General Sir Roly Walker, the newly appointed Chief of the General Staff, closed this year’s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Land Warfare Conference with an ambitious announcement.
Speaking at Westminster Church House in London, General Walker announced that he plans to “double the Army’s fighting power in three years and triple it by the end of the decade”.
The two-day conference, titled “Pulling the Future into the Present,” brought together international senior land and ground forces leaders, policymakers, industry experts, and think tanks to discuss the current security challenges facing the UK and its allies. This platform provided General Walker with an opportunity to present his vision for the future of the British Army.
General Walker began his address by highlighting the central role of soldiers in the Army. “They are not just in the Army; they are the Army,” he said. He praised the dedication and resilience of the troops, citing their contributions during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and support for Ukraine.
He then discussed the concept of fighting power, challenging the traditional ‘big Army’ mindset. “We are, in fact, a medium-sized army and we should embrace that as the catalyst that drives even greater integration for a more powerful joint force,” Walker stated.
Walker outlined his strategy to accelerate the Army’s modernisation, focusing on integrating old and new technologies. He referenced the Ukrainian Armed Forces, noting their innovative use of hybrid systems in combat against Russian forces. “Hybridity, in the right hands, can inspire extraordinary creativity, and resilience, vigour,” he said.
A key element of his vision is leveraging advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and autonomous systems. “Fifth Generation Forces in this context exploit advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and autonomous systems to integrate data from all domains for precise battlefield impact,” Walker explained.
“My vision for the British Army is to field fifth-generation land forces that set that joint force up for the ‘unfair fight’. Fifth Generation Forces in this context exploit advanced technologies such as Artificial Intelligence and autonomous systems to integrate data from all domains for precise battlefield impact. And these forces will lie at the heart of NATO, and be filled with the best soldiers in the world, supported by incredibly committed civilian staff and leading industrial partners, and the nation itself, and providing value at every turn – societally, politically, internationally, economically, as well as just militarily.
This is the One Defence mindset that the Secretary of State referred to yesterday and to which I fully subscribe. And to that end, I have a bold ambition to double our fighting power in three years and triple it by the end of the decade. And I’ll unpack that in practical terms shortly but the key point to make is that the need is urgent. We have got to pull the future of fighting power into the present, faster than we thought we could.
You don’t need me, and I won’t rehearse the urgency of geopolitical threats. We are not, as the CDS reassured you, on an inexorable path to war, but in an increasingly volatile world, we must restore and communicate, through all our words, deeds, and actions, credible hard power to underwrite deterrence, as well as to manage the crises of the day. This to my mind is not just a military strategic imperative, driven by the threat and our own responsibilities under Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
It is also a very practical matter of responding to NATO’s ask of us, which is demanding for British land forces, and rightly so. We probably do have just enough time, as Jack Watling said yesterday, to prepare, act, and re-establish credible land forces to support that strategy of deterrence. And hence my remedy, as I said, is to double down on modernisation to meet that demanding mark.”
He encouraged closer partnerships with investors and the defence technology sector to drive innovation and maintain the UK’s strategic advantage. “I want to bring academia, science, industry, and technicians – you – into our command posts, prototyping this tech craft at the edge to ensure we have a joint, and extroverted approach to doing business,” he stated.
In his closing remarks, Walker addressed the need for the Army to adapt to the rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. “In an increasingly volatile world, we must restore and communicate, through all our words, deeds, and actions, credible hard power to underwrite deterrence,” he noted.
And he’s not calling for double or triple the forces but double / triple the effect. Noble ambition. Can it be effected in time. Suspect lots of dead wood will need to be cleared out to facilitate the changes in mindset required.
Can CGS clear dead wood from amongst the senior officers in the army? Not really – he can’t sack someone because they stick to the old ways – but he could sideline them.
But are there any senior army officers who don’t look forward and embrace CGS’ vision of a much more lethal army?
Perhaps they cannot be sidelined however I think it is likely, as you say, once they get a ‘more lethal army’ they will figure out how to use it.
The problem for CGS is not a handful of senior army officers who might be resistant to change – in my view, very few are.
His problem is getting more budget with Ms Reeves running the Treasury.
Perhaps he is not looking for more money, the same money spent in an entirely different way might be a solution. Clearly he has something in mind – which is a good thing. Also delivering anything in that timeframe look like it is radical. Who knows?
I disagree to a point. Yes money is a constant issue. But there is a more fundamental problem that he is glossing over, which is the fact that there is a significant lack of mass and in particular and perhaps more importantly the reserve mass. Taking in to account the aspiration of twice then three times the lethality. Which he has alluded will be provided by using drones and hypersonic missiles. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that the opposing side get a vote in any conflict! Unless he can categorically guarantee that in the first couple of days of… Read more »
I agree that CGS glosses over lack of mass. A reason the Russians with their mixed quality equipment, mediocre military leadership and poor tactics are still at war in the 3rd year in Ukraine and creating devastation is because they do have mass. I think he knows that he cannot guarantee that greater mass will be funded. I don’t think any commander in history could guarantee to neutralize the enemy’s ability to fight and its capability to sustain the fight, in the first couple of days. But is he suggesting even something close to that level of achievement? Where does… Read more »
Sidelining within the Army…possible solution…but redundancies can happen. Was actually thinking more about those that drive and govern the Procurement processes, either within army and/or MOD. Somehow the process of identifying need, selecting solution and proceeding with Procurement in mass and expediently needs to be accelerated. There are ways, but I suspect many blockers as well.
Very occasionally redundancy exercises happen. But CGS plays no part in deciding who is to go.
The issue really is not whether there are any Generals in post who are not forward-looking.
There are many real issues for CGS. Gettting enough budget, sorting out a realistic Orbat and retaining experienced soldiers are three of the biggest problems.
Within DE&S there are many problems with procurement – I worked there for 2 years, my first job after uniformed service. There are many blockers, that is true, but generally not those working at the coalface in the IPTs (Integrated Project Teams).
And in the mean time our potential adversaries are also going to get more lethal. Hopefully we just do it smarter with quality and quantity. Not a fan of this kind of broadcasting about what we’re doing and time frames. It’ll just breed further competition and even imitation. Do a lot, speak less. We don’t all need to know… except us here on UKDJ! Lol. 😁
The British Army has an awful long way to go to restore lethality to just what it was in Feb 2022 before gifting kit to Ukraine, let alone to double it and triple it. CGS has not let slip any details of the roadmap to achieve his vision. All will be revealed when the SDR is published next year. I am doubtful the vision will be realised in the timeframe stated. Smarter ways of firing munitions (using much vaunted Artificial Intelligence) on its own will not achieve such a lethality boost. There must also be a very major increase in… Read more »
Lethality might mean (to some degree) far more tech. New recruits, in quantity, are not available. Most people adapt once they see the new kit and are shown how to use it. After all their lives will depend upon it. They have no choice.
Indeed.
There must also be an ever growing need for secure and portable energy generation for all these devices for individual to the vehicle to ground based?
Lots of focus on artillery both rocket and gun as a means of achieving “Lethality”. It makes me wonder why a wider range of options for the AS90 replacement were not considered. For example, the RCH turret, or a near equivalent, have been tested on the M270 chassis that we use for MRLS. That is a highly mobile tracked platform that, if bought alongside Boxer RCH, also provides commonality with both of its contemporaries in the British Army. And as a reciprocal, Boxer MLRS anyone? P.s. no one else seemed to notice but during Farnborough MBDA showed models and images… Read more »
Can’t quite see the logic in the idea of adapting a Boxer RCH155 module to fit on a less numerous M270 Chassis. I never thought the idea of a wheeled IFV without a tracked equivalent was a good idea, and preferred the CV90, but we have what we have and it does now have other options. We have gone all in on Boxer and IMHO we should now augment our existing order with the Tracked Boxer version to cover both bases, simplify the Logistics and maximise the options. Both use exactly the same modules so you just stick the RCH155… Read more »
So MLRS boxer would be a better idea than RCH M270? I thought the idea was that rockets work further forwards than guns to maximise range, and therefore need higher mobility, hence M270.
