Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said that as part of the ‘Future Soldier’ project the British Army will be reorganised as an “expeditionary fighting force” designed to be more deployable.

The British Army will be arranged under 4 administrative divisions of infantry.

  • The Queens Division
  • The Union Division
  • The Light Division
  • The Guards & Parachute Division

“These divisions are designed to reflect historic ties, while also balancing their number of battalions and unit roles, offering greater flexibility and opportunity for soldiers of all ranks,” said Wallace.

Speaking in Parliament, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“Let me now turn to our plans to streamline the Army force structures. For too long, historical infantry structures have inhibited our Army’s transformation. We cannot afford to be slaves to sentiment when the threat has moved on. Today I can therefore confirm a major reorganisation under four new administrative divisions of infantry: the Queen’s Division, the Union Division, the Light Division, and the Guards and Parachute Division. These divisions are designed to reflect historic ties, while balancing the numbers of battalions and unit roles, offering greater flexibility and opportunity to soldiers of all ranks.

As announced in March, these plans do not involve the deletion of any cap badges, further major unit changes or any military redundancies. Although we are significantly reducing the total number of Army personnel, we are not compromising our presence in and contribution to the devolved nations. The numbers will reduce slightly everywhere except Wales, but we are increasing the proportion of the Army based in each nation and investing millions in the defence industry and estate.

Northern Ireland will keep the same number of battalions, but host a greater proportion of the Army’s workforce and gain an additional reserve company of the Royal Irish. Scotland will be home to more battalions—going from six to seven units—and a greater proportion of the Army than today. We will be retaining Glencorse barracks and will grow in Kinloss and Leuchars, thanks to £355 million of investment in the Army estate.

Wales will see the return of the Welsh cavalry—the Queen’s Dragoon Guards—to Caerwent barracks and a new reserve company of 3rd Battalion, the Royal Welsh to be established in north Wales. The retention of the Brecon barracks and the growth of Wrexham are just part of a £320 million investment in the Army estate in Wales.

Our future Army will be as agile in the new domains of cyber and space as it is on the ground. It will contribute the most personnel of all the services to those enhanced information-age functions, such as the National Cyber Force and Defence Intelligence, which are so critical to our new integrated force. In practical terms, this amounts to an additional 500 regular personnel, taking the number from 72,500 to 73,000. Together with the more than 10,000 Army personnel who work in other parts of defence, we will now, as I said, have a figure of 73,000.”

It s understood that the British Army’s headquarters will see a reduction of around 40% of its personnel.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
102 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
7 days ago

I, and many others have long argued that the army should be mobile, more quickly deployable and properly equipped with the very best of whatever they need to do their job wherever they are in the world.
I’ll be interested to see more detail but I hope this is the start of a real transformation and away from old ideas with old and sadly very often questionable equipment.
A modern world needs modern forces.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Geoff, the word ‘lethal’ creeps in as well, yet there is very little additional firepower that I can see in these plans.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Sadly, something we see all too often.

James H
James H
7 days ago

When you’re cutting numbers and Northern Ireland and Scotland dont lose any then statistically you are increasing the proportion of the army based there, just more spin.
You can reorganize as much as you want but the question will still be, does it have the numbers and equipment to be credible on any scale at the medium and high end

Challenger
Challenger
7 days ago

Just the usual burbling about ‘future’ this and ‘expeditionary’ that to mask another cut in numbers and a ludicrously complicated structure of hollowed out units to avoid upsetting anyone by binning cap badges.

Meanwhile Warrior will be scrapped, Ajax is useless, Boxer will have to be shoehorned into more roles, they will have 148 tanks in 2 regiments, most of the artillery is ancient and several light battalions will languish at home as they are under-strength and without enough force enablers. Pathetic!

Jack
Jack
7 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Perfectly summarized.

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Nonsense. It wasn’t long ago that people on here were moaning that nothing was being done on the army. Well now it is and it has more money. Yes a few procurements have gone wrong but look at the other services and you could say the same. Look at other countries and you will see a range of disasters. It might be a long road to sort things out but at least they are making an effort.

