In response to an inquiry from Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, the Ministry of Defence has released detailed figures on the number of trained personnel in combat-ready roles within each branch of the UK Armed Forces for the past five years.
The data, provided by Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, reveals trends in the levels of combat readiness in the Royal Navy, British Army, and Royal Air Force between 2020 and 2024.
The following table, according to the response, “represents the number of UK Armed Forces personnel with a Medical Deployability Standard (MDS) of Medically Fully Deployable (MFD) and Medically Limited Deployable (MLD), in a combat role, as at 1 July for each year between 2020 and 2024, by Service.”
The figures reveal a consistent decline in personnel classified as ready for combat across all branches:
Royal Navy (including Royal Marines): Starting with a combined total of 26,091 in 2020, the figure declined each year to 25,399 in 2024, with both MFD and MLD categories reflecting a downward trend.
British Army: Numbers declined from 22,749 in 2020 to 20,511 by 2024, marking a steady decrease over five years. Notably, the number of fully deployable personnel (MFD) dropped from 20,574 in 2020 to 18,398 in 2024.
Royal Air Force: Similar to the other branches, the RAF saw a decrease from 26,126 in 2020 to 24,388 in 2024, with reductions in both MFD and MLD categories.
Overall, the combined Total Armed Forces figure dropped from 74,966 in 2020 to 70,290 by 2024, underscoring a reduction in combat-ready personnel across the board.
The Ministry of Defence has stated its commitment to reversing this decline, with Pollard commenting, “The new Government is determined to improve readiness and recruitment levels from those we inherited.” He added that steps to address these figures are underway, and further announcements will be made soon.
The Ministry of Defence provided further clarification on the data, noting that the figures for the British Army specifically cover certain combat-designated units: the Infantry, Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps, and Army Air Corps, which the Army defines as personnel serving in a “combat role.”
In contrast, the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force do not use a specific “combat role” designation. Therefore, their figures represent the full-time trained strength of each branch rather than a combat-specific categorisation.
The data includes Reserve Forces personnel filling Regular posts while on Full-Time Reserve Service, as well as Gurkha personnel. However, other reserves, civilians, foreign service members, and non-UK military personnel are excluded from the totals.
Medical Deployability Standards (MDS) were sourced through the Defence Medical Information Capability Programme (DMICP). Prior to July 2022, MDS figures were obtained using a mix of DMICP medical records and data from the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system. Since July 2022, however, MDS information has been drawn directly from DMICP, offering a more consistent and accurate measure of personnel deployability.
This change in data sourcing, they say, reflects improvements in data quality and allows for a clearer view of the UK’s combat-ready forces.
How does the RAF have more “Combat Deployable” personnel than the Army. Where are the other 50,000 ?
It’s a very good question.
Surely those numbers for the Army are wrong.
No. They are for the combat arms.
CS, CSS not included.
Interesting that MND isn’t included. You don’t stop being infantry just because you’re MND.
Sorry, Dern, MND?
https ://assets.publishing.service. gov. uk/media/663b9df81c82a7597d4f32ff/FOI2024_02334. pdf
Here you go.
Got it, Danke Schon.
The army figure includes only the main combat arms, the Infantry, the HC, RAC, the AAC.
The RAF figure is interesting. Even if the RAF Regiment, all pilots and aircrew, and things like the A4 force are included.
Majority of the 50000 are Bakers & Candlestick makers ,as the saying goes. around only 15000 are line infantry soldiers. a UK Infantry Battalion at hight of cold war was between 1000 & 1100 soldiers. Now Europe is in Hot War & which ever way Ukraine goes. Europe is facing a military aggressive Russian Tyrant Dictator & his Kremlin henchman . 2024. A UK Line infantry Battalion is between 400 to 450 Soldiers. Major War time strength between 1500+ Soldiers. IMO A Infantry company should comprise.. 3 or 4 Rifle Platoons. Mortars Platoon. Also IMO only, at least a few trained Assault Pioneer soldiers. HQ etc
Um. No. A British Infantry Battalion during the Cold War was about 700 men, not 1100. Here are the TOE’s of a Mech Inf and Armoured Inf battalion from 1985.
https ://static.wixstatic. com/media/a137e0_d655a14f40bb4c5a85915f8d0c3931e9~mv2 .png
and
https ://static.wixstatic. com/media/a137e0_463ab704e5694985b96ef1659d5ca039~mv2 .png
Today a UK Line infantry Battalion is still between 500 (for light role) to 700 (for armoured infantry), not 450.
Mortars Platoons should not be in Infantry Coys, they are not mobile enough.
1,000 to 1,100!! Nope.