I agree that the tracked version should really be brought forwards as the solution to the whole “Oh, it’s wheeled so it is worse” brigade.
Then we have a proper AS90 replacement and fitting MLRS and an IFV turret makes much more sense.
Sunak decided on the wheeled Boxer RCH-155 as the AS-90 replacement some months ago.
Haven’t we saw wheeled armour getting so stuck in mud over in Ukraine, their Army no longer deploys them during the winter months? I have seen tracked stuck, but nowhere near as numerous as wheeled. It’s not as if armour would be deployed anywhere other than Eastern Europe?
Both get stuck because Ukranian mud during the wet times is nightmarish (actual winter is pretty good though because the ground is frozen).
In recent years we have deployed armour to the Gulf twice and the Balkans several times. So its not just Eastern Europe.
The worst of the mud (Rasputitsa) is not across every winter month. Some winter months have rock hard, icy, snowy surface.
I have some concerns at such a big switch from tracked vehicles to wheels (wheeled Boxer vehicles replacing Warrior and AS-90). Tracked vehicles generally cope with complex terrain in bad conditions much better than wheeled. But both can meet their match on occasion in Rasputitsa mud.
An army needs rocket artillery and tube artillery, not just the one type.
That’s not what I meant, my reply was a bit vague, sorry.
What I meant is that from what you are saying, it sounds like having both RCH and MLRS on a tracked Boxer variant would be the best eventual solution.
We have always had a mix of tracked and wheeled (towed) artillery. Also a mix of tube arty and rocket arty. RCH-155 was crowbarred in by Rishi Sunak in a political deal with the German Chancellor. Of course it was always a contender for the MFP which was to replace AS-90 but one of several. A tracked SPG has been rejected rather too readily. I am used to seeing MLRS on a tracked hull and have seen it in action in Afghanistan. If that hull is past its ‘sell by date’, I would be happy to see the launcher on… Read more »
I just happen to think that now they are getting to grips with wheeled Boxer the logical next step would be a quantity of the tracked ones. But spice up the Module mix with MLRS, AAG, SHORAD etc. The logistics synergies would be very tempting.
MoD has ordered a mere 623 wheeled Boxers of various different types. Apparently funding was put in place for about 1,016 in total although the army requirement is for quite a bit more than that. There is therefore scope to order some tracked versions. It would seem odd though the infantry being in wheeled APCs and supporting arms in tracked Boxers.
Here’s one for you Graham. The automated gun module (AGM) has been trialed on the ASCOD 2 chassis. Which is a variation of the Ajax chassis. So technically we could keep commonality using the gun module, but use an Ajax chassis for the heavy brigades. I would fully expect it to be capable of firing on the move as per the Boxer version. The RCH 155 uses the latest gun from the Pz2000. The L52 barrel is the same from what I can gather. The breech block however, is the new variable charge one. Which is where it can accommodate… Read more »
Its a thought. I assume that when GDUK monkeyed about with the ASCOD2 hull that they kept the original turret ring dimensions etc? If so, then AGM (ie turret/gun of RCH-155) would fit an Ajax hull.
But it would cut down the order size for Boxer RCH-155, which could jack up the unit price or the smaller numbers may make the Germans pull out of the joint project. Who knows?
Just had a proper look at the ASCOD + AGM, which has been called Donar. I’d say it’s a non starter! From the images, it looks like they’ve only used the bottom third of the chassis, so basically the running gear and suspension. The top bit looks like a M270 with the AGM plonked on the back. The crew cab is perched at the very front (as per M270), it doesn’t look armoured. But I suppose they could add appliqué to it. I guess the big question is, does the RA still require a tracked SPG? I think the public… Read more »
Thanks Davey. If our two armoured brigades each had an arty regt in it, and before Warrior was abandoned in favour of Boxer, I would have said that the RA needed a tracked SPG for those ‘all-tracked’ brigades.
But none of that applies. The artillery are all in 1 DRSB and won’t particularly need to keep up in perfect ‘lock step’ with the advancing Ajax.
So perhaps we can be relaxed at a the prospect of an all-wheeled SPG force.
The configuration of the units also needs to be addressed, taskorg needs a single command, Arty Regts with Field, Rocket, counter fires and find supporting the Corps deep as a primary and Divs secondary, integrated with the CAB and enabled by AD forces to protect the assets. Super regiments, in which all offensive and defensive fires can be deployed in one structure. Three Regiments could be configured like this, albeit with sub units requiring to move between Larkhill, Thorney, Newcastle and Catterick… e.g. Support to Corps: 1 Bty Rocket (6 launchers) 2 Btys Heavy Field (16 guns) 2 Btys Light… Read more »
I certainly agree that reconfiguring the artillery in the field force needs addressing. Currently all tube and rocket artillery in one brigade (1DRSB) is cued by four recce regiments in that same brigade. Who thought that one up? It is ridiculous. You take my breath away at the idea of three super-Regiments each of 11 batteries!! Certainly more than a Lt Col’s command. It is more of an artillery brigade. What are the advantages of this novel approach to ORBAT? Just to take one point – I presume the Light Field btys would have 105mm LG, so you are suggesting… Read more »
Doubling the number of M270 is a big part of this.
As is creating two ‘fighting’ divisions (i.e. making 1 Div a deployable formation).
Add to that rerolling ARRC as UK I Corps.
When will the doubling of MLRS be done, there is a shortage of hulls to modernise world wide. Its 3/5 year gab to get it all done. And then there is the massive incress in MLRS ammo stocks needed. All doable and a great idea but time again drags these things out.
One of my bugbears, there is no dedicated regular RLC Transport Regiment for DRSB, where the MLRS Regiments are?
S who supplies this ammo up to the Batteries? The Reserves? There is a composite “CSSB” allocated, made up of various reservist units.
Do RA Batteries have their own “inhouse” supply vehicles to bring munitions up from the rear echelon?
MLRS btys have limited DROPS type vehicles 4/6 pre Bty but thats it, they may have changed recently i do not know
Robots 😀
They’ve looked at that, UGVs for section, platoon resupply. But THAT volume if munitions?!
On my wider point further down thread, a few years ago we had the grand 2030 ( or was it 35 ) army operating concept with whole Corps and Divisions, including UGVs for firepower to provide mass.
Again, like UAV and Drones, where are they? I know we purchased several for trials but not heard anything else.
Also GMLRS rockets are big. That means a big robot to transport them.
Elon Musk says they are here in 6 months 😀
Who, Aliens or some actual kit?!
I think there were new DROPS vehicles on order (they seems to be called “EPLS” now) are they enough to cover extra supplies, who knows ?
Worry not Daniele. 101 Op Sustainment Bde, a Div Tps formation, has five log regiments (two Reg, three AR). So someone will haul artillery ammunition forward for the artillery in DRSB.
Artillery ammunition is not supplied forward right to up to Batteries, by a Log unit. Div Rear HQ will designate a number of Distribution Points (DPs) to which CSups will be pushed forward by RLC assets. Artillery regiments send back their own organic transport to the DP to get their CSups, including arty ammo.
Except DSRB also includes 4 Cavalry Regiments.
Thanks mate. I’d assumed, as 101 assets are also divisional support, that they’d be too busy with other tasks.
My thinking was also influenced by the knowledge that the 2 AI Bdes also have a Close Support Logistic Regiment, as well as 101s assets.
DRSB lacks this, hence my wish for a regular logistics reg for it.
As for the ops details on how it works in reality, thanks for explaining.
Thanks Daniele. 101 are Div Troops and logistically support the Div, especially a combat brigade that has no Log Regt of their own, but clearly also support units that are themselves Div Troops (7 AD Gp, 25 CS Engr Gp, 3 Div IM units, 7 Sigs Gp). 101’s forward DPs are accessed by the ABCTs CS Log Regts of course. Not aware they get too busy with other tasks. Five RLC Regts is a lot of horsepower (notwithstanding that two are AR – when an armoured div goes to war, the AR will be required). I have a feeling that… Read more »
Yes mate. I read a detailed report on DRSBs first major exercise last year.