Challenger
Challenger
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

It’s not just a question of procurement though is it. The other services (the Royal Navy in particular) have a very clear sense of purpose and structure themselves accordingly. In contrast the Army changes it’s mind every few years to try and gloss over yet another reduction in manpower and a trail of procurement disasters. This latest restructure isn’t bold or innovative. It’s rearranging deckchairs to cover for the lack of vehicles, artillery and other supporting arms for heavier conventional brigades all whilst preserving their precious cap-badges. The result is a ludicrous and indecipherable order of battle and a lot… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

I can see what you mean about the RN and a sense of purpose. Our military problems are again global. In theory the RN need to lend a hand all over the world and the next step is for the Army for follow suit. No more sitting in Germany the Army needs to deploy anywhere at a moments notice but problably in smaller numbers and with far more fire power per head. The RN have just got the first slice of the cake – my view is the Army jiust don’t realise how much change and spend will be going… Read more »

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
2 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Just one point … it’s not the Army that changes it’s ‘mind’ every few years, it’s the government (who have little idea what they are doing at the best of times.) bean counters using the Army to save money, as in reducing the Army to 73,000.

Who knows where this crap will lead … bin the majority of the Army, and hire mercenaries??

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

The 2 tank regiments will be Type 56, therefore 112 tanks (at most) to deploy; the rest will be in the Trg Org and Attrition Reserve.

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago

More streamlined blah blah cannot be slaves to sentiment but….not deleting any cap badges FFS! Yes the army is being transformed for sure:

Warriors being chinned off
Ajax is shite
Limited Boxer IFVs
MBT numbers extremely woeful
Limited AD
Limited OS Arty
Limited UAV systems
Limited firepower at Coy level
Barebones CS and CSS

I could go on but Daniele says it so much better than I! I want the Army to succeed, to be equipped and trained accordingly but, as ever, it’s all about spinning a “new” capability while secretly cutting the actual combat effectiveness of the organisation!

farouk
farouk
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

I do wonder if the reduction (in everything) regards the miltary is due to very few MPs having served or even know anybody in uniform.. They are fed a diet of yes sir no sir, three bags full sir, regards any question regards the mitlary and based on only hearing what they want to hear are more than happy to cut, cut, cut Just had a chat with a mate of mine (we were PSIs together) who is currently enmplyed as FTRS as the Training WO for a Reserves unit. apprantly half the unit is getting disbanded by May 2023… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

And that’s an excellent example of how the head shed politicans do not have a clue about the military. If he is FTRS how the hell can they give that to a civvy? I do despair I really do Farouk.

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

I saw the announcement in parliament. The Tory benches were not exactly full but a decent turnout for that type of debate. Labour was deserted bar a few worried about army links with their community rather than national security. Not a pretty sight.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Perhaps this new army doesn’t need training? [I am joking]

Perhaps politicians think that we won’t do another operation at scale or for long duration – partly because they have no imagination, like to ignore Intelligence reports, do not read or understand history or are convinced that the public would not stand for it.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Your rants are improving mate…..😆

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago

I will keep trying mate 😂

James Fennell
James Fennell
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Boxer can’t do IFV – there have been numerous OAs. Too vulnerable. As some wag said on Twitter they are trying to work out how to do IFV in a way that does not involve a vehicle.

Graham
Graham
3 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Boxer is a poor replacement for WR, as you say. I am sceptical about them having similar mobility in deep mud and snow, and doubt they would all come with a cannon. Cheaper to proceed with WCSP than buy Boxers to replace Warrior, surely.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

So true mate. How many of the Boxers will have a cannon? Infantry firepower already down as 60mm mortar has gone, soon all or most of the Infantry’s cannons will be gone. How good will HQs be when shed of 40% of their staff?
The army will comprise many specialist units – will there be enough generalist combat arms units to do their job?
For all the extra money, we end up with fewer men, fewer combat vehicles and still a lot of kit that has not been replaced or modernised.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Just noticed that the HAC has been put into 77 Brigade.😂 Are they replacing STA patrols with hearts and minds???!

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 days ago

More likely has a lot of linguists to support Rangers.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
7 days ago

Ah! Another typical “shake-up” to, once again, reduce overall troop numbers. The size of the army is getting more pitiful year by year.

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago

Whilst I agree you need the minimum numbers to a point I would rather have a smaller force at my back than a larger untrained force without the modern kit.Surely it is getting the balance right? Oh and getting the kit to work😀

PeterS
PeterS
7 days ago

I have only managed a quick read but a few things stand out. The structure looks very complicated, probably because of the failure to reform the regimental system.Whether this will cause problems in future, i don’t know but generally simpler is better. The armoured BCTs will operate with CH3, Boxer and Ajax.There is no reference to Ajax problems nor a plan B if it has to be cancelled. Although the Land Industrial Strategy is mentioned there is little detail of what this means in practice. Similarly, there are no specifics about replacement artillery systems.beyond a mention of 465km deep strike.… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  PeterS

I thought the Regimental system was reformed at least once per generation. Not many teeth arm capbadges are older than 30 years.

