In a recent episode of the OSINT Bunker podcast, retired Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Crawford, a 20-year veteran of the Royal Tank Regiment, shared his insights on the role of armoured warfare in modern conflicts.

Drawing from his extensive military experience, Crawford offered a nuanced perspective on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, comparing it to previous wars and highlighting the importance of both numbers and competency in warfare.

Crawford began by comparing the coalition invasion of Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 to the current conflict in Ukraine. He noted that the key difference between the two was the Allies’ overwhelming air superiority during the first Gulf War, which allowed them to range at will across the Kuwait theatre of operations. In contrast, no one has air superiority in Ukraine, leading to a more even contest.

The panel for the OSINT Bunker podcast includes @OSINTtechnical, @geoallison and @AnAustinThing2.

Crawford also discussed the Russian battalion tactical group strategy and its effectiveness in Ukraine. He questioned whether these groups are large enough to have a significant impact on the battlefield, suggesting that the Western practice of having small numbers of highly competent, technically advanced fighting vehicles might be putting too many eggs in one basket. He argued for the value of larger numbers of less capable vehicles, as losses are inevitable in warfare.

He stated, “I’ve said this 100 times and stuff that I’ve been writing in the newspapers, mass matters, if there’s one lesson that comes out of Ukraine, is that numbers matter. And I’m now beginning to think that this western practice, and I’m thinking of the UK in particular, but it may apply elsewhere, of having small numbers of highly competent, technically advanced fighting vehicles, for example, like tanks, but which cost a fortune, whether we’re in danger of putting our limited eggs into one basket, and we might be better off going for large numbers or larger numbers of less capable vehicles, because losses are inevitable”

Adding to the discussion, Austin, another speaker on the podcast, mentioned the interesting case of the Polish military, which has been given the proper resources to do what they need to do.

Crawford responded, “I’m very impressed by the fact that they have, I think, come to an arrangement with South Korea to purchase some of the most modern South Korean tanks, I can’t remember the nomenclature of them, but also to construct a factory in Poland that will, that will, that will produce the bulk of them. Plus, they’ve got the US Aegis system, and the missile system already in Poland. And they’ve got the Patriot system”.

You can listen here or find the podcast on most audio streaming platforms, including Spotify and TuneIn. We’ve also included a link to all the episodes on this page if that’s easier for you.

If you want to hear more from Crawford, we recommend heading to his own podcast here.

What is the OSINT Bunker?

The OSINT Bunker is a defence and security-based podcast aimed at expanding people’s knowledge of the geopolitical landscape using open-source intelligence. It fills a niche that most people (most people reading this anyway) have for up-to-date, accurate and balanced information on ongoing conflicts.

What is OSINT? For those who don’t know, OSINT stands for open-source intelligence, which refers to any information gathered from public sources about an organisation, event, individual etc. In practice, that tends to mean information found on the internet, but technically any public information falls into the category of OSINT, whether it’s books or reports in a public library, articles in a newspaper or statements in a press release.

Episodes typically cover the UK and international defence matters.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

328 COMMENTS

  1. One problem with the U.K numbers is money what it’s spent on.
    The army have done an awful job of getting fighting vehicles and it’s left the only option of purchasing some other countries projects.
    Another thing would be could the U.K. make a tank or vehicle 1/5th the cost of current models so they could get 5 times as many?

    • They have the ‘cheap vehicle’ already the 400 plus Challenger 2 tanks produced up till 2002.
      It just needs a ‘new’ turret and the associated electronics that gives you the low cost and numbers . A new tank for the sake of it isnt worthwhile anymore

      • 386 CR2.
        Brimstone on a truck would be a cheaper Tank Destroyer! In addition to, and not replacing, CR3 of course.

        • And as of last week that is now available on Supercat vehicles and ready to go despite the prototype being created by exploiting a laptop and a visit to B&Q for a generator. I wonder if we will show interest, a good way to add to numbers relatively cheaply I would say and support an innovative UK business with potential export opportunities esp to Poland and Ukraine.

          • Its an option for medium and light forces. Ukraine is firing Brimstone off a truck and I guess it is working well.

      • We only ever had 386 and that has now been depleted to 214, of which not all are fit for purpose, hence why we are only getting 148 CR3.

      • Only 213 of those 386 cheap tanks left in service….and the upgrade to CR3 for the 148 tanks that get it is not cheap…its really expensive at £5.4m each (ammortised NRE).

    • Absolutely. Add in the RAF spending £4 billion on 2023 numbers on MR4A to receive no aircraft. You’d have thought that the lesson would have been learned after spending £2.5 bn in 2023 prices on Nimrod AEW.

      • If MRA4 had been all new build, it would have been fine. Sticking new wings on old bent airframes did not work. Likewise AEW, if it had been Hawkrod as first proposed. So USN E2 radar on larger Nimrod airframe, that would have worked.

        • The comet air frames were not just bent, they had extensive corrosion of bulkheads and frames. Also being hand built the wings would only fit the one the measurements were taken from. Perhaps they should investigate who had shares in company who refurbished the air frames?

      • The RAF did receive its aircraft They hadnt got IOC and some were still in production.
        The Cameron government axed the whole project, those delivered and those under construction as the core reason for ‘nothing’
        The obsession with a 4 engine aircraft meant more suitable airframes werent used and the ‘ideal’ Japanese 4 engine Kawasaki P1 came to late to be UK-Japan shared project

        • You look like you know more about it than me mate. I thought I’d remembered reports that said a further £600m was required to bring the aircraft into service at the time that they were scrapped.
          What’s your view of the P1? I remember comments about it being more capable than the P8 on account of having an inboard MAD which the P8 lacks.

    • Nobody could make a similar platform for 1/5 of the money. Even our new budget frigate is not 1/5 of the cost of other frigates.
      But we should buy tank destroyers to augment our small number of MBTs.
      We should have bought a cheaper recce vehicle and MIV, and spent less on the CR3 upgrade by better negotiating, but that is water under the bridge.

  2. Tell us what we don’t already know! No matter how good the tanks fire control is, no matter how strong the frontal armour, no matter how good the active defence, it’s tracks are still easily damaged if they encounter mines. Recovering them whilst under fire is no easy task! That’s just one example of how easily they can be lost.

    If we ever do need to deploy challenger 3 against anyone remotely capable there’s the real chance of losing them, it won’t take long for the handful we have to start running out.

    But the same applies to pretty much everything we deploy these days…

    • I’m more concerned with all the support vehicles etc. If we are only putting trophy on the chally, it leaves the boxers/Ajax/archers/etc highly vulnerable to low cost drones and atgm. We don’t have enough air defence assets to protect them, so they would be quickly picked off in a near / peer war. Thats before you even start thinking logistic vehicles which would also be targeted, as being behind the front line no longer means safety. Meaning the tanks might be ok but become useless as they are left alone on the battle field.

      • Anything around the front line needs it. Apc ifv, recon, artillery etc. Every single one of them is vulnerable. It’s senseless having such expensive and scare assets then penny pinching on protecting them.

        Either stop at nothing when protecting them or equip in large numbers to be able to absorb losses. As usual though our wonderful leaders are dithering around in no man’s land looking clueless.

      • Good points. The tank can only operate effectively and with minimal losses if it is adequately supported by other arms, armoured recce forces to their front, Armoured Infantry in IFVs alongside and CS/CSS. However to fit APS to everything is probably unaffordable.

        In manouevre warfare the skilful side will attack the enemy at both its weakest/most vulnerable point and also endeavour to break the enemy’s logistic and engineering support. Better to destroy 90% of the refuelling tankers than 20% of the enemy’s tanks. Thus CSS should be a key target, and they are mostly in soft-skinned vehicles. This is a real conundrom. Equipment and troops operating behind the front line has not been safe for a very long time.

        • it is not unfordable if the armour you buy is cheaper than the hyper expensives Boxer, Ajax.

          But you will be effectively trusting your life in the APS like ships today trust their floating in anti missile missiles.

      • Sun Tzu. Strike your enemy where he is weakest. So target the vehicles around the tanks. Then they become exposed and vulnerable.

          • Indeed following the figures each day and the support vehicles are becoming the priority esp I guess as they have to move while the tanks are generally well hidden in defensive positions. Drones really are in the ascendency in such tactics as they thrive with moving vehicles whereas less so in well hidden assets covered in defensive netting.

      • Yes read an article a few days back where proposals (non uk) were to add Trophy or similar to light armoured and support vehicles before actual tanks. Struck me as odd at the time, but beginning to make sense the way you describe matters now.

      • UK and France did a remarquable 40mm CTA canon. With it, short range air cover is perfectly fine. Togerther, on a truck chassi with a short range radar, we could get rid of any small drones, for little costs.
        For tanks, the expensive solution is a dead end. The affordable solution may be a robot, on tracks, with a 105, 120 or 140mm gun, driven in front of infantry, shooting bad guys. This is what is expected from a tank. Je n operator drives it remotely, another One fires when needed.

        • Not so sure on the CTA for dealing with drones, as the fire rate is low. I guess we will find out if and when Ajax enters service and some tests are done in a realistic scenerio or if they are actually deployed.

      • The force of air would likely set off mines anyway and have to be light enough to hover would have limited armour so be destroyed completely instead of recoverable

      • This capability will be the next Mid-life, Mid-life upgrade for the FV 432 with lasers and pulse cannons to be fitted at the following Mid-life, Mid-life, Mid-life upgrade. By then the FV 432 will have been in service for 3 millennia and the Tech Priests will then look at replacing it.

        • The FV432 still being in service (ISD 1962) is like the Royal Navy still having Leander-class frigates, County-class destroyers, the carrier HMS Hermes and Sea Vixens.

          • Calm down! But the point is that the army kit is antique in part. RN and RAF would never accept that situation.

          • I’m not sure the army has been as focussed on running costs as performance, as you might think.

            The army has still got 432s because beancounters did not approve funding to buy enough Warriors back in the day. 2,500 FV430s in service in the mid-80s but only 789 Warriors were procured!

            Not sure that it is a great situation to be running 60-year old vehicles, that were designed 70 years ago – and that cannot keep up with the Warriors. Would the RAF like to still be flying Phantoms to augment a meagre Typhoon force?

    • Everything on the battle field is vulnerable including and especially soft-skinned vehicles and dismounted soldiers. The least vulnerable vehicle is the best protected and the best concealed.

    • Everything on the battle field is vulnerable, but the tank is the best protected asset we have. Everything has a weak spot – doesn’t mean we scrap them.

  3. The UK brings many things to the table – I have to say that the mainland european countries should really be self-sufficient for tanks.

    • All NATO countries including those that are far away (US, Canada) or are an island (UK), contribute to the defence of Continental Europe – that is what NATO is all about. We cannot opt out of the defence of the continent.

      • You bring to the table what you can deliver. Should we also start counter complaining that most European countries don’t have nuclear subs and 2 x Aircraft Carriers?

        • Yep, we should act as sea /air experts (sorry Army) our geographical place means we could defend for air/sea (if we buy right equipment) we then provide RC-135/E-7/P-8/JSTARs plus boom tankers and makesure that Tempest has decent range and standoff weapon to allow us to provide support to Poland/German/Czechia/Romainia. We will never have the mass to load up every ferry and surge 1000’s of fighting vehicles across channel aka Re-Forger from cold war days, so we need to change our force structure, have RFA/escorts and JETS to have CSG operational and to keep SLOC’s open and for protaganists to think QE’s CSG is a threat like a US.

        • We were discussing the defence of the European continent, not the Atlantic, and a sentiment that most of the heavy lifting should be done by Poland. My point was that all NATO countries including US, Canada and UK (the most distant and the island) can and should contribute to the defence of the continent. All NATO countries (less Iceland) have land forces. In the event of a major war in Europe with Article 5 being called, member nations decide how they respond but I would expect most nations to contribute land forces to the defence of the NATO member who has been invaded. I do not see why the UK with its large defence budget should opt out of providing land forces to the Continent if the situation requires it, just because Poland has got more tanks than we have.

          • A land war in Europe will encompass all spheres. Land, sea and air. If the tanks started to roll everyone would be involved. How would resupplied come into Europe. Youre not going to lift a Brigade by air.
            It will come by sea as it did during Reforgers and they will need escorts. Poland and the like won’t be doing that but the UK would.

          • I’m not denying the use of naval and air forces in a European conflict, but this string has been all about the provision of land power in a European conflict.

            Some of our army’s vehicles are in storage in Germany – the Store Equipment Fleet (Germany) in Moenchengladbach. The Land Readiness Fleet (Sennelager) in Paderborn comprises vehicles intended for training at Sennelager, but they might possibly be used for operations at a pinch. Vehicles (and other equipment of course) can also enter Theatre from UK through the Channel Tunnel.
            Of course sea transit, probably to Emden, is also an option, and that is a port we have used many times before.

            Clearly Poland will have to do none of that but it doesn’t mean that they should provide the bulk of Land Forces just because they are nearer to the aggressor.

      • We are definately not opting out Graham. What we are doing is encouraging countries to deter Russia by focusing on the weapons which will most likely play a key part in defending themselves. Countries such as the US, Canada, France and the UK should focus on controlling the skies and the seas which in turn supports any of Russia’s neighbours which would be the most likely first targets. That said we should have have our own capability & in suitable quantities for our own defence and to support our global role as a potent part of a larger force or to defend British interests.

        • The French have 406 Leclercs of which 200 are being upgraded – their army is 119k reg and 23k reserves. They should play a major part in a European land war.
          Mark, you advocate role specialisation which we have never done before. Perhaps when defence funds are tight and we never get that much of a bang for a buck (a lot of equipment for the money) in procurement – then the time may have come to consider this.

          Some advocate that we accept a small army (thats already happened) and that we minimise the heavy metal forces on the grounds that we have few of them and they are distant from the likely battle field (eastern Europe). Slippery slope. What else would we give up or pare back? Would we lose even more credibilty with the Americans if we droped certain roles?

          We don’t just defend the UK and do global Britain stuff – we have to defend the Euro-Atlantic area as a part of NATO too – that latter reponsibility taking about 70% of our effort/resources.

          • Perhaps I am Graham. Since Russia’s hostility to Ukraine began most of Russia’s neighbours have been motivated to improve their defensive posture as a matter of urgency. Alliances, kit, training are suddenly the order of the day.

            Buying decent armour is something most countries can achieve themselves. It is the high tech stuff that we are actually quite good at (if only we had it in sufficient quantity). Should Putin be pushed back by Ukraine he must know that if he simply picks another target he is likely to achieve the same result.

