The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the British Army is still pursuing its goal to double its lethality by 2027 and triple it by 2030, as outlined by the Chief of the General Staff earlier this year, according to a recent parliamentary response.

In response to Conservative MP Mark Francois’s inquiry about whether these targets remain on track, Defence Minister Luke Pollard stated that “the Chief of the General Staff is working hard to fulfil the ambition outlined at the RUSI Land Warfare conference.”

Pollard added, “The British Army continues to work to these goals, in tandem with the ongoing Strategic Defence Review.”

Key questions remain around the feasibility and specific steps required to achieve these milestones. The ongoing Strategic Defence Review may provide further clarity on how these objectives will be met and the resources allocated to this effort.

The urgency of these goals stems from statements made by General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, who in July described the pressing need for the British Army to be ready for a potential conflict by 2027.

Walker characterised the current global environment as an “axis of upheaval” marked by intensifying threats from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Citing growing support between these nations, Walker emphasised the importance of rapid modernisation to keep pace with adversaries who are increasingly interconnected and mutually supportive in their military ambitions.

Walker’s comments highlighted the challenge posed by China’s ambitions regarding Taiwan, Iran’s nuclear programme, and Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine, all of which contribute to a volatile security landscape. He noted U.S. assessments indicating China’s potential readiness for action over Taiwan by 2027, adding a sense of urgency to the British Army’s plans for enhanced lethality.

To meet these heightened demands without significant additional funding, Walker suggested that the British Army must adopt innovations in technology, including drones and artificial intelligence, drawing lessons from the conflict in Ukraine.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

116 COMMENTS

  1. Is the domain of the British Military too wide? Should it be doing Crime, Cyber, Intel…

    Why aren’t those functions broken up into smaller specialised units?

    Not one big company! That’s just plain stupid!

    • No.
      Crime. As in, it has a Corps of RMP?
      Cyber is tri service as well as the agencies.
      Intell is vital.
      ? They are.

    • Crime – clearly all 3 services need to deal with any crime committed by service personnel and so have service police and disciplinary machinery. The Navy has a task involving only a small number of ships (one or two?) to reduce international piracy, such as international drug smuggling. No recent examples of the army or RAF dealing with criminal endeavours. Not sure this is an issue.

      Cyber – one of the 5 domains of warfare – we need a strong cyber capability in Defence – offensive and defensive. I don’t know how many service personnel are engaged in this endeavour but it can’t be more than a few thousand.

      Intel – seriously? all three services and the Defence Centre need to have strong Int capabilities, for very obvious reasons including shaping structures and equipment procurements, determing force dispositions and tactics etc.

      In all of the above, it is not just our forces that commit resources – it is not all on their shoulders. Civilian agencies and organisations also cover the above, but in a different way and for a different purpose.

      • Explained far better than me.
        Cyber yes probably a few thousand.
        13 Royal Signals. JCU Cheltenham, JCU Corsham, JC Reserve force, elements of 90 SU, plus several smaller units in the RN, RAF and Army, regular and reservist.
        Of course these augment those assets contributed by the agencies.
        The area is currently expanding with the formation of the JCF and the concept of “PAGC” Units.

      • Don’t agree!

        Crime; Should be one Civil force to cover all three services!

        Drugs should be separate force; DEA!

        Intel; I don’t mean SigInt!

        MIx already have access to Mil Intel, but are out Military force!

        Cyber: BULLSHIT! Should be Private Company’s, or better still, the function broken down to a number of smaller company’s!

        • Your thinking is radical.
          On crime, I presume you would take away crime investigation from the service police, and leave them to their other duties. Not sure what the advantages of that are. I see an advantage in service police investigating criminal activity by service personnel or that by intruders who have committed crimes in military locations – service police understand the military world, have the respect of the chain of command and have access to classified sites etc.

          I mentioned the RNs operations against drug smugglers on the high seas. If we created a British version of the US DEA would they get ships and do that?

          Intel. I understand the difference between SIGINT and Intel. Are you proposing that the army disbands its infantry recce platoons and armoured recce regiments and Intelligence staff at formation HQs and have a civilian company do that? Of course not. But what do you propose?

          • Crime: Objectivity, Civil Police can and do, and would deploy anywhere! HK, Kenya,..

            Drugs: UK DEA with separate ships.

            Intel: I would not class Recce, Sigint as Intel, Mil only.

            But, Remember SOE type operations. GB has a Five I’s (14) commitments, they can’t do, as in Syria

          • We would still need to keep service police as they have duties other than criminal investigation and prosecution. Yet MoD would have to fund the cost of the CIVPOL doing the latter in a commercial contract. Overall, your idea would be very costly.

        • Hi RDM.
          A few complications with that.
          Crime:
          MDP cover the civil side in the UK, for all three service. However, the uniformed RMP, RAF Police and RN Police all deploy as needed into war zones, which a civil force cannot.
          Drugs:
          The RN and thus wider military involvement in Drugs is minimal already. If a RN OPV detains drug runners as a part of its duties while deployed that is surely a positive. The SAS in the late 80s were directly assigned to Colombia but I don’t think that sort of commitment happens now in that sphere.
          Intel:
          Glad you don’t mean SIGINT, as the 3 services contribute directly to the take of GCHQ in terms of personnel and collection assets.
          So what areas of “Intell” did you have in mind?
          Battlefield intelligence for force and unit commanders is a large part of the Intelligence Corps work, 2 Battalions are assigned to our Field Army.
          Civilians could not do this work.
          HUMINT: The DHO / DHU is involved here and replacing it with civilian only assets, or just people from the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service is also a no no, as the DHU goes into war zones.
          ELINT: See SIGINT.
          MASINT: See SIGINT.
          GEOINT: See SIGINT. ( 42 RE and the NCGI )
          IMINT: See SIGINT. ( DIFC, JFIG, and so on )
          You will find a considerable number of civilians working in DI back in London, but here again in the analysis and research functions there are tri service military embedded.

