Britain to deploy forces across Baltic to boost security

I am joking about the cut, it’s frustrating as I see the army doing so much with what they have but if it came to a bun fight with 200,000 enemy what can the army throw in and what can they have left after to hold the lines.
Some troops are in Japan just now, the falklands, Baltics and loads of other places. 2nd battalion Scottish regiment are deploying over Christmas somewhere, don’t know where or how many. The British army butter only spreads so far.
It’s not that 72,000 isn’t enough for U.K. and overseas roles. It’s the world player role and serious ally to so many that requires larger forces.
I haven’t read future solider as plans have changed so much I didn’t think it would last long.

72,000 is way to low to do the job what’s asked apon them .If HMG want to play on the world stage then do something about it and Get more cash out of the money jar 🙄 💰💰💰

The British Army would not of course single-handedly fight a 200,000 strong army, such as the Russian Army.
We would deploy 3 (UK) Div plus other formations that would be relevant such as 16 AA Bde – to join a strong NATO coalition of up to 31 countries in all. Other commitments (except Op Cabrit in Estonia, Poland) involving 3 Div/16 Bde units would be quickly dropped. The Army Reserve would be mobilised. Some or all of the Regular Reservists may be called up.

Sadly that 72,000 are not all deployable.

I think Future Soldier was published in March 2021. It is still broadly relevant – the IR Refresh of early 2023 did not reverse the army cuts to manpower or tank numbers.

Whatever alliance we’re in or allies we have, bringing less & less to the table every year shows how little we’re commited to that alliance or our own security. A point noticed by our enemies.

Numbers aren’t everything. Training and equipment in the right hands will always overcome numbers, as we’ve proven time and time again. That’s probably why every NATO country and their mates, want British troops alongside them.

If you cut forces to current levels holding any line is academic. The only justification that makes sense is if we are at peace with no threats on the horizon. However we’re living in cloud cuckkoo land. It’s like looking for more cuts in 1938/9.

Delete ‘conversation,’ not certain how that was inserted…🙄

Your explanation of component roles and responsibilities is inherently more rational. Confused by previous comments re presumed Army involvement in protection of undersea infrastructure.

Current understanding is that ITAR will be significantly amended as part of AUKUS, in order that Uncle Sugar’s minions will be permitted to play nicely w/ Brits and Aussies. That is, if ye olde Congress ever ceases coitusing w/ itself and the Executive branch…🙄

Thanks, Former.

Honestly feel that, with the current direction of travel, US itself is going to end up seriously fcuk’d this century if it doesn’t just so lighten up on ITAR, and the like. Or fail to accord other states technological acumen. Russia, under Putin & his ilk, are an absolute pain, but less compared to an awakened China, to whom they may be little more than a resource. We, the Democracies, need each other – not shortsighted politicoeconomic oneupmanship.

More so than ever before the world is fracturing between democratic states, where the electorate have a highly valued periodic input – suitably categorised by ‘x’, but a hell of a lot of them! & the authoritarian opposition, where no such option exists, or it’s subsequently highjacked by individuals or oligarchs.

I appreciate that I may sound anti-US in some posts, but that is really not where I’m coming from – more anguish-US, on occasions. I’m no Party animal, just conservative in outlook & seriously defensive of democracy. So hard gained, so easily lost – a truism since BCE.

Having said all that, personally, the strenuous efforts of the 20th century were what gave me a peaceful life post WWII, your & our leaders, so my thoughts are for the folk in the 21st, which will leave me behind……
Rgs

As a P5 member and one of the world’s biggest economies, with our history, we have been Global Britain for centuries.
BJs grandstanding has been seized upon by many, but also includes trade and defence agreements like GCAP, AUKUS, 5 Eyes, and lots else.
Which are global.
When else has Japan decided to pass the US by and get involved with the UK in a project of Tempests scale?
Global Britain is a thing, whether it’s detractors like it or not. Boris Johnson’s wording doesn’t change that.
I’d hope we remain Global Britain with Sir Kier in charge, because if we aren’t, drastic changes in this nations standing will have taken place. After all, we are assured Corbyn and momentum are passed.

I think Japan feels comfortable dealing with the UK because they appreciate our monarchy and history. Says a lot that Nissan are investing in EV cars even though we have left the EU. In King Charles’ coronation anointing we still retained the notion of a divine authority. Its something about our culture they can relate to.
We are global Britain because we have given the world English, the English Legal System and 4ft 8 1/2 in railway gauge 🙂
My take is that we are coming through rough waters but we haven’t capsized. As a nation we don’t do extremes of either left or right. Starmer has realized this but the Tories are still struggling with the far right.

Hi Paul. Hmm, how powerful Starmer will be faced with the left of his party will always concern me until proven otherwise.
Agree on the British Empire links.

