Despite speculation in the media, it has been confirmed that there are no plans to increase the deployable size of the British Army.
The information came to light via a Parliamentary question.
Matt Vickers, MP for Stockton North, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps he has taken to increase the number of deployable divisions in the Army.”
James Heappey, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, responded:
“The British Army has two deployable divisions: 1st (UK) Division and 3rd (UK) Division. Whilst there are no plans to increase the number of deployable divisions in the British Army, under the Future Soldier programme the Army will modernise the divisions to ensure they are fit for purpose to counter the threats of today and the future.”
A division is the largest formation in the British Army. Currently, a division has three brigades that together have 10,000 personnel.
By 2025 the entire Regular Army will stand at 73,000 troops and the Army Reserve will stand at 30,000 troops. Combined, that’s 103,000 troops including 19,400 belonging to the infantry.
The information came to light via the following exchange.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 2 December 2021 to Question 83229 on Army: Reorganisation, what estimate he has made of the total planned strength of the infantry by 2024-25.”
James Heappey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, responded:
“The total planned strength of the infantry by 2025-25 will be c.19,400.”
This is part of already announced ‘Future Soldier’ plans, according to the Ministry of Defence:
“Following on from the Integrated Review and the significant increase in defence spending announced by the Government last year, Future Soldier demonstrates how the Army is modernising to address next-generation threats across the globe. This will be bolstered by an additional investment of £8.6-billion in Army equipment over the next ten years. This will bring the total equipment investment to £41.3-billion for that period.
Creating an Army fit for the future will see some restructuring and reorganisation of units over the next four years, which will be supported by a rebalancing of personnel across the United Kingdom. The Regular Army will stand at 73,000 strong by 2025 and combined with an Army Reserve of 30,000, the British Army will stand at over 100,000.
The proportion of the Army based in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be sustained or increased by 2025, and this will be reinforced by around £3.35-billion from the Defence Estate Optimisation budget and a further £1.2-billion of Army investment in remaining sites.”
There are no plans today, tomorrow might be different. Putin’s War means we will just have to go to nearer 3% of GDP. Watch this space.
Cant see the Chancellor going along with that, we will just keep putting world leading or cutting edge in front of everything so we can pretend everything is fine
and pay ovr he odds for things out of the BAE catalogue like we usually do
Some examples please.
Astute type 45
How do you come to the conclusion that delays and cut backs by Blair and Brown is the fault of Bae. If I win a contract for £X and then the customer changes the number required or the specs I charge accordingly. If the price is higher that’s not my fault.
These are no more expensive than their equivalent overseas (western) units, I don’t think
At least the BAE stuff actually works, unlike the stuff in the GDUK catalogue.
BAE did that joint venture with Rheinmetall to give MoD the option to buy German engineering embedded into British supply lines. Boxer and Challenger III are making it clear that BAE was making the right move.
Boxer is Rheinmetall Land Systems – completely owned by Rheinmetall.
CR3 is RBSL (Rheinmetall/BAE Systems Ltd)
RBSL was formed to handle all BAE legacy platforms and to provide as British based company for Rheinmetall including the Boxer and the Challenger II upgrade. If Ajax ever gets canceled (which isn’t even that unlikely) then we would see the Lynx pitched and not the CV90.
Where is Lynx IFV used? If Ajax gets cancelled, I’d imagine they’d want a lower risk solution and would ask for the costs/pitch of CV90. I doubt they’d be refused or Sweden would be getting the phone call.
Unfortunately, this being the MoD, they’d probably want another two or three year backside-protecting competition before selecting anything.
Adding over 10t on an old vehicle family is like the main reason for the Ajax clusterfuck. Another reason is that GDUK doesn’t have any experience in a large scale production run for something like an IFV – the same can be said about the British BAE part. The main selling point of the BAE & Rheinmetall joint venture is that all those toys which are supposed to make the Ajax cutting edge are basically off the shelf capabilities for Rheinmetall, which you just need to order with your vehicle. Access to the German portfolio embedded into a British supply… Read more »
The buzz phrase is: “Smaller, more agile”. There should be no doubt now that the continual cuts have done nothing good and have only emboldened our adversaries.
It’s claptrap, the current UK forces will increase as the population becomes more aware of the Army’s plight. For the first time in many years increased spending on the Army may be a vote winner? One other issue, the UK must match Germany’s land warfare spending? I for one believe we can not allow a disproportionate growth between our two nations again. Many would have thought Putin would not act as a 20th Century demigod, but he has, and now we find it increasingly difficult to readjust to the situation. The UK can not allow history to repeat itself to… Read more »
Few more than 140 needed though….
Fingers crossed on the 23rd something happens about that.
I’d like to see 40 or so Typhoon Tranche 3s replacing the T1s and then more F35s purchased, and delivered faster. At the very least get another dozen in this year so we can stand up 809Sqn, to give us two squadrons.
Personally, if/when Russian forces leave Ukraine, I’d gift the Ukrainian Air Force our old T1 Typhoons and train their pilots how to fly them.
Much of what I’m saying is cosmetic, but that is what the general public sees and thinks. The perception of preparedness backed up by quality training will allow the British people to feel more secure. The planned 73,000 cap will not be of much comfort to Mr & Mrs average, so I can envisage another 20,000 minimum being closer to an acceptable figure. A new Cold War is already here and how the UK reacts will be closely monitored by friends and foes alike.
Mr & Mrs Average would be reassured by a couple of NLAWs in the cupboard under the stairs or CAMM in a bunker under the nearest business park which would link to a nationwide network. We need the ability to destroy any enemy kit etc. which comes anywhere near territory we might want to defend. If we put it in those terms, which the public can relate to, they will back it with people & kit. Forget talking about numbers which Mr Average doesn’t understand and talk about what everyone is trying to achieve and you might just get a… Read more »
An air raid plan with purpose-built underground facilities may no longer be considered far-fetched for British cities. However, as nuclear missel systems are developed by suspect nations with a global delivery capability, maybe there should be a change of policy? The concept of MAD is not the single outcome, as tactical and limited nuclear hits, could have a narrower focus meaning just London? Most underground car parks in the UK would require considerable modifications to act as effective shelters, but not impossible. If the Ukraine war has taught us one thing, it’s the vulnerability of modern cities to bombing. There… Read more »
Agreed. The ability to deny airspace to everything from drones to ICBMs would have a multitude of benefits especially in a defensive posture.
It seems likely now that European countires focus on land war is going to be a little sharper from now on. Whilst this is an area we must also have strong capabilities in I think it would not be unreasonable for us to focus on air & sea?
In the future I would agree rogue states are going to be a potential additional threat and we must be able to block attacks.
Germany’s increased defence spending comes decades late and from a very low base. They are playing catch-up.
I do agree however that we need to spend more on defence. The army is the smallest it has been since Napoleonic times.
Currently, there is a zero military threat from Germany. However, the tectonic plates of international politics are a strange beast to grapple with. With energy costs rising exponentially and with limited options national interests can take an unexpected turn. All I say is be cautious and take a holistic approach to defence, as threats can materialise very quickly.
Are those, teutonic tectonic plates perchance?
A bit of both with just the slightest hint of bratwurst?
You must mean that there is a zero military threat to Germany from Russia?
Not sure that is how they see it – they apparently plan to significantly increase defence spending.
The big issue in the years to come is not energy costs but climate change. There will be many millions of displaced people all looking for somewhere to settle and that will cause conflicts globally.
How does the war in Ukraine prove that manpower isn’t the answer?
All the Ukraine war proves is Russia is not a realistic threat to the west, beyond its nuclear one. However the war is far from over and it’s possible that Russia will come out of it licking it’s wounds and learning lessons and being a much more dangerous player after it.
I think we are being too quick to judge, Russia is a very large industrialised country with a lot of resources, they can afford to play an attrition game in any war. We are currently expecting them to try and move their attacks into the Ukrainian cities, but I fear that may be a feint, while what they are really doing is slowly surrounding the Ukrainian armies fighting in the east of the country … if that happens we can expect a quick collapse. We will have to wait and see…
The ages old russian tactics of pound an awe then swamping resistance with numbers of troops
Ukraine is a massive country. Surely the Ukrainian Army will simply melt into the countryside and wage war from there. Provided they can maintain supples of weapons, food etc.they can make it almost impossible for the Russians to move without losses.
It brings back the old chestnut of numbers or equipment. The U.k tries to get both more ships-more money better technology can mean slower growth due to the longer wait to actually take delivery of. TheU.k tries to do both but when it does the result is cuts waiting for the new equipment to be taken delivery of.8,p00 Nepalese went for 400 places in the British army. The manpower is there maybe a H.m.s Gurkha would get us sailors
The Frigate situation is precisely how we should be doing more of our planning. We need some super high tech assets but we also need numbers too. So supplementing the very high tech assets with cheaper and more numerous assets is a good idea. That is not to say that I do not think we need even more. Look at the US. They have all sorts of air assets. They have astonishing high tech aircraft and then they have other cheaper ones to go alongside. For instance they are currently flying spy aircraft based on private jets around Romania. They… Read more »
It proves that mobile easy to use kit in the hands of an enthusiastic amateur with a little training can be a serious challenge to more traditional kit & training. We still need people but the kit needs to evolve at a rapid pace, we need it in the right quantities with the people to direct it onto the target. This does not mean we don’t need an Army and that most what the Army does is a waste of time. We just need it to be properly resourced, trained and constantly adapting. We need new kit in months not… Read more »
Thanks. I think our army, which I spent 34 years in, is very well trained and constantly adapts – a pity it is not well resourced (too small, capability gaps, ageing and unmodernised kit).
New kit in months – that should be achievable for simple stuff like uniform items, but not complex AFVs or weapons whether they have to be developed or bought off the shelf and adapted.