            Don’t get me wrong I would like to see the UK with at least 1000-1500 ultra modern tanks but being realistic out first priority is protecting power from a distance and producing solutions to protect everyone from the type of attacks Russia has been delivering.

            I am in total agreement that the army is too small & we have insufficient kit. I suppose I am just highlinghting that we are where we are and given our current position where should we focus the effort in the short term?.

          • Much as I am ex-army and believe in the future of the tank, we don’t need 1000-1500. We didn’t have that number at the height of the Cold War – we once had 900 Chieftains.
            Options for Change reduced the size of the army to its new Cold War Level – 120k reg troops and confirmed that we needed 386 CR2s (delivered from 1998).
            The threat has not reduced since 1991 and arguably has increased (certainly the world in general and Russia in particular is a lot less stable since then), so the army should still be 120k regs with 386 tanks.
            It has been said by many senior military officers in recent years that our (NATO’s/Europe’s therefore UK’s) biggest threat is from Russia. Not now of course as the Russian military is ‘in bits’ but once they have regenerated in future.

            Where to focus effort? A really good question and very hard to answer. Keeping comments to the army and trying to be realistic about budget – we should:

            1. Cancel the cut to 73,000 regulars
            2. expand the Army Reserve to beyond 35k numbers and equip it with significant platforms;
            3. revise and invigorate the Regular Reservist scheme (that seems to be happening);
            4. revise the army orbat along Dern/Daniele lines which includes saving the third armoured regiment, making 3 Div a div of three true manouevre armoured bdes with organic medium recce, supported by Div recce, a DAG and other CS, and the usual CSS – and not forgetting
            5. to correct numerous deficiencies in 1 Div;
            6. increase CR3 numbers to 213;
            7. either reinstate Warrior upgrade (WCSP) (and reduce size of Boxer order) or ensure all AI Boxers in rifle companies have a beefy stabilised cannon;
            8. Buy more Archers and either upgrade AS90 (eg Braveheart project plus) or replace by a modern SPG.

          • Good points. There seems to a bit of affordable upsizing required not a bad case of the unobtainable.

          • I am not sure how we could upsize affordably.

            All the cuts have been because Government wants to save money in one area (that most of the public don’t care about) in order to spend on health, education, social services, servicing debt interest – that will never change.

  4. I think the discussion centers too often on tanks, we should spend at least an equal amount of time talking about artillery and air defences.

    • Yes. We should be buying Archer now for artillery.

      Sky Saber is a very good system, but have no idea of numbers.

      • We are buying Archer (just 14 have been received so far from Sweden) in part to replace the 32 x AS90 gifted to Ukraine, recognising that the former is truck-mounted and the latter is a SPG. Archer has been declared an interim solution for MFS. We should buy more Archer and a SPG.
        16 Regt RA received SkySabre from Nov/Dec 2021, but I do not have the numbers in service.

  5. Fine having extra equipment but can the UK afford the manpower to run the extra equipment.

    I’m a great believer in numbers matter but large, hi spec equipment is in general cheaper than manpower (woman power)

  6. Western democracies have, rightly, become casualty averse. Israel, in particular, places a premium on survival of its personnel. So Merkava MBT and the related Namer APC, have front mounted engines heavy armour and APS. These make the vehicles heavy and expensive.
    But the idea of favouring cheaper and more vulnerable platforms when one of the biggest constraints on UK forces is troop numbers, seems ill advised. If you want to deploy tanks, make them as powerful as possible.
    The idea of a hi- lo mix is one possible way to increase numbers. So perhaps a more affordable, less sophisticated platform could be designed to supplement the MBT in appropriate circumstances.
    For the UK, it might have been better to fund a more modest upgrade to a great
    number of Ch2s.

  7. If there was the money available, what provides a greater boost to the UK military strategically?

    Extra Tanks and, more widely, land power?
    Or extra aircraft, ships, subs, helicopters, and such?
    For me it is the latter. Our Tanks would be embedded in a wider NATO land force.

    The other assets would also be with allies, but are also expeditionary assets which could be used in a UK only operation, however unlikely that may be.

    I do want to see more Tanks, but only slightly more, by keeping at 3 Regiments size meaning an uplift in planned CH3 to 200 or so. Less than we have currently.

    I prefer to see greater asset numbers in the RN and RAF.

    It’s all moot, the MoD budget is primarily aimed at nukes, the MIC, AUKUS, and big industry, politics. When did all the up lifts since 2019 pay for even an additional plane, ship, or helicopter?

    • Totally agree mate, three Armoured Regiments was considered the minimum viable force back in 2010 and the Army placed the line in the sand there and fought hard to keep that number

      “Go below that figure and you may as well scrap the capability” was the Army battle cry…

      The Army won, only to have its strength stripped down the road. What’s next, a single Armoured Regiment in the next SDSR??

      Never say never, those in the know once said we would never drop below three!

      Today the British Army fills the gaps in NATO’s line up, it’s mass gone and the shrinking still not stopped.

      I guess it’s up to the Poles to stand ‘point’ now with European mass and take ground, while we drop the hight tech hammer via Carrier Strike ect

      • The Polish are now the tip of the spear! They know the dangers of being under the communist (mad Russian Nazis now) and take defence seriously! Decent lads and lasses who are up for a fight! Poland has been screwed over since it re-emerged as a country and the Polish know their history 👍

        • Spot on, they take the threat seriously and are arming for bear!

          An American contractor I know has been paving the way for Abrams deliveries and he’s extremely impressed with the way the Poles get business done!

        • Some forget the Polish history. They ruled most of eastern europe inc Ukraine from 1500-1795 as Poland- Lithuania ( but the King of Poland ruled both entities!)
          at the end of WW1 the Poles had border wars with all its immediate neighbours and ignored the Curzon line border decided at Versailles for its border with Russia and invaded Ukraine because that region was previously ruled by polish nobility from Poland -Lithuania and then Austrian periods.
          On top of that unlike democratic Czechoslovakia Poland was a dictatorship for most of the pre WW2 period right up to the start of WW2.

        • Yep Poland is the tip of the spear in the East and rightly so.
          However, they cannot do anything about the High North or Atlantic, its simply not in their purview.
          NATO is going to go down the road of Subject Matter Experts (SME) in certain areas.
          UK = High North and Maritime SME with additional Light/ Medium land forces to bolster the land elements.
          Poland = Heavy Metal SME in Europe with Heavy Armour.

          • Agreed, SME skill sets depending which country deems to be its forte and its needs. All in agreement as NATO, to ensure there are a rounded set of capabilities throughout NATO. Poland will certainly be the ground “anvil” for any future Russian efforts at expansion mate.

      • Carrier Strike is fine to frighten the Chinese but it will not enable a country to defend its territory against an aggressor – or to recover it.

        Poland should not alone provide armoured forces in European NATO.

        • Not alone, no. I think the point is we do contribute, just not at a multi divisional level with many hundreds of Tanks as some call for. At one Division size, 3 UK Div, that should be our contribution.

          The DCP and later Wavell review ideally will also augment 1 UK Div to increase its utility from a “Division” with paper Bdes, which it once was, to something more deployable.

          That the DCP hinted at this and mentioned rapid deployable as well a “forward presence” has me hoping that 3 Cdo Bde become that forward presence via FCF and the LRGs, while 16AA Bde is augmented with, ideally, 4 Bde, as 7, as Dern noted recently, is too heavy to be deployed at 5 days notice.

          And anyway, I’d really like to see 7 in 3 UK. Not “back” in 3, as when it was in Germany as an Armoured formation it was in 1 Division, which then was the tip of the spear, and 3 Division the UK back up.

          • I was just responding to the contributor who thought we should let the Poles do all the heavy lifting – that is not what a collective alliance does. Of course we would commit 3xx on warfighting in the central front if Article 5 were called…and probably a bit more Land Forces than that…ARRC HQ, SF, light forces in the High North, 16x, and avn (elms JHC?)

            Are the current bdes of 3xx really just paper bdes? Granted the structure is dodgy here and there and much of the equipment is old and there are some capability gaps but the div (men and machines) does exist in reality – and they are well trained and will be at some degree of readiness to deploy.

          • Morning mate.
            No, not 3XX, I was referring to 1XX..and mentioned “as it once was” as it had 7 infantry Bdes lumped into it at one time. Its slowly improving as the army sorts itself out, or tries to.

            It has 7x, which has the CS CSS, and 4x, which doesn’t. The rest are not all arms manoeuvre bdes, but supports or reserves.

            I’d like to see 2 Divisions, 1 and 3, each of 3 proper manoeuvre Bdes with supports. We had them in 2015.
            Moving 16x into 1x, as already noted in the DCP, and giving 4x CS CSS would help. It’s a group of Inf bns with a Jackal Reg and reservist CS CSS.

          • Sorry mate. I misread. The advantage of having two divs each with 3 proper manouevre bdes is that you can bring back Formation Readiness Cycle (FRC) later renamed to FORM – with both divs in synchronised cycles.

    • I’d agree with having the smaller land force if it meant other areas benefited, the problem is they aren’t. The navy is at an all time low number of ships and the RAF is stripped back to the point its barely more than a local air defence force. The government are more concerned with defence spending going into industrial coffers than providing actual defence capability.

      • Unfortunately we can have off the shelf mass, or we can have a serious defence industrial base.

        We’ve currently miserably failing at mass!

      • The army is the smallest its been since the Napoleonic wars and the thing with the army is you needs boots on the ground – lots of them.

        Navy still seems to deploy a CSG from time to time, and the RAF is still fighting ISIS on Op Shader. The army cannot today deploy an effective division.

    • Good Morning Daniele. I don’t have anywhere near your and others knowledge on this subject but just taking a view, come to the same conclusion based on logic. The UK has a tiny number of tanks compared to the major and many middle powers who field them in their thousands so it makes complete sense to look at the UK as part of a Nato group with the Brits punching at the top level in other areas-Carriers, Nuclear capability for example. I was looking at an old film on the Falklands recently and it really struck home how we were(just) able to absorb significant losses in RN,RFA and civilian ships during the campaign which comes down to the numbers game. We had 50 plus frigates,and destroyers then and could stand the losses and still come out on top. The Falklands is well defended and can be reinforced much more quickly now but the’what if’ question is-with such a small number of escorts now, how would we fare in a similar scenario? So more ships, aircraft is spot on as a priority!
      Sunny and in low 20’s here. Best time of year and eases the pain inflicted by the ANC. Hope you getting some good weather
      Cheers for now. G

      • Morning geoff. Numbers go down but capability goes up, that has to be weighed in any scenario.
        Where we fired Sea Slugs at land targets our SSN can now put TLAM through a window. So no need for Black Buck for example.

        • Mate that’s a great example of how our capabilities have improved, but with numbers and mass diminishing. Head sheds need to find the cash to find the right balance. Cheers.

          • Agreed. Numbers matter too. But we cannot have both, which is why I always call for a better balance between quality and quantity. By buying some cheaper OTS assets when possible to compliment the gold plated stuff.

        • H DM . I wonder if Sea Slug actually hit anything? There was a fella on this forum who served on HMS Antrim (County class destroyer) that took an unexploded Argie bomb in the Falklands. Can’t remember his name though. They were very lucky!

          • Could have served on another county class though. Maybe Tommo? Given my brain fade, I probably have my wires crossed, just like the argie armourers who fused the bomb 😉

        • I still feel there is a need for a “Black Buck“ type of capability. An aircraft can provide something that a SSN cannot. This is the ability to target time sensitive targets that are outside the normal operating areas.

          The prime example would be a Falklands part 2 scenario. Where the Argentine Government had sold their souls to the Chinese and had re-equipped with Chinese material. It would take a number days at top speed, for a SSN to get from the UK to within firing range of say an airfield. Whereas a cruise missile carrying “bomber” would be able to get to within firing range in around 10 hours.

          It was a massive missed opportunity that the UK didn’t look at purchasing the AGM-86C/D ALCM for the Vulcan. As the Vulcan could have carried at least 6 internally and 6 externally. Giving the UK an accurate 1000km stand-off weapon from 1981.

          If the Vulcan was equipped with the ALCM in 1982. There would have been no need for overflying Stanley’s aircraft. Plus it would have been easier planning the air to air refueling package. Plus it would have given the UK Government the option of targeting mainland airfields.

        • All well klonkie-hope they are with you too! Per your post above, Antrim along with a number of others as you know, were lucky to have survived thanks to the fuse issue. It has often been speculated that the RN would have lost another half dozen ships if it had not been for this and as a result would have lost the war, however I don’t think Maggie would have tolerated such a loss and would have used every possible tactic to avoid such an outcome. The key would have been an attack on the Argentinian Air Force on the ground. There was an abortive raid on their main base by the SAS but there were a number of other options. Chile might have allowed an attack from their territory or another Black Buck type strike with the Vulcans landing in Chile thereafter. Also I am not sure if any of the RN subs were armed with cruise missiles at that time? Any way, we can speculate the day away with this stuff😄
          Weather in Durbs is stunning at present and helps keep us sane from the antics of Cyril and company!
          btw Antrim is the county in Ulster where my Mum and Dad and all the clan were born-sent across to Ireland from Scotland in the 1600’s 😁
          Cheers for now

          • Good to hear the weather is fine, cant say the same for a wet and cold Auckland. Good points re the Falklands, very fortunate that the argies didn’t fuse their bombs correctly. I wonder if additional RN escort ship sinking’s would have had that much effect. I think the army and Marines would have landed regardless. Still, who really knows.

      • Morning mate.
        You’re right of course. Would it also not be fair to say the Army needs the RN and RAF to “fire” it to its destination. And give it air cover when deployed.

        Unless it’s put on rail cars and taken through the CT, which I know we’ve discussed previously.

        I recall after GW1 the talk that the several weeks of air offensive had so weakened the Iraqi army that air power would win wars alone. Yes, it still needed boots on the ground.

        I myself still favour the RN, RAF, Intelligence, SF, first philosophy, but I know what you mean, and being ex army yourself, appreciate your opinion.

        To me it comes down to, if we cannot have all services the size we’d like, where to prioritise. And if we have Germany and especially Poland as the bulk land forces that still leads me back to the RN RAF regards NATO.

          • Oh! Sorry. You’re still in, thought, let me correct that, assumed, you were out.
            Now I get why you said you’d heard stuff about some of the upcoming changes but couldn’t discuss yet.
            I look forward to that discussion, when we can discuss freely. 👍

          • Never freely, but certainly more freely. I’ll quietly point out that nothing I’ve posted here is actually informed in terms of project Wavell. If I know something, I’ve deliberately avoided commenting on it.