Yes, and English weights and measures! Then you Brits abandoned the poor colonials and went metric! What the hell, thought the crew, or at least the Captain, was supposed to go down w/ the ship?!? Colonists are slowly and painfully migrating to the Metric system…🙄

I bought a very good quality set of Whitworth spanners for my MGB…..made in Japan 🙂

Had to look this up, & used Wikipedia* for quick reference, but seems we’ve had cordial official relations with Japan since 1854 pretty much right up to today. In other words 1930s/40s were the unfortunate exception. Probably the most appropriate perspective with which to view our two nations from now on.
* further interesting dits about earlier British ‘adventurer’ contact since the 16th century – including of course the first granted Samurai status in the 17th, William Adams.

Yes, traders and evangelists from Europe were a busy bunch in Asia. The Jesuits landed in Japan in the 16c but failed to convert the closed culture. But had success in Nagasaki which was home to a significant number of catholics when the atom bomb fell.

Your knowledge of history always impresses me, Paul. I knew nothing on that.

Actually, I come late to an interest in the subject. Gave up history at school in favour of chemistry as I recall. There are many other folks posting whose knowledge is far better.

I totally agree mate. Plus I have a fair degree of faith in John Healey, more so than faith in Schapps.

Hi Graham.
Given his earlier comments, I don’t. But yes, Schapps is a waste of space too.

I’m hopeful that starmer will be ok but the election hasn’t happened yet and who knows what can happen.
Looking over the defence spending since 1998 to today, it sat around the 2.5% of gdp until 2010. Then went down to around 2% from 2011 until
Today.
Tony starmer in the making 😂😂

Well said Graham 👍

Brilliant post.
One for the self loathers and detractors to stew over.
I predict very few replies.

Come , come Daniele! The fact that most of us see that, militarily, we have next to nothing with which to tilt to the Indo Pacific, does not make us self-loathers or detractors, just realists!

The fact that we trade globally is not really the issue. The USA, China, Japan, Korea, France and a few dozen others trade globally, genetally more successfully than we do.

What makes me uncomfortable about the ‘Global Britain’ slogan is its similarity to the ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan. Both are/were deployed by rather unattractive leaders trying to be re-elected on a whipped-up nationalist platform. We don t need that stuff in the UK, we are a confident and loyal nation that always rises to the challenge.

I MO.

Fair one, mate.

Thanks mate. I cannot understand those who say we are on the scrapheap just because we shed the Empire and have a smaller Navy.
I never doubt that we have many problems with Defence and other areas though.

They’re also well funded.

Yes, believe Norwegians have a $1+T sovereign wealth fund! Meanwhile, Uncle Sugar has $30+T of debt! 😱

Agree.

Because they are a lean organisation the money goes further too.

I’ve got quite a lot of time for the Swedes and Norwegians.

What they have are well educated and motivated people who are well trained and used to the snow / ice conditions.

Kit is generally very well maintained and stuff in storage is operable. Because it is periodically used for exercises.

Not sure where you get your numbers from. The Norwegian army is only around 8000 strong with half of that being conscripts. They have one brigade based around Bardufoss and Setermoen . The reserve element is around 40,000 strong. The entire Norwegian armed forces are only around 17000 strong.
Their army only take part in any numbers in NATO exercises that are based in Norway. Always in the Bardufoss Tromso Lofoten Islands area. They lack logistics to operate outside that area.
Their role is to hold up an invasion force until the USA arrive.
Nato have spent a small fortune building NATO jetty up and down the fjords. Also extending runways for C5. The US have pre positioned kit in Norway. As do we. However ours is small beer compared to the US.
The offer up troops regularly to the UN for peace keeping troops. Worth noting they have had quite a few fatalities from those peace keeping roles over the years.
There is no way the Norwegian army can be classified as expeditionary in even the slightest way.

I was on the very first Baltic States training team. I know a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. They were a shambles at best. The investment needed has never been there until Ukraine blew up. It would take a lot of money and will to get anything meaning full up and running.

I did mate many moons ago, the Estonians. Tough lads up for a scrap but were playing catch up in regard to using western kit and TTPs. But that said, in spite of that they did well. Always thought the Baltics were pretty tough cookies, remember the Forest brothers between 1944 to mid 60s! 👍

It’ll be interesting to see any MRSS mix of sizes and designs for the RN and for the RAN and RNZN down here.

Would be nice to have one of those Damen designs as a pure
drone carrier. Could function as an escort to a LRG rather than needing escorting iteslf. Would have CAMM to defend itself and Mojave w/STOBAR to have a patrol umbrella 4000 miles wide.

Your point is ?

Was it not clear? The UK Government should set up a Rearmament Committee, so that we are prepared if WW3 is around the corner.

