British Typhoon jets unleash fury on terrorists in Iraq

The weight changes when you put 6tons of weapons on it, then add the drag,
I am not even sure with is the G’s rate for the Brimstones and specially fuel tanks plus they maximum speed allowed. While there are fuel tanks rated for supersonic speeds most aren’t.

Yes, I might have been!😂

That name CV90 keeps coming to mind 🤔

The local QA department on holiday or something perhaps!
Surely we should have some recourse for compensation, given some of the basic faults emerging from this?
One wonders why the MOD/DE&S or whomever didn’t pursue a much tougher stance wrt the failings with the project. Water under the bridge now that we are progressing with things, but all the same. Casts a bit of a shadow over all of it.

I think poor QA at the GD Spanish factory, also at the Wales GDUK factory combined with an inability (due to defence cuts) of MoD DGDQA to embed their own QA staff with major manufacturers as they used to do.

If it is simple QA then the hills that fail QA should not be accepted.

If they are outside agreed tolerance that is pretty simple contractually.

GD then get to make new ones properly.

I’ve no idea how you stuff up something laser / water jet / plasma cut that is built on jigs that badly.

Were BL hired to do the setup and QA?

It’s quite bizarre, you can understand poor tolerance in 50-100 year old manufacturing. But not using modern CNC cutters…how the hell they have managed to make each hull a different size to the point they cannot track the common faults causing the vibration is staggering…and apparently that’s the big problem..they are so off a standard each of the present vehicles has different vibration and noise characteristics with potential different causes…

I was of the opinion it was better to stick with it as cancelling would be costly and possibly creat even more delays..but the more I have read the more it’s clear that this really is a case of utter incompetence manufacturing and almost non existent quality control. HMG should really be taking this one through the courts TBH. These vehicles are alway going to be a problem, they are effectively shit heaps, that are going to be an ongoing maintenance nightmare.

History repeats itself – wasn’t it the case that Warrior Hulls had some inconsistentcys too, making maintenance and upgrades problematic ?.

I wouldn’t really know – I was never involved in land vehicles at any point.

@ Graham may be a better source.

Warrior was built in an era before all CNC was a thing. These days you would be a totally wally to not CNC cut plate as it is cheaper and more accurate.

A lot of construction site fabrication is water jet or laser or plasma cut these days as it is a fully automated process with less space for the errors which plague our industry!

Hmmm, hadn’t heard that before. Upgrades – what upgrades! I recall that Warrior had BGTI fitted (only 350 vehs) and Bowman to replace Clansman – but not sure anything else was done in the last c.35 years.

On a different topic, the first 50 or so CRARRVs were made too heavy and had to be lightened!

Had to search for it but i knew i had read it somewhere,not conclusive proof though – https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/42050-warrior-questions/#comment-1269900

Thanks mate for spending the time on that. Not sure what qualification or experience Chris Werb has. Warrior was designed 1972-1980 when CAD was well established in Industry and I would assume that included at GKN Sankey. Warrior was manufactured from Jan 1986 onwards at a time when CAM and CNC was commonplace. I would be surprised if there was significant variability in the dimensioning of the hulls.
Having said that, arguably GD Spain may have got things wrong with their manufacture of Ajax hulls several decades later – so maybe GKN got it wrong back in the day.

Chris Werb was a regular poster on TankNet, I haven’t seen him active on it for a long while. He is definitely ex- British Army, and from memory he worked for one of the UK’s Defence Companies but I can’t remember which one 👍.

Thanks. I was REME for 34 years (1975-2009) and never heard a remark about Warriors being differently dimensioned from each other.

The scuttlebutt is that the jigs in Spain were not very good or not properly set up.

I’d love to know more detail of that.

Risk with these things is they are circular rumours.

If it is true it is unbelievably incompetent.

Thing is that with a 38t vehicle travelling at the required speeds the level of alignment would have to be very, very high.

Defence jounrnalist Frances Tusa (@FTusa284) posted on 11 May 2021 on Twitter:

“Will Ares hull work? If 5% of the reports are true, chasses are being delivered to differing lengths and substandard build quality.

Makes you wonder if this was a bit deliberate and a bit of anti-British niggle. If the hills where that crap who the bloody hell let them through the gate?! Can’t imagine any car company getting away with this! Very poor quality control and general oversight of the whole program. Hope lessons have been learnt of what not to do. Having said all this the Ascod family may turn out to be a top lotbof vehicles. They might even go for Ascod IFV! But built in Britain! Lol 😁

No, that’s not what I was getting at, just pointing out (from someone else’s tweet), what Ajax and variants is costing. But yes agree with you.

There is a choice of Rounds available for 120mm Smoothbore that will do much the same job as HESH.

Much the same or the same? Are we loosing any capability due to the swap ?

Pretty sure there is an equivalent round, will look it up later 👍.

The two most suitable Rounds are the US made M908 HE- OR-T or the Israeli Elbit Systems M339 HE-MP-T,note that these are used for Anti-structure/Concrete piercing rather than Anti-Tank,which was the main purpose of the HESH Round.

As soon as tanks started using widely distanced spaced armour, HESH was no longer any good at knocking out a tank. However against IFVs and other lightly armoured vehicles it is still more than adequate, scarily so. There were a lot of Iraqi BMP1s were literally cut in half by HESH. Forget what they say about an inner portion of armour forming a flying scab that bounces around the inside of a vehicle. That may have been true against tanks. Smaller stuff with thin armour gets crushed by the concussion and gets ripped apart.

The other major benefit that the new smoothbore HE shells have, is that they have variable timed fuzes. This becomes important when attacking trenches in particular. As you can time the shell’s detonation to go off as it passes over the trench. HESH doesn’t have this feature, as it needs to hit something to set off the fuze. Sadly HESH never kept up with development. It would have been really easy to give HESH a variable timed fuze. Which would then make it more flexible with the type of targets it can engage. Its a shame as HESH can be very effective in the support role.

But HESH round usually have bad ballistic and are much inferior in options to the Israeli round for example. It can be programmed to explode in contact, after the penetration or even at certain distance above trench troops.

Thanks for taking the time to have a look & reply 👍
Reading a few more of the comments I’m now not sure if we have effective anti tank HESH anyway…rifled or smoothbore?
I’m im a bit of a novice with the technicalities tbh , always learning on here..

Yes they are, a shame we didnt supply 2-3 UKR size battalions worth!

We bought 386 CR2s – pity we no longer have that number and that the replacement (CR3) is only 148 vehs, just enough for two armd regts (tk bns in US-speak).

Yes I think we have had this discussion before 148 is just not enough to maintain a regiment level deployment indefinitely(you need 3 regiments) ..it’s also just not enough really to even ensure those two regiments can be maintained with a reasonable attrition reserve and maintenance pool, we would be one bad event away from not having enough. 220 was really the minimum..for maintaining 3 type 56 regiments..168 deployed to the regiments..10% maintenance and a 10% attritional reserves gives you another 45…

To rotate an armoured regiment on ops every 6 months for an enduring operation, you really need 5 of them in the Orbat to maintain Harmony guidelines for tour interval. If you are not interested in the pressure on or welfare of your troops or their work/life balance, then you can have fewer than 5 regiments in the Orbat – as we do!

