General Sir Patrick Sanders has said that the British Army is not mobilising to provoke war – it is mobilising to prevent war
The Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders’ speech at the RUSI Land Warfare Conference 2022 can be found here, below is an excerpt.
“I stand here as the first Chief of the General Staff since 1941 to take up this position in the shadow of a major state on state land war in Europe. As I do, I’m reminded of the words of a man in whose footsteps I tread. In relative obscurity, and recognising the impending danger the nation faced, the then Brigadier Bernard Montgomery wrote this in the pages of that magnificent publication Royal Engineers’ Journal of 1937:
We have got to develop new methods, and learn a new technique…. There is no need to continue doing a thing merely because it has been done in the Army for the last thirty or forty years – if this is the only reason for doing it, then it is high time we changed and did something else.
For us, today, that “something else” is mobilising the Army to meet the new threat we face: a clear and present danger that was realised on 24th February when Russia used force to seize territory from Ukraine, a friend of the United Kingdom. But let me be clear, the British Army is not mobilising to provoke war – it is mobilising to prevent war.”
The steps to do this were outlined later in the speech.
“To mobilise the Army I intend to drive activity across four focused lines of effort:
First, and most importantly, boosting readiness. NATO needs highly ready forces that can deploy at short notice for the collective defence of alliance members. Deterring Russia means more of the Army ready more of the time, and ready for high-intensity war in Europe. So we will pick up the pace of combined arms training, and major on urban combat. We will re-build our stockpiles and review the deployability of our vehicle fleet. And having seen its limitations first-hand as the Commander of the Field Army, I think we need to ask ourselves whether Whole Fleet Management is the right model given the scale of the threat we face. The time has come to be frank about our ability to fight if called upon.
Second, we will accelerate the modernisation outlined in Future Soldier. NATO needs technologically advanced modern armies able to deploy at speed and fight together. They must be able to integrate effects across the domains, all stitched together by a sophisticated and robust command, control and communication network. We will seek to speed up the delivery of planned new equipments including long range fires, attack aviation, persistent surveillance and target acquisition, expeditionary logistic enablers, Ground Based Air Defence, protected mobility, and the technologies that will prove pivotal to our digital ambition: CIS and Electronic Warfare. Most importantly, this will start now – not at some ill-defined point in the future.
Third, we will re-think how we fight. We’ve been watching the war in Ukraine closely and we are already learning and adapting. Not least to the help of RUSI, Many of the lessons are not new – but they are now applied. We will double-down on combined arms manoeuvre, especially in the deep battle, and devise a new doctrine rooted in geography, integrated with NATO’s war plans and specific enough to drive focused, relevant investment and inspire the imagination of our people to fight and win if called upon.
And Fourth, I am prepared to look again at the structure of our Army. If we judge that revised structures will make the Army better prepared to fight in Europe, then we will follow Monty’s advice and do “something else”. Now of course adapting structures has implications for the size of the Army – and I know that there will be questions on Army numbers locked, loaded and ready to fire from the audience! Put simply, the threat has changed and as the threat changes, we will change with it. My job is to build the best Army possible, ready to integrate with fellow Services and Strategic command and ready to fight alongside our allies. Obviously our Army has to be affordable; nonetheless, it would be perverse if the CGS was advocating reducing the size of the Army as a land war rages in Europe and Putin’s territorial ambitions extend into the rest of the decade, and beyond Ukraine.”
I’m assuming he knows a budget increase is coming how else does he plan to increase the speed of any procurement or stockpiles otherwise. Anyway nice to see things being taken seriously for a change
Sound like he’s laying the groundwork for politicians to say “things have changes since the last review so we need another asap” which will then result in a budget bump.
You’d have to hope so. I notice Ben Wallace is talking about an increase which must be aimed at the Chancellor. I’d prefer them to sort this out behind closed doors but perhaps this is the best way to secure additional funding when most departments will be after the same.
Think I’d rather keep it quiet too but it’s a double edged sword. Keep it too quiet, then the public care less and less about it. ‘Squeaky wheel gets the oil’ so to speak… make a couple of carefully placed murmurs & if it gets traction in the press, swings the cabinet in your favour. Then you all come out as ‘we collectively decided this’.
Why keep it quiet, if they were going to increase the budget Bojo would have been all over it at the start of the NATO conference.
Not saying they made the decision yet bud.
Saying Army & Wallace want one, lay ground work with this statement & “leak” from Wallace, then press build pressure on cabinet, PM goes with it because his Mrs read something on Twitter and ta-da! Budget bumped.
All pure speculation of course. I’m no better informed than anyone else here. Just what I think kinda makes sense.
From what I read the ship has sailed, the vast debt mountain the Troys have built as the UK economy drops off a cliff has given the Treasury all the excuses it needs. Russia’s abysmal performance and European NATO increasing budget has not helped matters. The UK is now rocking the third largest defence budget in the world hard to argue for an increase in the climate.
You mean the debt mountain that was racked up keeping the country employed and businesses going due to the global pandemic?
Im sure if Labour had been in and let everything go bankrupt but had no mountain of debt that wouldnt be a moaning point.
It’s a pity Sanders didn’t get up on his hind legs and make some noise earlier. It’s only taken 8 years persecution and killing in Eastern Ukraine, with a few months of actual combat. For the useless ______ (insert your own swear word) to see the bloody obvious. Senor officers are the spokesmen of the armed forces. When they fail to take politicians to task over damaging budget cuts. It’s no good blaming them now.
Quote from the song.
I’m gonna say this now
Your chance has come and gone
And you know, It’s just too little too late
Seeing BoJo and the other NATO leaders on TV mutually back slapping over Finland and Sweden. Then listening to the rhetoric and drivel from that clown Biden. I think BoJo has no option but increase the budgets as an emergency measure. The “do gooders” can kiss bye bye to the overseas aid budget for the foreseeable future. Plus a few other things.
Such a pity we have let our armed forces shrink to an all time low. Even when the world at large has become considerably more dangerous.
Oh well, at least we retired Toms get to shout at the incompetent head shed and politicians.
“We told you so, you chuffing numpties!”
Time to move from 2% to What Is Required? If the economy contracts due to recession, then of course 2 / 2.5% ends up as less equipment and manpower. Then there’s this:
https://www.forces.net/politics/johnson-faces-defence-spending-row-nato-leaders-gather
In the early 80’s defence spending was around 4.5%. The world is just as, if not more, dangerous now. I would go for 5%, but that I suspect would be pie in the sky.
Aware, Nicholas. It’s the cart before horse aspect that’s looking dodgy to me. What’s needed for the threat ‘within reason’? Afterwards, it can be calculated in percentage terms, if that appeals.
1000% sir! Been saying the same for so long, it’s a relief to see someone else saying it (thought I was going potty!).
Thank God you’re not a shit stirrer.
😆
👍
I can remember when the army shed 27000 jobs over 3 years 91 – 93 I even took redundancy myself as I only had 2 years left to go, but it seemed like madness to me at the time and the start of a very slippery slope that has continued over several defence reviews since. I always get so pissed off when the top brass have uttered the party line of ‘Leaner and Fitter’ who the hell falls for that crap, no one. Time to get those recruiter’s into schools with that old message ‘Join the Army and learn a trade or Join the Army and see the world.
Limited knowledge on how figures are arrived at, thought generally default to their being more available funding spin than what’s sensible for defence.
In a crisis, the speed with which we’d commit the regulars and then reserves – both of whom have the required mindset at least – and then start looking at youngsters who did not see that as their way ahead, will prove an unnecessary handicap in my opinion. It’s not like the path we’re on isn’t writ clear.
Not denigrating our youth as they will answer the call to a great extent, but the public would know why they are called up for training and deployment so soon i.e. as like as not before events get existential. Just my take.
Rgs
GG, The point I was trying to make is simply that the army has been cut too far, I’d have thought that 100k would be an absolute minimum for a country our size. Obviously if they went that way it would take some innovative recruiting as lets face it, its probably not the most attractive career path these days, but to have that truely professional army people have to join because they want to. When I left school I started at the gas board working in the Hire Purchase dept It didn’t involve much training and I was no futher on after 2 years in the job, when I joined the army I found the trade training to be the best I’ve ever had and it stretched me futher than I’ve ever been stretched though my instructors I always found tuaght me in such a way it made things simple. I always found self motivation came easy through competition with other crews and wanting to be on the best crew. I think the army has to go back to basics though making sure our military are properly looked after.
Morning, I can see that one or two phrases may have mislead. No disagreement with you, just government policy. Certainly at this time, don’t get rid of more professionals that will need supplementing soon enough.
Started as Gas Board as well.
In the 80’s the Soviet Union had several millions soldiers poised to cross in to Western Europe and it had the largest defence Budget in the world. What about today is anything close to that?
Definitely pie in the sky. 5% would be approx. £100 billion per year.
While it would be nice I can’t see it being palatable, especially at the moment, trying to justify a tax increase or cuts to other services in the current climate.
I’d be happy with a bump to 2.5% (£50 billion/year)
As much as it would be nice its also not affordable at all, tax increases are vote losers and cutting services is the same, plus the country cant take any cuts to most services currently.
Said this below but I’ll post it here too as I think we’re on the same page bud. It’s a synopsis of a larger idea & quite simplified but;
‘Before we spend another penny, it would make sense to make some reforms about defence spending & the MoD.
I’ve argued for an age that we have funding a**e-backwards. We (the UK) currently have a budget each year & the branches then argue for their programmes to be funded. Some are then delayed or slowed to spread to cost (increasing total cost & leading to capability gaps!), some cancelled just before they bear fruit & some sunk costs are followed by more money.
What we should be doing is to decide what we want to be in the world, what capabilities we therefore need & then buy it in the most efficient manner possible. We have to start thinking longer term.‘
Shame China and Russia will only give us the shorter term. Oh, well WTF.
+ 100% your last paragraph.
Don’t be crazy, no one has done anything like that since labour in 1998. Better just to work out the minimum defence spending you can get away with without getting bashed by the Americans then cheat on that level by adding in pensions and aid spending or any other grey areas you can get away with while talking about punching above our weight. Meanwhile turn a defence review into a defence and security review so you can add in cyber security and boarder protection and a host of other things that have nothing to do with the military but make it look like your allocating money to defence instead of cutting it. You need to start thinking like a Tory when it comes to defence. Talk a good game while gutting core capabilities, turning new weapons in to razor blades and saving as many Cao badges as you can.
Let’s not get to bashing one party or another. They’re both a shower of *******.
Agreed, both absolutely bloody useless……
EU nations were crying when Trump told them to do at least 2%. Most just ignored him. Now most of them are rushing to increase their defense spending. LOL
Love him or loathe him, he was right about a lot of stuff…
No, just defence spending. That was it.
🥱
Maybe Borders too.
Very true. The US economy was doing great, low inflation, gasoline less than half the cost it is now, ect. He told EU countries over and over again to start doing more for their own defense. They just laughed and ignored him like the old hag Merkel did. Enter the Biden era. American economy tanking, stock market down over 25%, inflation higher than it’s been in 40 years, ect. Putin invades Ukraine for the 2nd time while Biden is at the White House. Biden removed all the sanctions Trump put on the Chicoms. I could go on and on. Yet the leftist, liberal media continues their hate on Trump and does everything they can to convince people that Biden is good for America and the free world even given the evidence that he’s been a complete failure as a public servant over 45 years. But someone he’s amassed a 200million dollar personal fortune on a public servant’s salary. People are so ignorant now days.
Not the forum and I’m no die hard Trump fan, but you’re 99% correct bud.
If I may; Inflation. It’s clearly been exacerbated by the current administrations slowing of drilling permits adding to a rise in fuel price, which has knock on effects on… well, everything. The primary cause (in my opinion) isn’t Biden, it is the Fed & it’s infinite money printer. This was happening before, during and after Trump. Getting worse now though I believe.
Sadly we’re doing similar things. You don’t need to be Adam Smith to understand that more money in circulation = less value.
Media: it’s why I yawned at the above bud. Sounded too much like someone with Trump Derangement Syndrome so can’t accept he did some daft stuff and some good stuff. Very rare anyone is 100% bad/evil.
Lot could still be talking not walking, including out lot.
It might be that his heard an increase is possible and his putting the case publically, in hope it will push the policticans over the edge on the yes/no question
He’s hankering after the inflation plus 0.5% which I’ve just read the government isn’t going to honour. They are blaming the 400billion they wasted on lockdowns as to why they will break a manifesto pledge
Notice the different interpretation of ‘2019’. Ordinary folk would say ‘3 years ago’, politicians a ‘different age’. Really? Where there is a bona fide different age, it’s called Putin. But that’s not what’s referred to.
What do you mean by ‘wasted on lockdowns’?
Weird, most people wouldn’t categorise saving hundreds of thousands of lives (by locking down) as being a waste of money, but then socialists have never valued human lives.
Not the forum but; Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Florida, Texas. No lockdown but similar casualties per 100,000 pop didn’t they?
Completely wrong.
If you’re going to “do your own research” as the conspiracy fruitcakes parrot, then you need to do it properly. Every country records Corvid-19 deaths differently, in the early days different nations in the U.K. recorded/counted deaths differently. Eventuality the home nations standardised, but the 52 states in the USA never did. Both Texas and Florida under counted deaths, and they should also have way fewer deaths because they were hot weather states – the virus doesn’t survive long in hot conditions.
Finland, Norway, Sweden, are extremely similar with regard to culture, demographics, wealth, climate, etc. they should all have had similar death rates. In fact, the death rate in Sweden was TEN times higher than that in Finland and Sweden. Consequently in 2021, the Swedish Government admitted not locking down had been a mistake and they changed their policy: horse, stable-door, springs to mind…
I wrote a rebuttal – including references to research and links to the CDC and other sites detailing numbers & how they were counted but I appear to have crossed some unknown line & the post was removed. Not really the forum for it here though.
Point was, I know how to validate data. I’ll keep it simple to avoid it again – Finland & Sweden, Sweden was 2.14 x more deaths per million, not 10. Their pop density is higher too (25p/km to 16).
Other US states avoided lockdown & numbers pretty similar according to CDC.
Have to agree to disagree sir.
Yeah, he’d be using entirely different language if he was trying to explain to journalists how the British Army would respond to the Ukraine situation on the same budget!
I was wondering the same thing. Lesson from Ukraine is that the British army is not fit for purpose by any means. And it will take a substantial and sustained wedge of cash to get it there, including making some unpalatable decisions such as do we persist with Challenger 3 or just go out and buy leopards or Abraham’s ?
Panther KF51?
Sadly budget increase seems not as likely as budget decrease:
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-28/no-10-suggests-uk-likely-to-scrap-manifesto-defence-spending-commitment
Would make sense – so that won’t happen – they’ll demand a “Buy British Variant” at three times the price, 10 years late and batteries not included.
Regrettably I agree. The whole fiasco with the Ajax vehicle being a case in point
Absolutely, let’s go the Wildcat/ Ajax route and piss away our defence budget against the wall!
Panther gets my vote, looking to be an excellent tank….
All I look for is reasonably on time and on budget. There will always be something better in the offing, but stick to the plan. Tragically, we’re not getting that basic requirement with Land Forces major equipment right now.