A composite “Combat Service Support Battalion” is to be formed for ops, drawn from a mix of Reserve RLC and RAMC Squadrons.
I’ve only ever come across the term once previously, when 19 Mech became 19 Light and 19 CSSB was formed.
I heard of CSS Bns many years ago, I think before the 19 Bde one, but I don’t recall the context. Those were a REME/RLC mix and RAMC had their own unit, Fd Amb or whatever.
In 1981 I was posted to UNFICYP Sp Regt, which included a RCT Sqn, an RAOC Ord Coy and a REME Wksp. Interestingly the CO was a Gunner!
Sometime soon after I served in FI in 1999/2000, the Log Unit (FILU) and the Engineering unit (FIEU?) were put under the same BHQ.
Annoyingly during the BAOR days none of the divisions had organic RLC regiments, they all where under Commander Logistics I Br Corps and where attached to divisions as required. >:( Edit: re the 12 regular and 11 ar regiments, remember those include: 4x Regular Regiments and 4x reserve regiments within 104 Log brigade which for the Theatre support for the ARRC, and thus support NATO, not the field army. Of the remainder, 1 is an EOD regiment, and 1 is an Aviation support Regiment. Leaving 7 Regular and 6 AR Regiments to support the Field Army, which is considerably slimmer… Read more »
Yes, a good point, so no lift capacity.
Such as 17 at Marchwood and 29 at South Cerney. Vital enablers though.
I did not know that about Log units in the BAOR era. Astonishing. Such a bad idea not to give divisions their own log units. That was not the case with REME second line.
Fair point about how those 12 reg and 11 AR regiments are allocated.
It’s actually really interesting seeing how much the British Army chopped and changed it’s approach between 1950 and 1989, Starting out with 1 Infantry Division and 3 Armoured Divisions, it then became 2 Armoured Divisions and 2 Infantry divisions in 1956 based on Brigades. Then the BAOR reorganised in 1958 to 7 Brigade Groups (1 withdrew to the UK), only for the BAOR to go back to Divisions in 1965 (three Divisions this time, all a mix of armour and infantry brigades). That lasted until the 70’s when the BAOR reorganised into 4 Armoured Divisions, abandoned the Brigade concept, and… Read more »
Hi Dern, my experience in BAOR was over a fair time and I remember some of those changes. 2SG LAD in Muenster in 1976, the battalion being part of 4th Guards Armoured Brigade (a nice old historic title), then 4 Armd Wksp, Detmold 1982, immediately followed by 21 Engr Regt Wksp 1983-84, and finally at 28 Amph Engr Regt Wksp in 1991-92 (post-unification). [I was with HQ 24 Inf Bde in 1985-86 which was part of 2 Inf Div, so went back to Germany for an exercise or two.] I once read a book ‘Spearhead’ about 1 (BR) Corps by… Read more »
Thanks.
FYI Slava Ukraini, in case you’re watching apparently they crossed the border and advanced some 20km into Russia today.
Yes. This raid has rattled Putin and his troops.
I don’t see ARRC rerolling as I Corps any time soon, or that even providing a benefit. It’s already a Corps level command, and making it UK I Corps just means that it becomes harder to integrate NATO forces into ARRC.
No disrespect to the General ?But double our fighting power in 3years and then triple at the end of the decade ? Wanting to use AI is fine but the nation you will come up against will also have AI .Sorry but at the end of the day it’s more Boots on the ground which is badly needed ,unless he has some secret weapon system 🤔
As long as Putin continues to battle on in Ukraine the need for the UK to spend on defence is essential. However, the minute this conflict reaches a conclusion over the peace table the money tape will be quickly turned off. With the new government desperate to find huge savings, defence for once, will step away from under the Damoclian sword. Boots on the ground is a salary and quality selection issue and a 6% pay increase is a step in the right direction. Sadly, the UK forces will benefit from the Ukraine war for as long as it lasts… Read more »
What you say, I absolutely agree with you.Definitely need to sort out recruitment,platforms ,etc .And not to fall asleep again when the fireworks stop.He’s hoping🤔
I can see two seperate outcomes. UKR gets support it needs, Putin is halted and the pre (probably) 2022 dividing lines reinstated. Outcome is near to medium term destruction of Russian land capability. UK spending on defence stays at new objective of 2.5%.
Second outcome is Russia achieves its objectives (whatever those are). putin is a hero internally and his other neighbours feel increasingly nervous…compounded if Trump is elected. UK Defence spending for at least the next decade will need to be at 3% and significantly more efficient and effective.
Putin may find that once the questionable quality of troops currently fighting and dying in large numbers, requires the need to place his top draw units at the front? This could result in politically unacceptable losses much closer to home for comfort. A deterioration of core service personnel could begin a revolt within the powerful elements of Russian society, more so than the present situation. Sadly, sustainability and time are not on Ukraine’s side at this point in the war.
We have been getting rid of boots on the ground since 1916. It’s called mechanisation.
It might be that no significant defence spend increase is postulated until the SDR is published in the first half of 2025. At that time it might be clear whether the war in Ukraine is drawing to a close (one way or the other) or is going to be even more prolonged. That may be the crucial factor in determining whether defence gets a spending boost.
It really depends on what the resolution is as each potential resolution has greater or lower geostrategic risk than a Stalemate with Putin left in power. 1) Ukraine wins, Putin falls and is replaces by a more liberal western friendly leadership…very low risk for the west. 2) Ukraine wins Putin falls to an even more ultra hardline A hat..with an immediate up armament….very sig risk of future war. 3) Ukraine falls..Putin starts to re arm and rebuild Ukraine ready for the next swallow..high risk of future war with the west. So I suspect what spending happens will depend on what… Read more »
He does have a secret weapon. Massive quantities of hot air and guff coming out of every orifice. He is not living in the real world. In the real world we have to prepare to fight and win against Russia and China so that means adding 10,000 troops back onto the army and being able to deploy a fully equipped heavy division with supporting enablers and have enough fighting strength to deploy individual brigade sized groups to other theatres of operations.
Agreed 👍
Russia cant take over a country it has a land border with, its in no way going to end up in a land war with the UK as a direct to direct fight. Only scenario we are going up against Russia conventionally is if it attacks a Nato member next door to it. If it does what has it got left to fight with in a conventional sense? It has virtually no professional fighting force left (debatable if it had one before Ukraine) and is just throwing any old crap that it can lay its hands on at its neighbor.… Read more »
It would be unwise to write off Russia’s warfighting capability solely because of poor performance against Ukraine’s forces. They have a habit of regenerating their armed forces after major losses; they did so after they withdrew from Afghanistan between May 1988 and February 1989. They have also (successfully in their eyes) destroyed a huge amount of Ukrainian infrastructure – so we need to be cautious about their future military ‘adventures’.
Do we really have so little to send to the Far East? The RN might have two carriers available and at least half a dozen escorts.
I think afghan was a mild foray compared to Ukraine, even taking upper estimates they lost around 25,000 people in that encounter. Ukraine is probably over 500,000 very easily. Also anyone of fighting age with the means to leave Russia basically has done this time around, hence they are hiring anyone they can willingly or taking people by force from other tactics to trick them into fighting for them. The reality is they have very little left to use manpower wise thats of a capable classification. Im surprising they havnt done a deal with uncle Kim to get NK troops… Read more »
No two wars are the same. Personally, I don’t doubt that Russia could regenerate her forces after their eventual disengagement from Ukraine and pose a further threat to another European country, albeit that it would take many years to do so.
I agree that it is unlikely that we would commit ground forces to a distant war involving China, such as their invasion of Taiwan, but some sort of naval commitment is possible. The US would not need our assets as Battle Casualty Replacements but to internationalise the conflict.
So you just want to higher 10,000 more guys then and job done? I guess artillery, drones and missiles are not a factor then?
Yeah Jim well done that’s exactly what I said. Please don’t miss represent me or try to repackage what I commented on. Thanks.
I wouldn’t like to call him out to his face but, I don’t disagree with your view.