Max of 116 MBTs would deploy as we will have two Type 56 regts – the balance are in the Trg Org or are Attrition Reserve.

Daveyb
Daveyb
7 days ago

More rubbish from those who aren’t taking notice of what’s going on in the World today! An example is what’s going on between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine has taken delivery from the USA of some 1000 and more Javelin anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM), along with Turkish Bayraktar TB2 armed with MAM precision guided munitions. So far we have seen the attack on an artillery battery by a Ukrainian TB2. What has Russia’s response been. Well take a look at the attached pictures: Rob Lee on Twitter: “What is interesting is that the different screens we’ve seen almost appear to have… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Daveyb
John Hartley
John Hartley
7 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

If the USMC is retiring some of its 155mm M777, why is the UK not buying it from them, on the cheap?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago

Cobblers. The doc on line has endless spin, waffle and PC stuff in it until the juicy stuff page 14 on. https://www.army.mod.uk/media/14919/adr010310-futuresoldierguide_25nov.pdf Some of us know the ORBAT well enough and so far this is a moving the deckchairs exercise, for the up teenth time while preserving infantry battalion cap badges at the expense of combined arms formations the army’s own future conceptual force describes. Example – how come the RA and RE units are not even within the HBCTs if they are being integrated at lower level? 7 LBCT has no less than 5 Light Mech infantry battalions in… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
7 days ago

This is disappointing, I was hoping that your analysis would show that for once Army claims of modernising their force structure would match their actions…! I know that we talk a lot about kit on here, and for sure troops need to be equipped to do the job they’re tasked with. But, even more fundamentally to me, if we don’t have a properly fit for purpose ORBAT that is reflective of reality AND our strategic goals as a nation then it’s pointless. From what you’re saying, they seem to have once again failed to do that. I see a lot… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Hi Joe. Check the link I included and look at P14 onwards. Shows a basic orbat for most of the army. Bns, 5 will be Boxer ( up from 4 planned, but less than the 6 Warrior currently. ) They go in 12 and 20 ABCT. 6 are listed as Light Mechanized using Foxhound. Those are in the 7 LMBCT, look it up under 1 UK Div in the doc. Rest are on foot. Out if a 73,000 army it has 3 deployable brigades ( forget the BCT rebranding nonsense which is another copy of America, they are brigades. 12,… Read more »

Cripes
Cripes
5 days ago

Daniele I think there are 4 deployable brigades, rather than 3 – 12, 20, 7 LM and 16 Air Assault. We have to hope that there will be a fifth in due course, in the shape of the 1st Strike (aka mechanised infantry) Bde . The ĺayout shown of a ‘1st Deep Strike Recce Bde’ looks like a very interim stage – 3 recon regts, and the army’s entire field artillery, but no infantry at all and no CS or CSS, other than a REME bn. It really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If the MLRS regt needs forward recon,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

Morning C I did not include 16AA as I was referring to the Field Army. Those brigades should be able to deploy in their entirety with a full complement of CS and CSS to form all arms formations. 16AA, while possessing those units, has had them all trimmed since 2015 SDSR, and deploys the AATF, a reinforced company group of the in role battalion. Much like I imagine 3 Commando will end up, a “golf bag” of units, almost like an admin command, deploying in bits rather than a whole. Yes, that is an issue with DRSBCT. That issue has… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
7 days ago

Yes Daniele, its so disappointing that the one good idea – BCTs – has been mishandled. At one point is says BCTs will have all supporting arms including artillery, and then on the ORBAT the BCTs turn out to have no artillery. Simply re-badging administrative formations to generate company sized units. Add to that the new Infantry Divisions – another good idea – but if both the Inf Divisions and the BCTs are admin formations why have two layers? Surely the BCTs should be fully formed units that train together and can deploy and fight together at short notice –… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by James Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Exactly my views.

I’d hoped may be 4 BCT might find the battalions for ongoing roulement / rotation to Cyprus, but reading the details they are coming out of 7 LMBCT! A supposed mechanized formation.