Jonathan, you have omitted the tanks in the Trg Org in the second half of your post.

Yes sorry I did miss them out, not sure how many the training org would need ? Your right continued ops with three regiments would be brutal to the troops, I do believe to do it the army would have to drop its harmony guidelines, which would be pretty piss poor and screw retention right up. It does make you realise the army is just too small for presents expectations….it’s bonkers that HMG keep telling the British public the army has two deployable divisions…it’s mendacious…either HMG has raise the army to the 120,000 post Cold War figure or come clean and say as a nation we are doing at best effort a combined arms brigade, an air mobile brigade and a battalion of marines in the north…drop the expectations or increase the numbers.

Sticking to tanks – The Trg Org comprises the RAC Centre at Bovington and would have a number of Driver Training Tank variants as well as full-house CR2s. The REME Trg Centre at Lyneham would have a number. I am not sure about the status of BATUS now – they used to have two squadrons, I think, but not sure if they were on long loan from another source (armoured units, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve) or not.
Sorry, just don’t have a figure for the above.
As far as eFP is concerned we are deploying I think just one or maybe two squadrons of CR2 in Estonia and not a full armoured regt. If it was the full regiment, the toms would suffer from a poor tour interval.
Is HMG still saying that 1 and 3 Div are both deployable? They both contain deployable troops of course (of very different natures) so they could spin it. Of course we know that both could not deploy simultaneously. We would be pushed to deploy one at the moment.

Because when Ajax was planned ( pre 2015 ) and then ordered the army was being built around 3 Armoured Brigades on tracks, and Boxer was simply MRAV which was coming in the distant future, 2027. That was A2020.

Then Carter, A2020 Refine, and Strike came along post 2015.

You need to understand shifting army ORBATS and priorities, which change with the winds after each defence review, to see it clearly.

Because having your main ground based ISTAR asset fixed to roads is a terrible idea. BOXER has questionable off road performance in wet conditions.

Also, if you have a predominantly tracked force, you need the recce element to be tracked to match the speed and mobility off road – that was the original CONEMP for AJAX.

People keep using the French as an example – but don’t forget that they’ve gone down a wheeled route because their main operating environment is Sub-Saharan Africa, not Western Europe.

Got it Danielle,

@BobA
Well in WW2 Europe what i see in most exploitation, recon restricted to roads (road tracks at most) except in some very rare situations, and even most of combat is along roads.
If you have and APC much faster than you recon vehicle then there is an issue.

The major issue with off road beside obstacles is the slow speed. You can make a breach off road with static frontlines, but you can’t make exploitation because it is too slow.

Ok, let’s examine that a little bit. Your axis of advance is probably going to be centred on an MSR or several going in you line of advance depending on the size. That’s where your logistic tail needs to go. That’s the same in WW2, it’s the same now.

Your recce screen needs to be mobile away from that MSR. It needs to be highly mobile and be able to utilise the terrain to its advantage. So, we made a conscious decision to go with tracks because in this case, off road mobility trumps road speed.

there is a difference between speed of manoeuvre and speed of movement. Off road manoeuvre (movement and fires combined) is generally more effective because it’s unpredictable. And with the advent of a fully digitised and networked force (the actual reason for AJAX) out formations and units can actually do dispersal and concentration rapidly, unpredictably and effectively.

if we valued road speed, then we would quickly become canalised, fixed and defeated – just look at the Russians trying to get to Kyiv.

We do now have an issue because we’ve ended up with a hybrid force due to budgetary constraints and the fact that we were told by manufacturers that they could deliver a capability to a certain price point and timeframe and subsequently failed to deliver.

The recce capability was in most dire need of replacement and so they prioritised recce over IFV because Boxer provides a good enough solution and there was no viable alternative to the networked recce option.

So look, I’ve done this for real although obviously not at Bde or Div manoeuvre. As soon as you fix to roads you might as well give up or prepare to die quickly.

I disagree.
I have seen the statistics in my younger times about what terrain is fit for tracked vehicles mobility in Europe and the value is surprisingly small.

And you don’t go to combat off road unless the terrain is fast otherwise the enemy can use the roads to box you in.
No one advances trough off road unless it is very short distance or it gives a local tactical advantage.

That’s why before any operation you do an intelligence preparation of the battle space IPB and that includes terrain tracing. Then you understand the likely movement corridors, you understand the going and where the manoeuvre space is.

I genuinely don’t know where you’re getting your information but all of my training up to Brigade Tactics is to NEVER advance directly on road. You pull your logistic train up the road after you. And only once the route is proved and SECURE.

Also Alex, the going for tracks off road is almost always better than any other form of vehicle unless it’s very thick woods / steep terrain. But the size of Boxer would struggle there too. That’s why traditionally we have a balance of light and heavy force structures – and why we TASK ORGANISE for different missions or operations.

Even dismounted Infantry get nervous moving on tracks and would favour moving spread out over open country or through woodland.
Same is true for vehicles using roads – roads can be mined, ambushes are often set on roads, you canalise your forces by using roads and present a juicy target for arty or enemy air etc. Roads can be a death trap. Roads can get blocked and can limit passage – Op Market Garden failed in large measure as 30 Corps advanced at a snails pace using a single, low capacity road.

Scimitar can do at least 50 mph on roads (some ‘tuned’ versions could do nearer 70mph) and massive speed cross country, perhaps approaching 40mph?

Hello Bob, wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you, but that then would surely beg the question why not have a tracked IFV to fit into the Armoured brigades, if Boxer isnt up to it? I understand any wheeled 8×8 can only match a tracked vehicle about 75-80% in poor conditions, might be wrong on my part of course.

Whilst Sub-Saharan Africa might well be the French main operating environment, both they and the Italians(also large wheeled fleet as well as tracked) would still expect to operate in a European environment if push came to shove. There are also several of the smaller NATO nations that have totally divested themselves of tracked vehicles and gone down the wheeled route. Probably down to finances admittedly, but, wheels all the same.

Don’t forget the plan was to have tracked IFV in Warrior 2, but they had to bin the programme. Boxer was already in Order for what was called Heavy Mechanised Infantry (part of Strike) which was designed for operational manoeuvre and theatre entry. On cancelling WR2 the only option was to Res distribute Boxer or risk no armour for infantry.

I genuinely think the French took the gamble (I mean strategic estimate) that they wouldn’t have to fight a war in a Europe for at least another generation. So they’ve bought equipment for their most likely scenario because they know they can’t afford both.

