The official statistics of the UK Regular Forces have been disclosed as of 1 January 2023, shedding light on the rank structure within the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and Royal Air Force.
The UK Regular Forces, as of 1 January 2023, comprise a total of 143,558 full-time service personnel across the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, and the Royal Air Force.
Officers, who comprise 28,017 of the personnel, are distributed across several ranks within each service:
- OF-9/OF-10: Total 7 (Navy/Marines: 3, Army: 3, RAF: 1)
- OF-8: Total 27 (Navy/Marines: 9, Army: 11, RAF: 7)
- OF-7: Total 97 (Navy/Marines: 26, Army: 43, RAF: 28)
- OF-6: Total 330 (Navy/Marines: 98, Army: 150, RAF: 82)
- OF-5: Total 1,104 (Navy/Marines: 280, Army: 509, RAF: 315)
- OF-4: Total 3,877 (Navy/Marines: 1,100, Army: 1,685, RAF: 1,092)
- OF-3: Total 8,078 (Navy/Marines: 1,956, Army: 4,134, RAF: 1,988)
- OF-2: Total 10,109 (Navy/Marines: 2,322, Army: 4,407, RAF: 3,380)
- OF-1/OF (D): Total 4,388 (Navy/Marines: 1,133, Army: 2,167, RAF: 1,088)
Other Ranks, forming a significant portion with 115,541 personnel, are divided as follows within each service:
- OR-9: Total 2,832 (Navy/Marines: 683, Army: 1,255, RAF: 894)
- OR-8: Total 4,055 (Navy/Marines: 498, Army: 3,557, RAF: N/A)
- OR-7: Total 9,941 (Navy/Marines: 2,598, Army: 5,130, RAF: 2,213)
- OR-6: Total 15,946 (Navy/Marines: 3,925, Army: 7,600, RAF: 4,421)
- OR-4: Total 23,770 (Navy/Marines: 6,218, Army: 11,630, RAF: 5,922)
- OR-3: Total 12,720 (Navy/Marines: 777, Army: 11,788, RAF: 155)
- OR-1/OR-2: Total 55,277 (Navy/Marines: 11,383, Army: 23,990, RAF: 10,904)
These figures are based on the individuals’ paid rank and include full-time service personnel, which include the Nursing Services. However, Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel, Gurkhas, mobilised Reservists, Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), Locally Engaged Personnel (LEP), Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS), High Readiness Reserve (HRR), and Expeditionary Forces Institute (EFI) personnel are excluded from these numbers.
The Royal Navy and Royal Marines consist of 33,009 personnel, the Army includes 78,059 members, and the RAF is composed of 32,490 personnel.
Interesting figures, consider that in 1989, the Regular Army alone was bigger than all three services together in 2023 and some….
Army 160,000 RAF 92,000, RN 66,000 from memory?
Good memory!
In both 1914 and 1939 the Army was considered under strength hamstringed by political issues that always really came back to cost issues. At both times the issue was that the army was less than 300,000 men. Now we are still reducing troops to less than 75,000 Technology has changed a lot but it cannot replace boots on the ground. In terms of military aviation the RAF has at last the P8’s but not enough and the E7 Wedgetail acquisition has been cut back to the point where it would better have been cancelled than waste money on a few… Read more »
I have to agree, we need more of just about everything, if the destabilising world situation doesn’t make the Political classes change, then frankly absolutely nothing will…
Labour won’t do anything different, not a jot….
The political classes (if there is such a thing) merely reflect public opinion and public opinion has not connected the energy crisis with the world markets with the war in Ukraine. If Joe public has a problem it is the fault of the Government so your problem is solved with a new Government 😂. The current Government could put 50B more into defense it would just mean they were out of office by the end of next week rather than the end of next year and the increase reversed.
Well quite, the general public have zero interest in defence, our current socialist (sod all Conservative going on) government is more interested in shoveling money out to the public and subsidising everything until the cows come home. Supermarket goods are next to get the great government pay out. All the while the national debt just swells and swells and that time bomb of debt is ticking louder and louder. The more they hand out, the more the public demand…. Point being there is no votes in defence, absolutely none, hence it’s being left to wither on the vine… It’s only… Read more »
People’s reaction to all things military is strange. Almost a fear of the unknown. Once they have exhausted scraps of nonsense they might remember from the media, the subject is changed to safer things like football. Public education might be needed.😀
“our current socialist government“ Well that ridiculous comment destroys your credibility! 😆 There is NO money going to subsidise supermarket goods. You do realise our national debt is smaller than EVERY other G7 member aside from Germany? Size of debt doesn’t matter, it’s your ability to pay it is what matters, and the U.K. has no problems there. Ben Wallace is fantastic, but he could have been replaced at any point during his period at defence. Over the 4 years and under 3 PMs he’s served he could have been replaced at any time – ministers rarely last that long… Read more »
Well if we are using national debt as a test for socialism…then the Japanese government clearly come out as the most rampant communists the world have ever know.
Exactly 👍🏻
It’s a bit of an oxymoron equating having debt to be being communist: debt requires capital, and charging interest is the most capitalist practice imaginable.
That makes America the second most socialist government soon. 😀
Oh behave yourself Sean, there is absolutely nothing Conservative, I repeat ‘absolutely nothing ‘about the current mob in charge. They believe in ‘huge’ controlling government, spending like it’s going out of fashion and constantly raising taxes. They are acting in a totally socialist manner, so much so that most would see virtually no difference if Labour were actually in power! Please enlighten us what is remotely Small government, low tax conservative about the current administration, I await the political lesson with great interest…. “The size of the debt dosen’t matter, it’s the ability to pay” That alone is possibly the… Read more »
You seem to think because the Conservative Party doesn’t ape Trump’s Republicans that it’s not conservative!! 😆 You should stop watching InfoWars and Fox News, and get back to reality. They don’t believe in huge controlling government. If that was the case they would have left combatting the pandemic to the public sector. Instead they wisely used the private sector – hiring private hospitals to increase capacity, investing in the development and production of vaccines by corporations, booking hotels to house the homeless, etc. they’ve even taken a beating from the press for the money given in contracts to the… Read more »
Oh dear, it’s toys out of the pram time, run along sunshine and bother someone who cares what you have to rant about….
Talk about no clue…
Unable to refute my points your resort to childish taunts. Exactly the response I’d expect from a closet fascist, you probably think the earth is flat too…
Oh lord, you actually called me a fascist, I suggest you cool off and stop making a fool of yourself.
Don’t bother responding Sean, I actually feel sorry for you embarrassing yourself like this…
The youth of today ….
Given you subscribe to the opinions of modern day fascists, don’t act all hurt when it you get labelled as one too. Maybe it’s time for you to indulge in some introspection as to the morality of your political beliefs?
As for “youth of today”, your powers of deduction are as flawed as your political analysis. In all my sports, I qualified as veteran competitor nearly 2 decades ago.
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱 is there an annoying drone that’s just woken me up, must be Shaun, luckily his often repeated, recycled woke ‘right on’ drudgery will send we back to sleep soon enough….
Carry on Shaun, you know you ‘just have’ to have the last word, knock yourself out fella, you enjoy yourself👍
Just woken you up? I’m not surprised to hear you’re unemployed. Most fascists are incapable of holding down a real job.
You seriously think using an alternative spelling of my name will annoy me? That is the epitome of childishness. It’s not surprising though, as fascists are generally little more than schoolyard bullies. And we all know that bullies are insecure cowards.
And on, and on and on and on, 🥱🥱🥱🥱
I don’t suppose your veteran competitor status was in boring people to sleep by any any chance…
Hospitals could use you as an anesthetic you’re so brain numbing….
And next Sean rant in 3,2,1 …and away he goes🤣🤣
Obviously not, because you’re still awake and posting your lame responses.
I must confess, I have never encountered an individual so utterly lacking in imagination and originality. Your humour is a funny as a bucket of vomit and your insults as effective as a chocolate fireguard.
😵💫😵💫😵💫😵💫 It never shuts up, perhaps Sean is an AI gobshite bot🤔
You share the same traits; humourless, unimaginative, and inability to recognise that you’re beaten, with your heroes, Trump, Mussolini, Hitler. Causation or simply correlation, are people with these traits naturally drawn to fascism or does being a fascist result in these traits?
As a fascist, what is your opinion?
You have a few stability ‘issues’ I see Sean, sorry about that, I should have spotted it much earlier, dropped the ball there.
Keep taking the meds, seeking the help needed and most importantly get yourself well mate👍
You don’t see anything, you’re blind to everything but your opinions.
Such is the nature of a fascist.
I think he is in need of a dictionary, socialism has nothing to do with government spending and everything to do with ownership of the means of production. Conservatives oppose any form of change. Reagan and Thatcher Neo liberals all for reform and tearing down the state.
Trump is just corrupt and will spout the views of anyone he thinks will agree with him. Trump as publicly praised the NHS when it saves him paying for staff health insurance.
The level of political analysis in this site is laughable. One minute I’m accused of being extreme socialist, the next extreme right-winger. The ability to comprehend that there is anything other than someone who agrees 100% or ‘the enemy’ is laughable.
Fortunately politics in general is not this polarised, with the vast bulk of the population being centrist – drifting left or right on specific issues.
Trump has no political ideology other than opportunism. He just realised that the Republican Party would be the easiest to hijack to further his own interests.
Your Trump analysis is utter bull. You are as guilty of misinterpreting politics as the rest of us. Especially when it fails to meet your own agenda. Are you aware that for two years before the election, Trump had a large team conducting telephone polls. Asking a very broad selection of people from all demographical groups, what they wanted from the Whitehouse. Jobs was the main one. Border control was another, especially from the Hispanic population. Rehabilitation of offenders and ensuring youngsters did not follow their fathers into crime, was high on the want list for the black population. They… Read more »
Actually your equating conservativism with Neo liberalism, conservatives believe in not changing even if it’s from a socialist system. Stability is their major if not only goal. The current government is very conservative, they literally don’t have any policy in anything beyond balancing the books.
Thatcher who I’m guessing your emulating was not a conservative but a Neo Liberal. There is nothing is conservative doctrine about small government, that is Neo liberalism, conservatives are not inherently pro business or economy either just look at the corn laws that split the Conservative Party before.
Afternoon Jim, well I tend to take my political analysis from where many would consider conservatism to originate in its modern form, the Thatcherite general approach. So, Small Government, low tax, low borrowing the smallest state owned infrastructure possible an people working hard and betting themselves, most importantly, their own homes and private pensions etc, etc… In other words, personal responsibility. Outside of a degree in politics and harking back to the Wigs and pre WW1 Tories, this is the definition of Conservatism as most folks understand it, certainly people of my age. I can quite understand why youngsters wouldn’t… Read more »
Lack of council house building since Thatcher combined with low wages through importing people increased dependence on the state ( family credit, housing benefit etc). Outsourcing , PFI and allowing hedge funds to asset strip often lowered tax take with profits going offshore and to rich who use legal tax avoidance schemes .
So you’re saying it’s Tony Blair’s fault Peter, he’s the one that truly put this country on a coarse for the rocks and popped a brick on the throttle before taking to the lifeboat!
I would have to agree, we imported plasterers, Carpenters and brick layers from Eastern Europe, while a generation went to University to become sociologists or got a degree in financial services…
What could possibly go wrong with this picture 🫣😬
Blair did waste a lot of money on futile wars and told us to go green and then took hundreds of private jet flights “laughingly as a peace envoy “
The irony is certainly breathtaking Peter!
If Wallace had bigger testicles, he could encourage the military to make it’s voice reverberate around Westminster. Several thousand peaceful, highly organised uniformed demonstrators against defence cuts. Supported by as many veterans and families as we could muster. Would have a sobering effect on members of Parliament. Particularly if supported by the Monarchy.
The global media would be talking about nothing else.
Congratulations, that would guarantee us having our most competent defence secretary in decades being sacked. Not to mention having uniformed servicemen demonstrating would be seen as the military interfering in politics – it’s the kind of thing you associate with banana republics.