Yes, agree, it’s pretty grinding all this bloody “waffle speak”. Sounds like a lot of “tech and toys talk” which has its necessary place but for goodness sake where’s some more common sense talk for the Army that includes some maybe more fundamental basic improvements and requirements? More new or upgraded heavily armed armoured vehicles, covert all/most of the remaining ch2 to ch3, more artillery, more Apaches, Boxer Shorad and more whatever anyone here who is way more expert than men recommend? I haven’t even mentioned “GBAD” here…lol 😂
Take the meds Q, you and no GBAD isn’t right….!
Lol, you’re probably right, it’s getting out of control so I’m off to 🛌 now… Lol 😁
I wish I lived in Australia and was able to go to bed in the middle of the day, that must be so nice!
LOL. We’re surprisingly normal down here except that we walk upside down to you up in the north…Jk. We’re 8-9 hours ahead of the UK so I think I was going to bed around 11.30pm.
You are referring to the new CGS? A bit unkind. He has to operate in the real world of Downing Street, Westminster and Whitehall. It is Starmer and Reeves who need to be convinced of the need to reverse that 10,000 troop cut; Healey I am sure is convinced.
CGS? His ‘real world’ includes Starmer and Reeves, Treasury officials, other Government departments lobbying for more resources, and anti-Defence mandarins. I am pretty sure Healey is on his side.
He can’t guarantee sucessfully lobbying for 10,000 extra personnel for the army.
It is easier to lobby for equipment, particularly if there is a proven capability gap or equipment in service that is not fit for purpose.
What do boots give you that guided missiles, drones, and artillery don’t?
What are your boots doing on the ground? Kicking people or are they calling in guided missiles and artillery?
First of all boots on the ground operate theses systems guided missiles,drones and Artillery platforms. And yes there are times in war the Kicking part comes in war face to face 🙄
How many boots do you need to operate a missile? If the drones use AI how many boots do you need to operate then. If the AI bots can guide the missiles then how many boots are required?
Our 70,000 pairs of boots can dish out a lot more death and destruction than 70,000 pairs of boots could 50 years ago.
This is what the general is eluding to.
It’s not about input it’s about output.
Very well put!
I think the general is waffling a bit , nice ales speech but but he contradicts himself . He says soldiers are the army , but then zero elaboration comment on increasing soldier numbers for full time and part time. Both of which require serious focus on retention and ability to upscale and utilise the reserves in time of war . He says the army is medium size which i personally think is nonsense . One issue the army has is constantly waiting for modern kit to be developed and issued , when really at the moment we should probably… Read more »
👍
Also it needs drastically higher funding to achieve.
👍
Artificial Intelligence alone will not enable the General’s vision to be achieved. You do need more weaponry of large calibre and high rates of fire, with the logistics to support it. I am thinking of course principally of artillery!
In WW2 the RA was 25% of the army’s strength. These days it is well under 10%.
Find Fix Flatten Thats it. Find them with recce and drones Pass the locations to Arty, PGM Rockets, Attack Drones, Fast Air, Gunships etc Flatten them. Rinse and repeat Hold ground? Why? If you can kill an enemy tank squadron/regiment with Brimstone or PGMs from miles behind the front line why risk troops? Iraq and Afghan showed that holding ground at all cost gets people killed for little reason. They wont want to repeat that. Any peer conflict that the UK gets involved with isn’t going to be about holding anything. It’s going to be about malleting the enemy and… Read more »
It is absolutely pointless being able to annihilate a Russian Armoured Corps attacking Estonia, if then a dismounted Infantry Platoon walks into the ruins of Narva and squats there. I hate to say it, but any war in the East will absolutely be about holding ground. Narva will need to be held. The Geography of the battlefield dictates that. The Suwalski gap will need to be held. The E77 from Pskov to Riga will need to be held. Because if you just want to mallet Russian columns and not hold ground then it’ll cost the Russians, but they’ll still occupy… Read more »
And you want to stick some guys in there with rifles to hold it?
Is that how modern maneuverer warfare works is it?
Are you giving them some spades to dig in?
Best way to hold Narva is to surround St Petersburg, that’s how NATO a fights,
NATO absolutely fights with dismounted soldiers using rifles ASMs, NLAWs, Mortars, and MG’s when the tactical situation requires it. Be that holding a FOB or a City (or taking one). Narva is a choke point, and even if you assume that NATO on day 1 will have enough mobile forces to take St Petersburg (it won’t, that’s a build up that will take political consensus and time), YOU STILL NEED TO HOLD NARVA WHILE THE MECHANISED FORCES ADVANCE ON ST PETERSBURG. (Oh and yes, they will have spades to dig in, believe it or not, an entrenching tool is still… Read more »
Absolutely 👍
And when was the last time we dug trenches in combat conditions? Our army spends a fair bit of time on horses as well, doesn’t mean they will be using them in combat. Also note I dint say take St Petersburg I said surround it. It can be cut off as well, Air strikes and long range precision fire doing much of the work. All NATO army’s are adapting to fight in this way. Russia is digging trenches because that’s all they are capable off. The French army built walls in 1940 to hide behind because that’s what they were… Read more »
Jim, talking about digging…you are digging yourself a bigger hole in debating this with Dern!
In every warfighting campaign I can think of, be it historic or recent, our troops have dug in or built sangars, when in defence.
Trenches? Not recently, probably Desert Storm or Gulf War 2, mostly because we’ve been facing enemies who lack significant artillery and so we’ve been using Hesco instead (shell scrapes however have been used). Next comment is just stupid: We keep horses for ceremonial purposes, we do not keep teaching defensive tactics, and trench digging for ceremonial purposes, get a grip of yourself. Oh and I don’t really care if you think cut off or take the city, it litterally doesn’t matter because you still have to defend in manuever warfare. You want to surround and cut off St Petersburg. Great.… Read more »
I read what the General had to say and I expect the MOD are rubbing their hands with glee. Troops will always be needed, fair to say the UK need an 100,000 land Army and yes, trenches would still be dug, kinda helps when bullets are flying your way. We need tanks, we need more ships and more fast jets. Tech is OK, but I would not like to bet on it as a war winner. We need anti jet missiles in numbers. Russia would notneed to try and take the UK, he could bomb, bomb and bomb again, not… Read more »
Ernest I suggest you look at a map and then think about why the Russian Air Force, which is considerably smaller and weaker than NATO’s air forces, might struggle before reaching the UK.
I suggest though you look at UK power supplies – Russia are not as stong as NATO. they could bomb or send missiles to blow our magificent off shore wind farms, they could do the same with Starmers Solar Panal Farms. They could cause destroy sea bed cables. We need lots more ships and jest to counter that. We need more troops – if 70,000 is enough, why is it not enough for France and Germany, the latter are now rearming. We are not.! So russia strikes latvia – then our troops are NATO troops – Then would be a… Read more »
Again, look at a map. Both the North Sea and Kier Starmers Solar Power Farms are very far away from Russian airbases with multiple NATO countries and multiple NATO airforces that need to be overflown before a British GBAD system would come into effect.
Well Putin is not silly – He would move some assets to a friendly nation, Apart from that we should be defenden proper – Even if on the cheap/ example when new Frigates come on stream, don’t retire all the Duke Class. Short of crews. I bet Nepal would supply lots to integrate with ours, thousands apply only a few are chosen. I know it’s for the army, but I bet lots would serve in RN. Troops – we simply don’t have enough and personaly we have other commitments beside NATO – Use all our forces defending Europe would be… Read more »
Again…. not looking at a map.
Name the friendly nation you think Putin would base his airfroce in to attack the UK? Come on, give us specifiics.
Yeah, okay now you are trolling, run along now.