Hi Bob,
WRT the French, have read somewhere(cant remember where -age thing!!) that their defence focus is on ‘just enough’ to deter/hold an invasion, followed by a tactical ‘Nuc’ or two to end the conflict, thus have constructed their armed forces accordingly.
The rest as you rightly say is geared towards fast intervention in their former colonies.

I understand the issues/stories surrounding Warrior/Boxer, but, believe we still could have procured some make of tracked IFV to replace Warrior if the vision/will was present.
We are apparently going to buy some 1000-1200 Boxers over the next decade, with 600ish already ordered, which going by the current pace, will probably take a decade to deliver!

Surely it would have been possible to add an order for a tracked IFV (say 160-180 units) after the first 600 Boxers, but before the remainder? Yes it would mean shifting monies about, but over the course of 10-15yrs not that difficult. Probably depends on how badly the army would want to retain a tracked IFV capability I imagine.

Your last point. I am surprised that the army did not protest losing the tracked IFV in favour of a wheeled Boxer in the Armoured Inf role, alongside tanks. I really doubt Boxer will have the same level of firepower and mobility as either current Warrior or upgraded (WCSP) Warrior.

No most of the experts testing Boxer said the wheeled capabilies had improved vastly and could do 80% of what tracked can do.

There is a movie of a Boxer stuck in snow and it do not looks good at all.

Would you like to be in the Boxer that could not do the 20% piece? – your life expectancy will be short.

Because with current defence spending we can’t afford all tracked, we can’t afford what did in the Cold War. Defence gets no votes and no cash
Also tracked is hugely expensive to maintain and spends most of its time in bits

Whether you have tracked vehicles or wheeled is nothing to do with cost – it is down to requirement.

Anyway, many wheeled vehicles are phenomenally expensive – Boxer is £5m each. It would have been far cheaper (specifically for the armoured infantry who accompany tanks) to upgrade the Warriors instead.

Which tracked vehicles spend most of their time in bits? That was not my experience as a REME officer. We were mandated to always have 70% ready for battle and 90% after 24hrs sustained maint work.

Don’t be ridiculous of course it’s to do with cost, if the current defence spending can’t even keep up at present we can no way afford a new warrior replacement like for like. Running cost and maintenance of tracked is huge compared to wheeled for the increase in capacity. Unfortunately the cash ain’t there. Talking about warrior upgrade isn’t even a thing, one company said it’s not possible as they have reached the limit of capacity and the other company wasted millions and failed, it’s not fit for purpose and every year cost more, the experts working with the army deemed it would be more expensive than new replacement.
It’s wheeled replacements or tracked and tracked ain’t happening on our budget unless you want to loose another 10000 troops to pay for it for a capacity rarely used for real. You get the public to pay and we can have them

We clearly disagree. The army requirement in replacing Scimitar was for a tracked vehicle – they were not forced to accept a wheeled recce vehicle because of concern at the cost. The requirement stood and was not beaten down.

It is not totally clear why WCSP was cancelled other than I presume that very senior people were annoyed that the project had gone over-budget, some problems had been experienced and some milestones not hit. There is a track record of MoD cancelling projects with these issues (eg TSR2, Nimrod MRA4 etc). I personally think it was the wrong decision. I have heard it said that the project was just 9 months from completion and would have given the army a very effective tracked, modernised IFV able with its excellent mobility to keep up with CR2/CR3 and with a 40m cannon for organic fire support. MoD had already ordered Boxer as the MIV for the two Strike Brigades which had been dropped from the Orbat – it was therefore the easy thing to do to use that Boxer order to be switched to be the Warrior replacement vehicle. Easy but not the right decision. Which company siad that Warrior had reached the limit of capacity and what does that even mean? Did they mean they thought the hull was tired and worn out – or that the vehicle could not take a new turret with 40mm cannon – none of that makes sense.

Had we completed the delivery of 380 upgraded Warrior the cost would have been £1.227Bn (includes the overspend). As it is, MoD has to write off the £430m spent on WCSP development and buy 380 Boxers costing £2.03bn, thus spending £2.46Bn (a lot more than WCSP)….and the army ends up with a less mobile vehicle that may not keep up with CR3 and may not have a 40mm stabilised cannon.

Rarely used for real? Warriors have been used operationally in warfighting or stability operations in GW1, GW2 (Iraq), Kosovo, Croatia, Macedonia, Afghanistan.

Well this quote is about warrior having gone to its limit and not being worth the cash to upgrade. Don’t forget one contractor said it wasn’t even viable.
Further developing a vehicle which has already been “extended beyond its planned service life” was unfeasible for a reshaped Army, he said, doubtful of any improvements being possible without “significant costs”.

The weight of additional armour ahead of deployment to Iraq “tested the limits” of the Warrior’s chassis, although its experience in the Middle East highlighted a need for even more upgrades, explained Mr Cranny-Evans.

Hi Andy, I don’t see the quote in your reply. I have made the point that it was cheaper to upgrade Warrior than to buy Boxers. Which contractor said the upgrade wasn’t viable – and why?
WCSP was intended to and designed to extend (& increase capability) Warriors life out to 2040, so it seems strange that it is declared later as being unfeasible to keep it in service for this period. Many AFVs serve satisfactorily for a very long time (35-50 years) if the upgrades are done well – numerous examples abound in the British Army and many other armies, including the US Army.

Well, we will now get Boxers for what we have always called Armoured Infantry (AI) – Boxers that are much more expensive than the WCSP programme and may/are likely to lack a stabilised 40mm cannnon, and may not keep up with CR2/CR3 in thick mud, ice and snow. Still, at least they will be brand new! Just feels like we are getting the modern equivalent of a Saracen APC!

The AI will get a vehicle based on a political decision, not a military requirement.

Well the military testers that tested boxer feel different to you and feel that in any action we are likely to be in the modern wheeled units are so far ahead of previous generations that they are far better value, the price per unit is simplifying the argument vastly and the army command felt for what we will be involved in it was far better value for money. The fact the heavy armour has to be transported to any potential battlefield coupled with a lack of an enemy nearby to fight (unless we fight France) means that unfortunately when they have to cut capability due to budgets they have to look at how likely it is we need a capability and what it costs. What do we cut to pay for it? Boxer that more likely to be used, f35, astute, special forces, logistics? Unfortunately it’s a nice to have category and it’s unlikely to be used in a mainland Europe war so unless you can point out another capability to cut it’s gone.
Upgrading a platform that has reached limits of capacity for weight and power makes little sense, the needs of a modern vehicle are vast compared to an original warrior as the US have found with Bradley and we have far less cash. We over loaded it with armour in Middle East and it can’t power modern tech ie the Ajax.
Most of the powers that be seem confident in boxer as long as they order the next tranche with 40mm brimstone or something with punch.
At some point upgrading vehicles becomes more expensive than building new.
Ajax boxer and C3 if all do what they promise and actually turn up should be very capable.
Unless of course you can talk Joe Public into 4% for defence like the old days??

