The Ministry of Defence has reconfirmed its ambitious target to double the British Army’s fighting power by 2027 and treble it by 2030, though details remain unclear on what exactly this goal entails.
This clarification came in a response by Defence Minister Luke Pollard to Conservative MP James Cartlidge’s query about whether the plan includes the procurement of the Precision Strike Missile system as a key measure of success.
Pollard clarified that the target, originally set by the Chief of the General Staff, is “a principle to guide Army modernisation” rather than a target tied to any single programme or procurement effort. He further stated, “It is not tied to specific programmes or procurements, but will incorporate the outcomes of the Strategic Defence Review.”
Although the overall ambition was announced previously, the latest response raises questions about the exact pathway the Army will take to achieve its target. The lack of specific metrics leaves room for interpretation as to how this doubling of lethality will be assessed or achieved.
The Army’s goal broadly encompasses a push toward modernisation, which could involve enhanced precision weaponry, digital integration, improved mobility, and advanced reconnaissance technologies. However, without concrete benchmarks, it is uncertain how success will be measured.
Now then the basic question! Will they be able to take and hold ground?🤔
Jacko, We still have Infantry, so the answer is ‘yes’.
Just not much, or for long…
It would be useful to know the definition of lethality they are measuring against or it is entirely pointless statement.
If they constantly cut capability for sure it won’t be double or triple as lethal as most normal people would equate the term.
It assume it comes down to the weapons being bigger. AS90 replacement with a bigger gun, ajax, etc. Although how boxer vs warrior is more lethal is anyone’s guess or challenger 3 vs almost double as many challenger 2s.
Same decision I guess made on type 45 . As it’s 3 times more advanced than its predecessor the type 42 we didn’t need as many. Fell over quickly that it can’t be in 3 places at once. And serviceability didn’t help. Challenger 2-3 cut numbers more advanced same philosophy Politicians of all parties never learn its all about financial implications . The SDSR will be interesting
“Do more with less” is the MOD cop-out for justifying cuts.
More tanks, more guns, more missiles, more personnel, more budget? How? And what happens if peer adversaries do the same or more?
You’ve put your finger on the problem if it’s treated as a one off project: what happens when our adversaries play catch up? There is a solution. If lethality is treated as an ongoing project with constant increases in lethality, delivered through improving technology and improving conops, it might be possible to remain ahead by a factor of three, always moving forward, always chased by our adversaries.
I doubt the ability of the Army to deliver on such a project. The constant internal war for resources within MOD means that at some point soon they would lose out and the increases in lethality would stop. Given the government’s lack of desire to provide funding, even keeping such a project going until the end of the decade to reach a threefold advantage will be nothing short of a miracle.
I suggest more guns more missiles less tanks and less people.
That’s how you double or triple lethality with in the same budget.
For years we cut back on artillery to keep as many light infantry units as possible. Now we are seeing the reverse.
Well, if we take China as the potential enemy – they are already doing more. If you look on Russia as the enemy – well, tied up in Ukraine at the moment but have massively increased their arms budget. Meanwhile, the country that is making the threats against NATO countries is the US – threatening to annex Canada and buy/annex Greenland as well as saying the UK is ‘out of line’… so probably more of an immediate threat than either Russia or China! So if you consider that the FIRST priority of a government is to protect the country – we are woefully ill equipped at the moment.
Totally agree, maybe the words need to change, so do they mean modernise or upsize the armed forces? because they will need to do both.
Steve. Good post. If we now have, say, 10 AS-90s left to go with the 14 Archers…then buy 72 Boxer RCH-155s can you imagine the MoD press release? ‘Artillery lethality tripled’!
I suppose if you just want to double the lethal firepower of the Army the simple way, the cheapest way is to take a step back and think outside the box.
To do that we have to examine the risks and act accordingly, that IMHO opinion comes down to 3 probable scenarios.
1. Russia kicks off in Europe, so that’s NATO but possibly having to do so without North American Boots on the Ground.
2. China invades Taiwan and the that triggers a war in the Far East which involves China then US, Japan, S Korea and Australia (India ?).