        • Not sure why you think Germany will supply “the bulk land forces”. The Heer has a smaller personnel total than the British Army. Conscription has long gone and is unlikely to return. Numbers of working MBTs are at a similar level to the UK. ( Similar also to France and Italy). Despite the announcement of a large one off spend to restore neglected equipment to FOC, Germany is only inching its way to meeting the NATO 2% target, after years of spending closer to 1%.
          If Germany is content to run the risk of funding only a small land force, why should we do more?
          What is needed is greater clarity on where we expect the army to fight and where they won’t. Neither the Integrated Review, 2021 and refresh, nor the two subsequent Command Papers have really achieved this.

          • I suggested Germany, with emphasis on Poland primarily, as they are traditionally a land power who could expand if they get off their arses. They’re also close to the likely area of operations, and Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, the Baltic states, and anyone else I could think of who realistically might contribute I believe are even smaller.

          • I wasn’t trying to be pedantic rather point out that we are worrying about a capability we don’t need. When Soviet tanks were deployed just a few miles from major West German cities, WG had a large tank force in an army of conscripts..BAOR provided major support with the bulk of the army and armour forward deployed in Germany.
            But the strategic position is now so different. Russia is, its nuclear weapons aside, far weaker than the USSR. Half its former population is now independent and much of it implacably hostile and/ or allied to the West.
            We should not be concerned about an ability to replicate BAOR on the north German plain. Our ability to neutralize Russian naval units and air incursions is a far more valuable contribution to collective NATO security than an extra armoured division.
            I would like to see us upgrade more CH2s though, just in case!

          • Well we have the same viewpoint. As I too don’t want BAOR replicated, and favour a RN RAF Intell 1st doctrine.

            I do however, want the Army to be able to field at least one Armoured Division, as mandated by HMG since 2010. And that includes more Tanks than are planned now.

          • Would the Russian Navy play a significant role in any further and more widespread conflict in eastern Europe?

          • True. From Das Heer website: As of January 2022, the German Army had a strength of 62,766 soldiers

            Absolutely tiny compared to what they had even only a few years ago. Could blame Ursula v.d. Leyen who was Germany’s rather hopeless defence minister and now wants to run NATO – scary thought.

            Interesting that you speculate on where the British Army may not fight – never heard that – the army is globally deployable.

        • Daniele, I firmly believe that if Article 5 is called for a major war in Europe all of NATO needs to come to the party with land forces (and of course air forces – and naval forces as required) and not hide behind Germany and Poland. For a nation with the defence spend that we have, contributing just one unready, badly structured division with old kit is underwhelming and is a national embarrassment.

          In Cold War days, in West Germany there were British, German, American, Canadian, Dutch and Belgian armies (and for a time French until de Gaulle got the strop). It was expected that other Euro NATO nations would come to the fray if required. A good example of all pulling together.
          I am not of course advocating a return to BAOR days, just saying we need more than the Poland and German armies to face off against Russia (after they have reconstituted their army) if they were foolish enough to one day widen their current war.

          • I did not suggest we should hide behind anybody mate, just allocate the bulk of our defence spend on where we are best placed to help, that is at sea, in the air, arctic, and in the north JEF area.

            On the wider thought on “where the army will fight” I’m hearing rumours and snippets about this new NATO plan and that the British Army will be moving more northwards, away from the Poles and a perceived “central front” from Poland NE wards facing Belorussia – Russia.

            As UKAFC have rightly just commented, what does that mean for the UK lead on the ARRC? We contribute the spine of that in leadership, signals, and logistics. The HQ is even located here, at Imjin Barracks. If there is a reshuffling and the new NATO plan “allocates” nations areas based on their expertise/assets then our forces will be reassigned accordingly and that ARRC assignment may change.

            So on to wider speculation. Could that mean those logistic and signal assets are used to part fill the voids in the likes of 4 LBCT regards CS CSS assets?

          • Thanks Daniele. Our army has the most incredible amount of combat experience in all environments and locations, across the spectrum of effort and ‘weight’. NATO surely respects that and would wish to see the British Army prominently feature in the NATO Orbat facing a peer opponent.

            We have always valued command of the ARRC and our framework nation status – it was a good consolation prize for losing 1 (BR) Corps. But the world does not stand still. If NATO formally decides that we should be more of a northern specialist then so be it – moot point if our ARRC role would go elsewhere.

            Currently we have most of the army’s manpower and kit in the UK, some equipment but virtually no troops (just some amph engrs) in Germany (not sure how much kit), a BG or two of 900 troops in Estonia, and a light recce sqn of 140 in Poland. Could all be tidied up with the recce sqn in Poland moving to Estonia and switched up to be armoured cav. Then for the Estonia presence to be increased but politically a British-only brigade in Estonia would be difficult (there is a reason the eFP force is MN) and we could not roule a full brigade. The operations-earmarked kit in Germany could go to Estonia and leave the training kit behind.

            As ever it would be good to fill those voids!

      • Never a truer word. For all those who support cutting armies, they should look to the examples of history from WW1, WW2, Korean war, Gulf Wars and the current war in Europe. Western armies recover territories seized by the aggressor, and have the potential to seize an enemy’s territory (WW2) if required.
        Our army actually does warfighting, not just deterrence, decade by decade, and sadly takes casualties. When it is reduced in numbers its chances of mission success are diminished and our casualty numbers go up – we needed an infantry division in Helmand but were just allowed by politicians to go with a brigade group.

  8. It seems the same argument as WW2 – Germany with technically far better Panther and Tiger tanks but simply not enough of them. Overwhelmed by more numerous, but technically inferior Shermans, T34s etc.
    Appreciate there were/are different ways of killing tanks both in WW2 and now.
    As Uncle Joe said numbers have a quality all of their own – or words to that effect.

    • Out of interest JJ, one can make the argument that the Panther and Tiger were mechaniclaly inferior. Clutch problems, difficulty in replacing track bogeys, and other technicl limitations the Sherman and T34 did not have.

  9. With proper Preperation and storage, we could have put the old CR1 into reserve. We kept a War Maint Reserve right up to the early 90’s, then slowly reduced this as the bean counters looked for the peace dividend. They may not be Top Trumps, but correctly looked after, they would provide a very comprehensive reserve.

    • We still have a WMR of equipment, only now its called an Attrition Reserve and is very small in number.

      It was never the intention to put CR1 in WMR whilst CR2 was with the field force. CR1 was declared Obsolete when CR2 came in and was disposed off asap, as we do with all equipment which has been superseded. We don’t keep Obsolete kit – it costs too much to do and there is not enough storage – and the Treasury require us to realise the assets.

      • The Treasury asset charge means they pay the government real money for all equipment in service or retained. Scrap it and no asset charge. Its billions per year but hidden amoung other financial charges like PPE
        Its an insane idea of the Treasury idealists who fight a lot harder for their way than the various Chiefs of Staff

        Check this on how it works for the NHS
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1113534/
        ‘the capital charging system under which the government plays shareholder and banker to the NHS, recovering a 6% return on all capital used by the NHS’
        MoD is covered by the same rules

          • After 30 years and a few existing upgrades most is just scrap, especially if its replaced . Its the ones that arent replaced except with a paper project that are the worry

      • Yes but not many people realise we scrapped half the CR2’s.
        Its unbelievable but true. Same as scrapping one of the Fort supply ships.
        The defence of the realm is too important to be left to the Government and Civil Service in a time of danger as presently exists. I believe we should have a permanent budget of 3% of GDP allocated indefinitely. The nuclear deterrent would have a separate 0.7% in addition.Foreign aid would be limited to 0.3%.

  10. I think the writer is confused.com. He first states that the Ukraine strategy is determined by the lack of air superiority but advocates a policy based on the lack of air superiority. Who exactly would we be fighting, in coalition or alone, where we do not have air superiority? Russia? China? If this is an example of logical thinking by senior military staff it doesn’t bode well.
    The real lesson of this conflict is not the silly notion that we need more tanks, but that we need to go all in on drones and to speed up acquisitions.

    • The point is that we might not always be able to guarantee air superiority, and we shouldn’t assume we’ll always have it.

      If you build your forces with the assumption you’ll always have air superiority then you’re in trouble if one day you find yourself without it.

      • So we should plan for the improbable rather than the probable. That makes a lot of sense. So rather than spending money based on what is likely to happen we waste money on what is unlikely to happen. From a risk management perspective it is clear that he didn’t go to his lectures.

        • That’s the entire reason we have nuclear weapons; for the improbable scenario in which someone tries to nuke us or invade us.

          If we fought a war alone it’s not 100% we’d get air superiority; we have around 150 Typhoons and F-35s combined; how many of those could we realistically deploy at once to a theatre? We never gained true air superiority in the Falklands because of how few planes we were able to bring with the task force.

          • Not sure what MAD and nuclear have to do with tanks or even air superiority.

            Tanks have been shown to be vulnerable, so we should double down on tanks! I think some people are just living in the past with these big tank battles.

            Recent events have clearly shown that we should be doubling down on drones, as I have said before.

          • My comment on nuclear deterrent was in response to your comment on wasting money planning for the improbable – which is precisely what our nukes are there for; the unlikely event.

            I’m not necessarily talking about tanks; my comment was that we shouldn’t depend completely on having air superiority and should be prepared for in case we fail to achieve it – increase in size and depth of forces, more AA capability such as Sky Sabre etc, and more of our own aircraft – Typhoons and F35s – if we hope to achieve and sustain air superiority. Right now we depend totally on air superiority and would be fucked without it, but also depend on the US to achieve it due to our paltry numbers of aircraft (and everything else!)

            In a war against the likes of Russia or China we will take losses, which we cannot sustain.

            I agree on doubling down on drones – needs to happen asap, both for strike and carrier-borne AEW etc. We need to pull our fingers out on this.

          • Nuclear wars are only now “improbable” because of MAD. They were not regarded as improbable in the 60’s. Otherwise I don’t disagree with your comments.

          • In BAOR days we fully expected both sides to use tactical nuclear missiles and artillery if the cold war went hot.

          • Depends. Just as there are different categories of aircraft, there are different types of drones. From the very cheap, which are, to the very expensive/sophisticated, which are not. Most people are not aware that approx 50% of RAF flight hours are now performed by drones. The evolution of Machine Learning, hate the abused/misunderstood term AI, will enable much more support missions.

          • Drones are simply the new fashion item. In a couple of years the drones will be yesterday’s news. At the moment both sides are scrabbling around for an effective countermeasure. But as they say, wars are the mother of invention.

            At present a suicide drone such as the Russian Lancet, seems to have the advantage. It is relatively small and is difficult to detect by either radar due to its very small radar cross section or infrared optical sensors as it is battery powered.

            It can carry a number of different warheads, but it has been using a single shaped charge, that can cut through a tank’s thinner turret roof armour. It is guided by an operator using either a direct data-link or via a satellite relayed data-link. It also has a loitering mode, that informs the operator if its sensor has detected movement. At present it does not have any sophisticated targeting/recognition AI software. But that is probably the next step.

            They do have a weakness though. Which is their susceptibility to jamming. The Lancet’s guidance and data frequencies are well known by the Ukrainians. They do use jammers that operate on these frequencies. But Russia has become adept at targeting the vehicles with jammers using artillery. Which has developed in to a cat and mouse operation.

            The Gepard has been quite effective at countering the Lancet. This is mostly down to its Ku-band tracking radar. But this radar can only detect the Lancet when it gets pretty close.

            Expat and I, had a really good discussion on how to counter these types of drones. It boils down to cost. Yes, you can use a RF jammer to create a bubble around the vehicle/unit, which blocks the transmission from the operator. We have used similar systems before in Afghan and Iraq. Therefore, making it near impossible to aim at the target. However, the jamming signal could be detected and used to coordinate artillery to blanket the area. Which is what the Russians are currently doing.

            The next option is to use either a low probability of intercept (LPI) active electronically scanned array (AESA) operating in the Ku, Ka, V or W bands or a LIDAR. Both of these options would only realistically give you a detection range out to 10km, if you kept the costs down, due to the of output power required. However, only an active sensor stands a chance of detecting these battery powered drones at a decent enough stand-off range. Which is where I described a modification to the radar used by an active protection system (APS) such as Trophy, as a means of a mobile drone detection system. That could then cue a form of countermeasure.

            Which then leads on to how the drone is dealt with. If the active sensor detects the drone. Then a highly focused electronically steered jamming signal can be used to block the operators commands. Which will either make the drone crash or more likely make the drone back track its path to a point where it can detect the operator’s commands again. Which kind of defeats the point.

            So a kinetic method is needed for taking out the drone. Programmed fragmentary high explosive shells are the most cost effective means of dealing with these small drones. Such as those used by the Gepard is a good example. Ukraine has used both Starstreak HVM and Martlet to take out these drones. But the cost of the missile vs the drone is heavily in the drone’s favor.

            As you see it’s all swings and roundabouts, where one system has the advantage over the other. Until people understand the threat better and develop the countermeasure.

          • DB, whilst I agree with everything you say, apart from the first two sentences, which are frankly silly and below your usual knowledgeable standards. Drones are obviously the future of warfare for a multiplicity of reasons, the primary one being the absence of human loss of life. The fact that there are advantages and disadvantages to different systems is true of all systems. The fact that systems will vary in technological advantage at different times is a given to all systems.
            I would posit that where this war differs from previous wars is the proliferation of low level drones for land air and sea attacks.

          • Depends on what you call air superiority, but Argentine aircraft still flew over the islands aplenty. We lost two frigates (Ardent & Antelope) plus 2 destroyers (Sheffield & coventry) plus Atlantic Conveyor and RFA Sir Galahad.

            All sunk by Argentine aircraft. So no, we didn’t have air superiority enough to protect our own forces. And imagine losing a similar number of ships today, or even half of that number.

          • Just looked up the NATO definitions:

            • Air superiority is the second level, where a side is in a more favourable position than the opponent. It is defined in the NATO glossary as the “degree of dominance in [an] air battle … that permits the conduct of operations by [one side] and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces.”[3]
            • Favourable air situation is defined as “an air situation in which the extent of air effort applied by the enemy air forces is insufficient to prejudice the success of friendly land, sea or air operations.”[2]

            Perhaps in the Falklands conflict, we had a favourable air situation rather than local air superiority.

    • As shown in the Ukraine war, unless fighting a vastly inferior force, with the advancements in air defence, air superiority is not guaranteed and if we rely on that alone to win, then we would come unstuck quickly against the likes of China or even Russia

      • What particular “advancements” in air defence are you referring to? The purported “invincible” Russian S400 has proved less than effective and has highlighted the poor quality of systems overall. So unless you are a believer in propaganda and not real world performance, I suggest that air superiority is a given, and to plan for anything else is a waste of resource.