Thanks for the reply Graham. Total respect for your 34 years. What interests me are your views on modern technology and it’s affects on modern conflicts such as the Russo Ukrainian war. We have a situation where kit like NLAW seems to have made a profound difference. Indeed it seems likely that relatively cheap and rapidly produced kit in other areas could well have a similar effect and if fast tracked could be decisive. On the other hand our potential enemies could well learn from this conflict and rapidly upgrade their forces. I would suggest that we could well enter… Read more »
Thanks Mark. Some say the best form of defence is attack – an old cliche – and not always true, especially if you have limited numbers or experience in Combined Arms warfare in the offence. Ukraine is in a defensive posture, unsurprisingly – and should major on defensive and ambush strategies and not engage Russian Army in the full-on offence. An enemy, in classic terms, needs 3:1 superiority (locally) to succeed against a defender. Russia finds it hard to make that ratio so is resorting to terror tactics to demoralise the people and force Ukraine to the conference table (again… Read more »
Further investment in more Typhoons with Marte ER would be a very good place to start to increase UK air dominance. Digital Means Adaptable “Importantly, the Typhoon’s advanced, reprogrammable EW suite allows the aircraft to react to a constantly-changing threat environment in ways that physical stealth cannot. Consider today’s threats. The latest surface-to-air missile systems are having their hardware regularly upgraded, are being networked and can change their behaviour almost instantaneously via software reprogramming. In short, they are constantly evolving, creating a dynamic and challenging threat environment. This means that the advantage of aircraft which use traditional physical stealth technology,… Read more »
Our armed forces should not be based on Germany. Modern Germany is world’s apart from the one at the turn of last century, and not a serious military threat, economical yes miltiary no, but we choose the economical threat with brexit. The level of our armed forces needs to be based on the types of conflicts that we will realistically expect them to fight. The focus should be looking at what went wrong in Iraq/afgan and learning lesssons, a big part of that is sheer numbers. We need to get to a point where our armed forces are not over… Read more »
Given the strategic position of Germany the nation was a vast position in the event of a Warsaw pact war the drawdown if NATO left a gap in the alliance that Germany has never addressed
Given the history, you can’t really blame the Germany public and government for being anti militarisation.
Germany before the Great War was different from that of 1940. I simply suggest the UK ensures we do not create an imbalance as we allowed between the wars.
We should not increase our land component to match Germany. That would be ludicrous. Britain’s main contribution to European NATO is by definition maritime, followed by air, followed by land. And that’s how it should be. Germany by contrast is (or should be) the primary continental land power, also with a good airforce. By contrast, you would not expect them to match Britain in the maritime domain
What is ludicrous is committing bog-standard CH2s and other tied old metal, to a potential war zone. Britain has been a land power for hundreds of years and will continue to be so. As for permitting Germany as a primary continental land power is, exactly what we should not allow! Echoes of the 1900s, which we do not want to witness again.
Germany needs to pull its weight and should be the primary land force in Europe with a robust airforce. UK should be the primary naval force with a land army that can defend UK and provide robust international expedition capability with a very robust RAF. France should be a balance across all three arms.
Poland too should, and is developing, a strong land capability.
Pete, of the 28 European NATO nations, you single out just one Germany) to be the primary land force. I don’t get it. Germany has less than 63,000 soldiers (fewer than our 78,000) and only 226 tanks.
Resurgent Russia is the main threat and has 280,000 soldiers in the army and 45,000 in airborne forces, and 12,500 tanks.
Every nation in NATO needs to supply ground forces; we should not be relying largely on Germany’s tiny army.
Not ‘should be’ as in UK should shrink to be smaller than Grrman army is today. ‘Should be’ as in Germany needs to step up and put in place a larger army reflective of its population, geography and economic strength.
The British Army could be smaller than 63,000?! …and I thought 73,000 was bad enough.
Germany should massively increase the size of their forces, but we should not consider them alone to be the tip of the spear. Germany, Italy, Poland and France should provide the bulk of the east-facing armies, although Greece, Turkey and Spain have sizable armies but are somewhat distant from the central region.
By definition? Which definition? Whose definition?
How does a strong RN aid the security of western European nations opposed by Russian land/air forces?
I think Pete is correct. We, by virtue of being a island, should have a strong Navy and Airforce and an effective home defence force and expeditionary army. It doesn’t make any sense for the UK to have large numbers of tanks or infantry to be honest because its not needed to defend the UK or to support NATO. The UK needs to focuses on controlling the northern approaches to the Atlantic, providing defence of the nation and providing support to those nations who will be engaged in a ground war via highly trained army units and effective air assets.… Read more »
Shaun, I can’t agree with much of what you or Pete say. Germany does not have an army of the size or readiness to have the main remit in providing ground troops. Their army is smaller than ours, by a long way. To meet the threat of a resurgent and aggressive Russia, we need every one of NATO’s 30 nations to bring as many ground troops as they can fund into the mix. A G7 nation like ourselves can be expected to have a good size, well equipped army (shame it isn’t). You are right that our army needs to… Read more »
It’s been every year since 18776 when the labour government axed ark royal and did away with the Oberon submarine numbers. If the Falklands war was repeated now I’d love to see the panic as Wallace and his merry man running around the MOD looking for a force big enough to send down there
We are much better prepared to retake the Falkland’s now than we were back then.
Even with fewer DD/FF, attack submarines and amphibious shipping?
Yes because the equipment we have now is much more capable. One QEC is has more capability than Hermes and Invincible combined. two type 45s would control the airspace around the falklands entirely with support of the F35. The two Albions and the three Bay classes supported by bulk carriers and supported by the second carrier acting as an LHA could land/deliver a huge amounts of kit and equipment. Assets like the apache, Merlin, chinook etc would add more useful helicopter assets. This couple with Argentinas decline would make it a cakewalk.
Certainly true that capability per platform have increased. However we deployed 6 out of our 28 attack subs on Op Corporate – we could not do that today.
I suspect our adversaries are having second thoughts about a full frontal engagement with NATO. It appears size is not everything and all the complementary elements of logictics, training, tactics, equipment quality, ISR, professionalism and willingness to fight are equally or more important. I’m sure collective minds more knowledgeable and experienced than I or the chatteringTwitter and YouTube set will be studying Russia’s performance very closely.
Well I have taken all the doors off, just in case…
if that logic worked, the Falklands would never of happened.
If ark royal had not been axed thn it’s aircraft above the the task force may have prevented the loss of the ships.
Falklands should never have happened. The foreign office knew for well that the miltiary junta was considering a war, but the government didn’t act. If we had reinforced the islands when the threat was clear, the war wouldnt have happened, instead we did the reverse and pulled the only ship in the region out. Same with Ukraine, NATO had a chance to stop the war, by deploying a large force into Ukraine under the banner of a training excersie and Putin would have been forced to cancel the attack, but NATO did nothing and so was seen to be weak… Read more »
Unless you are suggesting we can take a page out of Putin’s little book of threats to me that comment is both illogical and naive,
We are not Russia and we are not Putin-we do need a bigger and better equiped Army if we want to have some sort of credible force regardless of NATO.
Our nuclear force is capable of killing a nation with its immediate effects. It will then go on and kill about a billion people over a decade from crop failure. If the add in a response to our use of use of the weapons then your looking at a 300-500 warhead exchange, that would probably knock out 50% of the worlds crops for a decade, so that 3-4 billion starved to death over ten years. But the great thing about our deterrent, is it was never really designed to counter the Soviet Union all on its own. It was a… Read more »
Greta would be happy though…no more global warming to drip about…
Yep, it most defo sort that whole global warming issue, a nice bit of planetary reset if there ever was one.
👍
Spot on.
I believe that the French have atomic weapons because of Germany, especially after the USA rearmed West Germany post-war.
lol no they have them for the same reason we do. Germany is an ally to France.
We should noltb seek to rival Russia and China in nuclear capability. We could not afford it and would have to cut conventional forces even more to attempt to pay for it. We have been reducing nuclear stockpiles for decades to show a lead in non-proliferation.
We need to reduce the probable need to rely on this American’s Europe should be able to to stand on its own
Only to show them that we have the ‘melons to use them. Or use the money elsewhere. I’d like to see that we can have a constant two trrident at sea deterrent ability and two carrier groups available
But we aren’t playing fantasy militaries though and one is more than enough. We could all sit here and say we want 50 frigates and 1000 fighters and 5000 tanks but that’s not realistic or required.
We can’t use trident, its simply an everyone dies button to prevent a nuclear attack on this county. A strategic asset not a weapon of war.
A political tool.
We have not had a massive army since the Korean War.
I don’t agree that Trident is a substitute for a large army.
No one is suggesting a massive Army, I for one would like to see 115,000 and the 30,000 new Army Reserve structure.
That’s is still a small professional Army Jay.
The situation in Ukraine shows the relevance of having quality Armoured Regiments in sufficient number with all bells and whistles, I would suggest 6, so a fleet of 350 MBT’s.
All the Major European NATO members should be doing the same thing, i.e, UK, France, Germany and Poland.
We’ve let our guard down and it’s proving to have been a massive mistake….
Imagine, how many cap badges we could bring back and we could have guards at all the palaces and Edinburgh castle as well. No idea what 30,000 extra bayonets gets us against Russia when NATO has like 2 million and we gut the navy and air force to pay for it. There is no third shock army any more so no need for the BAOR to be reborn.
The point being Martin, 115,000 is still a small professional Army, it’s only the fact that it’s shrunk so far below critical mass, that that sounds a lot, is extremely telling!
If the UK still intends to pivot towards the Far East and also meet our NATO commitments, then something needs to be done.
The t3’s forward based at Gibraltar and Singapore and a proper warship presence in the south. Atlantic would restore a fair amount of kudos lost around the world by the loss of former bases like Singapore and Bermuda and Simon’s town
Our interest in restoring some of the army’s numbers is clearly not to resurrect lost cap badges or guard palaces. The army was reduced to 120,000 in 1991 as this was deemed to be the right size for a post-Cold War army, following an analysis which did not not foretell the more complex and unstable world that has come about – arguably we might need more than 120,000 regulars. Subsequent, repeated and savage cuts down to 73,000 have been purely at the behest of the Treasury, and are not militarily justified. Our army is the smallest since Napoleonic times and… Read more »
I’d like to see the restablishment of the Mediterranean fleet. That Will show that we the European navy’s can police that part of the world.a bit of nostalgia doesn’t hurt now and again. Give a couple of the already retiring t23’s to the south Africans in exchange for basing rights at Simon’s town.
Re-establish the Rafsquadron in Gibraltar and a t31forwardbased there I went to gib récentlyI spoke to people who said that because the navy didn’t get. Go there as often as it did in the past the hospitality revenue was vastly reduced.
Uk and NATO need conventional, of various levels, of deterrent, as well of nuclear. So a few more battalions would be useful.
Britain has traditionally not had a large land army, with the exception of both World Wars, we have been mainly a maritime power, not a continental power, even before nuclear weapons existed.
True that we have not traditionally had a large army – an army of just 120,000 is all we need.
We don’t need a massive land army but it does need to have some teeth to it.
If we simply reversed the planned cuts of personnel and focused on an army approx. 85,000-strong, and equipped them with some serious firepower e.g.
We’d have a small but incredibly potent force.