Hi Andy, I’m not sure who you mean by ‘military testers’ – ATDU perhaps?
UK originally joined the Boxer consortium (ARTEC) in 1996 to buy Boxers to replace the residual FV430 fleet (ie those that had not been replaced by Warrior in the 80s) and Saxon APC, known as the MRAV programme at various times. Then we left ARTEC to pursue FRES, so abandoned the Boxer project.

Then the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle project was created (MIV) a Project to deliver mechanised infantry with APCs for the two Strike Brigades – Infantry who would work with Ajax. Boxer was deemed to meet the FRES(UV)/MIV requirement and was ordered.

[All the time the AI (totally different to mech inf as AI accompany tanks and need an IFV, not an APC) would get upgraded Warrior (WCSP)].

What then happened was that the Strike Brigades were abandoned, so no requirement for Boxer which had already been ordered – whoops, how embarrassing, so lo and behold in 2021 it was announced that Warrior upgrade would be cancelled and that the AI would get Boxer instead.

Thus the embarrassment of having ordered Boxer when there were now no Strike brigades that needed them could be overcome only if meshed with killing off WCSP on the grounds that it was over budget and had missed some milestones. But they will have to order far more Boxers now as there are 5 AI BNs across the 2 ABCTs – a very expensive undertaking and far more money than delivering WCSP. This is politicians work, that is for sure.

The AI in the ABCTs need an IFV to keep up with tanks and deliver 40mm cannon fire. They will end up with a vehicle (Boxer) that may not keep up with tanks in very difficult terrain and bad weather and may have very much less firepower than a stabilised 40mm cannon – lives will be lost and missions may not succeed as a consequence.

You say that the Boxers are more easily transported – are they? Combat weight is 36.5-38.5 tonnes. We still have to transport the tanks in the ABCTs, so what the heck! They all go on a ship.

Your obviously a lover of the warrior but at the end of the day the platform is unable to carry or power the kit needed on a modern battlefield or additional armour or networked Ew kit or any of the other power hungry kit. To make it do so would have taken so much money it would be a new build. We don’t have the cash to do everything so unless you want to pick a capability to lose to raise the cash it’s irrelevant.
The US while upgrading the Bradley have realised 21 century battlefields have very different needs and are going to build its replacement with tech able to link with all other platforms, optionally manned and high tech.
No point spending billions unless we do a full rebuild like C3

Andy, I am not sure of your experience or qualifications but I was a REME officer for 34 years. In my service I only heard a few grumbles about Warrior from my REME colleagues who maintained the vehicle and the Armoured Infantry who operated it. In many respects it was better than the US Bradley IFV. It was very combat -exerienced having soldiered onthe two Gulf Wars, UN and NATO ops in Bosnia, Kosovo and in Afghanistan.

WR received a useful early upgrade in being fitted with BGTI and the Bowman secure comms system.

Further upgrades were of course required – we used to constantly upgrade armoured vehicles either at the time of Base Overhaul or some other time, but in recent years upgrades to all our AFVs have been non-existent or very delayed.

Strangely you mention that Warrior needs better armour and power systems, yet do not consider that the WCSP would have delivered that. I don’t understand. WCSP would address all issues of capability improvement and ensure the vehicle could be an excellent IFV to 2040.

WCSP consisted of multiple excellent improvements. The Warrior Fightability Lethality Improvement Programme (WFLIP) comprised the installation of a new turret with thermal sights (that were better than BGTI), a FCS, and new stabilised and compact 40mm CTAS autocannon – this would have been class-leading, and of course would have commonality with Ajax.
Armour was to be improved via the Warrior Modular Protection System (WMPS), which built upon prior experience uparmouring Warriors during multiple deployed operations to make a very well-engineeered modular armour package, similar to that fitted to the German Puma.
Warrior Enhanced Electrical Architecture (WEEA) would provide networking and enhanced power systems to tie all the new sensors and equipment together.
All of the above on 380 Warrior vehicles would have been far cheaper than buying 380 Boxers instead – at least £1bn less.

Warrior has greater P/W ratio than Boxer so has power in hand to deal with any extra weight arising from the upgrade.

I also don’t know why you ignore the massive drawbacks with replacing a tracked, cannon-equipped IFV by a Boxer. Please explain. Boxer is hyper-expensive, is unlikely to come with a 40mm stabilised cannon and will have less mobility than Warrior so may not keep up with the tanks in bad conditions – that would be a massive FAIL.

Warrior upgrade has been scrapped by politicians and Boxer has been imposed on the army for its AI in the ABCTs. I am convinced that the AI would prefer upgraded Warrior IFV over Boxer APC, and if there had been sufficient grip over the WCSP programme they would have had that capability many years ago.

And as I asked three times what are you scrapping to pay for it
You also have no idea of the boxer tranche two weapons as no one does yet
And no the warrior upgrades wouldn’t have enabled it to handle the full armour package needed in Iraq (due to far more capable Russian anti tank missles) as the upgrades didn’t involve replacing its engine or chassis I believe.
Again who are we fighting with them? How do we get them there now we don’t have the capability to transport them by road?

Andy, I have no idea why you are asking what I would scrap to pay for ‘it’. I am not and never have advocated buying an expensive new tracked IFV in any of my posts – I have always said that it would have been better to proceed with upgrading Warrior, rather than switching to Boxer for the armoured infantry in the two armoured brigades. There would have been no need to scrap anything to pay for upgraded Warrior (WCSP) as £1bn had been set aside for that WCSP Programme.

Perhaps the question for you is what has to be scrapped to pay for Boxer which is a far more expensive programme (at least £1bn more than the Warrior upgrade was).

Boxer Tranche 1 – 523 vehicles (includes some section infantry carriers which will have Kongsberg RS4 weapons station with a MG, probably). Tranche 2 – 100 vehicles. Tranche 3 – more Boxers to replace Warriors (you have a fair point that this order has not yet been placed (I think) and the weapons fit therefore has not been stated – but I doubt it will be a stabilised, long-range 40mm cannon.)

An anti-tank missile is designed to destroy a tank – it would therefore make mincemeat of a much lighter armoured IFV/APC. So it does not make sense to say that Warriors improved armour would not withstand an anti-tank missile – no medium weight vehicle could. Warrior is well armoured and upgraded Warrior would have been class-leading. Do you think Boxer’s armour would be massively better than upgraded Warrior’s armour?
Why do you say that upgraded Warrior with its Warrior Modular Protection System (WMPS) would not have been good enough in Iraq? Standard Warrior did deploy to Iraq with applique armour (Theatre Entry Standard) and the engine coped fine as it has a high P/W ratio. There was no need to do anything to the hull – that coped with the add-on armour weight too.

Who are we fighting with them? Our army actually does warfighting and not just deterrence – Warrior has been deployed in warfighting and stability operations many times since it was first fielded – and I do not doubt it would deploy operationally many times into the future if it had been upgraded to see service to 2040 as planned. It last saw operational service in Afghanistan and is currently in Estonia on deployment. Who will we fight next with armoured vehicles – your guess is as good as mine – what is the point being made though?