3. A 2nd Tier out of NATO area, UK specific confrontation such as Falklands 2.
I think if you take a pragmatic and realistic view on what we do, what capabilities we bring to the table and what we are prepared to pay, you pretty well come to the conculsion that the British Army isn’t going to be doubled or tripled any time soon. The best it can hope for is to get the CR3 into service, replace the Artillery and be able to deploy a small Armoured division in central Europe. And to be perfectly honest I’m not sure we should do much else as Poland will be the dominant Army in central Europe and we may be better off doing what they can’t and we can.
In short I’d re-introduce Tactical Nuclear Weapons for the Army and RAF so that European NATO has a retaliatory capability, which without the US it doesn’t have.
In addition I’d concentrate on reinforcing the Northern Flank in Norway / Sweden which means we need additional Sea / Airlift capacity and mobile Firepower.
So that doubles the lethality ASAP, increases our importance to European NATO and gives us the ability to take care of point 3.
And yes I have ignored the 2nd scenario and that’s because the idea of us getting involved in a China / US war is just plain silly, we jusat do not have the ability to deploy anything more than a token Submarine or 2 at best. And besides which I’d bet on Russia Sabre rattling in Europe to tie us all down here.
1. Russia kicks off in Europe, so that’s NATO but possibly having to do so without North American Boots on the Ground.
I do like this scenario, im curious what resources Russia has to call upon in the next 5 years minimum that it could even attempt to take on a wider European conflict? I think its clear they are scraping the barrel a bit with hiring NK troops and having to purchase old tech weapons from Iran/NK just to keep the existing effort going.
Do they have any form of a professional fighting force left or the equipment to support?
Russia is no different to any other Country engaged in War,they will go through the process of Recruit,Restock,Rest and Replenish,Whether the Weapons supplied through 3rd parties are New or Old Tech is neither here nor there,if they do the job they are supposed to do that is all that matters.
A mountain of reloads for systems we already have like M270 and Sky Sabre would be the most cost effective way forwards.
The big problem is moving army thinking away from the ‘big new shiny’ acquisition program that eats so much budget training and manpower are reduced to pay for it.
I think you need to consider a few things:
1) any US China war will inevitably become a NATO China conflict because of chinas view on warfighting, they believe in the long war and attacking the enemy every place they can.. the moment china attacks the US mainland it triggers article five.
2) in the same way a US China war will cause contagion in the west it will also cause contagion in the enemies of the west.. as China fights its long war it will is all means to bring in allies and those allies will see opportunities as they did in WW2.. it would be the North Koreans one chance to take the south, Iran can attack Israel and Russian go for a Baltic state all with the US fully committed in the China seas… all the powers will move on the resources in Africa… world wars always start small with 2 major powers then others are either dragged in through treaty or come in for the opportunity.
ABC, we could send a CSG to the Far East in scenario 2. That was the premise for CSG21.
Interesting that CGS’ vision is now endorsed MoD policy. But the General stated his vision quite a while ago and still there are no details, yet there are only 2 years until the lethality doubling target must be met.
I am sure that if we ever get any definition of lethality it will include vagaries and will lack fully articulated metrics.
We got a definition from the CGS. I’m sure I’m not imagining this. He said that it was down to the ability of our troops to defeat a multiple number of adversary trooops. So if 10,000 of our troops can be relied on to defeat 20,000 peer adversay troops, that’s double lethality. He didn’t put it that simply, but implied that definition in one of his speeches when he first announced the policy.
FWIW, I recalled wondering at the time, which of our adversaries could be relied on to only field three times the number of soldiers we could. One reason our soldiers can beat multiple enemy troops is that the enemy spend less money on training and equipment and can therefore afford to field more.
Jon, in warfighting we (with allies of course) are up (potentially) against one or more of the CRINK nations. They are known for their large armies. The Russian Army will one day be resurrected to again be a super-large army. I think we (UK/NATO) will always be the smaller force.
But as you say our opponent’sr effectiveness is doubtful – soem reports say the North Koreans have not been seen in Kursk for 3 weeks – withdrawn to barracks due to losses due to poor combat ability?
Jon, thanks. I do remember something like that now. Its an unconventioanl definition of lethality, to say the least, and certainly open to challenge.