At last someone on here who speaks some sense when it comes to matters ‘Land’ . No one in the Army is wanting to re-create BAOR but what we do need is to ensure that our one remaining deployable armoured Division ( 3 Div) is viable, which at the moment it is not. Whatever happened to the ‘rule of threes’ ? 3 Sections in a platoon, 3 platoons in a Coy , 3 Coys in a BN, 3 Bn in a Bde – 3 Brigades in a Div. Why ? Key principles of war defence in depth and maintainance of… Read more »
I would add: replace CVR(T) family, including STRIKER, with a family of vehicles that actually work properly; retain and upgrade Warrior (WCSP); replace FV432 and Saxon by Boxer MIV as per the original plan.
Too much emphasis on fancy kit than good óld boots on the ground
Has the army got any fancy kit? It is virtually all old and unmodernised, as well as being small in number.
But who knows if we have anyone brave enough to use it?
Someone just asked the Russian ambasador to the UN when Putin was going to surrender. Putin might just be in a position very soon with his back against the wall contemplating his own end and whether we might all join him.
We must stop the Putins of this world from starting wars by ensuring that it is obvious he / she can win none of them. Trident helps but we should have wrapped the NATO flag round a load more countries whilst we had the chance.
Jay, what size would a massive British Army be?
Do you really think that Trident can do what such an army could do?
Does the possession of Trident also mean that we don’t need a massive air force or navy?
Don’t hold your breath….
Increase defence spend? Only if politicians and the Treasury think we might actually fight Russia (with NATO allies, of course). They will be hard to persuade.
Remind them how caught off guard we were in 1982
Trouble is we muddled through (superbly) in 1982. Politicos will think we can always muddle through successfully.
Certainly clear intelligence warnings did not get to Lord Carrington or the PM (or they did and were not acted upon). However we rapidly deployed a tri-service Task Force which did the job in a few weeks, albeit with some capability gaps and equipment design weaknesses, mainly on the RN side.
Our ability to react to the most pressing crisis today (in Europe) is much lacking.
It should be 3 per cent anyway in this unstable world
There has been alot of speculation. I think you have your answer.
“2 deployable Divisions”
Total codswallop!
I like your faith in what the defence secretary says is the case. 😂😂😂 it’s not like politicians ever make things up. Very honest bunch of career ******s
Ha, ha. 1 UK Div has 2 armoured Bdes (6 BTGs), the other Bde being a recce / arty thing (1 BTG). 3 UK Div has no deployable Bdes. 16 AA Bde remains (4 BTGs) but 3 Cmdo Bde is now an admin unit not a deployable Bde (2 BTGs). I don’t know what planet these people are on. As to more Army numbers. Correct, sort out the enablers and the Arty, absolute priority. Then we simply must field a 3rd armoured Bde in 1 UK Div. You know the UK is still a great power (yes NOT a superpower).… Read more »
Yep. Other way round though Rob, it’s 3 ( UK ) Division that has the armoured Bdes and is deployable, though it’s a shadow of what a division should be.
1 Division is a “golf bag” and at one time had no less than 7 Infantry bdes in it! (After 2010 SDSR )
Of course, you are correct. Of course the ‘golf bag’ actually does Bde regional commands in the UK, holds regular infantry Btns for roulement, does aid to the civil power and holds the reserve army. Each of which were actually different commands. They can’t do more than 1, maybe 2 of those things all at once…
Yes, Regional Command/ Home Command have no infantry battalions, unless 160 ( Welsh) have any, don’t think so.
We used to have 2,4, and 5 Divisions for the regional stuff before the 2010 massacre.
160 Welsh has had all it’s infantry re-assigned. All infantry Battalions (minus Paras, Overseas and 2 Yorks) are in the BCT’s.
Yep suspected as such.
What do you have 2 York’s under Dern? That’s the new experimental Bn isn’t it?
Is it with the LWC?
Yes, LWC I believe, with the rest of the trials and development units.
Ta.
The issue here is that the public (including the politicians) are watching the Russian Army being taken apart by NLAW and similar weapons in the hands of people with a few hours training. Probably not the point in time to start bigging up tanks just as the blitzkreig was not the time to big up horses. I think we need to get away from chatting about divisions because it is sending people to sleep. Right now if the Army had the ability to give the Ukrainians an air defence system which could be operated anywhere that would be of value… Read more »
MarkB, agree absolutely, we need to stop fighting yesterday’s wars. The lessons of Ukraine are NLAW and Bayrakter. We have self defence systems planned for our tanks ok, but we only have high end drones and no domestic producer of UAV. This needs to be remedied. If a Ukraine manufacturer can form a joint venture with Bayrakter why can’t the UK produce a licensed version, when it is clear that drone’s are the future, high, medium and low end.
True. Tho I think drone defence for the whole army is needed. By that I mean AA assets – to firstly detect enemy UAV’s and then to destroy them or at least neutralise them and it needs to be done widely and on the cheap. It’s an interesting technical challenge.
Big lesson is fuel trucks don’t have protection and tanks Ned fuel. Question is is a 120mm gun worth the logistics to get it there.
The endless possibilities of the Maddox drone for the navy has the potential to be a great force multiplayer especially as it has just been tested for missile firing. I wonder if it fits the mission bays of the proposed new frigates
Spot on.
Agreed
Mark, You suggestthe tank is obsolete because of NLAW. I guess you think the manned fighter-bomber is obsolete because of SAMs?
Is Russia losing or are they just making slower progress than expected – they continue to wreak death and destruction upon the Ukrainian population and have caused 2m people to flee and brought Ukraine to the negotiating table several times.
What I am suggesting is that the pendulum has swung back in favour of the defender. The Ukrainians will be able to melt into the countryside where they have vast food supplies and provided they have adequate supplies of weapons filtering in from the west the Russians will find it difficult to move by road or by air. The tank is not helping them win this war like it would fifty years ago. The tanks are vulnerable and supplies are vulnerable and the aircraft are vulverable. Whilst the Russians are destroying cities and killing many civilians we know from provious… Read more »
we’d be in a far better space if we’d taken on more than 400 of the thousands of nepalese that competed for a place in the gurkhas
Absolutely. Every year there are 10,500 candidates with circa 350 selected. There are just under 4000 in the British Army, so this could be increased to a recruitment of 1000-2000 per annum for a start. 3500 better.
‘if’ a decision is made to increase the Army, via an increase in defence spending, then the first target would be to offer selected individuals in their final year, new selective engagement contracts, annually renewable, with a bonus structure and perhaps additional pension incentives. Another option would be to offer them Army Reserve positions, on permanent secondment, there are already a few doing this with specific skills that are badly needed. It gives individuals the flexibility to leave too. If you convinced a third of the annual leavers to remain, with various golden handshakes, then you would start to rebuild… Read more »
The problem with the Army in todays world is that nobody understands what it is for. It is rare that the public see it doing anything much. The younger generation do not relate to it and it is not a lifetime career. Now is the time to completely change the aproach. In my view we need to move to a position where millions of people undergo training to operate a range of high tech kit within a military command structure alongside existing education / training / existing occupations. The Army could then draw a far smaller number of permanant roles… Read more »
I would have thought many people would have seen the army fighting Ebola in Sierra Leone, and more recently aiding the NHS fight coronavirus and helping with flood protection and relief.
As far as conventional military deployments, perhaps the public is less clear, although there has been coverage of troops in Estonia on eFP duties.
It sounds like you are advocating conscription? We don’t want that.
I think you have proved the point Graham. People will not join the Army just to sit there waiting for an emergency which happens once in a blue moon. People happily train as first responders on a voluntary basis to help out the NHS but it is not productive to ask large quantities of people to spend 100% of their time on war fighting. Conscription is a failed concept that serves to put people off the Army. Better to provide the basic skills linked to weekend / summer camps with time off work rather than desperately trying to train recruits… Read more »
I joined the army ‘to soldier’ as everyone does. In my 34 years as a REME officer I had 6 months in Cyprus on UN peacekeeping duties and 6 months in Afghanistan. I would have liked more than one of 34 years on deployed ops! But no-one gets or expects 100% on ops.
I am still struggling to understand your plan to train civilians in basic soldiering skills when this is not conscription and not joining the Army Reserve (TA, as was).
Graham I think what I am anticipating is that when and as we exit this Ukrainian conflict the Russians will look to modernise thier approach & their kit NATO will in turn need to counter any improvements Russia and/or china makes. I would expect far more kit (smaller maybe) in the form of drones etc.in the battlespace. I can see the need for civilians to have the basic knowledge for how to maintain, set up and use the kit especially for teritorial self defence.. This and more basic soldiering skills might be learnt in advance rather than when your country… Read more »
Hi Mark, I am no longer a career soldier, I left the army in 2009. I remember years ago a phrase ‘smaller, but better’ being applied to the British Army during one of the endless defence reviews – which meant giving up many manpower posts for some shiny new kit (which the army was going to get anyway). I am not sure if you think British civilians should have this basic military knowledge, but the chances of the UK being invaded are very remote. Very pertinent though to many continental countries, especially those bordering or close to Russia and without… Read more »
Telegraph and the Express reports have both suggested that Johnson and Sunak are resisting any new(post Ukraine) increases in defense spending and the need to stop the cuts,citing the recent defense spending increase as sufficient i sincerely hope this is mere speculation and not fact, but i am not holding my breath !!!
We have a 3rd Armoured Brigade currently, unless the changes are underway as we speak. ( 1st, 12th, 20th ) With the change of our 3rd Armoured regiment to Armoured Cavalry as part of the old Strike Bde plans armoured Bdes reduce to 2. That plan is still in place apparently.
Cancelling that and restoring the 3 Armoured Bde plan would be doable but Future Soldier would be dead in the water as 7 LMBCT would lose its enablers and be as useless as 4 BCT! 😆
Agreed absolutely – see my comments above. We need to restore the third Armd Bde in our one remaining viable deployable Dlv, incidentally it is 3 Div , not 1 Div , don’t ask me why because it’s administrative crap. I do know because I’m currently serving in it and can explain but it would be very painful indeed. We should be re named 1 (UK) Armd Div – because that is what we are.
indeed the same prawn that called the trent a major warship.
I though at full stretch we could manage a brigade and maybe a battalion sized battle group somewhere else or am I being a pessimist?
No, I agree. I think at full stretch we’d manage 2 Brigades plus supports but it’s a one off silver bullet with no roulement possible in an enduring deployment.
As far as I understand things (and you’re much more knowledgeable than I) an Armoured Brigade, accounting for attrition etc is about all the UK could contribute to the fight in Europe. Sickening really. We should at least be able to stick a fully resourced Armoured Division on the continent. (I agree with your regular calls for more of ‘the rest’ in order to make the aforementioned viable). Personally, I would have an Armoured Division sized formation dedicated for mainland Europe and 3 Brigade formations available for Norway, Middle East and reserve/replenishment. I will bring up the old argument of… Read more »
Yes, it’s a reasonable aspiration. I always prioritise RN, RAF and Intelligence/SF before Land but at minimum we should have a fully resourced deployable Division to contribute alongside Poland Germany who could and should contribute more here.