        • Which means that if we fail to achieve and sustain air superiority, we’re fucked.

          Especially since we don’t have the means, if operating solo, to do that. With 150 active combat aircraft, of which probably 20% are in some form of maintenance, we cannot sustain air superiority without the Yanks doing most of the heavy lifting.

          • You make these sweeping statements based on what? Logically, the probability that we fight with NATO is high. The probability that we fight with a peer group is medium and the probability that we fight alone is low. If we have a low probability of fighting alone. The probability that we fight a peer adversary alone is very small to zero.

            Do you have a logical alternative scenario that you would like to share?

          • The Ukrainians are managing alright without air superiority. They don’t even have air parity (the lesser level).

          • They’re managing alright but how much easier would it have been, how many casualties avoided, had they air superiority?

            Yes, they’re managing it, but it’s a much harder slog than it had to be if they had air power to back it up.

            Really, once they pulled off Kherson and Kharkiv last September, work should have begun then to supply them with F-16s, train the pilots and ground crews etc. It would have had much more impact and saved more Ukrainian lives.

          • I couldn’t agree more. Hard enough to do defence without air superiority, but it is verging on very difficult-to-impossible to commit to the offence without air superiority. Ukraine needs F-16s, and they needed them a year ago.

          • We (NATO) should have made moves from September to start giving them F-16s; Ukraine could have 2-3 squadrons flying by now with some spares to cover combat losses.

            Not enough for air superiority but certainly enough to contest the airspace and provide cover for their ground forces.

            The West has truly dropped the ball with this one. If Ukraine’s counteroffensive fails then we’re also to blame, and should make immediate moves to equip Ukraine with F-16s so that they have better luck in future counteroffensives.

          • True. I blame the Americans in particular, not the West in general. They had not wanted to supply tanks or long range artillery or fighter jets. They clearly want the conflict to be a ‘limited war’ which inflicts punishment on Russia (and to aid the Ukrainians to recover their territory) but not their overwhelming defeat or to fire weaponry over the border into Russia itself.

            The US finally agreed to gift tanks after the UK declared that it would, although still no M1s have arrived in Ukraine yet!

            The US has exercised a veto on the donation of all F-16s in the world, but I think they have now agreed for Europeans to gift/sell F-16 to Ukraine?

  12. That is a doctrine shift that would be unacceptable in most western countries. It entails the fact that you will need to politically accept the cost of bodies coming home in numbers that would dwarf Op Pabay. Remember the furore over body armour and snatch back in ‘03? It’s time to wake up to the fact that British forces are hollowed out to a force in being, but cannot get embroiled in anything on the scale of Ukraine.

    • Most western nations have been “hollowed” to a certain degree, but fortunately for NATO dumb fuckstain Putin, and his stupid invasion of Ukraine has made the vast majority of Western nations realise their previous errors over the last 20 years, there was never ever a “peace dividend” (aka political cuts and money saving) and are starting to re-arm nicely (I’m sure you appreciate and agree with this).

      If bodies need to pile up in a peer to peer conflict then they will! You are mistaking politics and political agendas with military professionals and mission end state. But you understand that don’t you, I’m sure with your experience and knowledge.

        • Why not? We would be fighting a peer war as a member of NATO, that’s the whole idea of, er, NATO! Nice of you to reply to a post not to you, any chance replying to the previous posts and the questions posed to you?

      • Yep, it’s force reconstitution time across Europe. The question is what vision do any of the political class have for the future forces? Will we again build a force for the last war? We can’t ignore the fact that the military upper echelon are more political than is perhaps desirable. Will they be even more enamoured by a cheap-out force of nerds with drones that looks high tech and reduces casualties? I really cannot see where the next statesman of any worth will rise that would do what is necessary. You are right that the “peace dividend” was a fleeting and perhaps dangerously alluring trap though. The cost of being unprepared is existential. Although the globalists clearly don’t care about that at all.

        • Wow firstly a reasoned grown up answer for a change, secondly interesting to note you and old Frosty are answering each others posts to the other’s comments mmmmmm!

          • Hi Airbone, I have noticed of late that the troll ski posts are ae becoming a little more “sophisticated”(I use the word in a broad sense) and less provocative than the usual tripe they spew up? What a sad group of human beings they are.

          • Hi mate, agreed but they are one dimensional as when challenged they get frustrated and lose track of their subtle agenda and go off on one! Easy to spot, easy to bait! Hope all is well with you mate?

          • Yep all good with me Sir, despite the crappy wet New Zealand weather- where the hell is my global warning! Hope you’re enjoying your summer! All the best , K.

      • Agree completely w/ statement that the first of a cascade of mistakes was to coin the term “peace dividend.” Wasn’t it Will Shakespeare that suggested the first step should be to kill all the lawyers (except those that follow this site). 🤔😉

        • The peace dividend cut our regular army from 160k to 120k in 1991 – loss of 40k posts as the Cold War ended.

          But then many more cuts have happened since, reducing the army to 73k – thats another 47k of cuts (more than the peace dividend cut). WTF!

          [The army’s Reserve forces, then called the TA, were cut as part of the peace dividend too – think they went from 60k to 30k.]

          I am sure the RAF and RN would tell a similar story.

      • “there was never ever a “peace dividend” (aka political cuts and money saving) and are starting to re-arm nicely (I’m sure you appreciate and agree with this).”

        Except us, it seems. Our forces just keep shrinking and we make no moves to reverse them.

    • Ironic that Ben Wallace (BW) keeps on saying that the army in his uniformed time (1991-98) was hollowed out, and suggests that it isn’t now!

      Aside – I have just found out a factoid about BW from Wiki: “Wallace was on duty on the night of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and was a member of the party sent to Paris to bring home her body.”

        • Don’t know – there was no more to the quote. I guess OIC pall bearer party. With Diana being a Royal, you would need an officer rather than a SNCO for such a role.

    • If British forces were deployed in a major war with a peer or near-peer opponent it would be as part of an alliance, probably NATO. Even the smallest NATO countries such as Belgium and Holland would in all probability be involved, as they were in German bases in the Cold War.

      • Isn’t that simply outsourcing the body count due to a quirk of geography? I have issues with the sensibility and morality of that. The first duty of government is defence of the realm and I don’t like that being offshored to third parties, no matter how friendly at this time. I will admit that I am that most shocking and heinous of all things in the 21st century, a nationalist. As a result I tend to question whether other nations will be so willing to make the sacrifices we are asking of them for all time. Would your average Latvian be racing to pick up a rifle and head west if a hostile power was pushing through Cumbria? Why the hell should they?

        • Defence and warfare is all about geography, the terrain dictates warfare, simple, and if that means certain countries provide certain capabilities, as agreed within a NATO framework, most could not see an issue with that, can you? And I can see you have never worked with the Latvians, they would be up for a scrap no matter where it takes them. Your example to justify your post was a weak one.

          • You shouldn’t mistake the intent and bluster of people who are in volunteer forces with that nations political and general populations opinions. The fact is, the continental people and specifically the Eastern/Central Europeans are going to be expected to do the heavy lifting against the most likely adversary. I know you don’t like or even (rightly at times) sneer at the political implications, you just can’t ignore them. The Royal Navy will not realistically be part of that fight and the RAF is so gutted in numbers and capabilities now it’s almost an irrelevance in the NATO order of battle.

          • Like I said, warfare and defence are all dependant on terrain and geographical features. Of course Europe will have to do the heavy lifting as they are located (geographically) where the main threat lies. UK will do the normal NATO commitment of Norway, flanking and light forces, ASW, ISTAR, SF, RFA etc and I must say you are wrong in regard to the RAF. But I have to say, once you get gripped and realise you are getting angry on your posts, and giving away your obvious pro Russian agenda, you seem to have clamed down….

          • Aside from the obvious mass to sustain ops in a serious fight with some amount of attrition? I’d say medium airlift with the loss of C130, and consequently overall airlift capacity. On that same subject, with Lyneham closed the whole fleet is reliant on a single runway on one base at BZZ.
            AWACS is another. 3 Wedgetails are not going to be able to keep 24hr coverage, or in more than one place.
            The training pipeline for a multitude of trades, pilots being the big ticket item, is in shambles.
            Ground based air defence and base security. The RAF Reg is too small and has essentially lost its key roles to 16AA, RA, and G4S. I could probably penetrate and destroy a sizeable percentage of the aircraft at any one base with a vehicle, a shotgun and some Molotovs.
            Quality accommodations. Essential for moral, retention and recruitment. You won’t get good people in post if you think you can dump their family in a 50s precast concrete slum with backed up sewers when it rains.
            Will that do for now?

          • Thanks. Interesting to see a collated ‘list’. I do question the RAF Regt point a bit. They have 1850 regs and 570 reservists;the regs are organised into 5 x Fd Sqns (117-strong), ceremonial sqn, 5 x FP Wings. They only have to cover grd defence (not AD) of overseas/deployed airfields, not every RAF Station in existence. Surely that is sufficient numbers?

        • Well their were plenty of Latvians who picked up a rifle and went all the way to Afghanistan because they are part of NATO and because when it comes to their own homeland they know that we, the rest of NATO have got their backs. As Airborne says those that have served with the Latvians know full well that they and the rest of the Balt’s, Estonians , Lithuanians, Finn’s are commited professionals and very fine soldiers as good as any we have . So no your point not valid and I don’t understand why it seems to erk some on here that when it comes to the crunch NATO actually works.

          • Well Afghan was an article 5 operation so it wasn’t optional. As new members they also needed to prove their mettle somewhat (as members, not saying anything about them individually). I would dispute that they brought anything to that fight beyond a token presence and diplomatic support though. You are I fear missing my main point however. THIS country, despite any additional agreements, is and remains wholly responsible for its own defence. Choosing to assist others in collective defence is secondary to that.

        • Luke, you seem to be challenging the entire rationale of NATO (and the principle of forward defence), and perhaps all Defence alliances.

          Do you favour the UK leaving NATO, which essentially we (Ernest Bevin) was responsible for founding – and concentrating our army and air force in the UK and the navy in the UK’s territorial waters? That’s ‘Home Guard’ thinking.

          Article 5 was called for 9/11 – all NATO countries responded and several more others – and did their duty in Afghanistan, many nations incurring casualties. OK, that was to get to grips with an international terrorist group, but the resolve was there. Latvia deployed up to 350 soldiers to Afghanistan. They are excellent NATO members and deployed to the Balkans to work alongside NATO troops before the country even joined NATO.
          https://www.mod.gov.lv/en/nato/latvia-and-nato

          We do not just defend the UK – we defend the Euro-Atlantic area with fellow NATO members. There is strength in numbers. If we relied solely on our own resources to defend just our country against what has always been declared as our biggest threat (a resurgent Russia), we would be taking a huge gamble.

          • No, I think it’s essential that the Western powers were and are allied against hostile powers with geographical and demographic advantages that we can’t hope to match. My concern is that our national government is using collective defence as an excuse to reduce or delete independent capabilities for budgetary reasons. If we will never fight a war without the alliance (US really), then do we really need an air force or navy? Why retain or attempt to duplicate such capabilities? I am also a little concerned that expanding NATO beyond the former DDR is a mistake and provocation. I feel that a Baltic to Balkans plus Visdgrad 4 alliance seperate from NATO would have been a sufficient barrier for both parties.

          • Luke, controversial stuff. Many on this site are happy to see a small army and a large navy and air force! We have little to no recent (last 300 years) history of fighting a war alone except for bush war colonial conflicts and the Falklands conflict. Even the Suez campaign was an alliance with France and Irael. Our operation in Sierra Leone was small scale and post-colonial.

            The RAF protects the airspace of the UK and the Falklands, transports the army by AT and SH, provides air support (CAS and BAI) for deployed operations in support of the army and joint forces (including the airbridge to the Falklands) and engages in alliance operations eg Op Shader against ISIS (last 6 years and counting) and has done Baltic Air Policing for NATO. They provide maritime patrol, AWACS, Combat SAR, and airborne EW. I am sure I have missed out a load of other stuff. Not sure you can do without any of that!

            A similar list of vital tasks could be derived for the RN. Our island status means that we are totally reliant as a nation on free sea lanes and the elimination of crime at sea including piracy.

            Clearly NATO enlargement has annoyed the Russians, especially as it is ongoing and not just an immediate post-Cold War phenomenon of the the 1990s. I am at a loss as to why Putin should ever feel threatened by a defensive alliance, but he is paranoid. Though, I for one, am more than happy about extending the protective barrier further east; we no longer have an aggressive warmongering nation dominating the east of our continent – Russia is now at arms length. The only reason Putin felt he could invade Ukraine is that they were not in NATO, hence the value of the alliance and the benefit of its expansion eastwards (and northwards).
            But you have a good point about the Visegrad group as an alternative buffer.

  13. For me our Armed forces need to be on the level of the late 80s 1990 like we had Gulf war 1 .We really have been cut to the bone .Do agree Poland seem to be going in the right direction on defence and looking like there will be the USA new partner on land anyway .The problem the UK has is our politicians way of thinking sadly 🙄💰💰💰

    • How you paying for that force structure at todays price’s? We don’t need Armed Force’s to fight yesterday’s conflicts. We need tech and capability to fight the conflicts of the future, which will be very different from the Gulf War of 1990.

      • We fought Gulf War 1 with an armoured division. Today we have an armoured division (that needs to be smartened up, I grant you).

          • Don’t understand people running down 3 Div , the UK Armd Div as they do..Spent a couple of months in Estonia on Op Cabrit before XMas and whilst some might not like to hear this the UK contribution is impressive indeed. Chally 2 in particular is more than capable of holding its own against anything the bad gut might want to send it’s way and good ol Warrior as reliable and lethal as ever. Backed up by a Squadron of Danish Leo 2’s and an equally well equipped Estonian Bde ( soon to be two) we have a very narrow front to hold and would rapidly be reinforced to form a very capable NATO Div all forming up around 3 Div HQ. Looks like a pretty respectable Armd Div to me.

          • Then add in all the supporting arms that would come in to play and the other armed services.
            Deep strike from air and naval assets.
            Interdiction of enemy vehicles.
            SEAD

          • I am not disparaging the capability. But with all the cutbacks, the size that can be deployed would not technically be that of what used to be considered an armoured division. Additionally, future plans to procure only 148 CR3 tanks mean a lower tank component.