Whether the British Army is fit for purpose or not doesn’t change the fact that the main threats to the UK will come by Air or Sea – we are in the fortunate position of being an Island nation surrounded by friendly nations.We can choose to an extent where and how to deploy our Land Forces,that is the luxury Ukraine didn’t have.
We defend ourselves by defending western Europe, hence, having troops in Germany or wherever.
I am astounded at your comment
That’s true but Western Europe has 400 million people in it with sone of the best military technology in the world and the US army and air force helping it out. Do they really need a massive contingent from us. Better for us to concentrate on the north and the sea.
If you want to be sidelined as a bit player and have no say in any peace treaty, then sure.
We have always contributed significantly to the defence of western Europe with air and land forces. Nowadays it could not be said that our contribution is massive though.
We historically have defended Western Europe and will continue to do so but that is through choice not absolute necessity -1066 was a long time ago.
And also air defences away from our shores.
The UK has almost exclusively fought wars of choice in its history and these have generally involved Army’s. It’s hard to argue that an increased army size is ever a need for UK defence relative to air and sea.
The UK doesn’t do well in wars where it has to rely on it’s moat. They tend to be completely ruinous. Having an expeditionary army that can win a war outright is a must.
”The UK doesn’t do well in wars where it has to rely on it’s moat.”
But that Moat and the boats on it stopped the Spanish, French and Germans… more than once… And then we went on (with allies) to win those wars!!
It could be argued back that the Army expeditionary Forces did not do well in the Flanders campaign, and in 1914 and 1939…
That the Moat protected this country after the BEF failed and was rescued in 1940!!
The fact remains, The British Army has always been smaller than our rivals in Europe, because of that moat…
Our Geography has always been and remains our best defence (except to people in small rubber boats)…
Yes, I agree the Army could be bigger, better equipped etc.
But, our Army is nothing without a means to get it over that Moat…
NATO is now a cornerstone of our defence, regardless of the moat, any enemy to Europe would have to pass through a lot of territory before they get to us.
Ho boy. Okay, skippping over what I wrote to argue against something you want me to be saying (even though I only wrote two lines):
Britain relying on the Moat is a bad thing: Yes it’s a backstop when it comes to it, but when that happens it’s always BAD. Yes, I am completely aware that the Army didn’t do well in 1914 and 1939 THAT IS THE POINT.
The “well the channel will protect us” and investing heavily in the navy and airforce while short changing the army lead to two very long, very damaging wars that drained and exhausted the country.
Between 1914 and 1918 the British Empire went from the biggest creditor in the world to the biggest debtor, because the Army was not capable of beating the Imperial Army in 1914.
The result of the 2nd World War was the bankruptcy of the British Empire and it’s collapse. Had the Army not been starved of resources for 20 years, and had to scramble to moderinzie, enlarge and invent doctrine just as the war broke out, the war would have been over quickly and Britain would have continued as a major world power.
(Oh and by the way, RORO ferries, and the Channel Tunnel are both things that exist and that aren’t part of the navy.)
Please, if you do reply, do argue against the point I’m making, not a strawman version of me.
I responded to your post, not a strawman.
You pull points from history, and get upset when someone has a different POV… Hey that’s life…
787’000 men in 1914 vs 1’193’000 men in 1914…
In 1914 we (the western allies) out numbered the Germans… and no, I am not including TA, reserves, or Empire forces… But still the war lasted how long!!!
We allies also out numbered the Wehrmacht in 39!!!… How long did that last…
The 20 years of ”starved” resources was because our combined bigger armies could not stop the Imperial army in 1914…
So we are left with a single question… how big does the Army need to be to win a ”Quick War”?
Sorry, no you responded to a strawman not a me. You saying otherwise doesn’t change that. Not a single point in your original reply was addressing anything I said, just a position you wanted me to have. In fact you’re still arguing against a strawman because you’re acting like I’m just arguing for a “big” army.
Oh, and look, an ad hominem to round it out. You really have all your bases covered.
In the vague hope that someone else reading this will see the point I’m making:
-I’m not arguing for a “big” army. I’m arguing for a properly funded and maintained army. Creating a “big” army at the last minute from limited stocks and without an adequate doctrine is what did for the British Army in 1940. Yeah it was big, but because nobody had funded it, it had no use. The Wehrmacht crossed the border with 9 Panzer Divisions. The British Army had 0, and even when they did gain them, they had no adequate doctrine to use them. This comes from underfunding the army and saying “but we have the Navy.”
The British Army was 75,000 men in 1914, and yet combined with the French, it did stop the Germans in 1914 (or did Paris fall, please enlighten me.). The Germans managed to occupy so much of France because they went around the French Army, and pushed the small British force aside (greatly simplfying of course, but since even two lines was too much for Darren to grasp I think we should keep it simple for him).
Now: Had the British Army in 1914 not been a tiny colonial policing force, and instead actually been a fully funded branch of service, deploying an Army Group into Northern France, the Imperial Army trying to outflank the main strength of the French army wouldn’t have been a thing.
Oh and btw Darren your numbers are wrong:
The 787,000 number is the German 1st and 2nd Army’s under von Kluck and Bulow. The Imperial German Army was about 3 million strong at the start of WW1, of which only about 250,000 where depolyed to the eastern front. You do the maths. I don’t blame you for getting this wrong since most sources only mention the numbers of the 2 flanking Armies, and forget about the 5 other Armies that where fixing the French in place along the border.
Oh and 1940? Wehrmacht and Italian army invaded with 3.6million soldiers, the British and French had about 3.3, so let’s call it even, but no, not outnumbered. And more importantly; as I said, 10 Panzer divisions. It’s not just about quantity, it’s also about quality? (Oh and if your argument is that they should have attacked during the invasion of Poland: Yes they should have, but they had a half formed army that didn’t really know what it was doing, nor did it’s commanders who had been raised in an army that had been told “no major war in the next 10 years, so the same issues still apply).
How big would the British Army need to be in 1939-40 to defeat the Wehrmacht? Probably no larger than it was. But, as was shown, you can’t just improvise an army of millions and expect it to perform, and it’s commanders knew that.
So this takes me back to my initial point: The moat is fine. But our fixation on it as “we can always withdraw behind it so we don’t need a good army.” Means that instead of short quick wars, we end up fighting gruelling wars of attrition that have repeatedly bankrupted our country and left us worse off than when it started.
No Dern, I responded to you.
BTW, Strawman also means… ”a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.”
Hmmm perhaps I am responding to a strawman!!!
Regardless… The moat is there… it is physical… it exists… you being blind to that fact does not change that fact.
And love the Sarcasm… Yes I am fully aware of RORO and the Channel tunnel…
Are you aware of the logistics in calling up from trade, organising and loading said transport?
Are you aware of interdiction of supply routes?
As to numbers, No I am not wrong, I took the standing numbers… If you read, you would have seen i said ”EXCLUDING TA reserves etc!” but again… feel free to pick and choose what you like to respond too… Very Strawman of you…
I also said the Army should be bigger and better funded… And yes I can quantify that into figures…
You also ignored the massive fact that we are in NATO!!
The whole concept of collective defence seems lost on you ”Having an expeditionary army that can win a war outright is a must.”
WHY?, why is it a must? we are part of NATO… Again ”collective defence”…
So we are left with a single question… how big does the Army need to be to win a ”Quick War”?
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
There is no point in reading beyond your first paragraph because you Strawmanned the strawman fallacy. Come back when you’re actually interested in arguing against my points instead of a mythical version that you’re dreaming up.
(I’m sure if I kept reading there would just be more straw manning and ad hominems so I won’t bother).
*EDIT* To anyone else reading: Why is it that it’s always these sub-500 post accounts that are so acerbic and incapable of having a calm and rational discussion without resorting to fallacy’s? You’d think they’d try to make a good first impression.
Oh look, more nastyness from the man who can only bring fallacies and ad hominems.
Yeah the impact of the First World War on the UK beyond the battlefield seems to get overlooked in favour of the impact of the Second, possibly because the human cost was so great that to talk about money seems grotesque, and perhaps because the socio-economic impact of the Second World War was more visible, more tangible?
But the economics of sustaining total war ruined us in the sense that we would never be the force we had been since Waterloo, despite the Empire being at its largest extent after Versailles. We didn’t have the war chest to carry on and prepare to meet the emerging global threats, or invest in British industry and boost our economy through trade and exports. Plus, it allowed the USA to take a predominance in the global economy/financial system, which then put us in a bind when it came to 1939, and the need to finance a second total war.
In fairness to the BEFs though, they both did a good job, its just there wasn’t the technology available to the first to achieve a breakthrough and avoid the war of attrition that followed, and the second wasn’t going to hold a line after the French crumbled. If the French hadn’t spunked all their defence budget on the Maginot Line and had some mobile forces, the Germans could possibly have been defeated outright as their supply chain relied on horse and cart.
But then, nothing happens in a vacuum, and if the First World War hit us badly, it really screwed the French up so bad that they had no idea who they were or what they were about in the 1930s, their politics was fraught with crises and extremism and left them unable to prepare for war. Arguably they didn’t make a return to their familiar, arrogant selves until well after WWII and the birth of the Citroen DS when they remembered what it meant to be French again!
I think it’s because the impact of WW2 effects us more directly to this day. WW1 has plenty of impacts (ahem middle east) but the fall out of the Cold War is something people have been keenly aware of, while the socio-political changes brought in by WW1 have a) been swept away by the changes brought in by the 2nd one, and b) become so ingrained we don’t even think about it (eg young women dancing with young women in public only became socially acceptable in the 1920’s).
I think there’s more to it than how you’ve characterised the BEF though: In 1914 a breakthrough was possible, the Germans achieved one. It simply wasn’t possible once the frontlines had atrophied into the trenches on the western front; but look elsewhere, the Eastern Front, Western Front pre-1914, Palestine, Iraq, mobile war was possible, it was just very, very bloody.
Yes, the French doctrine was a mess, although it’s worth noting that when the Methodical Battle Doctrine could be brought to bear on the Germans they *really* didn’t like it. But the French Army was just too cumbersome and slow, and the British Army didn’t have the mobile forces either (again, there wasn’t a single armoured division in the BEF, which is mad to think about), so it wasn’t just the French who’d spunked their defence budget. Also bear in mind the French and the British where certain the Germans where going to invade through Belgium, they didn’t think there was a hope in hell that they’d attack the Maginot line; the big problem was 1) they thought the invasion route would be further north, ala 1914, not through the Ardennes, and 2) they wanted to defend Belgium, which meant that as soon as they thought the Germans where invading they had to scamper into Belgium. Neither the French nor British Army in 1940 where capable of that.
The Old Contemptables did rather well in 1914-1915, they stopped the Bosche over-running the Frogs. They got wiped out in the process but stopped the fall of Paris and then France.
Exactly. WW1 and WW2 almost have opposite problems; where the WW1 army was tiny, but pretty high quality, and thus lacked the mass send the Imperial Army back across the border in 1914, while the WW2 army had plenty of Mass, but lacked the modernization and doctrinal advances that investment over the inter war years would have given it.
In both cases the result was long grueling wars as we slowly developed a large, capable army, that could win the war.
That then resulted in a drop in army effectiveness for a number of reasons- duff polititions, a skint country or, all of the relevant people being killed off or going back to civvy street.
We were a bit better off after WW2 because the Korean War gave us a kick.
Defence of our homeland is top priority and arguably does not need a large army for that, but is only one of many defence tasks for the army.
To be fair Graham, even in the very teeth of the last Cold War, the Army never exceeded 170,000.
That’s still a relatively be small army. The options for change decided on 116,000 post Cold War and that was probably a sensible and sustainable size.
Today, pushing back to a balanced force of 100,000 plus should be the aim, so that ‘overstretch’ isn’t the default position….
It’s strange now to reflect that a 170,000 strong regular army was once considered small – but I see where you are coming from. Back in the day, little Belgium committed a Corps to NORTHAG – as did the UK.
I thought Options for Change gave us a 120,000 strong army. No matter – the point is that this was decided to be the size of the post-Cold War army and that was before any thought of Gulf War 1 or 2.
I see no logic for ever having reduced below the above figure.
Absolutely Graham, an army strength of about 120,000 is in the right land to enable us to put more than the current token force in Europe and to deliver some out-of-area capability.
120,000 is not an arbitrary figure, the CFE agreement between NATO and WARPAC at the end of the Cold War specified a 25% reduction in in-theatre forces, which reduced the army from 152,000 to 120,000.
The Blair-Brown governments kept defence spending at 2.5% of GDP, but the backlog of elderly equipment needing replaced led to a cut in service personnel, with the army being reduced to 105,000. That should have been a temporary cut because it left us with too few troops to put much into NATO Europe. But maybe 105,000 is all we can afford these days
12 years of Conservative rule have seen the army pretty much emasculated, through 4 lots of cuts and a one-third reduction from 105,000 to 72,500. The fact that we can only put 4 combat brigades in the field is downright embarrassing – the 25% cut at end Cold War should have left us with 12!
Any Prime Minister worth his salt would now halt the current round of cuts and revisit the highly flawed 2021 Defence review
Thanks Cripes. I used to say that the army has been cut once or twice per decade since the end of the Korean war but few believed me or considered it an issue. The cuts in recent years are ever more frequent and I remember the Tories saying repeatedly that they would not cut the army below 82,000 – then they did. The TA (now Army Reserve) was also cut over the years – in the Cold War it was over 60k.
When you mention 4 deployable combat brigades, we could never deploy them simultaneously, except for an existential war that directly threatened the UK homeland. Most think we could only deploy 1 or 2 bdes and that deployment of a div or div-equivalent (three bdes) is beyond us until 2025.
Few also realise that not all 73,000 personnel are deployable.
The equipment is in a terrible state too, especially AFVs and artillery.
Such a sorry story. I am glad General Patrick is CGS – he will make some big improvements, more so if the army gets more money and can uplift its manpower by many more thousands – but it seems HMG is loathe to react to the Ukraine war in such a way.
If General Patrick makes too much ‘noise’ Graham, he will promptly be presented with his carriage clock and fishing hat and sent on his way…
I would imagine ( as the government clearly has no intention of doing anything of substance) he’s already been told to shut his trap in no uncertain terms…
totally agree mate…
This has been gone over Budget for the Chally 3 upgrade gives you 150ish and possibly more to follow on. OR 25 Abrahams or Leopards. which is the same age. Chally 3 might not be perfect but will take the army through to the Future MBT. and £ for £ is better value than paying it to Germany so they can buy gas and oil from Russia.
The issue Johan is that you can guarantee it will go ‘way over budget’ and arrive late.
Then you have a bespoke laughably small fleet of 150 tanks, that no one else operates, so support costs will likely be extremely high, all future upgrades will have to be entirely UK funded also. ££££ goes the cash register, happy days for shareholders I guess..
It’s another bloody job creation scheme, only coming online when new tanks like Panther and the next Gen US tank will already be in service!
Not fit for what purpose? It’s only potential adversary just lost all its vehicles and a big chunk of its personnel while proving that its tactics and weapons are largely useless. Meanwhile virtually all the recent defence assumptions seem to have held true for once. Armoured warfare is on the way out and precision fire and deep recon are the way to go.
Only a fool would think that the Russians will not learn the lessons from Ukraine. Both structurally and materially.