A type B Light Infantry had what, 600 to 650 establishment? Warrior Bns a few more of course.
I think the last time an Inf battalion was 1,000 strong was in WW1.
Your figure of 1000 is more applicable to WW1 not Cold War.
This Table shows the Army’s Combat Arms only (aka ‘Teeth Arms’). This is a novel way of showing the army’s depoyable numbers.
Combat Arms are Infantry, RAC & HC, AAC ie the guys with the serious direct fire weapons.
I’m very surprised to see that the RN is MUCH bigger than the Army !
I mean, we are talking about UK ?
The FAA. What, four to five thousand?
The fleet, so escorts, Carriers, similar, another 5?
The Submarine Service, around 3 thousand?
The RM. 6 thousand?
I’m plucking those numbers out of my head from memory and they’re no doubt inaccurate but my point is it all adds up.
The army’s figures are just for the Combat Arms, not the entire Field Army.
Well, the Army does seem to have a surprisingly large number of people who don’t actually fight. What do they all do ?
Maintain. REME.
Train. RAPTC and various attached to ARTC.
Teach. AGC Education Branch, SASC,….
Fix. REME
Repair. REME
Heal. AMS, QARANC, RADC
Treat teeth. RADC
Conduct legal issues. AGC Legal Branch.
Store. RLC
Research. Various, plus INT CORPS.
Spy, listen. INT CORPS, R SIGS
Maintain rear area, UK Comms, R SIGS
Cyber. R SIGS. INT CORPS.
Advise.
Office/staff/HR AGC
Plus numerous postings in NATO, the MoD, so HO&CS DES, DIO, DSTL, St Com lamd so on, liaison with other friendly nations, with the GDN ( DA’s )
I’m always amazed at how many think a military is only about the bits that go bang.
Without the support, that bit fails.
That applies to all of defence and includes all the supposedly useless and needless 1 stars and above.
Thank you. That’s very informative.
But I’m still surprised at how large this ‘tail’ is. Do you happen to know how the tail/teeth ratio has changed over time ? Or how we compare with other armies ?
I don’t, no, my knowledge is our military and MoD.
I doubt it’s changed over time myself, only that of course a 160,000 army from the Cold War is now less the half that.
The pre 2010 level for the army was a good one for a maritime nation like us, around 100k.
We are pretty standard. But there’s nuance.
Look you want to deploy a force half way across the world? You need enablers to get food, munitions, replacement equipment etc out to them. You need medics not only on the front line to treat, but you need field hospitals, Medevac units, Stratevac back to the UK.
How do you make sure your guys have safe drinking water? You need people to purify local sources, and you need people to test the water regularly.
You need people to dig latrines, build fortifications, breach enemy fortifications.
You need someone to bring fuel to trucks, and keep them running, let alone helicopters or anything like that.
None of these things go away because you fly a tricolour instead of a Union Jack.
The real question is: What do you want your army to do?
An Estonian Army will stand and die in Estonia. Probably in the local village they live in. They can afford to have a large percentage of their force to be light infantry; guys armed with a rifle and maybe an RPG, and use their grocery trucks to bring new ammunition up from Tallinn, an hours drive away. But that army will never advance far into Russia, if advance at all. It lacks the tail to enable that, even if it could organise itself on the tactical level for that. (Even then the Professional Estonian Army, consisting of a single Brigade has more enablers than combat personnel).
Do you want your army to deploy far from home, in support of allies or to counter overseas aggression? Do you want them to preform the full spectrum of combat operations including manuever warfare against a peer opponent? Then the back end will look more like the British, French, or American Armies.
Blah, blah, politicians. All yap, no action.
I’ve often said the Army will hit 60,000 by 2030.
Without some sort of intervention, it most certainly will hit that miserable number…..
What sort of intervention did you have in mind to overturn a Governmental decision?
Senior serving officers have never achieved a reversal of cuts. The army has been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
Morning Graham, it basically requires an immediate injection of money towards wages, a combination of more generous tax breaks and pay rises, sufficient to reduce the annual personnel loss, to something approaching parity with recruitment.
They should do that right now, as an emergency measure!
If we could stem the losses and start a steady rise in overall numbers, we would place defence in the right position for SDSR25.
We have 33 regular Infantry battalions, 14 Armoured Regiments and 13 Artillery Regiments and we can only put 18k in the field?
Less. 31, 9, 10, I think.
Plus 14 RA and The RAC Centre Regiment for arguments sake, but they’re training formations.
Several of those Infantry Bns are not full size 600 plus Bns.
Absolutely mate, the four Ranger ‘Battalions’, for example, are only 250 strong.