Why don’t we have the ability to deploy Warriors (or any other armoured vehicles) by road? What has happened to the FastTrax HETs?
https://www.ftxlog.com/about-ftx/associated-companies/fasttrax/
For short distances, of course tracked vehicles can drive on roads.

Except the last comment on this website was we would struggle to transport even 80 challengers nevermind any warriors with our current Low loader capabilities so in reality we couldn’t transport any.

Hi Andy,

From the FastTrax website:”Fasttrax was awarded a Concession Contract to operate the British Army’s Heavy Equipment Transportation (HET) Service.

The company owns 92 Heavy Equipment Transporters (HET) for exclusive assignments tasked by the British Army.

Source: https://www.ftxlog.com/about-ftx/associated-companies/fasttrax/

That is a huge number of HETs – and the army always used to operate low loaders or tilt trailers of smaller capacity – not sure if they do now.

Armour can also move by rail.
Armour can also drive on roads on their tracks, but usually not for exceptionally long distances. We drove armour on main roads in Germany all the time.

No the army probably won’t still use its own tank transports additionally to the ones on the PFI contract. As part of the contract they had it written in that if the military used its own resources instead of the PFI owned kit then the MOD is penalised many millions of pounds, this was to stop the MOD changing its mind half way through the deal. The PFI deals in my book were a terrible idea for our military, mind great one for business profits.
I believe most governments now will only let tanks with rubber tracks drive on the road unless a national emergency but if any one knows the current rules???

The army has not owned its own tank transporters (HETs) since the Scammel Commander was withdraw from 2003. The PFI then took over with FastTrax using the Oshkosh M1070 tractor unit and a multi-wheel steerable trailer.

I think the army still has smaller low loaders and certainly will have tilt trailers, for lighter vehicles to be moved.

I don’t approve of PFI deals for the armed forces and have very specific reasons why.
In the case of the HET PFI, if HETs were used on operations then the civvy drivers would adopt a Sponsored Reserves persona ( a part of the Army Reserve). The same would be true of FastTrax maintenence personnel. How many would turn up if the ballon went up? How many mechanics would work on other vehicles if required as REME mechanics would. How many FastTrax employees would stag on and do sentry duty etc etc?

All our AFVs have rubber pads (track pads) between the links (and have done so since the mid-60s), to reduce damage to roads. I have not heard of most Governments around the world insisiting on full rubber tracks for road use. I passed my Gp H licence driving a 432 around the public roads around Bordon some time ago. Tracked vehicles up to and including tanks on public roads was a very familiar sight in BAOR – less so in the UK as training areas are quite near barracks – and exercises are not done over vast areas linked by roads as we used to do.

Unfortunately with current defence spending we are not the military power house we once were in Cold War and we can’t afford a capability we probably won’t use again. I’m afraid Russia is never going to face uk forces on land let the countries near them do that while we supply what we do best.

Andy, I have never suggested that we should have force levels the same or similar to that which we had in the Cold War. It is not just an issue of cost – it is because there is no requirement to do so – we no longer face the might of the Warsaw Pact just over the Inner German Border. Options for Change clearly reduced capability in 1991 – I was in the army then and had no issue with that.

Not the case that equipment types that were pre-eminent in the Cold War wouldn’t be used again. The army has used tanks, IFVs etc in warfighting and stability operations many times since 1991. Ironically those equipment never fired a shot in anger during the entire 45 year Cold War, but were never busier after it ended.

I hope you are right that British forces won’t face Russian forces on land – I think you are right but we came close to a showdown in Pristina in June 1999. However every military expert I have ever heard still states that Russia is our biggest threat in Europe, notwithstanding that they have been degraded by Ukraine.

We do of course commit most of our forces to NATO including 3 Div – if NATO ever required 3 Div to go to the Continent to face Russian forces alongside allies, then go they will. It is not just up to Poland and Germany to show resilience – 31 nations are in NATO and we all play our part. We don’t just defend our tiny island.

No but the days when we are a mini superpower are gone we can’t afford every capability without much higher spending, the chance of Russia defeating Poland Ukraine Germany and the nearer nations without going nuclear is practically nothing, by the time we transported tracked vehicles the fight would be done, we’re far better concentrating on what the other members don’t have or what we do best, we can’t afford every capability, I wish we could and ideally I agree with you I just can’t see the public paying

Many seem to doubt we could deploy large numbers of tracked vehicles to a war zone in time. Our tanks, IFVs and SP artillery have never arrived ‘late for the war’.

I think the time may have been reached when we drop certain capabilities, if the defence budget is not going to increase very significantly. Trouble is – what to drop?

so 20% is left htat is can’t . I only hope that 20% doesn’t end up being important. tbh I donlt like those odds -I fail to see why we wouldnt want tracked vehicles unless of course its the reliabilty factor?
I suppose it just means we end up changing the strategies around the vehicle usage?

Good points. Not sure the French have used armoured BGs and armd bdes in armoured warfare, a great deal in recent years, unlike ourselves.

@ Daniele’s post, far better then anything I would have put.

Hi deep, yes you read right the French army is and they described it themselves as an army in the middle..not heavy not just light..they focus on just enough..just enough to do their global security stuff and just heavy enough that a peer is forced to deploy all its army to take on the French army….to then be offered buckets of sunshine, the French have always made it clear that if someone wants to play they will use tactical nuclear weapons…the French airforce and naval aviation is actually focused on delivery of tactical nuclear weapons….they have around 65 deployed at any time …50 for the airforce and 15 for the navy….they don’t rule out use of strategic weapons in case of an invasion of France.

Ajax predecessor (Scimitar) was tracked. You don’t want to constrain recce to move on roads – they have to operate off-road and need the best mobility possible. High speed on roads is not the primary requirement.
Wheeled recce can work of course, but tracked recce can move faster cross country, deal with gaps better etc.

Battle of the Bulge. How the Germans advanced? How US advanced in France? Or for that matter Germans in 1940? along roads.
You can go distances in steppes of Russia but not in Western Europe, you will be too slow.

The Russians lost a lot of tanks and other AFVs in Ukraine by canalising them on roads and thus presenting easy targets to the Ukrainians.
Roads can of course be used with less risk out of the direct fire zone.

They would have lost them by canalising off road or do you think they would not be detectable?
Probably even more because they would be much slower so artillery would be much more effective and reaction times no so crucial.

When you go off-road, you do not canalise, by definition. You can spread out across a wider frontage.

Going off-road does not make your forces undetectable but being spread out reduces the chances of your forces being stopped, and makes them harder to hit, whilst allowing most or all of your vehicles to bring their weapons to bear on the enemy.
You are a bit obsessed by speed. It is not the be all and end all. Anyway tracked vehicles (and high mobility wheeled vehicles) can move cross country at good speed. Chally can motor cross-country at well over 25mph and Warrior can do over 30mph cross-country. Scimitar is even faster.