However I think the equipment issues will be more easily corrected than the fact the don’t have a competent Non commissioned officer cadre or competent lower officers and the endemic corruption that seems to be rife in the country and military
I don’t think any of it is easily corrected Mike, the Army structure is all they have ever known and in many ways mirrors Russian society.
Rebuilding a similar military system to Western nations, with complex capable Command and Control, well trained professional personal,plus advanced and capable systems, is utterly beyond their ability, both physically and financially.
If they managed it (by some miracle), their Army would be a quarter of the size for the budget … And you just can’t rape, loot and murder your way around Europe with an army that small….
Can it be corrected , I think yes. How long, I agree it is a very tall order and not something that can be done in a short or even medium period, especially without western help which they most certainly will not get.
The Russians are cruel and uncivilised they can only operate on that level and have since Lenin.
Then the arrogant conclusion is that a well armed trained and coordinated NATO battle group of a fraction of the Russians forces size will chew through them like mince however taking a lesson from WW2. The German forces knew what they were doing and failed to break the Russians .
In short regardless of the training, coordination and force structure of the Russian. They are a force not to be under estimated.
The Ukraine war has only shown that armoured warfare as practiced by the Russians with poor quality, poorly supported tanks manned by poorly trained, badly led and demotivated conscripts as well as being tactically mishandled – does not win wars.
You cannot extrapolate to all of the world’s tank-owning nations.
Are the Ukrainians exemplars for precision fire and deep recon?
It looks like it could be just words. It seems there’ll be no splurge on defence spending…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-poised-ditch-key-27346696
Sounds like he’s just making another speech, being head of the army it’s easy to make speeches and never follow up. No doubt more four letter acronyms to follow with a rejigged army force 2040 diagram and nothing else. The army is trying to jump on the Ukraine banned wagon for more funding and nothing else. We are not sending an army to fight Russia on the ground period.
There has been too much politics in defence and procurement at the expense of budget and capability. We don’t have a tank factory any more so we are going to have to buy foreign. Regenerating tank building capacity will take too much time and too much money. The army will certainly be happy with either a modern variant of Leopard or Abrahams.
The Ajax is now years behind and no chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Any sensible project management review would indicate it is time to pull the plug and seek an alternative, preferably off the shelf.
Challenger 3,should have been done years ago but we are now faced with rebuilding the army rapidly. We still need tanks . Building more challenger 3 is not an option as we don’t have a tank building capability and even if we did, is it the right course of action given the Challenger is already seriously overweight. Yes it is nice to keep defence jobs in the country but not at the expense of capability.
If the army was being smart like the navy or air force it would make sure to have a vehicle manufacturing facility with a steady flow of work to keep it going. In this way it would have political weight and be able to make a credible political and economic argument to the treasury for funding long term. Instead it desperately tried to maintain cap badges while moving from crisis to crisis never knowing what it wanted from its vehicle fleet and always chasing concepts that could never be delivered often because they broke the laws of physics. It would have been very easy to have had continuous build programs for tanks and armoured vehicles right through the 90’s with forward planning instead of the cluster **** of FRES which was entirely self inflicted. Now because they have left it too long they need to procure Ajax, Boxer and Challenger 3 at the same time meaning a flurry of orders for a decade then factory’s shut down again and domestic capability gone.
In fairness, it wasn’t the Army’s fault that armoured vehicle manufacturing in the UK died a death, it was politicians who launched the Army into conflicts it wasn’t prepared for, diverting cash towards kit that was needed in the short term (MRAPs, etc), and then pushing back on long term projects to make up the shortfall (CR3, Warrior, FRES and its spawn, AS90 upgrade), to the point where the factories closed due to lack of orders.
At the same time, the Navy and RAF are hardly whiter than white. RAF aircraft across all fleets are arguably well below sustainable numbers, while the Navy went round in massive circles going from the C1/C2/C3 FSC to a smaller number of Type 26 Global Combat Ships, then back to the C1/C2/C3 model with a mix of T26/T31/River batch 2s, with the projection that T23s will come out of service before T26s are able to replace them.
And of course, both services are awaiting the full delivery of the F35 fleet to replace the Harrier FA2 and GR7/9 fleets, which they were so sure was expected to enter service in 2012 that they retired the FA2s en masse in what, 2006/2007, and started winding down the GR7/9 fleet from 2007/8 I believe (well before the controversial SDSR of 2010).
But all this is not to say that I don’t agree FRES/Ajax etc. is a complete disaster, perhaps unrivalled by other services’ own procurement shortcomings, for the simple reason that an armoured vehicle doesn’t have to defy gravity or dive into the depths or incorporate nuclear propulsion…and yet it still can’t go up a kerb after billions spent…and also, at least all the money spent on Nimrod, FSC/GCS, Astute etc. went to British industry and sustained British jobs, whereas Ajax apparently hardly supports any UK workforce. Oh well…
Min Def Procurement, Philip Dunne, said in 2016: “In addition to the 250 jobs being created at the Merthyr Tydfil facility, the Ajax build programme is sustaining 300 jobs at General Dynamics in nearby Oakdale, and a further 2,250 jobs at more than 210 companies across the UK supply chain. Maybe that is a lot of jobs for the UK workforce?
You are totally right that many core programmes (and their engineering support) were pushed to the right during the years of Afghanistan and Iraq. I saw that myself at DE&S in 2009-2011. Just one reason fo the army’s mess with artillery and AFVs. I am pessimistic about resolution ‘across the board’. The army will end up with too few key battlewinning equipments, some of which are unsuited for the job and delivered far too late; capability gaps will also remain.
I thought I read a while back that the number of UK jobs involved in Ajax assembly/construction had diminished compared to what was promised when GD pitched for it though, but could be wrong!
It will take a long time to sort it all out, even if off the shelf solutions were chosen…
The army does not have an ability to ensure that private companies in the UK build tanks or any type of military vehicle. Usually an AFV fleet is procured over a 4 or 5 year production run and that fleet serves for 20-35 years. There are usually no incremental orders of the same type to keep industry ticking over to a drumbeat.
The army has not desperately tried to maintain historic cap badges, and at the expense of efficiency or effectiveness. Indeed it has not been very successful at that over the years. Many capbadges of today, especially infantry and cav do not go back more than 30 years or so – most are not deeply historic regiments, but antecedents are. Serving officers who would wage a campaign to preserve historic capbadges commit a career foul and retired Generals have little influence and come across as blimpish and parochial.
I would like a few examples of the army wanting vehicles or any kit that defied the laws of physics. That was not my experience.
The army has made many mistakes with AFV and artillery modernisation and procurement of new platforms. AFVs should have been subject to upgrade on a regular basis and this used to happen – look at how many Marks of Chieftain there were. This just did not happen for equipments fielded from the mid-80s and I am at a loss to know why not. It used to be that a major upgrade was done at Base Overhaul, which for some vehicles were every 7 years or so, but upgrades were not constarined to that cycle.
Planning for a replacement AFV or artillery piece should have been started 10 years from the ISD of its predecessor and momentum maintained for the 10 or so years of design, development, trials, acceptance and manufacture.
Requirements staff seem to have made many blunders, allegedly specifying in overly fine detail and not always in a capability output manner. They cannot be blamed for making some changes in the spec during development – a lot changes in 10 or more years development time.
Project management by Industry and DE&S has been shock, as has very belated Ministerial intervention.
Some programmes have been far too big and lost their way (FLAV, FFLAV, FRES). Some programmes were starved of budget – FRES had to give £5bn to the navy for CV(F).
Politicians have meddled. MoD QA staff have been cut back.
Ajax, Boxer and CR3 programmes might be roughly coinciding time-wise but they are made by different companies so this doesn’t have to be a disaster from a production POV, except if Treasury cannot cope with the simultaneous grand spend and cut back numbers. But I take your point that factories may shut down roughly together. Factory closure after meeting a large military order didn’t used to happen but it seems to nowadays.
I wouldn’t mind betting that we could build tanks in Telford where RBSL is producing CR3 or in the GDUK factory in Wales which is set up to build AFVs. Maybe the VSEL facility at Barrow could be resurrected where they built Abbot and AS90. So we don’t have to buy foreign.
We are buying CR3, so why do you suggest we buy Leo or Abrams? The tank after that is another story and it certainly won’t be Leo or Abrams.
Chally 2 (and 3 in the future) is not the only very heavy tank out there CR3’s eventual successor will certainly be somewhat lighter.
I agree that Ajax is almost certainly a dead duck. CVR(T) is 50 years old and must be replaced asap.
Well, actually, we are. Should Russia enter Estonia (slim chance at the moment) we would engage them… on the ground and thankfully we now have Sweden at our back and Canada and Finland, our flanks.
Still, hope the Challies are amphibious 😉
I cannot see Putin launching a physical cross-border attack in a NATO country for many reasons, most of which should be obvious.
Sorry, I don’t get the Chally amphibious joke!
Britmil Int types said that Adazi was not suitable for tank training; they also said Estonia lacked and forces pushed back into Baltic… hence, amphib challies.
Finland joining NATO completely changes the equation.
I am guessing that Adazi is a training area somewhere in the Baltics?
I’m very glad that Finland and Sweden are joining NATO even if they paid a price to mollify Turkey. Putin’s masterplan has backfired badly.
Sorry Sir. Adaźi is just north of Rīga, Latvia.
Snake Island abandoned by Opfor. Changes the situation for Odesa.
Martin, Clearly you don’t know General Patrick!
It has long been said over many years that our biggest threat is from Russia. We should react to that. Even if we do not fight Russia we will end up with an army configured and equipped to take on the threats that do materialise.
Issue being the only thing he will get in a Hurry is Uniform and Paperclips. wont get any decent kit that quick, and just proves he has no idea how the kits arrive. bet he thinks the nice man in his Harrods van delivers it.
Harrods?? Pickfords surely
You obviously don’t know this man. He is the hardest, grittiest senior officer we’ve produced in a long time. If he’s given the freedom to do it, he’ll be the 21st Century Slim. This is he officer who told a BBC reporter live on air that they were talking ‘bollocks’.
Do you know General Patrick? I do. He is not naive about Procurement. He will do his utmost to improve the British Army in the ways he describes but can’t achieve miracles of course.
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-news-live-zelenskyy-kremenchuk-putin-12541713?postid=4089663#liveblog-body
If you’ve not seen the link on Sky news of the actual missile strike on the shopping centre its on this link. The only thing I could say is bloody horrific.
Great start from Sanders. Begs the question, what are the other heads of sheds doing (CAS/1SL)?
The others are getting on with the job and not contemplating a fourth reorganisation in a decade.
ouch!
Sanders does need to do a reorg as the other reorgs were so poor.
“accelerate the modernisation” – Are we getting C3 before it’s obsolete in 2030?
I won’t be the first to say the “A*** Word” today but it could/should be impacted.
Whole thing sounds great – a fresh look at what we actually ‘need’. Hopefully we can reverse some of the shrinkage from the past.
I don’t rate C3 or think that it’s really need in the timescale it’s planned.
Just keep the gun it has, perhaps update the sight if they really need done and any other bits that cause big issues. Keep the numbers as they are. Start the new tank project with the money saved. Team up with Germany/Poland or any other like minded country that are also Looking to make new tanks by 2030.
Challenger 3 is going to come into service just as some other forces are looking to replace. Do they really want challenger serving in 2050/60 when other allies are in new tanks.
T-72,T80,T90 the challenger can handle fine. Challenger 3 isn’t going to make much difference when facing Russia. Numbers matter more. 200 challenger 2 versus 60 APS equipped C3. No contest in my eyes
All great points, common sense even, that is why it will never work.
Still forging ahead with future soldier. Let’s have no more fitted for but not with nonsense.
Agreed bud.
Don’t rate “C3” (or C2 mk2) myself & as you say, timescale is all wrong. By the time it comes in, it’ll be obsolete.
C2 could do with an upgrade (gun, commanders sights etc.) so they can call it “C3” if they want, but let’s have it in 18 months – then we can get 7-10 years out of it before the replacement comes in. This was what I was meaning.
Numbers – 100% agreed! ‘Quantity has a quality all of its own’
Obsolete is a strong word. Cutting edge maybe not, but it will still be perfectly viable for many years. How they use it will however have to change as stronger potential opposition tanks come onto the market.
Fair point & you are right. “obsolete” is too strong. Much like C2 now – there’s kit out there with better this or that but still very potent.
Need to fish out my thesaurus & improve my vocab!
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the dog in the fight…
How Chally will be fought is how it will win.
Too few? Yep. Obsolete if fought alone? Yep. Combined with infantry, support arms and GBAD she’ll be difficult to beat.
Issue is the prime replacements Leopard and Abrams will both be looking down that same barrel.
But easier to Place 150 into a secondary role, and source a New Build MBT.
Replacement won’t be either of those. T14 and KF51 are showing the way. It’ll be a clean design, weighing a bit less, integrated defence suite, network with drones (probably carry a few) etc etc.
Yes, you are right. Tanks after CR3 have to be revolutionary, not evolutionary.
As I’ve pointed out many times over the past year or so, a lighter-weight tank (120mm smooth bore) that fits in with Boxer (tracked) which is also modular would be the best bet for us.
Making up the numbers of troops we currently lack can be addressed by some of the new tech arriving on the market.
“At the Kongsberg pavilion, the THeMIS was exhibited with an integrated RS6 Protector remote weapon station (RWS) and a Metravib PILAR gunshot detector system. Norway’s Kongsberg first revealed the RS6 Protector in 2021, and it is equipped with a 30 mm cannon and a 7.62 co-axial machine gun.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/update-eurosatory-2022-new-payloads-for-milrems-themis-ugv
Plenty of options are available.
Yet another example of a Boxer Variant.
👍
Not sure where I saw it, but I’ve seem a Themis with a 30mm mounted RWS, it also had a 7.62mm GPMG mounted coaxially. The gun was an adaption of the one fitted to the Apache.
Correct, I posted the images on here at some point this year in another post.
Another very useful tool with plenty of available options! We could transform the way we fight with something like these and Boxer, a real game-changer for the British army in my opinion.
And with Brimstone.
https://newsroom.mbda-systems.com/mbda-showcases-brimstone-application-on-milrem-robotics-unmanned-ground-vehicle/
At last, a replacement for CVR(T) Striker and also Spartan MCT!
I still can’t get excited about Boxer, particularly as a WR IFV replacement, unless it has a 30-40mm stabilised cannon on each section vehicle and has virtually the same mobility in snow, ice and glutinous mud as a tracked vehicle has.
The design is ageing, they have a large signature and are ridiculously expensive. They can’t be transported in a A400M.
Good that they have modularity, though.
Hi Graham, the beauty of Boxer is that it comes in two versions, wheeled and now tracked with twenty modular versions to choose from.
Compared to a MBT like Challenger I would have thought their signature would have been less?
They can be transported on the A400 and a 30-40mm option is available.
“A loading inspection is necessary here so that the transport of the armoured vehicle Boxer can be approved. The 8×8 vehicle weighs a total of around 35 tons. However, only 32 tons are allowed to drive over the opened ramp of the A400M. The Boxer consists of two elements: the vehicle chassis and the mission module as an attachment. Both are separated from each other for air transport.