James Fennell
James Fennell
6 days ago

Really half-arsed. A better idea would be to make the BCTs smaller and more coherent and add two or three adminstrative formations to generate home defence / ACP and overseas attachments. Unfortunately they are trying to get everyone a bit of overseas travel, but the BCTs will deploy for sure so keep them out of standing committments – instead allow folks to move around within Corps on different assignments. If each Armoured BCT had 1 Cav, 1 Armoured, 1 Mech, 1 IFV, 1 155mm + REME, Medic and Logs, and each Light BCT, 1 Lt, Cav, 1 Mech, 2 MRAP… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

That’s just achievable within current orbat. Might need to take the army elements from 3 Cdo to furnish elsewhere.

Usual issue. Too many small infantry battalions, too few CS/CSS to go round.

For some reason UAV formations are held in Field Troops! A renamed 6 Division, which was a renamed Force Troops, which was once Theatre Troops, which were once Divisional/Corps troops!

Save me from this ENDLESS rebranding with no real changes apart from the name on the door.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Hi James, I think the Global Hubs are largely Equipment depots and Training Areas, manned by an admin staff. Troops will come in, train for months, rather than weeks – and depart. Thus no permanently committed manouevre units. But I may be wrong. Unlike Daniele, I haven’t read the ‘Soldiers Guide’ yet – maybe it is in there.

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes you are probably right, although Wallace and the Future Solider doc speak about longer overseas deployments, Rangers and SFAB will do this for sure, but there has been talk of an armoured battlegroup in Oman and a light infantry battlegroup in Kenya to complement the Lt Infantry in Brunei and Lt. Mech infantry in Cyprus. One way to do this is to keep two battalion groups in each hub – one on a training rotation and one that stays on for a deployment after training. In this way you get a freshly trained deployable battlegroup at each location. If… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by James Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Your last two paragraphs especially are just so sensible and exactly what I would have hoped for 4 LBCT.

For reasons only Andover and the Cap Badge Mafia know sense seems to have left the building.

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 days ago

On reflection I think I can see some method in the madness of 3 Div. It seems 20 BCT has an extra Boxer Bn. and Deep Recce Fire a Light Cav Rgt. to sustain NATO committments to MNB(N) in Estonia and MNB (South) in Romania. UK leads an provides a mech infantry battalion to MNB(N) and provides a Lt, Cav. Sqn. to MNB(S). As 3 Div is responsible for NATO committments, I guess adding a Boxer Bn. and Lt. Cav Rgt. allows 20 BCT to deploy at full strength from Sennelager to Poland or Ukraine, and the other BCTs to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

I guess that makes sense. What do you make of no RLC formation in DSB?
3 RLC has also vanished from the ORBAT. That was a CS Log Reg for 1 Armd Inf Bde. Could have been re roled to do the MLRS supply.

James Fennell
James Fennell
4 days ago

I think DSB is a golf bag I’m afraid, despite the rhetoric it is simply all artillery + left over cavalry from previous restructurings. To be honest I suspect the Army is tired of permanent restructuring, and resistant to any more changes – wants to consolidate on what it has spent time developing. However they wil need to find a way to support artillery and to integrate closr support and deep fires`into the BCTs, otherwise they will still need 6 months mobilisation, which is what this whole thing is supposed to prevent.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Sadly I agree. I hope we are wrong.

Why there is not an informed journalist who could grill CGS on this annoys me.

Andrew D
Andrew D
7 days ago

You can give the Army has much Tec has you like but at the end of the day troop and AFV Artillery will always count going into Battle..🙄

farouk
farouk
7 days ago

The Guardian, does something of a decent write up (or is it a smoke screen of an article) British army to get extra £8bn of kit as part of radical shake-up The defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has announced a radical reorganisation of the British Army with an additional £8.6bn to be spent on equipment and a new ranger regiment created to help counter extremist organisations and hostile state threats. The Future Soldier programme would reconfigure the army to address next-generation threats around the globe, positioning it as a globally engaged, modernised war-fighting force, Wallace told MPs. “To keep pace with… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

They just love the words “Agile ” and “Leaner

How can something be more agile if formations are bereft of enablers with no depth?
Hamstrung more like.

Removing C130 is just another strain of the madness. Far more agile with less of everything.

Klonkie
Klonkie
7 days ago

How are things D? I cant help but agree . Its rife in modern corporate business too.

Agile- I will give you more tasks to do in the same number of hours
Leaner- I will give you less resource to accomplish said tasks
I will not pay you more for your improved productivity though.