I did not say he would move “some assets to friendly nations” – Belarus just 1200 miles from UK – Nothing for a fast jet (s) – They could target Starmers sunshine farm and North Sea Oil with missiles from a sub. Yes Russia could and probably would lose some assets , do you think that would bother them when the reward was destruction of a large park of UK energy supplies. If you I am a “troll” fair enough, but in reality this started with not agreeing tech without increased troop recruitment – That IMO is silly. Quality WITHOUT… Read more »
“Belarus is just 1200 miles from the UK.” And SU-34’s combat range is just over 600 miles, but: I SAY THIS FOR A THIRD TIME: WHAT IS BETWEEN BELARUS AND THE NORTH SEA AND UK!? This is why you are a troll. You know that there’s a thousand miles of NATO airforces between Russia and the UK. It would require unescorted strategic bombers to overfly multiple NATO countries. It’s not “they’d loose some assets.” It’s “They’d loose everything they sent and the UK would have wasted time.” If you want to troll away and ignore that very incovenient fact for… Read more »
The problem is Dern, you have no lateral thinking. if you thought outside the box, you would see UK would not be 100% invulerable. Not just a matter of a Russian jet flying through NATO airspace, is it? Submarines with missiles – Undersea cable cutting ? just a couple of Russian Subs with missiles get in range – I mean what if? That should be enough to get alarm bells ringing. What is Russia Used tactical nuclear weeaapons against NATO. remeber the Dambusters against all odds – remember the Coccleshell heros – How did they get near – Well two… Read more »
“Lateral thinking” No troll, its called understanding the threat.
And fucking hell there’s some massive goalpost shifting happening here, underwater cable cutting? We where talking about anti-aircraft missiles being based in the UK.
Tactical Nulear Weapons? Okay so we’re now going into CASD. Completely different subject.
You then go on to compare WW2, where the allies had the superior airforce, to the, comparatively tiny, Russian airforce flying THROUGH THE LARGEST AIRFORCES ON THE PLANET.
It’s not lateral thinking. It’s you not knowing what the f*ck you are talking about. Dunning Kruger at it’s finest. Now bore off.
So this started by me saying we needed 30,000 more troops and I am wrong. probably more. You keep bannging on about no way could Russie threaten UK Energy supplies. You keep banging on about NATO’s superior air power and you are not wrong but, as I said – Lancaster Bombers defied the might of Germany and smashed the Dams. Cocleshell heroes badly damaged 6 merchant ships -ok they got caught – Shows how dangerous mission that was. Bearing that in mind – You are telling me no way could Russia damage our infrastructure – Sure NATO COULD stop jets,… Read more »
And when was the last time we dug trenches in combat conditions? Our army spends a fair bit of time on horses as well, doesn’t mean they will be using them in combat. Also note I dint say take St Petersburg I said surround it. It can be cut off as well, Air strikes and long range precision fire doing much of the work. All NATO army’s are adapting to fight in this way. Russia is digging trenches because that’s all they are capable off. The French army built walls in 1940 to hide behind because that’s what they were… Read more »
Wow double post much.
I can copy and paste too, but I’m not going to bother, just scroll up.
I don’t think Jim is going to get it Dern
In answer to your question there was a lot of digging in going on during the Falklands war. Some great bunkers, sangars , OPs and firing positions were rapidly built by troops from both sides of the conflict that knew the old military adage. If you don’t want to be blown to crap by shrapnel then you need 2-3 feet of soil around you.
Agree Dern. Entrenched infantry in prepared positions are damn hard to dislodge. Anyone with military experience knows that.
👍
🎵Я, кум, дві лопати
Jim, Ask the Ukrainians if they want to seize and hold the ground the Russian Army currently stands on in their country.
It’s funny because for all the vaunted Russian Artillery, for all the allied GMLRS and Artillery, and for all the FPV drones, if the Ukranians want to take a Russian trench it still requires a brave section, platoon, or company to strap on their helmets, and clear it with rifles. If the Russians want to take a Ukranian town, they still have to send their men into the town. FPV drones, and fires or not, and take it room by room. This idea that infantry is a thing of the past, even when we are talking about complicated terrain, or… Read more »
So in let’s say in Estonia, ivan rocks up, takes it and NATO give him a clear 12 months to dig in, lay minefields etc? Ukr isn’t being fought as a NATO combined arms war.(mores the pity) NATO would be striking over the border deep into the rear. Railways, roads, bridges, power plants. NATO air would be hammering SAMs, radar and troops. St Petersburg approaches mined and blockaded. Nothing with a Russian flag on it would remain afloat in the Baltic or High North. On land ivan wont get time to dig in an consolidate. Other NATO nations with Inf… Read more »
Britain won’t rock up with a Brigade in Jackals. There are 3 Jackal Regiments and they are not even all in the same division, let alone the same brigade. If you want to have an adult discussion about this I’m happy to, but if you want to be childish and resort to hyperbole to rubbish the army then frankly I’m not interested in dealing with hysterics. As for what will happen, Russia will invade in an initially deniable manner that aims to create a confused response from NATO and the EU. We do not maintain enough forward deployed forces currently… Read more »
I’m sure GB was generalising there re the Jackals.
Quite a thought of having all 3 Regs included in one Bde though! 😜
It seems then that the NATO EFP BGs are too small and should actually be a Brigade?
EFP is just a tripwire. The idea is that if Russia invades with several combined arms armies, the EFP Battlegroups will stand and die in the Baltics, but eventually be over run. In turn their deaths will force the British, German, French and Canadian goverments to actually go to war. That’s the deterrent, not the actual fighting power of the troops deployed. I know he’s generalizing which is why it annoys me, it’s unnecessarily rubbishing and putting down the army by portraying it as significantly less effective than it is. (Ironically if we went for an all fires approach then… Read more »
Yes. I have huge respect for the infantry. My first posting was to 2SG LAD in Muenster. I was years later BEME of an Infantry brigade (24x, Catterick). They are the core of the army, I have no doubt.
Bizarre this thought that for the army, seizing and holding ground is ‘old hat’. We supposedly just have to mallet the opposition from afar…and the war will be won! No, it won’t.
I opened up the Infantry Platoon Tactics guide today, and it has A LOT to say about the aplicability of Trenches, when and where they should be used, how to construct them, etc.
I saw a piece on forces news the other month about the renaissance of trench warfare. As part of the training at SENTA for UKR a whole system has been constructed. I understand the British Army are also drawing lessons from it, and from experienced UKR NCOs.
I think there’s been a general acknowledgement that the British Army has been one of the better forces at keeping trench fighting alive within it’s ranks over the sandbox wars epoch, and while there definietly is a renewed focus on it, and lessons being learned, I don’t think it ever entirely went away.
Thanks Dern. Maybe you could share a few key points? I vividly remember a Sandhurst defence exercise called Ex Longstop Hill. Exhausting. Lots and lots of digging in.
Slightly cautious about sharing points out of it, it’s prominently labelled as being for MoD distribution only, and I’d rather not have UKDJ achieve WOT Forum fame lol.
But the Annex that features diagrams on examples of how to construct trenches and firing positions is about 20 pages long on it’s own.
Thanks, I fully understand.
Is the ability to depl8y quickly and mallet enemy concentration and kit at distance not potentially a key role UK can perform (with appropriate expeditionary capabilty) while the role of holding given areas be the primary focus of forces from Poland, Sweden and Estonia etc, as many of them have historically been structured to do anyway.
You need to be able to mallet enemy concentrations at distance, that’s nothing new, it’s not an either or situation it’s a “Yes and” situation.
Not disagreeing Dern. Simply suggesting that in a NATO Europe context the ‘Hold’ role may be best performed by local forces familiar with the Geography. The UK role could be to rapidly redeploy a Mallet to where it is needed most. Certainly pre joining NATO weren’t the Swedish forces essentially structured into multiple local defence area forces. There is also the question of where the UK capabilities would be best focused. With Poland establishing massive land capabilities alongside its airforce and Germany rebuilding, should the UK NATO contribution be, for example, more Scandinavian in focus and then structured and equipped… Read more »
I mean how local is local? Estonia the truly local forces are the Kaitseliit, but they have very limited combat strength (not just in a long range reach out and touch people kind of way, but also in an up close gunfight), so they are very geared towards a stay behind resistance kind of fight (similar to the Swedish local defence forces). Ironically, at least for estonia, the British Army is going to be one of the most familiar forces with the area since they’ve been there, exercising, and training, for years now. On your second point I don’t think… Read more »
Question. Why do we need to do that too? Can’t the Baltics/Germany/Poland etc provide mass while we contribute the boom?
