Despite earlier remarks by the previous Defence Secretary, the Ministry of Defence has now confirmed that the full-time strength of the British Army will indeed be reduced to 73,000 by 2025.
Back in 2022, then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace revealed that discussions were ongoing to scrap plans to reduce the army to 73,000 troops amid the heightened threat from Russia.
Speaking to the International Relations and Defence Committee, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“So first of all, the size of the Army, we’ve pushed it back up to 73,000, to up an extra 500, which is approximately the size as an infantry battalion or a light role infantry battalion. So in one sense, we have pushed the army back up, and it is currently lurking, I think I’d use the phrase, at about 76-77,000 in strength, it was 79,000, about two months ago. So we haven’t got down there. I’ve always said as the threat changes, so must the size of everything, and I still stick to that.
So in my negotiations with the Treasury, I’ll be looking at whether we should go down to 73,000, or whether we can maintain it. I think our second point about, you know, is it a good metric? I don’t think it’s a good metric at all. And it has often been a metric just handed out from the Treasury and Number 10 over the years, whereas any other business would seek to be given the challenge of how do you reduce your salary envelope? So I managed an agreement with the Treasury about six months ago that we will push that challenge back to the army on a salary scale, and ask the army if it can produce a different number based on looking at how it structures itself. They might be able to have more junior ranks and therefore more people.”
However, in response to a question raised in Parliament, we now know that isn’t happening.
The Minister for Defence People and Families, Dr Andrew Murrison, said yesterday:
“The latest figure for the full-time strength of the Army is 73,520. The Army is continuing to work towards its “Future Soldier” structure of 73,000 regular and 30,000 reserve personnel. There are no plans to change this. The good news is that provisional figures suggest that January had the highest number of Army applications for six years.”
Ridiculous number to deter Rusia, finally our allies Will not see UK as a serious partner. But for these politicians is not a priority the defence of the country.
Only cuts and more cuts, no news about the necessary increase in escorts in the Navy and airframes in the RAF.
It has a name and you know It.
Almost as if our leaders & their ultra rich sponsers would be perfectly happy to sell us out so long as they retain their privelidged position & wealth.
What?!
The Tories have accepted quite a lot of donations from dodgy Russians & courted Chinese investment in our remaining industries(e.g. Hinkley point nuclear power station & others, cameron & Hunt are sinophiles, Boris is a Russiophile). During the time that’s been going on HMG has been regressively reducing our armed forces quite drastically, even disposing of entire modern warfighting capabilities. All dressed up as unavoidable budget savings.
The result is we deter Russia & China far less & are in an awful place to respond to anything they try on against us or our allies.
Changes to laws seem to be limiting the free protests & expression we can make, heading towards a ore authoratarian regime that Russia & China would prefer.
That’s what I was hinting at, sorry if it was too obscure.
“Ridiculous number to deter Rusia”
Agreed, and this won’t help much either 😫
“A Trident missile has misfired and crashed into the ocean off the coast of Florida during a rare test launch by a British nuclear submarine in an embarrassing blow for the Royal Navy.”
https://
news.sky.com/story/trident-missile-misfired-and-crashed-into-ocean-during-rare-test-launch-13076724
I hear that the launch was being watched by VVIPs including Shapps and the missile landed very close to the boat!
LOL, time for a change of underwear with more skid marks than Brands Hatch on race day no doubt, and unlikely to pass the DAZ test either!
I guess you could call it a wake-up call of sorts, but I somehow doubt it.
We certainlt require aa layered defence system and a second option, namely Tomahawk. A third would also be useful to have.
“The Tomahawk Missile System is an autonomous, long-range strike weapon that can deliver a variety of payloads. The system was developed in the early 1980s to deliver nuclear and conventional munitions.”
“Eurofighter says it is comfortable with delivering integration of the U.S. B61 nuclear weapon onto the aircraft, a process that requires U.S. certification. Paltzo said he was confident the U.S. government would not use the certification requirements of the weapon as “leverage” to force Germany towards a U.S. platform.”
All services used to have tac nukes.
Which would be a good thing in this day and age Graham.
I recall in my own service we had nuclear shells for the M107 175mm SPG and the M110 8″ howitzer plus the Lance tactical nuclear missile which replaced Honest John.
All suddenly phased out at the end of the Cold War.
Used to have lance missiles 100 kt and M 109 also had a 155 mm yield approx equivalent 72 tons HE.
Pete, thanks for the numbers. A friend of mine in the Royal Anglians (in 1976) used to have a war role of escorting US nuclear shells to British RA Regts.
Hi Nigel I thought it was the Americans that have the issue not the royal navy?
So it appears which is no bad thing in itself.
Yeah we might not have enough of most gear but we make things pretty well, wonder what China Russia and co think about another fail.
Personally, I would concentrate on finding the fault ASAP and try again at the earliest opportunity rather than concern myself with the thoughts of Russia and China.
Also, look at other means of delivery as a fail-safe option.
It never pays to place all of your eggs in one basket!
Have to say another delivery system sounds good to me the way things are building up.
Exactly!
Good to see are key defence metrics are based on achieving our treasury defined “salary budget envelopes “.
Of course not.
That would require a budget increase.
And if they increase PIDS, lots of new equipment might go instead.
We fund one or the other. What do we choose? I choose 73,000 equipped over 100,000 poorly equipped, with the budget HMG gives.
Ideally, the army should never have dropped below 100k.
I was of a belief that you were one of the leading lights of this site but it seems you have already accepted the BS given out by a government that have zero regard for the military. No matter how many bods there are in the Army they will still have to struggle for the equipment they need, so it is better to have 100,000 plus bods. The “Minimalist” approach to defence just dose not work we just have to look at the history books for proof if proof is needed.
