not including the initial spares pack, training aids, special tools etc etc-
https://eurasiantimes.com/worlds-most-expensive-main-battle-tank-meet-k2-black-panther/

“A senior defence official has admitted that many of Britain’s military upgrades and new weapons programmes are “really horrible and broken”.
Sadly, this is not news to me – CR2 has not had a significant upgrade in 25 years (and is only now having one!), AS90 did not get the Braveheart upgrade, Warrior did not get the WCSP upgrade. We only upgraded a mere 50 CVR(T)s to the Mk2 standard. Titan and Trojan engineer tanks have not had upgrades in 20 years.
Our AFVs are 25, 30, 35, 50 or 60 years old – ie CR2, AS90, Warrior, CVR(T), FV430.
15% of new procurements projects are running over budget and/or behind time.
Can’t get your link to work to Andy Start’s comments.

We are not charging them at all.

Instead of gifting/giving them £2.3Billion, reduce the amount by the cost of the additional tanks we give to them instead.

Plus, we would benefit from the workshare and entry time into service no doubt.

Apologies if I haven’t made that clearer, posting in the early hours is never a goos idea!

Black Panther cost £7.14M per unit at today’s rate of exchange.

Challenger 3 cost £6.8 per unit, a difference of £340,000 per unit extra.

Would we lose out overall? That would depend on how much we allocated to them out of the £2.3Billion.

One for the bean counters as you say.

We have gifted Ukraine £2.3bn of kit since Feb 2022, not £2.3bn in cash.
No-one is going to stop the CR3 programme – we have waited far too long for it to happen – CR2 should have had a mid-life upgrade around 2008-2010.
Ben Wallace is trying to speed it up (a bit) and may increase the number beyond 148.
CR3 does not cost £6.8m per unit. It is a £800m programe so we are spending an ammortised £5.4m.
I really don’t know why you think we should scrap the CR3 programme just as it is starting, pay milions in cancellation fees, then buy a very expensive Korean tank that is not combat proven.

You make some very good points Graham.

One, How do we pay for the equipment we supply Ukraine with?

Two, “In 2021 Britain announced a £800 million ($1 billion) contract to upgrade 148 Challenger 2 tanks to the Challenger 3 standard. This comes down to around $6.8 million per tank. This figure might also include servicing and training costs.” £ 5.7 Million, I stand corrected.

Three, Challenger 3 is also not battle-proven.

4, Why spend this amount of money on an old tank when you can buy a new one and no doubt far quicker?

I also look at the future potential for UK industry, The K9A2 is just one example of how much work this could generate for us.

“The firm say that local production to bring manufacturing jobs and investments to UK; potential for UK to become regional hub within Hanwha Defense’s global supply chain and that the K9 ‘UK variant’ will feature a fully automated turret and increased rate of fire.”

Team Thunder will be a key pillar of Hanwha Defense’s bid for the Mobile FiresPlatform programme, and the formation of Team Thunder demonstrates a firm commitment to bringing the maximum benefit to the UK industry through a robust
partnership with local suppliers,” said Vice President Mr. Oh Kyehwan of Hanwha Defense’s Overseas Business Division.”

LINK

1 Paying for equipment supplied to Ukraine. The money might come from the Foreign Office budget but is more likely to come from the Treasury’s Contingencies Fund Account. They would not come for the Defence Vote.
3.CR3 is not battle proven – CR3 evolved from CR1 and CR2 which very definitely were combat proven – it is only certain CR3-specific items that are not combat proven. What is the point here? Some advocate buying KF51 Panther – not only is that not combat proven – it is still in development. Some advocate for purchase of Korea’s K2 Black Panther – that is certainly not combat proven (Korea has not been in a war since 1953).
4.Why spend this money on an old tank… Fair point. This upgrade should have happened mid-life, about 2010-2015, and we should now be contempating/working up a true sucessor tank for fielding from 2030 or thereabouts. It would be interesting to see the Business Case/Options Study, which surely would have reviewed the CR3 option against buying new tanks instead. But what would have been on the list – not M1 Abrams due to its high maintenence and poor fuel consumption, not K2 Black Panther as it is not combat-proven, not Leclerc as it is ageing and inferior to CR2 – just a recent Leo2 then?

You switch to talking about South Korean K9, a SPG. If you would reject vehicles without a proven combat record, then logically you would not consider this. However, it looks good on paper.

We will no doubt opt for more Challenger 3, also “not combat-proven” and on paper inferior to the K2, missing out on a brand new chassis with the potential for a future K3 MBT with an unmanned turret and 130mm smoothbore cannon plus workshare of course.

When will Challenger 3 enter service? The initial operating capability for the upgraded tanks is expected by 2027, with full operational capability expected to be declared by 2030.

Fingers crossed there not required before then along with Ajax.

LINK

Nigel, I am not sure why you cannot agree that so much of CR3 has been carried forward from CR2 and in some cases from CR1 – so it is somewhat unfair to claim that the whole CR3 tank has not been combat proven.

What exactly makes K2 so much better than CR3?

I do agree that K2 has been delivered quickly to customers.

K2 Black panther has been designed from the ground up as a 4th generation MBT, Challenger 3 will still have to undergo these trials sometime in 2027 with a war currently taking place in Europe now.

The next generation of MBT is already on the drawing board, come 2030 there will no doubt be a prototype available and an opportunity missed to be involved from the start.

LINK

Some specs on the Redback, but I’m not sure how it would compare to Ajax.

LINK

Of course CR3 undergoes trials – it is on Reliability Growth Trials at the moment. Good, thats what we do with new kit. It doesn’t matter if a war is on – that won’t affect the Trials programme.

Redback is an IFV – why compare it to Ajax, a recce vehicle? Totally different roles.

20 years?
They are still using FV 430!
Thats a 1960s design. Ok its been upgraded to Bulldog but that was more out of necessity due to the lack of progress on TRACER/FRES/Boxer(original concept which the UK left)/ Warrior upgrade/ BOXER( Which we rejoined!) and AJAX.

My point about 20 years is that the last AFVs bought and fielded for the British Army were the 33 Trojan and 33 Titan combat engineer variants, made in 2003/4.
Virtually no upgrading of any AFV over that 20 years either, but Bulldog based on FV432 is a rare (and inglorious) exception.

I am well aware of the age of the FV430 – it was the first AFV I hada ride in – they are still in service because a stingy Government did not replace every 430 with a Warrior back in the 80s. 432 Ambulances and 432 Mortar carriers are still in service and quite probably other variants.

Shameful keeping a 60 year old vehicle in service – could you imagine your beloved RN still operating County Class destroyers, Leander class frigates and Sea Vixen and Buccaneers!

I didn’t think TRACER/FRES/BOXER was ever meant to replace 432?

David Axe

Pinch of salt on his

Facts.

(It’s late, sorry Sir).