I try to remain “glass half full” , but this news is deflating I cannot see a way forward without a further upward shift in the defence funding. I have empathy for the army as they do appear to be the poor cousin.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Evening K. I’m not so sure on the poor cousin. I think the army budget dwarfs that of the RN and RAF. They however don’t piss 5 billion on Ajax, 1 billion before that over over 2 decades on FRES, or half billion on WCSP before cutting it. 4 LBCT is the most annoying for me. They could think of nothing better than putting 6 infantry battalions into it with a lot of reservist CS and CSS formations. Meaning it’s not actually a deployable brigade at all. Just a golf bag. I’d hoped that infantry bns would be reduced and… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
7 days ago

Thanks D . I was surprised to learn the Army did have such a large slice of the budget, thanks for that nugget. It is frustrating to see how they waste their (taxpayer) capex budget, a bloody shame.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago

I saw the word ‘lethal’ being bandied about a bit. As you have said, there is no sign of increased lethality in all of this restructuring. If anything lethal means (ie firepower) will reduce due to fewer cannons in Inf Bns as WR departs from service, and fewer tanks in the ORBAT.

Ron5
Ron5
6 days ago
Reply to  farouk

I don’t believe the “extra” 8 billion one bit.

It’s just the money that’s already budgeted for Ajax, Boxer & Ch3. Nothing “extra” about it.

Jonathan
Jonathan
7 days ago

How can they be slim lining the structure if they keep all the cap badges ? Just looks like making everything loss a small slice of resource to not upset the Apple cart, all wrapped up in pretty paper and ribbons. The cyber bit was interesting, I was thinking about this and how nations will make war in the future. It’s very likely that any major conflict will begin and possibly be ended with large scale cyber attacks. Essentially a nation could be overwhelmed and knocked out of a fight via cyber attacks ( no fuel, power, food distribution etc)… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Interestingly, defence already has a CEMAG, at Digby.

This is the army version, uses almost exactly the same title, and combines the existing EW regiment, 14RS, with the Cyber Reg, 13RS, and adds a second EW reg by converting 21 Reg RS into an EW formation.

One of the few genuine expansions I can see so far.

John Clark
John Clark
7 days ago

It doesn’t make for great reading when you get under the skin of it. For me the bitter determination of hanging onto cap badges is getting ridiculous, I also think hanging onto 148 MBT’s is also pointless, to far below critical mass to be deployed in the numbers needed. I fully expect the Mod to waste another billion on Chally3 and can it in SDSR 2025….. I’ve no issues with the general thrust of deployable force elements, it’s the right way to go, but we need air deployable first rate equipment, across the board for the role and an uplift… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Morning John.

We have not seen minor unit details in all areas yet, might get worse in some areas and better in others. I’ve seen an outline of the RA situation though.

I agree with all points bar the get rid of Tanks entirely point.
We’ve done that to death on here though so no need to go over old ground but respect your view of course mate.

John Clark
John Clark
7 days ago

Morning Daniele, we will see how the cards fall I guess mate. For me, if you had to point to a turn in the road when it started to go badly wrong for the army it would be 2004. The war in Iraq had turned into an insurgency and Afghanistan (already and entrenched insurgency as its their national sport) was soaking up more and more resources. Rolling replacement programmes that had gone on for many decades with equipment, were suddenly interrupted, as money was poured into these two conflicts and replacements for Chally2 and warrior were dealt to the back… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

We should only abandon tanks when all nations hostile or potentially hostile to the UK/NATO do so. Unfortunately you will find modernisation rather than abandonment of tanks in Russia.

John Clark
John Clark
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Maybe so Graham, you could however claim that with only 148 Chally3 on order, we have effectively abandoned MBT’s in any meaningful way, 148 is representative of little more than a token force.

RobW
RobW
7 days ago

Announcements I look forward to over the coming months/years to make sense of all this:

Boxer follow on order – to include mortar, AA, and 40mm canon variants.

AAC to receive new reconnaissance and transport helos in numbers.

A new order of A400s for the RAF so we can deploy rapidly.

Long range artillery order – tracked or wheeled in the required numbers.

Land ceptor follow on order.

Details of new and emerging drone capabilities.

Oh and as I’m playing armchair general I’d quite like more Apaches and Chally 3s please Santa!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  RobW

I think that outline is spot on, and perfectly feasible with the extra spend, bar the extra Apache and Ch3.