If it is the financial angle you are looking at I would agree that we as a country are struggling to finance a credible armed forces along with the support it needs but if we take a look at how our defence budget is spent by the legions of inept Civil Servants and senior offices may be a better approach would be to “lose” a few battalions of CS and senior ranks than bods on the ground.
Sorry to disappoint you Alfred, and that my light has dimmed👍
I try to be realistic.
If HMG turn around tomorrow, and say we are returning the army to 100k with the same budget, what goes to pay for the extra bodies? Please tell me. And don’t say Braid or CS as it is not as simple as that.
We know, and I keep saying it, HMG prioritise UK Industry, or the Military Industrial Complex with the “defence” budget. That includes AUKUS, Tempest, the nuclear deterrent from Successor through to AWE. Just look at that bastard Sunak grandstanding next to Biden and the Australian PM a few months ago while the RN SSN fleet withers.
I also understand how defence works. Yes, we could cut civil service. Yes, we could cut more senior ranks.
Tell me, who will do their job?
The need for that output does not vanish.
Subcontract and outsource? Which costs a small fortune anyway?
So often I read posts here from posters who probably don’t know one end of the
MoD from the other give throw away comments, cut the CS, cut the Generals. People seem to forget that all those CS are not all pen pushers in Abbey Wood or sitting twiddling their thumbs in Main Building. There are civilians directly involved in the defence of this country, in DI, in DSTL, in AWE, in countless hundreds of directorates and organisations that, without their presence, defence does not function.
And who would head up these organisations with budgets running into the millions, hundreds of millions, or even billions? The tea lady? Staff of certain CS rank, be it civilian or military, are necessary. Private Blogs from the infantry will not do.
Senior ranks, they have been cut several times already since 95 Front Line First and another cull a few years ago within Fleet HQ and HQ Land. Brigadeers commands are now with Colonels, commands have been merged, 3* posts abolished. How many more would you lose. Tell me, which ones exactly would you cut to free up a few more billions, if it even saved that much, for another dozen f35 or few score of Tanks?
I have given this reply to other posters who scream cut the Generals and the Civil Service and I never get an answer when I reply, Who? And how will that work?
The issue is HMG putting nuclear and pensions into the 2%, and public indifference, which means they do not give it the gravitas it deserves as there are no votes in it.
I despise cuts like everyone else, and I despise this government, and I have also studied defence long enough to remember the utter mess the last Labour government made of things that directly impact matters NOW, such as the army needing to recapitalise Tanks, CVRT, IFV, APC, and artillery at the same time as Successor is underway as Labour in 13 years did F all.
I look forward to your detailed response Alfred. It is not so simple as culling 20k of CS.
And breathe, Daniele. An excellent riposte, as usual.
Ian M.
Good Morning M8 You are way more clued up on this than me my field was industry. But perhaps you can answer me a couple of question.
Is the provision of Service Pensions part of the MOD budget or covered by the Treasury.I understand that these days Service Pensions are contributory, but when did that start.I think you can guess where I’m going with this 🤔
Oh and if you want to read something very thought provoking go onto the YouGov website it’s one hell of a Bombshell and should be rammed down HMG throat.
Morning mate. All I know is what I’ve read since 2010 when Osborne made some “adjustments” in what is in and not in the defence budget, and I read he added pensions which were previously outside core. Maybe that is incorrect, there was/is an MoD Service Pensions Directorate to oversee that, but whether the Treasury still pay I’m unsure.
On that murky what is and isn’t in, ĺ I also hear people saying the SIA – Single Intelligence Account, which is the budget for SIS, SS, GCHQ was also added, which shocked me. I’ve never found conclusive proof of that one either and suspect people may be getting confused with DI.
Whether CASD was in or out is another topic, the fact it is in screws defence more than anything as it’s a political weapon that to me should not be funded at the expense of conventiinal forces. If it’s in, the budget must rise proportionately.
Yougov? I’ll go look after I’ve made breakfast.
Service pensions, including mine, come out of the Defence Vote – always have done….as does the cost of maintaining barracks and quarters and all sorts of other stuff that is not ‘front line’ – still important though.
Not sure it is relevant to discuss whether pensions are or are not contributory. Mine was non-contributory but this ‘perk’ was reflected (offset) in the modest salary – I was paid less than a train driver as a Major in command of 130 troops. My pension is also lower than that of the Police or Fire service.
Lots on the YouGov site – give us a clue?
He does mate, look further down.
Did you read it, if so the bit that makes me scratch my head is that it’s the 2019 voters who are targeted,
I have to wonder if it’s why John Healey is asking all the right questions at present ? Simple reason is the survey may be way more significant for indicating the wishes of Traditional Labour voters than Tory.
A hell of a lot of the Traditional Labour Voters are actually in the Tory 2019 pile and going back to Labour.
Oh and of Piste, yesterday there was a picture of some Army Unit and it’s Vehicles all neatly lined up waiting to deploy.
What do they use to fight with ? It didn’t impress me, or am I missing something.
That is 7 Light Mechanized Brigade mate!
Search the posts if you have time, it’s covered on that thread.
What do they fight with?
105mm LG.
81mm Mortars.
GPMG.
NLAW.
Javelin.
ASM
Sharpshooter.
And Whatever they mount on the WMIKS, Jackals and Foxhounds that carry the Brigades Battalions, from GPMG through to .50s and GMGs.
The Army can not all be Tanks and Cannon equipped IFVs. Never has been.
The Yougov, yes I agree. Let’s hope they’re serious and taking the swing voters views into account.
Thanks. How is Guildford today?
Today? It’s raining mate!
Same in Seaford!
Firstly in no way what so ever am I having a go at those who receive the Legacy Non Contributory Pension schemes.
You served, you risked your life and accepted lower pay in return for the promise of long term security.