In the future, after certification, two Boxers with three A400Ms will be able to fly abroad. One chassis per aircraft and two mission modules in the third.”
https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/news/defense-aviation-news/2020/august/6517-german-air-force-62-transport-squadron-tests-loading-of-boxer-armored-vehicle-in-a400m.html
Boxer with Lockheed Martin’s 40mm CTA cannon on a Boxer mission module.
The new variant of Boxer 8×8 armoured fitted with RT60 turret
Bover IFV
At least the CT40 turrets won’t be wasted. Looks like a pair of ATMs added too.
Endless possibilites now that a tracked base has arrived.
Hi Nigel, I love your enthusiasm for Boxer and wonder if I am wrong in being critical. It is new info that there is a tracked Boxer. Certainly compared to a 72 ton MBT, tracked Boxer has a lower signature. My comment on the high signature was that they are a large vehicle for an Infantry section carrier. I was disappointed that the module needs to be removed for A400M carriage to get below the 32t door restriction.
I prefer Warrior wirth WCSP over Boxer particularly if not all Infantry section Boxers have a stabilised cannon, preferably 40mm.
I am certainly willing to consider tracked Boxer with 120mm cannon as an expeditionary early intervention tank but we still need heavy MBTs too.
Id advocate a kzv51 panther. If uk made or just rush C3 into service but get whole fleet done so all 224 C2s and set 2025 as the target deadline for entire fleet completion. I think Russia will have finished Ukraine off by end of 2023. Will of refitted and rearmed by end of 2024 and then be making new territorial demands in 2024/2025
In the 2030s either go Franco/ German new MBT or better still get whatever the US Army replaces Abrahams with.
Economies of scale would indicate the Abrahams replacement will likely have a lower unit price.
This ‘dawning’ has been coming for some time however, Putin’s aggression simply lubricated the cogs of rearmament, for that is what is bringing suggested in the speech. Catastrophic management of Ajax and the lack of CH2 and AS90 investment means very little can be done domestically to repair the damage other than rapid procurement, of replacements, from overseas. The lease of 300 M1s in combination with the purchase or lease of Leapoard 2 may be one way to bolster the UK MBT fleet in a matter of six months to a year, with a rapid training package included. Using tanks from another nation is not new, and what it allows is expedience and urgency without which, the UKs dependence on CH2 continues without much change. Holding current stocks and releasing some CH2 hulls for the CH3 would allow trained tankers to hold point until the fleet is augmented by leased MBTs? As for Ajax, forget litigation, press into service those variants that can function within reseason and lease alternative vehicles until Ajax can be deployed in full. As for AS90, one possible option could be the purchase of the South Korean SPG, which has been creating some worldwide interest if the rate of manufacturing can be achieved to supply at least six batteries in rapid order.
The Government decided that the army should go from 386 CR2s to 227 and now to 148 CR3s. I don’t know what it would take to persuade the Government that the army needs more than 148 tanks, so I don’t think much of the chances of leasing 300 M1s. In my experience it is highly unusual for the British Army to operate foreign tanks with World War II being the exception. The operation of 2 foreign fleets is even more hard to accept. If there are relatively few CR2s being lost to the CR3 programme in a given month, why do this lease thing at all?
You are on stronger ground with your proposal to lease an alternative to turreted Ajax and to replace AS90 with the Korean SPG.
However is Russia offering a threat to the UK homeland or other NATO countries, in reality. Could Putin invade another country whilst enmeshed in Ukraine or soon after his ‘Special Operation’ ends?
Graham, the plain truth is we simply don’t have enough MBTs and there is growing acknowledgment of that situation. We have already placed MBTs in border states and more will be promised. The current pathetic fleet numbers will frustrate ministers as more pressure is put on Britain to increase its heavy armour assets in theater. I don’t want to get into the merits of the MOD’s logic about winding up MBT production but it was crass, and it leaves us with no option but to seek tanks from abroad. My numbers may be a little unrealistic but at least 100 vehicles may be closer to the truth. It will be a toss-up between M1 or Leopard but watch this space, as the whole of Europe swings onto a war footing. The UK will not wish for other nations to fight its tank campaigns as some suggest, we will want to control our MBT assets, hence more MBTs.
Maurice, thanks. I served from 1975-2009 so remember the time when we had 900 Chieftains, a fleet size commensurate with opposing 3 Shock Army, a huge Soviet army in the Waraw Pact headquartered at Magdeburg.
I then saw us buy just over 400 CR1s and run a mixed CR1/Chieftain fleet, and then to purchase 386 CR2s and run an all-CR2 fleet from the late 90s.
I cannot recall when we went down to a 227 fleet and whether it was defence cuts or to comply with a CFE treaty. But to me that seemed to be ‘bare minimum’, allowing 3 x Type 56 regiments, the remainder of course being in the training org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
I therefore was shocked to hear that we were further downsizing to 148 tanks, albeit upgraded to CR3 standard – and was shocked at the cost and time to get there.
MoD has not of course wound up UK tank production – BAE Systems has when they closed the tank factories in Leeds and Newcastle, but of course it was due to lack of MoD orders for new AFVs or doing major upgrades to exisiting AFVs.
If politicians can be persuaded that we need more tanks, perhaps they can arrange the refurb by Babcocks (who run the old ABROs) & BAE of the several hundred CR2s sitting in Ashchurch.
Graham, thanks for the info on the halcyon days of a mixed fleet of British made machines. The sooner we get the smooth bore 120mm gun in service the better as it broadens our choices of supply rather than the current narrow options for gun shells. Taking around 100 Leopard tanks could enhance training for CH3 and offer more flexibility for the MOD in terms of deployments. With two new members joining NATO and Sweden’s huge border with Russia, a considerable force will be needed from fellow members to patrol this theater. What better weapon than a MBT for such a duty, and I’m sure Britain will be called to do just that? As for the Ashchurch machines, I’m sure they are already being prepared to reenter service due to the current upturn in mobilisation, or will soon be?
I don’t think we have ever had a problem with the supply of rounds for our rifled cannon, so far.
I doubt the politicians/Treasury would favour buying or leasing 100 Leo2s and the huge infrastructure that you need when you introduce a new equipment.
Not sure how that would enhance training for CR3 – please explain.
Patrol tasks are not usually done by MBTs – we tend to use patrol vehicles or recce vehicles.
I doubt money is being spent on refurbishing the out-of-use CR2 fleet at Ashchurch. It seems that no extra equipment is being made ready at all. Just the promise of more defence money by or in 2030
The Leopard would enable tankers to get used to smooth bore rounds and establish logistics before CH3. If you believe 200 CH2 will be enough to support the UK’s efforts and commitments within NATO then fine, and my suggestions to enhance the fleet should be waved as unnecessary. However, Boris and his ministers may quickly get frustrated when constantly informed, that there are not enough MBTs to fulfill promises of support across a growing number of fronters.
Tanker? You must be from the USofA. For us a tanker is a vehicle that contains fuel!
I really don’t think we need to introduce 100 Leo2s to give our tankies a chance to get used to smooth bore – it really is not that complex to cope with a different type of round, and to rejig your logistics. We are spending a lot on the CR3 programme; it would cost a fortune to also find money to buy/lease 100 Leo2s and all the infrastructure.
We bought 386 CR2s from 1998 but only have 227 CR2 tanks in service at present (3 tank regiments) reducing to 148 CR3s (2 tank regiments).
I would prefer that we retained 3 tank regiments or even had 4 – but that is not going to happen.
I think the heavy lifting for committing heavy/medium armour to NATO for the European theatre should come from Poland and Germany with major contributions also from France and Italy, and lesser contributions from smaller continental countries. I think the UK armour should be deployed in Transition To War as part of a strong NATO reserve held forward of the UK in the west of Germany (Sennelager).
UK is signed into the USA future MBT program. Franco/German will never agree, and UK Opted out of that program.
we may not like it But USA at least they will have paid for a decent development
Are you sure that UK is signed into the US programme – I had not read that. UK has been an observer on the Franco- German programme since 2021.
Nah. “We’re going to win this one!”
Russia may not finish off Ukraine in the next 18 months – Putin may just seize and hold Donbas and the corridor to Crimea and withdraw other troops – or he may be relieved of his command by coup, ill health or assassination!
Would he really take on further conquests as his Ukraine adventure has been so lengthy and costly in blood and treasure? Where? Not a NATO country surely.
I don’t see that more than a couple of years could be shaved off the CR3 project ie FOC in 2028 at best.
Our tanks after CR3 should be collaborative as we have migrated to a ridiculously small fleet and need to get economies of scale.
The main issue with either the Boxer MGS using the 120mm gun or the Lynx using the same gun. Is that it uses the shorter 44 calibre barrel. The Stryker and other vehicles that use the smaller 105 gun are next to useless against a modern MBT. Even the shorter 120 gun will struggle to penetrate the frontal glacis and turret of a modern MBT. The Abrams using the same gun, gets around this problem by using a one piece cartridge that contains a propellent that generates a very high gas pressure, more so than the German equivalents.
So my question would be, could this combination use the US M829 series of one piece rounds? Otherwise it will have to rely on a side hit or mobility kill to knock out a modern MBT. As an infantry support weapon it would be awesome, especially when using the programmable multipurpose HE shells.
A very good point, the ability to have one tracked and one wheeled version with a choice of twenty interchangeable weapons modules depending on the terrain makes a great deal of sense to me plus spare parts and transportability of course.
The gun displayed is the 120mm KMW’s RCT120 unmanned turret mission module if that gives you a clue to the type of rounds it can fire?
Looking into the future,presuming the British Army intends ( or is allowed ) to keep it’s MBT capability some hard choices will have to be made- go with the Franco/German EMBT Project or go another route altogether and go with the USA and it’s M1 replacement.Poland is now a serious player in regards Heavy Armour in Europe today but has decided on a two Tank Fleet -their legacy T72/PT91 fleet being gradually withdrawn,the Leopard 2 being bought as a stopgap but ultimately they will have an M1 and K2 Black Panther derivative based Armoured Corps.
No reason why the UK would lose its MBT capability in future.
The UK is an observor on the Franco-German project since 2021.
I agree, in the current climate, having Challenger 2 upgraded so it can be fielded as a Challenger 3 in 2027 to 2030 is too late!
However, the problem with the current L30 rifled gun, is that we cannot be sure how it performs against the uparmoured T90M (ignoring the mythical T14 Armata). The CHARM3 “should” be capable of penetrating the uparmoured front of a T72 and T90A, but we can’t be 100% sure. Plus, there is the issue of supply. BAe still manufacture the CHARM3 round, whilst the HESH has to be imported from Belgium. The HESH shell, although devastating against unarmoured vehicles and buildings, is not programmable or has a proximity fuze. Therefore, it cannot be used reliably against infantry sheltering behind buildings or in trenches.
The Rheinmetall 120/L55 has a higher muzzle velocity. Plus its APFSDS rounds are more accurate over longer distances. Its tests in the NATO standard armour penetration test were “significantly” better than the L30’s. The Abram’s shorter L44 barrel, but firing the M829A3 round matched the penetration values of the longer L55 gun. The M829A3 in particular uses a very high energy propellent, that allows the APFSDS dart to leave the shorter L44 barrel, with similar muzzle velocity as the German DM53 round.
Germany will not use depleted uranium (DU) rounds, so instead uses darts made from tungsten carbide. These are inferior to the DU darts in penetration and after-armour effects. The UK’s CHARM3 dart is made from DU. This gives us the option of using the US DU round with the longer barrel of the L55 gun. The Rh120L55 was designed to handle much higher chamber pressures. It will be able to fire the M829A3 and newer A4 rounds. This means the Challenger 3’s Rh120/L55 gun and M829A3/4 combination will have an even better penetration value than either the Leopard 2A7 or the Abrams. It will also allows to use the multipurpose programmable HE rounds. These can be used against sheltering infantry, but also against helicopters and other slow moving aircraft, due to its proximity fuze. Furthermore, it also means the tank will have access to NATO wide stockpiles of 120 smoothbore ammunition.
With the CGS’s statement of intent, could we see the Challenger 3’s schedule being sped up?
Well they should know if it can penetrate pretty soon. The knocked out T90m in ukraine must be a top priority to get there hands on to test it.
I get the new gun would be great it’s just is it worth £1.3 billion(which by 2030 will be £2.5billion. We are looking at £10million an upgraded challenger minimum. If it doubles £20m a tank! Also the reduction from 50 odd shells to 25-30 is massive. Could buy at least 50 brimstone/javelins to do the same job.
So would it be better to just keep challenger 2 and get new tank started? Rhinemettal seem to be on the ball with the KF51 prototype driving. Give them British specs and access to any tech we want in it and see what they come up with.
My final thought is, if all tanks can be killed with shoulder launched missiles does it really need to be so heavy armoured? Or should some of the front armour be spread around the rest of the tank? Lots to think about
That’s the million dollar question, boom, boom!
I wouldn’t touch KF51. Like the Leopard 2 is uses torsion bar suspension. Which as any engineer will point out, if they get bent (from a land mine explosion for example) are a bugger to remove. As it means the turret comes off, to gain access to the floor plate. The floor plates then need removing, so anything sitting on them needs removing. Then you need any oxy-acetylene torch to burn through the torsion bar, so that you can then remove it. Even after removing the bearings might be knackered and the hull no longer aligned. Which could mean the new torsion bar doesn’t fit properly.
Compare this with a Challenger 2. It uses an external Horstman hydrogas suspension unit. If this gets damaged the REME just unbolt the whole unit and replace it with a new one. The South Korean K9 also uses this system, but their hydrogas is the next stage fully active system. The hydrogas system gives a much better ride over rough terrain compared to torsion bar.
I was in a convoy, where the Canadians had a pair of Leopard 2s as force protection. The lead Leopard had an IED go off underneath it. Even with the additional armour the tank left the ground by a foot or two. The IED was a load of 152mm HE shells wired together. It tore off the tracks and a number of road wheels. The crew thankfully had recently had additional belly armour fitted. They hardly had a scratch. What was telling though was that the tank had to be dragged back to Kandahar airfield. They couldn’t do any field repairs to get it going. The Canadians sent a recovery Leopard to tow it back. The tank was sat at Kandahar for a good 4 months. It then got airlifted by an Antonov back to Germany for repair.
The KF51 looses some of it bustle carousel space to the pop-up launcher. If the launcher wasn’t there it should be able to carry at least 20 in the revolver rack. Don’t forget these one piece shells are 1.3m long and weigh 30kg. They will likely stow some in the hull. But they probably cannot be manhandled into the breech due to the size and constraints of the turret, breech etc.
What is interesting is that the space used in the Leopard 2 for extra ammunition, has been used as a spare seat for a possible 4th crew member, for a drone operator or a platoon commander (teas maid).
Yes, all tanks can be killed by ATGMs, that don’t have an effective active protection system (APS). Even the fabled Merkava 4 suffered severe losses in Lebanon. After it had Trophy fitted not a single tank has been lost since to an ATGM! Trophy in particular is combat proven, which is the reason why the US Army are fitting it their Abrams, the Bundeswehr are fitting it to their Leopard 2s and the UK’s Challenger 3 will have it. The issue is we don’t have the mass in numbers or the capacity to build new ones, that need to be replaced after loses in combat, so they need urgent protection now.