I suspect our servicemen are far too sensible to get involved in such an idea.
Demonstrations is exactly the thing Charles needs to avoid involvement in if he wants a future for the monarchy. Political interference by the monarch would just hasten its end.
That I’m afraid would have catastrophic constitutional consequences and weaken the UK in the eyes of the world.
I don’t think catastrophic, even if a little British nationalistic state tweaking is desperately needed. Just the rumour that something like that was being talked about would have sphincters twitching! With civil servants running for their “safe spaces.” It’s just an idea tabled for discussion. Which is exactly how BREXIT started. Do we all agree funding cuts have ruined the armed forces. Is there any merit in the following ideas and can they be improved. What say you all? Sorry, it’s another long one. Do you remember the open letters the French Generals and Admirals sent to their government. If… Read more »
It’s a little late for that….
Chip on shoulder time! Its ok, your not British, its ok, not everyone can be but its ok to cry.
What country are you from this week?
Joker 😂
I believe America tried something very similar on January the 6th 2021. 😀
Are you actually serious?
Then how do you explain BREXIT John?
The will of the British people to be independent and free on these islands is still strong. All they need is to be told the truth and asked to dig in. The political classes (Yes they exist.) have no idea what we all think. Until we are given a chance to show them. Don’t be fooled or disillusioned by the loud woke brigade.
Ah, hear hear. Bravo.
That is simply down to public ignorance of how dangerous the world is and how pathetic the numbers of armed forces personnel have become. If the military and veterans community united to re-educate Joe public. I think politicians would be surprised just how sympathetic the remaining British people would be. Just as they were by the BREXIT vote.
Exactly, why speculate when we’ll have the answers soon enough.
I’ll clear it up now Andy,
No more money, aside the 5 billion, no change in direction, further cuts in capabilities…
You can’t wet nurse a whole population (that you are expanding by hundreds of thousands a year with unchecked immigration) and pay for defence.
I expect little to absolutely no change…
So the unchecked immigration boosts the number of people in the economy with I grows the size of the economy and allows more spending on defence.
Low skilled people imported pay little tax and need to claim family credit and housing benefit etc . Remember companies like Rentokil said increasing the minimum wage would put them out of business lol !
No Mark. If that was the case, we would still be in the EU. So I call BS.
Interesting. What if we are not in the EU because people’s base instincts see the basic seat of power in the UK with the national Government. On defence the vast majority of people agree that we have should have a defence – the only question is how strong that defence needs to be.
The answer to the question how strong, is relatively easy. Strong enough to do the job of defending our national interests from known and perceived threats.
OK so defend our overseas territories (eg. Falklands) ourselves and enough to do the job in Europe as part of NATO or just the UK ourselves? Asia pacific? Joe public interacts with the NHS so is pretty vocal yet defence is like an insurance policy yet to be used. Politicians are relied upon to ensure we are adequately covered balancing the premiums against what else needs to be bought which Joe Public is being very vocal about.The media attempts to pick holes but really fails to understand the whole thing so stays quiet most of the time. Ben seems like… Read more »
Well said.
There needs to be some perspective with this.
The Army in 1914 was just under 300,000 men. The French peacetime strength at the same time was about 700,000, the German Army even larger, the Russian Army was around a Million and change.
The British Army is reducing it’s numbers even further is bad, but the comparison to the Armies of 1914 or 39 isn’t great, peacetime armies today in general are much smaller than they where back then.
It’s almost as if, back in those days, the government had reasons to believe that a large standing army was not the most effective way to protect the UK from other countries’ large standing armies.
A stance that was proven wrong when, instead of ending the wars in 1914 and 1940 respectively they dragged for years and bankrupted the country while we built the army.
Very true however the post war doctrine of deterence both conventional and nuclear has put us where we are today. 70 odd years of (mostly) peace in NATO countries has been the result. It is the combined force of all the NATO countries and their resolve to stand united which is important
Agreed, and it’s telling that all of the countries that have been visited by rather large groups of slightly lost Russian speakers haven’t been in NATO, while Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, etc that haven’t been visited by the same slightly lost Russians, have had Article 5 protection.
Absolutely. It will be interesting to see if those countries who don’t have article 5 protection and have been bullied by Putin in the past become a little more assertive in the light of what is happening in Ukraine.
I feel that you are making some large leaps of faith there to come to that conclusion. The millions strong land armies of the continental powers didn’t do much to end the wars quickly either.
Don’t be snide newby.
No “leaps of faith” needed, simply looking at the situation and looking at what happened and extrapolating what would have happened if we’d invested in our army, sorry if something so simple seems like a black art to you.
Snide? Coming from someone calling me a newby? I’ve commented here a few times over the last few years but that is neither here nor there. Why the hostility? I don’t think you can make the sort of extrapolations with any certainty and also rule out any of the counter ‘what ifs.’
You lowered the tone, don’t get your knickers in the twist if someone uses the same tone back to you newby.
It seems that you are just intent on being pissy with me for reasons that I can’t fathom. I kind of thought I was agreeing with your original point vis-a-vis the historic disparity in the size of the British army in relation to other European armies. I guess we can’t easily tell someone’s tone in text format. I’ll have to start using emojis more often. 😘
Again, you chose to lower the tone, then cried about it.
How old are you newbie? Good God grow up.
Esteban, anymore comments like that and you’re ou of here.
Chop chop the socks and pants need drying, 2 PARA Mortars expects good service from their laundry cuck!
Thanks, I needed that. 😆😂
What’s a high school….sounds a bit poss to me…I went to a comprehensive school…that had been a secondary modern a decade before….they basically had great woodwork and metal work classrooms but everything else was a bit shit…
To be fair in both cases it was really a problem with our European allies (cough cough French third republic) armies being generally not as good or willing to fight as their German counterparts. Infact on paper in 1940 the French army should have been able to handle Germany on its own, with forces to spare…without the help from what was a very small ( by European standards ) BEF…on paper France could mobilise a force of over 5 million soldiers.
Indeed, the French had systemic issues, but then on the other hand it’s worth remembering that the British Army didn’t have a single Armoured Division until the battle was almost over, and that got deployed on it’s own after Dunkirk. I think a line needs to be made to differentiate 1940 and 1914 however; 1914 the BEF was geniuenly tiny by the standards of the day, it just didn’t have the mass to effect the battlefield. In 1940 the BEF wasn’t huge, but it wasn’t small either, but it had grown rapidly, it hadn’t really worked on it’s doctrine, and… Read more »
The difficulty with comparing the size of land armies from WW1 to today is I suppose tricky. Armour, air power, drones, precision weapons means that in essence for each person deployed you have a far greater effective fire power. Ukraine might well get more than 1 million deployed but that is enhanced massively by the western weapons I presume.
Well said. But all this moaning will achieve nothing. What are we going to do about it?
We need to organise and make our voices/actions impossible to ignore.
Very true. That is probably why it was incredibly difficult for Allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to hold provences against the various insurgents as there was never enough Infantry on the ground to dominate and hold it
Off course technology replaces boots on the ground, in the Napoleonic war a division could hold a field on its own, now it’s dozens of miles of front.
Mechanisation massively increased what a soldier can do, now it’s digitalisation.
If anything the army is oversized relative to the other services and the threat we face.
Jim, are you puzzled that the army has more personnel than the other services? I’m happy to explain.
I served in Afghanistan – Task Force Helmand was about a third of what was really required.
Astonished you think the army is oversized. The regular army cannot now deploy a brigade group on an enduring operation – and could not deploy a warfighting division with three manouevre brigades with the ability to seize and hold ground – that is quite pathetic for a nation that spends what we spend on Defence.
Lots of the Gurkha lads were re-employed a few years ago, same terms and conditions but keep the pay off, and pension time served years! Good for them, get something out of their dedication and commitment!
No mention of special forces Sas and Sbs and Queens Regiment s
Queens Regiment became the PWRR.
Special Forces I believe are listed under their parent Regiment.
Sounds about right mate…
Good memory that. Strong.
Read too many books Paul, when I should have joined up.
I certainly have. I did try, actually, but the RAF rejected me! 😆
You’re too kind!! 😆 That boat sailed 30 years ago!
Having said that, being a civilian does not mean one is not knowledgeable or lacks an interest in the subject. It just means a lack of actual experience and knowledge on TTPs.
Maybe you need to increase your library? You might get more of the acronyms then. 😉
😋 I get the Ladybirds, they were classics. But how about “Commando” and War Picture Library? I have hundreds.
BTW, I recommend the new Ladybirds that are out for adults. Hilarious nostalgia.
That made me go and check mine. Not hundreds but 32 Combat Library including the first, 3 Commando and 5 WPL. I must have been more into words than pictures. My eyes must have been good as the typeface is tiny. I also have a decent collection of the booklets that were put out in WW2 describing what was happening in the war that were collected by my Grandmother. Some others I gave to the Shuttleworth Collection archives.
Shocking looking back how we were
In 1989 we had the BAOR and were facing off against the whole of the Warsaw Pact.
Today the vast majority of the Warsaw Pact are now NATO allies, and the potential opposition is only Russia and Belorussia. Russia has failed to defeat Ukraine and is struggling to hold the 18% it occupies.
Agreed, but our Armed forces are still too small.
“our Armed forces are still too small”
Too small to do what?
The regular army is too small to deploy a brigade group on an enduring operation such as Telic or Herrick.
You can’t help the feeling the “cuts” serve that issue..
Mate, are you saying that the cuts are to ensure that the army can’t deploy a bde on enduring operations?
The cuts are to save money – this serves only the Chancellor and the Treasury.
• Telic was Blair’s illegal invasion of another country based upon fake WMD claims
• Herrick was Afghanistan, where instead of simply destroying Al-Qaeda we stayed and tried to build a nation.
I hope to god we’re never so stupid as to try enduring operations such as those again, they were doomed from the start.
The U.K. and West can’t afford more failures like these. They embolden our enemies.
Do you have amy better examples of why we need a bigger army than the 2 deployable Divisions?
The issue is that our enemies are not sophisticated military analysts. They still believe in volume and mass. The fact that RAF could have taken out RuAF by itself and RN dealt with the Russian surface fleet didn’t calculate. To Mad Vlad he had – more and larger ships so it had to be better – more planes that flew faster – 100x the number of tanks The fact the planes have the RCS of a block of flats and the ships are as survivable as bath toys and the tanks pop their turrets when they smell and NLAW gets… Read more »
Exactly, all that Russia has to offer us a ‘target rich environment’.
My only concern would be running out of shells and missiles to destroy Russia’s armed forces, rather than not having enough troops/ tanks/ planes/ ships to fire them.
Agreed re Herrick and Telic, in Afghan should have gone in and got out, if they return then dose them again. These people live by tribal warfare an infidel occupying them will never win. I think Graham may have meant more of a NATO op mate than out of area ME, even though he used that as an example. In Estonia now we can only endure a reinforced BG. The 2 Division level you mention, if they were properly resourced, which they’re not as you know, would enable that to be at Brigade level with the army’s previous rule of… Read more »
Spot on, first went to Afghan in 2001, AQ were defeated both physically and morally by late 2003, and moved on to a number of East African nations! At the time the vast majority of Afghans either supported or at best were indifferent to the NATO troops being there! That is the time we should have left as an organisation and ensured we employed the “soft power” agenda with support, training and education, to the Afghans and Afghan mil! Alas, the West knew best and we fucked up what could have been a relatively friendly and supportive county on a… Read more »
One of your better posts.
I do try on occasion 😂
“Better” ? A’s posts are top notch. 😀
Not always. But in this case A+
Good post. The mission creep in Afghan was ridiculous – from taking out AQ to doing security work in Kabul to taking out Terry Taliban, to doing Provincial Reconstruction to destroying the poppy fields to guarding convoys of turbines for hydroelectric dams to mentoring the ANA and Police.
So hopeless – our politicians also failed to endorse sufficient manpower to do the job – such that Obama had to step in and surge US troops to Helmand – very embarrassing but very necessary.
We don’t have 2 deployable Divisions.