          • We would if the army re adjusted the ORBAT.
            Put 7 Bde into it, retain the 3rd regiment of tanks and give them to 7 Bde, and give 4 RA Archer instead of LG, you’re on the way to having an Armoured Division.
            Sure it needs modern kit but that is Ajax and Boxer and they are coming.
            People need to remember from 97 to 2010 virtually nothing beyond UORs, Titan, Terrier and Trojan was ordered for the army. That is a generation lost.

          • Although I see KRH still goes to Armd Cav rather than remaining as Tank, and given to 7.

            I’ve also always been curious as to why 8 FE was placed in 1 UK, thought it more at home in Theatre/Force/Field Troops, as its 2 GS Eng Regs, 36RE At Maindstone and 39 RE at Kinloss are general and air support, so would support not just 1 UK, but the wider force. And likewise 29 EOD Group.

            At least now both 1 and 3XX have their own DIEG of RS and IC Reg/Bn too.

          • This was low effort, just moving the existing unit counters from a previous orbat around rather than creating new things for the most part. No point until Wavell actually releases putting huge amounts of effort into a new graphic.

            The thing I’m skeptical of is 3 Cdo going under 1 UK XX, we both know it would make sense, and should happen (even if in reality it’s now only got 2 Battalions, orbat not withstanding), but I doubt the Navy would ever let it subordinate like that.

          • I mentioned that it needed smartening up – ie kitted with upgraded or new AFVs and certain weapons. If war flared up in Europe or the Middle East in the next few years I would be surprised if 3 Div did not deploy albeit with the disadvantages we all know about.

      • I agree prices are a nightmare and tech and capability is important but you most allow for battle loses .And what is the price for peace 🍺

      • We do need greater mass, though. Our current force structure only works if we’re part of an alliance e.g. NATO and also assuming we take no losses in ships, aircraft, tanks etc.

        We have no mass to sustain losses – if we lost a single Type 45 destroyer in combat our carrier group would be at tremendous risk.

        • I agree on escort numbers. 24 for the RN with a carrier force should be the absolute minimum and 8 SSN’s. I genuinely think, after the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan we and many other western forces will not get involved in any overseas adventures unless it is part of NATO or with UN resolution backing. And it’s a cheaper option than planning on going it alone. Maybe its a sensible plan, NATO could overwhelm Russia if we had too, and China isn’t a match for American and allied forces in the Pacific despite China’s rise. Not yet anyway. The political and information or dis-information is now as potent as the bombs and bullets to do mass halm. AI, Cyber, we are right to invest heavily in these area’s. But their is certainly area’s of our conventional forces that we need to beef up. People being the number one priority.

          • Afghanistan (Op HERRICK for us) was of course a NATO operation following an Article 5 declaration.
            Iraq (Op TELIC for us) was of course a very different matter and was not launched follwing a specific UN Resolution for armed force.
            British forces almost never go it alone – it is not the exception rather than the rule.

  14. Oh dear, another post by you showing the value of having military experience when posting about, er, military subjects at both tactical and strategic level!

  15. Need a low cost anti tank capability.In the same way in WW2 fireflies were spread out amongst normal Shermans.A tank destroyer or less expensive MBT needs to be added in numbers to the challengers.
    Perhaps a Boxer variant.

        • Yes, though I’d specifically ask for the B2 version with the 120mm over the 105 for commonality with CR2. Also Italy ordered 100 of them 2 years ago so the prodcution line for the B2 is relatively fresh (I assume though we’d want some production in the uk)
          https://i.imgur.com/AK8tvEt.jpg
          Comparison between them.

          Also only weighs 30t

          • Sure, their own Platoon in FSC.

            So. I’d read of this vehicle before without ever looking into it in any great detail. With that price, weight, and wheeled, with that gun for DF, why oh why was this not bought for Strike?

            WHY?

            To me, and I know not about the tech details of vehicles, it seems absolutely ideal. Especially as a DF version of FRES was also planned and died a death due to saving cuts.

            Did the army even trial it??

          • As far as I know it never came into the discussion. God knows why. There’s even an IFV version of it, the Italian Freccia is the same chassis but with the 120mm replaced by a 25mm and 8 dismounts. They also made a mortar carrier and recce version… of a vehicle that was designed to do long road marches up and down the Italian coast to repel Amphibious Landings.

            It’s just over all a very good little vehicle and I’m gutted we never went for it tbh.

            It’s like every time somone says “Well if only someone developed a DF variant of Boxer we should buy it.” I imagine a little picture of a Centauro trying to force its way into frame.

          • What do I know about vehicles? Nothing. But it just looks the part if that makes sense?

          • I agree. To me ‘Strike’ means major firepower against high-value point targets from a highly mobile, medium-weight force.
            [High-value not meaning £££, but key targets – AFVs, bunkers etc]

          • 😁 Thanks mate. Yes, I know the military meaning for “high value” targets.

            Example, I believe one if the main reasons the F117 and B2 were created, going after Soviet High Value C3 targets.

            Funnily enough, that didn’t seem to be Carter’s vision.
            One explanation I heard from army high command was that the Strike Bde for the 3 Brigade Armoured Division planned ( 2 AI, 1 Strike Bde ) was that it was effectively the Divisions reconnaissance force. And for that reason, the AI Bdes no longer needed their own organic recc Reg as Strike would be ahead of both.

            To me, that would work better with a vehicle like Dern has shown, Centauro, wheeled, big gun, that can self deploy alongside Boxer over a great distance. As Dern says, it’s what it was designed to do along the Italian coast.

            Not with Ajax shoved in them, robbing the AI organic recc and tracked too.

          • Perhaps Carter thought you could destroy or disable high value targets with a Boxer-mounted MG – who knows?

            I nearly had to reach for the whisky to read your third para. Literally everything wrong with that army high command idea. So the Strike bde leads the div doing div recce – why do they need Boxers in the mix – they are not recce troops? The Strike bde could not do recce by stealth very easily as a large brigade with a massive signature, so its therefore doing recce by fighting; are the Ajax destroying enemy medium and light armour as well as doing recce? Who is dealing with the enemy’s heavy armour who will definitely spot thsi hard charging British brigade? What if this huge array is blitzed by enemy air, avn and arty? Then all the recce is gone. Is this force serving the Div commander by doing recce and delivering offensive fire or the AI bde commanders by providing recce reports? Can you compile and transmit considered recce reports when you are duelling with the enemy?

            Recce needs to be done without a secondary task, that might become the primary task.

            Not saying you can’t do recce by fighting – the US, Russians and Ukrainians do this – but I don’t see the place for Boxer-mounted infantry in a recce role…and brigades need their own medium recce.

          • I know. I don’t recall exactly where I read it, only that I did.
            Strike also had a regiment of Light Guns…God knows when it would have got proper SP artillery like Archer.

            It was a mess, using already ordered equipment to fit in square holes.

            In my view, I’d have used the Foxhound mounted Inf Bde in the UK as an interim strike, added vehicles like Centauro, and Archer. Boxer could be added later.
            But that would not have done, as 2015 was also about cuts, and that would have been an uplift.

            The only place Ajax belongs is with the tanks and AI it was bought to support.

          • Good points. Carter clearly had an obsession with Boxer and thought it could do everything except provide cannon fire, so why not throw some Ajax into the mix, even though they were ordered for the recce role. Even then this Carter Strike brigade could do little if it ran into a fight with MBTs as it had no tanks of its own and few A/Tk weapons – they would have been destroyed. The Light Guns would have been inadequate as you say. A Strike brigade such as he planned may have worked against an enemy without tanks and SPGs but it needed more punch if facing a peer opponent.Tactically illiterate which is surprising from a senior general.

            I like your ideas far better!

            Ajax is armoured cav, belongs only in an armoured bde, operating ahead of tanks (and proper AI) or providing flank protection for an advancing force – not providing cannon fire for the Infantry because the Inf have been foolishly provided with a £5m+ vehicle that lacks a cannon!

          • Another thing. I was reading an issue of “The Craftsman” and it stated that the Wksp that are with BATUK deal with the army’s “Biggest fleet of B vehicles”

            That surprised me.

          • I had not thought about where the B vehs are most numerous except to say as we know that they are of course in every army unit, more being in ‘non-armoured’ units.

            The history and stats of BATUK (was BATLSK, I think) are intereresting:

            “On 3 June 1964, Duncan Sandys, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, signed a post-independence defence agreement with the new Kenyan government. Among its other provisions, it specified that British troops could exercise in Kenya twice a year. Today, BATUK administers and facilitates British Army access to the large number of training areas made available by the Kenyan authorities.
            Role of BATUK: Training support
            Size: 300 (permanent staff), 550 (local civilians), up to 10,000 (training, per year)”

          • I’d have thought any large garrison or barracks with regiments of RLC would have a bigger B vehicle fleet than an overseas training unit. Aldershot and Abingdon spring to mind.

          • I can explain.

            I am sure that if you tot up all the B Vehs in Aldershot or Abingdon or Catterick or wherever there will be may, many more B Vehs than in BATUK.

            But the claim is not that. It is, I think, that the BATUK workshop deals with the biggest B Veh fleet, ie that its repair dependency is the biggest for a REME Wksp.

            Each RLC Regt in those Garrison towns you mention has a Regt Wksp or LAD REME which deals with just that one Regt’s B Vehs.
            The BATUK Wksp must deal with what amounts to more numerically than one Regt’s worth of B Vehs.

            It means that the BATUK B Veh fleet is larger than that of a single UK-based RLC Regt. Still an impressive stat.

          • Hi Graham.
            Thanks, that explanation makes a lot more sense.
            I enjoyed reading it, especially for the details outlining the FS ORBAT regards the Corps, their manpower liability, and the formation of 9 REME as force support for ARRC.
            LADs far outnumber Wksps it seems.

          • Thanks mate. The default First Line REME support to a unit has always (not just in the FS era) been an LAD (an officer (Capt) commanding 50-70 soldiers), with each Sqn or Coy getting a REME fitter Section.

            However units with just light role equipment such as a lt role inf bn get ‘Attached Tradesmen REME’ instead (a WO2/SSgt with 10-20 soldiers). All the Inf bns that deployed to NI on Op Banner just had Att Tdsm REME, hence as they did not have an officer, I never had a chance to go out there at First Line – and the Second Line Wksp was nearly all-civvy, and the very few officers were LE. Very much a bone of contention for me that I did not deploy as that was really the only Op the army did in the first part of my army service.

            Some units (especially RE and RA units) get a Regt Wksp REME (an officer who may be a Major) commanding 70-110 soldiers including an RLC Stores Sect) – they are mandated to do Level 3 repair (replacement of E&MAs) on the high value equipments, in addition to L2 on everything the unit holds). Previously RLC Regts got a Regt Wksp REME but with cutbacks (in the FS era or slightly before) I believe some, if not all RLC Regts have been downgraded to LAD support.

            As an aside – L1 maintenance is of course done by the User. The many WW2 photos of a young Princess Elizabeth doing L1 maintenance on an ambulance, lorry or staff car did not mean that her trade was a mechanic in army eyes – she was a driver. The media just about always got that one wrong when they called her a vehicle mechanic (REME trade of course). Some L1 work is hard work – changing tracks on an AFV is very much User L1 work, not REME’s!

          • Thanks Graham. Clearly a Corps of utmost importance, on a par with the RE. The difference between LADs and Wksp always confused me.

          • Thanks. My post only covered First Line REME. The guys at Second Line do a great job too. Last time I looked REME still comprised about 10% of the army’s strength – until the formation of the RLC it was the army’s most numerous cap-badge.

          • It still does. And has just formed 9 TS Bn REME too.
            I’ve had an enjoyable afternoon going through my files that I’ve got every REME LAD and Wksp I can find noted, including some not well publicised ones.

            That Craftsman magazine is a gold mine of info.

          • His idea wasn’t that it would be the Recce force. Carter basically wanted to copy Op Serval: He wanted the British Army to be able to march long distance across hostile terrain without needing a heavy logistics chain to transport them. (Remember Carter came up into the role of CGS and CDS after a career commanding battalions, brigades and divisions in counter-insurgency ops in Afghan and Iraq, so thinking of the British Army fighting without it’s heavy tracks, either voluntairly or due to political interference was probably very much in the forefront of his mind). He saw what the French achieved and thought that the British Army needed a wheeled force that could accomplish that. That’s why he focused on bringing Boxer into service, basically to replicate the VBCI and VBMR. It wasn’t a “Boxer Obsession.” It was more of a “French style wheeled, low logistic burden obsession.” Boxer just happened to be the vehicle that was in the acquisition process.

            Edit: Going forwards: VBCI is a wheeled IFV with a 25mm cannon. AMX-10 is a wheeled light tank with a 105mm gun, EBCR/Jaguar is the replacement for AMX-10, a wheeled tank with a 40mm gun that’s pretty similar to Ajax if it where tracked, VBMR and VAB are wheeled APC’s with a machine gun or AGL on the roof.
            Each of the two French Divisions has a Heavy Brigade consisting of Leclercs and VBCI’s, a Medium Brigade consisting of AMX-10’s/EBCR’s and VAB/VBMRs and a Light Brigade on a 4 wheeled armoured car with MG on the roof (think Foxhound). Will include pics in second post for reference, but separating in case the censor monster delays the posting.

            Effectively had Strike worked it would have brought the British Army into line with the French Army structure (20th and 12th AI Brigades mirroring the 2e and 7e Heavy Brigades, 7th and 1st Brigades on wheels mirroring the 9e Brigade d’Infanterie de Marine and the 6e Brigade Legere Blindee, and the 4th and 16th AA mirroring 27e and 11e Brigades respectively).

            On the surface it’s not a horrible idea. Then came Ajax. See the French Heavy Brigade Structure doesn’t really “do” formation Recce. Heavy Brigades are Tanks and VBCI IFV’s, while the “Light Armoured” and Marine Infantry Brigades are VBMR’s supported by (then) AMX-10’s (now Jaguars). The British Army had no equivalent program in the works, let alone in Service since CVR(W) had retired. So in order to copy the French Brigade structure Carter kind of “bodged” it. He gave the Strike Brigades Ajax to fill the role that AMX-10 filled in the French system, leaving the AI brigades without the traditional Formation Recce (wouldn’t be a big deal because essentially you’d have an echeloned division in the French model, with AMX-10 and VBMR/VAB fighting for information up front and Leclerc/VBCI in the rear waiting to be called forward if needed… or AMX-10/VAB just rushing Mali. This is also why Strike/French Brigades have 2 Cavalry regiments, one for fighty stuff one for a Recce Screen).