          MIx already have access to Mil Intel, but are out Military force!”

          What do you mean by this please?

          Cyber: Directly affects military operations and is being embedded at all levels going forward, it cannot be a simple case of civilian only effort through the Agencies.

          “broken down to a number of smaller company’s!”

          The units assigned to Cyber are small already, so what do you mean by this?

          So, I do not agree with you.

          • Maybe.
            Or perhaps as in PMCs? So hired Mercs.
            Given the wide involvement of the military in all areas Intel wise I think it a total non starter.
            Once gone and the skills fade, then what. For me it is one of the most important areas there is.
            I know SIS officers, civilians, do go into war zones, but they usually have military minders.
            You also have clearance issues in some areas, STRAP, Enhanced DV needed, and so on, that might need military personnel rather than relying on contractors.

  2. Surely mass counts in an Army!!!

    I’m a proud ex serviceman and it upsets me greatly to see our once capable Armed Forces decimated by successive governments. We are merely a Defence Force albeit a small capable force with a punch – we remain a warrior nation, but if we continue the decline then I’m not sure what will be left.

    I’m really not sure what our American friends and fellow warriors think anymore.

    • Mass counts for very little in mechanised warfare, logistic, training, technology are far more important.

      Juts ask the Iraqi army

      • Mass counts for a lot. A small, well equipped, trained and led army would expect to be beaten by a much larger well equipped, trained and led army. It’s just that mass is only one part of the equation – you have to get the rest right as well.

      • Jim, that’s just not true. The key to land warfare is Tempo. Tempo is created by logistics, communications, training, and Mass.

        Tempo is the speed that you can cycle through operations relative to the enemy. The reason mass is so important is that eventually, a small, well trained and equipped force will eventually have to slow down or stop because it will simply run out of people, equipment or ammunition – or just pure endurance of human beings and or equipment.

        So – not enough armour – you become victim to track mileage.

        Not enough people, your people have to sleep, feed, recover (max about 72 hours of constant operations before rest is a must).

        Mass enables a force to rotate through operations and rest more readily and thus maintain tempo and momentum.

    • I’m sure you probably not aware but you do realise that while we are raising our defence budget in real terms the US is cutting theirs right?

      It’s self hating nhailist comments like this that make alot of people want to stop visiting this website.

      It’s also food for Russian Trolls and Chinese propaganda.

      If your going to make comments about how shit the UK is then can you atleast do your homework.

      • I’m encouraged by this news and in the face of mounting threats it’s heartening that the Government is making this commitment.

      • Hmmmm. According to Wallace in the DT today, that nice little 2.9 billion boost to MoD the other week INCLUDED Ukraine money.
        So not quite as it seems?

          • I was interested to read him saying never believe the statement in the Commons, look for details in the “Red Book” where all the gory details reside.
            Reeves doesn’t give a toss apparently. 🙁

          • Blind hope?! I’d trust Labour on defence, as I’ve said many times, as much as I’d trust Pol Pot.
            But the last Tory government was so bad as well. Nowhere to go.

          • Longer. I was in despair after the Front Line First cuts of 1995!
            Then SDSR 1997.
            SDSR New Chapter 2004 was worse.
            And the worst of all, SDSR 2010, when most of us on defence forums ( there was one at that time ) were bemoaning 13 years of Labour dismantling the military, and the “Hope” that the Tories, who made all the right noises then, just like Labour did this time, would turn things round.
            It looks like Reeves has just done the dirty on defence with her vaunted 2.9 billion boost by shoving UKR money in it, so no real boost to our own forces at all.
            Even the pay increase was funded by MoD budget.
            Donald Trump says “hi” and the left are like frightened rabbits running in ever direction.
            INCREASE DEFENCE EXPENDITURE and expand the military you morons.
            Though, I still feel Labour ideologically is unable to.

        • Yes of course it included Ukraine money, they increased the overall budget and Ukraine money was part of the budget so obviously it includes Ukraine money.

          Defence spending is getting real terms increases though and the last few years it’s been getting real terms cuts.

          Painting that as we are all doomed or that we are some how a lesser power and an embarrassment to the USA as Paul T was doing is at worst inaccurate. Everyone in the world from the USA to North Korea, China and Russia are all economically f**ked just as we are. Most are cutting budgets in real terms or reducing planed increases like China.

          We are in real terms doing marginally better.

          It’s certainly nothing for us to be ashamed at like Paul is saying.

          • I think they cut 700 million this year, Jim.
            Short term maybe.
            The 2.9 should be to enhance our own forces. If a significant chunk is for UKR then to me it’s spin, again. As for Paul’s comments, the army I hope is organising itself on 2 Divisions.
            An Internal structure review is underway, Wavell.
            Mass, along with tech, logistic tail, and professionalism all count. Either just one or the other is disaster.
            A balance is needed.