What I am getting at is that due to those Pensions being funded 100% out of the present budget and it was a much larger headcount it’s a disproportionate overhead compared todays headcount.
You are an engineer and I suspect that like me you ended up in management. So we have available Capex & Opex budget being squeezed by a long term “Through Life” cost overhead.
Which is why I don’t think we really may not need an increase in the Defence budget if we move all the Legacy Pensions back over to the Treasury.
That way we may just be able to properly equip who we have now and then see if we need more Bods.
As for the YouGov Article it’s a survey of 2019 Labour and Conservative voters about the likelihood of war in the next 5-10 years and it’s pretty interesting.
I just hope the Politicians read it.
The Majority of both say it’s either likely or very likely.
53% OA, 57% C, 51% L
Unlikely or Not at all likely.
31% OA, 28% C, 36% L
Don’t Know
16% OA, 15% C, 12% L
The non contribution scheme is not legacy, the armed forces all still receive a 0% contribution pensions scheme..it’s still live all the other public sector pensions schemes are contributory and always have been…but armed forces never….it’s why including it in the budget is such an issue.
Thanks Rodney. Apologies if I came across as over-defensive.
The amount MoD spends on equipment maintenance, modifications and upgrades is colossal – I saw it on a pie chart once but can’t find it now.
Sometimes a ship that has had a multi-year refit is sold off after less than 5 years further service – the economics of the madhouse.
Despite defence inflation jacking up unit costs, it is surely often cheaper to buy new, reliable kit than to persevere with 50 or 60 year old AFVs (to take an extreme example, but there are many more examples of kit having clocked up over 3 decades of service).
I would prefer if pensions, the nuclear deterrent and non-Defence intelligence were moved out of the MoD vote. Then it would be clear that we are probably spending 1.5 to 1.7% (wild guess) on conventional defence capbility. HMG won’t do it. Also surely teachers pensions are in the DfE Vote, etc etc – so moving service pensions would be anomalous.
That survey is interesting. HMG should react to figures exceeding 50%.
most people seem to be paid less than a train driver Graham. Yes the interesting thing about the armed forces is the 0% contribution pension..which is unusual to say the least and for someone at your grade now it would be worth around 7-8k year in pay…as that’s what it would cost you to to buy it.
Interesting. I always heard that the non-contributory pension was to offset the disadvantage of having a salary lower than someone with equivalent responsibility would have in the civilian private sector, and perhaps also to reflect that you could not get an annual bonus in the forces.
I recall a friend in the RSIGNALS left the army back in the 90s as a Captain and easily doubled his pay.
As mentioned before the MoD pension is less generous than the Police or Fire Service pension.
The problem was Governments never invested money in a pension fund, despite knowing the baby boom generation would require this. Governments focus on the next election rather sound economic decisions.
You had me at “Just look at that bastard Sunak….”
(although you could have added ‘rich’ just for good measure 😉)
I’ll happily add that word in mate. I despise the bloody lot of them and as soon as they elected him they were finished.
mate you need to add “mega” before the rich….there is rich (which I don’t have an issue with if you’ve worked hard for it) and then there is sunak rich……which is as far as I’m concerned is immorally rich and can only come from screwing over huge numbers normal people..by being one of those groups of people that simply take everything.
Good Morning M8
You are way more clued up on this than me my field was industry. But perhaps you can answer me a couple of question.
I think you can guess where I’m going with this 🤔
Oh and if you want to read something very thought provoking go onto the YouGov website it’s one hell of a Bombshell and should be rammed down HMG throat.
I tried to send the URL link but got referred to Admin. So Humpty Dumpty method.
Go onto the YouGov website.
Search for War and Conflict.
Go into Articles
Read Article on “World War 3 likely in next 3 – 5 years think most Britons”
What an interesting site mate, I have never looked at it, though I had heard of YouGov.
Politicians do 🤔
A definite plus then mate. Even might get inside their thick skulls.
I looked before and it seems to be shrouded in mystery. The service pension are I think still non-contributory, but are career averaging now. give it is government thing I expect it is funded out of yearly budgets. MOD civil servants are contributory and career averaging, again there mostly likely more going out then coming in.
There is no one in no one currently in parliament who you could trust with the military budget. My personal opinion is that it should be held at 3% of GDP with the Nuclear deterrent having its own budget supported by Nato members who all profit from the US,UK and France having to spend Billions each year on the nuclear deterrent. R&D I believe should have its own budjet as well with major sponsorship from private industry who profit from new technology invented and developed for the military.
We need to expand the 5 eyes along with AUKUS so that ship building along with submarine building and development can be spread among the commonwealth countries. Just think of the saving we could make by including countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand if we all embarked on joint development of not just Ships but aircraft and AFVs as well right down to a common approach to basic weapons and ammunition.
But before all of the above can happen we need people who put the defence of the realm 1st and foremost. We at the moment are spending about 2.2% of GPD on defence with al least half of that being lost in delayed and miscalculated project.
You mentioned Abby Wood in you response, Abby Wood was build to hold 5000 people with extremely limited parking and no accommodation, the current population at Abby Wood is 10,000 Plus all having to find their own accommodation in or around Bristol (not the cheapest of places) and as there is extremely limited parking the closer you are to Abby Wood the more expensive the accommodation is. All coming out of the MoDs budget. (just one example)
We spend 2.2% on defence and 10% pulse on the NHS with billions disappearing into the either on both of our flagship enterprises, is it not time to have a rethink on how much middle and upper management we actually need.
We have the money we just need to spend it more wisely.
Evening Steven. Firstly my apologies, I saw Alfred and for some reason when I was typing the reply used it as your name.
There’s a lot I agree with there, especially 5 eyes.