You canalise always because there are always a miriad of obstacles unless you are on a steppe or a desert, It is just as not at level of a road.

Try going much off road in Lines of Torres for example…

Alex, what army were you in? Going down a road, whether you are a section, platoon or Corps (XXX Corps on Op Market Garden for example) highly canalises your force – and this is a bad thing if you are in the direct fire zone or are being observed by arty spotters/FOOs etc.

By opting for moving through open country, woodland etc you spread out presenting a wider frontal area and allowing most weapons to be able to be used. Sure there are obstacles – a forest has got quite a few ie trees. You just walk around them – no need to canalise.

Not sure your Peninsular war example with the obstacles being mainly man-made forts etc quite does the trick for me.

Recce is not all about moving fast on roads – for much of the time on task they are stationary. Recce does not like moving on roads – too obvious, too easy a target, too likely to be ambushed.
Anyway, some tracked vehicles can really motor – Scimitar can move at upwards of 50mph (illegally tuned versions could do 70mph, well at least with the original petrol engine)

Hi mate, see my post to @BobA above, well the first para anyway.

Radakin could pull strings. Of course we dont know what he says in private but in public he was indeed expected to be a safe pair of hands. Unfortunately!

I am somewhat horrified that Radakin says he approves of the further cuts to the army, saying that we don’t need mass in our land forces etc and that hi tech kit can compensate.

Radakins doing a great job, army numbers kept down, RAF kept level and navy massively expanded both in size and capability. Under him plans the SSN fleet have doubled up to 15, escort numbers are going up to 24 and we got three FSSS.

There will be almost 80 F35B all able to operate from the navy’s carriers and the T31 has been massively upgunned.

Seems very much like the strategy we need and can afford.

Our only land threat has proven itself completely impotent, unable even to cross a few miles into the first country it came to.

Why would anyone think a larger army is needed?

We need to focus on the British army being the best in the world not the largest.

Morning Jim.

Regards the army, pretty much the point I make elsewhere, 72k,75k, 82k, is not as important as what you do with it and the kit it has, and the brigades it can deploy.

I’d advise caution on the RN increases though, they are not done deals yet.

Where is this 15 SSN source? I’ve seen you say that before. That would be UK and Aus I suspect.

3 FSS, yes, but they replace 4, so one less, though they will be more capable.

Escort numbers are going down, not up, at least in the short term. And the worry with that is plans change when new governments come in. The 8 T26 and 5 T31 building will continue the tradition of the new minimal level being the benchmark after cuts. The T32 is not even in build.

T31 agreed.

The 74 F35B I’m quite happy with, IF they are all ordered.

RAF kept level? We’ve just lost Hawk, Sentinel, Defender, Sentry, and will shortly lose Hercules, T1 Typhoons, and maybe even Puma.

Hawk output still needed so they’ve outsourced again.
Sentinel, well enough said on that, what could it have done assisting Ukraine.
Protector comes in, but that replaces Reaper.
Defender lost, using existing Shadow to cover it, not good, as Shadow has other roles beyond Defenders.
Sentry we will have Wedgetail, whether 3 is enough is debatable, I think not.
Hercules….not going there, people know my view on that subject!
Now if Radakin had got more money into Comabt Air so more Typhoon could be ordered to replace the T1s, while supporting F35 and Tempest development, well….but as usual HMG will not pay.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/britain-to-build-nuclear-powered-submarines-for-historic-aukus-pact

Doubling of the fleet is in the article and others, Not a done deal but very promising, they won’t be expanding barrow for Aussie boat construction.

Agree Jim. Right defence strategy for a maritime power

We are a maritime power with airspace that needs defending and choose to deploy expeditionary forces in support of NATO and other allies.

Jim, you are really saying Admiral Radakin has done a great job at boosting the navy at the expense of the RAF and most significantly, the Army. Is that a good thing that he still ‘thinks Navy’, not ‘purple’? He endorses the further cut to the army –
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/head-of-british-armed-forces-defends-plans-to-cut-size-of-army/ar-AA1bEXsk

Our main threat in Europe has proved it can invade a neighbouring peaceful country with massive forces with no check from the West, seize 15% of their land, prompt the biggest refugee migration since WW2 and decimate major and minor towns and infrastructure. Are you not bothered by that? …and this follows agression over the years by the USSR/Russia in Afghanistan, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh etc – there is a trend here.
Why would anyone think we need a much smaller army?

You must have some evidence that the naval threat is growing? What is it?

There is no danger of the British Army being the largest in the world – it never was anyway – it is one of the smallest of the G7 countries. We cannot now deploy a brigade on an enduring operation (such as TELIC, HERRICK). We are not able to deploy a modernised warfighting division with 3 manouevre brigades.

The issues the army faces aren’t to do with N

N?

My apologies, I must’ve accidentally submitted my comment.
What I was going to say was, the issues the army faces goes beyond numbers. Even when the army was 105k+ there were only 7 fully fledged brigades.
Ultimately 73,000 should be just enough for 6 brigades, which would be enough. Russian aggression isn’t to be countered by us, and either way, an extra armoured brigade wouldn’t do much in the grand scheme of things.
Poland is stepping up to be a major power, Germany is taking steps to do so as well. Russia isn’t the enemy we should focus on.
A strong ASW force and an armoured division should be our NATO commitment against Russia. All other army brigades should be light/light mechanised able to rapidly deploy.
Even if another Afghanistan type deployment were to happen, there are capabilities that could help cover for the lack of numbers, e.g. SFAB which the US found was able to cover an area of a 4,000 man BCT, despite only being 1,000 strong.

Under Future Soldier we have:
1 Div – 7 Lt Mech x, 4 Lt x, 11 SFAB, 19x (Army Reserve)
3 Div – 12 Armd x, 20 Armoured x, 1 DSR x
6 Div – ASOB (ie Rangers) x
Fd Army – 16 AA x.

Problem is that some of these brigades are not equipped with CS/CSS and some are highly specialised and can only be used for specific types of operations. Daniele has rightly taked about the wisdom of a previous Orbat featuring identical multi-role brigades in both 1 and 3 Divs.

Russian aggression isn’t to be countered by us? BAOR provided deterrence for over 45 years and the eFP troops in the Baltics are doing that today. If Ukraine had been NATO, we would be mixing it with Russia today. Why do you think the UK should opt out of facing down the most signifiant threat to the Nato Euro/Atlantic area? All seasoned analysts and senior western officers put Russia at the top of the threat list. Which enemy do you think we should focus on?

Future Soldier Orbat shows one armoured division. The army needs to field a bit more than that against a Russian threat, such as lighter forces on the NATO flanks.

I was in Afghanistan and we deployed a Brigade group (plus an RAF air expeditionary group and NSE). It was not enough for warfighting in Helmand province – the province required an infantry division (-). I am surprised that you think a very small force offering ‘assistance’ would be enough.