        • When Reeves said there’s going to be x amount of money which will keep Defence payments in line with the economy, it was pretty obvious the best we could expect was no change in terms of GDP over all. I didn’t know what the trick was going to be, but if she had planned to increase Defence spending as a percentage of GDP, that would have been front and centre.

      • Surely you’re not trying to compare our defense budget to that of America as that would be really amusing.
        As for the comment about people no longer wanting to visit this site I’m sure there are more pertinent posts than someone merely bemoaning the state of our armed forces.
        The trite comments about ‘doubling and trebling our lethality’ whilst having no credible plan to increase man power deserves to be called out for the bullshit it undoubtedly is.

        • I agree with you. This lethality aspiration needs some detail to be provided by CGS. The replacement of upgraded Warriors (enabling a 40mm stabilised cannon per section) by Boxer dramatically reduces the infantry’s lethality….unless the army staff really can a lethality of Boxer beyond a MG… but we have heard rumours only so far.

          • Agree it needs more hard detail but the process has been ongoing for some time we already know we are getting a big increase in long range artillery.

            Given the poor performance of almost all direct fire weapons in Ukraine including 120mm I’m not sure the 40mm debate will change much.

            Indirect fires probably rules supreme now.

          • Jim, if you were in an infantry section, would you rather your wagon had a stabilised 40mm to totally take out enemy IFVs and APCs and had a range of up to 8,500m…. and give you heavy supporting direct fire when dismounted…. or that it had a poxy little MG?

        • Perhaps You should go back and re read my comments because I have no idea how you picked up that I’m comparing the US and the UK defence budgets. Are you aware what the phrase real terms increase means?

          Have you come across relative and absolute measurements before?

          As for the manpower vs lethality debate.

          Is an armoured vehicles more or less lethal than an infantry soldier ?

          Is a multiple launched rockets systems more or less lethal than a shoulder mounted missile?

          Are you aware of the process started in the army a number of years ago called mechanisation?

          If you are not then let me explain. Machines can kill more people than people so if you spend more money on machines and less money on people then you generate a more lethal force.

          This process worked out particularly well for the Germans in 1940 in France.

    • Mass certainly counts in the army, as does high tech weapons and excellent sensors and communications etc.

      At its peak we had 21,000 soldiers deployed in Northern Ireland, albeit a good number were UDR. We deployed a division to each of the two Gulf Wars, albeit ‘small-ish’ divisions.

      Around Jan 2023 a senior US general privately told Defence Secretary Ben Wallace that the British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, defence sources revealed. 

        • As it stands its all words.
          I can only suggest he means in terms of response time by better ISTAR queuing precision weapons onto target.
          Which although good, is not want most posters think of in those terms and without firepower or people, difficult.

          • So really bending the truth with no big equipment buys as normal smoke and mirrors. Warm words that will be spun into not much.

          • They’ve bought or upgraded a number of MLRS. You can check the numbers on a wide number of sources , including Army Technology.

          • I know but upgrade to A2 takes time and they buying more, some tube arty would be a good move, some warm words on RGH 155mm but no buy yet even though Ukraine have it

          • He spelled out what it meant to him: that we can defeat twice the number of peer opponents by 2027 and three times as many by 2030. Of course shortening the OODA loop will be one method. I’d guess better linkage with other domains will be another, and AI-supported decision making in the command structure a third. Focus on increased range and deep strike will give us something.

            Even though I’d hope we get better ISTAR and sensor fusion leading to increasing battlespace awareness, unless we can get past GPS denial somehow, I’m not sure more precision will be a thing. Perhaps new QPNT tech be ready in that timeframe.

          • Warm words but as always no big equipment buys nothing. Lets see how he spins this no action then? Trust in CDS and his crowd is not good.

  3. I don’t understand. Double it from what to what? What are we doubling it and trebling it from in the first place? What exactly are we doubling and trebling that’s included in the term lethality?When was the start date that they decided to double it and what did we have then? My brain hurts.

    • I suggest.
      ISTAR. ISTAR. More ISTAR.
      Linked to the Deep Fires expansion, C UAS initiatives, Boxer Overwatch, and the AD expansion, both SHORAD MRAD, that they are still to implement.
      On that, I think they were holding out for more personnel in the SDSR, but as that’s now not happening it takes some planning, moving establishments about, creating new Batteries in the RA while reducing other areas.
      It also needs a greater stockpile of ordnance.

      • I guess you’re right but I didn’t read it that way and judging by the other posts, neither did anyone else.

        General Walker’s comments re China. He noted US assessments indicating Chinas potential readiness for action over Taiwan by 2027 adding a sense of urgency to the British Army’s plans for enhanced lethality.

        Almost sounds like he is saying we would go to war with China if they invade Taiwan. Otherwise why would that scenario add any urgency when they are half the planet away?

        • How would the British Army go to war with China?
          Forget sizes, how would they be transported there and where would they land?!
          The army needs to concentrate on Russia and organise itself to put SIX proper all arms brigades in the field, 2 Divisions, not the mash up that exists now of Brigades being in two places at once and without CS CSS.
          The RN can do the China thing, though I’d hope we stay away and support the US by relieving US units from other areas and hold strategic points.