Ultimately the Army really needs to look at a Challenger replacement, not an upgrade. The conflict in Ukraine has seriously upset the apple cart on what the brass believed near peer/peer wars would be fought like. They seemed to forgot that in this type of war there will be significant loses of both men and material. Which without industrial support, these loses will not be replaced to sustain the war effort. It will need a fundamental rethink on industrial direction and organic production, instead of relying on imports. But that would require a gravitational shift in policy by Government.
I’m sure can ask the nice Mr Zelenski to send us the remains of a T90 for a bit of testing.
I’d be surprised if we haven’t already.
Swap you a knackered tank for some nice new ammo……and maybe a big gun or two….
I agree, with the number of Russians abandoning their vehicles. A significant number have been reused by the Ukrainians. I don’t know if Ukraine have acquisitioned a T90M yet? There have been a number destroyed so far, catastrophically judging by some of the videos seen. But I would certainly bet on the US etc, asking Ukraine for any captured equipment, even if it is destroyed.
According to this site, they captured several T90A’s. Only one confirmed T90M destroyed, none captured but several unidentified tanks abandoned/captured.
They only list those with photo confirmation & they’re usually a week or two behind so there could be others.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
From videos seen on twitter I’ve seen two of the newer T90Ms destroyed. One definitely from a Javelin top attack. The other was using the Ukrainian Skif missile. Both tanks suffered the catastrophic carousel ammo explosion that flipped off their turrets. If this war drags on as it’s likely to for quite some time. Then there’s a greater chance that a T90M may be captured intact.
I doubt you could shave more than a couple of years off the CR3 delivery programme.
Chally 3s and their timescale fits in with another Program that the UK is signed into the Future MBT with USA, Germany and France have a similar program. MBT is seen as a Dinosaur in the Modern Mobile Army, as the Ukraine’s have proved. there is no suitable option considering timescale
The army really is in bad timing for tank replacements. I think challenger 2 is a great vehicle. My main concern with challenger 3 is:
Is it too late with 2027-2030 service?
Is it worth the cost?
Are the reduction in numbers worth it over retaining all challenger 2.
By 2030 the army should have a replacement MBT prototype for 2035 service entry.
Hopefully the army can get a one off boost of £10 billion to speed up challenger 3 and increase the numbers get a tracked IFV, artillery ASAP.
I despair that FOC for CR3 is likely to be 2030 – such a long time for such a programme to be delivered (I worked on it in 2016 for Rheinmetall when it was CR2 LEP).
It will be very good but no doubt behind what the US, France and Germany will have in service or mature development at the time (FR/GE should start building MGCS in 2035).
You worked on it!? Awesome. This is why I love these forums; I get to learn/hear from guys with first hand experience.
I too despair.
Said it a million times but I’ll keep banging the drum; we have to revise how we go about defence. We keep stretching programmes to ‘secure jobs’ and spread the cost but we just end up paying more in the long run. 🤦🏻♂️
I was the advisor to Rheinmetall on Programme Management during their bid for CR2 LEP.
Politicians re-profiled the carrier spend, adding much delay and much cost to the programme.
The in-service date for Challenger 3 is not an arbitrary figure. On the army’s equipment budget, it can only afford to build one class of AFVs at a time.
The batting order is
1) Ajax (years late)
2) Boxer, from 2023
3) Chally 3, end of decade.
Artillery is the same…
1) MLRS upgrade to GMLRS (in process)
2) Sky Sabre (2022-25?)
3) Replacement for AS-90 (end of decade)
Ditto rotary:
1)Apache rebuild to AH-64 Guardian (2021-2024)
2) Replacement of Gazelle by Juno (underway, don’t know timetable)
3) Chinook ER purchase
4) New Medium Utility helo to replace Puma, Bell 212, Bell 412 and maybe Dauphin 11 (late 20s)
And so on. O know you know all this, just making the point that it is not so easy to speed things up, each platform needs time to design, develop, test and manufacture, if UK-produced, or fitted into the manufacturer’s production schedule if imported. Throwing more cash at it could give us more Chally 2s, but 7nlikely to shave a lot off the planned ISD.
My own feeling is that the only way we can speed things up, if the purse strings are opened, would be to split some of these programmes.
Example – With the curren measly helo budget dictating a glacial rate of production, we won’t be able to renew our helo fleet on time, which will inevitably lead to future cuts in numbers. If you split that programme into two, combat helos and support/utility ones, and fund each programme adequately, then there would be a lot more kit getting into service a lot sooner.
The slow rate of procurement and the long delay in getting Chally 3 into service is primarily due to budget limitations. The promise of 2.5% by 2030 is typical political bluster and con, it will only become real if HMG commits to a firm incremental rise, with defence spending hitting 2.4% in 2026,, 2.425 in 2027, etc.
So true that profiling of spend over a 10-year LTEP ‘is a thing’ – and the army can’t have everything simultaneously or in a hurry (except for UORs).
In an ideal world, AFVs and artillery systems might have about a 25 year life from ISD – and therefore that all FV430s (not just ‘many’) should have been replaced from c.1988, CVR(T)’s replacement should have been fielded from c.1996, Lt Gun replaced from c.2001, AS90 replaced from c.2017, CR2 replaced from c.2023. That would have been good for the profiling – but none, absolutely none, of that happened. So we are in a very bad place right now. Project launch for new kit should be about 10 years back from required ISD, if full development is required, shorter for UORs and other MOTS/COTS procurements.
Don’t get me started on upgrades! Suffice to say that upgrades should have been at intervals throughout the service life, on average every 7-8 years.
Of course the above is not proscriptive – just what we used to do (roughly) and should be doing now and into the future.
Too many failed promises – that the army would not be cut below 82,000 being one of the most memorable.
Too many Org changes by the army. Too many very bad procurement decisions including on specifying Requirements. Selection of incompetent manufacturers and rejection for the wrong reasons of good manufacturers. Belated engagament by Ministers when there are programme problems. Apparent resistance to buying foreign AFVs and tube artillery (although we used to buy a lot of US tube artillery).
Its a total mess.
I agree your points about funding.
Well it all sounds good, hell something positive might happen😎
Lets hope he puts the 3rd Foot & Mouth on spearhead aka “the Devils in Skirts”. Evil bunch of Bs, killed my pet Nelly and her sister Karla
Carry on Farouk.
“there’s nothing to be scared of…….Oooh, I don’t know though”. Turns & runs.
lol
He sounds very hopeful for the future. The new heads always seem to give these great plans when they take up the post. Give it a few weeks after meetings at the MOD, treasury and see how he is.
In all seriousness everything he says is correct. How it is going to be achieved will be the interesting part.
For the artillery hopefully he looks at what Poland is going to do and join that program if it is quick enough. In the mean time get 24 truck mounted or M777 to fill gaps.
If the army are going to be permanently deployed to the Baltic states I imagine the thoughts will be what is needed to stop Russia invading the 3 countries and also from reaching Kaliningrad. Now the tanks, warrior, bulldog, AS90 become much more important.
Can’t wait to see what he wants to do and if it will be done quickly.
What stops Putin invading the Baltic states? The fact that they are NATO and Chapter 5 will kick in. That Putin has no reason to do that. That Putin’s army is exhausted, demoralised and short of kit.
Meanwhile the Guardian is reporting this:
I thought only the BBC & CNN read that these days….?
Doesnt matter who reads the Guardian. The question is are they right? Will they be proven right?
Its more important that living in a democracy that alternstive or conflicting views are able to be published and shared. Time will tell then if the journalist was telling the truth or not.
Didn’t say they lied.
Didn’t say they were wrong.
Didn’t say their views should not be permitted to be published and shared.
Well said. I suspect Johnson will only be interested in updating the smoke and mirrors on all our armoured vehicles so that they can be offered and operated in numerous engagements at the same time.
You mean our Armoured Vehicle (singular) it is fitted for and maybe with the latest Schroedinger systems so it can be multi present……..
They’ll scrap the 0.5% above inflation increase and throw another £8ish Billion at this years/next years budget and kid everyone it is a massive additional boost when in fact it is bang on the 0.5% above inflation amount that they should get… Year on year with inflation how it is it would be 9.5% per year ish. Watch this space. All spin and bollocks. No confidence in this government regarding defence.
We have all done it, spent a load of money down the pub buying rounds for your mates and then complain later in the month when you have no money.
I wonder how Jefferey Archer enjoyed his porridge?
I subscribe to the POV that I have to be open to all sides of the argument including those I may not like. But to be fair the news reporting from the G is fairely neutral, its its opinions which have the left bias. My current read:
t’was only a joke.
‘open to all sides’ – agreed.
Best not to start a debate on the pro’s & con’s of the Guardian. I do read some bits of it & as you say, many of their stories are fairly neutral, but (like any other media) they have a bias which slips into most things (including what they don’t report).
Such things only really bother me when an outlet tries to pretend they are 100% neutral though.
Interestingly the BBC are trailing a speech that Wallace is due to give to RUSI later today in which he is going to say that defence spending has to match ministers ambitions. So far, so obvious. The early reports, since denied, were that he had told the PM that the budget should rise to 2.5% of gdp, however he is on record as saying that 2% should be a floor not a ceiling.
I hold no brief for whichever cap badge should win, I’m a retired fish head, but it strikes me that an increase in the number of soldiers that can be deployed should be obvious. I believe the figure was less than 20k out of 75k in the army are actual infantry which would seem out of balance, but the Brown Jobs on here will no doubt put me right!
And there was a good article in Navy Lookout not long ago about the ro ro ships used to shift kit, they are going to need replacing soon and it looks like we will need more of them.
The problem as i see it across the Uk, is that the vast majority of MPs are only in it for themselves, any sense of loyalty to the country is gone (unless of course you id as non English) decades of peace (since WW2) and the subsequent all of the Soviet Union has fostered in a mind-set that peace prevail all and that the only war mongers out there are all British, which if late has been replaced by NATO, and that the only way to stop the rot, is to curb Military spending . what is left is often misspent usually under the remit of value for money which for the past 20 years has seen the Uk purchase from abroad which whilst may come out cheaper in the short term, ends up more expensive due to a loss of British jobs, and expertise in that field. Things aren’t helped by cost cutting measures where orders are cut resulting in a much more expensive item . Do I know the answer, no I don’t. But I would start by making people accountable for stalled and failed projects. I would also put an end to the obligatory defence review we see after each and every election which is simply an excuse to divert funding. Finally there is no point in discussing the defence budget until we return to a common sense allocation of Government funding which of late has seen a sense of entitlement for everything and anything to be funded by the tax payer. I mean the lawyers are going on strike over legal aid, yet and a big yet thanks to the 1997 Labour government the British legal aid bill is now larger than the rest of Europe combined, Doctors in the NHS are demanding a 30% pay rise, Teachers , Police, firemen are asking for more, we fund hundreds of thousands of fighting age males in Hotels and today I read the welsh government is going to hand over £19k a year to anybody who leaves care no questions asked. The question very few ask is where is the funding going to come from for all of the above and as we have seen they simply take it from those areas the woke generation see as a result, which as we have seen is usually the defence budget.
20k out of 75k isn’t so bad, when you look at Russia and how bad their logistics are and what has led to.
Getting the army to the field and maintaining it with the stuff it needs whilst there, is as important if not more so than the guys shooting stuff.
The question is what are our logistics actually like and more importantly how full are the warehouses, in other words in a big war situation how long before we run out of ammo/missiles.
But have the Russians now not lost 35k+?
We need a bigger army with extra teeth, however, they’ll need an effective manned equipped CS and CSS.
However many they have lost isn’t as important in the long run to how much equipment and morale they have lost. Most of their gear is heavily upgraded Soviet stuff, that they don’t have the capability to replace with new stuff or they would have done years ago. On top of that, the longer the war goes on and the more troops that don’t come home, the less likely the next generation will sign-up to serve for their country.
There is currently no future where Russia comes out of this war as a serious miltiary threat to NATO, outside the nuclear game.
Not my point. We need more than 20k+ teeth.
The issue is you need a significant logistic and command chain behind any force, so to increase the 20k you need also increase the other 60k. In 2022 young people just don’t want to join the armed forces and so significantly increasing headcount would be very difficult. How much of the 60 is fluff however I have no idea.
Gurkhas are part of the answer along with high profile berets such as PARA Eng, Logs, Arty ditto Booties, just make sure they have plenty of missiles!
More Gurkhas would be the cheap option, the longer term one is to somehow highlight the value of the public sector final salary pension scheme to young people, so that the pay looks better.
Value of a pension pot are not taught at schools nor is basic financie, which is stupid. Army pension is very good compared to private sector equiv and worth a significant amount of money, but private sector has better upfront salaries which is easier to understand for younger people. Who really thinks about pension until your in your 50s and sweating it.
Another thing to improve is accomodation, which would be a eaiser win, but guessing they are so old at this point that upgrading would cost a significant amount. Same problem with the gear, the longer you put off upgrades the more expensive it becomes when you get around to it.
60k? You assume we have an 80k reg army yet I am sure it is less than that. Define ‘fluff’ please! I don’t think anyone in the army is not required.
On any organisation there will be roles that are not being efficiently used. There will be a lot of command roles that are there for prestige rather than efficiency.
“effective manned equipped CS and CSS.”
😍
PM has already stated 2.0 is a floor not a ceiling, today intact.
And I believe every word he says!!
Pointed out under current spending plans UK will fall below 2% of GDP again in 2025 fiscal year.
Yep. Truth delivered in the Holy Grail.
Oh wait…
Think we have just over 19k reg infantry – it has always been about 25% of the total. Why do you think that is out of balance?
As I said I’m not a student of land warfare. On paper a layman might expect that everyone in uniform would be toting a rifle. As the Soviets have recently shown us logistics and artillery are immensely important, particularly in the type of attritional warfare they practice. Where would one look for a simple breakdown of the UK orbat, preferably with understandable acronyms.
Nick,
Not everyone in the RAF flies a plane! Similar for the army.
Everyone in the army less Chaplains (and very senior officers who favour a pistol) do tote a rifle but only 25% are in the Infantry and use it offensively; for the remainder it is for self-defence (of yourself and your comrades if attacked).
Daniele is great at Orbats but I suspect you want a breakdown by capbadge to understand why only 25% of the deployable army are Infantry.
Best I can come up with, which unfortunately seems to mix 2015 figures with 2018 figures:http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0086.html
and look under the heading:
Trained Regular Personnel by Arm and Service (2015)
This might show a bit more than 25% but deployable it is often 25%, depending on mission ie duties in NI back in the day would have had a much higher Infantry percentage.
They will always spin a negative. They loathe everything the UK stands for.
Not just the media, we have an entire generation of adults (and now their children) who dispise everything about the country. We see that in Scotland, we are seeing it in Wales, then we have all the imported new British citizens who only love the tag british for the benefits they can receive.Can you imagine how they would react if Russia landed troops on British soil (Pound to a penny with the full support of the Scottish Nazis party) The only good thing if that happened is all the wonks would assume that dying their hair pink and waving LGBT flags will afford them protection from a hail of 5.45mm. And of course all those who scream that they would rather die than be sent home, would no doubt thumbing it down the M2 towards Dover
Some of the “hard fruits” have seen the harsh treatment of LGBT in modern Russia & I think you would see them on the front line, like the previous generation did at the Stonewall bar in New York. The drag queens were the toughest fighters, I am told.