Much of this seems to be down to the cap badge mafia.
There is that suspicion re the CBM, usually in previous reviews over the last 2 decades when CS CSS formations are an easy cut where’s a named infantry Bn isn’t, especially Scottish ones.
I don’t think anyone save those in those Bns and elsewhere on the inside knows for sure the establishment of 1-4 Ranger.
I myself support the Ranger/ASOB concept though so I don’t want to see the army backtrack there.
11 SFAB, whose Bns I think are indeed around the 250 mark, again not certain, are a different matter.
The fact is the army needs more CS CSS before it needs more fighty formations, and Wavell needs to address this to rebalance the army.
Whether they have the stomach for it, we shall see.
OT, I saw on Twitter other day one such example of this. 16RAs Batteries all getting plus 100 establishment, an example of the uplift in AD that has been announced. Assume more launchers will follow.
No they’re not.
From forces news, March 2024
“As of March 2024, the Ranger Regiment has conducted 691 deployments and has 1,040 regular Army personnel serving.
The Ranger Regiment is formed of four All-Arms battalions, each of about 250 personnel.”
So I assume that’s changed since the spring Dern??
It hasn’t changed since Spring John, put simply, Forces News has their numbers wrong. What they’ve done is run with the old SpecInf Battalion number and assumed (like a lot of online commentators) that no changes where made in the transition.
They’re wrong, and while I don’t think the actual headcount of a Ranger Battalion has been officially stated anywhere, I will say that it’s more than 250.
Cheers Dern, that’s good to know mateđź‘Ť
Artillery regiments are not included in the table – they are a Combat Support Arm, not a Combat Arm.
The Top brass should order an inquiry has to why personnel are leaving the forces, and instead off asking the officers or senior NCOs, start from the lower Ranks, the privates, the able seamen the airmen,etc, before any senoir rank can air brush the findings, you will get a true answer to the problem, instead what your getting is a problem being brushed under the carpet, there is still bullying, intimidation going on, there are no mentors , teaching the younger ranks there jobs, just screaming senior ranks.
The food and accomodation is abysmal.
And to get any jobs done by privatized contractors is non existant, leeking taps for months, blocked drains, the lower ranks are being pissed on from above, these young chaps and ladies join for all the right reasons, but once theyve completed their basic training and get shipped off to there units, they get grief, bullied, intimidation, bullshit, they get there ambitions squashed and there positive attitudes trodden on by the Ranks that are paid , and supposed to be bringing these lower ranks on into thre roles.
So you ask why the forces cant retain personnel, well those are just some of the problems happening today, 40 years ago the forces got away with there nonsense, but not today, because the younger of today, will just walk.
Times have changed, the forces senior personnel must change with the times.
The forces need a thinking soldier, Not a brain washed soldier??
The top brass has always had the information as to why troops are leaving; those that PVR have to state reasons on their application form.
Top brass also knows why serving soldiers are disgruntled – every year a Continuous Attitude Survey is conducted.
Where do you get your perspective from? – it is a shade over-negative! I do not recognise that many or most senior personnel (officers and WOs & SNCOs) behave like you say.
We’re do the Top brass get there info from? From senior NCOs, If you want a true reflection of the forces is about, to and ask the ones who have been in under 3 years, the shop floor, the mere mortals , go and ask the private why his or her opinion s after 3 years service, ask what there accommodation was like, ask what the shit food was like being served up by civie contractors, the only way too get the truth about why the forces can’t retain personnel, is to ask why those leaving before 4 years, o.k maybe not all NCOs are up there own arses, but a lot are, some ranks are given out. To personnel to fill gaps in the ranks, here’s a stripe, go and manage 10 men\women, can’t even manage themselves. I served in the 80s. , and what I’m seeing now is the forces , it’s falling apart, no one communicates, PTIs, showing everyone how fit they are, instead of getting personnel fit, NCOs on the ranges showing how good they are shooting, instead off teaching the techniques of marksman ship, it’s turned into a missing competition, these young recruits, when they join there units need , mentoring, encouragement, drive to succed, they need to be taught by the more experienced, not signing off after 3 years because all we get is bollocked, blocked and more bookings by full screws and seniors. Get down the ranks to find the real reason why personnel are leaving, you will not get the true answers from the Top, there to busy blowing smoke up each others arse.
If you served you’d know that the “Top Brass” to not routinely talk to SNCO’s. If the top brass talk to enlisted ranks it’s usually through surveys that are filled in by privates, JNCO’s and SNCO’s alike, and in those cases privates voices actually are amplified because there are just more of them.