Agree, we have the money. I could have added in my original response government meddling which slows down builds, delays contracts being signed, insists on in year saving targets which end up costing more down the road, and delays such as T26 delayed from 2010 by Cameron to the RNs detriment.
Also I lay blame, regards the army, on the senior officers. I don’t think it was civil servants who full flopped between Tracer, MRAV, ( the original Boxer) and then FRES and wasted over a billion to go absolutely nowhere before 2010. And more recently with General Carters Strike fiasco which was a monumental act of self harm and has left the army literally eating itself trying to decide what it wants.
Regards.
Dan.
There’s a lot in what you say and just this week Germany has asked about the financial and legal steps that would need to be taken for France / UK to provide an alternative European Nuclear Shield.
My answer would be simple, if you pay both of us 2.5 billion pa we will increase our individual SSN fleets from 4 to 5.
Then cooperate on a joint deployment, refit, maintenance schedule to increase the number of deployed boats to 3/4 at a time.
Joint targeting shouldn’t be an issue, but we would have to keep the right for National use and not swap tech with France, due to the US/UK joint cooperation treaty.
The French would have to do what we do and declare their force de frappe to NATO.
Also we should get back into the Tactical Nuclear weapons business.
Shouldn’t UK pay and contribute to French force de frappe though? You know, ICBM and bombers? They have the triad besides the trident
Well firstly they don’t have a Triad, they scrapped all their IRBM decades ago. Secondly we can build our own Tactical capacity just about anytime we want too and put them on our own Aircraft.
They have the “Force de Frappe” which is their 4 SSBN with their own SLBM and the Tactical “Force de Dissuasion” which is ASMP missiles mounted on Rafael or old Mirage 2000 (bombers are long gone).
And the replacement for Storm Shadow and ASMP is being jointly developed and paid for by both of us. We just don’t want to put our own Nucs on ours 🤷🏼♂️
Well I guess then that US UK France would give up the UN security Council permanent sit to a NATO one?
Nope no chance and NATO is a military alliance not a country.
Sorry for part 2 answer but Wife wanted feeding 🤷🏼♂️
Whilst it sounds great to cooperate with our 5 eyes / AUKUS friends it just wouldn’t work for joint production and I’ll explain why.
In over 65 years the UK has bought just one single really major part of any RN warship from abroad, it was the Reactor for HMS Dreadnought (the famous US section).
We tend to cooperate with European countries because they have similar cost base to ourselves
Simple reason is we can’t afford their prices and if you think their SSN’s are expensive (twice the price of ours) you need to sit down and take a large drink before looking at RAN or RCN prices.
For example cost of the German built Berlin class replenishment ship is US $445 per ship, the Canadians are building 2 at (make that a double, double) US $ 3.3 billion.
Simple reason is their wages and cost of living which compared to us means we are pretty cheap.
All 3 of them also want to build as much of their own as they can, and in Canada and US it’s Political suicide to not do so.
On the other hand it’s rather good news for U.K. PLC because we build a lot of sub assemblies and supply chain items for all 3 of them.
What have Queen Elizabeth, LCS1, Zumwalt, Hunter and CSS Frigate all got in common ? RR MT30 engines.
We are presently gearing up to build and support most of the 12 RAN AUKUS boats in U.K. as well. There are 2 prime reasons for this, firstly the US doesn’t have the capacity to build many (3 possibly 🤞🏻) more than they are already struggling to supply for their own use. And secondly the RAN would either only be able to buy 6 for their budget or need much deeper pockets.
It’s no secret but there are actually very important bits built over here in many US weapon systems including the F35B, most other US combat Aircraft and all their current Subs
If there is a will to do some thing we will find a way we just need our leaders to lead and not hide behind political indifference which is killing the West.
Yep will power is great, but finances are finite and getting the US Military, Political and Industrial complex to play nicely is well a Pipe Dream.
But the level of Industrial cooperation in the West is pretty impressive, we have cooperative agreements with more countries than most. We actually have a very good reputation of being a solid and fair Team player.
It may seem strange but we are one of the very few countries that have a reasonably harmonious relationship with France.
It’s pretty well confined to missiles and due to being largely Industry led by MBDA.
Excellent relationships with German, Norwegian, Polish, Israeli, US, Italian and S Korea companies but probably closest to Sweden.
….accommodation for Abbey Wood workforce coming out of MoD’s budget? What does that mean?
Read, mark and learn from Daniele’s response below.
Agreed. Where does all the cash go though? I know lots of things are being bought but is part of the problem over paying?
200 billion plus equipment budget over a decade, over half of which I believe is maintenance and support, so fat contracts to industry.
AUKUS. Most of the recent uplift went there, nothing or little for conventional forces.
Tempest. 10 billion allocated, over a billion already spent.
Nuclear, from Successor to AWE to the SSNs to the infrastructure at Raynesway, Barrow, and Faslane.
UKSF, I believe their budget is substantial.
Classified stuff.
Large legacy defence estate. RAF Marham had a fortune spent upgrading it, contractors here cost a lot. Not comparable with many other nations.
Space, 1.4 billion allocated to new satellite installations and associated ground infrastructure.
Procurement clock ups and delays which HMG and top brass ( Army ) must take some blame which increases costs.
Top notch kit costs an awful lot. Example, did we have to buy one of the most expensive APCs in Boxer? And do we need to use it in all roles?
The lists endless, Matt.
HS2 +£90 billion to build a railway.
New nuclear plants in Somerset is coming in at +40 billion.
Other huge infrastructure programmes are massively over Thier agreed contracted budget.
So it’s a matter of choice.
What do we spend our tax payers money on.
Seems the answer is NOT defence.
Soon it will be all outsourced to Capita!
I only just discovered that it is only the Army that uses (or was forced to use) Capita. RAF and RN recruit in roughly the traditional way.