No, were talking about ww2 no mention of the world’s current situation. Plus the biggest difference between then and now is the UKs manufacturing, ww2 the UK was nearly self-sufficient in armament manufacturing. We don’t have the capacity now to manufacture large quantities in a short time frame we no longer have an MBT manufacturing base in the Northeast. The only plane we manufacturing is the Typhoon and those rely on other countries manufacturing parts. The military has been run down that far I reckon we couldn’t sustain more than a week. I don’t think a committee been set up would really help it’s more investment and a increase budget that is needed With committees they discuss and if something doesn’t fall within a particular partys agenda their will never be agreement. If there was a WW3 I reckon humans would last about a few days. Look at the Ukraine we’ve supplied so much that we have gone below what would be a acceptable level for our own forces. I understand your sentiment. All that is needed is a increase in defence budget..

We learn from history. My example (WW2) showed how rearmament (planning and then execution) prepared the nation (and saved the nation).

Of course things are different now, but my point remains that government should discuss and plan for a future major peer-peer war.
Because we have less manufacturing capability, does not mean we should not do it – it just makes it harder – we would have to buy more from overseas companies.

In my WW2 example we ended up with 4.5 years to prepare for major war. Doing nothing now means we have zero time to prepare for major war in an environment where complex military kit is more time-consuming to build. We are preparing for failure.

All major national projects start with Government recognising the issue and forming a committee/holding an Inquiry. It should lead to investment decisions, such as an increase in defence spending and growing and modernising the armed forces. A major increase in defence spending does not usually happen without discussion within Government. Ideal if it is an All-Party Committee to get Opposition buy-in but if not then a Governmental cross-department Committee.

Thanks for the clarification. 👍 Americans occasionally overlook the fact that WW II was in progress well before December 7th, 1941. Read Churchill’s memoirs; absolutely impressive (even w/out mention of Enigma/(Bletchley sp.?) Park, etc.). 👍

Certainly it’s planning for peer conflict I’ve had on my mind, since such tend to flare up far faster than anticipated. Recall being asked early in 2022 if Putin would invade UKR. A short pause led to the affirmative, at a time when the publicly maintained political narrative, even in Ukraine, centred on it being bluff.

Naturally, no armed force is low tech, and your point over the time taken to build warship replacements is key here, I think we agree, since maritime remains (or ought to remain) our prime contribution, both historically & geographically.

My start point on this occasion was the recent TPL article, of which you may already be cognizant, a section of which I copy:-

If the shortfall of personnel isn’t addressed then the blunt reality is that fairly soon the RN will run out of people to send ships to sea as operational warships. To deploy and operate a ship means you need highly skilled personnel to operate across multiple parts of the ship including seaman, marine and weapon engineers, war fighters and logisticians. Without them combined, a ship may be able to put to sea, but she would be functionally and operationally close to useless. The danger facing the RN is that they are running out of serving people, they are running very short on recruits and in turn they are running out of crews to send ships to sea.

This is followed by suggested options, devil’s advocate at best interpretation! that tentatively broach decommissioning ‘earlier Type 45s’ – our latest active class, only just getting required initial upgrades? (what a contrast to the Arleigh Burkes) – in addition to the T23s, even before considering crews for the T26 / 31s. In reality, just to manage our current ‘peacetime’ commitments.

Money is the elixir – of course! but one that would ‘fall foul of the Treasury’.

The Royal Navy is likely doing the best it can, conjuring ever more efficient &/or convoluted solutions *, as I must assume the Army is now, including IT/networked training for skills development both regular & reserve, forward basing, rotated crewing, etc, etc et al.

But in response to your last, Graham, I just don’t know. At least let us lay vessels up / rotate since crewing is critical, as Forces have always needed to during foreseeable periods of instability.

* for which the Staff try their hardest not to criticize the Cabinet during Defence Committee interrogation, and for which No10 grandstand their latest, never-ending contributions to worldwide force projection, whilst cutting real funding, by way of thanks.

“for which the Staff try their hardest not to criticize the Cabinet during Defence Committee interrogation, and for which No10 grandstand their latest, never-ending contributions to worldwide force projection, whilst cutting real funding, by way of thanks.”

Yes, spot on. It is infuriating.

Gavin, you say our prime contribution to major conflict has been naval, but has it, really. In the world wars our initial contribution was the BEF (RFC/RAF and Army). In the Gulf Wars which were major regional conflicts againsta state actor, I don’t recall seeing many warships employed.

RN crewing is I am sure a massive problem. But decommissioning early build T45s sounds crazy – we have only 6 of them against an endorsed naval requirement at the time for 12. If anyone still believes in the rule of 3, thats just 2 ships available for new operational tasking. Also all were commissioned within 4 years, so none is over-old. With the PIP work they are good for a few more years – best to solve the manpower problem rather than decommisssion.