I’d add another item – when the unit restructuring is fully revealed an uplift in CS&CSS squadrons, batteries and companies.

I’m not holding my breath!

RobW
RobW
7 days ago

Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but there are signs of progress so perhaps much of this list will happen. Articles like this one give me hope!

UK details Boxer variants and confirms plans for bigger fleet (army-technology.com)

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Ah yes, UKAFC covered that list previously. Did you note how many of the variants are “Infantry Carriers” ?! 85.

85 of 528.

RobW
RobW
7 days ago

Well I guess if you keep cutting the infantry you don’t need so many carriers lol.

There has to be a follow on order of the same size. All indications are that there will be, it just all seems rather slow. Warrior will have to soldier on for quite some time yet!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  RobW

If there is that confirms what Graham suggested on an earlier thread, which would be excellent news.

RobW
RobW
6 days ago

British Army wants more punch in its Boxer vehicle fleet (defensenews.com)

Best article I have read on the subject. Lots of noise about increasing numbers and the “punch” of Boxers, with them all in service by 2030.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Yes, just finished reading.
I believe it when I see it!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Your AAC comment – are you hoping AAC will take on transport helos such as Puma and Chinook from the RAF? Wildcat was only introduced in 2014 so is not due replacement, but it only carries 5 passengers (plus 2 aircrew and door gunner).

Would you also like to see an announcement by Mr Marsh that the Ajax programme can be saved quickly and efficiently and withoit more MoD spending?

RobW
RobW
5 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I am hoping the army gets one type to replace Gazelle and Wildcat, so the latter can be moved to the FAA. The FAA needs more helos for T32 and T26, the latter being able to hold up to 3 if needed I believe. Wishful thinking I know.

I really hope Ajax is saved yes, otherwise much of the additional £8bn will be spent on its replacement, whereas the army needs that money for other things.

John Hartley
John Hartley
7 days ago

I think it a mistake to drop any part of UK Armed Forces below 50% of their late cold war (1990) level. The Army was 160,000 then. It should not drop below 80,000 now. The extra 7000 I want are for those parts we said we did not need (tanks, air defence, artillery) that are vital if we are to deter serious armies like Russia, or its heavily equipped “little green men”.

dave12
dave12
7 days ago

Remarketing of a force so small it cannot do its main task which is take and hold ground.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
7 days ago

Good, good. The army has spent too long drifting into a malaise. I have high hopes for this new mission

Mark B
Mark B
6 days ago

Anyone thinking we should have an Army the size of the US is living in cloud cuckoo land. We need an Army which matches our income. If the threat is greater than the Army we can afford, we need an alliance which for the time being we will call NATO. Trying to maintain an Army greater than you can afford lands you in a position where you defeat yourself. USSR 1990s perhaps? Should we have a military which is greater than we currently have? Possibly. Let’s be honest though the EU are currently making it plain that they will deal… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

The UK’s armed forces consumed 5% of GNP, , back in the mid 1980’s.

Mark B
Mark B
4 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Yes and 50% in the 1940s 😀 The amount countries spend in war time can be cripling. In the 1980s we had a cold war with the USSR. Now most of those USSR countries see the threat as coming from the East not the West and the UK has dropped to a 2% of GDP spend which is not unusual for a peacetime UK. The US is spending much more than us but at the same time is trying to be in all places at once.

Graham
Graham
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

The 2% figure is a product of creative accounting. It includes military pensions to chaps in their 60s like me, some non Defence intelligence spending, and on the Independent nuclear deterrent which the Treasury always used to directly cover.

Cripes
Cripes
5 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

I am not aware that the EU has ‘made it plain that they will deal with land forces in Europe”. It has no army to do so and is entirely dependent on the NATO Alliance for now. What is not widely realised is how limited NATO forces in Europe are, after years of political cutbacks. On land, in our area of interest, the North German Plain plain, there is just one German AI division, backed by a couple of Benelux bdes, to meet any threat on the Polish or Baltic Republics borders. Russian little green men could walk into any… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
4 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

I agree there is nothing in place and I also agree it would be foolhardy but from a political viewpoint the EU enthusiasts know they need an EU army in order to make polical union inevitable and irreversable.Failure to do this could result in the break up of the EU. This does not mean that I disagree with the thrust of your argment – quite the opposite in the same way as I feel EU countries have become reliant on Russia economically (another bad idea) I think that many decision makers today have never lived through a major war and… Read more »