Classically an attacking force needs three times the number of attackers to defenders to be reasonably sure of success. So classically to attack a force of 20,000 peer adversaries (to take your example) you would need 60,000 attackers….yet the General thinks we should be able to do the job with 10,000 to achieve double lethality status. That is doing the same job as historically but with one sixth the manpower.
I think General Walker should write a book called ‘On Modern War’ and become the new Clausewitz. I would certainly buy a copy.
Maybe ex SF chaps shouldn’t be in charge of the wider army, and stay with the way DSF do things?
The Army needs mass and firepower as much as skill, daring, and guille.
Hi Daniele, of course ‘badged’ officers are only in SF roles for a relatively small part of their career. General Roly commanded his battalion (1IG) taking the battalion on an Op HERRICK tour and later commanded 12 Armd Inf Bde. As well as being DSF he did of course do plenty of ‘green army’ staff jobs.
I don’t think he is going to shape the Field Army along quasi-SF lines!
Very true that the army needs mass and firepower, certainly a lot more than it has got now. Needs increased money. I think Mark Rutte is gearing up to set 3%+ of GDP as the new NATO target figure.
I suspect the lethality will lack any increase and infact a decrease in kinetic effectors…I suspect the increased lethality will come from other areas, but ISTAR , command and control and accuracy improvements all become irrelevant if you don’t actually have the troop, vehicle and kinetic effectors to take advantage of those improvements.
Drones?
They showed a lot of pictures last week using the Puma and the Parrot drones in the Arctic and Japan respectively.
Those are for ISTAR, but wonder if some that carry payloads may follow.
They will. CDS mentioned it, and I heard some were being tested back in July, but no specific details.
Drones should only supplement, not replace, though, incase simple politicians get ideas.
Ok lets see less words more orders and changes then. Lately its been a lot bluff and words not a lot else. Things as they are are a joke. Not a funny joke, its a massive shame on the Nation.
Ajax has a bigger cannon than Warrior.
They’ll order 36 RCH155 to replace 14 Archers.
This seems closer to what will happen than we’d like…
Where are the 14 Archers going? Ajax is not an IFV, so a bigger gun means nothing if we get a boxer wheeled IVF. 36 RCH is way not enough that is in war just over 4 Btys worth or just over one Regt. Hardly a full replacement for AS90 etc
Exactly. That’s the kind of nonsense they’ll use to justify it though.
2 Batteries of 19 RA.
They were, as mentioned many times, a stop gap until the actual AS90 replacement arrives.
Original future gun was for around 116 I recall.
That was when 4 Regiments needed re equipping.
In the 200 range is what is indicated with RCH155.
I remain sceptical on that and think around 60 to 90 guns. It all depends on which Regiments and how many Batteries, plus attrition, plus trials, plus training examples.
Army Technology article of Jan 23 infers from the Germany -UK agreement, that the UK order for RCH 155 would be for 240!
Yes perhaps this is what they mean about tripling lethality. 240 RCH 155 would make the British army more lethal than at any time in its recent history. Add on 70 M270’s and we would have a massive firepower capability. 240 RCH 155 would only cost £2.4 billion which is small compared to most army or MOD procurement programs and it only requires a crew of 2. This is exactly the kind of army and technology Britain needs to focus on, automated and highly capable weapons systems that require few people but lots of capital, combine this firepower with top class C4ISTAR and the British Army can win any fight.
This plays to our strengths, more light infantry battalions plays to our weaknesses.
Jim, you talk about a possible very substantial artillery increase, but of course there needs to be lethality increases elsewhere. Currently we have fewer Apache than we previously had and will buy far fewer tanks and the Infantry in the armoured brigades will lose their section cannons when they re-equip with Boxer.
That would be 863 Boxer variants on order, with Boxer plus RCH155.
That’s incredibly optimistic to be ready by 2030 even, with current build rates of 60 a year!
Might that be why Babcock and Patria are getting together to proposed the 6×6 APC? If you could build that in parallel with Boxer then you could dedicate your Boxer chassis to modules like RCH 155, turreted mortar etc. rather than using them as an expensive APC.
It might be.
They could replace the Bulldog etc in the other roles.