Future soldier doesn’t make best use of the manpower. There are not enough CS/CSS as you said. 4 Lt has 6 infantry battalions but only reserve CS and CSS. Half those battalions should be reroled to RLC and RA with a slight uplift in REME.
The reserve CS and CSS would then go to 19 brigade to create a reserve brigade.
DRSBCT should be moved to ARRC along with 3 division, 8 engineer and 2 medical. This would provide the Corps HQ to a JEF armoured corps.
4,7,11,19 would remain as 1 division with some air defence and HIMARS added. Able to reinforce NATO or deploy anywhere.
ASOB, 16 would be 6th division.
My point regarding SFAB was if it could cover an area usually covered by a unit 5-6x the size then a single Battalion. Of 250 could cover what previously 2 infantry battalions would’ve covered, taking up all the mentoring roles.
The world beyond Europe should be our focus, power projection etc.
Mainly China at this point although that is mainly a RN role who are receiving a lot of new capabilities.
RAF bases around the world should have more facilities to support a squadron of Typhoons and a Voyager, even if none are deployed.
Diego Garcia presence should increase beyond the naval party. An astute should operate from there and of course this is far off into the future but if 12+ SSNR were to be bought, at least 2-3 should be deployed there.
Edit:
As for BAOR, its effects were pretty disastrous on the military. Labour focused on BAOR, ASW, home defence and nuclear deterrent and cut everything else. At the end of the Cold War it was inevitable everything to counter USSR would be reduced because the USSR had disintegrated. If instead we had a medium sized army along with CVA01 and TSR2, it would’ve been much harder to cut it.

Interesting stuff! The ORBAT side of FS has been badly put together and not sanity checked by the grown ups. I can’t imagine what was in the mind of the Structures writing team. We have all here ripped it to shreds. Some of the ideas are good, but mostly badly executed and too much smoke and mirrors to attemot to conceal the gaps.
I’m not sure if you think that 1 DRSBCT should be ARRC Corps Troops, in which case 3 Div would ‘share the resource’ with all the other Divs chopped to the Corps. Perhaps best keeping it in the 3xx Orbat. But 3xx really needs to have a proper third manouevre bde which includes armoured/mech Infantry.
1xx is described as an expeditionary force for OOA but with the option to support or command ops on the NATO flanks. It remains to be seen if it is a golf bag of capabilities, only some of which would deploy or is deemed to be deployable as a mainly or even a complete Div (that seems doubtful to me) – I agree that some additional resource such as AD and arty (perhaps HIMARS) is required either way.
I’m still not sure about your SFAB point – this bde is certainly a golf bag of capabilities and does not need bde tps – but the role is training and mentoring of allies – I don’t see how they cover more ground than a standard Inf Bn – they are not being used in a classic infantry role – close combat, seizing and holding ground.
‘The world beyond Europe should be our focus’ – not sure you can focus on the entire world (less Europe). But I get ‘Global Britain’, which is hard to pull off with depleted forces.
NATO membership is at the cornerstone of our armed forces and the NATO area is the Euro-Atlantic region – we need to have quite a bit of focus there and the army contribution is primarily 3xx. Operating OOA is discretionary – and that is why the army has 1xx.
Agree that the RoW piece is primarily for the Navy. I find it hard to contemplate using our army to save the Taiwanese from ChiCom invasion. But the army still can operate in an expeditionary way of course – we must pick our battles carefully though – we deployed insufficient forces in Iraq and Afghanistan – and many say we failed there.

I forgot to mention 3 division should gain a third brigade. 1 DRSBCT is big enough to support a corps sized formation, and it could have the addition of other nations recce units and rocket artillery. The CS support arty regiments would obviously be taken out and subordinated to 3 division.
4 and 7 BCT would both be reduced to 3 infantry battalions from 6 and 5 respectively. One of these along with one from 20 ABCT would subordinate to the third armoured brigade so each would have 2 infantry battalions. The surplus 4 infantry battalions would all disband with personnel surplus used to bring infantry battalions up to strength and raise some CS/CSS units. Irish Guards would move out of SFAB to be replaced by a different infantry battalion. Irish Guards is brought up to normal infantry battalion strength by the other companies it created when it reduced in size. By nature of the Guards, these companies are now untouchable for the ORBAT and will be used for public duties. If a different battalion replaced the Irish Guards, the 300 odd surplus could then rerole to CS/CSS.
SFAB would take over all mentoring roles that regular infantry were doing in Afghanistan, freeing them up. The figur of an SFAB able to do what a BCT used to do was something the Americans came up with, I’m not really sure how it works. I assume better training for the role perhaps means less soldiers have to do it. In a peer conflict it would provide rear area security.
For a future Afghanistan operation, the UK would benefit from having self sufficient BCT’s at full strength that could easily follow a deployment schedule.
Ideally the Army reserve would be able to perform a role that the National Guard does, able to deploy whole units. This however is unrealistic without a lot of change.
Of course the likelihood of us getting involved in these conflicts have greatly reduced.
Poor choice of words on my part for focusing on RoW. My point was more that 1 division should have more diverse training such that it could deploy anywhere.
RAF should take advantage of all the bases it actually has, Akrotiri is great, but there are many others undeveloped militarily- Diego Garcia, Ascension, Gibraltar.
RM would ideally focus more on China rather than Norway.

If you assign 1DRSBCT to ARRC as ARRC tps, then 3 Div has no organic armd recce at the Div level (although the bdes would have their own armd recce still) and that could be a real problem.
You plan to keep CS arty with 3xx but to remove deep fires from 3xx, thus the Div Comd cannot fight the deep battle.
Not everyone will agree! What if 3xx deploys but the ARRC doesn’t? Assets that 3xx had in FS will no longer be available to it.

You choose to permanently role 1IG as a Public Duties battalion – the Micks would not like that. Guardsmen do want to be real field soldiers alternating with PD. What are your plans for the 4 other guards battalions? N-one joins the army for a full career in ‘ceremonial’.

I have always thought that the Army Reserve should be able to deploy as formed units but also on occasions to top up regular units – must have flexibility.

1 armoured recce regiment would provide divisional recce, the other would provide a squadron to each armoured brigade for recce.
DRSBCT could deploy without ARRC, most of the Corps Troops would, in a scenario like Invasion of Iraq with no allies other than the US, parts of all Corps troops would have to deploy- 104th logistics, medical, engineers.
US doesn’t assign MLRS to divisions, it’s more flexible to have it at Corps level and assign it from there.
I didn’t say Irish Guards would be permanent public duties, probably poor wording on my part. I said they wouldn’t be SFAB because the troops they free up in the reduction in size all go to Public duties. If a different battalion replaced it as SFAB and IG went to a different brigade, the troops freed up would rerole to CS/CSS.
I agree nobody joins the army for ceremonial roles, which is why it’s good only one battalion is assigned to public duties in FS.
Army reserve has definitely progressed in deployment, still a long way off deploying battalion sized units. Some units like the reserve tank regiment purely exist to top off regular units. If it got better, I guess a way of increasing brigades would be to assign 3 regular infantry battalions of 2 infantry companies and 2 reserve battalions of 3 infantry companies with the aim of deploying 3 infantry battalions of 3 companies. Fully reservist BCT’s are a long way off yet.