        • On the army, just to add to your morning pleasure, rumours on Twitter of a reduction to 63K floating around.

          Maybe Starmer, Reeves and Healey will wake up and pay attention when Trump asks allies to spend more in their own interest and own defence?
          I’m sure he won’t hold back when the cuts come in.

      • I agree, ISTAR and direct long range precious fire is the new king of warfare.

        It’s quite easy and cheap to triple that in comparisons with tripling armoured units or infantry units.

        • Add GBAD and the comments on doubling MRAD and Tripling SHORAD
          Add Drones in all forms.
          Intelligence and technology, augmented by Drones and AI, is where we are heading.
          Still need enough “deployable” mass though which is why im holding out in Wavell giving 2 Proper Divisions from the headcount we have, not the 80k or 90k the army wouid like.
          Alongside this, the RN, RAF and intell community as ever remain the primary areas for me.

    • Indeed , it will be interesting to see what metrics they use to measure the ‘before’ and ‘after’ appraisals…

    • If we look at what is responsible for most equipment losses in Ukraine, then narrow our search down to just things that fall under the Army’s remit, we quickly find ourselves presented with just 3 systems that seem to have an outsized impact on lethality.

      Drones, Self Propelled Guns, and Multiple Lauch Rocket Systems.

      Therefore, if we give every section a First Person View drone, and double our SPG and MRLS numbers (whilst also making sure we have sufficient ISTAR capability to take advantage of these new and shiny toys) then we can pretty credibly say we have doubled if not tripled our lethality.

      That won’t be cheap, but it is a lot more likely than just doubling the head count.

      • I’d take that all day long as would most I would guess. Along with munitions. Doubtful that will happen in the foreseeable future though.

      • BOOM.
        Some Brigades need proper CS CSS too.
        We need to forget the desire for an 80k army or a 90k and organise what we have, that bring proper all arms Brigades with firepower.
        The lib Dems election pledge, army to 100k is one such meaningless gimik.

        • Indeed,job one role changes for some of the brigades

          if we look at 1st division

          11 brigade, what is the point of a brigade that is simply nothing more than 4 light role battalions..essentially get rid of 11 brigade entirely and use the manpower and resources to ensure other brigades are balanced and fully deployable.

          Essentially anything 11 brigade could do 4th light brigade could do with large number of light role battalions..that’s all the light role ( excluding airmobile) that’s needed, infact if you needed the manpower you for other support functions you could drop a light role battalion as it has 6. But 4th brigade does need an organic artillery regiment and CCS.

          7th light mechanised brigade, really needs a couple of its infantry battalions in proper APCs not just light protected mobility vehicles.

          16air assault, could do with some more lethality around its fires.

          With 3rd Division,

          1st brigade, is essentially now simply cav and artillery that needs one of the 2 armoured brigades to deploy with it. I think the army needs to stop pretending it’s an independently deployable brigade, it’s not as it has no infantry. Personally I think they should keep three MBT regiments and give 1st brigade an MBT regiment and some armoured infantry or mec infantry battalions. If they think the modern battlefield needs more cavalry and artillery for the deep battle then they should ensure each of the deployable independent brigades has more fires and Cav..not shove it together in one brigade that has no heavy armour or infantry and reduce your deployable heavy brigades to 2.

          so for me..scrap 11 brigade completely and us it’s manpower to:

          1) turn 1st brigade back into a fully deployable heavy brigade…with heavy armour and mec or armoured infantry..use the excessive Cav and artillery regiments to bolster cav and artillery in all the deployable brigades ( if you need more cav and artillery for the deep battle then every brigade should have it, as it’s unlikely the British army will ever deploy a full division in one place again and almost all large deployments will be brigade level at best).

          2) strengthen 4th light brigades support ( as well as some more artillery and cav) and increase its mobility with light protected mobility vehicles.
          3) make 7th light mec a bit heavier with APC.

          That would essentially give the army 6 deployable brigades, three heavy (1st 12th 20th) with MBT, armoured infantry or mec infantry and heavy self propelled fires. Then 3 infantry brigades, all air deployable if needed, with organic cav, artillery and CCS.

          • I’m in total agreement.
            I’d caution however that finding a regular RA Regiment, RE Regiment, RLC Regiment for 4 Bde plus the expansions needed in 16 and 12 RA to double and triple GBAD while expanding deep fires to it’s, reported, 8 Batteries plus Reseve Batteries will take more than losing the Battalions in 11 Bde, as they are already well below the establishment of a Light Infantry Battalion.
            More internal shuffling is needed.
            On DRSB, while I like the concept, I agree at heart it is a cynical attempt by the army to make it look like it has more deployable Brigades than it has.
            Its a DAG, with no Regular CSS of its own save a REME Bn.
            Dern showed a few months back in an ORBAT chart how these changes are doable with the units, establishment we have now.
            The Artillery and Engineers for 4 already exist in 29RA and 24RE.
            Hell, assign 4 Bde as a winter outfit to support Finland to make good use of 29 and 24s arctic skills and in war assign 45 Cdo to them as well.

          • Not quite. It was a chart showing how we could get 2 Divisions (1 Armoured, 1 Mechanised) of 3 Brigades + 1 Reserve Brigade, plus 1 DSR, 11 SFA, Rangers and UKCF without any uptick in Teeth Arms units. It still required standing up 7 Regular CS and CSS Regiments (and a few Reservist ones too).