That’s what I was thinking, plenty ways to move infantry around that does not involve a 8×8 £5 million monster.
Great if so.
I then ask: Who will “man” these vehicles?
Where are the Regiments for them given that, at the most, only 3 need them given current ORBAT? Without yet another, massive reorg, and great expansion of Batteries, or of Battery size.
Where is the REME support for them?
2 crew? What if 1 gets injured? Who fights and commands the vehicle?
I support the expansion of the RA over all else
due to its neglect since the early 2000s, but remain to be convinced.
Indeed you need artillery to fight a peer war, it’s a very very big hole at present.it’s all very well saying massed Russian fires are inaccurate..but as I’m sure the Ukrainians will tell quantity has a quality all of its own..and if you cannot move for minefields and and a completely inaccurate rain of 155mm fires all the wonders of ISTAR driven mobile warfare like strike etc won’t help much.
Well, indeed.
And the build rate of Boxer is far too slow.
They seem to have gone all in on it, when many of the supporting roles could have been done by a cheaper, more efficient procurement.
I still hold out hope for the Patria 6×6, but nothing confirmed yet
It’s also exacerbated by the sheer amount of equipment that is obsolete and being retired by 2030.
It is a mess.
I’m with you on Patria, although I note the STANAG comments as minimal acceptable armour. Do other armies use up armoured versions or are they happy as is?
I would use Boxer to equip as many Battalions as possible and use vehicles like Patria for other roles.
I read they even have a SERPENS variant for Boxer.
@ Danielle
Personally I would look at it the same way France has, they have essentially gone for a minimum STANAG of 4 as base for all their armoured box’s in reality it’s not so much about resistance to direct fire ( small arms is fine ) it’s that all important blast frag resistance from 155mm fires and STANAG 4 is 25meters which is useful VS a pretty pointless 80meters for STANAG 2..
One of the reasons I really thing they are pissing money away with boxer is that not have a direct fire option on an armoured vehicle with STANAG of 6 is bonkers… your paying that money for protection from direct fire your never going to use.. boxer is essentially designed to be able to stay with the infantry and provide fire support.. why the hell would you only fit a GPMG on it…
Yes Danielle, a SERPENS version, Overwatch, C-UAS and Bridging variants of Boxer are all mooted and have been shown at conferences etc.
It also sounds not only expensive, but very slow to build with the current rates.
Tesla robots 😀
Sam, Ajax recce vehicle does a different job to Warrior IFV.
No way will MoD order as few as 36 RCH-155 SPGs; it sounds as if we might get more than we expect.
I know, Graham.
I was being facetious re the smoke and mirrors game of the government.
Just buying enough modern vehicles and on a decent timescale would be a start.
They’re still pootling round in grandad’s APCs.
Memorandum of understanding between Babcock and Patria to present a custom version of the Patria 6×6 to the UK. Patria will lead the design and Babcock will deliver a means of ‘building at scale’. Source Joint Forces News.
Yeah mate, saw this.
Fingers crossed, but won’t hold my breath etc.
It’s to light and has shocking blast frag protection as standard.. they will need to do some major upgrades on the protection and so power plant.
Thanks Paul, I wonder why Patria themselves cannot build at scale?
It is bizarre that there is still no clarity about what the ambition entails. Simply doubling ammunition stockpiles could mean doubling lethality.
It certainly could if you’re talking about PGM’s.
Seems to me not a lot going on, a bit of bluffing as always. No new orders, not sure where some get the figures for RCH 155 at over 100 to 200 we do not have the logistics to support that many same as 70 plus MLRS i do not see us having vast stock’s of rockets and 2 or 3 times the ammo vehicles we have now.
Pretty sure it will be done by cooking the books, re defining some things and smoke and mirrors. The army will not get bigger the RA will not get bigger. The Armoured corps is going to get smaller so it to me looks like warm words and wishful thinking combined with a con, ie a new way counting things or some MOD spin.
Army Technology an article on this, Martin.
As it will take too long to share a link, here’s the relevant section:
The disclosure of Bundeswehr plans also provides details as to the number of RCH 155 the British Army could be looking for, following the UK-German agreement specifically stating a joint procurement of up to 400 units. This means a UK buy is likely to be for around 240 units of the RCH 155 artillery.