We should ideally have an Army commensurate with the size and value of what it protects. One figure cited in counter-insurgency literature is 1 infantryman or gendarme per 1,000 civilians. Also consider our GDP and where it comes from.
Not according to the British Army 🤷🏻♂️
Surely we should size the armed forces commensurate to the actual threats the U.K. faces. Which is why, as an island, our focus is on navy/air with the army as an expeditionary force.
Sizing on population is only credible when you’re occupying a country and you’re facing a counter-insurgency from that same population. We’re not currently occupying, or planning to occupy, any countries, and we aren’t facing a counter-insurgency in the U.K.
The British Army has laid out a goal of force-generating 1 deployable division in past defence whitepapers.
It’s not possible to size the Army to deal with all the threats it faces. The UK is no longer the world’s leading superpower. Defence of the British Isles is only one mission of many.
The point I was trying to make is that 1 in 1,000 is a very bare minimum figure.
Matt, I am not sure of your source for the stat. I use the RAND Corporation stats which have solid research behind them: “RAND analyst James T. Quinlivan looked at 13 historical cases and concluded that success required 20 troops were needed per 1,000 local inhabitants.” My source: https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/manpower-and-counterinsurgency Given that the settled population of Helmand is 1.446m, then we should have deployed in 2006 with a force of 28,920 (ie an Infantry division). We deployed with 2PARA BG with top cover from Comd 16AA Bde. Numbers were later stepped up to a Brigade Group (Task Force Helmand) of about 5,500. No wonder… Read more »
Sorry, I tried but couldn’t find the source of the figure. I did however find that the postwar occupation force in Germany amounted to roughly 2 personnel per 1,000, though it is noted that Germany had ceased resistance by 1946.
I agree that OpTelic was an illegal invasion. Kofi Annan and John Chilcott (and John Prescott, deputy to Blair) have all said so. Op Herrick’s focus on provincial reconstruction was a big mistke – the focus should have been to sutain work on the Glovbal War on Terror commenced with Op Veritas and Op Fingal. However these two major deployments were those instigated by HMG – and the army exists to be a military intsrtument of HMG. You may not ‘like’ the examples (above) of enduring brigade operations in the 21st Century but they were ordered by Government. The troops… Read more »
I think you’ve proven my point in that the only examples you could provide were either illegal, ill-judged, or both. If there’s no legal or advisable scenarios where we need an army of that size, then why have it? So a future government can go it alone with another illegal war or naive exercise to parachute democracy into a backward society(?), no thanks. NATO has 3.5million service personnel, why do we need more? The big issue for NATO seems to be having the munitions (ie shells and missiles) then the equipment (to replace attritional losses) for anything other than a… Read more »
So we shouldn’t have a 80k (or larger) army just in case politicians send them into combat in wars that you do not approve of?
So have a small army then which can do very little?
Do you feel the same way about the RN and the RAF? How small would they have to be, such that they couldn’t be misused?
We elected these politicians – we have to trust they use our forces wisely – thats democracy. Sadly, perfect politicking does not exist.
Not a question of whether I approve of the wars or not, it’s a question of whether they are legal and/or bar-shit bonkers. I was simply observing that needing an ally to act might act as a further brake on a gung-ho prime minister invoking the royal prerogative and going into an illegal war. As it is, I see us needing far greater military forces once climate change starts to destabilise countries. I don’t think we should increase them simply because “that’s how many we had in the Cold War” or “that’s how many we had at the height of… Read more »
Thanks Sean. Of course I have never advocated having forces of the size that we had in the Cold War or in the days of Empire – and I doubt anyone else does.
Just forces of the size that were agreed in 1991 for the post Cold War era – Options for Change was a good analytical defence review. Any cuts that happened since then were purely cost-cutting measures and were not because the threat had reduced.
Oh there are some on here who advocate Cold War or Imperial size forces, if not larger! 😆 I wouldn’t agree with the force-sizes planned in 1991 either, the world is a VERY different to what it was back then, with many new threats having appeared since. I think a review, with no preconditions or expectations, is required. Beginning with the known threats we face, and then trying to anticipate future threats that we aren’t yet aware of – yes the latter is impossible to identify comprehensively. After that force capabilities, size and shape can be worked-out. The one thing… Read more »
It matters not if they were illegal, ill-judged or both. What matters is they were short of numbers when they shouldn’t have been. If it had been legal, they were still short. To be honest, legal – illegal, who cares? The basics remain. Of course, sometimes you are on your own (eg Falklands). US supplied AA missiles. France was leaned on to supply no more AShM. The only other country (that I am aware of) to offer assistance was NZ – who offered to supply a frigate to the gulf to free up a RN frigate for the Falklands. Now… Read more »
“It matters not if they were illegal, ill-judged or both.” I can’t believe any rational human being who believes in the rule of law or cares about the welfare of our servicemen could say that. As for the Falkands, it was a mission the British military envisaged ever undertaking and so never prepared-for. A great many of our allies, as well as our opponents, feared if not expected a defeat. Consequently they were amazed at how well the U.K. performed overall. There were mistakes made, humans were involved. Some of these could have been foreseen, and some of these prevented,… Read more »
Too small to anything unilaterally, except the smallest and shortest lasting of military actions Sean.
We lack the mass for independent action, so too small…..
Maybe that is a good thing, as it reduces the chances of future gung-ho politicians like Tony Blair taking us into another disastrous, illegal, war like Iraq.
Sorry but that’s a ridiculous ‘arguement’…we should have small forces so we cant do anything-really?
Its the political governance that should control power hungry sycophants not the size of the military- and it failed in that regards for Iraq.
I didnt realise quite how small we have become and critical mass is an issue.
“Political governance” did not fail to prevent Iraq, it does not exist. Royal prerogative means that the Prime Minister can act unilaterally without any ‘political governance’ as you phrase it. If Rishi decides to unleash the CASD at Russia there is nobody that can legally prevent it. Are you up for abolishing the monarchy to put some political oversight into place? And you’re disingenuously twisting my words to say something they didn’t. I pointed out that not being able to act unilaterally might prevent further illegal action, I didn’t say anything about not being able to act at all. The… Read more »
wrong choice of phrase but you knew what I meant & no I didnt twist your words I took them to a logical conclusion. You used the fact the forces were small as something that would stop us acting unilaterally then used the fact we joined up with the US in Bush/Blairs escapde when that contradicts your intial rationale regards ‘not having a large army’ to ensure we exercised some control in our decision making. My assertion was simply that not having critical mass means that there will be times when we couldn’t/can’t act in our interests when required. The… Read more »
I take your silence to mean you would abolish the monarchy to end the PM’s opportunity to use Royal Prerogative, interesting… I try not to use my psychic powers when reading comments, being a straight talking Northerner I take comments at face value. I don’t try and guess if the author tried to mean something else but used a “wrong choice of phrase”. Similarly when I post I say what I mean, any “logical conclusion” extrapolated from what I write is your own delusion. Fact, we have a fixed budget, we have two choices; (a) lose some specialist capabilities which… Read more »
As far as I am aware, the monarch can override the PM. He/she is commander in chief of the UK military. The PM can declare all the wars they like. But the military is under the command of the monarchy. The PM may disagree, but I doubt they want to test it out. Those pointy things on the end of the rifles hurt. The UK constitution (such as it is) is deliberately cloudy. It would take a panel of eminent judges 10 years to come to a decision. By which time who cares? Do it again in 10 years time… Read more »
The monarch cannot override the PM, Charlie is commander-in-chief in name only: it’s purely ceremonial.
The military takes its orders from the government, which pays and finances it.
If you think the monarch is in charge, why is the Letter of Last Resort written by the PM? Nobody other than the PM decides or even knows what the letter dictates.
A good thing for the nation’s defences to be weak?
What politicians do with their forces is a different matter. We need strong forces to start with.
A good thing for the nation’s defences to be no stronger than they need to be – because that encourages misguided politicians to misuse them for offensive purposes rather than defensive purposes.
Sean, our armed forces have never,ever been solely for the defence of the UK homeland and the BOTs, but also to contribute to allied operations, be they US-led, NATO-led or UN-led. Some of those US and NATO-led operations are offensive in character. Future participation in alliance operations dictates their strength. We had an army of over 120,000 at one time as NATO required and expected us to put a substantial force into Germany (BAOR), not because that was required to defend the homeland. In a democracy we have to trust our politicians to employ our forces wisely – granted, that… Read more »
Still living in the past I see. The Warsaw Pact, apart from Russia and Belorussia, have all defected and joined NATO. So we don’t need a massive military to counter a threat which no-longer exists. You wrongly assume that by defence I mean frightening on the beeches, in the streets in the hills. We’ve always had expeditionary forces because it’s far better to be defend ourselves against our opponents in other peoples countries. That way the U.K. doesn’t get flattened by land-warfare: it’s the advantage of being an island. Since the end of empire, pretty much all of our military… Read more »
Sean, Living in the past?- all my comments were about the post- Cold War army, so did not relate to the opposition being the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact etc. Glad you recognise our historic, yet still relevant focus on expeditionary operations. I served in Afghanistan and didn’t particularly recognise the NATO ISAF deployment as being defensive in nature, what with 404 KIA fatalities and 2,116 WIA – and our mission being principally to take out AQ and their Taliban backers. You still seem to deny that the UK has got too small armed forces to meet our global Britain remit.… Read more »
The initial intervention in Afghanistan was defensive, to take out Al-Qaeda after the USA was attacked and invoked NATO Article V. The follow-on UN mandated ISAF mission was to establish an Afghanistan government, and rebuild its institutions and security forces. It was doomed to failure due to a lack of understanding of the culture. I don’t know whether our armed forces are too small or too big, correctly configured, possess the needed capabilities or not, etc, etc. I haven’t performed a thorough analysis of current and possible future threats, I just hope that is what is currently being conducted. But… Read more »
Taller you are, the bigger a target you are – you don’t need to be over 6ft to fire an assault-rifle. FYI average heights of elite units, such as USN Seals is under 6ft.
But then your follow-up comment about the U.K. armed forces shows that you’re a brainless idiot, so I shan’t bother wasting time trying to reason with you. Alas you can lead an idiot to facts, but you can’t make them think.
The kind of idiotic, incoherent ramblings I expected. I bet you even thought you were being clever or funny, possibly both with the response.
Utterly pathetic.
Your raging because I’m correct 😂
You’ve clearly had a sheltered upbringing if you think that is raging. A meaningless nonentity like yourself provokes no emotion in me whatsoever, just the observation that there is an awful lot of stupidity around these days.
As for being correct, I doubt you have been about anything in your entire time. But you probably have the memory of a goldfish so can’t recall all you’re previous errors. 😆
More predictable name calling and insults, so tiresome from a plastic field Marshal, got your cam crème on then, you’re certainly a would be military strategist who knows nothing
Nope, a fair assessment of your sad, inconsequential, existence.
I see you’re so hinged by this thread you’ve now lost the ability to even string together meaningful sentences and are throwing random words together – or is that your dementia?
What a nasty person, you would actually berate someone who suffers from an illness they have no control over, so you say I can’t string sentences together and use random words, which is utter rubbish of course, perhaps you should look at your ability to read & understand common everyday words & sentences, maybe you have some sort of dyslexia disorder which is affecting your ability to grasp an understanding of what you are trying to read, if so you have my sympathy, hopefully you can get some professional help with this affliction
It appears you don’t understand the concept of punctuation either. A single sentence of over 90 words, straddling multiple subjects, in a rambling rant that shows no evidence of any ability to present a coherent narrative case. Instead of separate sentences, grouped into a paragraph, you shove together various phrases with separate subjects into a single sentence clumsily concatenated with commas. The use of an ampersands in sentences is also considered as very poor grammar. Clearly you failed your English exams at school. I know several people with dyslexia, and they would find your attitude insulting and discriminatory to not… Read more »
You are a professor of English as well as a field Marshal, your talents seem never ending, so are you not being insulting & discriminatory towards me then
Not a professor of English, I simply had an education. Presumably you were asleep in class or playing truant?