Yes, I learned that a few weeks ago, and was very pleased to hear it. I also saw a report that NCOs are now back in some AFCOs. They need to be as this issue need a sorting. I’d also read applications are up, a positive, if they can get through Capita.
Does the Cadet Force still exist? If it doesn’t, it should.
All of the cadet forces still exist – have you not seen any at Remembrance Day etc?
In the community – ACF, RAF Air Cadets (formerly called the ATC), Sea Cadet Corps, GVC Air Cadets, Sea Cadets (formerly Sea Cadet Corps), RM Cadets (part of Sea Cadets), the Nautical Training Corps (focus on RFA/MN), (the independent) Frimley & Camberley Cadet Corps.
In the schools (mainly in private schools but in a few state schools too) – the CCF comprising RN, Army and RAF sections.
ACF: I was in the ACF in Crawley for 3 years as a teenager. More recently I was an adult volunteer – a Captain in Sussex ACF for 5 years. ‘There are about 34,000 Cadets within the ACF in some 1,600 detachments, which are to be found in every part of the United Kingdom and 32,000 Army Cadets within the Combined Cadet Force (CCF) within schools’. Sussex ACF alone has over 1,000 cadets and over 200 adult volunteers in 25 locations – far more (numerically) than the regular army’s footprint across west and east Sussex!
The cadet forces make it very clear that they are a youth organisation not a recruiting ground, although of course many cadets to choose to go on to have a career in the regulars or else choose to become a member of the Reserves.
Morning Graham. No, I hadn’t.
In my school in the 80s, Rutlish, there were Army and RAF dets but no RN as far as I recall. Even then, I could ID silhouettes of vehicles and aircraft and would amaze the teachers, even though I never joined! 😜
Yes, the recruitment side was what I was thinking of and I’m glad they’re still about.
Still think the Cadets should wear DPM, or at least a different uniform from the actual armed forces.
To give them their own identity, or?
Uh, yes that’s the “charitable” way of putting it.
I think having children wear the same uniforms as adults who go into combat zones is a bit… well.. it’s not great optics is it?
That’s bad enough but then you get instructors who start thinking (or just as bad members of the public thinking) they are actually soldiers because they wear MTP and a Rank slide that says CADETS on it.
Yes, I see your point.
I too had heard that some schools did not always have CCF sections for all three services but that most did.
But RN recruitment has regularly fallen short of target for years as well. Details reported on this site 16/1/24.
I think Capita has provided the IT support system for RN recruitment.
I wonder if the Capita IT has hampered RN recruitment or whether service life does not appeal to the younger generation.
Outsourcing is bad for the economy, it may seem cheaper but has hidden costs. Staffing levels are cut , wages are held down, profits go to shareholders and accountants use legal tax avoidance. This reduces the money in circulation as wealth is invested or can go offshore reducing tax.
Bloody Ridiculous , that’s our UK politicians for us heads in sand .Has long as life is good for them they couldn’t give a …. 💩 🇬🇧
No rising threats or challenges when your head is safely buried in the sand!
Utter insanity. Either we re-arm to deter Russia(even join an allied-brigade/division to help UKR drive the Russians out), PRC etc, or leave them to crush & consume nieghbours while issuing protests. Eventually we’ll be forced to confront them after millions have been killed or subjected.
Cutting forces even further in the face of naked aggresion bodes ill for the future of freedom & democracy.
We are stuffed when the brown stuff hits the fan. What planet are our politicians on?
Maybe it’s time to run for the hills. No one in Whitehall is listening to the many voices who warn of dire consequences if the UK land force is reduced further. However, it’s my guess these ridiculous oversights will be addressed sooner than we think.
Surprise to no one. Defence sec states he is considering a re-review and then promptly resigns, (no coincidence its 12 months before the election and he cant take a role in industry for 12months from stepping down under the vested interest rules). He will then be quoted for years saying the cut wouldn’t have happened if he had stayed. He clearly never had any intention of doing anything about it.
At least he screwed more money out of the Treasury (twice).
Yeah he did a competent job overall but clearly plans to get his kickbacks after the election. It’s depressing but it seems all our politicians are in it for themselves and what they can get out of it. Sometimes also interested in governing.
Funny but no one “in power” seems to realise one thing. The forthcoming civil unrest that is bound to happen. Threats are not just external. I have never known the UK to be so divided, the population are at each others throats in many areas. Still, have faith in the “Police Service” eh? Too busy policing hate crimes, Facebook posts that offend and the all important Twitter crimes 😎
Agree totally. And importing young men who claim to be refugees. I do believe there is a wider evil at work to undermine the west and what we stand/stood for. Did you see the short clip of a known Syrian Jihadi entering the US via the Mexican border route? And our universities bought and paid for with foreign money….And of course, challenge anything and you are a racist or “phobic”. Not to mention the cancelling of those few politicians like Braverman who speak out. Glad I am older, I do not want to see it when it really kicks off.
If you read Capitalism:The unknown ideal, by Ann Rand you will find it a collection of essays by her and associates dating from the late 50s to early 70s. She notes the same tactics on marches and campus struggles across the USA and ties it into known Marxist-Leninist tactics.
She also makes the very relevant point that it works best using real grievances, not least because you can temp your opponents into defending the wrong side and putting themselves in the wrong. That is still a very real point today.
The best way to combat those abusing issues to cause disruption is to offer a better solution to the real problem.
Oh dear, you are very sad at the moment, still struggling with the concept of conversation. You get very angry don’t you, quite easily. Its ok, I’m sure you were meant for great things, but your abilities did not match your expectations and desires.
More anger, rather sad, but expected from those with limited ability to converse and a tiny depth of subject matter knowledge.
Heads in the sand. Don’t worry, our friend the US will save us. If they can see something they’ll gain from it…
Maybe they could gift us 50 obsolete destroyers in return for basing agreements….again.