            But in peacetime you end up with 6 Combat Brigades each consisting of 4 Maneuver elements, growing to 8 Combat Brigades of 5 Maneuver elements on mobilization.

  4. “lethality” Targets shmargets… what a load of old pony! The only way to ‘double’ or whatever how lethal an army is, is to have more of it. With less than 73,000 (with god alone knows how many are queuing up to leave) in the Army, and 9,000 or less Infantry, what world are these people living in!

    • Those numbers are for sure an issue, tech can only get you so far raw numbers are also essential. It was only a few years ago that they were aiming for the ability to deploy 50k troops, guessing that is now sub 30k or 20.

  5. We await what this means in reality.
    More precision fires.
    More GMLRS.
    More AD
    More ISTAR linking it together.
    Knowledge is power.
    Only issue is you still need bodies and greater mass then we now posess, and firepower.
    If the army ever actually announce how they intend to do this it’ll he good.

  6. Does anybody know how the lethality of the British Army is calculated? It would be nice to know what it is currently, so that I can tell if the MOD has met its goals for 2027 and 2030. Maybe the British Army will be able to fill Wembley Stadium by 2027, and one and a half by 2030. Though that type of measure probably exposes the MOD to too much scrutiny. Not good when you are looking to get your annual bonus.

    • One of the best questions I have seen on these pages! I was in the army for 34 years and I never saw a definition or a measure of lethality.

      It certainly is not simply the number of soldiers in the Field Army as many have little to no lethality. My entire Corps (REME) comprising 10% of the army, did a great job, but you could not reasonably apply a lethality metric to our soldiers.

      I think you could create a lethality metric, based on scientific principles. Much easier to do this for RN and RAF assets but could be done for the army. Unwilling to say much more, for fear of being shot down in flames!

  7. Perhaps some of you arm chair Generals could try some simple arithmetic exercises. Look at the likely casualty rates of our armour in the first few days and weeks of conflict in Europe. Factor in damage and time to repair. Then factor in simple mechanical breakdowns. With no reserves sitting invarying states of readiness in warehouses in UK I would suggest mass does matter because by the end of week 2 it is very unlikely we will have much of a fighting force left.

    • Where have you seen the “generals” on here say anything else other than we are far too small?
      Just to counter your point a tad though if you are comparing Ukraine to how a NATO army would fight it is chalk and cheese! Ukraine has NO AirPower to speak off unlike NATO with strategic bombers down to attack helicopters on the front line.

    • Well since you’re so big on arithmetic exercises, maybe scale that to the loss rates for 2 brigades rather than an entire front.

  8. I’ve figured it out: if you quarter the manpower, and halve the equipment, the remaining force is twice as ‘lethal’

  9. Do they have an actual plan? How on earth are they going to double the “lethality” (whatever that means) in 3 years and triple it 3 years after that? Especially without extra funding.

  10. On this £2.9 bn extra for the forces, it was widely reported that this was to pay for two things, the 6% pay settlement and increasing our depleted weapons stockpile.

    That was how it was reported on BBC News, British Foreign Policy Group, Forces News and others, looked like they picked up on the same press release from…the MOD?

    However, the official text for the budget announcements described a host of things the money was for – ISTAR drones, special Forces, etc, etc, as well as including money for Ukraine.

    I think that the text covering the budget is a fanciful piece of writing. The pay rise will cost about £1bn pa, according to Forces News. Contracts are being placed now for various munitions to replenish the stockpiles, and £1.9 bn is not a large sum to do that with.

    Conclusion: the £2.9bn was indeed earmarked for pay rises and replacement munitions alone. HM Treasury doesn’t hand out large sums for miscellaneous purposes.

    Did it include money for Ukraine as well? Ben Wallace seems to think so in his Times piece but I think he is being misled by the accompanying budget text. Breaking Defense covers the increase in detail. It writes that the defence budget also includes a commitment to spending £3bn a year on Ukraine. Obviously that could not come from the one-off £2.9bn for pay and munitions!

    The text accompanying the budget is a briefing note summarising the budget measures for the House
    it looks to me like a misleading piece of spin. Would uKDJ let me post the text here or a link to it?

    • I never did see those statements that the £2.9bn was to reimburse MoD for the pay award and to pay for stockpile enhancements.
      Perhaps they were assumptions made by Defence journalists from some sort of MoD briefing. The official budget statement would have been more authoritative. As you say £1.9bn (of the £2.9bn) for stockpile replenishment does not go far.

      But to get anything out of Reeves this side of SDR was a bonus, and somewhat unexpected. But if the money is largely earmarked for the Ukraine military rather than the British military, that is of no direct benefit to the latter.

      ‘Smoke and mirrors’ is at work and even an experienced player such as Ben Wallace may be being misled or misinformed.

      The bigger question is about what will happen in the SDR.

      • Don’t get me wrong help Ukraine by all means, however the UK have a habitat of putting other’s first before our own .

  11. You need a certain amount of mass to fight a war, as well as the latest technology weapons and munitions. The mini size the army has been reduced to would not last for very long on the modern battlefield, whether or not armed with more GMLRS, fpv drones or whatever.