Stupidly isn’t a legally protected characteristic, so I’m not discriminating against you when I accurately describe you based upon the evidence you present in your posts.
Clearly you have difficulty with reading & understanding, beginning to realise you could be lonely and you May have latched on to me as a substitute for your lack of friends too communicate with
That comment coming from someone who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” and incorrectly uses “too” instead of “to” is hilarious.
I think you enjoy being publicly humiliated, how long have you had this masochistic perversion?
You powers of deduction are even worse than your grammar and spelling. You’re no Sherlock.
And you keep falling for it professor 😂 , anyway it would seem you have a perversion for trying to ridicule people and to try and make them feel small and insignificant, ok I’m stupid I can’t string a sentence together I’ve got dementia and all the other derogatory stuff you say I have, does that make you feel good that you get off on being a cyber bully and being such a superior being, guess you probably reach the ticklish bit whilst putting others down, what a great toy soldier you are 👍
I’m falling for nothing, you just keep demonstrating to everyone here how stupid and deranged you are.
That’s simply a cold hard fact.
Oh dear, More derogatory name calling from someone with a superiority complex, you know nothing about me so you’re making assumptions because you don’t like my opinions
Anybody reading your posts knows that
• your English, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and composition are all remedial
• that you jump to conclusions about people who disagree with you, all of which have been spectacularly wrong
• that you think it’s acceptable to mock the neurodiverse, such as dyslexics, probably the disabled too
• that you are quarrelsome, even picking a fight in this article with the hugely-respected and mild-mannered Daniele Mandelli
I don’t think you have opinions, you’re not intelligent enough to form your own. Instead I suspect you just parrot what you’ve heard others say.
Actually it’s you who miscall the disabled and afflicted, just look at all the derogatory comments you have directed at me and are still doing so
I’ve criticised your stupidity and insulting behaviour, those aren’t protected characteristics. And if you do coincidentally have protected a characteristic, such as neurodiversity or a disability, that still isn’t an an excuse or reason for you behaviour or attitude.
You can only prod a dog so many times eventually it will bite back
You’re comparing yourself to a dog now? I think that’s disrespectful to canines.
Obviously you’re unfamiliar with proverbs & sayings for such a so called educated creature
Proverbs and cliches are the refuge of those too stupid to have original thoughts of their own.
Really ? Well you have just used one yourself , nice own goal
Wrong yet again. 😆
Yawn 🥱, find another hobby ffs
As contrast to your hobby of being wrong all the time?
Never heard of such a pastime, obviously an obsession of yours
Well if being wrong isn’t a hobby of yours then I guess it’s just your defining character trait instead.
We should go back to middle English , no correct spellings lol
No thanks, bad spelling helps to identify the uneducated and stupid.
If someone wasn’t educated does that make them stupid ? Of course it doesn’t but maybe some don’t have the sense to see that
And clearly you have no comprehension of propositional logic, or is it just your inability to comprehend English again?
People can be;
• educated and not stupid
• educated and stupid
• uneducated and not stupid
• uneducated and stupid
You fall into the last category.
That’s interesting, so you want keep conversing with an uneducated stupid person, an educated intelligent person would not stoop to miscalling afflicted people with derogatory and cruel comments
You think an uneducated and stupid person can predict what an educated, intelligent person wants?!? 😆
By definition they can’t.
Maybe, perhaps, if you put as much effort into reading educational and scholarly articles as you do into insulting people you wouldn’t be so uneducated. Just a suggestion for self-improvement there…
What people have I insulted ? I see you’re still at it like the school bully, which you probably were
Wrong again asshole.
Well at least if I’m an asshole I get rid of shit , it just builds up in you Mr colostomy bag
Glad to see you finally admit that everything you dump on this website is shit.
Really ? Well you seem to revel in it , but that’s what dung flies do I suppose, can you not find something else to do, am bored with your garbage
No I’m sick of your dung, but glad to see you finally admit to the nature of the content you post here. The big question is why you feel the need to post what you now acknowledge to be shit on public forums?
Yawn 🥱 again, you have just repeated your same old story, find someone else to bore ffs
Same old story is you being too stupid not know when your beaten 🤷🏻♂️
Beaten at what ? It’s you that’s too stupid to see that you are just a pest with little else to do, in fact I would say you are probably stalking me as you can’t let go , perhaps you could find someone else to stalk
Given I was already on this thread when you suddenly jumped into it with an insult about me, that makes you the stalker. Idiot.
I made no personal comment about you with my first comment, your sending this comment at 02:11 you are clearly suffering from paranoia and are definitely stalking me with an unhealthy obsession, I think you should take a long look at yourself
“ponce about doing unnecessary ceremonial duties”
Why are they unnecessary? They are used at state events and are thus completely necessary? Unless you’re a republican?
“chocolate soldiers” Even the HD are first and foremost trained soldiers, unlike the ceremonial units of certain other nations, so why are you calling professional soldiers chocolate?
“with the police looking after their security”
Yes and no. The military themselves guard Royal residences as well as police, so the security of the army, both in London and elsewhere, is not solely in the hands of the police.
I am Republican
I thank you.
Presidents are worse than Royals as they are funded by corporations and their masters want payback and they like to leave office rich re Clinton’s !
They are probably corrupt l agree, but modern day royals are a very corrupt lot costing many millions when people are homeless & hungry , many of those troops you see on ceremonial parades will be homeless & begging on the streets when the army has no more need of them
There were homeless and hungry with the pharaohs.
There were homeless and hungry under the Emperors of Rome.
There would be homeless and hungry under a President.
No excuse to get rid of our Monarchy.
Costing millions, yes, and yet the monarchy makes a profit for the Exchequer, a point often ignored, so their cost for what they provide is irrelevant.
The profit is just unproven and basically not true, going back to ancient Egyptian times or Roman just doesn’t stand up as modern society is meant to be a caring society which clearly it is not and the government are the worst offenders in uncaring
Total utter balderdash.
Lets leave it there John, thanks.
If you say so, is balderdash a race horse 🏇 you lost a bet on 😂👍
Look it up, John. No, I say leave it there as there is no point debating with you on a non defence subject on a defence forum after your previous contributions. So far, your contributions to the subject of “defence” include – “The anti Scottish comments arising again, but happy to use the country as an arms dump” I pointed out to you that they are anti SNP comments. not the Scottish people, we are all Brits and Scots are one of us. I also pointed out to you regarding “arms dumps” that there are actually more of them in… Read more »
Look at arms storage per head of population look at the statistics, Faslane & Coulport are very close to Scotlands largest concentration of population, you mentioned anti- SNP so perhaps you are anti more than half the population of Scotland who has voted them in, and what you mention of Sean does so well so are you advocating his insults and derogatory comments? Well if so that’s very amicable of you
Just to say Daniele, I mean no animosity towards you at all even though your views and opinions maybe very different from mine, but some people don’t have the ability to recognise tongue in cheek comments or wind ups and then become nasty and aggressive, I don’t consider you as that type of person, best regards 👍
Likewise John. No worries.
The army is a missile to be fired by the navy. (and RAF)
Considering the numbers above (inflated as they are with non deployable elements, reserves, and soldiers in training) the actual deployability of the Army once you consider injuries, non deployable roles etc, is probably closer to 40k
Probably right. Nicholas Drummond has posted an article on the Wavell Room suggesting an alternative structure to Future Soldier. This would deliver 2 UK divisions, one deployable or light, the other the heavy formation for peer operations. These would require manpower of @ 20k each, leaving 35k for other functions.
My biggest concern is the lack of reserves. Equipment lost in combat might take years to be replaced and the pool of trained manpower is too small to generate a significant force expansion in a crisis.
Do we actually need for than our 40k given they’ll be part of almost 2 million more from NATO?
You are assuming the next major war is NATO based. The world does not start & end with NATO. Most of the world’s nations are not part of NATO & NATO only comes into affect if NATO itself is attacked or you can get all the members to agree. NATO did not turn up to the Falklands. They won’t turn up for the French or UK Pacific & Indian Ocean Territories either or for old allies like Australia & New Zealand. Members like US, UK, Canada, France & Netherlands have alliances outside of NATO.
• The only existential threat to the U.K. lies within NATO’s region of operations. Our world starts with NATO and the collapse of NATO could certainly result in our end. • The Falklands was outside NATO’s region of operations at the time. As it is, the Salvation Army could probably deal with Argentina’s armed forces, so no future threat there. • You start your response dismissive of NATO, the worlds most powerful alliance, only to them start talking up all the other regional alliances we’re members of. Totally missing the point that we would act as part of an alliance,… Read more »
I was simply pointing out that NATO has its limitations & that for certain members, there are other alliances & territories outside of NATO that could drag them into a war that won’t involve NATO. As you say, NATO is the worlds most powerful alliance, meaning any other alliance a nation is a member of is going to be far less powerful, especially if it doesn’t happen to include USA. As an example, I would point out that there are UK troops based in Brunei, which adjoins & has claims in the South China Sea. I am not sure that… Read more »
I think that is a fair guesstimate. Then you have to consider what used to be called Permanently Committed Forces, eg troops in Brunei, Falklands, UN Cyprus, Training Teams with foreign armies etc etc – and you have well under 40k available for a new operation.
Whist that is true there is an issue of critical mass to cover a range of capabilities.
With some niche stuff you have two or more capabilities being covered by the same groups of people. There is an element of which, metaphorical, ‘hat am I wearing today’. Which has the making of a great comedy sketch.
The problem IRL is that you cannot do two / three things at the same time.
I think it would be wiser to allow NATO allies to cover a niche capability if the alternative is to pretend a jack of all trades can do several specialist roles simultaneously.
Ok – I can’t be too specific.
Some of these roles are the synthesis of many roles. Without the foundational roles the niche role cannot function.
The problem is NATO allies have zero interest in taking those on.
The lesson of Corporate is that we do need these capabilities otherwise there are major holes in what UK PLC can do.
I understand. This sounds like a lack of integrated planning within NATO. It sounds like the U.K. has decided to retain/possess these specialist niches – albeit with hat-switching being done – at the cost of boots on the ground. Whereas other countries don’t have these at all, and simply gone for the headline grabbing figures number of soldiers. While the latter is more politically expedient, I think the UK’s approach is the lesser of two evils, as specialisms take years to develop, whereas it’s faster to train infantry to a basic level in a crisis. Corporate was an action without… Read more »
The thing with Corporate was the prior assumption that we would always act with NATO.
As it turned out it was a non NATO shout.
What we have seen is that we cannot depend on France and Germany stepping up to the plate and the increasingly erratic USA will do, as it always did & now more nakedly, what suits its own interests.
With regard to Russia we can depend on the Nordics (not massive militaries) and ex Warsaw pact (not terribly sophisticated but lots of boots) members of NATO.
So I think we have to keep the specialisms alive.
Yes, but there’s not going to be a repeat of Corporate – unless Argentina suddenly finds itself on vast diamond deposits or discovers the secret to nuclear fusion. Do you really think France and Germany would not honour an Article V?…I would be very surprised because that would be the end of NATO. Yes, the USA is going through erratic times – much to my American friends horror. While a nightmare scenario is possible, that Trump (or worse) might become President and pull-out of NATO. However even without the USA’s vast military, the remaining NATO alliance would be more than… Read more »
Try learning something about the US. No President has the authority to unilaterally pull the US out of NATO. NATO is an international treaty ratified by the US Senate and a President would need the consent of the US Senate to withdraw from it. But don’t let that stop you foaming out of the mouth about Trump.
It seems I know more about the USA than you… While the American Constitution outlines the proceedings required for the United States to enter international treaties in Article II, Section 2, it does not lay out how the United States should extricate itself from treaties. Therefore, it is possible that any American president could remove the United States from Article II treaties – that is, those formally ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate – without Congressional approval. Aware of this loophole in the Constitution the Senate foreign relations committee has introduced a bipartisan bill (S.J.Res 17) specifically to… Read more »
Disagree. The real opposition is China.