It’s a global thing Faruok. We have a similar trend in New Zealand.
I feel more and more like a stranger in my own country.
I think it okay to still believe the goodness in people is still there. I think we will all defend our fundamental freedoms when we absolutely have too and rediscover our “back bone”. We shouldn’t let the sacrifice of many men, women and civilians from previous and current conflicts be wasted by forgetting and neglect. Can’t imagine the horror of Ukraine but i sure hope that Ukraine is building up to knocking Russia’s lights out! And Britain, NATO and its allies need to stay strong.
Hi Quentin, completely agree with your commentary. I’m just a little over the constant battering of the past perceived wrong doing of colonists. Time to move on to a better future for all of us.
Yeh, I think its a global thing. A lot of countries are stuck trying to move forward to address the future because they haven’t reconciled themselves to their past. There are lots of groups who are deliberately trying to put the country on a guilt trip. To quote the Bard, what’s done is done and cannot be undone. Time to move on.
You have my vote Paul, well said!
The UK can still be a force for good, democracy and human rights and be helpful to its former colonies and all countries, in building up their economies, promote trade relations and even their post colonial identities. Nearly every country in the world has been invaded and ransacked by someone else at sometime! Not condoning it and we did a fair bit of it but crikey those were the times. Hopefully more human good came from it than bad. We obviously have to be conscious of the not so good in our history. But right now, good on Britain supporting Ukraine alongside the EU, NATO and its allies. 🇺🇦 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇳🇿 🌎 🌍
The Commonmealth is diversifying. Mozambique and Rwanda were not British colonies. Gabon and Togo are joining. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-61967842?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA
As always, plenty of speculation at this point in time!
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is urging the prime minister to increase spending on the UK’s armed forces in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
He already successfully pushed for higher spending in 2020, but will say in a speech later that the threat has now changed.
The UK currently spends around 2% of its GDP on defence, matching the target Nato sets for its members.
But Mr Wallace has reportedly asked the PM to increase that to 2.5% by 2028.
He later denied the 2.5% figure but said defence spending had to match ministers’ ambitions for the UK’s foreign and security policy.
It comes as ministers are expected to drop a Conservative manifesto pledge to increase defence spending by more than inflation, a government source told the BBC.
BBC political editor Chris Mason said it would have been more surprising if the government had stuck to the commitment given the rate at which prices were rising.
Boris Johnson declined to comment when asked about future defence spending levels on the final day of the G7 summit in Germany, but said the UK’s commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence was “a floor not a ceiling.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61961675
That is most alarming. Another broken promise from BJ in the offing.
His job is not hard or complicated. He has got to end the never ending disaster that is Army procurement and equipment modernisation. Ajax, Warrior, AS90 etc etc. To build an Army that prioritises war fighting over cap badges. Whatever happens to the Defence budget if he doesn’t get those things right the Army will remain an effing disgrace and embarrassment. We’ll get the first clue if we start hearing squeals of ‘it’s not fair’ and doors being slammed from Army officers in the Daily Telegraph.
The UK needs to be able todeploy and support a brigade sized formation in Estonia. Then provide its share of the 300-400K rapid reaction force envisaged to be able to check an future Russian ambitionson NATO territorial claims. NATO has to have a not one inch policy. Not one inch of NATO terrotory to have a foot set on it by Russian forces falsestop.
The only obvious fact coming out of G7 meeting is the army has to be increased in size. Has to go back upto at least 85,000 and we have to be able to deploy a light airbourne brigade sized force. A heavy armoured division. Retain at least 2-3 brigades for contingency and a further armoured division in reserve. That equates to at leadt 85k troops.
Tanks. C3 needs to be in service asap. Entire fleet by 2024. All need trophy fitted not just a misetly 60 sets.
Ajax decision within next 2 months either its entering service or its getting scrapped. If scrapped cv90 off the shelf with the 40mm canon turrets ajax was supposed to be getting. Bit of a bastardised approach but at least that should recuperate some costs.
The key thing is that by getting battle ready to face Russia we also prepare for the bigger threat which is in fact China in the 2030s.
You are right China is exploiting Russia as its attack dog/distractor and cannon fodder to test the ground for its own ambitions. It must have loved it when Russia effectively volunteered for this role under the delusion it could retain a sense of parity with them. To China their role is somewhat like Chechens are presently to Russia useful idiots who’s leaders can promote their self importance while being lackeys to a far bigger plan. I guess Putin in the hope of attaining personal glory along the way that he can present to and as status to his ill informed population sees that as the best of a bad potential future for his Country. In reality it could have had a far better future for its people properly in Europe but that does nothing for his and the elites personal ambitions and delusional images of power and grandisement for his Country like his 17th Century hero achieved.
China was forced to hand over bits of Siberia to Russia in 1858 & 1860. Now Chinese nationalists are saying they got Hong Kong & Macau back, so they should get back those bits of Siberia too. Some recent Chinese military exercises near the Russian border. Good time to snatch back, when Russian forces are in Ukraine & short of ammo, tanks, precision weapons, etc.
“and we have to be able to deploy a light airbourne brigade sized force. A heavy armoured division. Retain at least 2-3 brigades for contingency and a further armoured division in reserve.”
Too much mate IMO, the CS/CSS do not exist for another division, such a build up would take years and the costs beyond what I feel any uplift would involve save general war gloves are off economy on wartime footing.
Last time we had 2 Armoured Divisions was pre 2010 and that was around 100,000.
We have the Light Airborne force, that is 16AA, it can be improved with a few tweaks.
We have the basis of a weak Armoured Division, but with 2 brigades, not 3, unless the DRSBCT is counted as a manoeuvre brigade, which it lacks the supports to be and is a DAG in reality.
2-3 brigades for contingency. We have much of that, you’re looking at 7 LMBCT either to support 3 AD or even as a flank force. 4 LBCT could act as a rear area force at present, much as 2 Infantry Division once did for BAOR/ It has no regular CS/CSS at present.
And before the army snatches any further increases ( it has done well already with the previous uplift finance wise ) the RAF and RN say hello!
Know where your coming from. Your talking about an Army that looks as lean n mean as the gold standard out there the USMC. But it’s gonna have to be baby steps. First sort out procurement then get everyone on board about what there job is and what we expect from them.
PARA should increase to 3Bn and Bde enabled. Booties might see they have a different, they do, but, they also need a 3 Bn Bde enabled, PLUS, the units they need for other work.
Then, Bde of Gurkhas bumped back up and enabled.
Concurrently, RRA needs manning and equipping across the board to supply rounded support to the 3 three Bdes as well as the ‘regular’ Bdes.
Morning David.
“PARA should increase to 3Bn and Bde enabled”
It already has 3, and will move to a 4th Battalion as result of FS, plus 10 Para in reserve. It needs a few extra companies, batteries and squadrons in its CS/CSS that were cut in 2015 A2020R to flesh it out and is devoid of firepower.
3 Cdo to 3 battalions (Commando’s) is current set up but as you know they are now split as the brigade was dismembered as part of FCF. They would need considerable uplift in CS/CSS if you are thinking of reverting them to a deployable Bde as they had less than 16AA to start with.
A deployable Bde of Gurkhas! Would love to see that alongside 16AA and 3 Cdo.
You say “bumped back up” but AFAIK Bde of Gurkhas has only ever been an administrative formation as it remains today. Its units are most often sub units in other regiments elsewhere and parts of it serve with the paras.
As a fun research project I have “fantasy fleeted” its sub units from the CS/CSS before to see if grouped together they’d form a brigades worth. They don’t, would need even more to form a Bdes CS/CSS set, but we know the manpower is available if they pass the tests in Nepal, we cannot take too many I believe. They’ve not been anywhere near the RA either AFAIK and no sub unit RA Gurkha formations exist.
RA should indeed be no 1 priority.
4 Para!! Not 10!!!
That’s a pretty coherent package and the right way to go without need for further ado and waffle from HMG.
Increasing the army to 85,000 is long overdue, it should never have been cut below the 105,000 legacy of the last Labour government,. But I think it will be a major pplitical battle just to halt the current cuts and get back to 82,500, as Boris is clearly disinclined to change the flawed Integrated Review’s pathway.
With a restored 82,500 troops, I estimate that we could field 6 combat brigades, up from the current hopeless total of 4. No apologies for defining combat troops in terms of bdes, notwithstanding comments elsewhere, it is the basic unit of measurement in a large allied formation. The 6 would be made up of:
1 x arm inf bde in Estonia (anything less, as at present, would neither deter nor enable the force to hold ground pending reinforcement)
1 x arm inf bde forward on German/Polish border – it is planned to move one of the arm inf bdes to Germany – really needs to be two and a Div HQ, but we won’t have the troop numbers to fo that
1 x arm inf bde in the UK as strategic reserve/reinforcement for NATO Europe – again, should really be a Div of 3 bdes to make any real impact, but can’t be done on 82,500 troops
3 medium/light bdes in the UK to handle out-of-area emergencies and/or reinforce forward NATO formations if required, comprising:
– 1 x Medium Mech Inf bde (wheeled), based on Boxer – tracked MICV needed for the Arm Inf bdes, wither Wsrrior or CV-90
– 1 x Light Protected Inf Bde with Foxhound
– 1 x heliborne Air Aslt bde
That force would require 5 additional infantry bns, 2 extra armoured regts, 3 extra artillery regts, at least one combat engineer regt and perhaps 5 more CS/CSS regts. A total of 16 regts/about 8,500 troops plus 1,500 to backfill some of the current understrength units.
The infantry bns would largely need to come from revisiting the decisions to halve 8 bns, which was a nifty political way to cut 4 bns without public opprobrium and call the half-bn rumps ‘SFABs’ and ‘Rangers’ – neither of which are doing anything that a standard inf bn could not take in its stride.
It would cut the number of out-of-area bns from the now-bloated figure of 10 (11 if we include the southern RM Cdo), back to a total of 7 (8 with RM), which is way more than we can really afford out of theatre.
It would leave 20 bns in the UK, as at present, to fulfill public duties, Northern Ireland garrison, ‘Districts/national reserve and training.
Those who talk about fantasy Orbats and so on need to have a good look at the overall picture and come up with some answers to the questions – how else do we play our part in the NATO 300,000 and how many bn groups, of our very limited forces, can we afford to deploy in penny packets in Africa/Middle East/SE Asia and oyher far-away places.
Agree entirely that we need to light a fire under the Chally 3 procurement schedule and get all 227 into service, fitted with Trophy, within the next 24 months; it should really be treated as a UOR.
Agree too on Ajax, an early decision has to be made, the thing is already 5 years late entering service. Trying to combine a light armoured recon vehicle with an all-singing, all-dancing networked ISTAR platform was probably a bridge too far for the original chassis and suspension, maybe time now to accept the mistake and buy in one of the successful European alternatives.
10 bns in the UK, not 20…
Wallace and the senior management of the MoD (and our Armed Forces) are using the Ukraine war to demand an increase in the defence budget, primarily to pay for the current – and known – cock-ups, thinking that further cuts in capability can be avoided. The result will be that even more taxpayers money will be poured into the bottomless pit that is the MoD, but even less kit will be obtained.
No Defence Secretary in living memory has been able to reform the MoD and so many now feel that the best solution is to disband it, in its entirety.
Only combat proven off-the-shelf kit should be bought. Scrap Ajax and use what is left of the budget to buy the excellent BAE CV90. And the outstanding BAE Archer 8×8 155mm highly mobile shoot-and-scoot artillery system. More tranche 4 Typhoons and F35B. More escort frigates – fitted with the NSM. Buy an off-the-shelf air defence destroyer from the S Koreans that actually works properly etc etc etc
The best value for money would be to invest in our people. More fighting soldiers, more RAF pilots and more RN sailors. What we do not need are bigger office empires in the MoD and letting them get away with blowing more £billions on cock-ups
.
Why on earth would we buy an air defence destroyer from SK when the T45 is probably the best out there?? Why would we outsource warship construction anyway? What planet does that serve the UK and it’s industrial base
I agree with you!
Off the shelf ADD? 😂 Big shelf pal.
T45 works perfectly fine with PIP and with the planned armament & ABMD upgrade is world beating. Fact. The 6 in service are enough to provide fleet protection for Carrier Strike and ABMD role if as I said upgraded.
We don’t need more surface escorts with T26 & T31in build & T32 in the pipe line. They simply need speeding up. Navy has been, and will continue to be fine, if it follows the NSBS as planned.
With respect ‘Type 45 works perfectly fine with PIP’ – HMS Dauntless is currently on sea trials so that statement cannot be true,when those trials are successfully concluded then the answer will be known but unlikely to be in the public domain at least for a while.
The PIP is proving to be difficult and after 12 years only Dauntless has successfully received the power upgrade. So far all 6 have spent post of their lives alongside, or being towed somewhere
https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-status-report/
This link gives the current situation. The people managing the PIP couldn’t organise a p**s-up in a rum brewery
I’d disagree. We should double the T31 buy, today. Ditch Tranche 1 Typhoon. And we have far too few T45 to deliver the defence we need. IMHO.
RN may struggle to crew 10 T-31.
With Radakin in the top slot at the mo, strike while the iron is hot; T45 improvement plan doubled, anyone?
Disagree with some of your points (T45) but in the main, I think I agree. Any increase now will likely just fill the holes…
Before we spend another penny, it would make sense to make some reforms about defence spending & the MoD.
I’ve argued for an age that we have funding a**e-backwards. We (the UK) currently have a budget each year & the branches then argue for their programmes to be funded. Some are then delayed or slowed to spread to cost (increasing total cost & leading to capability gaps!), some cancelled just before they bear fruit & some sunk costs are followed by more money.
What we should be doing is to decide what we want to be in the world, what capabilities we therefore need & then buy it in the most efficient manner possible. We have to start thinking longer term.
Apart from SK Destroyer can’t argue against any of that.
Does the CV90 recce version have the capability that Ajax was mooted to have?
Oh Graham! Past tense?
Sorry Ian, it looks like I have written Ajax off already. But I am not the only one.
A few interesting comments, and the one I think is perhaps the most important is his point about Whole Fleet Management. For those who don’t really understand it, it is the difference between having your “own” company car, or just using a vehicle from the car pool. Add to that, the fact that the MD will look at “your” company car every 6 months to make sure that it is clean, top-up with fuel and you have been servicing it.
WFM was the worst thing to happen, as it meant the soldiers abdicated responsibility for maintaining their own equipment, leading to poor availability and a lack of pride.
Snap, I noted that too.
bingo – that shows how much he is willing to shake things up. We whole fleet manage everything from Vehicles to Radios. I remember being shocked during a very painful 9 months as RSO that we actually only had a Coy’s worth of Bowman for the Bn. The uplift came from WFM BOWMAN or by redistributing or cycling kit from other Bde units.
BobA, and there in lies the issue. A project I am currently working on needs some Radios to supply as GFE. The issue being, so I am informed, that there are apparently nowadays subsets of radios dependent on the “software” fill, but the NSN is the same. Hence you don’t know what you have got from the Bowman Team until you switch it on, because you can’t designated exactly which sub-set you want on the paperwork to order it.
True. It also meant drivers/operators, commanders, MT/Sigs staff and first line REME had a lot less to day day-to-day, and were in danger of geting bored!
I read somewhere that the budget will go up 0.5% by 2028!.