Earlier analysis by Army Technology indicated that any UK acquisition could be for around 200 units of the RCH 155 artillery system.
I’d be very happy if they did buy that many I just do not see it. The RA does not have the logistics for it, or the currant number of Regts if it is still wishing to expand MLRS numbers and incress Air Defence. It if true be a very big increse in RA numbers. My Guess is the RA needs 4 Regts worth and one Reserve Regts worth plus training fleet. 18 peace time 24 to a Regt war time, so the 116 figure seems the most likely, love to see more than that ordered though.
No. The RA as things stand need 2 Regiments worth, 1RHA an 19RA, for the 2 Armoured Brigades we have.
A possible 3rd would be 4 RA if they decide that RCH155 would equip that Regiment to support 7 LM Bde.
The 116 original figure was for 4 Regiments, but one of those, 3 RHA, now operates MLRS, so there are 3 gun Regiments left.
The 200 plus figure will involve considerable changes!
How many regiments have the 105mm ?
@Jonathan.
3 regular.
4 RA. Supports 7 Bde.
7 RHA. 16 AA Bde.
29RA. UKCF.
Plus Reserve regiments.
The HAC has some guns too, as does the Gibraltar Regiment.
It would be nice to see 4 RA converted to self propelled 155mm as 7 Bde is one of those way they could up the lethality..give up its 105mm towed for a mix of 155mm self propelled ( and 120mm boxer mounted mortars and boxers for the Mech infantry battalions ( with 40mm GMG in the weapons mount for direct fire support)… if they were getting really saucy they could move Royal Scots Dragoon Guards to Ajax…
That would be a pretty much zero sum increase in personnel requirements but give the army a proper deployable extra heavy brigade. They could also use the 155mm archers, when they are replaced by the new boxes based system in 3rd Division..so that’s cheap and a serious upgrade.
Martin, Not all equipments purchased are owned and operated by the Field Army. In an AFV fleet there will be a number in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Sorry but for our Army to be more lethal it’s just not about heavy fire power like having RCH 155 Boxer artillery platforms or what ever we end up with , you need more Boots on the ground let alone to man the vechels .To do this manpower and platforms Tanks etc most come together can’t do one without the other. But this is just more loose talk from HMG .Apparently HMG aren’t going even do a Defence Review has Promised . 🙄
Thought the Defence Review was “being done’ ?
I think Andrew refers to reports that SDR will be delayed.
No doubt because Reeves keeps rejecting it’s findings, won’t fund it, so they have to go away and do a review that fits.
Not very strategic, is it?
If the Treasury will not fund the budget needed to meet the SDR terms of reference then those terms need to be revisited. Fat chance of that though. Another fudge and cuts it is.
By all standard measurements it’s hard to increase lethality when you reduce the number of guns, bullets and people. We need the Govt to quantify their definition of lethality and what the benchmark is.
It’s all fake, we have promised NATO a two division commitment however all we are putting up is the command element because we intent to take over other nations military units into those divisions.
Meanwhile NATO shrinks as it gets more expensive. Russia can field four times the forces with less than a tenth of the budget.
We can’t even rely on air power anymore because we are chasing whit elephants and commitment to flawed technologies
So we will wargame what we want a conflict to be with zero idea of actual future warfare.
As Ukraine complains – we are teaching them how to play airsoft based on WW2 doctinres
Apache E. Order more. You want to triple lethality that’s one way to do it.
C2 to C3 upgrade every possible tank. That’s another way to increase lethality. The C2s are smashing the crap out the Russians in Ukraine
HIMARS/ MLRS
Drones and counter drone warfare.
We need to purchase dozens of SHORAD compact vehicles that can take out drones cheaply leaving our land Ceptor units for missile and aircraft threats
Long range fire. Replace AS90 with a new SPG and ensure capability to replace attritional loses and barrel fatigue.
IFV. The British army needs a new IFV with an APS and multi use turret that can provide direct fire support and counter drone warfare. Ideally based on the same 40mm gun Ajax has. Don’t care if this is an Ajax chassis or boxer but the army needs to get this sorted.