So you want a bigger army so that we can single-handedly go and invade China?… 🤦🏻♂️
I’ve been trying to find your comment. The biggest threat to the UK is China. No where did I mention a bigger Army, did I?
Well this discussion is all about army size, so why bring up China then? 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
The article is about the size of the Armed Forces.
The wealth of China is mainly coastal areas , rising sea levels through global warming, lack of babies and time will reduce the threat !
Unbelievable…we had more than that deploy on ‘Active Edge’!!!
Yes John, it was. The deliberate slashing of our nations armed forces is nothing short of treason. The limp peaceniks, marxist stooges and vote buying politicians. Need to be held accountable for their actions. Peace dividend my derrière.
Wow I’ve never heard of President George H W Bush or Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher described as “limp peaceniks, marxist stooges” or as “traitors” before. I doubt you’ll find many agreeing with you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_dividend#:~:text=Peace%20dividend%20was%20a%20political,a%20decrease%20in%20defense%20spending.
Armies can be raised quite quickly when necessary, but what will they fight with? Armed forces fight battles but nations fight wars, and a de-industrialised nation is a disarmed one. This treason began far back in the 1960s. You can’t fend off an aggressor with digital currencies and takeaway apps.
Well said, it’s simple common-sense. I agree the moves to kill off our defence industries was treasonous. Ensuring secure supply lines for raw materials and high tech components, is vital for an indigenous industrial complex to function. A prime example being Russia. Now in a war and unable to build its most modern weapons. Due to vital components being embargoed by western power enemies. Britain must not fall into the same trap. The nation needs a deployable force capable of securing overseas resources when necessary. It’s interesting that everytime the CCP extends it’s belt and road initiative. They also negotiate… Read more »
Very disappointing that ukdj makes no attempt to show the numbers of officers from each service who are in tri-service appointments or in international appointments.
The information in the article came directly from the MOD. We don’t have access to further data.
The sanitised Navy List is available HERE
on the RN web site.
A detailed list with break downs to specific posts is only available via the restricted access MOD Defence Net
A good list for those who want to replace all those Rear, Vice, and Admirals. With WHO?
Some have no clue at the sheer complexity of the MoD and its varied organisations, all of which need somebody of authority to lead, represent, and liaise with the officers of other nations.
Odd reply??
He’s an Anglophobe troll who must patrol this website everyday to stick his beak in with his snidely comments. I wonder Esteban, what country do you hail from, what nirvana do you call home, and is it without fault?
Well said.
He is just a sad troll who comes on here to be sarcastic and anti UK. Best just to ignore him
I know it is a crude comparison, but if we compare the UK’s Armed Forces ‘per capita’ with the USA at roughly 5 to 1 then we would have plus 700 000 Regulars, ten large Aircraft Carriers, 55 Nuclear armed/Nuclear powered Subs, 90 Destroyers/Frigates, approximately a thousand front line aircraft etc.. Good morning John and Daniele! I remember a conversation in our High school class in Salisbury Rhodesia(as it was then!) when our History teacher was discussing the possibility of UDI with we fourteeen year olds. He said that the Rhodesians would have no chance-Britain had 15 000 paratroops alone… Read more »
Morning Daniele and John. I have just posted something that has been marked as waiting for approval as might be Sp*m?? I hope it is approved as I think it is very much on subject and contains some History which might be of interest. Please watch out for it and Mr. Editor- please allow!
Cheers
Geoff 20 degrees C
The automated AI recently introduced by the management to do the moderation may have reviewed all your previous posts and concluded that some of them were suspect. Such is life 🙂
Hi David-I plead guilty to being occasionally verbose and straying off topic sometimes, and oh yes, and regaling you with repeat stories from my youth in the Dark continent, but the post under review had two bits-comparing the size of the UK’s Armed Forces to those of the US of A, and secondly, recalling a discussion from 1963 between my fellow 14 year old classmates and our Teacher in the then Rhodesia(Zimbabwe). The topic was(and this is Scouts Honour true) the SIZE OF THE BRITISH ARMY!!! it is an interesting story relevant to the topic at hand so please George,… Read more »
We are waiting mate.
Making me nervous Daniele😂
Crack on mate, your straying off topic is always a pleasure to read 👍
Thanks Airborne. Imagine-15 000 Paras!!😉
Keep them coming Geoff, your comments are very interesting. It’s a shame Rhodesia fell to the marxists.
Thanks George-yes sad. It could have been a multiracial success story and model for the rest of Africa
Morning geoff!
Not rained here in sunny Surrey for weeks.
Hi Daniele-good news and you deserve a proper English Summer! I hope George will print my post-I think it is one you have not heard!!
Hi Geoff, looking forward to the read when the authorities have released it…..
Holding thumbs John-not award winning stuff😃 but a true story and apt considering the topic at hand.Cheers
One we’ve not heard before mate…? 😉
😁I don’t think so but let me know-it has been approved!!
😜
The Ulster Fry is even better Andy. Adds a variety of homemade breads including the best-Tatie bread. You have to try some. Your life will not be the same thereafter
These figures presumably include those in Phase 1 and Phase 2 training, and so don’t feature in deployable Orbats.
It also includes mpgs, ftrs, leps, high readiness reserves and nrps which are all non deployable. In fact when it states the size of the Regular Army then includes Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS), makes you think that they’re doing everything they can to inflate the numbers. Also the “High readiness reserve” is a nonsense, there’s no guarantee that these reservists (also not Regular…), would actually be deployable or available, regardless of the worthless (legally) piece of paper they signed indicating they’re willing to deploy (just look at 4gs fiasco during the Olympics, where their whole manning was based on… Read more »
Lets not forget that in these figures, there are multiple persons like me.. non deployable. I’m still in service but will never be deployable due to inuries. I am only an instructor and rear life support. which I accept and will instructors to walk away at any time, because there is no one coming through will instructors to do the REME stuff I do.
The article says the numbers EXCLUDE full time reservists, mpgs, gurkhas, etc etc. But still too small.
Yup, my reading failed me! However it does include soldiers in training, awaiting discharge, medically unfit etc.
I think i read somewhere that there were around 64k civil servants across the MOD, maybe we could use them as a formed unit if needed 😀
It would be very interesting to see if the MiD numbers have fallen as far and as fast as military numbers. I suspect not!
Yes, thanks for adding that in. My point in referencing the trainees is that it has always been said that the 82,000 were trained soldiers (done Ph1 and Ph2) and that the goalposts then shifted and the 73,000 are part-trained ie done Ph1 only. But very wise for you to add in the other guys who are non-deployable. So many seem to think that every soldier in green kit is deployable. You other post with a SWAG of 40k being deployable sounds in the right ballpark. Then delete those on PCF duties to find out how many could actually deploy… Read more »
I know during Op OLYMPIC we wee struggling so badly for manpower that we cancelled post tour leave from Afghan and the COAs left to us (briefed to ministers) were: 1. Take the third term of Sandhurst as a formed body and cancel sovereigns parade 2. Take regulars from reserve units and careers offices 3. Shorten pre deployment for HERRICK training Luckily 4GS started to step up and we escaped by the skin of our teeth. Interestingly use of the reserves was discounted as it was too expensive, which makes you question the logic of downsizing the regulars and arguing… Read more »
Thanks for the dit, mate. Why is it all our options are poor options!
Interesting that the TA (as they were then) were expensive. I guess that MoD would have had to compensate bosses for their loss from the workplace and pay the Terriers too.
Yup, that, also the pay for reservists when mobilised can be more than you think. For example mobilising Pte Blogs who would be paid as a private if regular, may be paid a lot more depending on their civy job. Ie the Army pays them their civvies wage if its more than what a pte would earn. There are caps, and supposedly “intelligent” mobilisation, but in practice it generally costs a lot more to mobilise a reservist. When it’s a lot of them it can be very expensive.
Very good point mate. You were right in saying politicians were deluded in thinking that replacing Regs with reservists would save money.
“However, Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) personnel, Gurkhas, mobilised Reservists, Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), Locally Engaged Personnel (LEP), Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS), High Readiness Reserve (HRR), and Expeditionary Forces Institute (EFI) personnel are excluded from these numbers.”
Right there in the article.
Thanks Dern. That will also be of interest to ‘Vet’.
I’ll call 1 MWD then! 😀
yeah Thanks Dern, already acknowledged i misread! However it does still include workforce in non deployable Pids, soldiers still in training, medically downgraded etc, and not sure why they separated the Nursing Services from the regular Orbat!
I wonder how many that is lost on…
But how many Civil Sevants are there? With the Arm Forces being cut how many off the CS has been cut?
A lot at DE&S and their predecessor organisation – DPA and DLO. Too many. Why do you think we have fowl-ups like Ajax?
Today is totally different from 2 WW. No need for RAF. Teach soliders to fly drones and rockets. Transport aircraft under control of Army and jets under RN. Ukraine has shown the way. Learn from it.
You’re contradicting yourself, you say there’s “no need for RAF” and “Ukraine has shown the way”…
Ukraine has an air force…
Ukraines army has shown the way. Russia allegedly has 2465 planes including 1200 fighter jets, 400 transport and 125 bombers excluding helicoptersand drones. Ukraine has about 56. With such superiority why are the Russian’s failing. Reason is ground based Ukrainian defences have shot down 70. The soliders on the ground are the ones who show true grit. Why spend 50 million on a jet when the soldier with a shoulder firing missle costing 50k can take it down. Time has changed the day of the mythical Top Gun is over. Soldiers firing missiles and flying drones is the future. If… Read more »
How much is Putin paying you to post this rubbish? 😂
And if you want to pretend to be a Brit, improve your grammar.
Your mum let you have the computer for an hour then nobber?
Yea sorry we shouldn’t really mock the afflicted😄
The numbers still seem top heavy, we have to question the value we get back with budgets so constrained at the moment. It now seems more significant and painful cuts are here, all services need to take a hard look at the Rank structures. For example does the UK representative to the IHO have to be a Rear Admiral? A posting to Monaco is never going to be refused, should this be a civilian role? or possibly someone of a less senior rank? I don’t question the importance of Hydrography to the Navy. Just because the UK rep to the… Read more »
REME cut the rank of their professional head of arm from Maj-Gen to Brigadier many years ago.
That has been done across the services. I keep pointing it out when the anti braid brigade surfaces, you have to have someone of authority in charge of the literally hundreds upon hundreds of directorates and organisations that make up the MoD and the forces. .
True. DInf was reduced to Brigadier many years ago – and numerous other examples abound. Brass/braid is cut where it can be.
I was having this discussion on twitter, and someone got irate and sweary at me for pointing out that 160X Commander has responsibility for MACA and basing for 8,000 square miles of Welsh landscape, which isn’t something you can just hand to an SO2.
An excellent example.
Ranks for external postings like IHO generally don’t tend to be about “Nobody will accept this posting if we make it a 1* posting.” It’s about authority and perception of allies. Like it or not, when working with partners rank matters, and carries authority with it.
That might carry some weight, except the UKHO Head is a Civi, as it is a civi organisation. (I accept the head is formally RAdm & former UK rep to IHO) Germany, Denmark, Canadian reps are all Civilians. With budgets so constrained and no sign of any increases anytime in the future, I just do not see how we can say we have always done it this way and it still stacks up.
Doesn’t matter, the rank you send is directly correlated with how seriously your partners will take you, how much authority you hold at the table, and how much people will listen when you want to say something.
It’s not a “we’ve always done it this way.” It’s “Rank matters when you send military personnel to deal with foreigners” even more than when you are dealing with something internally. I’ve seen it first hand more times than I can count.
The IHO role is probably equivalent to a Board of Directors in a large Multinational Company. You are not going to send Terry from the IT dept. To Send a comparable level CS it would probably be equal to or more expensive.
Thanks GB, that makes absolute sense to me and I kind of suspected that would be the case, but I don’t know enough about CS levels so I decided to keep my mouth shut rather than risk saying something wrong 😛
But surely the army is there to rescue people from floods etc not to fight wars according to the latest recruitment ads totally different concept from when I served on MBTs.