Good points Daniele. To roule a brigade in an enduring op, you need a total of 5 similarly sized and roled brigades in the Orbat to give the troops 2.5 years between tours (Harmony guidelines).
Even the 2010 cuts kept the rule of 5. The 3 Armoured Infantry Bdes plus 2 brigades from 1 UK Div that in theory were deployable as the CS/CSS elements for them existed, albeit with some reserve elements in the assigned RA and RE Regiments. So there were 5 RA, 5 RLC, 5 RE, 5 RAMC Regiments and 5 REME Bns for these bdes. Those enablers in the 2 deployable Bdes from 1 UK Div were cut in the 2015 SDSR and the dawn of the Strike Bdes lunacy. What enablers remain in 1 UK Div now are mostly in… Read more »
Totally agree, the cuts, particularly under Cameron and to the present were a disgrace and totally unjustifiable, in my opinion, they have left this country very vulnerable to a suddenly and negatively changing world situation, which are now seeing, it was reckless, complacent and foolish and they should have been held to account for these actions by the media and Parliament
I feel it would be a really good idea to fly out all British MPs (just for the day) in small groups to Poland and if possible across the border into the Ukraine for a short visit. let them see at first hand what war is all about, let them see the people, the suffering and then let them discuss the British armed forces on that note, I watched this video of people getting interviewed by the media in Moscow and to think people across the Uk complain about how oppressive the British are regards free speech
Just watched that video. Disgusting. Not even allowed to talk to foreign press. Brave women. Probably never going to be seen again and if they are they will be followed everywhere they go. Have their phones tapped and have to report to a FSB station every week for correctional reminders and to sign they apologise for their mistakes and believe in Putin.
Russia has dropped down to junk status within just a few months and is clearly a failed state.
Very sad.
3 years in a siberian gulag.
slightly offpoint but a similar thing was trialled by the prison service in the 90’s where scumbag teenagers were put in prison for 24 hours to see what being in prison was like as an experiment it was a great success and non of the creatures involved offended again because they didn’t like it!
I feel it would be a really good idea to fly out all British MPs (just for the day) in small groups to Poland
Agree with the idea of flying MP’s out to Poland, just not sure I’d be inclined to bring them back 😀
These MPs might we let them make their own way back from a French beach, and have the Navy push them back?
The footprint of even a meaningful Div is pitiful.
Denuded of suitable vehhicles the footprint shrinks.
Defence needs a reboot and I think many on here would go invest in
Navy
RAF
Army
Army needs gripping, they have spaffed Bns on wasted projects and still can not field a force that occupies a decent foot print.
Can CDS sort it out?
20 – 30 kms from a NATO Border and bombs are falling… trip wire moment is coming.
Does beg the question if one of these not so smart weapons of Russia lands in a polish field and explodes what then?
Russian UAVs have already fallen over the “border”
Nothing is said…
A more realistic aspiration would be forming enough CS and CSS Regiments and battalions, say 10 total, to furnish 2 of 1 UK Divisions brigades which currently lack such and are undeployable unless HM spin it that a brigade devoid of supports but with light infantry battalions only is somehow suitable as a formation and does not need the enablers which enable them as true all arms brigades. A brigade should have: Logistics Regiment. REME Battalion. RAMC Regiment. RA CS Regiment. RE CS Regiment. I Have not even started on the Royal Signals, nor the AAC, but they are an… Read more »
I’ve just read an interesting article in the FT, written by a party leader in Finland, about the desire of that country to join NATO. There now appears to be a clear majority in favour, hardly surprising in the current circumstances. What was more interesting, even startling, was the fact that their army totals 260,000, presumably including reserves. The population of Finland is 5.5 million. And we are complacently happy with 77,000, less that 20,000 are actual infantry. I think the idea of sending MP’s to the war is a good one, sadly they will probably want to come back… Read more »
The Finns live next to Russia. Not surprisingly they take their national defence and right to self-determination and democracy very seriously. Wish the same could be said for UK. 70 million population but deployable army of just 20k. Thats piss poor.
agreed
agreed
Nick, The Finns operate a conscript service and all their males have to sign up until they are 60, which is why they can arrive at such a large number of people for their total figure. The time they serve is rank based so if you join as rank and file you do 165 days, as an NCO 255 days and as an Officer 347 which is supplimented by revision training until you are 60. the chart below from the Finnish Miltary website says it all. https://i.postimg.cc/C52KjRNS/finss.png Interestingly the reason why the Finns devote so much time and effort to… Read more »
That’s most informative Farouk, the UK might do well to consider something similar going forward.
No, we don’t want conscripts.
Could you imagine the political and social fallout in the UK if even the suggestion of that came up.
Be so many applications on disability living allowance to try find an excuse not to take part be unbelievable.
Yep I was friends with a Finn lady who had left Finland in the late 40s. She hated the Soviet Union and Russia with a passion. In reality Finland through the winter war and then continuity war ground the USSR to a point it was happy to take go for peace treaties when it wanted Finland lock stock barrel. It effectively was at war with Finland for 5 years and all it got out of it was Finland agreeing A sort of eastern facing neutrality, in that it would fight NATO if NATO invaded its territory and allow the USSR… Read more »
Thanks for that, very informative. I don’t agree with one of the posts above about going down the same route, we really don’t want conscription coming back here.
Thinking about it what you state seems very similar to the Swiss model, and they have maintained their neutrality for 300 years.
The Finnish full time Army numbers only about 2,000, the rest is a combination of conscripts undergoing their mandatory service time, and conscripts liable to be called up again in time of war. It’s not really comparable with a full time professional army in terms of nubmers.
It’s about 8000 regulars, supported by 4000 civilians, with about 22,000 reservists on active training duty. To be honest they are not conscripts in the traditional sense ( they almost all want to do it, it’s a national passion) and they are all closer to the TA than anything else. They have initial focused training for their initial conscription ( 6 months to a year and that is training not just hanging around being conscripts). and then have a life long commitment as a reservist in which they get refresher military training regularly. As a Nation Finland has a policy… Read more »
The Finnish are deeply impressive Jonathan and I think Ukraine has been a rude shock to the Russian Military. Any move against Finland would leave the Russians absolutely mauled. I’m beginning to think the Russians will be forced to the negotiating table, the losses are already heavy, they will go through the roof as they move on Kiev. The rumours of Chinese pressure on Russia to stop persist. The Chinese are deeply concerned with the War, especially as it’s gone seriously south and see the dire possibilities of war between the West and Russia, or a limited war that Russia… Read more »
If they attempted to move on Finland Sweden would have to enter the fold immediately to help hold the line. Russia would not have a chance in that terrain.
I agree Russia is running out of weapons to use and isnt really gaining ground. Financially its now in a complete mess and as you say China really doesnt want to be in this position right now seeing the unification of the West against Russia.
We are heading down to 73,000 of which 19,000 are Inf.
There is an all-party Parliamentary group of MPs who are interested in Defence and do trips to visit the Forces. I hosted one such visit in FI in 1999.
You missed MP as well, 😉
Morning David. How could I! You’re mob. Yes, a Provost Company for each Bde. 😂
Well if there’s 2 divisions suddenly making a 3rd or 4th with 10,000+ Soldiers in each isn’t likely to happen very quickly.
It’s the infantry number that I have a hard time with. So is infantry just soldiers on foot with hand held weapons? Is anyone in a vehicle different? Do the other 50,000+ soldiers just do the back end work and can’t be put in a dangerous situation? So confusing and trying to look at the army units map is no help at all. Units all over the place.
Every soldier in the army is a trained soldier. The infantry is basically their trade. All their training revolves around closing in with the enemy to destroy the enemy.
Compared to say someone in the RLC, RS or RE where they have a specific trade whether its a driver or signaller or an electrician etc. That’s their specialism but if pushed came to shove you could use everyone in a ‘fighting role’ but that’s no ideal as day to day they don’t train for closing un to kill like the infantry.
Nor have the mindset – and that’s the key.
Infantry refers to soldiers whose primary mission is to fight dismounted. Emphasis on Primary. So for example: Infantry might deploy in Warrior IFV’s. The turret operator on a Warrior still counts as Infantry because his unit’s primary mission set is fighting dismounted, even though his job is to man a vehicle mounted weapon. The rest of the Army can be put into dangerous situations, that’s why Soldier first, and every man completing Phase 1 are things, but it’s not their primary role. A REME mechanic, a Challenger 2 crew or an RLC driver is supposed to have a training to… Read more »
As Dern says, study ORBATS. A Google search will give some reasonable charts for regiment sized formations but not sub units or many other minor ones. In fact, Dern produced a good chart himself and put it here for a future ORBAT idea. Looking at maps won’t help! As a very basic guide light and airborne units use STANTA TA in Anglia, where 16AA Bde is concentrated at Colchester and other nearby garrisons, though other light Infantry Btns are also garrisoned widely. Mechanized and some armoured formations are clustered at Catterick. RA regs up north use Otturburn. Armoured Brigades, or… Read more »
Haha not a geographical map. It was a table with HQ at the top and units underneath. Can’t remember what it was called.
My main interest has been equipment and tech across all services.
I worked with the army as a civilian caterer and one of the kitchen porters said to the army chef will u ever have to shoot anyone? His answer was if it comes to me picking up a weapon something has went horribly wrong to the rest of the army and if that’s the case who the fu ck am I making lunch for.
That attitude is endemic in certain units and it really winds me up because it’s flat out wrong. Let me demonstrate with 3 hypothetical situations: Scenario 1: RLC Chef deployed to a small distant PB, which is held by a Platoon – of infantry. PB, being physically far from supporting units and relatively isolated comes under a routine attack by insurgents. Everyone gets called to sangars to defend the compound. Has something gone horribly wrong? Scenario 2: RLC Chef is part of an echelon following up an Armoured Infantry Brigade during a conventional ground war. Armoured Formations ahead are conducting… Read more »
Ask a REME Recovery Mechanic (not infantry) about life at the front line.
Its great that you want to increase your knowledge on the army. Dern and Daniele’s answers are great. Infantry can deploy in trucks, tracked IFVs (Warrior), Protected Mobility vehicles (armoured wheeled vehs), helicopters. In general, at the end of their ride they dismount and operate on foot, as they do not fight or defend a position from their conveyance. Infantry have hand-held weapons (personal weapons such as SA80), crew-served weapons (mortars, machine guns) or shoulder-launched weapons (eg NLAW). Other Infantrymen have specialised jobs which does not primarily require a weapon to be used such as being in recce platoon or… Read more »
20k deployable at best case, means likely half that in a realistic case. Considering at the height we had more than that deployed in Iraq or Afgan, and that was shown to be significantly too low to achieve anything, shows that there is a major issue.