All well and good these plans but what about now?
Considering we’ve emptied our reserves Its going to need some uplift all right. I personally think we should be closer to 3%, now I know it’s probably not feasible with current issues but if we could get our equipment programs back on track and spent the majority of it within the UK then the government can at the very least claim job creation.
In other words go up, after the next election and towards the following one, just in time to be replaced by another promise after the election, aka not going to happen. Let’s hope not true
Having read all that, what sticks out for me is “Whole Fleet Management”
The regiment/battalion deploying for ops would receive its proper complement and the others of that type would have minimal numbers for day to day stuff, training, and so forth.
Sceptics, including me, have always thought it a neat trick to have less of everything.
If they are looking at that again then surely more REME will be required in units LADs/Wkshps for daily maintenance of a bigger inventory?
Lets not get carried away wanting unrealistic increases like more armoured divisions and brigades, tens of thousands more people, and big increases in kit.
Lets fill capability gaps.
A lot more spares and munitions, and target things like the RA for modest affordable increases, examples:
Bigger battery sizes, more guns, 8 rather than 6.
Precision munitions, a Swingfire replacement.
AD batteries, say another regiments worth.
SHORAD, a regiment to counter drones with AA gun type alongside Starstreak, and most vitally more CS/CSS to support the force.
And Boxer. Lots of indications our order will go beyond 1,000 vehicles. Lets get them up armed as a priority. There are many that will be, alongside Ajax, C2 and ambulance variants, is this really necessary or can a cheaper vehicle fulfill these roles so that the very expensive Boxer is prioritised towards Mechanized Infantry Battalions and the teeth end.
The army will only have 5 Mechanized Battalions, pitifully few, down from 9 at present. ( 6 Warrior / 3 HPM )
If that means ditching a few infantry battalions to find the men so be it. So far with review after review the army talks of big changes which do not get reflected in reality, like it is fighting with itself and pulling in two different directions.
I have not mentioned Tanks. If we are insisting on keeping just 2 regiments going forward, 1 per Armoured Brigade. then no increase is really needed.
The sensible move IMO would be retaining the 3rd Armoured Regiment and not converting it to Armoured Cavalry ( KRH, delayed from 2019 due to Ajax debacle ) and using it in 7 LMBCT or as Dern has suggested previously in the DRSBCT and giving that some more teeth. Retaining the 3rd regiment would mean some more CH2 need converting, but only if the 3rd regiment is retained, I’ve seen no indications that is being reconsidered yet. A 3rd regiment at least would help with rotating ongoing deployments.
So much this – “Lets not get carried away wanting unrealistic increases like more armoured divisions and brigades, tens of thousands more people, and big increases in kit. Lets fill capability gaps.”
There’s way too much focus in the comments on the crude metrics of Army headcount and percent of GDP, when we should be focused on ensuring we support/put in place appropriate capabilities for a relevant force. Throwing money at the problem is likely to be a sure way to waste it.
The last 30 years have clearly demonstrated that we lack an ability to accurately forecast the types of conflicts/roles we find ourselves in. So the force has to be trained and equipped to be capable of flexibility to address different tasks, from stabilisation/peacekeeping through insurgency to peer warfare.
Also, when talking about war fighting capabilities, it needs to be in the context of the potential battlespaces of the 2030’s and 2040’s. Realistically there is little we can do for the 2020’s beyond increasing current munitions depth and perhaps accelerating current programs where possible, which generally seems to be much easier said than done.
People want more brigades!! Some of the ones we have are devoid of CS/CSS, firepower, EW, Air Defence, and will have infantry in Boxers with a machine gun, and artillery out ranged by our potential enemy.
We need to sort WHAT WE HAVE before going fantasy fleets and rebuilding BAOB British Army of the Baltics.
👍 Spot on!
Yeh, you are right, but its going to come down to money and urgency. Couple of sample questions…would you sacrifice the C3 upgrade of it meant you could buy lots of HIMRS and Archers, say? Would you accept Boxer with RT60 as Warrior replacement if it was cheaper, faster and we could have more of them? Would you accept a Boxer module as the Ajax replacement?
“would you sacrifice the C3 upgrade of it meant you could buy lots of HIMRS and Archers, say?”
Yes! Immediately! Bite the hand off. Is warfare not becoming an affair of stand off, precision fires, with smaller units more mobile under a comprehensive AD umbrella and EW umbrella? With lots of drones. Yes, Tanks have a part to play but we don’t need several hundreds of them. For a quick expansion of the RA, not forgetting including the rounds like Excalibur, I’d keep Ch2 as is. I’d like to squeeze Trophy APS on all though.
“Would you accept Boxer with RT60 as Warrior replacement if it was cheaper, faster and we could have more of them?”
Yes, though I had to look up what an RT60 was. For more assets at a better price I’d sacrifice tracks for that. WCSP prototypes have been crushed anyway I understand.
On price, I also believe Boxer is one of the most expensive APCs out there ( typical for MoD to buy then ) which is why I also advocate putting Boxer into infantry roles and having another cheaper type for CS/CSS. From what I’m reading so many of the Boxer/Ajax order is C2 or Ambulance they could outfit another 4 battalions with the number involved.
Would you accept a Boxer module as the Ajax replacement?
If Ajax is cancelled, yes, provided it can take the Ajax ISTAR fit, which, as I keep reading from SME’s like Ian M is something the army want to get their hands on. I still retain hope for Ajax myself, people forget it is coming in other variants beyond Scout.
But not ambulance Daniele, Yes, there are quite a few (112) ATHENA (C2) variants on order though.
I know mate, there are Boxer Ambulance variants. Indeed not on Ajax side of things. I’m lumping my points into one piece where I could have been more precise and split them, sorry.👍
Absolutely nothing to be sorry about Daniele, keep up the intelligent analysis and interesting posts!
Cheers
Ian M.
Is the difference between Ajax and Athena just different electronics and the cannon?
Simply put, AJAX has a turret + 40mm CT cannon, full ISTAR suite, crew of 3. ATHENA is a modified ARES. It has a raised roof line and space inside to accommodate extra comms and C2 stuff, signallers etc.
cheers
Got it I think. I need to educate myself on the difference between ‘full istar suite’ and ‘ Comms and C2 stuff’.
Are the levels of armour protection comparable?
As all the platforms are based on the ARES armour levels are very similar and are role dependent. An ISTAR fit is to detect, identify and target and then pass on that information to whomever requires it. AJAX has a comprehensive optical/IR sighting system enabling a hunter/killer operation with detection levels out to 10Km plus and indentification out to 5Km plus. This is coupled to acoustic sensors and CBRN detection and indentification equipment. All of this information flows around several networks and is integrated with Bowman. Comms and C2 stuff is just what you would imagine; senior Ruperts, radios, maps and lots of paper (albeit electronic now).
cheers
Agree about Trophy. And take your point about the number of C2 variants. Its tempting to take another look at the overall order profile and offensive and/or ISTAR potential capabilities of Boxer and Scout variants. Once you drop the CT40 lots of ( good enough?) possibilities open up with technology like RT60, Spike…..have to ask do we actually need another chassis such (CV90)?
Oh I agree, except possibly wrt “People want more brigades!!”, where judging by many comments, most don’t even go to that level of thought and simply look at total headcount, often referencing irrelevant historic manning levels. Perhaps I’m being too cynical.
Per your points made in other comments, its unfortunate that the MRV-P program seems to be missing in action. Vehicles resulting from that program should complement Boxer for many roles including CS/CSS. Points that have been made well by ThinkDefence and Gabriele Molinelli.
Mobilisation of this 300,000 force could be a sign of things to come and very soon- this is beyond the trip-wire!
All this talk of mobilisation, let’s hope the big wigs actually arm the Army with something decent and plenty of it.
What are we mobilising? Army Reserve haven’t been called up and the Regulars are still being cut. Maybe they mean we are replacing obsolete equipment but that isn’t going too well either is it.
Chally 3 only 148 and that is in a few years time. Also it’s not really a new tank.
Ajax – well that is a fiasco.
K9 SP 155mm – still an ambition rather than a funded reality.
GMLRs – we are short of hence we could only supply 3 to Ukraine.
No replacement for Warrior other than a Boxer with a Gimpy.
Sky Sabre – new but so few.
Manpowerwise we still have lots of light infantry Btns but we are hollowed out in terms of Engineers, Loggies, Signallers, etc…Moreover even if they up the numbers again it will be difficult to find recruits at a time of near full employment.
It’s all a bit of a mess and will require major new investment to sort out.
Speeding up new equipment? Is it april 1st already?
Hope we get C3 quicker and more new Artillery systems’ of some kind ,but most put a stop to Ajax and troop cuts and maybe take a look at CV90 no time to waste more money .Hate to say it but more money from HMG..OH dear I hear you all say.
Mmmm, please H M Treasury can we have some more! I hope they are listening and whatever he said was not for Putins ears only. It flies in the face of the recent planning assessment that was published earlier on this year.
Sun seems pessimistic.
Says Boris is resisting any more for defence beyond £1bn more for Ukraine related expenses and thus we will slip below 2% of GDP again in 2025.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/19023996/boris-johnson-defence-spending-promise-inflation/
Getting sick of fat boy the other day he handed Africa £160 million to provide for Hydropower
https://i.postimg.cc/bN3tRgPr/Opera-Snapshot-2022-06-28-171822-www-aa-com-tr.png
also the other day the Uk handed Afgnaistan €2.5 million after the recent earthquake, the EU as a whole handed over €1 million.
The fat twat simply cant stop giving money away to anybody or any cause which isnt British, I personally would like for him to go
He loves giving to virtue signalling things that Carrie tells him to. Can we get some fit young soldiers, sailors, airmen, to do a chippendales pole dancing routine for Carrie & her chums? Then Boris might be told to spend more on Defence.
Pole dancing? Call the Marines! Apparently, they do kinky so well, they have their own police.
Look at it as an investment against Chinese influence. Wherever we release a toehold in Africa, they take it. Investing in Africa is one small way of containing China
Spot on 👍
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/spain-warns-nato-of-russian-threat-in-africa
Hi Farouk
Boris is a Green Socialist….. not a Tory……he hands out money like there’s no tomorrow….
Boris is like all politicians that succeed ie get elected. He know fine well the only way is to appeal to the opposition. See T Blair here or H Kissinger in China.
Yes, finally a CGS who has finally got some balls!
He admitted that due to the changing threat, i.e. Russia in Ukraine. The Army’s manpower level and cuts will be reviewed, duh! If the Ukraine War has shown us anything, is that you MUST have mass even in a technically led World. I think politicians in particular have forgotten what a true war looks like and the number of casualties and dead it generates. Iraq and Afghan were not a true reflection of what a near peer or peer conflict looks like. Ukraine is admitting to having around military 500 casualties a day and estimates put Russia as four times that, especially in the early months.
If we were in a similar position with a core strength of 75 to 85,000 trained personnel, bearing in mind about half that number are front line combat personnel, with the other half being support. The combat capability of this force would not last past two months, likely less. Therefore, there would have been insufficient time to train up conscripts, so that they are at least know how to handle a weapon, but will be no way competent, until surviving their first couple of weeks in the meat grinder.
The Governments of the past and present have let the Nation’s reserve strength fall far to low. There wasn’t a threat, so why bother? In an ideal world, it should be double the serving strength. The issue is that there are not enough incentives for people or their employers to be/have a reservist. It would be really easy to incentivise both through tax breaks, military health care for direct family members (have you tried to find a NHS dentist these days?), college/university grants etc.
If the CGS is genuine about increasing the Army’s mobilisation capability. He must also look at the Nation’s reserves, as well as those still serving. After all, when the main force is committed, what’s left?
Sounds good to me 👍
Would love to agree with your thesis, but increased headcount isn’t that easy, if you look around the world you will find that all advanced countries are having difficulty with recruitment. This is not just a UK thing, as some on this forum believe. A better policy would be to accept reality and double down on waste and attrition. There is no reason why the MOD cannnot aim to be a leading employer and get rid of the stupid niggles that irritate serving personnel and their families. They could start with exit interviews.
One of the stupid niggles that forced me out, was the time I spent away. Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed deployments. But when you get back after a “6 monther” and are told you have to go back out again in a week’s time, due to someone being unavailable through sickness or falling off a curb and breaking their arm, really gets to you. This is exasperated due to the smaller manpower pool, especially when you are a specialist.
Unless numbers are increased, or deployments decreased. There will always be this issue, with people getting pissed off due to a lack of manpower. This has a knock on effect with families and definitely is one of the main factors behind the very high divorce rate in the forces.
My exit interview was a laugh, as it was via a zoom call when we were in lockdown. I gave a very comprehensive list, which was duly noted. At the end of which, he said he fully understood the issues, but there is nothing he could do, which I already knew.
The problem is that the politicians don’t view the military as a strategic asset, they see it as a money pit. It would be interesting to do a study on how much ex-service personnel add to the Country’s GDP? I say this with the view that most ex-military still have a can do attitude and are not loafers. Their training was focused on team work and problem solving, where if something didn’t work, you looked at how it could be made to work or find a better solution. I wonder how this attitude and training has helped UK business? It certainly helped me transition to my new job, where I think my talents are recognized and welcomed.
I’m sure your “niggles” are shared by many, but I don’t accept this “nothing we can do” attitude. Having had a career in risk management which encompassed a stint consulting for an ombudsman, not everything is about money. Sometimes solutions are just about analysis, asking why and changing outdated practices. You don’t hear successful organisation’s say “there’s nothing I can do”. Just requires a change in mindset, from saying people are our most important resource to believing it.
There’s only so much analysis you can do. The root cause is still a lack of manpower. Unless you can get more people qualified for specialist tasks, we will continue to have retention problems.
I’d like to summarise some of what you say in simple rule which,hopefully clarifies the difference between military and civilian careers.
What’s the worst thing that can happen when you are part of a specialist team in the military?
Half you team go sick.
What’s the worst thing that can happen when you are part of a specialist team in civvy industry?
Half your team DONT go sick.
Davey, your large number of deployments and periodic short times between op tours should not have happened, but of course sometimes did. Caused by our having a small army, I think.
I guess a lot of soldiers today will be bemoaning the lack of real op tours since the end of HERRICK in late 2014. A different problem but a serious one for motivation etc.
In some respects it was my fault for being a qualified a JTAC.
I constantly moaned about my lack of op tours – only two in 34 years!
(UNFICYP in 1981 and Afghan in 2008/9)
Did the Falklands a few times, and Belize once, Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, missed Sierra Leone, Did Cypress quite a few times on standby for things kicking off in Lebanon, numerous tours of Iraq and Afghan. At one point I did Iraq for 4 months with a 2 week break followed by a 6 monther in Afghan.
Davey,
My overseas tours (non-op) were: 4 postings to Germany (Munster, Detmold, Nienburg, Hameln) the last one being post-unification; Falklands; Sierra Leone; Ottawa, Canada.
Also did short visits to France, Oman and Jordan for various reasons.
As mentioned only 2 op tours (Cyprus, Afghan) in 34 years, one of the drawbacks of being a trickle posted REME officer. Was invariably posted to a unit for 2 years to find they had either just done an op tour or were deploying soon after I left them!!
Still, I mostly enjoyed my overseas postings apart from Hameln as I had a terrible Sapper CO who disliked and disrespected REME in general and me in particular!