A rather confusing mah up of a recruiting PR campaign for the Army, heavy enthesis on civic response with a dose of fighting terminators ….
Don’t get me going on that one! The RMs have top notch, gung-ho/stealth adverts drawing in the young people who want to do that stuff, the Army have a load of clowns wandering about in a flood, with a hi tech head fucking torch!!!!!!!
Numbers will stay low because no politician of any shade will grasp reality. And 7 million waiting for health treatment will prove to be a “vote grabber”. Also, very few modern youths can hack the shack, let alone want to get involved. Finland and Sweden have got it right. If you want mass? Conscription. If you want “quality but with capability gaps”? Carry on as we are. I remember when we had a degree of “mass”. Because we knew what was at the other side of that 1945 line. I got slated the other week for daring to suggest a… Read more »
Hi folks hope all is well. As ever, I rely upon you experts for advice on military matters as I’m still learning such an interesting subject. From first glance, the numbers are very low, and I think we can all agree with that. However, the use of AI will and is playing an important role now. But if course can’t take and hold ground, whic is of concern in the event of an emergency have to do military deployment. It’s fine to mention the NATO joint commitment, nonetheless, as a nation we as the UK must have a fully operational… Read more »
Also drones and cyber gadgets can’t take and hold ground or wield a bayonet.
Good Day George. Thank you for this site and for allowing me to participate. It is entirely your right to delete any post that you feel is unsuitable but please could you review mine from this morning that was placed under review? I cannot see where I have offended the Censors and it is a true story about a conversation on the size of the British Army that was held almost 60 years ago to the day! It has been an ongoing topic for Centuries but I really think the guys(especially Klonkie) would find interesting
Kind Regards
Geoff
Does it include a link? Links are automatically held for manual review to prevent spam.
Posting asking for your post to be accepted makes no difference, they’ll see your post held in the queue long before they scroll through the comment section and see your appeal.
Thanks Dern
Sometimes I’ve had the odd comment awaiting for approval.
It seems to be completely random as the odd time it’s happened it’s been a normal post with nothing bad in it.
Perhaps the system just pulls 1 every so often at random.
Cheers MS. I shall re-read and try again!
Simply telling us what we already know. Accountants do not do anything Military. As for the “glossy expensive recruitment campaign”, that’s all well and good, however the government put a huge barrier in place, which can be turned ‘up or down’, whenever they want, when they handed over recruitment to a private company.
The military is not ‘loved’ nor cared for in the minds of bean counters. They are merely looked at as a necessary evil, and the first to take money from, when times are hard.
More admirals than ships ,more generals than tanks sums up the uk military in a nutshell . Glad I’m no longer serving, and I feel sorry for the personnel that are in the position of having to defend our country . with top range equipment decades in procurement and many times over budget the once proud military of the uk is becoming a laughing stock and in my opinion is now basically a defence force .
James, senior officers (your generals and admirals) don’t just command military units and formations – and ships at sea. There are a huge number of staff jobs and defence diplomacy jobs that are essential. True, surely, in other professions – I bet Tesco has more senior managers than stores etc.
Many equipment procurements have gone badly, it is true.
I think you are exaggerating to say that our forces are a laughing stock. Who is laughing exactly?
Tesco is a privately run entity accountable to shareholders and earn money by providing a service that public either buys or doesn’t.if it’s profits go down then management gets sacked directors don’t get bonuses and share prices drop . Our military is there to defend the realm and protect the country , a job made almost impossible by political mismanagement and continued underfunding of the military . I very much doubt our military could mount an effective campaign such as the Falklands conflict and that campaign had an enormous amount of luck . 85 brigadiers and over ,41 admirals,and in… Read more »
“the Uk is rated at 5 in world military terms which I can see very little proof of .”
Because, while numbers matter, so do other things.
James, my Tesco example was to point out that in no walk of life can you determine the number of ‘managers/top brass’ by the number of units. I wasn’t aiming to discuss profits and shareholders etc. I certainly agree about a lot of political mismanagement of our armed forces and I saw much of that during my 34 year career in the army. Key issues concerned mission creep regarding operational deployments and unwelcome interventions in procurement which delayed projects, jacked up the cost and sometimes caused inferior equipment to be procured. Other points rankled such as cuts in allowances and… Read more »
I agree with you in so many points you make pay, allowances , accommodations to name but a few , I believe the services do a fantastic job , and I am proud to have served 12 years in the Royal Air Force and would do it again in a heart beat if required to protect the country ,although at 62 I feel my contribution may be lacking ha ha , I’m sure you agree that friends you make during your service are brothers for life . I think I digressed from the point I was trying to make ,… Read more »
Thanks James. I mostly enjoyed my career but it was short on op tours – two in 34 years! I enjoyed the places I served in as a singlie and as a pad. I felt that the job wherever it was, was fulfilling and worthwhile. I too have seen many of my old posting points having closed down – especially all those in Germany. Our forces today have so many problems – understrength, underpaid, and often working with kit far older than the soldiers, sailors and airmen.
The biggest enemy was always politicians and the Treasury!
We agree on so much, and our differences are minimal,we all want the best for our past friends and future service personnel thank you for your service
Does anybody not realise that the armed are mainly for the protection of the UK and the size of our armed forces are so thinly streached we would be a walk over by anybody who wanted to conquer and occupy us. Look at the length of our coastline and all the lovely beaches we are so proud of,.we would be a walk over.
Oh no. I’m not going to sleep tonight now.
Do you have any more information on who is building this secret amphibious assault capability and is planning to invade us ?
I personally think a pincer movement, a joint EU attack by France and Ireland….
Fear not, we have traps suitable for both invading forces….
Upton hearing the invasion bells, the modern day auxiliaries ( farmers markets) would deploy to the beaches, the delicious mix of artisan cheeses and cured meats, this would immediately make the French assault fall apart…
Meanwhile on the West Coast, the pubs would swing into action, spring their Happy Hour Paddy traps, with cut price Guinness….
All over by day 2, without a shot being fired…..
😂
The Peoples Republic of the Isle of Man is making a small armada and will land tomorrow. 🙂
Who would that be? Russia or China? Iran? N Korea?
I know things change and one day a fellow European neighbour might not be a NATO ally, but still….!
After the Conservatives won re-election in May 2024, the opposition parties (Labour/Lib-Dems, Greens, SNP and the rest) set about taking control by the use of the bullet and the bomb what they failed to achieve via the use of the ballot box using voter ID as the reason why they didn’t win. They found new friends in Strasbourg and Washington who agreed to fund an invasion of the Uk and replace the Tory government with one of their choosing. The date set for the invasion was the 17th of May 2025, when limp wristed collaborators at the BBC stated that… Read more »
As usual, nothing short of brilliant! 😆
Apologies for the grammatical errors, I did post it before, spotted the mistakes, changed them and then found my post sent to mod. So I had to search back on word and couldn’t be arsed to go through that effort again. Saying that I expect some wonk to be offended with said post removed.
Best thread in ages Farouk, as ever beautifully written!
🤣
Hey Farouk-lovely stuff but now I am really mystified. You write a fine piece about the battle of Britain 2025 and I post a bit about the size of the British Army and get shipped of to Prison in St Helena. Tain’t fair 🙁
I’m still not seeing it mate…
😂😂
How much time do you have on your hands Farouk? FFS a new level of hilarious piss taking 😂😂😂👍
Little, if any, of the army is trained and roled to defend the UK. Many counties have few if any troops who could do Military Home Defence, even if roled and trained to do so. The whole of West and East Sussex has one reg unit stationed within it – and their job is mobile air defence in 3 Div, not to defend the coastline or interior of those 2 adjacent and large counties.
Yes, as there is no threat. The threat that is there is from terrorism, CBRN incidents, and espionage, and that will mostly be province of the police and the intelligence services. I had a brief peruse seeing just what army elements have a home based role that could possibly be used short notice before the AR is called up, I have probably missed a few to add. Terrorism area Army wise is obviously mostly dealt with by the SF and several varied small sub units of the CS/CSS that support them or in other UK roles that will respond to… Read more »
Thanks Daniele,
I was not advocating for UK-based army units to be roled or trained for MHD – it was ‘a thing’ in the Cold War and I remember Ex Brave Defender very well (Sep 85). It involved 65,000 servicemen, both regular and reservist, who would have a home defence role on mobilisation. The TA including the Home Service Force, had an important role to play in the exercise. Some US forces were also involved. Enemy forces (Spetsnaz) were played by 1,000 soldiers.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1985/mar/21/exercise-brave-defender
Indeed most of our armed forces, especially army, are expeditionary in nature.
Morning mate. I know you weren’t, I just thought I’d take a look at the ORBAT at who could be at short notice who are not committed to another formation elsewhere.
I have mentioned the HSF here before, if I remember 5,000 strong and made up of over 55s or something for KPs only?
I imagine if we face that situation again the AR do the same again to some extent.
Hi Daniele, HSF – a blast from the past. A short-lived ‘Home Guard’ who were well-recruited. Wikipedia is good. “The Home Service Force (HSF) was a Home Guard type force established in the United Kingdom in 1982. Each HSF unit was placed with either a Regular Army or Territorial Army regiment or battalion for administrative purposes and given that formation’s title, cap badge and recruited from volunteers aged 18–60 with previous British forces (TA or regular) experience. It was introduced to guard key points and installations likely to be the target of enemy special forces and saboteurs, so releasing other… Read more »
Hi Graham. Funnily enough, I thought I recognised that Doc! And I was right. And old one too. However. “Military Home Defence (MHD) of UK territory7 against an external military threat. Although MHD is a dormant UK operation, details have been included to reflect its close association with both MACA and the Standing Home Commitment (SHC) military tasks.” We know MoD have contingency plans in place, even if forces are not allocated on a day to day basis, so a skeleton set up that could be expanded as needed. That is how I read into that. I think, obviously, the… Read more »
Another note, I have read that a Home Office Duty Officer ( HODO ) remains in place at the NADOC regards warning from the BMEWS. Assume that is still the case.
Thanks for this. It is puzzling that politicians like to spout that the first duty of Government is to protect the people then do little MHD, except to dismantle what we had. Interesting that the RM have a Cdo that protects SSBN related facilities – scope to expand the concept to many KPs? Not saying it would have to be Royals, of course. I am sure there are contingency plans for MHD – perhaps I over-ranted. I used to do the REME input for contingency plans in the MACC/MACA domain, which was of course rather different. I think there is… Read more »
I don’t think you ranted at all mate. It is fair comment, where is the prep, if any? I think it is there, but very low key and in certain key areas only. Yes, 43 Commando. Used to be known as Commachio Group RM, then Fleet Protection Group RM. I believe they provide final denial within Faslane and Coulport, so in the inner secure areas around the nuclear facilities and boats, and the outer defence is left to MoD Police. Interestingly, I believe they also provide escort, along with the SEG of the MoD Police, for “Green” convoys which transport… Read more »
I think the nuance here is that the Regional Command Hubs also have the combat arms units in their region available to use, so if a terrorist, or, in some wild and whacky world, conventional threat, they could mobilize forces up to Brigade Strength locally?
FYI the Incremental Coy’s haven’t been renamed PD teams, they’ve just been grouped together into a quasi-battalion for administrative purposes.
Morning Dern.
Good to know re the Guards Coys, thank you. Where did I get that PD term from I wonder?
Yes, I did not include the varied RC HQs with local units allocated to the Field Army or deployable formations, I was looking at the odd ones out from that, which are exremely small. But yes, all true, form them into an ad hoc unit like the German Kampfgruppe if need be. It is fantasy world anyway as no threat like that is likely.
It’s the name given to the new-quasi Battalion,
So it’s the Public Duty Teams with the Incremental Coys as it’s sub units.
Pretty daft if you ask me they should have just gone the whole 9 yards and “We’ve almagamated the Incremental Coys into a new Foot Guards Battalion.” But nope.
Right, now I get it, thanks.
Laundry time son, come on those pants and socks don’t wash themselves.