    Breaking Defense reminds us that the UK is committed to fielding a strategic reserve corps of 2 divisions + corps troops to NATO. That is pretty small beer. But we seem to have talked ourselves into pretending that one warfighting division is all we need – then providing the equipment to furnishing about half a division.

    No wonder the US General said we are no longer a first-rate power! It is frankly embarrassing how little we could actually put in the field. Agree with Jonathan and Daniel that the minimum force level needed is 6 manoeuvre brigades. That should really be 6 armoured infantry brigades, but that is beyond us now. 3 armoured infantry bdes, a mechanised bde on Boxer, a light brigade on Foxhound and 16 Air Assault bde, not quite what required but would just about meet our NATO commitment.

    The hard reality is that this would require an increase in army numbers. For 6 brigades and our other existing commitments, we would need 35 infantry bns, 13 armoured regts, 7 field artillery regts for a start. That would be an increase of 5, 3 and 2 respectively. Add on divisional artillery, air defence, engineers, AAC, RLC, Signals etc and we would need an increase equivalent to about 18 bns and 10,000 troops.That allows for scrapping 1 DRS Bde, putting the GMLRS and Archer in an artillery brigade and the recon regts into the manoeuvre bdes.

    I.e. back to the army strength we had of 82,000 for starters, before Osborn’s successors sliced another 10,000 off the force. A 15% increase in trained strength, wh8ch an increase to 2.5% of GDP would permit.

    It is amusing when one on here complains that we are running down our army and that all we need is more lethal weapons! We do not have the numbers to hold even a small line Jim, let alone operate these fancy war-winning weapons that we can’t anyway afford in any useful numbers.

    As said before, increasing the lethality of the army is just smoke, mirrors and spin. Look, Starstreak is much more lethal than Rapier! Except we don’t have any Rapier, withdrawn from service and gapped.Ditto Ajax with its 40mm cannon as opposed to the 30mm one on Scimitar! Problem is we are just replacing old kit with newer, more capable kit. Of course it is more effective, but so is the enemy’s new kit – we don’t have any advantage over them, we are just playing catch up.

    And continually cutting what little mass we have left to pay for it. Result is that we now have by far the smallest and arguably the least well equipped of the 5 main Western European nations.

    Talk about lethality is the kind of nonsense MOD civilian PROs give to Generals to read out.

    • If the UK declares a Corps to NATO for strategic reserve use, that is far from small beer. How on earth is a Corps a small offering?

      Although it is not a Corps in the old 1 (BR) Corps sense, a Corps comprising HQ ARRC (British led and British framework), an ‘armoured’ division, an ‘infantry’ division and Corps Troops is a substantial contribution. That ‘infantry’ division (1 Div) would of course require numerous AR soldiers to to be called up complete its Orbat.

      Very true that 3 Div is shaky: much elderly, largely unmodernised equipment, especially AFVs; some sizeable capability gaps especially in artillery numbers; a poor Orbat especially lacking a proper third manouevre brigade with tanks and infantry; insufficient stocks of missiles, ammunition; a degradation of infantry ‘punch’ and cross-country mobility by phasing out tracked IFVs in favour of wheeled APCs.

      1 Div also has its structural (and other) weaknesses.

      Not only are we just replacing (slowly) old kit for new but the equipment numbers reduce at each iteration. Just 148 new tanks ordered when we once ordered 386 tanks for v.1 of the post-Cold War army. Just half the army’s required number of Boxers have been ordered.

      Sadly I can’t see Labour giving the army the money to allow 10,000 more troops, or anything like it. They may raise the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP in a shortish timescale but 3% or a lot more is really required. This then is a serious dilemma…and the money will be tight to afford all the equipment that is required at the right quality and quantity.

      SDR is likely to be a ‘smoke and mirrors’ exercise. Some radical ideas might be required like leasing equipment, as was done with the first of the C-17s.

      • A 2-division Corps is pretty small but, in a NATO context, we could amend ‘small beer’ to ‘comparatively small beer’.

        That is a fair description when we look at our small force next to the other main Western European NATO members.

        Army strength:

        France: 118,600
        Germany: 105,000 *
        Italy: 97,755
        Spain: 85,978
        Uk: 72,000

        Manoeuvre brigades:

        Italy: 10
        Germany: 8.5 **
        Spain: 8 ***
        France: 6.5
        UK: 4 (+1 non-deployable)

        Most others have significant additional forces. France for instance has 2 Legionnare regts, 11 large battalions overseas. 6 regional infantry bns etc.,etc.

        We have a cunning ruse when doubt is cast on our minimalist land forces. Ah, we say, but we are an ISLAND and need to emphasise our navy and patrol the world’s oceans!

        That of course falls a bit flat when France and Italy, which have comparable navies, can also field somewhat larger land forces.

        Ah, we then say, but we are a long way from Poland, let the other European nations do the heavy lifting! That again falls flat in NATO, as all are required to contribute to collective defence and contributions are based on population size, not road or sea miles to the battle zone.

        The bottom line is that we have too little to spend anyway, as the nuclear submarine programme gobbles up 36% of our equipment budget, then we lumber ourselves with carriers that we couldn’t afford and suchlike symbols.

        Net result is that we now have a pokey little Army and air force and risk being viewed as backsliders in NATO.

        I agree wholly with the rest of your post!

        * German Army strength is stated as 63,000, but there are a further 42,000 in their tri-service Support (logistics, MPs) and Medical services.