Graham
Graham
3 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

No-one in these posts have ever suggested an army the size of the US army. The question is whether 73,000 is too small. Options for Change determined we needed a post-Cold War army of 120,000. Subsequent reductions have been purely to save money and do not reflect diminished threats. With a 73,000 regular army we can deploy 1 or 2 BCTs in a one-shot operation which lasts a few weeks or months, and could probably deploy a division with recourse to the Reserve Army. I don’t see that we could deploy a BCT for a long duration operation of several… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago

How can a HQ lose 40% of its personnel and still be effective and/or function 24/7/365 when required.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, I wondered that. Are they dispensing with the role or just moving them elsewhere, as plenty of HQ directorates are at Upavon as well as Andover.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago

Why do 33 army bases have to close? Will such displaced units be relocated? Are they then spending more on new bases to accomodate the dispossessed?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Those closures have been planned for years and are not an addition in Future Soldier.
There are lots of merry go round unit moves programmed.

Catterick, Bramcote, Stafford, Tidworth/Bulford all expanding as far as garrison strength goes. The barracks around SPTA were already planned as super garrisons.

It is unfortunate, but I am comfortable enough with it. I am not happy when strategic assets like naval installations, munitions sites and airfields are closed.

Cripes
Cripes
6 days ago

What a load of disingenuous spin in that document! All this ‘agile and ‘modern’ and so on being spouted, HMG’s PR man should get a prize for creative fiction! The bottom line is that the army is being slashed by ANOTHER 9,500, to a point where it is now just too small to be of much consequence, in NATO or playing at expeditionary forces around the globe. 4 deployable brigades, barely half the number our friends in Italy, France, Germany and even Spain can field, it’s a bit pathetic really and sad to see our enforced demise at HMG’s hand.… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

Irish Guards are going into 11 SAFB, Black Watch are with them.
I too did not see 3 RGR and I also did not see 3 CS Reg RLC.

Cripes
Cripes
5 days ago

Thanks Daniele, where did you find that?

I know that IG and BW were in SAFB before the latest reorganisation, wonder why they do not feature in the new ORBAT?

3 RGR have 180 new infantry recruits just completing Phase 2 training, so are just about up to bn strength, again wonder why they are also omitted from the ORBAT.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

Morning. They do. Look at page 22 11 SFAB, they are there. 3 RGR is interesting. I have been following Twitter comments on that. Some posters are saying they have reached 2 Companies in size and are going into the Ranger Regiment. If this is so it would not be unusual for a Gurkha sub unit to serve in another formation, many of the Gurkha squadrons and companies augment other units. So they exist, just maybe not as a separate entity. Going through the doc with a fine tooth comb myself checking every unit listed with my own knowledge and… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

Update on 3 RGR. F ( Falklands ) Company has formed at RMAS to be part of 2 PWRR, a Ranger Reg btn.
Maybe this is where the new recruits have gone.

Cripes
Cripes
19 hours ago

I have not gone through the CS and CSS units in detail yet, but first impression is that all have had serious cutbacks. The R Eng look to be at keast 2 regiments short, RLC is down one or more, RA is down by two? etc. Have you tallied up the full damage? It all makes very depressing reading, it would take years to build up army strength and reestablish the higjly-trained , specialist troops who are currently being axed. It is astonishing how Boris and chums have got away with it without serious questions in Parliament and the media.… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
38 minutes ago
Reply to  Cripes

Morning Cripes. On paper, as of yet, your first impression is not as bad as you suggest re the CS/CSS elements. And I have just finished updating my own files on the forthcoming changes. It is the individual internal regiment changes that we will see expansion or reduction which have not been released yet, though I have seen those in the RA. I see no loss in RE Regiments, all still there. RLC yes I cannot find that 3 CS Log Regiment. RA all still there. One LG Regiment switches to MLRS. The issue was they were all cut already… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
5 days ago