I think a flank sonar is something only mounted on submarines. It’s a passive detection array.
There is a really in depth study of one here.
https://egecetin.github.io/Projects/flankarray.html
The regular army number hardly qualifies as a standing army. Considering the primary duty of government must be defence. HM Gov. have really let Great Britain down. In my opinion this negligence of duty crosses the line and should be considered an act of treason.
The military themselves should shoulder some of the blame. Together with the ex-services veterans community, meaning people like us! Had there been some level of formal organised resistance to the downsizing and budget cuts. Things would have turned out very differently.
It was major then primeminister who like the war weary at e nd of ww1 thought the first gulf war was the end of war started the extreme down sizing with outrageous redundancy money , there thinking no more Soviet union no more war=no more armed forces. And to all you piss takers are we not being invaded by aliens every day and nobody stopping them infact helping them have younot heard of 5th columnists.
No we aren’t being invaded by aliens everyday. But we are having economic migrants along with some refugees arriving here illegally everyday. The migrants should be deported immediately, the refugees should have their cases adjudicated quickly and fairly. As for the peaceniks/ fifth-columnists/ traitors who advocated for the peace dividend, let me remind you of the two lefties responsible: “Peace dividend was a political slogan popularized by US President George H. W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the light of the 1988–1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, that described the economic benefit of a decrease in defense… Read more »
“level of formal organised resistance” – to the democratically elected government? Sounds like treason to me. 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t understand the uproar at the reduction in the size of the army. The Cold War was the exception for a large standing army. The RAF is now a third of the size and the navy is less than half than at the end of the Cold War. It was inevitable that at the end of the Cold War the army would reduce. Every single army did. The German army is near 1/6 of the size than at the end of the Cold War. Both Belgium and the Dutch had a Corps. The focus on the USSR destroyed the… Read more »
The Options for Change defence review i the early 90s reduced the army from 160,000 to 120,000 so that it was right-sized for the post Cold War world. So why has it been cut multiple times since then to 73,000? That’s the issue.
Clearly 120,000 for a nation is unrealistic. Of course I’d prefer at least 82,000 but it doesn’t make sense to increase the size of the Army when the Navy and RAF have been cut so much. The Navy excluding RM is just 27,000. That is way too small for a nation of the interests we have. If instead we just want to stop all our global deployments, pull back RN ships from the Middle East, cut a carrier, and order a few more T26, then it is enough. Even then extra personnel should be send to the RAF. Supposedly there… Read more »
120,000 was realistic from 1991 when this lower figure was set as the figure for the post Cold war army ie 40k less than it had been. What reduction in threat has occurred since 1991? Has the country got poorer since 1991? No and No. Therefore we should still have a 120k army. The only reason for about six cuts since then is ‘to save money’ to spend elsewhere in Government, especially in Health, Social Services and Education and to service an ever increasing National Debt. You accept an ever reducing army, but not an ever reducing navy. Is that… Read more »
The US army is roughly 440,000 but wants to be 480,000. Their economy is 8 times larger than ours. We can’t model of anybody else other than the US if we want to be expeditionary future increases in personnel need to go to the Navy or RAF. We are an island nation. If we were to invest more in home defence, the first thing to buy wouldn’t be an extra regiment of tanks. It would be more Typhoons, F35B, ASHM, SSN, P8, T26, T83, Sea Guardian, SSK etc. The army would buy more GBAD and NSM launchers and more MLRS.… Read more »
Why do you think you only need naval and air forces for expeditionary operations? How many army bods do you think deployed to both Gulf Wars, the Balkans, Afghanistan? You can’t ignore the army’s role in deploying overseas and doing deterrence, warfighting or stability operations. How does F35B, ASHM, SSN, P8, T26, T83, Sea Guardian, SSK – help with Home Defence? F35Bs are on the carriers miles from our shores, as are the escorts and S/Ms. Tanks – true the army does not need tanks for MHD within the UK. We invented the tank and first deployed it in 1916, and… Read more »
Didn’t say you done need an army for expeditionary ops. Just said you need a large air force and navy.
Unless the threat of invasion was from France, escorts would be very useful, SSN is our best way of sinking ships. The enemy can’t teleport here so the invasion would have to be seaborne with airborne as well. Attack is the best form of defence as the saying goes, you wouldn’t wait for ships to land, or aircraft to land, you’d destroy them as soon as possible.
Army Reserve are best placed for disaster relief etc.
I just thought as you didn’t mention the army, you had written them out!
Pity we don’t have enough SSNs – rule of three suggests you may only have 2 available and one is protecting the CASD bomber.
I am having a discussion with Daniele about who would defend KPs with the demise of the HSF in 1993. Surely that is one for the AR.
It’s a shame HSF was disbanded. The army doesn’t make any use of the Regular Reserve, it has lots of expertise and manpower. IIRC HSF companies were going to be stood up on the continent for the countless ex army living there but the end of the Cold War put an end to that.
I had not heard there was a plan to raise HSF on the continent (probably meaning Germany).
We now have no troops specifically roled and trained to defend KPs in the UK (AFAIK).
Good point on use of the Regular Reserve – I left the army at 53 and was in RARO (Regular Army Reserve of Officers) to the age of 65 (I think) – they had even abandoned the annual Reporting Day by the time I left the Regs in 2009. Reg Reservists could have had a Military Home Defence (MHD) role – that’s a great idea.
That’s my mistake. It was a ‘continental TA’ they were looking to set up. 2,000 personnel. The roles were mainly logistics and RAMC with a some RE and RA and very small amount of RAC and infantry. The units were mainly section/platoon, with a few guard companies planned. This is all from the national archives.
To think we could fit all our Army in a football stadium and still have more seats,Crazy 🙁
You are correct. The size hardly qualifies as an army. More of an expeditionary force. It’s certainly not capable of sustained fighting in a world war, for more than a few days. It’s a poor comparison given their situation but the Israeli Army has a regular standing force of over 125,000 and a reserve of 400,000. The population is less than 10,000,000.
But Israel has national service. Our Armed Force’s are all volunteers.
That’s not the point Robert. The population size is and they can sustain such a large armed force. Necessity and political will.
But you cannot compare our geographical location. Look who Israel has on its door step. And Israel cannot deploy across the globe like we can. Completely different situation.
I did say. “It’s a poor comparison given their situation but ..”
The relative national populations and economies still make the necessary point. If they can afford it, then so can we. Given the political will to do so. The world is a dangerous place.
It is, and UK Armed Force’s are still a key players on the world stage. We can’t keep comparing to what we had in 1990. We had more numbers then, but a lot of totally shite equipment, that was very much highlighted during the Gulf War.
George – if there was another world war, I am sure we would quickly expand the army as we did before (so long as we had some notice!). Prior to WW1, the UK-based army was just over 100k (Total was 275k), but expanded and at its peak in WW1 was 3,820,000 men and could field over 70 divisions. WW2 – army numbers increased to 3.12m The Israeli example does not stand up as a comparator, as you yourself admit – they are surrounded by hostile/potentially hostile nations who they have had many serious wars with over the years. Better to… Read more »
Well said Graham
I strongly disagree. Firstly with the suggestion that there should have been a reduction in the size of any of the branches, post Cold War. The so-called peace dividend was at best wishful thinking. With hindsight it was pure fantasy invented by politicians who looked at the defence budget as a cash cow, with which to buy the popular vote. Because they got away with it once, they just kept cutting and spending elsewhere. The 1990 invasion of Kuwait, should have been sufficient early warning of the coming unstable shift in geopolitics. With the global nature of trade and resources… Read more »
This isn’t a military dictatorship though. At the time it would’ve been impossible to get away with not decreasing the size of the military. There are plenty of armies smaller than ours. Polands is a similar size. Nobody wants to give money to the military. The issue we have is the Tories end up making a mess of public services and living standards, so the public don’t want more funding for the military. Labour can’t run an economy so they don’t want to spend money on the military. If the money isn’t there, it isn’t there. Cuts happened in 2010… Read more »
You wrote: “At the time it would have been impossible to get away with not decreasing the size of the military.” I must call BS on that statement. Despite everything you mention and more. The people think otherwise, read on. Three main areas to cover. Our country/economy has just absorbed two years of lockdown. Had we made that effort in the name of defence, the income from our indigenous strategically important, military industrial complex. Would not have been lost. Along with everything that entails. Closing one factory devastates an entire community and numerous supporting businesses. The nation would have been… Read more »
Defence cuts did not only happen in 2010!
Why do the air force and navy need more personnel? What is it that they cannot do with their existing head count?
For the army, defence cuts mainly happened in 2010 though. 107,000 personnel I think right before the SDSR. That means only 13,000 were cut in the 20 years between the end of the Cold War and 2010 which isn’t unreasonable.
In Options for Change, RAF size was placed at 75,000 and RN at 60,000. The Navy is now at half that, and the RAF even less.
RN and RAF would both benefit from increased headcount. Granted they would benefit far more from more money.