A few reasons, First other nations will bring their own boom. The idea that Poland won’t be providing a lot of MLRS, Gun artillery, and air dropped munitions to the fire doesn’t really bear out. 3 UK XX has 4 Regular Artillery Regiments, 2 AS90/Archer/Boxer, 2 MLRS. The Polish 11th Cavalry Division has 7 (5 Gun based, 2 MLRS). [Okay the Polish Artillery is qualitatively variable, with K9, Krab and HIMARS being the high end on the same level as us, and some older units still having soviet SPGs and MLRS, but that’s changing]. Again, it’s not either or, it’s… Read more »
Totaly agree possession is everything. If russia invades the baltics. Would nato really release the nukes? I’m not sure we would. if Poland germany invaded then yes we prob would. This is where numbers come in as a deterrent. And yet again ukraine has shown that numbers is everything. If Spain attacked Gibralter because we only had a platoon or company size unit their, or china or russia landed in South Antarctica, south Georgia etc because we have no one there , what is uk going to do about it , probably nothing and go to the UN .
The British Army now as it stands cannot hold ground as it did when it was BAOR and had all the supporting elements available. It needs to find another way of contributing to NATO in ways that others cannot.
Anything going down in Estonia is not going to be a British Army only thing. NATO will be in and especially Poland.
Army deep fires (When they get it) Int etc will be extremely valuable. The other branches contribution from RAF and RN in the Baltic and High Morth will be equally as important.
Cool so one: Wrong. The British Army absolutely can hold ground. Just not on the same scale as the BAOR, mainly because the Army is smaller. 2 Divisions instead of 4 plus a lot of detached Brigades. Sure NATO will be in, but I doubt the Poles will be in Estonia, they have a few hundred miles of Belarussian border and Kaliningrad to deal with, as well as keeping the Suwalski gap open. Did I say that deep fires are unimportant? No. In fact I think I have said two or three times in this thread that it’s not an… Read more »
Regards the ongoing debate about trenches, holding ground, and so on.
Would it be realistic then to have a Lt Infantry Battalion included in the Armoured Brigades to cover that side? Give them LPM vehicles.
I’m reminded by this discussion of the issues the Germans had in Barbarossa, the PZ Groups thrusting ahead and the Infantry Armies following up that were needed to secure the flanks of the initial deep thrusts.
I mean if you give them LPM vehicles they’re mechanised, not Light Role 😛 I think it depends on your conops, I can see an argument for running it one of two ways: Either you have a Light Mech Infantry Battalion in each brigade, or you have eg 4 and 7 in reserve to do that. The complications being the British Army is small enough that I’d prefer to see 7 and 4 be an exploitation force (Think French in Mali, or the Ukranians in Kharkiv, where an initial armoured thrust breaks through and then light mech forces race ahead… Read more »
2 Brigades of reservists, each with their own CS CSS as a self contained deployable formation? 1 each per Division? Or both in rear of 12 and 20.
That sounds like an amazing force multiplier except I recall your previous comments and scepticism about our reserves and their utility.
Would it help If they were hybrid? With a spine of regulars through each unit?
Example, the very low strength SFA Bns.
I should clarify that my skepticism is directed speicifically at the UK reserves, not the concept of reserves. The US National Guard, objectively, functions.
Sure, point noted.
Would a regular cadre with them improve? I understand reservist units usually have seconded regulars in key positions? Could this be expanded?
Perhaps. But where do these regulars come from? The issue isn’t that the Army reserve is all reservists, it’s that we are incapable of calling them up in formed units.
Well that’s why above I’d mentioned the SFA Bns? Would a 50 50 mix or a different ratio work?
How to get the reserves usable in their own formation? What differs with the NG?
The difference is the National Guard can actually call up it’s forces when they’re needed. That’s basicially it. Adding regulars to a Reserve Battalion doesn’t make the army more willing to call up a battalion or brigade off civie street.
You’re wrong mate, what we really need is a division of 10,000 guys in red coats standing next to each other with muskets.
All this “mechanisation” crap is a fad and don’t get me started on drones, missiles and artillery 😀
Nice words, but we’ve all heard similar before.
Meanwhile our army is pootling along in grandad’s APCs.
Well grandads APCs are not at all bad for what they are doing as engr sect vehicles etc👍
after all it is only a steel box on tracks and the M113 is still widely used.
If they work. The replacement rate with Boxers is glacial. By the time they are replaced— if it’s 2030– they’ll be 70 years old.
The closer you get to home, the more holding ground becomes important. Fighting somewhere else, it’s not your ground. Many have complained of Ukraine defending the ground it shouldn’t. While I agree, it’s not my ground. One great advantage of expeditionary warfare, it’s not your ground your fighting over.
Good to finally see an article here on this. We have discussed much of it earlier on other articles, ARRC as SACEUR reserve, more MLRS, and so on. The devil is in the DETAIL, which I still await. THAT is what is lacking. Till then, it is more hot air and lofty aspirations while the reality is we have virtually no SP 155mm artillery left and the Armoured Infantry are losing their Cannon and chain gun equipped Warriors for Boxer with a RWS MG on the roof. You have the Ajax ISTAR, you have Morpheus, you have new Drones, the… Read more »
Your forgetting about the infantry cap badges mate with all your talk of logistics and strategy you amateur 😀
Real soldiers focus on retaining as many cap badges as the budget will allow so they can all line up nicely when trooping the colour 😀
😀
Nice and comprehensive Daniele. Wonder if the RUSI chaps ever take a squizz at what we all write here on UKDJ?
Never mind RUSI, Healey himself should be scrutinising every comment!
Of course, he’d then decide we need to spend 40 percent of GDP and get kicked out of government, but that is beside the point
I don’t think you will get the detail Daniele until the outcome of the defence review in 2025. The govt catchphrases seem to be ‘mission lead’ and ‘one defence’. That said from I’m seeing so far they are willing to consult, but briskly, and to think things through to detail plans. Opinions on UKDJ are probably taken note of.
Ok how? a lot of words but no new actions or contracts, fix retention will help a lot. Like it or not this will cost a lot. I do how ever like hes positive views
He doesn’t actually say anything of substance. If you want to double fighting power, you either double your troop numbers or double the lethality of your kit or a combination of both. No chance of manpower increase, so what equipment changes,planned or in the pipeline are going to deliver this? * Ch2 upgrade but numbers cut- no * Boxer to replace Warrior – no * Ajax to replace CVRT – yes, at last. * RCH to replace AS90- depends on number ordered * MRLS upgrade- 76( including reserve) to 85 No. * Vehicle launched brimstone ( overwatch)- perhaps if we… Read more »
Agreed Peter , how he can make this speech without more Boots on the ground and Equipment baffled me.Can’t relay on AI alone one can never tell who our enemy will be although at the moment it’s not to hard to tell sadly.And likely hood they will have more to bring to the field,like I said in an earlier post has he got some secret weapon 🤔🇬🇧
The measure he used was that x number of UK soldiers should be able to defeat 2x of a near peer. Some of this can be achieved by an increase in reach: double the situational awareness and the kill zone. Unfortunately there are problems. 2x and 3x are temporary, because whatever we do will be countered. Getting ahead will have to become staying ahead, and I’m not sure that’s possible. The second issue is that we won’t be fighting only two or three times our numbers of any peer opponent. The best plan for the Army is NATO last. How… Read more »
Your right, in any ground conflict we enter we are likely to outnumber the enemy by a factor of 10 and will likely have a firepower advantage of 10 as well.
Fortunately the UK nor any of our Allie’s boarder Haiti or Guyana and we haven’t had a need of a large ground force in the far east since Malaya.
Hence my use of the term Black Swan event: the things that you don’t expect.
I would contend that Guyana are our allies and it’s not a million miles from our ally France (Guiana). Haiti is an UN obligation for which Kenya are currently fulfilling lead. There is every likelihood that the UK will wish to contribute to future UN obligations as we have in the past and do in the present.