Lots of political spin of course. I’ll leave detail comments to the professionals but in t I do see some clarity emerging. We have decided on our main interests / enemies: Putin in Europe, Iran in the ME and African Islamism. The army have decided to take leaf out of the RN book and adopt forward basing and presumably ‘rotating crews’. In establishing the Rangers the army has affirmed the regiment as the core ‘family’ unit and to make it self sufficient in skills and equipment. The mechanism for sunsetting regiments is soldier by soldier; skill by skill ; career… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
4 days ago

whilst I want to get onboard with this – it is actually the worst kind of opportunism going. Firstly, A BCT has integrated Air and has circa 4.5k personnel. Each Brigade is well defined (see more on UK Landpower) and is self sufficient unto c. 30 days. A USMC MEU is circa 2.4k personnel, also with integrated Air, perhaps this is a more suitable sizing unit given the UK’s small land force mass. The focus on the Ranger regiment and their shiny new rifles is less than 1k personnel and a rebadging exercise of Spec Inf. Given the current size of… Read more »

Graham
Graham
2 days ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Hi, have you made similar points before? An army of 73,000 does not consist of 73,000 Field Army deployable soldiers, any more than all of Tesco’s 336,000 UK employees stack shelves, man tills, drive delivery wagons or manage a store. Assuming the 73,000 are all UKTAF/UKTAM (ie trained personnel), then many are in roles or in situations that are inconsistent with them slotting into a deployable division. There are many examples including: Permanently Committed Forces; Trg Org staff, Defence Diplomacy staff, those on Public Duties, those undergoing long-term medical treatment, those on long career courses, those imminently about to be… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
2 days ago
Reply to  Graham

Hi Graham, Things have to change and we now have an army that is almost totally undeployable and realistically we can only deploy around 12k personnel on a sustainable basis at best. The 84k does include 12k RAF being moved into the army or aligned to it, so that a ground commander has air assets under their control. We currently have an organisation that believes it is bigger than it is and we are not making enough use of the latest tech such as a boxer with Amos mortar or 155mm gun each with 2 or 3 crew. Likewise a… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 days ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Hi Pacman, thanks for the swift reply. You are certainly thinking radically; at a time when the army does not fully admit that it could deploy a single division at the moment, you come up with 7 divisions! A bit harsh to say that the army is almost totally undeployable – but it depends what you are talking about – we could not field a networked warfighting division with modern heavy equipment – but we can deploy smaller numbers to Kabul airport, Mali, Estonia etc. I don’t know if you have served in the Regs or TA/Reserve Army, but I… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
2 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hi graham Understand your concerns, and I am not advocating a smaller military, but am trying to propose a more sustainable working environment that places people first. one thing I need to make clear, is that a 12k division delivers 1 MEU on a continuous basis across 4 rotations with an embedded CSG providing ongoing support not the full 12k troops and out of that 12k about 1600 pure infantry dismounts (4 to a vehicle that can surge to 8 should it need to) I served 6 years in infantry.. I totally agree with your points and concerns, and can’t… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Always good to have a discussion with you mate.If you go for a smaller APC/IFV that can deliver just 4 dismounts (as Spartan could), then clearly you need twice as many vehicles as Boxers to move a section/platoon/whatever – that may be more expensive. Merkava is of course a MBT, that can carry 4 dismounts due to the front engine layout – are you saying they should replace CR2, as well as cart Infantry about? They are expensive compared to an APC/IFV. I totally agree on the need to improve conditions. The cuts have meant we cannot really do any… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

agreed.. I do think we need more vehicles as they have to make up for the shortage in people, also with the move to urban warfare smaller highly protected vehicles may well be the future. Merkava is large and very good – not sure they are that expensive given an Ajax is coming in around £10m each!!! The design philosophy of it is interesting as the IDF had limited crews and decided they couldn’t afford to lose either equipment or people.. over the years they have added to this with APS etc. I also think there is something to be… Read more »

Ron
Ron
3 days ago

I am becoming more and more concerned with the strength of the Army. The British Army has commitments beyond its ability to act, lets look at some of these commitments. Main land Europe with NATO this means tanks, artillery,and airpower. Northern Norway, this means mobile medium-light forces, highly mobile but hard hitting and supplies. Falklands type situations, this means mobile medium-light forces but over a contested beach far from home dependent on the supplies carried. Asymetric warfare e.g. N.Ireland, Afganistan, this means light mobile forces with good recon ability. That means the British Army needs everything from Air Transport, Sea… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 day ago
Reply to  Ron

Good luck persuading the politicians. The last time we had a corps of 3 or 4 divisions we were in the middle of the Cold War. We haven’t had 550 tanks since we had a mixed CR1/CH fleet prior to the mid-90s.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
4 hours ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Talking of Ajax and Boxer are they’re any updates on how they’re both travelling? Are things getting fixed and any more future orders in the pipeline?