Steve. I agree. There is a major and I think that should be underlined major issue. General public blissfully unaware.
Taking into account the fact that increasing the army upto a deployable for of more than 2 infantry divisions will take 6 months minimum. That work of expansion needs to happen now.
Very perilous, nieve and dangerous state of affairs.
empty the prisons, long live the press gang
Think we had a 9k army in Afghan at most, ie a Brigade+. Way too low – needed an Inf Div.
I think it all depends on what our government wants to do with them. Realistically the main land is safe and has no realistic threats on the horizon, so we don’t really need an army today as we would have time to rebuild one should a threat start to emerge, as one is not going to appear from no where. If however history repeats itself and the government wants the army to be the lap dogs of the US and deploy globally, then yeah it’s not enough to achieve any serious goals, beyond a PR stunt. I personally would like… Read more »
I don’t think we would have time to rebuild an army. Look how quickly it kicked off with Russia and Ukraine.
Not counting the fighting in Donbass and Crimea, Russia built up their forces, what, just into the new year, and then kicked off the invasion three weeks ago.
It would take years to build an army from scratch. Plus, all that experience hard-earned and passed down through decades, even centuries of warfare would be lost. We’d have a crap army then.
Russia / Ukraine has kicked off over the course of 9 years plus, it’s not something that has suddenly happened
And how many people actually saw a full-scale invasion of Ukraine coming from 2014? Very few. If you take it from the point where Russia started building up their forces along the Ukrainian border it was a few months. Even at 9 years, that’s no a long time to be able to build up an army. To recruit 100,000 or so soldiers and officers, to train them, equip them etc. Not to mention that all that experience gained from hundreds of years of fighting, once lost, is lost for good. Even with the current army it would be difficult to… Read more »
I think many did, hence why Ukraine massively increased its miltiary. It’s wasn’t a surprise when Russia invaded Crimea, it was known for years that russia was considering it. Wars don’t happened over night, there is normally years and years of build up and polictical wanglering. If we had a border with a potentially aggressive neighbour, which Ukraine has had since Putin took charge, you would expect not sensible policticans to start building up defenses. Ok sensible and policticans don’t go together but if you didn’t then you only have yourself to blame. We don’t currently have any aggressive neighbours.… Read more »
Again, though; you can’t build an effective army from scratch in 9 years.
Stebve,
My comment about ‘needed an Inf Div’ related to Op HERRICK in Afghanistan of course.
Not sure what you are saying. Mainland? UK mainland, is that? or Continental European mainland??
We don’t need an army? What? I am not following this.
You think we should disband the entire army and build it from scratch if a threat to UK mainland hoves into view?
What a load of tosh. So just 1500 miles away on the same continent as UK Putin has invaded the 2nd largest country in Europe (after Russia) and is trying to subjugate 40+ million people. Our response is a deployable army of just 19000 infantry and total force with reserves of just 103,000 all in. Thats frankly not going to cut it. Neither is a RN with just 17 surface combatants (under armed) and 7 SSNs with only 2 or 3 deployable at any one time. Or an airforce with 3 Awacs (not yet delivered, imminent capability gap) 105 eurofighter… Read more »
If the UK army losses were on the Russian scale right now ,there would be absolutely no armour left. If that doesn’t wake the government up I don’t know what will.
the governments eyes are not on the potential risk to the u.k its about the balance sheet. thee truth is staring them in the face but they’re too busy(in the navys case trolling on about this planned ship, this 5th generation fighter we should spend less on big lumps of kit which always costs more. i’ve oft thought that as the americans number 1 ally in foreign adventures the u.k should get a seal which gives us first option to buy retiring u.s forces equipment. everybody else trades military hardware why not us? if it will fill a gap, or… Read more »
Good job we have no plans to invade Ukraine. I take your point. Russia has lost 353 tanks in barely a fortnight. We are heading towards a 148-strong tank fleet.
and because some prawn at the M.O.D/treasury was let loose with a calculator.
Most effective act of military sabotage in history.
If we could actually deploy 18-20 thousand properly equipped troops in 2 divisions, that would be fine. Assuming the French, Germans, and Italians provide similar, then that’s 80k to bolster the flank which I think is actually plenty. 200k Russians are making very tough work of getting through Ukraine, I think even 300k would struggle to make the same amount of progress through Poland, so I think we’d have 2/3 weeks to get our act together and get heavy units into place, with an RAF detachment and lighter units obviously arriving sooner. Our main issue is that when you look… Read more »
Not even close, at maximum 2 armoured combat brigades and that is it. After that you can only have infantry. and only do defensive warfare.
Same for other big Euro countries. Maybe France can deploy a full division and Italians have Centauros. besides tanks so they maybe can add a light brigade to the 2 tank brigades
Poland and Greece are the most heavily armoured countries in Europe, But Greece would never deploy outside it.
In the event of a European war involving NATO…I have always thought we could manage to deploy one or two brigades (BCTs) at present, so say about 10,000. This should be deployed to the western part of Germany in the Sennelager/Paderborn hub as part of a multi-national strat reserve for SACEUR.
Plus we should provide RM for flank protection in the north of the continent and RN (a CSG) for flank protection (in the Med) in the South.
Hi Mr Bell
I do wonder if there will be a sharp reverse on the pending Typhoon tranche 1 curt and a push to acquire those F-35s faster, and another awac or two ?
I hope so!
I’d say still cut the Tranche 1s but not until they’re replaced with new Tranche 3s. If I were in charge I’d be cutting the 30-40 or so T1s and replacing with 80 Tranche 3s!
Agreed Steve !
Not enough Compared to who?
Of course we could never deploy the totality of our forces into a single Theatre of war. So of that 103,000 (Reg and Reserve Army), it is said that we would struggle now to deploy a full division (of three bdes). More likely our max effort would be one or two bdes (BCTs).
I know it’s something we don’t like to think about but with Russia losing so much armour, what is the attrition rate before the division is considered ineffective if there is no reserves left now?
the navy used to have a standby and reserve now neither.
A unit or formation is usually described as Combat ineffective if it has lost 30% of its manpower/materiel.
Whilst it would be a step in the right direction to increase the size of the British armed forces (not just the army) it’s a process that will take a number of years simply due to the fact that the Uk simply doesn’t have the accommodation to fir them all into, it will also need to increase the logistical chain (docs, medical, dental recruiting, training) in which to accommodate them. In the meantime, I would use any increase in funding to better equip the Army (for example has the British anything along the lines of the French scorpion digital network) there’s… Read more »
It seems to me that the UK has to make some strategic choices. It will likely never field an army able to deploy a credible self-sustained force 1,000+ miles away on the other side of Europe. At the same time, the Navy and the RAF today deploy totally inadequate capability. So it is the latter that must be the immediate priority. … And then there is the reality that any clash with Russia anywhere, immediately contains the danger of nuclear escalation. So it seems somewhat superfulous to create, let’s say a British Army Corps, deploy it to the other side… Read more »
Roy, your first para…It was only a few years ago that we deployed an army task force of 9,000 to Afghanistan, some 4,660 miles away from London.
your second para…We lost the ability to deploy an army Corps in 1992, when 1 (BR) Corps was disbanded. We would today struggle to deploy a single division – we could deploy one or two bdes (or BCTs).
In Germany in the Cold War, we trained to survive and fight on after nuclear, chemical or biological weapons were used against us, whilst the politicos would be sueing for peace.
Since Afghanistan, the British army has been further cut. In Afghanistan, the West had full control of the air with no opposition other than guerrillas … and we were still defeated in the end. War against a nuclear-armed opponent would be an entirely different thing. I doubt there would be any winners.
I hope it’s very quiet & comforting with their head so deeply stuck in the sand. We obviously need the ability to deploy significant forces to protect the UK plus several deployable forces to support NATO & deal with any other contingencies arising. Trying to do everything on the cheap based on a long past assumption of peace is biting us on the backside as we find our weakness has enabled Putin & other potential hostile states to aggresively expand. We’ve been watching dire hostile threats building a decade or more but allowed the treasury & all their accolites to… Read more »
Well said and still according to newspapers accounts, there are suggestions that the twits even now ! still have the heads buried deep in the sand in regards UK defense, with no plans to increase defense, if true it will beggar belief, they really seem to view our armed forces as a luxury , rather than as vital to our national security and safety !
Could anyone answer a question that bugs the hell out of me. The Gurkhas are a full and integral part of the British Army yet there numbers are never included in the quoted Army manpower total.
Honestly didnt realise the numbers arent factored in, maybes something silly as they dont class the people as UK citizens?
On the same topic are SF members classed in the total number aswell?
Non UK Commonwealth citizens and Spec Forces are included.
Absolutely no idea on that one then!
I thought UK 3rd Division has 4 brigades which under Future Soldier were going two be two armoured infantry and two strike brigades with my understanding that a brigade is usually 5000 troops? Presumably the Paras are not counted in the 19k infantry or so and the Royal Marines (circa 6k) come under the Royal Navy so are not in the 19k infantry either.
For all those talking about our military shortfalls: Will Putin have a military worth worrying about two weeks from now? I like to remind some of those here who were constantly telling us last year that they (Russians) had an impressive military and that they can produce much more for the same $. Does that still hold true when some guy with an NLAW worth $25k can take out a tank worth $1+ M? Putins military has been humiliated and China is looking-on happy that one of its main adversaries is intent on self destruction. The only real winners from… Read more »
That’s a fair point of view, and has merit, however, I would suggest that the Russians are from out of the fight, are learning from their mistakes (some of them anyway) and still have the resources, if they get it right, to deliver a defeat upon the Ukrainian forces.
I hope that doesn’t happen.
The forces they’ve deployed in Ukraine are not all of Russia’s forces. They still have a substantial army north of China, North Korea and facing Japan. They also have a very large mechanized force in Belarus facing Poland. They could quite easily swamp Ukraine with another 200,000 troops plus their kit. Without calling up reserves or conscripts. The armour facing Poland that has been recorded on social media is all the newer T90s. Rather that original T72s and T80s and early model T90s. What I find strange is that the so called crack 1st guards division that is part of… Read more »
I think they’ve been using their older equipment becuase it’s so expensive to maintain such a large fleet of old platforms, and in this ckind of non manuevre warfare where their tanks are vulnerabel and bottlenecked, probably better tanks wouldnt make a difference
There are serious limitations when using this war to assess russian capability, though yes, it seems theyve skimped out on vital things like logistics, training costs, maintanence, good quality simple things like tires, night vision, comms etc. all the things that dont impress people when looking at a military’s on paper strength. But lets assess the limitations with respect to capability. firstly, the political strategy was bonkers, leading to an operationally impossible task of trying to take and hold Ukraine in a few weeks. That strategy has decided on how all the forces of used (and misused in this case)… Read more »
Slightly off topic; I see the Ukrainians are using Bullpups!