            Anyway, point being the entire Strike idea wasn’t as mad as we like to make out, because it was based on a pretty decent precedent, and in general I think we identify the wrong issues with why it failed. But IMO it was too ambitious a shift with the resources we had to hand.
            Ajax wasn’t ideal, but it was on order. If we could have Centauro would have made a much better Jaguar replacement (or Jaguar itself) but I suppose that would have meant cancelling Ajax, which probably was cost prohibitive. Similar for the light guns in Strike. Remember for it to work you needed Boxer, Warrior CSP and Ajax all to come into service, so somehow finding budget in it for acquiring Archer immediately wasn’t going to happen. It was always more of a long term plan.

          • Heavy Brigade:
            Leclerc MBT:
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Leclerc-IMG_1744.jpg/1920px-Leclerc-IMG_1744.jpg

            VBCI IFV
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Fin_de_d%C3%A9fil%C3%A9_14_juillet_2022%2C_Paris_Porte_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans_%281%29_20.jpg

            Medium Brigade:
            AMX-10
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/French_Army_AMX-10_RC_armored_vehicle_prepares_to_fire_during_exericse.jpg

            Jaguar
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/EBRC_JAGUAR4.jpg

            VBMR
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/VBMR_Griffon_-_Arm%C3%A9e_de_terre_%2814_juillet_2021%29_%281%29_01.jpg

            VAB
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/VAB%2C_Arm%C3%A9e_de_Terre_%2814_juillet_2021%29_%282%29.jpg

            Light Brigade:
            Serval:
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/FSAN0SUX0AAPz70.jpg

          • Brilliantly explained and reasoned, far better than I ever could even try and makes more sense to me now.
            Interesting too how closely the ORBAT mirrored the French model, I know very little on their set up.

            On your comment regards the “long term plan” why then did he not leave Boxer till 2028 as MIV? As was the original plan.
            Base the interim Strike Bdes on Foxhound, get Ajax and WCSP sorted first, bring Boxer in later replacing Mastiff in HPM and Foxhound in LPM at the same time.

            We still have the 2/2/2 set up except the middle 2 are now on Foxhound and an artillery mix, with their previously planned vehicles merged into the first 2!

          • Basically because he thought that the way Wars would be in the near to mid term we’d be needing medium weight wheeled brigades rather than MBT’s and IFV’s.
            Effectively he took the stance that preserving the LPM and creating Strike was going to fit with the way he envisioned us fighting much more than prioritising Warrior and CH3.

            We both disagree with this, but looking at it from the point of view of a man whose entire career was based around wars in which the MoD and Parliament was pretty determined not to deploy IFV’s and MBT’s, and then see’s the French basically conquer Mali in an expeditionary war with just wheeled formations on one hand, and the Americans having been investing heavily in striker on the other.
            Meanwhile the British Army has nothing comparable, so, if I had to guess he was like “Well if the Army is going to deploy again the Politicians won’t want to send MBTs, too expensive, bad optics, we’ll need to be expeditionary, and have minimal logistics to react rapidly and exploit, so the priority must be creating the medium wheeled force.” (Obviously never met the man, just putting things together here).

            Yes, a plan never survives contact with the enemy (be that the next incoming CGS or the Treasury).

          • https://i.imgur.com/naWIHZn.png

            Comparison between the UK Armoured and Strike Bdes and t he French Heavy and Light Armoured Brigades.
            The main differences as you can see is in Mass. The French have more MBT regiments and more infantry in their brigades, but structually very similar.

          • Thanks Dern. I never followed the Strike concept story that closely, but certainly knew that it was a medium-weight wheeled force modelled on broadly French lines, for what we used to call ‘Out of Area’ ops. No problem to me to have a heavy metal mainly tracked force, a medium weight force and also light forces.

            …and presumably the expected opponent for the medium weight Strike force would be a Third World army/insurgents. Is Boxer to heavy to air transport?

            If Boxer comes with just a MG in a RWS, then we don’t have what the French have ie vehicles with 25mm or 105/40mm cannon yet we have payed over £5m a copy. I wonder if we couldn’t have run on Mastiff for a while yet if all Carter wanted was a wheeled APC. However you have explained the re-brigading of Ajax to give the Strike brigades the ‘French look and feel’ ie some punch – but at the colossal expense of abandoning formation recce for 3xx and the armoured brigades – such a huge penalty – how did he expect to deal with that? You explained it is to put the wheeled strike bde into the ‘armoured’ div and have them lead the div – so they are not in the out of area 1xx. My head is spinning a bit.

            Now with early delivery of Boxer we have a monetary crunch with other AFV programmes – CR3, Archer/MFS, Ajax – will the beancounters cut some numbers or capability back?

            Surely we only needed one wheeled Strike bde (Boxer with cannon and no Ajax) and that should have been in 1xx (the out of area div). Have Ajax in 3xx with three armoured bdes and a DAG etc.

            Is General Sanders going to re-tweak the struField Army Orbat before he goes next Spring. Will we see cannon-equipped Boxers? Will Project Wavell recommend more than 148 tanks?

          • Hey Graham,

            So I feel a need to take a step back and establish some terms here:
            Strike isn’t a thing anymore. It was a plan that Carter established from 2014-2020(ish), and then died a death. So when we’re talking about the current equipment plan it’s only relevant in terms of what it left us with.

            In the original Strike model the UK would have ended up with 2x Armoured Bdes on Warrior and Challenger, 2x Strike on Ajax and Boxer, and 2x Light on Foxhound. (And sadly my pictures haven’t been approved yet which would make this more clear: The French Medium Wheeled Brigades which the 2x UK strike Brigades where based on also only have MG’s on RWS for their wheeled apc’s. the 25mm ones take the place of Warrior in the Armoured Infantry units.)

            The reason your head is spinning is because in the French model Divisions are task org’d. The permanent divisions are each 1x Heavy, 1x Medium, and 1x Light Brigade in peace, and then if a fight breaks out they take a Divisional HQ and assign X’s based on need. So strike would have been out of area as well as helping the armoured div. It’s just CFA having the option of going “We’re fighting in Eastern Europe, unleash the Challengers.” or “We’re deploying to Sudan to do a lighting fight, and parliament’s holding the purse strings tight, strike brigade only: go.”

            Now after Carter left and we changed the orbat Strike Brigades went away. Warrior CSP crashed and essentially we had to bodge what we had left, so the strike brigades got amalgamated into the Armoured ones.

          • Hi Dern,

            This all explains why the army has been (and still is) in a mess with structures and equipment.

            Does all the above explain why we have now got a situation where 1 DSRBCT has been established which also sees many Ajaxes not being in a position to do formation recce for the Div or the armoured BCTs?
            If so, we are still doing things in a strange way.

            What is your take on why WCSP was dropped?

          • What is your take on why WCSP was dropped?

            Money. WCSP could probably have been salvaged but there wasn’t enough to buy Boxer, get Ajax into service, and do WCSP. And frankly, as much as it sucks, out of the three dropping WCSP was probably the right shout, given the age of the fleet and that, as has been proven, Warrior can kind of muddle through for a few more years without the turret and gun upgrade.

            Does all the above explain why we have now got a situation where 1 DSRBCT has been established which also sees many Ajaxes not being in a position to do formation recce for the Div or the armoured BCTs?

            No, not entirely, but yes partially. It is partially making do with what is in inventory. We have 4 Ajax regiments, which doesn’t fit well so yes a bit of bodging did need to happen. But there is also the deep battle idea, with Ajax and UAV crews being used as quasi-independent fire observation posts for the MLRS batteries.
            I’m not in 1 DSR so I can’t really speak to how the concept is coming along, but the idea is roughly that two Ajax regiments will fight for information, pass that up to the MLRS, and (if not tasked by 12 and 20) the Archers/AS90’s and drop the hurt on things, ideally in the enemy rear. As I’ve pointed out to Daniele before, the concept of a Infantry less armoured unit was a think with the US Armorued Cavalry Regiments back in the day (don’t bother looking it up, the orbat these days is a medium weight wheeled formation generally for them so image of their orbat below, and note that in US Cavalry speak: Regiment means Brigade, Squadron means Regiment, and Troop means Squadron)
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/3rd_US_Armored_Cavalry_Rgt.png

            Although a bit better rounded, they had 3 companies of MBT’s after all, while we have 3 of jackal in the same sort of formation, the idea is similar. Scout, find targets for Artillery and Armoured Brigades (well, it’s the US Army so probably Armoured Divisions), and drop artillery and the US Air Force’s best ordenance on things. They also had a mission to seize and hold key objectives until armoured formations could come up and relieve them.

          • WCSP. The problem, apart from not replacing equipment at the right time, say after 25 years service for most AFVs, is that programmes then clash.
            So, really CVR(T) should have been replaced about 1996, Warrior in about 2012, AS90 in about 2017 and CR2 in about 2023 – funding lines would then be smooth – no funding clashes. Additionally upgrades (such as WCSP, AS90 Braveheart and CR2 LEP (now cheekily rebranded as CR3)) should have been done at least once or twice in their nominal 25 years service.

            Despite WCSP being programmed very late (in my mind that should have been done in about 2000 after WR had been in service for 12 or 13 years) and not driven through hard and fast, I believe it would have given the five AI bns of the two ABCTs a very good vehicle. Now they get Boxer but with what weapon system? A HMG in a RWS? Far cry from a 40mm stabilised CTAS system. Will the mobility be as good in gloopy mud, ice and snow? Will the Boxers keep up with CR2/CR3? Also – the cost of buying Boxers for the AI is far, far more than proceeding with WCSP – I showed my sums in a previous post.

            1 DSR. I so hope someone has wargamed this concept & structure because it sounds quite bizarre and also deprives 3xx of a proper third manouevre brigade with tanks and armoured infantry. Yes, we do need to fight the Deep Battle; what was wrong with doing ISTAR/RISTA or whatever its called this week with Watchkeeper and other assets (including manned recce), data going back to an all-sources cell and the targeteers and then depth fires (DAG) initiated and adjusted by FOOs?

          • It’s a pretty simple dynamic: an upgrade to a 40 year old vehicle that would need replacing in about a decade anyway, or continue with the procurement of a brand new vehicle that would be looking at 40-50 years service. Yes it resulted in a bit of a IFV gap, but really it was the right choice in a world of limited resources. At the end of the day, we couldn’t afford all three projects so the one that gave the lowest return went. As commentators we really want to have our cakes and eat them as well. We moan and moan that the Army kicks the can down the road over and over again, and here they did the right thing, and chose the projects that would get new vehicles in over the project that would have meant we’d have another crunch in 10 years as we went to procure boxer and a warrior CSP replacement, and we still get upset.

            I don’t get the obsession with people going “Well I hope that we’re wargaming 1 DSR.” Of course they are? Where does this idea that the British Army would adopt a radically new formation and not wargame and exercise the concept come from?

            And what you’ve described is baisically 1 DSR. Manned platforms and 5 RA in the “cavalry” part provide information to the depth fires using Ajax, Radar and Drones (though Drones are over rated thanks to the footage coming out of ukraine, they’re great for generating easily disseminated publicity material, while masking their issues and short comings, nobody is releasing footage of when you need an OP, or Recce in force, or when drones don’t work, because they don’t want to show footage of failure). Watchkeeper and Puma though as large winged UAS sit under 3* command as operational and above level assets, not tactical ones.

          • Talking of OPs, I noted that the HAC, so we’re talking 1 Squadron with its patrols/OP/capability, has been placed in the SOB, where I believe that before it was supporting 4/73 in 5 RA. Makes sense in SOB, but surely would also fit in with the DSRB.
            Maybe 21/23 will leave HERA behind ( perhaps they already did and I’m out of date ) and go back to their past Cold War stay behind OP role, considering the shortcomings of UAVs that you point out and the need for more eyes on the deep battle.

          • Thats good. What is the meaning of the vertical line in 2015 wiring diagram for KRH and RDG symbols?

          • Easier to explain what it actually means and then what Wiki (where these images come from) is trying to bodge with them:

            Apologies if I’m teaching you to suck eggs btw but you know, easier to assume. A vertical line is a modifier for unit counters that typically means a heavy gun system. So if you compare 1 Yorks to 1 RRF in the 2015 chart you’ll notice both are infantry (big cross representing crossed infantry belts), with the armour modifier (big oval representing a MkI tank). But 1 Yorks has three small circles underneath, a modifier that means that they’re in a wheeled armoured vehicle (in this case boxer) while 1 RRF has a vertical line meaning their Mechanised infantry in an armoured vehicle with a gun system.

            So, following the rules what the vertical line should mean is an armoured formation with a main gun system (which is a bit nonsensical and has instead sometimes been used for heavy tanks).

            The bodge:
            In this case however it’s wikipedia using it to display that the 2nd Ajax regiment in each brigade is supposed to be fighty medium armoured formations, not recce. It kind of makes sense if you only think about it in the context of Ajax Recce and Ajax Medium formations (Ajax Recce having the Cavalry Sash, vs Ajax Medium having the IFV main gun bar) but falls apart as soon as you realise that techincally the bodge is saying that two Ajax regiments should have more firepower than 2 Challenger Regiments.

            So, it’s dumb, but I get why they did it. Unit Counters is a bit more art than science sometimes and there isn’t a specific “medium armour” unit counter.

          • Thanks Dern, I served 34 years in REME as an officer, leaving the Corps in 2009, so I have some familiarity with such symbols, but not the one with vertical line.

            Useful info – many thanks.

          • Great looking kit. We should definitely have some B2s for expeditionary operations where strategic and operational mobility is important and full-weight armour protection is less so – perhaps in a Strike Brigade!!!!

        • A fine example of the fallacy of the army’s Strike Bde plans. Strike could be great, but with the right kit.
          We bought Ajax to serve in the 3 Armoured Infantry Bdes, and Carter shoved them into Strike, to provide the firepower, with the rest of the force on wheels in Boxer. Denying the Armoured Bdes any organic recc regs.

          So, why not use wheels for the whole force, and buy something like these for Strike while leaving the 3 Armoured Bdes we had alone and Ajax where it belongs, supporting Tanks and Warrior in all tracked formations.

          • FFS….there it is everyone. What could have been if, in the 2015 SDSR, they’d not effectively cut again, losing one of the 3 AI Bdes for conversion to a Strike Bde, while “upgrading” a 1 UK Div Brigade, most likely at the time 7 Infantry at Cottesmore, for the planned 4 Bde structure – 2 AI, 2 Strike, that persisted til Strike met its end and WCSP was cancelled, leaving us in the current Boxer or nothing situation.