Aside – I seem to remember that the RN only got an extra 200 personnel established to man the 2 carriers – they had to find the rest by ‘smoke and mirrors’.

Good Evening Graham. I must confess, l wasn’t expecting your …naval, but has it, really – in the context of my….since maritime remains (or ought to remain) our prime contribution, both historically & geographically. Maybe we won’t agree after all!
In the world wars I’d have to reiterate that, whereas our initial land contribution was as you say, our prime contribution remained upon the oceans i.e. with vessels that; firstly maintained their constant policing role, and then grew to blockade, convoy, defeat other surface units, resolve the submarine menace and then transport & protect expeditionary invasion forces.
Of course, by the time of the Gulf War, the USA had assumed most of the earlier role, but the RN, RFA still contributed something around three dozen vessels ranging from a/c, destroyers, frigates, mcm, subs, and those that transported land force equipment & supplies. However, these were major, but not existential campaigns i.e. there was an element of choice in both cases (for ultimate good or bad is another subject – upon which I’ll refrain from inviting ‘discuss’! (my bad).
With regard to the decommission insanity – let’s profoundly hope so.
Rgs

Oh, with all that, I neglected to carry forward the existential i.e. that with regard to the historical & geographical, and in the context of NATO, JEF, AUKUS and other defence issues / contributions from an enlarged European state effort, our *primary* contribution ought to remain maritime. Though we’re still getting praised for our behind the scenes diplomacy, I note with satisfaction (again, beyond this remit). KRs

Hi Gavin, certainly the RN played a massive role in the two world wars. My point about the RFC/RAF and Army (combined as the BEF) being an initial, very visible contribution to beleagured European allies in both conflicts, should not imply that the RN played a lesser role in world wars – far from it.

I remember the ‘Year of the Navy’ strap line in 2017 referring to ship building programmes – and the Navy has had some more good ‘procurement years’ since.

The defence of the realm should start with the homeland itself and it seems that the RAF have lead role as they provide AD of the UK airspace with Cyber defence being quite strong too – the other domains (in the Military Home Defence task) get quietly forgotten.

Then our defence ‘umbrella’ ie the second layer of the onion encompasses Europe, especially western Europe, where the army and RAF should be ‘lead Services’, and only finally, the final skin of the onion being ‘distant waters’, meaning seas beyond territorial waters and the Approaches.

The RN thus has to be a bluewater navy – and it is that, despite what some critics and cynics think. That is fine and I fully support our having a bluewater navy, but it does need to be larger and with capability gaps filled.

Certainly no such implication assumed, Graham. All our forces, and backroom boffins will be there to answer the call when required. That’s the good news – the bad news is that they’ll need to be thus called upon. If peace and harmony reigned worldwide, the answer to what percentage of GDP ought be allocated to defence, would be zero. If only!
Just watched the Times Radio snippet on Russia’s patriotism exhibition. Interesting, if West (inc UKR) think peace negotiations’ll get anywhere. One comment was roughly: We didn’t want Crimea, but it was Ukraine’s fault for losing it, so now it’s obviously ours (Russia’s). Gov spokesperson? No, sextagenarian female. Bless🖕

Thanks Gavin. The concern is that there is so little redundancy. In General War if we lost some, much or all of the following due to enemy action or equipment failure – a couple of C-17s, one or two Point class sealifters, a carrier, a couple of T45s, two Astute-class SSNs, a couple of P-8 Poseidons, one E-7 Wedgetail, 10 to 15 Chally 3 tanks – then we probably have big problems!

Ha! do like the use of the word, ‘probably’🙂

I don’t think the army has been doing anything very clever to deal with under-manning in recent years – so the Sof S decided to cut 10,000 established posts to solve the problem and save money. That’s the way politicians seem to think.

Forward basing does not help under-manning. What is it anyway? Op Cabrit (eFP in Estonia and Poland) might be called forward basing by some, maybe, but it is a 6-month op tour, for which units need to be fully manned. The units waiting in the wings to immediately deploy next should also be at full-strength.

I have not heard of crew rotation in the army – what is meant by that? How would it help the under-manning of a unit?

One this one, it’s entirely possible I misled. In other words, I was focussed upon RN Staff efforts with regard to examples; the reference to ‘assuming the Army was now’ referred to efficient & convoluted in order to satisfy orperational & political demands. Sorry.

Thanks Gavin. Nice to have a civilised conversation with someone – and exchange points of views!

Hi Graham, based on current force structure and head count: no, there’s too little else to add to the mix. So not a happy camper 🙁

Yep, we can’t really do a brigade group deployment on an enduring op (as per Afghanistan’s Op HERRICK) with the 73k headcount, without resort to reservists and/or RM commandos.