Yeah, I read that, getting some good press, but its only being fielded by the UKr SF. Funny enough the trophy of choice for the Ukr miltary is bagging an Russian AK 12 or a tractor.
Just my 10 bobs worth, I believe that the lack of investment in the UK’s armed forces has made Putin throw his dice now as we have never been so week, If we look back to 1982 the Argentinians believed we were about to scrap most of our Amphibious capability and if they had have waited anouther 3 months we would have done, so we were lucky they brought forward their invasion date. Then if we look back to the mid 1930’s we were still in the throws of the “piece dividend” from the 1st WW which gave Hitler the… Read more »
An interesting observation SAR. if we look at the piece dividend in in the late 30’s- the point of difference between then and now is self evident . Britain then was well on it’s way to both expand and modernize the armed forces. As for today , hhm!
The difference between then and now is that in the 1930’s we still had a significant armed forces infrastructure that we could expand along with a major armaments building facility’s, today we have lost most of our ability to replenish at short notice along with the lose of significant parts of our armed forces. Even if we could double our defence expenditure it would take the best part of 10 years to build back the capability we have lost over the last 20 to 3 years.
A really good point (and frightening )that you’ve raised SAR.
Hit the nail on the head but i fear MP’s just don’t understand or want to understand this point, Malcolm Rifkind when asked this on GP News a few months back scoffed at the notion that our underfunded and very small army poisee a risk to UK security, his response to paraphrase was –
we have always had a small army, implying its nothing to be concerned about, perhaps they believe that apply ‘s also to all of the services ?
The last thing Putin was worried about when he decided to invade Ukraine was the UK’s Armed Forces. They just aren’t a factor on Continental Europe. Those days are long gone and aren’t about to return anytime soon. Let’s be honest.
I disagree as weather we like it or not most of our continental brothers look towards the UK to see what we are doing as far as defence goes, we have basically been broadcasting the fact that we no longer need a hard assets based armed forces, our political elite have been pushing forward the idea that we can fight future wars with a laptop and a mobile phone so that they can take bigger chunk’s out of our defence expenditure. This has had a ripple affect across European defence expenditure, so this is why Mr Putin has chosen this… Read more »
Well, in a conventional continental war, we’d be in an allied war. Like we always have tbh. Napoleonwasnt worried about the British army, until it built up and allied with Spain, nor was the German Empire of WW1 scared of Britain tiny army specialised for small war (tho they did alright in the early stages until attrition got to them, and then they built up again and became highly effective indeed), same in WW2 but Britain won the north african war. The issue now is building up just enough so that we have a credible contribution to an alliance that… Read more »
Definitely
I fear the Spring Statement by the Treasury will be a damp squib as far as defence goes.
So the papers suggest, never changes
The heavy metal in terms of boosting tank numbers should fall to Germany , Poland and others nearest the threat I think. The UK should focus on naval and air power , and specifically SAM systems IMO, although the vehicle faux pas of Ajax needs resolving. We are funding precision fires which will add weight to the army, 44 MLRS refurbishment and buying Precision strike missile, giving a 499km capability to the army. There needs to be added ATGW punch, Brimstone on overwatch vehicles would do. We are seeing just how effective in skilled hands they are. A shopping list… Read more »
Well said David, this pinning for huge outdated army’s and tank forces is fighting yesterday’s war.
If tank forces are outdated why has Russia, China, North Korea and Iran got such huge tank numbers?
I’m guessing that you don’t intend this to be a trick question, but I will give you the answer anyway, “because old tanks are cheap” and dictatorships believe soldiers are expendable. Naturally this is not the view of modern democracies, therefore we invest in quality and believe that soldiers should be well trained and valuable.
Thanks OR, I don’t usually do trick questions! Thousands of old tanks cost a lot in maintenence and fuel, and not all those tanks are old. We need a tank fleet of sufficient numbers and quality to counter this large threat. The tank will only be obsolete when our potential enemies have disposed of them.
My guess is the logistics for their air force is as bad as it’s been for their army. Lack of fuel, perhaps? We know they have no precision weapons – not that Russia ever really cared about precision strikes to begin with.
Also their pilots get around half the hours in the air per year as NATO pilots tend to; might explain why they’ve lost so many aircraft.
To say The British Army has 2 deployable divisions is a blatantly wrong! It implies it has 6 full strength brigades with enough supporting elements for each. Reality is we have what, maybe 4 brigades that could feasibly go anywhere and fight with a lot of other half formed formations full of odds and sods (mainly light infantry) with no discernible purpose!
well said Challenger -they need to address the battalion manpower shortage.
Bravo mate, bravo. Government spin!!!
We last has 2 Divisions up to 2010. 1 UK with 4,7,20 Armoured Bdes and 3 UK with 1,12 Mechanized and 19th Light. 19th was also once mechanized but was the 1st of the 6 brigades to be dismantled, cut of assets and transferred to NI.
Two genuinely deployable Div. would be a great improvement. One Armoured (2x Armoured Bgds (tracked) 1x Mechanised (Boxer) and the other Air Mobile (16AA plus 2x Air Mobile (4×4’s transportable by chinook and Merlin). Plus a Corp’s Artillery Brigade providing long range fires.
All it means gents is that the bully will not take any notice of such a small outfit even if it had all it needed and that goes for all 3 services. No matter what you need numbers, real numbers to show you the bully your capable of standing up to him. Our small numbers like those on the continent will only fill body bags and not give us time to get the reserves (those that have left the service and still could be brought back into uniformed) mustered even if we had anything to give them. It’s lost before… Read more »
Obviously the key point here is that whilst the Army may theoretically have two deployable divisions, it would take a massive effort to deploy even one in a 3-6 months timescale. Every non-deployed formation would have to be stripped of its key personnel and best equipment. Establishing a genuine two division strong deployable “BEF” will require a huge investment, particularly if both are Armoured or Mechanised Divisions, with supporting Corps level formations as well. It’s over 30 years since the British Army had that level of capability, at which time it had roughly 150,000 soldiers and 1000 main battle tanks.
I see we are still refusing to see the patently obvious lessons from Ukraine. How long would our tank force last ? Not long I suspect. Yes we need to modernise and develop cyber warfare but not at the expense of conventional forces. Boots and tracks on the ground. Hulls in the sea and fighters in the sky
Whilst true to an extent, I don’t think UK armour and air support would be used in such an incompetent and amateur manner as we have seen by Russia..
I think anyone who take the Russian armies “ shock and awful” invasion of Ukraine as an example for future conflicts would be very foolish.
The Russians will be learning the lessons just as we are by analysing their performance and identifying their weakness. There is also a patent lesson for the U.K. and the west in general. Yes we need the information battleground capability but we also still need the traditional armed forces.
The days of the Treasury determining U.K. defence policy need to end and quickly.?
Yes, this has been a wake up call for the West and for NATO. The ‘peace dividend ‘ was stroked for too long, together with a naive belief that Russia would never attack westwards despite its hostile activities over the past 20 years. It does seem though that the Russian military is very rigid and doctrinaire in its formation and approach to the battlefield, and cannot readily adapt . More knowledgeable commentators than me will know better, but I reckon Uk /NATO armies rely heavily on NCO’s to make and take critical decisions at the front and to be able… Read more »
I believe your analysis is pretty much spot on. This is the first time a modern Russian army has come up against a near peer enemy . I think your observation of the “ dumb” NCOs is right, it fits with Putin’s apparent policy of not letting people who could challenge him get into positions of power. I read an article by a retired Anerican General who thinks the Russians are going to run out of time, ammunition and men within ten days. And as long as the west keep supplying the Ukrainian the Russian army will be in serious… Read more »
It was always previously assumed ( possible exception of N. Korea) that the heads of state of nuclear armed countries were rational actors. At best, Putin seems paranoid and delusional, the worst analysis is that he is vengeful and genuinely crazy. It’s a very real concern.
I said when Putin raised the spectre of nuclear weapons that he had found the flaw in the MAD doctrine. Mutually Assured Destruction works as a deterrent if both sides are sane people that realises both side lose big in a nuclear exchange. Enter Putin who is Bat Shit Crazy or at least gives an Oscar winning performance and MAD falls apart because he appears to genuinely not care about his people or country, he will continue to escalate until someone calls his bluff. He is not going to back off. The world is locked into a global game of… Read more »
Yes in many ways its the bean counters at the Treasury and supine Prime ministers that have allowed fr the hollowing out of Uk armed forces over the decades and particularly recently i recently sawan interesting piece on YouTube by Mark Felton on UK defense capability if we went to war with a major opponent in our part of the Globe and it paints scary picture of military impotence due primarily to the capability gaps the successive Governments have imposed, if he is to be believed we would struggle to do much to protect ourselves !,
For the first time in way WAY too long, defence will be an issue in a General Election !! Defence spending needs to go south of 3%. Many programs need to be accelerated and expanded. Eg Challenger Mk3, typhoon radar upgrade . More F35s and hulks above and below the water. Ukraine should be seen as a wake up call .
Putin, I’m calling him Putrid from now on after the maternity hospital atrocity and the slaughtered family cut down by shell fire, has lost the plot, He can’t win. Scenarios: Russian military victory over Ukrainian army and occupies Ukraine. Well he’ll lose 20,000+ troops getting there and then have to fight a 20 year counter insurgency as his economy implodes. Russia surrounds and bombards the Ukrainian cities until they give in, except they won’t – they are fighting for their democracy and freedom. Russia somehow negotiates a partition and withdrawal. Well the Russians in the Russian held bits of Ukraine… Read more »
Nicely put! And if the reaction of the rest of the civilised world to Putins actions has any effect it might alter China’s thinking on invading Taiwan as well.
Expansion of numbers for numbers sake is completely pointless. We need the absolute best that money can buy and it needs to be spent on multi purpose and multi tasking systems, mostly with the RN and RAF whilst preparing the army for a high mobile future.
The Spring budget later this month will be the big test. I suspect a small immediate boost followed by an announcement we will increase the defence budget to 2.5% over the next 5-10 years. What I actually want is a big immediate boost and 4% within 3 years!
How does a division of three brigades now only have 10,000 personel when a brigade has 5,000 soldiers A division comprises HQ & Sig Regt, three brigades (each of 5,000) and Div Tps. The total must be a whisker under 20,000.
A Div was always 20k +/-
Then again, this Govt has created 4 Bns of 250; are you still surprised by the misinformation and falsehoods we are fed by this shower of a Govt?