            The 3 Foxhound Bns ( in the ORBAT illustrations only, not the actual named Bns as far as I recall, and certainly not 1 RGR! ) that Dern shows in 1,12, 20 AI Bdes were actually Mastiff at the time, HPM – “Heavy Protected Mobility” Bns, which were to become Boxer only in 2028, YEARS after Ajax, Warrior and CH3 were signed, sealed and on the way.

            7th and 4th Mech all wheeled, and at the time of the 2015 SDSR were 7 and 4 Inf and had several LPM – “Light Protected Mobility” Bns on Foxhound.

            Love it, thanks Dern. I’m sure many wonder WT* I’m rattling on about with this ORBAT stuff and having it in a diagram like this for those who are not aware of the ORBAT, then and now, really helps comprehend things. 👍

          • [spoiler title=”Whispered”] this isn’t even what could have been if there hadn’t been cuts. It’s litterally using the infantry that’s available in the current orbat, which is why the foxhound btns don’t match up with the 2015 HPMV ones. [/spoiler]

            But yeah, no problem.

          • Regards the Infantry Bns, yes it is possible now. But what I meant was the supports.

            We know 4x lacks regular CS CSS as it is beyond the Jackal Reg.
            And with 3 Armoured Inf Bdes back, we now have only 2 “sets” of CS – of RA SPG Reg, CS Armoured Engineer Reg, and the other CSS elements.
            There is a 3rd CS RE Reg but unsure if it has the armoured elements now?

            26RA which was the 3rd of the AI Bde AS90 Regs was converted to MLRS after all the musical chairs with that capability since 2010 – 39 RA to individual Batteries to a formed reg again.

            Some shuffling of CS CSS needed. Assume in that line up DSRB is no more so its REME Bn could go back into the resurrected A Bdes.

            Still the issue with the army supports for a RN formation, 3 Cdo – 29RA, 24RE. You’d imagine they’d be ideal to find that extra CS, obviously for 4x, but I’d not want them taken from the RM in any future reorg as I still believe 3 Cdo should have its own supporting assets, even with the current FCF plans.

  16. He has recognised the key point in a way in which some US and British ex military have not. Lack of air superiority is the main factor. It means everything that happens in Ukraine is fundamentally different to what happened in Iraq. And if the UK intends to occasionally carry out independent operations, we cannot assume air superiority. So we need to be able to operate in a contested environment.

    • In short, we don’t, certainly not against a serious, sophisticated enemy.

      Raiding and limited Brigade level operations is now our limit.

      Unilateral action is severely limited by our lack of mass in all areas unfortunately.

    • The army was supplied with over 300 challenger 2s
      I worked at vickers defence leeds factory on chall 2 prototype to final delivery.
      Lackof maintenance of these by the mod is why only 150 is now available for upgrade to chall 3

      • The army bought 386 CR2s. The government decided to reduce the fleet by about 40 in the 2004 Defence Review addendum (when the tanks were barely 5 years old), being fixated with COIN and doubting that tanks would again be used in Europe or the Middle East.
        The tank fleet was further reduced to 227 tanks in the 2010 Defence review, as a savings measure in the wake of the global financial crisis. The active fleet is now 213 strong following the gifting of 14 tanks to Ukraine.

        Future Soldier (2021) reduces the army further from three to just two armoured regiments – 112 tanks. Other tanks are required for the Training Organisation, the Repair Pool and an Attrition Reserve. MoD has come up with a figure of 148 CR3s in all.

        That figure of 148 is not derived from the number of ‘good’ CR2s in service, but from Defence cuts in 2003, 2010 and 2021.

        As a former REME officer for 34 years whose Corps delivered Level 2 and Level 3 maintenance, the User providing Level 1 maintenance – I rather take exception to the suggestion that REME and the User somehow failed to adequately maintain the tank fleet. When I was serving it was mantra that 70% of unit-held tanks were available at all times, rising to 90% after a concerted 24hr period of extra maintenance.

        [I did my REME YO Industrial attachments at VDS Newcastle in 1979 in the ‘old’ tank factory].

    • That’s surely the purpose to provide a percentage of “cannon fodder” as you put it so an effective amount survive to complete the objective

  18. We need Tank Destroyers (TDs) to offset the lack of MBTs. We used to have one – it was called CVR(T) STRIKER. It was declared Obsolete, sold off and was never replaced – barking mad. We need a Brimstone launcher – one version on a tracked armoured chassis and one on a truck.

    • Agreed, Striker was a force multiplier in defence bar none! Brimstone version please on the overwatch versions of Ajax as a priority closely followed by 120 mm mortar variant. If not, Boxer is there to be used as that’s totally module in its design and concept. Cheers mate 👍

      • Yes, wasn’t Milan a much shorter ranged weapon though? Issued mainly to our MI then AI Bns in BAOR. More widely, Milan FPs were on foot with but 6 in the other LI Bns of the army.

        • Yes mate. Swingfire LRATGW (4000m) and Milan MRATGW (1950m). As I recall Swingfire was manned by RAC then RA (surprisingly) or the other way around – and Milan was crewed by the Inf.

          In 24 Inf Bde, we had 24 Milan FP per battalion as we were Corps Commanders reserve force. Saxon had its detractors (its X-country performance was modest) but it moved the Inf Bns quickly (including the A-Tk Pl of course) on road and track with (unlike a Truck TCV – the benefit of section integrity, a high mounted MG and comms and armour).

          Swingfire very good to take out tanks way beyond MBT cannon range.

          • Hi mate. The figures I recall from endless reading and re reading my “Modern British Army” books were 24 Milan FP per MI or AI Bn, and just 6 per LI, or “Type B” Bn, as they didn’t have the BAOR 1 Corps role ( apart from 2 Div )

            I also read that 24, when it became the Airmobile Bde had over 80?! Makes sense if it’s job was to by planned in the way of a GSFG break thorough by their Cat A or echelon Cat A divisions. Assume Milan MCTs were included in the Inf Bn 24 FPs.

            Wasn’t Swingfire wire guided, just like TOW? By the time I started getting into this subject in the late 80s it comprised a Troop in each RAC Recc, and I think, Armoured Reg. Before I believe, as you say, it was an RA asset.

          • Hi Daniele, I don’t know the Milan numbers for the AI Bns ( Ia msure you are right), but I do recall the Qty 6 for the Type B bns.

            As mentioned 24 Inf Bde had 24 Milan FP per bn, so 72 for the brigade – a figure of 80 (for the later 24 Airmob Bde) is only 8 more. The MI label was applied to the Saxon bns of 24 Inf Bde just as it had previously been applied to FV 432 Bns.

            As you say 24 Inf Bde role was to be a highly mobile force in 2 Inf Div who occupied the Corps Rear Area. The other bdes in 2xx were 15x and 49x, both TA bdes – and comprised of Type B Inf bns.

            24x would as you say deal with any breakthrough of leading tank elements of 3 Shock Army if they had managed to get through or around 1xx, 3xx, 4xx.

            I don’t recall that we had Spartan MCTs in the brigade (or any form of tracked veh) – think they were all in Germany with the armd divs.

            Swingfire was wire guided. STRIKER caried 10, ie 5 on the roof in launcher bins and 5 reloads inside. I still don’t get why RA manned them for a few years, or why they were scrapped without replacement.

      • Yes, good to add the Milan version. Not sure why it should be easy for an armoured force practicing manouevre warfare and facing tank armies to cut mobile anti-tank weapons!

        • Hi Graham cut tanks or SPG and there some notice in the media. something like a mobile anti tank weapon and it is in the back ground. or you get missile X is replaced by missile Z, but no one sees the enables haven’t been replaced

  20. After reading this article, bottom line get our armed forces beefed up ,fxxxxxg politicians labour and tory never learn from past mistakes, this country is in danger not now but in time ,nothing to protect our cities or people with the woeful defences we in this country, but you will get the useless idiots than think that defence is not important like sunak and fxxxxxg bankers who only care for making money who have no understanding about defence ,let’s see what starmer and Co come up with ?

    • Our current (and recent past) crop of globalist politicians are here purely to extract wealth for them and their buddies. There is no incentive to actually repair and develop capability. It’s a fire sale on a scale not seen since 90s Russia. They were picking our pockets since the 50s but the collapse of the USSR showed them they could rob entire countries. It’s far more efficient. These rootless locusts may need our people to die for a while so the squeeze isn’t interrupted by the “enemies” locusts. Remember these people are on first name terms and dine/holiday together when the cameras are off. No potash miner in Uralsk ever hurt me.

  21. Would be worth Listening to if old Crawford, actually fire his gun at anything other than a Target Range. Come on this fella is a Keyboard warrior and not once while surviving said anything.

    • Its far better to have a reasoned view from someone with real knowledge – yes it can be properly critiqued. And no its not a reason to dismiss him as a KW
      As though we didnt have enough instant experts during the covid era, who of course cant bear to have any other view given credence

    • surviving? perhaps you mean ‘serving’. When you are serving you can’t express controversial or political views openly.

  22. I’ve been advocating for this on here for some time now, it’s good to see others applying common sense to solve the problem we are currently facing.

    Crawford responded, “I’m very impressed by the fact that they have, I think, come to an arrangement with South Korea to purchase some of the most modern South Korean tanks, I can’t remember the nomenclature of them, but also to construct a factory in Poland that will, that will, that will produce the bulk of them. Plus, they’ve got the US Aegis system, and the missile system already in Poland. And they’ve got the Patriot system”.

    https://aw.my.games/sites/aw.my.com/files/u183517/k2_black_panther_pl_01.jpg

    • I wonder if Poland will join the programme, they showed interest in doing so earlier this year.

      “The Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) KF-21 fighter has commenced weapons release work, including firing its cannon during flight.

      The work saw the second prototype of the developmental aircraft drop a dummy round of the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, according to South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).”

      LINK

  23. Echoing others comments here. Surely up to 200 fully equipped CR3 ‘s would be a sensible reserve to have just in case? Being able to do 4*50,5*40,10*20 type deployments could ootentially very supportive to our allies across multiple locations. Anyway I know nothing really but hope to god that not everything is left up to mostly wheeled Boxers.

    • Boxer will be the primary armoured vehicle for the infantry, although other arms will use some in smaller numbers. It remains to be seen if those assigned to the armoured infantry in the 2 armoured brigades will come equipped with serious firepower (ideally a 40mm stabilised cannon) or just a MG.

  24. Not sure why we are using Ukraine as a benchmark, Ukraine is fighting with one hand behind its back. NATO would never fight with no air cover, we’d be hitting all supply lines no matter where they were located as 2 examples.

    • Works both ways . Do you really want Russia to be hitting Nato supply chains *no matter where they are*
      Total war isnt the aim.

    • The problem is, what if we can’t achieve air superiority? What if we fail to do so? Do we just give up and go home or do we have to then push on and accept greater losses?

        • With losses, though; 4 frigates and destroyers lost plus an RFA ship and Atlantic Conveyor, all sunk by Argentine aircraft.

          We don’t have the mass to absorb such losses any more. The loss of a single frigate or destroyer would be catastrophic.

  25. The days of massed tank formations as a cornerstone of BAOR are over – where are the author’s wished for increased number of tanks meant to be effectively based ? I can fully understand and appreciate the development of a (relatively) basic “lightly armoured box” equipped with Brimstone as a much needed belated Swingfire replacement

  26. I do believe it is time for a rethink regarding heavy, noisy, gas guzzling tanks in their current form.

    Lessons learned in the Ukraine conflict, as the dude said in the interview… number, numbers and more numbers.

    We do not need a challenger 3-4 or whatever. We need lots of smaller lighter faster vehicles. Ajax is shite! It’s just an updated Warrior!

    It would be interesting to know how many drones could be purchased, compared to a Challenger II tank. Challenger II £7.5million? Off the shelf drone… £100? I’ll let you maffs types fill in the detail.

    Drone swarm attack by 25 drones say £2,500 cost. 25 drones kill 1 tank… bargain.

    Next, reproduce/replicate the German Wiesel mini Tank. Buy loads, and maybe with Boxers, turn an Infantry Regiment into a mechanised one, for a fraction of the cost?

  27. President of the united states, seal of the, vice president of the united states, united states of America, f16 Block 70/72, F16V, F16C, IRaq, f16 fighting falcon, f16 viper, ViperDemoTeam, 46 th u.s president JoeBiden, 46 th u.s president Barack Obama, president of the united states, of America, 47 th vice president of the united states, vice president kamala Harris, HMS queen Elizabeth Il, queen Elizabeth Il

  29. Late on this. With just 148 C3 – It’s time we moved from so called quality to lots of quantity.

    We could build designer truck that could be used as a missile firing platform in numbers. Guided Missiles would probably be better than a C3 gun.

    Still keep the 148 C3 and have two mixed C3 and Guided Missile trucks.

    Moaning about not being able to crew ships – RN could recruit from thousands of Gurkhas.

    How does MOD come up with 148 (not 150) C3 tanks, and I think 44 (Not 50) F-35B

    Monkey spanker was thinking lateral and I think correct, lot more tanks that cost less.

    • We need Tank Destroyers to augment the meagre number of MBTs – a replacement for CVR(T) STRIKER.
      Tanks don’t just kill tanks of course – they have a wider role – so we still need them, but in quantity – an armoured division should have at least 200.
      Ukrainians have Brimstone operating off a truck.

      • We are not going to get anymore MBT without a major shift in policy – So Brimstone on trucks and lots of them would be a step in the right direction/

        But to have Brimstone on trucks would need lateral thinking by defense ministers and worst of all the MOD.

        On cost cutting – Hulls cost a lot of money. Keep ate least 8 Duke Class Frigates without cutting back on Type 26 and the other frigates in the pipeline and not forgetting destroyers.

        HMS QE and HMS Prince of Wales – So we are never going to get jets on both in numbers.

        We could of course say when HMS Q E is the main carrier POW could be used as a super helicopter carrier with say 10 jets – Would at least be credible.

        • Funny that until recently 227 tanks was policy. Sure, we are not getting more than 148 CR3s because of cost and decision to reduce to 2 tank regiments. I had thought that IR Refresh 2023 and associated DCP was all about lessons learned from the Ukraine war, which shows that tanks are still being used and there must be mass and attrition replacements, hence 2 regiments is not enough. Tank Destroyers are urgently needed, Brimstone on both trucks and tracked armoured hulls. I don’t think it needs radical thinking from anyone – it would just be a long overdue replacement for CVR(T) STRIKER – it just needs money – the Treasury needs convincing not anyone else – the timing would have been better if this was planned at the time of the announcement of a cut in tank numbers. A big issue is who would crew Brimstone launcher vehicles in such a small army.