Jon, I wrote out a big response to this and then my browser crashed, so rather than repeat that, I want to ask you to humour me and throw a few questions for you think about;
Firstly:
What do you think a Division that’ll be able to fight in Central America will be structured like?
Actually the army’s Job is to track and attack as many targets over as wide an area as possible.
Strangely enough the number of primates in uniform don’t correlate well to the results of that equation in modern warfare.
The French had many primates in uniform in 1940 but no radios, hence the Germans beat them very quickly despite inferior numbers.
Monkey mafia
(The Germans didn’t have inferior numbers in 1940, they had roughly equal numbers to the French and British, shifting to a marginal superiority when Italy invaded).
British forces have always lacked organic firepower. Always trained better than others, but not enough going down range. Look how long it took .50bmg and 40mm grenade launchers to become a norm at the front. British battalions needed support companies with more oomph. MANPAD’s too few too far between. Found at brigade should be at battalion level. 120mm mortars too. No organic AA for armoured formations to move at speed with those formations and so on. Or CTA40 instead of just buying a stabilised 40mm Bofors with intelligent cheap rounds and buying enough to make the bins overflow. Alright saying… Read more »
**You suggest modifying Warrior by removing the turret where 2 crew members work, dispensing with a 30mm cannon, plating over and fitting a RWS (with a MG) thus turning it into an APC. How on earth is that a step forward?
Because Boxer and Ajax were on their way. Money was needed on those new platforms. Warrior needed to be redployed into secondary role we used FV432 and lesser platforms for. Would you rather have a Boxer or Ajax IFV in numbers? Or scattering of new IFV and a scattering of Warrior with a new turret? The former is a step forward, heavily armed new platforms, the latter is not. Are we getting Warrior with CTA now? No. So no steps forward then, just more money wasted. You can’t have true amoured formations with lead elements in new protected platforms and… Read more »
Boxer and Ajax are not quite here yet. Ajax IOC (50 vehicles at final build standard) is not until Dec 2025; final delivery in 2029. Boxer build is slow – maybe 60-65 per year. Why do you think Warrior is being kept on to replace FV430 vehicles in the various support roles? The FV430s (in addition to Warriors) are being replaced by Boxers. Full list of the 623 order: 146 Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) 60 Engineer Section Vehicle (ESV) 62 Recce/Fire Support Vehicles (Recce/FSV) 28 Mortar Carrying Variant (MCV) 50 Equipment Support/ES Repair (Rep) 158 Command-and-Control (C2V) and C2 Utility… Read more »
Yes. What a mess isn’t it?
🙂
Warrior is not going to replace 432, that’s soldiering on, also Ajax isn’t an IFV.
Surely Boxer variants replace FV430s? We have ordered the EME, ambulance, mortar carrier and many other Boxer variants.
If I am wrong, how much longer would FV430s soldier on for and what would replace them and when?
I use Ajax as short hand for the General Dynamics tracked platform. 432 needs to be replaced. To me it was logical that Warrior would be the best choice for that instead of spending money on a fancy new turret for an expensive fancy new gun. The article is about increasing the Army’s firepower. Increasing the number of IFV in direct support of the few tanks there is seems to be the best option. Keeping under armed older platforms doesn’t seem like a good way to increase the Army’s firepower. If the Army and Treasury were competent they would have… Read more »
432 needs replacing, it doesn’t need replacing with a turreted vehicle. In fact the turret is a hinderence in a lot of the roles. Warrior is an IFV, 432 is a general purpose APC, they don’t really track well onto eachother (there was a project to make a Warrior chasis based 432 replacement, but it went nowhere). There are trade offs to having a auto cannon on everything unfortunately. None of the GD tracked platforms in the Ajax and M10 family are IFV variants, so the point still stands (unless you want to go and buy unmodified ASCOD which they… Read more »
If you go back to read what I said remove the turret from Warrior. I even said that they should be fitted with an RWS of which there are many models on the market with all manner of ordnance from 7.62mm to .50 bmg to 40mm grenade launcher and many other combinations. There is an IFV option in the GD ASCOD range upon which Ajax is based. There is even a fire support variant. Why do you think there is all that volume in the rear compartment? Because ASCOD is a track personnel carrier and the UK’s vehicle is variation… Read more »
I have replied. The reply is still in moderation. Not the quickest here are they?
Did you include a link? That usually gets a post into moderation.
Yes. I did. I shall try again quickly. No to need to reply.
I did say I would remove the turrets from Warrior and plate over the hole. At best I would install a stabilised RWS. But for me the new turret programme was a waste.
I then said Ajax is based on ASCOD IFV. That is why there is lots of space for all those electronic systems. There is no reason why an IFV vehicle could not be quickly brought into service for the British Army if budget and need were there.
Nice words but what does that mean for the troops on the ground. The troops need numbers, equipment and a clear doctrine on what they are meant to do. They also need need things like pay, housing and time at home with family. The time at home also comes down to numbers. Doctrine is the main point, if the British Army is to fight in mainland Europe it needs one type of equipment and Poland is a large flat open country. If we are to be the main support for Norway/Sweden then its a diffrent type of equipment and training.… Read more »
You think the only logic that is valid for the UK to need tanks would be to take on a tank-equipped nation on our own??
No, the logic for having tanks is that they are needed to equip a deployable warfighting division to fight alongside allies against tank-equipped enemies.
Hi Graham, I think you misunderstood me. I agree that we need to have deployable units to fight along side our allies. That is why I said I would like to see three armoured brigades, two foreward deployed under NATO command. However, do or will we need tank formations the size of 1Br Corp, when I served we had four armoured divisions in Germany. I still think that the main area of support that we could give to NATO is to be able to support the Scandinavian countries which would require a diffrent type of equipment to that of the… Read more »
Hi Ron, apologies if I did misunderstand. We certainly don’t need to recreate 1 (BR) Corps with its 4 armoured divisions. No-one thinks that. We have only had one ‘armoured division’ for a generation now and that seems to be right for our heavy metal capability…but it must be comprised of 3 proper and identical manouevre brigades, each with tanks and armoured infantry (in IFVs, please). 3 Div is assigned to the ARRC for the Central Front as we used to call it. I think it a good idea (CGS’ idea) if the ARRC becomes a strat reserve for SACEUR… Read more »
Totally agree.
…and I’m going to be the next British astronaut. 🚀. Many of us could probably triple firepower on paper but we will have only148 tanks by 2030; Ajax(?); a wheeled tin can with an LMG: Only artillery can make up the difference and it is to be welcomed but a balanced multi tasking “divisional” force? How?
yep – manpower needs to be increased but that takes too much thought & planning – so trite statements about firepower and AI abound. Does he expect us to believe other (larger) armies aren’t thinking exactly the same. Added to that our attempts at procurement are farcical (Warrior , Ajax anyone) and real cutting edge kit is oft reduced in numbers at best or consigned to the bin at worse due to … costs (C3)? Thats including where we don’t even go for top drawer kit in the first place due to the costs (of course). or waste money on… Read more »
All this “AI” speak is kind of giving me the sh*ts so can we also add some “IA”… Intelligent Action… into the mix?
👍
Couldn’t have put it better. Numbers need to be consolidated at least. All this talk about divisioins et.al is pointless unless we have the right people in the right place. The days of the UK deploying divisions have gone. The only deployment we can realistic expect the U.K. to make now is the Falklands/Sierra Leone type and as things stand at this moment I’m not sure we can do that. No matter how many weapons we talk about there is only one item that can control territory…the Mark One Human. The best we can deliver for people to forge a… Read more »
We would only deploy one division on warfighting not several. 3 Div is that warfighting div. We would deploy it ‘warts and all’, if the ARRC and/or NATO in general needed it.
I think if you want to increase lethality without increasing the number of soldiers, you need mass quantities of cheap autonomous FPV-style drones ready to go. At <£500 a piece we can stockpile them until we reach the sort of numbers being used in Ukraine: a million a year being produced by either side. Those aren’t yet fully autonomous and need a vast cohort of FPV pilots. We won’t have that and need full autonomy overideable only in target selection. If they think they will be ineffective, and in many cases a basic sub £500 drone probably will be, let… Read more »
Mass drone launch will probably need a new vehicle. I think we’ll also need a Boxer variant that is an FPV control post, getting half-a-dozen drone pilots/authorisers close enough to our drone launch positions that they can be in the loop.