Those Bns are for a particularly unique purpose that does not require 500-600 pax.
But I take your point.
I could accept a smaller army on the basis that our prime nato role in Europe would be managing the North Atlantic, that means the navy being the priority, sadly the navy is full of holes. As it is the navy is spread too thin and seriously lacks the firepower needed. No anti ship capability, no long range anti submarine weapon if the helicopter cannot fly, f35 too low in numbers and lacking a proper range of weapons. The RAF is in no shape to support in this role, lacking any anti ship capability. Too few anti sub aircraft to… Read more »
You quickly dismiss the army as not having any role at all, in the event of wider European war. Of course it does – defence of the homeland and sending a mechanised/armoured/strike BEF of sorts to the Continent.
Where exactly did I say it had no role at all?
Oh, whhoooops. Sorry. I think I replied to the wrong comment.
I’m going to be a tad selfish here and point out a few things. 1) Russia has been changing the focus of its SSN fleet, its knows it’s Cold War relics are all a generation behind for the (new hulls, which are still Cold War projects dusted off) and 2 generations behind the west for its Cold War builds. So it’s been refitting not to go head to head with Western ASW and SSNS but to his out in the northern oceans and hold key western nations at risk of cruise missile attack. 2) The Russian surface fleet has been… Read more »
Convincing anyone to take Russias conventional forces seriously is going to be very difficult for a very long time. They have Nukes the rest is excrement.
I doubt I’d have any problem convincing people in Ukraine to take Russian conventional forces seriously, particularly in the South. They may also call Russian forces excrement, but they won’t mean the same as you. Russian cyber is good. Their troll/bot misinformation superb, aided and abetted by social media bubbling. Russia is a grey zone giant, but they also excel in proxy warfare, which isn’t grey at all. It’s thousands of dead bodies and significant economic problems for countries the like of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. None of those abilities will change. The current Ukrainian war may eventually be seen… Read more »
If you believe one word of that then you and I haven’t been watching the same reports and videos of what has been happening to the Russian forces in Ukraine. The Russians are getting slaughtered.
Perhaps. But the Russian mindset is to accept large losses of personnel. Though through social media this may be changing with the younger population. Hence why its being turned off. Don’t forget we are only seeing one side of the story, as Ukraine has given a lot of free press access, whereas Russia has not. I agree on the face of it, Russia’s troops seem to be inept in contact and force protection. Hopeless with their organisation and supply of their logistics. But with an Air Force who on the face of it cannot properly support their ground forces or… Read more »
Sounds like the hype form a few years ago the reality is very different. All aspects on Putin force are a joke. Ukraine is the weakest country in Europe and they can’t even take that. Russian cube also appears to be a joke and their hybrid warfare was nonsense. We seen the coming a mile off this time
Are you suggesting that Ukraine shouldn’t take seriously thousands of dead people? It’s a bloody war and getting bloodier all the time! You need to take it seriously. You can’t brush off their forces when they are killing people. You can say they aren’t as good as yours or they aren’t as disciplined or moving as fast as you’d expected, but bodies rotting in the streets must be taken seriously. Hospitals and schools bombed, serious. The slow destruction of a country, serious. And do you think they won’t learn? Aren’t learning? And still the trolls spout the whole NATO must… Read more »
Russia’s forces are doing all too good a job at forcing millions of Ukraine’s citizens to flee the country and in destroying apartment blocks, Government buildings, theatres and hospitals.
They may not be able to rapidly seize a very large country (the size of France), but they can certainly terrorise and kill civilians, commit war crimes by the hour, destroy homes, airports, theatres, and cause 2m people to flee their country and force Ukraine to the negotiating table to probably grant huge concessions to the invader. They are utterly ruthless and have no moral compass.
I take them seriously as an opponent for the above reasons.
Jay, the current major war in Europe is principally a land war aggressively waged by our most fearsome opponent on the continent, yet you advocate we spend money on the RN and RAF, and don’t increase the size of the army? Have I missed something?
I’m with Jay on this one. Arguably if Russia had control over the air, the war would already be over. The army needs better equipment fast, and more Boxers of more varieties are the way to go, including a turetted direct fire variant. If Ajax is cut, there’s enough left in the budget for 300 CV90s for the armoured brigade, and integration work, also extra Boxers for Strike. But whether the army needs more troops is debateable. I wouldn’t cut right now, because recruitment is so difficult, but I wouldn’t expand either. Apaches and ISTAR drones for sure, but if… Read more »
Perhaps not more troops per se but certainly reverse planned cuts.
Jon, Control of the air is a pre-requisite for a successful land invasion but is no guarantee of success, as land forces can stall or be ineffective for more reasons than less than overwhelming air support. Would we be sure that all Boxers will have turreted and stabilised cannons? What calibre would they be? 40mm? Would we be sure that Boxer will have as good mobility in snow, ice and deep, glutonous mud as Warrior (with WCSP upgrade). Would a fleet of cannon-equipped turreted Boxers be cheaper to field than upgrading WR? If Ajax is cut, are you advocating the… Read more »
Of course not all the Boxers would be turretted. Not all the Ajax were to be turretted either. I’m not sufficiently familiar with army doctrine to do proportions, but I’d think some would have the CTA40s in the LM (or Nexter) turrets, assuming the MoD hasn’t just sold them all for scrap, some would have the 30mm RWS, and some would have neither. MBDA propose a module with multiple Brimstone missiles. I suspect Boxer could even handle 105/120mm. However, you wouldn’t get all your fires from the Boxers. There would be artillery units, SHORAD, etc, and of course dismounts. The… Read more »
I believe that initially none of the Boxers were to be turreted, however MoD is reassessing that. If all the firepower of the current Warrior Platoon were to be replicated then every Boxer in APC role should be turreted, but I bet that won’t happen as the story goes that 2 x Ajax may be added to the Platoon to provide firepower. True that not all Ajax family would be turreted, just the ones called Ajax ie the recce/strike version. The Russians are bogging in numerous all-wheel drive vehicles – tracked vehicles are better at traversing deep snow, ice and… Read more »
You may be right about the mud. I don’t think so, but it might be that’s a price we have to pay to still have strike brigades that can fight for 48 weeks of the year in two years, as opposed to all the weeks of the year next decade. Shouldn’t a recon vehicle be able to figure out where the mud is before getting stuck in it? I’m not against Warrior’s life being stretched until CV90 or Ajax comes on stream. But I don’t think the strike brigades should wait on the tracked, er, track of the plan, when… Read more »
My point about mud was related to likely Boxer performance not recce vehicle (ie Ajax) performance. Why do you favour Boxer over upgraded Warrior (WCSP)? You pay a lot more dosh to get a vehicle that is an APC not the superior IFV, that probably will lack a turreted cannon and will have inferior mobility and may well bog in. You do realise that Boxer is an infantry carrier (APC) and not a recce vehicle, as Ajax is? Your last para suggests a muddle. If we buy turreted Boxer for Infantry carriage we still need a recce vehicle for the… Read more »
Boxer is a modular platform. Call it an APC, a MIV or whatever you like, it can still function as an IFV. The A3 Boxer has a higher-rated maximum weight (38.5 tons) than the Mk 4 CV90. Its engine is pretty much the same as that in Ajax (both MTU 600KW). How you fit it out determines the role — over half the Aussie Boxers will be turretted reconnaissance. “If we buy turreted Boxer for Infantry carriage we still need a recce vehicle for the Cav (Ajax or similar).” Yes. We would. I’m in favour of Boxer recon for the… Read more »
Hi Jon, I accept that Boxer can be described as an IFV if it has a turreted cannon (otherwise it is an APC) – and can keep up with CR2/CR3. Hopefully both the firepower and mobility of the Boxers that we buy for the Infantry are up to those standards. I would prefer to keep Warrior and upgrade it to WCSP – probably cheaper than buying turreted Boxers instead. I don’t see that Boxer and Warrior could be paired? If Ajax can’t be fixed, we need another vehicle for recce – and it could be wheeled – but I have… Read more »
That makes sense. I don’t think any kind of warfighting is in vogue anymore, just Rangers and being nice; Strike brigades aren’t in vogue. I think they were originally modelled on US Stryker infantry brigades, but the new Deep Recce/Strike BCTs don’t have infantry or Boxers in there anymore, just Ajax and Artillery. We’ll see how that pans out. Tune in again next year for another nattily named ORBAT, when Future Soldier becomes Super-Duper Starship Trooper. I don’t know anything about the profile/signature of the Boxers — I don’t think they all come with that Union Jack paintwork. 😀 As… Read more »
It would be an interesting and amazing world if no-one fought wars anymore, except for Russia and Ukraine – except that Wikipedia has a different view -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts Strike brigades died out before they were formed – interesting. Perhaps the problem was that no-one really knew what Strike meant. Except that the word has survived in the Deep Recce/Strike BCT, as you say. Is it just about Ajax engaging some light armour with its 40mm and during a lull in firing, calls in some arty fire (or fires as they like to say, now). Ajax or Boxer CRV as our recce… Read more »
Current situation has shown we need to spend more on defence however that does not mean a big army and armoured divisions. We are vulnerable at home to attack by submarines especially on underwater infrastructure and to air launched cruise missiles. The army desperately needs BMD and theatre level air defence (land based Aster 30) and more long range precision fire ( MLRS) and even better C4ISTAR. Tanks should be retained but it’s a niche capability now to support the infantry. We also need more E7. We need to go to 12 FJ squadrons quickly 8 on typhoon and 4… Read more »
Yup. That would be my shout. Even a River B2 with better radar and a bolt-on silo of camm/camm-er sitting to the North if Scotland would have merit in providing additional anti-air and cruise missile security without being up close and personal with a larger warship (on its own somewhere miles away)? In addition, Get Spear3 on aircraft and ships now to make up for lack of anything much longer ranged than Brimstone (other than expensive storm-shadow).
The appropriate equipment is here now, today, not “by 2030” and is ready for the off.
AA
The rivers 2 actually worry me a bit. They are pure constabulary vessels and they are good hulls for that, but that means they need to deployed as such, using HMS Trent in the eastern med after all this kicked off was pushing the role well out of constabulary and puts the crew at inappropriate risk. personally I think as soon as a shooting war started in the Black Sea Trent should have been sent back to the western med. If the rivers are going to be kept deployed in higher risk waters they need increased self defence.so a bofors… Read more »
It’s the Eastern Med in the middle of a large NATO group, not alone in the Azov. It must be nearly a thousand miles from the fighting.