In the past we deployed TA Bn sized units and I recall seeing TA units (eg RCT Regts) deploying on major FTXs. I served in 2 Inf Div in the 80s which comprised one reg bde and two TA Bdes – the Div role was to reinforce 1 (BR) Corps.

205 (Scottish) Gen Hosp(V) deployed on Op Granby in 1991
Many formed bodies of reservists depoyed on:
Op RESOLUTE in FRY 1995-98;
Op TELIC 2003 (eg. 131 Cdo Sqn RE (V), RY(-) and some Med units;
Op HERRICK (eg Somme Coy, The London Regt).

But in 2009 a decision was made to only deploy reservists as individuals; this decision was reversed in July 2013 and in 2020 both 6 RIFLES and 7 RIFLES deployed on UNFICYP Op TOSCA and
in winter 2020/21 a Sqn RY deployed on Op CABRIT (eFP in Estonia)

19 Bde is fully reservist but is not a BCT.

I knew TA units had deployed in the past but I didn’t know it was so recent that they stopped. Recently I know it started back up again, would be good to get some mass. 16 Infantry and 4 RAC regiments in the reserve so there’s ample size. My only concern is the FS structure doesn’t make full use of reserve structures. Reserves should be pulled out of regular brigades. There is probably enough for a reserve armoured brigade. 4 BCTs CS/CSS can just jump over to 19 brigade. A third would be ideal but I don’t think there is enough CSS.

RM are superb at operating on the NATO flanks especially in the Far North in snow and ice. Why take them off that and switch them to the China region? What could they do there? A bit of raiding from landing craft?

Because RM isn’t big enough. It has two commandos with one being assigned to LRG(S). Arctic (and Antarctic) are of growing importance and one commando cannot fulfil that. Better to let them focus on amphibious operations. Army could perform arctic warfare, it doesn’t make sense for the army to perform amphibious operations.

Thanks Louis. Navy lookot says that 40 Cdo are roled for LRG(S) and 45 Cdo for LRG(N) which includes the High North. But I doubt both would deploy simultaneously. 42 Cdo seeems to be uncommitted to a specific role.
With two LRGs in the Navy/RM Orbat I don’t see any need for the army to become involved in amph ops.

There was a plan for certain army battalions to have a Mountain Warfare speciality (under the umbrella term ‘Specialist Infantry’, perhaps?) but it must have died a death.
The army were involved in AMF(L) which was on NATO flanks and included training in Norway.

That was my point, it makes more sense to focus the RM on amphibious ops and let the army light brigades perform mountain/arctic warfare.
Unfortunately 42 Commando reroled under Future Commando Force to focus on maritime operations. The four combat companies roles are: maritime interdiction, training, force protection, and Joint personnel recovery. It makes sense in some ways because 3 commando hadn’t been a full brigade in a while.
The RM aren’t large enough to focus on two major tasks like that.
I am a fan of creating the 5th ranger battalion so that one can be focused in the arctic region. Given it was a Gurkha battalion it makes even more sense.

He is clearly a Navy man still and not a purple warrior really.

I have heard the phrase ‘smaller, but better army’ for at least 30 years!

well they are halfway there ….

Agreed. I’d like to see the 3rd AR retained in the role, which will necessitate a few more beyond 148, but beyond that not necessary.

Therein lies one of the problems.

“Sir Keir Starmer has criticised the prime minister for “breaking a promise” not to cut British Army troops.

During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Labour leader quoted Boris Johnson from the 2019 election campaign, where he pledged to maintain the Army’s size.

But Sir Keir said this week’s defence review would now see numbers fall by 10,000 as part of government plans.” BBC 23 March 2021

“Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable”

“Ukraine-Russia: Sir Keir Starmer calls for Parliament to ‘look again’ at defence spending and defence strategy” 21 May 2022 Guardian (!!)

“Labour leader urges the UK Government to reconsider its approach amid planned cuts, and claimed his view was shared by many Tory MPs.” 23 May 2022 Scotsman

One more m8

“Asked if he supports increasing defence spending, Sir Keir said: “Yeah, I do think the Government’s going to have to come back to Parliament and look again at defence spending, and I know many Conservative MPs think that as well”

Thanks mate. It does in places have the usual political waffle in though.
“now see numbers fall by 10,000″

But they aren’t, as the current figure is mid 70k, so we are not at the 82k establishment figure, as they cannot recruit enough to fill the vacancies.

Now if he had said ” We will abolish the disastrous Capita privatasation and get proper Army Careers Offices back with real Soldiers in them he’d get a tick from me.

or…”the headcount, whether 72k or 75k or 80k is not the priority, as we will not be deploying them all. What counts is that the army is resourced and organised enough to deploy effective brigades”

These politicians use the 72k all the time as it is an easy soundbyte for them, it is not the main issue.

““Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable”

Yes, thank God for that! At least while he’s not been overthrown by the hard left.

““Ukraine-Russia: Sir Keir Starmer calls for Parliament to ‘look again’ at defence spending and defence strategy” 21 May 2022 Guardian (!!)

Yes, emphasis on the G noted!!! “Strategy” hmmm, what IS Labours strategy?

““Asked if he supports increasing defence spending, Sir Keir said: “Yeah, I do think the Government’s going to have to come back to Parliament and look again at defence spending, and I know many Conservative MPs think that as well”

Yes, sounds good. Again lets see. The Tories were howling to the moon at the Labour cuts 97 to 2010 and look what happened when they got in!

Thanks for the quotes mate.

What is constraining defence spending is the size of the national debt at ~~£2.4TRILLION. This has doubled in the past 13 years and now equals 100% of GDP. With interest rates at 4.5% and heading higher the annual cost to the Treasury of servicing it are about £75 billion – more than we spend on defence or indeed the NHS. In effect we are borrowing money to pay the interest on our debts and this accounts for why we have the highest taxation since the end of the last war

Whoever wins the next election is going to have to deal with the twin deficits and it is worth pointing out that Sunak printed more money than any other Chancellor in history. Printing money to pay debt interest results in hyperinflation. Remember the $1Trillion Zimbabwe banknote?

I would never trust Labour with defence. The most disastrous cuts have come from Labour.

Yep, apart from the Army ones in the disastrous 2010 SDSR, and that was just because Iraq and Afghan had been ongoing and Labour could not cut army manpower then. Though they pretty much everything else prior to then.

Hi Louis thanks for the update

Jim, I doubt it was the army that lobbied for the GDUK product (Ajax) by rejecting BAE’s CV90 Recce variant. More likely to have been politicians/Treasury. I wish we knew the facts about the CVR(T) replacement competition.