I never really understood that deal, we got 50 old Destroyers and the base leases they got were nearly all very nice Holiday destinations.
I think the U.S. are going to be having their own problems to be honest…if it all happens the way I think over the next 5 years.. it’s looking like the US will be tied up in a nasty pacific war…so will not be able to help Europe or ride the Middle East.
I urge the new British Government (come the next GE) to place defence at the highest priority. All parties claim they care about defending the Realm, yet whatever the outcome, the focus must be centred on the needs of UK forces. The current posture is not only shortsighted but crass, leading to clear and present danger for the United Kingdom.
There are far to many Direct Entry Officers in the British Army in the ranks of Maj and Above occupying multitudes of positions adding layers of beaurocracy, adding little value that cost an absolute fortune. For example there are approximately 1500 Lt Cols on circa 70-80k each and around 3500 Majors. The Royal Signals, who have around 30 deployable Units have around 300 Lt Cols so it begs the question what are they all doing.
Tory bastards selling out the country again, lining their own and rich prick friends ,these spineless bastards should be put on trial, I’m sick of hearing this country has no money ,these fxxxxxxg tories will answer for they have done, time for a coup in this country against all these useless fxxxxxxg bastards, sorry if my comments are full of anger, but the rubicon has been crossed by this spineless useless government
The Tories deserve to lose, but do not expect any better on defence from a Labour government.
You are right there John,cheers mate 👍 👌 👏
Before COVID I would not have believed government fraud was so rife. However, my ignorance was challenged when so many MP’s (allegedly) had such vested interests in health supplies. Defence must be in the same fly trap and if so, we could all live to regret the deals made over a game of golf and dinner.
If we all join hands and form a chain do you think we could pull the governments head out of the bucket of sand? My head seems remarkably attracted to the wall in front of me.
It’ll be lower than that by 2025 if nearly 3000+ are leaving and getting CTD’d and MD’d every year
from forces.net about Ukraine :
It seems the Army has learned the lesson, shame our politicians have not.
Gen Sanders has been saying the same thing for the last 2 years.
yes but don’t forget as many say (on here as well) we don’t need a large army- we need a large Navy and/or Air Force…others who are more at risk will do all of the ground fighting…
if ‘they’ get to us its too late anyway so why should we even bother don’t forget we can always just Nuke ’em….
Added to that of course we have great and copious ammounts of kit thats what really counts.- and of course if we had a bigger army we would need more kit
-and we don’t have more kit so we dont need a bigger army…
And we can’t keep the troops who enlist anyway and if we did we need more and better placed barracks and we can’t afford that …
and thats without even ensuring these new troops are of the ‘right’ demograph…we must ensure targets are met..and the forces who are up for being shot consist of a true reflection of our society..
so whats the point in facetiously planning for more…none thats what..
Obviously all of that has been taken into account prior to setting the numbers required to deliver our land based defence strategy…
phew for a minute I thought we may end up in trouble now I realise that its all OK …we are saved…nothng to see here move along now…
I’m one of them, to me the RN, RAF, and intelligence community take priority.
Having said that, the army at 73k is too small.
But, would I take a 73K army organised and equipped correctly over a 100k one with no budget for new kit and poorly equipped?
With the budget HMG provide with CASD and pensions in it? Every time.
The problem is, the army of 73K has a long way to go to the level it could be.
I agree – Just to clarify although I was being somewhat facetious/sarcastic in my post- although the points do stand.
I do see the point of making the RAF & Navy priorities – however not to the detriment of the Army.
I think the Army needs to be both bigger and better equiped – but the driver should be to identify strategically what we want from the Army , to then size it accordingly , and then equip it correctly- which will cost.
We also need to address recruitment and retainment- again that will cost.
I also agree that although it seems too small if it was 73k but structured and equiped correctly with suitable and sufficient kit that would be better than what we have now.
As long as the structure allowed for/could accomodate an increase in numbers and didn’t constrain that.
At the moment we have what appears to be a conflation of ‘ideas’ with no coherent thoughts behind them.
That’s the thing mate. They jump from one plan to the next dictated by budget, not threat or need.
Agree on all your other points, recruitment especially.
Ironically, the government in 2010 after making all those insane cuts did mandate clearly what the Army was to do. 1 Armoured Division, with extra forces in the Adaptable Force, plus 16AA and 3 Cdo. We had that up to 2015.
3 Full Armoured Brigades.
2 other deployable Brigades in 1 UK, ( out of 7 Infantry Bdes in it )
Plus 3 Cdo and 16AA.
7 Brigades ALL with their CS CSS, allowing the rule of 5 and roulement of Brigades in an enduring operation.
Thet then they threw it away on the bonfire of Strike and a new priority, Boxer, costing a small fortune while CH3, WCSP, Ajax programs were underway. I keep emphasising, Boxer was the MIV program set to deliver only in 2027 for 3 battalions once the other main programs had delivered. General Carter and and the army board decided to junk that force, losing CS CSS, for Boxer sooner, in bulk.
Why?
Thanks for the clarification & detailed thoughts- as always
So Carter and Boxer seem to be at the root of the current debacle.
The strategic plan should therefore If I read you right – be to get back to 2010.
If everything was geared towards that would that be a good starting point ?
Boxer -it seems-would have to have it numbers cut for a start, but if that was to action a strategic thought out plan then surely that wouldn’t be an issue?
Yes, there was an established plan up to 2015. I’d bite your hand off right now for 7 fully equipped Brigades that we had in 2010, which included 1 complete Division of 3 Brigades. Our version now has 2, plus the artillery and recc placed in DRSB.