It will not be in the middle of a NATO group, it’s part of that group. But the simple truth is it’s a constabulary vessel that is now operating as part of a groups of warships right next to a highly unstable conflict zone. That is completely anti the point of these ships and it’s not appropriate for it to be deployed in that way.
It should be moved back. Into the western med.
It’s important to remember what are the threats in the eastern med. at present Trent in in the same seas as 3 Russia slave class cruisers. With Present tensions we should not be keeping a constabulary vessel in the same sea as those slava class cruisers.
At least one of those cruisers is currently off the coast of Odesa. The war is moving West.
Agree the only difference is I would go of more 35b squadrons as they can be deployed on the carriers which would make them harder to knock out of play and also have greater freedom of strategic mobility. Say 5 F35B squadrons that’s four at sea and one U.K. based if it got very nasty. Agree with everything else, More wedge tails and Poseidons as well as T45s with ABM capability and more ASW AAW across the fleet. Air launched anti ship missiles and better enablers for the army such as fires ect.
We have not had a big army or multiple armoured divisions for decades. It seems that we are content to work towards just one division being able to be fielded by 2025. You say tanks are a niche capability, so that explains just having 2 tank regiments (ie battalions in US-speak); if we were to face thousands of Russian tanks, I would rather we had more than 112 in unit hands. I feel we need to concentrate on flank protection (RM in the north, RN in the south) and the army ‘heavy metal’ brigades in the west of Germany as… Read more »
Beyond compensating the MoD for the munitions sent and those still be to sent to Ukraine, I don’t see the Treasury going one penny beyond that. I just don’t see it… heads will be buried in the sand again and nothing will change.
I do hope I am proved wrong – I really do!
I hope so too. However, if even normally-pacifist Germany has woken up to reality and is investing €100 billion plus increasing their defence budget to 2% of GDP, then surely we will do something fairly substantial too. Boris seems like he’d be competitive against Germany, France etc. Plus there seems to now be cross-party support for increased defence spending. I don’t think anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn or Dianne Abbott, neither of whom anyone takes seriously, would be opposed to it. Even Wee Jimmy Krankie wouldn’t be opposed – as long as every penny of it is spent in Scotland,… Read more »
That is the problem right there. Each time a party gets elected into Government they have yet another defence review and change the path that was decided by the previous Government. When have you ever heard politicians or the top brass say that the previous decisions made by their peers was wrong and needs reversing? Especially now with what’s going on in Ukraine, is the time when the top brass stop being “yes men” and grow a pair! The Army strength needs to be at 100,000 minimum full time regulars. As this means, there are plenty of front line troops,… Read more »
How do you convince an additional 70,000 people to sign up to the Army Reserve? I cannot see that kind of cultural change. It works for Finland as they have Russia right on their doorstep. But we don’t have that imminent threat that influences our very culture. I wouldn’t set a target of 100,000 reservists as I don’t think that’s realistic, but I would set no upper limit on numbers. I’d also start promoting Army Reserve on TV and online loads, emphasising the additional money people can make. It’s a shit time right now with cost of living squeezing everyone… Read more »
We have a population of at least 30 million people aged between 18 and 50. Are you saying we can’t recruit enough people from this group? Well you’re right, but why is that the case? How do we incentivise people into joining up and also encourage those currently serving not to leave early? When I was serving, we kept getting told that money is the reason people leave (after a pay freeze of 7 years), but it was more to do with “time out of bed”. Which meant more time deployed and not at home. When we were asked for… Read more »
I don’t like the idea of any form of national service. The biggest problem with conscription or national service is that you get people who don’t want to be there, milling around for 2-3 years and doing the minimum required. They’re not good for much more than cannon fodder, as Russia is finding out currently. The problem of cutting troop numbers leading to overworked soldiers who don’t stay in, resulting in further losses, is a cycle that needs breaking. There is no quick fix but I think getting more recruiting teams into schools, colleges and universities is a good start;… Read more »
It kind of depends on the numbers you want the National Service to provide the military. If you wanted the whole population trained as per Sweden and Finland. Then yes, you will get those who are not suited to the military, but if you only required 250,000. You could still use basic training to test and select the best suited. Those who weren’t selected could be used for other National services. I think the scheme could be introduced similar to how we currently have the education rule. Whereby from 16 to 18 you are supposed to be undertaking further education,… Read more »
I think there are going to be some very strong words in NATO. I think the alliance has been very much shocked and stressed to its core. I’m not sure the Eastern Europe nations are very happy with Western Europe and the US and think we’ve have been a bunch of appeasers. I suspect there are a few European leaders waking up and smelling the US is not looking very steady as a n ally that has a we are going to defend Europe to the limit any more attitude…more of a we will debate the limits of our NATO… Read more »
Jonathan, I hope you are not grouping the UK into that bunch of appeasers! We have always spent over 2% on Defence and have applied some quite tough sanctions and were first in the world to supply munitions and training staff.
Graham the entire western world has been living in a paradigm of victory of the west through appeasement and market forces for 30 years. It wa created by hubris and some very wrong thinking ideas that came from the seminal work of Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama around the end of history and the victory of neoliberal capitalism and as an extension the liberal democracies. In essence this has become the dominant model of social politics and Geopolitics in the west..leading to a view that with the fall of communism, the world through capitalist market forces would become as the west. Therefore… Read more »
Jonathan, very thoughtful comments. I reflect on the irony that NATO was created in 1949, the West having lost eastern Europe and the Baltic to the USSR, to prevent the Soviet Union from encroaching further westwards and hold them in check – in 2022 NATO is unable to prevent Russia invading westwards against an innocent and neutral country. Echoing your point about Chamberlain who continues to get a very bad press for appeasement aka trying to negotiate an imperfect form of peace in Europe with a dictator. However, as the pre-war chancellor he was a champion for rearmament. Wiki: “By… Read more »
good comments from both of you – we have all been party to the appeasement that has been going on – not least sice 2014. We have provided weapons , and associated training- but we have turned a blind eye to many issues. allowing Russian money in London , UK poisonings , Georgia , Syria, Crimea – the list goes on so we are not whiter than white . If we extract oursleves from Russian money & gas then thats one thing, what going to happen with The Chinese money…bugger all thats what… We have just had our hostage in… Read more »
Yes very good points on Chamberlain, he did his best to get a peace deal, but at the same time he was not siting back and hoping it would be fine he had turned up defence spending to 3.75, by 1938 ( he only became prime minister in 1937) and the very moment the Hitler invaded the rump Czechoslovakian he put the county on a 9% gdp and war time economy. That was before Poland, it’s easy with hindsight but to say we should have gone to war in 1938 but the reality was the 10 year rule had not… Read more »
Could this just be clever wording? Something along the lines of:
No, there are no plans to increase beyond the two deployable divisions, however we’re going to massively strengthen those two divisions.
We know we’re unlikely to ever have a 100,000+ army again, but an 85,000-strong army with serious investments in firepower going forward could be on the cards, maybe?
That would be a sensible way forward for me Steve – give our relatively small army a real punch, bristling with well equipped mechanised infantry, armour, joint fires (including a capable long range component) and GBAD. Topped off with capable air, naval and amphibious support when required plus of course the nuclear deterrent. Latest report from IISS says UK currently 3rd biggest defence spender behind USA and China. But it seems we can only afford 148 Challenger 3 MBT and 50 new Apaches for example. Got to stop wasting billions on failed programmes and get a grip of what we… Read more »
Well, hopefully on the 23rd the spending statement will announce a decent uplift in defence funding and what I said could be a possibility.
It takes the MoD a long time to plan. There are no plans now because there were no plans last month before the war and it will take at least six months for there to be any plans (if plans are required), probably longer.
We need to make those two divisions full-strength (three brigades each), with full teams of CS and CSS enablers.
Yes and no, I’d say, regarding the size of the Army. I think an army of 85,000 would be fine as long as it was heavily armed. More Apaches, all 227 Challenger IIs upgraded to C3, more helicopters as you said, and more & newer artillery, plus at least 30 Sky Sabre units – as you said, air power is key so we need more ground-based air defence to prevent an enemy from getting air superiority and need multiple tools for this. So it doesn’t need to be big, but does need some serious teeth added to it! That said,… Read more »
If defense cuts continue, the West deserves the consequences. We are lucky in that we have been given a warning, and a little time to do something.
Britain, and now Great Britain, ‘was never a major power’ (Enoch Powell). It could never fight independently on European soil at any time due to its smaller population; Napoleon could raise an army of 400,000 to invade Russia. Great Britain’s greatest military European campaigns from Blenheim on were fought as part of alliances, normally, junior partners. What turned this tiny island into a major world player was our navy; numbers of ships and their organisation, levelled the playing field; no one has found a way to put half a million fighting personnel on a fleet of ships. Combined with a… Read more »
Air power wins modern wars not sea power.
Drones are the future.
Fight tomorrows war not yesterday’s…
Go to Duxford. Find the American Pavilion. Admire the Mach 2 and even Mach 3 aircraft used in Vietnam. Then consider: They lost.
Still living in the past, and I think your confusing a military defeat with a political defeat. The yanks didn’t lose in veitnam until they withdrew. But then again maybe if they had a navy comparable with Nelson’s they would have achieved a different result? I think not.
Let’s be honest here in the current climate, does Putin really give 2 shits that we have our navy in the North Atlantic? Fantastic ships but nigh on useless in a European land war.
In the World Wars we ramped up our army to a collossal size – and our Navy was the biggest and best in the world until 1941/42 – and was still very sizable until the early 1970s.
I think it’s important we regulate our expectation on things, I think we can safely say the Chancellor will have no choice but to increase the defence budget beyond what as been agreed. But this has a couple of options: 1. The bare minimal & temporary kind designed only to help fund weapons exports to Ukraine. 2. (more likely) The latter, but also perhaps an additional £2-6bn annual increase in the standing MoD budget. To be clear this is not a recommendation, but rather what I think is the likely outcome. I think most of us in this forum know… Read more »
As long as people don’t slip back into thinking defence isn’t a priority once the immediate conflict in Ukraine is over.
Russia will be an adversary we need to be wary of for decades to come.
Not more battlefield helicopters! they are even more vulnerable than a tank.
Guided long range artillery instead.
If tanks and helicopters are vulnerable, perhaps everthing is vulnerable?
However, how many helicopters have British forces ever lost in combat by fire from the ground?
What we need in a time like this is a National Flagship…. just don’t let Boris choose the wallpaper.
Don’t worry , he won’t …his missus will.
73,000 is not an army, its not much more than a field force, and 19,000 inf is obscenely to few, it means they are basically permenently on deployment. They need to go back to 1990 numbers in men and armour but prolly minus the BAOR.
Of course we could never deploy anything like those ceiling figures. Most experts think we could only deploy 1 or 2 brigades at the moment.