It’s really funny how you have this impression since, allegedly, you served in the 80’s which means you’re not currently serving, while those of us who are actually serving right now do not see anything like what you’re describing.
On communication between Top Brass and other ranks, I came across the SEAC on the CinC Committee the other day. I’d never heard of such.
The Army, RAF and Navy Board also have such a position so senior officers can get the view from those mere mortals lower down.
SEAC?
Senior Enlisted Advisor to the UK Chiefs of Staff Committee.
Well , firstly i dont have to justify my time spent in the services to you, you dont even know me, yet your making out i never served, so already your assuming, just like you assume everything is o.k in the forces, it may well be were you are, but not everywhere is the same, or are you one of the ones defending the problem?? secondly, i have family serving right now in a very demoralized forces, and i believe them, before i believe the likes of your sort, thirdly, its time you take your heads out your arses, and look around , question sheets, surveys, dont give a true reflection of different units moral, we all know there is an issue with moral in the forces, welfare teams need to go in amongst the Troops and flush out the problems, stop all this smoke and mirrors by the upper echelon.
They could start by improving food standards, when we had the catering corps ,the food was excellent, even though we took the piss out od them, Banter??
Then sort out accomodation, where anything thats broken gets fixed within a week of submitting a chit? These civilian contractors to the MOD are taking millions, but not delivering, theres a start.
Be proffesional, instead of throwing accusations around ir blameing someone else, Get to the root cause of the problem, its not just one thing.
No you don’t have to justify your time spent, however your flashing it as a qualification for your ill informed rants, so don’t be surprised when people question them.
You don’t seem to have any knowledge of how the forces actually work, beyond some really weird preconceived notions and headlines straight from twitter rants, so…. yeah I’m going with throwing shade at your claim.
Well im not going to get into a pissin competition with you, as you come across has ” your always right” and everyone else is wrong, maybe you live in Shang la ra, but whilst the likes of you stick there heads in the sand, the forces will always be under manned, and leave in droves.
My information comes from the men on the ground, and not by the Arses in the offices.
You may find Dern is currently serving. The “men” on the ground is where you get your info, what about the females? People always leave, people chunter about various things, always the same reasons for leaving, “shit pay, shit food, shit accommodation, not enough people” etc etc but your anti SNCO rant pushes your argument into the realms of bitterness, which as sad as your points are quite valid.
Not really making yourself look any better here mate. It’s not my fault that you’re coming across as either someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or someone who really couldn’t hack it.
As for my sources, as Airborne said, I’m one of the “men” on the ground so and not an “Arses” in an office. Cheers.
Absolutely garbage! If you really served then it must have been very limited and possibly a SNLR moment? What you describe is total tosh and does not resemble anything I experienced or remember. Yes mid 80s basic training etc was a little more destructive and not constructive as nowadays, but once in Battalion you became an equal! Remember all the JNCOs and SNCOs you dislike so much all started as Tom’s, and worked their way up. I can only presume you were in a bit of a pie and mash unit. Cheers.
I would guess that you were a junior and didn’t do that well. HRAFI is happening now, that is a big review into the incentives that the new generation want. Generally if people aren’t moaning there should be bigger concerns, people moan and groan, things do change, and are changing.
You guess wrong, I was a good soldier did my job, but was never brainwashed like some??
So we could probably fight a good soccer match.
Subject: Consideration for Early Eligibility of Foreign Residents for UK Armed Forces
I am writing to advocate for greater flexibility in the residency requirements for foreign nationals who are interested in joining the UK Armed Forces. As the military seeks to strengthen its numbers, many foreigners currently residing in the UK bring unique skills, diverse perspectives, and a strong commitment to serving the country.
However, the existing requirement for 3-5 years of residency may prevent some passionate and qualified individuals from applying, especially as some may soon reach the upper age limits for joining. By allowing motivated foreign nationals with shorter UK residency to apply, the armed forces could harness a wider pool of dedicated individuals who are ready to contribute now, rather than losing potential recruits who age out of eligibility while waiting to meet residency thresholds.
Thank you for considering this approach to expand recruitment in a way that aligns with goals of readiness and inclusivity.
Sincerely,
Michael
So less than a 3rd can be deployed great we can cover them with the last 6 AS90’s and 6 Archers the rest being used for spares or not working. And with C2 that has no more ammo made for years, and no new barrels. That is if we have enough Arty or AGM’s ammo for more than few weeks tops.
At least the CDS thinks we are ready, he is likely on some thing or should be on meds. Deluded.
I don’t think you actually understood this chart… (Maybe try reading the comments where this has been explained a few times before getting in a huff?)
Enjoy your night mate,