We now have, arguably only 4, with no IFVs, and one of the most expensive APCs in the world currently equipped with a machine gun..which is why I shake my head in disbelief when General Carter comes on TV lamenting the current state of things. If he’d had his way and Ajax was on time we’d be down to 2 Armoured Regiments already, we still have the 3, for now.
Sorry I need to edit this…we can’t Nuke ’em.
Do you think the army is just for defence of the UK homeland?
As I said before, a “Yes man” working for two bean counters.
The traitors in the MOD/Whitehall/Treasury need to understand that in the event of any conflict where the UK is attacked, they will be the first to be lined up by any enemy. The precarious position they have put the British Army in will see it brushed aside by an enemy based on the sheer numbers we can field in theatre. What is the fighting force based on these numbers, 1;5? Under 20,000?
As for the political aspect. Either the Tories care nothing for the place this country has in the International scheme of things, or they are “salting” the fields before Labour gets in, knowing the situation is becoming more dire with the passing of every month.
The government claims to be increasing budgets and capacity to meet Russia’s expansionist policies. I see the opposite. The UK is sliding down the table of nations with first-rate militaries.
The simple things is that the Army is too small. It does need an increase, at both the teeth arms but more importantly the enablers. We have good kit, great people but in such small numbers it is little more than a trip wire short term organisation. However, do not increase the Army at the expense of the Navy or the RAF.
IT’S all bloody crazy mate 🇬🇧
Can’t say I like that Wallace’s ‘solution’ was to pad out the numbers with cheap recruits by getting rid of more experienced members.
This is what happens when you allow numbers rather than capability to be the metric of success.
I hope no-one think those 73,000 are all deployable!
Absolutely
The thing is most people will…the average person on the street will not understand why 73,000 troops would not allow to deploy 3-4 divisions.
Some education of the public is probably called for as to why our best effort, short of WW3, would be just one division for a one-shot warfighting operation (but only once manpower and equipment shortfalls are plugged ie after 2030) – and something rather less than a brigade for an enduring operation.
Probably need some politicians to get up to speed too.
Indeed and let’s be honest I’m not really sure about a division at present..as you say there needs to be soon regeneration for that. I suspect if you actually told the general public that the best effort around UK ground forces would be a couple of brigades and a battalion of air mobile and a battalion of amphibious forces..they would be a bit shocked.
We do need a serious conversation in the UK about what the UK would offer as a contribution in a major European ground war…after all our security has never really been around an army that could challenge a European power..but instead an army that could swing the balance the way we need for our security when joined with allied continental powers. I’m not sure we really fulfil that anymore…we have moved to tokenism.
The general public seems to be totally disinterested in Defence, but I agree that they would be shocked that we could not currently deploy a full-strength modernised warfighting (armoured) division to Europe (or elsewhere) – and that our ability to do so has been set back from 2025 to 2030.
We should not stand alone in despondency – the German Army is tiny at 62,000 regulars and their equipment availabilty, even of modern equipment such as Puma AFVs, is poor.
Yes there seems to be a profound malaise in the west…it’s almost an unwillingness to accept or acknowledge the threat faced. I do wonder if actual NATO itself has something to do with it, where the total of the parts of the alliance look so overwhelming that we no longer see the need for significant investment by each individual part in its own defence..but that means that every nation is now depend on NATO functioning correctly and at maximum effort and that is not a given to be honest…even if article five is enacted and NATO did not fracture..the actual response from each nation is the sovereign choice of that nation…the UK does not need to send a division to say Estonian if it was invaded it could decide a different response was appropriate the same with any U.S. response…I think European nations have forgotten that NATO does not absolve a nations requirement to be able to defend itself appropriately.
Good point. I find it interesting that Germany, the richest country in Europe, has still not met the minimum NATO spend target of 2% of GDP (itself a very modest target when you consider we routinely spent 5% or more in the Cold War) some 10 years after it was set. Their army at 62,000 is much smaller than our own very small army and their equipment resadiness is shocking. Yet they really are on the front line.
Germany were going to enshrine meeting the 2% figure in law but shied away from doing so.
This contentment that others will collectively make up for national deficiencies may be a reason that our army has been cut so drastically. It is different with the Navy – it fits with Global Britain to have a tolerably strong bluewater navy.
I do think with Germany it may also be related to generational trauma..it must be difficult to really live with fact still within living memory your nation turned into something profoundly evil and brought down absolute destruction on itself… there are only really two ways to go from that..either a militant mindset that seeks revenge or a profound rejection of the militant mindset that brought the destruction…let’s be honest the allies ( specifically Russian in Germany and the U.S. in Japan) essentially went down the route of absolute destruction to force that rejection of militarism and militancy in the populations ( they did back unto them)….japan I think has recovered from that for quicker than Germany…I think Germany has a fear of itself that is really focused into a fear of the military….you can see the same thing in Ireland….there is a mistrust of the military and the purpose of the military..which is very different from the Uk view of our military…there is ( well was before Putin) some naïvety about the future need for a large military, especially the army…but there was and is always pride in it and profound respect..with a bit of neglect because our enemies are distant and the threat seemed small..Germany and japans on the other hand have closer enemies and greater threat…but need to get over a profound trauma.
I served in Germany 4 times periodically between 1976 and 1992 and picked up on the-then German mindset.
Germany did deploy troops to Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan (3,500); Japan didn’t. Germany, at least in part, got over their WW2 guilt and trauma before Japan, on that basis.
During the Cold War, Germany had huge armed forces.
Well Richness has nothing to do with a % of GDP. 2% is just as achievable for a poor country as a rich one (arguably possibly easier).
Remember the Heer’s 62,000 does not include Heeresuniformtraeger in the Streitkraeftebasis, Sanitaetsdiesnt, and Cyber- und Informationsraum. For the British Army that would effectively mean not counting the RLC, RAMC, QARANC, RDC, and Int Corps.