        ** The 8th brigade, for Lithuania, becomes operational in 2025.

        *** Spain has 3 further brigade-sized forces in Ceute, Melilla and Canaries.

        • While I agree with the general sentiment, some of those numbers are REALLY optimistic:

          Italy might have 10 Brigades on paper, but:
          Pozzuolo di Friuli is basically a Marine Battle Group.
          Granatieri di Sardegna is a non-deployable garrison unit for the Capitol
          Sassari lacks any organic Artillery.

          Germany has 8 Brigades but (depending on what you’re counting)
          The Franco German Brigade is obviously a mixed brigade.
          Panzer “Lehr” Brigade 9, Panzergrenadier Brigade 41, Luftlandebrigade 1, and Gebirgsjaeger Brigade 23 all lack any organic artillery (and the Divisional Artillery is limited to one Regiment for the 1st and 10th Panzer Divisions, and non existend for Division Schnelle Kraefte).
          The KSK is a special forces formation.

          Let’s do apples to apples then shall we? Because if you’re counting Italian Brigades that are basically battalion groups or fixed in the capital, then why aren’t we counting 11 SFAB and the London District, if we’re counting German and Italian formations that are lacking organic artillery, then why aren’t we counting 4 Brigade which at least has reservists aligned to it, or 1 DSR that’s lacking infantry?
          If we’re counting the KSK why aren’t we counting UKSF and the Rangers?

          Apples to Apples, while we are still small (and yes Spain has a large army, they just don’t seem to do a lot with it), but not as small as you are making out.

          (Britain also retains overseas garrison units btw we just bury them within 4 and 7 Brigades instead of giving them their own commands)

          • But then so do Italy, Germany, France etc. And once you stop talking about maneuver formations and SF/SOF they’re composition and purpose becomes so diverse that it’s impossible to make a comparison, apples to apples.

          • Very good Dern. I don’t however agree with some of your points.

            The list I put up above sets out all-arms combat manoeuvre brigades. It does not include Special Forces units, small infantry-only, brigades-in-name only outfits like the SFAB in 11 Bde or the Rangers or the pile of unsupported units in 4 Bde.

            In detail, I didn’t include the Sardinian Grenadiers “brigade” in Rome, as it is a small public duties outfit, not a deployable brigade.

            I idid nclude the San Marco Marine infantry brigade, as that is a deployable warfighting brigade force.

            A battle group is generally one infantry bn with some attached cs and css troops. The Lagunari (Pozzuolo del Frio) is hardly a battle group, not with 5 all-arms bn-sized units! I agree it is short of infantry though, not sure what the plan is there.

            2 of the German brigades do indeed lack a field artillery bn. Conversely, both 1 and 10 Divs, unlike our Divs, have a Pz2000 SP artillery regt on their strength, so they have the guns and assume they would be deployed with the forward bdes as needed.

            As said, I didn’t include any SF units, like the GSK. Germany currently has 7.5 bdes, the 0.5 being their half of the Joint Franco-German arm infantry bde. They have an additional bde forming at the moment for Lithuania, stands up in 2025. Hence 8.5 German combat manoeuvre brigades.

            We can nitpick our allies’ forces all day long, but the fact remains that the UK’s contribution on the battlefield is by far the smallest in our peer group. We have basically run our combat forces into the ground, particularly over the last 14 years, and have little to bring to the party.

            We make all sorts of excuses and implausible explanations, but alas neither will be much use when we’re facing oncoming Russian/Evilaxis forces heading our way. The principal value of a wheeled Boxer is that we might be able to beat a hasty retreat.

          • Well that’s not true, because if you look at the Italian Army in order to reach 10 Brigades you have to include small infantry only brigades, which is PRECISELY why I took you to task about the unfair comparison.

            If you use the standards YOU applied to the British Army for the Italian Army they have about 7 brigades,

            The Lagunari have supporting units, but they have 1(!) Infantry Battalion as their combat strength, they are not a manuever formation, they are a heavily supported Battlegroup. (If you want to count it fine, but then you should be counting 1 DSR, hell you should at that point probably be counting 104 Log brigade as it has a single infantry unit with a load of CSS units around it).

            You choose to include the Italian Marines, but discount ours, despite ours having more manpower and supporting artillery and engineers (doctrinal decisions aside) so again, this is a double standard that I’d highlight.(BTW since you asked the plan with the Pozzuolo del Friuli, since you asked, is that it’ll merge with the San Marco brigade’s 1st Regiment to form an actual formation that can fight, basically turning into the Italian version of UKCF, Marines with Army enablers).

            As for the Germans: For starters we have 4 Artillery Regiments covering 2 Brigades in 3 UK Div, while the German situation is reversed 3 Brigades sharing a single divisional fires unit. So the divisional artillery claim’s a bit bunk. Secondly none of their light forces have any artillery, while at least 7, 16 and UKCF have artillery. Without artillery the German Formations might as well stay at home, or they’ll have to beg borrow and steal, like 4 Brigade (and at least 4 has reservists aligned to it if a all out war happens, unlike the missing German Artillery).

            The Germans aren’t creating a new Brigade for Lithuania either, at least not uplifting, they are taking their EFP Battalion, and deploying a Panzerbattalion from 1 Panzer Divsion, and a Panzergrenadier Battalion from 10th along with a host of CS and CSS units to create it. That’s not a huge problem except it’ll leave the 3 Brigades in 1 Division supported by a single Artillery Battalion, leaving the division effectively non-deployable in the short term. But again, that’s something you ignore in the comparison.