          Not sure why you are so pessimistic about enough F-35s – sure we will not order 138 as that figure was touted decades ago. Navy Lookout thinks we will have at least 74:

          https://www.navylookout.com/uk-to-purchase-at-least-74-f-35-jets/

          That should be enough for 24 per carrier, with others in the OCU and Attrition Reserve etc

          It would be such a waste for a supercarrier to be permanently used as a LPH – we might as well have bought a HMS Ocean replacement at a fraction of the cost.

          • Well in 2010 we had more than a 1000 MBT – I mean 227 was a joke, 148 is even more laughable.

            We are not going to get more, there is no political will.

            Yes the army is far to small – I would want to exactly what the defense budget is being spent on, I mean it’s as large or near as large as Russia, we need an urgent review with quick answers to that.

            We need at least a 90,000 army or 80,000 now rising to 90,000 – then we can crew several hundred lesser vehicles than a MBT.
            With near mix the main battle tanks with missile carriers. Would at least be credible.

            Need more artillery also.

            I am not being negative over the F-35B but if we are to get 74, when will that be.

            Would it not be better to have 40 F-35 on one carrier and a mixed group of 10 F35 and assorted helicopters – I know that’s not ideal but we have no Ocean and they won’t replace it.
            Also if both carriers are in use, not be that easy to sell one off.

            It’s the same with North Sea, we can’t afford more Astute’s, so lets have so cheap diesel electric  subs to patrol the North Sea and used Astute where they are most needed, escorts for example.

            Another must. missiles on our carriers. That should be standard.

            Ministers moan about costs of hospitals and defense – They forget they get it all back in taxes on wages and workers shop more when employed and buy VAT added items.

            In short UK needs fresh ideas, lateral thinking and a will to see we are defended.

          • OK not saying your are wrong. this text on google will have a link. This is where I got my info.

            “In 1990 the UK had around 1,200 main battle tanks in its inventory, today has 227, and those that remain are in urgent need of modernisation.14 Mar 2021″

            https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+main+battle+tanks+did+UK+have+in+1980&rlz=1C1VDKB_enGB1046GB1046&oq=how+many+main+battle+tanks+did+UK+have+in+1980&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBDjE2NjkzMjU0NWowajE1qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

          • We certainly did not have more than 1,000 MBT in 2010. In the Chieftain era from 1966 we had 900. You might have to go back to the 1950s or earlier to a time when we had 1,000 MBTs.

            By 2010 of course all Chieftains had long since been withdrawn and CR1 too. We bought 386 CR2s which were delivered from 1998 and 40 were withdrawn from service in the 2004 Defence cuts – so the most we would have had in 2010 was 346 tanks. In the 2010 defence review 40% of the tanks were taken out of service reducing the active holding to 227.

            I agree that it is unlikely that we will get more than 148 CR3s unless Project Wavell reports otherwise. We certainly need Tank Destroyers (TDs) to help offset the lack of tanks. We urgently need to replace CVR(T) STRIKER and the Spartan with Miland Compact Turret (MCT). Brimstone mounted on a tracked armoured hull and also on trucks (as UKR is using) is what is required.

            I don’t doubt that we will eventually have around 74 F-35Bs but of course the delivery rate has been underwhelming so far. There is no option but to be even more patient.

            I don’t think we should assign 40 F-35s to one carrier and 10 F-35s and several helicopters on the other. It is unlikely that both carriers will be at sea on the same task at the same time. We would Task Org the most ready carrier with the air wing that it needs according to a certain task.

            I am no naval expert but it seems to be a good idea to have some diesel-electric subs with AIP to bolster the tiny SSN fleet. Of the 7 Astutes, perhaps only 3 or 4 at most would be available for tasking and one of those is committed to protect the CASW ‘bomber’. We had 28 attack subs (SSN and SSK) in 1982.

            The other financial point is that companies, mostly British companies, benefit from a lot of defence procurement.

          • Sorry – I got this from Google MBT in 1990 – This was dated March 2021. This is from Google and there will be a follow link there.

            “n 1990 the UK had around 1,200 main battle tanks in its inventory, today has 227, and those that remain are in urgent need of modernisation.14 Mar 2021 “

            https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+main+battle+tanks+did+UK+have+in+1980&rlz=1C1VDKB_enGB1046GB1046&oq=how+many+main+battle+tanks+did+UK+have+in+1980&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBDjE2NjkzMjU0NWowajE1qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

            If we get 74 F-35B – Are some not for the RAF?

            Unless for repairs or refit – I would rather have both carriers with a role – Say POW idle for 12 months or more, chatter will be ‘sell her.

            Iike the Harriers and Ocean and more – I mean what country leaves their carriers without jets, Lusty and Invincible for example.
            Might sound silly but until we got the F-35B – The Harries could have been on the decks of the new carriers with copters, rather than looking silly with no jets.

            There also have been other uses for the Harriers at one stage, CAS for the army or marines.

            “The other financial point is that companies, mostly British companies, benefit from a lot of defence procurement.”

            Exactly and company profits are taxed, wages are taxed, We should have a near fully independent defense industry.

            Finally just just because we get new, does not mean we have to sell – It should be as well as, not :instead of:

            I would love to see HMS Queen Elizabeth Fully equipped, I would also love to see HMS POW remain the property of the RN, as I said – Whispers will start,

            Another idea may not be likes, fit CATOBAR on one of the carriers and buy cheaper jets,

            I would have liked that from day 1.

            “

          • I agree slipped up with the dates but even so, from a 1000+ in 1990 to 148 in 2023 is sad. Army deserves better,

          • This is what bothers me – I agree but even 213 CR2 is not that many.

            I think a step in the right direction would be the 148 CR3 Plus keeping the remaining CRs also.

            The same applied with the RN – When the Type 26 enter service. It would be good to keep half the Duke Class – Then with the T26/T45/Type 31/Type Duke Class – would be credible – add to that T32.

            Increased size of the RN with just the addition of 9 Duke Class.

            We are strapped for cash. It would cost some to keep the Duke Class but Hulls are cheaper than new from scratch.

          • 213 tanks enables us currently to deploy 168 tanks in three armoured regiments.

            As I have said before, when CR2 is declared Obsolete and CR3 is fielded, then CR2s are withdrawn from service and disposed of asap by sale, gifting, or in extremis by scrapping.

            We do not keep Obsolete equipment.

          • Ernest, you said we had 1200 MBT in 2010, but now say 1990 – that is back in the Cold War and very different conditions pertained.
            In 1990 we were running a mixed CH/CR1 fleet. We received 435 CR1s in 1983 (the canceleld Iranian Shir2 order). We had bought 900 Chieftains fielded from 1967. They were subject to many upgrades and the Mk11 and Mk12 was fielded and then further improved with Stillbrew cheek armour in 1984-86. I have no idea how many Mk11 and Mk12 were in service in 1990 – but I would be surprised if it were as many as 765 (to total 1200 with the CR1s). MoD phased out many Chieftains once CR1 came in, in 1983.

            I wonder if the authors of that report you linked to have mistakenly counted in CHARRV, CHAVRE and CHAVLB numbers. Who knows? 1200 MBTs in 1990 sounds far too high.

            F-35Bs are of course in use by the RN (FAA) and the RAF. Nothing has changed.
            MoD was of course alternating use of the carriers, until PoW had the prop shaft fault. I am sure we will be back to that regime.
            We haven’t intentionally left our cariers without jets – the jets are still being built.

          • The Cold War was different there is no denying that but new threats emerge.

            I would say the world is just as dangerous now and back in the cold war year.
            UK has signed defense deals with Japan Australia and others. Goes without saying if Australia was in trouble, UK would help, but with what?
            They would be right to expect help from the UK Aussies and others ie Canada – New Zealand. have always helped us.

            We simply don’t have enough kit. We could live with 148 MBT is for example your idea of “Brimstone on Trucks” was adopted. With more that just 48 Apache Choppers.

            One thing Russia has never been our main threat, through history it’s been the French, the Spanish and others that have been the threat, In fact we invaded the Crimea,

            We may not have “ intentionally ” left two huge carriers with no jets, really did not look and was not right.

            The carriers was Blair’s idea, and kept by Cameron but the Defense Review 2010 saw all our Harries sold to the UK and mainly dies in desert junk yards why the carriers remained for a while with no jets – Really that was intentional and probable some could have been used on the decks of the QE carriers until F-35B jets were delivered. Would have been better than nothing.

            I dare say the Army Marines and special forces may have been able to make use of a few Harriers and support,

            Finally I look forward to teh time, when we don’t have to rely on US Marine jets to make the numbers up.

          • If Australia was in existential trouble, the UK would certainly help. I took a quick look at Australias 2023 SDR –
            “The review says “any adversary” could attempt to coerce Australia through cyber-attacks, incursions in Australia’s north-west shelf or parts of its exclusive economic zone or through disruptions to sea lines of communication”. It also says that the threat of land invasion by any country, especially China was highly unlikely.

            How could we help? I am sure we are helping repel cyber attacks through ‘Five Eyes’ collaboration. We have proved we can send a CSG based on a QE-class carrier to the South China Sea. Now we have to deal with the ‘What, no jets?’ brigade. As of 21/11/22 we had received 30 F-35B jets of which ( 1 lost, 3 in USA) 26 are in the UK, with 7 more to be delivered in 2023 and all 48 delivered by 2025. If more jets were required to help Oz, I am sure USMC would help out under the AUKUS agreement.

            Oz doubt that land invasion is likely but what could we send if Xi became as mad as Putin and did invade Oz? We could send quick reaction forces by AT including 16 AA Bde and Apaches (as you say) and follow up with armoured forces if required although with sea transit they would take a long time to get there – we would probably send an armoured BCT, as it has been said that we could not deploy the whole of 3xx for a few more years yet.

          • Graham, Why I am so concerned with numbers is the way the world is.

            Four scenarios that would test UK defense

            1) China invades Taiwan. Australia would be worried about how safe Darwen would be – Probably china would be to busy to be bothered about Australia at least at this stage. Australia would expect a show of support.

            2) More of a threat would be Russia, emboldened by China’s actions could use more lethal weapons in Ukraine or even look sideways towards Poland. who knows, But we would be committed to NATO.

            3) Argentina rub their hands in glee – Knowing full well a second task force from the UK would be no time soon. may well and maybe armed by Russia would chance their arm.

            4) Leading to Spain- With the UK’s hands full on possible three fronts would they not take the chance and try and take back Gibraltar?

            None of this may happen, but we can say never will and that whey UK must have more weapons, more troops because of it’s commitments is it does happen.

          • Ernest, good that we all think about scenarios that may cause Britsh forces to deploy on opersations – it informs our thinking about manpower levels, equipment, training, doctrine etc.
            In scenario 1 – it is good that we have AUKUS and future submarine devopment and manufacture for Oz – and a commitment to aid Oz if threatened. We would send a CSG if required. We have 26 F-35Bs in the UK, many of which could embark on a QE-class carrier – and USMC could again make up the numbers if required.
            In scenario 2 – Russia could indeed use more lethal weapons in Ukraine and Putin could lean on Belarus to join in, and might look to strike at the border region of Moldova, but I would be surprised if Putin invaded even a part of Poland (or the Baltics), given the NATO response. I guess the US would actually deliver those M1 tanks and promise to deliver F-16s if Russia escalated in any of the above ways. Some Euro nations might also increase arms and munitions supplies and turn up the screw on sanctions.
            Scenario 3 – I just see hot air from Buenos Aires. Even if UK deployed a CSG to aid Oz, I doubt the Argentinians would again invade the Falklands – in-place forces would be harder to dislodge than that in 1982, and the Argentinians have terrible ageing kit – it would take the Russians ages to rehabilitate their armed forces.
            Scenario 4 – we are friendly with Spain. I don’t see that they would seize Gib. even if we were massively distracted elsewhere.

            The world is a more dangerous place than in 1991 (end of Cold War) – our forces are a fraction of the size they were then and much equipment, especially in the army, is old and unmodernised. Capability gaps exist. We do need to build up our forces everywhere. We used to have a list of Military Tasks against which we could structure and determine if we had enough of everything – that was quietly dropped many years ago.

          • Excellent post.

            On China I doubt they would invade Australia, but they could in the fog if/when they invade Taiwan.

            I would hope we would help Australia, they always stood with us.

            In Feb 79 China surprised by invading Vietnam – Capering several cities close to the borders. They withdrew but they had invaded,

            Argentina.

            If China does invade Taiwan – As you saw we would help, a lot of our smallish RN would be in that,

            Argentina could strike, just as well we have a garrison there, but would need re-enforcing.

            It’s worth remembering – Russia are backing Argentina – It would matter what jets and other arms they supplied.

            Spain. Are they friendly? I honestly think not. First they jest buzzed the rock several times with no intervention.

            5th May 2016 – They interfered with a US nuclear Sub trying to dock.

            The RN had to fire a warning shot.

            9th May 2016 – This was nasty – The US submarine captain threaten to RAM Spanish customs vessel trying to block its path. Unless the RN who was escorting the US Submarine fired acted against Spain and sorted the situation.
            The RN fired flares over the bows of the Spanish vessel like should have been done in the first place.

            Spain help up traffic going into Spain for hours, dangerous because of the heat to some vulnerable people. – I know this first had as I was involved no militarily at the time, but knew what was going on daily. I will post 2 links.
            This was from the UKDJ at the time.

            https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-fire-warning-shot-spanish-vessel-gibraltar/

            https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/royal-navy-fires-spanish-patrol-boat-after-it-neared-us-nuclear-sub-off-gibraltar-1558519

            I simply don’t trust Spain and neither to the people of Gibraltar – We need more kit to protect our interests I think.

          • Thanks Ernest. I think the Chinese who have never done a major amphibious assault before would be pressed to do both Taiwan and the huge country of Australia. Why would they want to seize Oz anyway?

            The Falklands garrison is quite strong – I was posted there for 6 months in 1999/2000. The reason that MPA was built was to take wide bodied jets for the reinforcements, as well as to show greater force in-country. I wonder if Russian political support for the Argentine claim ever translated into totally rebuilding Argie forces – sea, marine, land and air.

          • I am not sure they would invade Australia, but they seem to think it possible. So long as we (able to honour any commitments to OZ)

            More of a concern is lack of cover in the North Sea – Lots of flashpoints and not just from Russia.

            To end I would not have anything to do with OZ – They deserve no less.

            EU have called the Falklands “ Islas Malvinas. Russia have offered support the Argentina, I don’t know just what.

            In conclusion we must we need to buy more to defend ourselves, rely on NTO when needed and say NO – To PESCO. Thank’s for Falklands info.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here