It’s possible that we could phone in the decision making from the UK direct to the launch vehicle, but if the enemy cuts comms, and that’s not impossible, a higher bandwidth local decision-making centre should available rather than let target selection fail over to full autonomy or to stopping the launch.
Drones aren’t the miracle weapon people make them out to be. They have some significant drawbacks that don’t really get a lot of headlines sadly (because they’re new and cool).
I look forward to CGS unpacking in practical terms his “bold ambition to double our fighting power in three years and triple it by the end of the decade”.
He is to do this ‘shortly’ – does that mean next week, after the Sep budget, or when SDR is published in the second half of 2025?
Or when economic conditions allow 🙂
🙂
Personally I am glad someone finally has a vision and is in a position to try to bring it to reality. I’m not sure anyone really understands the plan, which might be a good thing, let’s give him his time and hope for the best. At least something is happening.
Not sure CGS has had time to craft a plan – but we have his vision – that’s a really good start.
I suspect he has a plan for the first 3 years at least. He has little time to waste if he is to get close to that.
Unfortunately, the Army could barely field a single combat division. A division is led by a Major General (2 Star). Google shows the Army List as having three Generals, seven Lt Generals and 45 Major Generals. The Navy has more Flag Officers than ships, the Army has fifty-five General Officers for thirty-three infantry battalions. I would start any restructuring of the Armed Forces by modernizing and right sizing the command structure.
To a fellow Graham. Not every senior officer is commanding something in the Field Army or the equivalent in the other 2 services. Those that are not in command are staff officers or are in Defence diplomacy posts.
I was going to write a detailed reply on the wide spread of 1* and above roles in defence but I cannot be bothered. This old chestnut has come up so many times.
Maybe Private Pike should be in charge of multi million budgets and hundreds of directorates with staff.
Yes, it is astonishing. [Equally not all doctors work face-to-face with patients].
I remember a stat once doing the rounds – 70% of army personnel are in the deployable Field Force and 30% are not.
It’s a slow day at work… so here we go… The trope of ‘more admirals than ships’ is a little worn. There is a really good read on why it is an inaccurate yardstick written by Sir Humphry on the Thin Pinstriped Line, which I find compelling and broadly accurate. So the maths at the time of writing (2019)… 34x 2*s in the RN/RM represent less than 0.1% of the force. Of which only 13 were Single Service (RN/RM) posts bringing it further down to about 0.05%. The remaining – as Graham M rightly states – are in Joint assignments:… Read more »
Boom!
Exactly this.
The RN isnt just ships.
Aircraft. Medical. Engineering. Dockyards. Project Groups. HR. Plans. Logistics. Operations. NATO. Purple.
All require senior management appointments.
BLOODY BRILLIANT POST!
I have had this discussion so many times on this forum over the years, and tried to explain the endless number of non front line organisations in MoD and wider defence that require leadership. I’ve never seen it explained in such detail, clarity, and in a way I, at the end of the day just a civvy, could never do.
Bravo.
Copying and pasting this one for use if needed I think.
Source article here, far better than my consolidation: https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2019/03/does-royal-navy-have-more-admirals-than.html
I’m calling it now, ‘Hybridity’ will become the new Staff Course bingo word of choice…
To quote the late great Ken Dodd, they can’t touch you for it 😉
A lot of buzz words but no explanation how.
He’s only been in the job for a few weeks!
My. Comment stands. How can he make such commitments if he does know how ( vaguely) he is going to do it. As a serving officer he must have some ideas.
Perhaps he is keeping them to himself for now. First sell the vision.
They are not commitments. It is a vision. I am sure he is working up a roadmap, but he would not put that in the public domain this side of SDR being published.
Ironic that the headline photo shows a Boxer APC which will be replacing the Warrior IFVs, not exactly a rise in fighting power IMHO.
The discussion about AI is currently over-hyped. At a talk given by a senior engineer at a major pharmaceutical company tasked at looking at how AI can be integrated, he made several interesting points: 1. Last year AI was rubbish. It is a little less rubbish this year. 2. The amount of energy and memory that AI uses to process information is like crypto-mining. It is massive. In order to use AI when it is useful will take a tremendous increase in processing capacity electricity provision. 3.) He said that more accurately AI is machine learning. He gave an example… Read more »
Paint all our tanks with union flags and we’ll be rolling over the Kremlin in no time.
And what will this cost? As a taxpayer I pay my government to disperse our taxes for our benefit. Not to Ukraine or NATO. Our soft handed ‘leaders’ should stop beating their puny chests on the world stage interfering in the world’s business and sort our NHS and public services out!
Cobblers.
If we don’t go out to the world and get involved in international affairs, the world will come to us, and not always in ways you shall like.
Mandy in the late 1930s a previous Government declared war on Nazi Germany. That Government saw that allowing the Nazi’s to gobble up Europe at it’s own pace would result in Europe (including us) being defeated by a brutal dictatorship. Not only that they set about persuading the US to join the cause because it was the right thing to do. Initially the US stuck to their america first – we are not getting involved in world affairs policy which was taken as weakness by Japan who attacked them at Pearl Harbour bringing the Americans to their senses. World peace… Read more »
Well, wouldn’t it be good if we were all nice to each other all the time? Sorry, the world is just not like that. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone? yeah, you see how that works out : Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine Hamas’s Unprovoked Attack on Israel North Korea’s continuous belligerence and provocations on South Korea Iran’s continual interference in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza. Autocratic regimes thrive on the weakness of other nations, there is always an ‘enemy’ to be condemned and an excuse to build a large army and support industry. Autocracies do not… Read more »
Our tax ££s has never just gone on spend for the benefit of the population. We have typically spent 0.7% of GDP on foreign non-military aid.
What we spend on our armed forces is to enable them, amongst other things, to undertake NATO missions and commitments.
it all sounds rather optimistic, given that we haven’t had SDR 2025 yet
Honestly ” double…fighting power in three years” is ridiculous waffle. How many armies could do that??. And its not like money is going to showered on them.
The Army is a mess. The first thing it needs to do is come up with a credible aim and structure to achieve it ( including lack of much new funding and timeframe).
Indeed what should be its top say 3 priorities over the next 3 years to improve.? I leave it to the experts on here to consider.
When this government has just cut public projects…..seeing is believing. He can start by upping the lethality on AIFV’s etc, coming into service now. TOW or other anti-armour mounted systems would be welcome.
I thought infrastructure projects grew the economy, which is a government priority?
Unless you have union paymasters to placate! 😉
So in one breath he extols the virtues of technology & AI suggesting they are the panacea to all our military woes…and in the next breath the government denies 1.5 billion pounds of promised funding for a new supercomputer and AI investment.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned supposed military benefits we (UK) are again going to be left behind , UK governments just don’t seem to appreciate the need to back technology.
As it has always been so shall it continue to be.
Rather underwhelmed by the CGS’s utterances. His talk about doubling lethality etc is not really a vision, it is just the kind of waffle the MOD pumps out a regular basis. The senior civilians there will tell you it is already happening. Sky Sabre is twice as lethal as the obsolete Rapier it is replacing! The Apache AH-64E is more capable than the old Apache AH1! GMLRS haa a much longer range and greater accuracy then the original MLRS! The 40mm cannon on the Ajax is much more powerful than the Scimitar had! And so on. All it means is… Read more »
I guess we have different ideas about what a senior commander’s vision statement should embrace. I don’t consider a short, bold, dramatic statement to be waffle. I for one find it an exciting and ambitious statement. It’s another point about whether it is achievable. You mention some areas in which lethality is improved but we have gone from 67 Apache down to 50, so that takes the edge off things. The Armoured Infantry is not now to get 40mm cannons – in fact they cease to exist. Their replacement, Mechanised Infantry, will only have RWS mounted MGs on their APCs.… Read more »