Army was cut from 120,000 to 73,000 between 1991 (post Cold War start state) and now. Cuts to manpower affect the army disproportionately as the army equips the man and the RAF and RN man the equipment. That amount of cuts equate to the loss of 47 units (be they infantry battalions or artillery regiments). RN has been cut from 60k to 33.4k and RAF from 75k to 32.7k All cuts are bad, particularly as they are not in accord with any reduction in threat or workload, so I call them all unreasonable. There would be outrage if the same… Read more »
I agree, the most noticeable cut was the 2010 reduction of 25,000 army personnel, there should’ve been a lot more outrage to that. RAF and RN of course do man the equipment as you put it but extra manpower would benefit them a lot. Extra RAF manpower would allow for proper dispersal of aircraft in case of war, or a rejuvenated RAF reg with AD systems (they’ve recently started operating LMM in CUAS which is good to see). Extra RN manpower could allow T45 sonars to be manned, or both Albion and Bulwark to be manned. In reality RN numbers… Read more »
There’s also certain industry that was messed up before the end of the Cold War. Dropping MBT 80 and proceeding with the terrible Challenger 1 was the end of our tank industry. MBT 80 certainly would’ve got export orders. Even if the Cold War had continued the tank industry was done for. 727 CH2 would’ve been bought, 386 were bought. The extra 341 tanks wouldn’t have saved the industry. Shipbuilding was in steady decline and that led back all the way to the Second World War where plans for a post war Navy were cut severely. Aircraft industry was also… Read more »
Louis, you are going to have to say why CR1 was ‘a terrible tank’ compared to the developmental MBT80 – they were not such very different tanks in spec terms – and CR1 could be fielded several years earlier (due to the fall of the Shah of course). CR1 was a great tank in my eyes – and a big step forward from Chieftain, with its Chobham armour, 1200 hp engine giving a 10mph higher speed and better acceleration, better transmission, hydrogas suspension for better cross country performance. Better reliability than Chieftain too. It gave a good account of itself… Read more »
I was being overly negative about CH1. It was indeed a very good tank with manoeuvrability being a particular good thing about it. Of course it is speculation that MBT 80 would’ve been an export success but considering at the time 1,000 Cheiftain and 400+ Vickers MBT had been exported, surely a proper program would’ve got export orders. The planned number for Chally 2 was around 800, not 727 my mistake, to replace both Chally 1 and Cheiftain in 13 RAC regiments. This was just speculated however, as it ended before Chally 2 was anywhere near production, the numbers won’t… Read more »
Reply now found! CR1 was superior in so many ways to other tanks fielded about that time – M1 Abrams only had a 105mm gun and a very poor range and was exceptionally complicated. Leopard 2 had many good features but its armour was not as good as the Chally. RBSL is of course building CR3 ( a remanufacturing project using CR2 as a donor) and Boxer. WFEL is also building Boxers. GDUK are not building the Ajax hulls as that is a bought-in item, but they of course are the manufacturers for Ajax. We can be sniffy that the… Read more »
I believe MBT 80 also had a more advanced hunter killer sights, similar to Challenger 2. I don’t think it’s being sniffy to say that the only proper manufacturers is WFEL AND RBSL for Boxer. GDUK really is just assembling Ajax as hills are built in Spain, engines in Germany, turrets by LMUK and the sights and other electronics are most likely from smaller manufacturers, although I’m not sure on that. There was outrage when the Tides were built in Korea and even more outrage when the FSSS contract went to Navantia and Harland & Wolff despite the fact it… Read more »
Good post. I have forced myself to be relaxed over the fact that we mostly have Assembly Halls to build AFVs with even quite major items being bought-in, as opposed to full-house manufacturing facilities as we once had. At least there are three companies building complete AFVs in the UK plus LM (was Hunting Engineering) building turrets in Ampthill, Beds. Contrast with the fact that we no longer build complete fast RAF jets in the UK – or design fast jets. CR3 successor (could be the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS)) might be built in the UK under licence… Read more »
Which three would you count? I guess if you add it all together there are 2 that are producing turrets and 1 that is producing hulls. Supacat is producing ‘AFV’s’. At least BAE still has multiple ammo/shell factories. On aircraft production, BAE can effectively build an entire jet. Realistically Tempest could’ve been procured alone, for most of the beginning Italy hadn’t funded much. It doesn’t make sense to do that though. Majority of UK Tempests will be UK built. There is a lot more separation between countries in production of Tempest. Normally joint programmes don’t have duplicate parts made by… Read more »
All three build complete AFVs, admittedly much of the manufacturing work is assembly of items that are bought-out including hulls in the case of GDUK. You can’t say that GDUK do not make AFVs just because the hulls are made in Spain. Just as you can’t say that Rolls Royce don’t make luxury cars just because many of the items including the engines are made in Germany. I missed out Supacat but it should be counted as an AFV, even though the armour does not provide all-round protection. BAE probably could build a whole military combat jet, but don’t. Their… Read more »
My issue with the UK AFV industry is that it is reliant on foreign companies. Sure countries like Poland will have a strong AFV industry, but most of the designs are Korean. What a strong AFV industry brings you is the innovation, which is far more important than whether Ajax hulls are imported or built here. As your last paragraph draws attention to, lots of the innovation for AFV’s isn’t there. For all the faults of the UK aerospace and shipbuilding industries, they are unique designs that countries actually want, and cannot get anywhere else. Tech transfers with countries like… Read more »
Thanks Louis, good post. It doesn’t seem long ago that we had 5 independent AFV manufacturers, all British-owned, who built mainly good AFVs quickly and to a good price. We had 2 modern tank factories in Leeds and Newcastle, who could make hulls and turrets and bought in much less than the Assembly Halls of today. I digress. Your point about foreign involvement also hit the car industry many years ago. Also,it is hard to see that British built AFVs will have much export success, which means the British Army’s kit will be form a limited production run and more… Read more »
For industries like cars, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. All it does is reduce the security of the industry. Once vehicles like warrior or challenger leave service, there will be no opportunities to refit vehicles and maintain some sort of industry. We will then have to standardise on either European or US kit. I somewhat understand the process of procurement, but if you are at the forefront of innovation of tactics and structures, there will likely be no off the shelf design, meaning you have to design it yourself. If you have no domestic industry you can’t design this… Read more »
Not sure I agree with everything here. In the past our AFVs were base overhauled by static REME workshops every 7 yeras or so – not sure if this still happens by Babcock, which replaced the REME static units. But very major modifications and upgrades would be done by Industry – but this has not been happening for decades – it should be reinstated. Chieftain had a huge number of modifications/upgrades and a different Mark number was then declared – take a look at Chieftain Wiki entry – such regular and major upgrades did not happen with CR1 or CR2… Read more »
GDUK will really struggle to get another contract. They took an in service vehicle, let MTU make the engines, LM the turrets, Thales the sights, hulls made in Spain and they still messed up. Boxer isn’t a British design. RBSL is BAE and Rheinmetall so BAE doesn’t really have any independent UK land systems manufacturing. WFEL is just a sub-contractor, as is LMUK (with Warrior cancellation), they aren’t the same as RBSL. Boxer wasn’t originally bought to replace Warrior so there is no reason it has to stay that way. We may as well wait and see if K21 wins… Read more »
I agree that GDUK will struggle to get another contract to supply the British Army, but as the OEM for the Ajax family they will at least lobby to do upgrade work in the future. Sure Boxer isn’t a British design – I never said it was. I said that those British-based companies have design teams – so they (well, BAE or RBSL, or GDUK) could design a new British AFV. Of course there has to be question marks about the competence of the GDUK design team! Fair point about WFEL and their part in the Boxer build – they… Read more »
Louis, additional to my earlier reply. You might want to check this out:
https://defence.nridigital.com/global_defence_technology_jun21/wfel_boxer_miv_facility
My reply went missing. Why was CR1 a ‘terrible tank’?
Your reply hasn’t gone missing for me.
I replied to your comment saying that CH1 was indeed a good tank, especially with manoeuvrability compared to previous tanks. I was being overly negative. I just think MBT 80 would’ve produced what the army wanted, rather than having a tank not specific to their needs.
Reply now back in place! MBT80 spec was almost identical to CR1 – but it did have a modern HVAC system.
Many good points especially about the minimum size for a force. CASD has always been at the minimum level(4 boats). Carriers are at the minimum (2 ships) – I would argue that 3 are really required though. SSN numbers I would argue are well below the minimum – with the rule of 3, only 2 boats might be available for tasking and 1 of those is protecting the at-sea bomber. Vet and I and others agree that the army has really got about 40k soldiers who are deployable – and that many of them are currently engaged on Military Tasks… Read more »
OK-here it is(modified slightly in the hope I don’t get censored again) I know it is only a rough comparison but just to put a perspective, if we compare the UK’s Armed Forces per capita with the USA at 5 to 1 then we would have plus 700 000 Regulars, ten large Carriers, 55 Nuclear Armed/powered Subs, 90 Destroyers/frigates, approx. 1000 front line Aircraft etc. I remember a conversation in our High School class in 1963, in what is now Zimbabwe when our Teacher was discussing the possibility of UDI. He was of the opinion that the Rhod*sian Army would… Read more »
5 to 1 is all well and good, but the US have both a larger GDP and spend a larger proportion of GDP on the military. It ends up being around 12 to 1. For your figures, it’s not as bad as it seems. 10 US supercarriers to our 2 QEC isn’t 1/5 but it’s not far off. Plans for SSNR would bring us over the 1/5. And with escorts 1/5 of 90 isn’t far off the RN. Ultimately 1/5 is too unrealistic for the GDP we have. Our GDP is 1/8 the size of the US and our budget… Read more »
Thanks Louis-interesting stuff!
Yes, that is a new one mate!!! Thank you.
😀😉
And a little PS to the story Daniele. Such was the admiration for Ian Smith from millions of Brits who had fought in WW2 and in particular, the British Armed Forces, that when he flew to meet Harold Wilson on HMS Tiger he was saluted and shaken by the hand by all that he came in contact with. The Beira patrol, a Frigate posted off the coast of Mozambique didn’t stop any oil tankers, and the RAF, based with their Javelins in Zambia, waved at the RRAF pilots in their Hunters 😀 you may have heard some of that story… Read more »
No, I hadn’t mate. All well before my time my friend so keep them coming.
I concur, it’s an interesting perspective, I’m sure the Woke brigade will be along to condemn it before long….
It’s a bit of an extension to the often rumoured stories of PM threatened British military action (against the country we aren’t allowed to mention) and it being ‘strongly advised’ by senior British military officers at the time, that such orders weren’t given, as it would have potentially caused serious split loyalties and trouble in some ‘Special’ quarters….
Numbers again. Apparently the Mod has 60,000 civvies (compare that with an army strength of 72,000) working across defence. There is almost one air marshal or air commodore for each frontline Typhoon. There are more major-generals and brigadiers in the army than artillery pieces; we have 70 admirals in the navy and only 29 seaworthy ships. Across the three services I estimate that there are 400 one to four star generals, though some of these will be attached to NATO. The army is awash with major generals pushing pens – even the head chaplain is a two star on £125,000… Read more »
After the news this morning about Moscow getting hit ,the USA may put a stop to 75 tanks going anywhere .That’s if it was the Ukrainians 🤔
Hi Andrew – the Ukraine war could turn very hot for NATO very suddenly. Putin and his flunkey Medvedev are clearly mentaly unstable; WW3 may have already started. Our defence establishment is clearly top-heavy and we could save a lot of taxpayers money by having a good old clear-out. They won’t do that of course, they will cut military capability first to save their jobs and pensions
They’re not mentally unstable.
They are unscrupulous, they lack any humanity, and certainly seem to qualify for the term “evil”.
They are also misguided. Misguided in their belief the Ukrainians would roll-over as happened in 2014. Misguided in their belief the West would be too cowardly to supply weapons to Ukraine. And they most certainly have been misled by their military as to its capabilities and successes on the ground.
But mentally unstable? No. If that were the case they would have attacked NATO long before now. They know that would be suicidal, which is why they have not.
Don’t fuck with the Chaplains dosh, they are the craziest, funniest and most serious/un serious blokes you could meet!!!!!!! 😂👍!
What an absolute load of rubbish.
David,
In contrast, DWP has 79,000 Civil Servants (CS), MoJ has 85,000 and HMRC has 67,000.
But what is the point at issue? Civil servants are vital to conduct departmental business. The MoD has lost many CS over the years, especially in procurement and support – I blame some of our procurement fails on a lack of civil servants. There are too few in DGDQA, so quality staff are no longer embedded in Defence Industry – one reason we have an Ajax screw-up – no-one spotted that the Spanish hulls were out of true.
Worth the wait Geoff, interesting read mate, don’t mention R*odesia, it’s like Fawlty Towers, ” don’t mention the war, I mentioned it once, bit I think I got away it,”! 🤣
Hi John. Don’t think it was for Rhod*sia’- might be because I originally said we Class of Fourteen year olds and Teacher-maybe the machine picked up on that😁
It’s interesting that the officer rank structure isn’t as much a pyramid as one would expect; I write as someone who has no military knowledge. There appear to be twice as many captains in the army as lieutenants and almost as many majors as captains. Is this odd or is that an over simplistic view.
I might shed some light on this. More Captains than subalterns. Some folk might these days come into the ‘officer corps’ as Captains and miss subaltern service – officers commissioned from the ranks used to be granted Lt, but I think many or most get granted Capt on commissioning. Perhaps some professionally qualified officers who have done their degree/training before joining the army or on a bursary might come in as Captains nowadays (Vets, lawyers, MOs, dentists) – just a guess on my part. Would account for why there are more Captains than subalterns, which you would not expect. Almost… Read more »
Thank you Graham. An interesting and illuminating answer.
Do the promotion pyramid on the jobs per specialisation.
Large base for Junior ranks to a sharp point for WOs.
Same goes for Officers LTs = large base and up at the sharp pointy top very few flag ranks.
If it doesn’t look like a pyramid but a rectangle or god forbid an inverted pyramid then you have issues.
And yet in other areas of Government service, you get promotions and pay rises by simply being on the books, you don’t even have to be there!
A friend of mine is an NHS administrator and was off due to illness for approaching 3 years, two promotions and three pay rises while she was off sick!!!
What could possibly go wrong with this wonderful business model that promotes people with limited skills to higher levels of responsibility by virtue of time served ????
Cough, cough, billions a year waisted, cough, cough, cough….
While we are on the subject, I’m reading figures of between 5.5 and 30 billion a year lost through all means by the NHS, anyone got accurate figures for these wildly different amounts? If it’s the higher figure, (which seems insane), then it’s the equivalent of our entire annual Police budget in NHS waste every year … That just can’t be right! I would suppose it depends on how the numbers are crunched perhaps, people not turning up for appointments etc, etc…. There certainly seems to a glaringly obvious solution to the demanded pay rises, stop wasting public funding and… Read more »
It,s a suicide with Europe under Russian agressión to reduce even more the troop numbers, not to mention the cuts in Challengers tanks to be reduced to only 148, It seems they,re crazy.