Music to my ears. Combined arms that are highly mobile and pro active, get in, do the job and get out; good communications and and in particular something in our doctrine that seems to have been absent for some time, the need to take and hold urban areas. I might even update my own paper from 2021… copies are available by sending me money and gifts!😋
The trouble is, the current Government keep wanting “low taxes”. Which is incompatible with increasing the spend on Defence from 2% of GDP to 2.5% of GDP. Unless they’re going to tax the people who can afford to pay more, which they won’t do, because those are the people who must be “incentivised” with above inflation pay awards, tax-free bonuses, and share options. While Joe Public is told to ask for less pay in order to keep inflation down… Expect a “smoke and mirrors” announcement from Boris with claims of doing more better with less and being world-leading Brexit Britain battling the evil hordes….
100%
You say that, but we are currently at the highest level of taxation we have been since WW2 and when the government tried to raise taxes Labour complained about it.
There is no such thing as a tax free bonus, all bonuses are taxed. People complain about shareholders getting dividends, but the majority of shares in the UK are held by UK pension funds. So as long as you are paying into a workplace pension, you are de-facto a shareholder and thus benefitting (tax free) from dividend payments.
Those who can afford it eh? Don’t confuse wealth and income. If someone earns over £100k they lose 50p of their tax allowance for every £ they earn – in essence they pay 60% of each £ they earn in tax. You can’t claim tax credits of any kind above £65k. The NI increase will mean that those higher rate tax payers will shoulder more of the burden than basic rate tax payers – who will see a decrease in what they pay.
Don’t drink the left wing, ‘the well paid are all out to get the workers’ kool aid. It’s just not backed up by reality. If you want to make a difference then tax wealth, not income. Asking people to pay more income tax will lock people into the so-called working class more surely than anything else because it will prevent wealth generation.
Are you sure about UK pension funds owning the majority of shares on UK stock market (Just the FTSE 100 I assum ?) a set of figures from 2021 shown 66% of the shares on the FTSE 100 were owned by foreign investors
The various post cold war defence cuts, sorry reviews, said the UK Army did not need heavy armour, GBAD, artillery, etc. as we only faced a few terrorists/insurgents armed with Kalashnikovs, RPGs & IEDs. Well Putin gave a Buk to shoot down that Malaysian B777. Gulf states were giving Tow missiles to anti Assad forces in Syria. In other words, the threat was getting better weapons, but UK politicians/officials, turned a blind eye to it. Now, Industrial war is back in Ukraine, just as “opinion formers” said industrial warfare between states would never happen again.
I cannot see how we put back armour, artillery, GBAD into a 72500 strong UK Army. We need a few thousand more soldiers to man that kit.
Lets not forget, that UK armed forces have retired a heck of a lot of helicopters over the last 15 years, with nowhere near enough replacements.
Dont plan for the last war, plan for the next one !! doesn’t always work out, does it
Exactly this. To paraphrase what the General said, “….cyber cannot conduct a forced river crossing…”
…and a drone cannot seize and hold ground.
Good time to bin Ajax, and get the CV90.
Meanwhile Germany moves at a snail’s pace to increase it’s military capabilities. lol
To be fair to them Dan, the German government has now opened the coffers and spending is increasing substantially.
The first thing they need to do is raise readiness and spares backup, both have been appalling in the German Armed forces for decades, with availability dropping to the point of being almost totally ineffective across all three services.
Reports suggest a substantial increase in Luftwaffe training, that’s certainly an encouraging start.
I’ve been deeply critical of Germany and it’s coat tail riding defence stature in the past, it’s certainly great to see them finally getting a long needed kick up the arse and being galvanised back into action.
Cant’ really blame Germany for not wanting to spend money on defence, after all there is a small matter of 2 world wars started.
That is very good news indeed as it will remove the last barrier to creating a very good stable security situation in Northern Europe and the Baltic, really adding a lot more security to the Baltic states.
A great relief and now hopefully I won’t need to harp on about just how weak our northern flank was and just how tempting it must surely have been had Ukraine gone as planned to strike in that area Finland, Gotland and then test NATO in the Baltic States which would have started to look indefensible if those former moves on then non NATO targets taken place. Now it’s the opposite and Russia is looking wet weak in and around the Baltic and thwarted somewhat in the artic sea too. He will not be a happy bunny whatever spin he puts on it and neither will all those nutters on their media strategy programming. Best thing is that as NATO could not have not defended Sweden at least now the line is drawn so that one avenue for an accidental road to nuclear conflict is at least reduced.
I’m not sure about the mood music, Boris Johnson is very much sticking to the “we spend plenty on defence” line, I think he far to under the thumb of the Ultra small state conservatives to open up spending.
personally I think we need to move away from the whole a fixed specific annual budget that drives spending and investment. Instead it should be focused on first having a very clear needs assessment and analysis of gaps of what you need spend money on. Then you find the way and means to pay for it. So instead of an annual budget that can lead to increases long term costs and inefficiently running programme ( slow downs to save in year) we should focus on what is needed and spend the money to deliver it in the most efficient way even if in one year you many spend 4% of GD on defence and in another 1.5% etc.
This made me laugh it was highlighted the other day that Nato, purchases some of its fuel supplies, wait for it Russia, 😜
Well as we discovered a few months back that nearly all diesel is produced in Russia I guess that was bloody obvious. This is the problem with unshackled capitalism, cheapness and snort term savings take a far higher precedence over being able to defend yourselves against your most dangerous and obvious aggressor, but this one really does take it into the realms of madness that really doesn’t give one any confidence in the words or deeds of politicians. .
Did we not mothball a refinery in NE England a decade ago?
Looked into it. Teeside, Essex & Milford Haven shut down by 2015. Low margins + endless Gov health & safety+ net zero, meant they were not worth investing in. By contrast, a refinery in Holland got $1 billion spent on it for a new hydro corker that turns low grade heating oil into diesel. Shame our refineries were not given an incentive to do the same.
I think sane minds will keep nuclear weapons leashed.
If that doesn’t conclusively damn the “Whole fleet management” malarkey I don’t know what does.
It’s a trick to be able to keep less stuff and save money. I don’t mind keeping kit in CHE when not used, we have thousands of vehicles at Ashchurch after all, but units on establishment should have the kit they need at all times, peace or war.
If General Sanders is saying this hoping to push through a defence budget increase, it ain’t going to happen, I don’t see Sunak agreeing to it.
Yes
Is he saying “Ok, you were all right after all”?
I’m a civvy. thank god at last! At least it is even being discussed, WW3 is long overdue unfortunately. We need a top to bottom rethink of all our armour and we need to wake up, if it all kicked off now we would be doomed, not because of the calibre of our service personell, as I think we have proven that the British armed forces are bloody amazing in every domain, but because we haven’t got enough stuff! I read this forum ALot, if we really only have 43xMLRS and we have gifted 3 to Ukraine where is the strength in numbers to actually deter or even fight back. this may be harsh, but Russia must Die, their own population can’t even rise up even after seeing the horrific nature of Russian warfare, the Orcs are Cowards and they must not win or gain anything. They will just build Shit tons of unguided, non precise shit and destroy everything for the sake of nothing. They are unsophisticated peasants that take no responsibility and have no respect for anything, again I am being harsh but the Russian population are ignorant self Obsessed C..ts that need to wake up and stand up and say no, but they won’t dont do it because they are a bag of shite! What have they given the world, centuries of destabilisation historically and the Russian wide neck meatbhead maffia in modern times, net contributers…… Not! As I said, what a bunch of c..ts😬🫣
Apologies…….so. Angry
That did come across 😉
Just seeing what Poland is planning to acquire, makes our situation even more laughable thank heaven they are on our side but cynic as I am I can’t help but imagine Boris and co see that as a great advantage forming a front line barrier so allowing our glorious leaders to talk up our own efforts from a deemed safe position without actually having to deliver much as usual while urging others to take on the real burden.
In his RUSI speech, Ben Wallace called out against dishonest financing and the misuse of fantasy efficiencies, the MoD practice of planning for programmes paid for by saving money through never-arriving efficiencies. Given that he’s the Minister of Defence, why won’t he simply mandate a stop to this practice, alongside other accounting slights of hand, such as “realism”, and insist on proper contingency planning?
It seems like he’s trying to have it both ways, allowing him to claim he’ll be running more programmes than he has the money for, using the slight of hand (“we now we investing over £43bn in the Army’s Equipment Plan over the next decade”), as well as railing against the very practices that allow him to claim that.
Come live in the Lake District, you’ll still be stuffed, it’ll just a bit longer, but, the views are amazing 🙂
Or the Brecon Beacons?
Apparently, the forested areas of the Lakes had an alternative purpose: to act as a harbour area for at least one Bn of Infantry; maybe more, in the event of nuclear attack.
We’ve always got cammed up troops tramping around. You could lose a couple of battalions up here.
With the odd SLR or smeg 😉
Proper gats they were!🤣
Meggitt and Ultra being sold off to the Americans.
Ultra is going to the people – Advent International – who gave lots of assurances then gutted Cobham.
FFS.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/28/government-clears-path-6bn-sale-raf-typhoon-supplier-us/
How do you know when Johnson is lying …
Man goes to heaven and meets Jesus who is looking at a clock. This clock is Mother Theresas he says, it keeps perfect time because she lead a perfect life and never lied. Over there is the clock for George Washington. I have to adjust that twice a day because George lied twice. The man asks, where is Boris Johnson’s clock? Jesus says, I’m using that as a ceiling fan….
Go on….how?
This is Kwasi Kwarteng not Johnson.
With BoJo, he’s lying on any day with D in it.
Just a bit of silliness if I may. There must have been a time when this General Sanders was a Colonel… so I wonder if he got a bit of piss taken back then… Lol 😁. Anyway may his shopping list for the Army come true!
In the army I knew a Major Major and a Captain Scarlett. Hilarious!
Of course they won’t. Putin may be on his last legs on a legacy building mission, those who have aligned themselves with him aren’t though. What use is the power and wealth they craved with no country left in which to use it? If it comes to it he will be removed before they lose everything.
Wonder what they have been promised in return?
You do talk some tosh Jay. Why not slash your wrists now and get it over with so me and my family when reading this site don’t get despondent reading such doom laden crap??
😂👍🏾
Just read that the US light tank programme has been won by the GD Griffin 2. Without wishing to make anyone explode their heads, that vehicle is based on the same chassis as you guessed it the vehicle that must not be mentioned on here. Does one laugh or cry.
Cry. There was a planned “Medium Armour” version of Ajax for fire support, long before cancelled, which I believe is that vehicle?
Since then they were planning on hoodwinking people by using the standard Ajax Scout for “Medium Armour” regiments. That crap thankfully was dropped along with Strike.
The army is going round in circles. Someone, anyone, needs to take it by the scruff of the neck and decide what it wants to be and fund it.
The Army has been aimlessly lost in the wilderness since the sandbox wars Daniele, the RAF and Navy appear to have a plan, but those who creep the carpets of Whitehall won’t be budged from the SDSR2021 vision for the Army.
The reality is a 180 degree turnaround on the numbers cut and retain the three Armoured Regiments, all suitably modernised and re-equipped..
That should be the immediate ‘knee jerk’ reaction, then force levels built up from there after a carefully considered review.
Unfortunately, that’s was too expensive, so it will be fudged…..
100%
In reality, it’s based on the ASCOD but has the more powerful MTU/Renk (AJAX) powerpack, I think.
Reading the press it seems we are far off getting any uplift. Neither number 10 nor 11 have any interest in additional funding, despite the fact the PM is lecturing our NATO colleagues on their spending while ours falls in real terms. Its seems more likely that Ben Wallace will be moved on during the next reshuffle than it is we’ll get more money for defence.
Our politicians need to be honest. If we cannot afford it or need to prioritise other things then so be it. But lets not pretend to be something we are not. Define our priorities for defence and fund those accordingly, stop spreading ourselves so thin without the budget to back it up.
He has no shame. I know the Slovaks and Latvians will privately feck him off at the high port; doubt any will take him seriously.
In international relations, we have a dead man walking.
Norway has just announced they are giving the UK three M270 that were in storage and in need of modernization and that will allow the UK to cascade three more modern examples to Ukraine while the UK modernizes the Norwegian ones.
I fear we will be sponging off of all sorts of ‘lesser’ allies many of whom seem to have far more equipment than we do. I now fully understand why we signed a defence pack with Finland and Sweden we may need their support the number of enemies Boris and co are generating.
This isn’t really sponging.
It’s just sensible.
Norway had stopped using the M270 and all 12 they own have been in storage since 2005.
This shuffle effectively sees 3 M270’s no-longer in storage and unused, and instead 3 M270’s put to good use against the Russians.
The only downside is that it’s only 3 and not all 12.
(And M270 is no-longer manufactured so you can’t source them new.)
You have to wonder what Ukraine could do, missiles unlimited, to the Orcs with 12.
Blast them all the way back to Modor
Theres spin and theres spin and then there’s 10 Downing St we are having a party spin:
Just been watch the news looks like BJ sticking to is guns on defence budget no extra money sadly💰and yet he wants other countries to do more ,is he relying on them to make up short fall for away out 🤔
Oh it gets better, current tweet from 10 Downing St. I think somebody added an extra letter to Spain (underneath NATO in the top right corner) Damn my orginal post with this, which was sent to mod has tipped up, appologies for the duplication
There a quote from Boris now “says the UK has increased its defence budget “massively” since the end of the Cold War.” not quite sure were he is getting that from. 3.56% GDP in 1990
He must be talking about spending more £millions year on year and not considering that is usually just to keep up with inflation.
Breaking news.
GDLS wins US Army’s ‘light tank’ competition, deliveries to begin in early 202429 JUNE 2022
“General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) will build the US Army’s new ‘light tank’ and has received a USD1.14 billion contract to produce up to 96 vehicles, according to several service officials.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/gdls-wins-us-armys-light-tank-competition-deliveries-to-begin-in-early-2024
Isn’t this light tank better fitted to UK expeditionary role in the world than MBT?
Yes, I covered this in earlier posts, lighter, faster and transportable.
Hey maybe we can send the US the completed Ajax hulls and get a refund if theyve decided to use it for their new tank.
😂
Interesting read! https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-06-29/real-key-victory-ukraine?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=fatoday&utm_campaign=NATO%E2%80%99s%20Hard%20Road%20Ahead&utm_content=20220629&utm_term=FA%20Today%20-%20112017
If you want cheering up 😥read the Telegraph and the Boris and Ben show.
Idiot Tory Minister was on BBC Politics Daily only lunchtime and claimed the government already spends 2.3% on defence. On that reckoning, it’s a 0.02% increase!
The latest military buzzwords/trends (cyber/agile and special forces/ etc) doesn’t seem in Ukraine to have been the game changer that was first thought. Good ole fashioned military heavy military formations and systems, and infantry are what wins peer wars.
Jay,I’m so glad you didn’t forget the full stop after the word ‘soon’. !!!! Its so hard to tell sometimes!
That’s the British Arny that’s failed to order a single 155mm artillery piece in a generation
…or to order a new tank (CR2 is 24 years old from ISD – and CR3 is really just an upgrade), or to replace 60-year-old 432s or 50-year-old CVR(T)s.