(Although the German Navy is about half the size of the RN, and the Luftwaffe is about 4,000 birdpeople smaller than the RAF over all the Bundeswehr and the British Armed Forces are almost the same size)
Thanks Dern. I had not realised that Das Heer did not include those service components. Interesting that Germany is not reacting to the Russian threat in a similar way to Poland.
It’s a bit complicated, in theory the Bundeswehr has 6 branches instead of 3, but logistic, medical, and information commands don’t actually recruit their own personnel, instead they’re tri-service institutions whose manpower counts don’t go towards their parent institutions. Yeah it’s weird.
So a Heeresuniformstraeger (literally “Army Uniform Wearer”) in the Sanitaetsdienst (Medical Service) is technically part of the Heer, and will most likely be attached to the Heer, and trained by the Heer, but isn’t counted towards the Heers headcount.
I’d say that Germany’s reaction to Russia is mostly down to A) not sharing a land-border with Russia, and B) because of the vilification of militarism in German society.
Thanks Dern. True that Germany is set back from Russian border, but is still well forward.
Every man an infantryman?
Does it include guard dogs, spy dolphins and ceremonial goats is the big question?
Haha! Only about 20 – 25% of most deployed land forces are Infantry, on average. Op Banner was an exception having a much higher percentage of Infantry in the mix. I had not thought of the ‘military pets!’
Expect 5 to 10 % temporary medically downgraded for various injuries at any one time .
It was 10% when I was in (up to 2009).
I understand that the 73,000 are officers and soldiers (including ‘recruits’ who have not yet done Phase 2 training) – and does not include recruits who are still on their Phase 1 training.
From that 73,000 delete your 10% who are not FE, delete those on the strength of non-deployable HQs and units (including the staff of all army training units), delete those who are SUS in MCTC (or who staff MCTC!), delete those on resettlement leave/courses, delete those deployed in Defence Diplomacy posts, delete those mentoring other armies, those serving in Brunei for the Sultan, those in what used to be called PCF roles (Permanently Committed Forces)…and you get a figure for those you can actually deploy on a new or exisiting Operation. It’s a lot less than 73,000!
How do these political idiots make such decisions? None appear to be able to comprehend anything beyond 1 or 2 years away and in their eyes 5 years is a lifetime away! Not for nothing has the statement ‘a week is a long time in politics’ been said. How long do they think it will take to boost numbers to a usable number in the event of some major conflict, which they also seem to be incapable of recognising as increasinagly likely. Especially as one of Putin’s advisers has already said they see a war with NATO, and especially us as the US unsinkable aircraft carrier and staging post, within 10 years. Since such a war would be started by him/them how much notice will they give us? While nowadays it is quicker to train soldiers, sailors and airpeople, the ability to provide them with the equipment to fight is another matter entirely, still less keep them resupplied and even healthy given the simultaneous rundown of the NHS. Our ‘moat’ may help delay things but it also means we would potentially be under siege again, but this time the potential enemies have somewhat better weapons than trebuchets and greek fire. How long could a siege be maintained nowadays? A hadnful of frigates and submarines is hardly siege busting capabilityWe denude our capability and struggle to maintain barely a division of effective defence for an expeditionary action, what do we have in our homeland while they are facing a hugely bigger enemy on some foreign shore? Could we get them all back like at Dunkirk, and even if that could be done what would they have to fight with back here? How could we produce and restock armour and ships with the shut down of steel making? The list is endless. The Peace Dividend was at best illusionary and the subsequent austerity which somehow has produced an exponential rise in billionaires and off shore wealth will not insulate them from the consequence of their greedy obsession with personal agrandisement at everybody else’s expense A hard disk with lots of 8, 9 or 10 digit numbers doesn’t repel much.
Ridiculous numbers full stop…..how many are combat ready……doubt we could defend the isle of wight far less the UK.
#SHAMBLES
I love comments like this, the way their hyperbole manages to completely undermine the more rational objections so that everyone can dismiss all of us in a oner is just *chefs kiss*
How many of said 75k could we field today…..right now ?
Nowhere near 75k thats for sure ….
Of course not.
Nor could we ever, nor would we ever want to.
At a time of massive international threats and a general ongoing decline in the international security picture the UK government continue to cut our armed forces.
Just madness.
No other word for it.
Madness
And yet there thank them for there hard work ,and at the same time sell them down the road ,in my book I call it two face 🙂 😕
Iny book I call it treason, dereliction of duty and failing to fulfil the number one priority of a government. The defence of the realm.
I’d like there to be a constitution in the UK with a clause around political behaviours. Number 1. You fulfil your election manifesto and don’t immediately after an election do nothing about the manifesto but start a whole load of other dodgy dealings, activities and corrupt practices that the people never voted for.
Number 2 a politician is responsible for life for their decisions. If you cut the armed forces and this leads to combat losses, death and military defeat then you go to jail. For life. For dereliction of duty and treason.
Number 3 any politician who commits our armed forces to an illegal, unjust war is tried in the UK for crimes against humanity.
Number 4 our armed forces should only be commited in defence of the realm, protection of our overseas territories or in defence of our allies or if there is a proven credible threat to British national interest/ security or it’s population.
Those 4 points will have politicians shaking in their boots (Cameron+ Osbourne, Hunt and Sunak)
However they are not revolutionary just standards of correct behaviour and clauses to ensure correct decisions are made.
Major banks and legal firms paid £ 270,720 for 16 after dinner speeches for MP’s , is this the new form of cash for questions and lobbying? Source the Times !
Whatever the current government says about defence plans for 2025 onwards have exactly as much weight as my defence plans for 2025 onwards. More than a 10.5% swing and Mr. Shapps won’t even be an MP.
Thank you tory fxxxxxxg cxxxs,handing British defence to our enemies, disgusting bastards