            This isn’t nitpicking, this is pointing out that while the UK has a smaller ground force than our allies, the situation is nowhere near as dire as you are making out by using uneven standards. You ignore everything that makes any allied brigade questionable, while doing everything in your power to discount a British one, and then act like it’s a reasonable comparison. It’s not.

            The final boxer dig is equally risible, for starters not every unit on the battlefield is an armoured infantry unit with IFV’s, and plenty of Mechanised APC units exist that are formidable in the offensive, let alone defending (or do you think 16 AA is just good for “running away?” Or the Alpini? Or the two German Brigades with no Artillery in DSK that you counted?) Secondly I note again that you don’t say the same cirticism of Panzerbrigade 21, which also is only equipped with Boxer APC’s. Except of course, our Boxers are going to be supported by Artillery and MLRS systems, and Panzerbrigade 21 will not…

        • Thanks for the detailed answer.

          Options for Change cut the reg army from 160,000 to 120,000 following a considered analysis as to what the post-Cold War army required. We also ordered a mere 386 tanks for ops in the brave new world.

          ‘Options’ warned of the possible need to face a resurgent Russia but did not ‘predict’ the Gulf Wars which required a sizeable army commitment or anything remotely like Op HERRICK in Afghanistan.
          Multiple cuts since to 102k, then 95k, then 82k and now down to 73k have all been to save money and not because the Threat possibilities have reduced.

          Many, especially senior US officers and politicians, have said that our army failed in Iraq and Afghanistan – and that in part was due to our light troop levels (I firmly believe we needed an Inf Div in Helmand) ….and this was many years before before cuts to 73k.
          If we really did fail on TELIC and HERRICK, might the army certainly fail in the next major operation with its even more depleted numbers?

          Even if a Labour politician sometime over the next year shouts from the rooftops that we can contribute a Corps to NATO, we know the rather shocking reality.

  12. Re: “artificial intelligence”

    Well, everyone SHOULD of course get what AI is REALLY all about but most people CHOOSE not to want to understand it …

    Like with every criminal inhumane self-concerned agenda of theirs the psychopaths-in-control sell and propagandize AI to the timelessly foolish (=”awake”) public with total lies such as AI being the benign means to connect, unit, transform, benefit, and save humanity.

    The official narrative is… “trust official science” and “trust the authorities” but as with these and all other “official narratives” they want you to trust and believe …

    “We’ll know our Disinformation Program is complete when everything the American public [and global public] believes is false.” —William Casey, a former CIA director=a leading psychopathic criminal of the genocidal US regime

    “Repeating what others say and think is not being awake. Humans have been sold many lies…God, Jesus, Democracy, Money, Education, etc. If you haven’t explored your beliefs about life, then you are not awake.” — E.J. Doyle, songwriter

    The FAKE narrative (ie propaganda) nearly everyone, including “alternative news” sources, have been spreading is that the TRULY big threat is that AI just creates utter chaos in society and that it might achieve control over humans. Therefore it must be regulated.

    The TRUE narrative (ie empirical reality) virtually no one talks about or spreads is that the TRULY big threat with AI is that AI allows the governing psychopaths-in-power to materialize their ultimate wet dream to control and enslave everyone and everything on the whole planet, a process that’s long been ongoing in front of everyone’s “awake” (=sleeping, dumb) nose …. https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html

    The proof is in the pudding… ask yourself, “how is the hacking of the planet going so far? Has it increased or crushed personal freedom?”

    Since many of the same criminal establishment “expert” psychopaths, such as Musk (https://archive.ph/9ZNsL) and Harari (Harari is the psychopath affiliated with Schwab’s WEF [https://www.bitchute.com/video/Alhj4UwNWp2m]) or Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI” who have for many years helped develop, promote, and invest in AI are now suddenly supposedly have a change of heart (they grew a conscience overnight) and warn the public about AI it’s clear their current call for a temporary AI ban and/or its regulation is just a manipulative tactic to misdirect and deceive the public, once again.

    “AI responds according to the “rules” created by the programmers who are in turn owned by the people who pay their salaries. This is precisely why Globalists want an AI controlled society- rules for serfs, exceptions for the aristocracy.” —Unknown

    “Almost all AI systems today learn when and what their human designers or users want.” —Ali Minai, Ph.D., American Professor of Computer Science, 2023

    “Who masters those technologies [=artificial intelligence (AI), chatbots, and digital identities] —in some way— will be the master of the world.” — Klaus Schwab, at the World Government Summit in Dubai, 2023

    “COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance.” — Yuval Noah Harari, member of the dictatorial ruling mafia of psychopaths, World Economic Forum [https://archive.md/vrZGf]

    “The whole idea that humans have this soul, or spirit, or free will … that’s over.” — Yuval Noah Harari, member of the dictatorial ruling mafia of psychopaths, World Economic Forum [https://archive.md/vrZGf]

  13. i love you Pa,my best Pal
    sometimes your POP😀
    see you when i see you
    lots of love to our family
    this is Marshall♾️always trying to check your six
    A humble servant to the King
    All HAIL THE KING
    LONG LIVE THE KING

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here