General Sir Richard Barrons has cautioned that the British armed forces are presently facing significant operational challenges and require a financial infusion of £3 billion to enhance their military capabilities.
The retired general has appealed to Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to allocate funds in the forthcoming budget to replace the weaponry and tanks provided to Ukraine.
His concerns have been rooted in the view that the UK’s armed forces are presently in a precarious state not witnessed since the Cold War. He told The Express:
“We must begin the recapitalisation of the army now, today, and this requires an immediate annual boost of £3bn.
The Russian problem will remain for a decade. If China remains our long-term challenge, Russia is a speed bump which we simply must get over. We have an army that can issue PPE and drive ambulances but is in no state to fight.
We are at a point where the world is much more threatening while our armed forces are at their most broken since the Cold War… they are refusing to acknowledge the world we live in by deliberately keeping defence broken at the most critical time for a generation.”
General Sir Richard Lawson Barrons, a retired British Army officer, served in various staff and field posts in the UK, Europe, and the Far East during his early career. He also worked at the Ministry of Defence and in education before serving on his first tour of duty in the Balkans in 1993.
Barrons then served in Northern Ireland, as a Military Assistant to the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and to the Chief of the General Staff, and in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He was promoted to major general in 2008 and later became Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff.
I hope the British Army gets a cash boost, but I suspect it will not be as large as they would want. I hope they spend it on off the shelf items, rather than Gucci bespoke. Some ground launched SDB for the MLRS would be a good (& affordable) choice. Raising the number of Challenger 3 from 148 to 200-210, might also be a good idea.
I suspect most of the extra money would be needed to go to stuff behind the scenes, such as getting the ammo stocks up or spare parts etc. From endless stories of equipment in storage being used for spare parts in peace time, it’s pretty clear that in the event of a war things would not work for long.
If the Army gets any extra money out of HM Treasury, they will need to prove they spent it wisely. They cannot afford another Ajax fiasco.
Spending upto the decision to go with the Ajax was a mess, but the actual issues with the platform itself don’t appear to have costed the MOD anything other than time. But no doubt there will be a public enquiry about it at some point and the real info on the costs will come out.
Apparently there have been 1200 contract amendments on the Ajax programme. It’s now wonder it’s umpteen years late.
But is it over budget? I’m asking I have no idea on the answer. I know it’s late due to the various issues, but can’t remember any stories of it being over budget, putting aside the money wasted getting to the point of ordering it.
Think its a firm price contract, so it can’t go over budget, unless MoD force contract amendments (ie change the spec).
Tracked Watchkeeper? Role procured for, in Air Supremacy over Iraq and Afghanistan, fulfilled by rent-a-drone: the baseline model that gold plating push-me-pull-you respecification, after every Maytime project officer crop rotation, messed with. Pushed into a desperation ‘look, see, it was operational’ deployment which racked up 146 mission hours while the Toms were drawing down presence and packing boxes. Nothing learned! Dysfunction carried over into AJAX. Our soldiers deserve better. Needs more Sen NCOs and WOs on the specification and build monitoring team not a Janes’ All the World’s collection of Lt Cols without portfolio ticking off every cap badge. Still… Read more »
It is something of a myth that senior officers spend much of their time plotting how to retain capbadges and wishing to revive 1(BR) Corps and BAOR – and are donkeys. The cap badge thing is restricted to a handful of retired senior officers once in a blue moon when there are major cuts imminent – and everyone knows we don’t have the soldiers or equipment to revive BAOR – and there is no political will (or money) to do so.
There are many reasons for the Ajax debacle, and only some are due to incompetent, idle or disengaged officers.
I do feel like there’s like a sliding scale of “how much I care” about cap-badges. With JNCO’s, lower ranking SNCO’s and Junior Officers being very I don’t care; Senior Officers (Lt Col and above) rarely being very fussed, and then there being this middle grade of Majors and WO2’s who get their knickers very much in a twist.
Usually older ones who’s careers will never take them beyond the Regiment….
Thanks Dern, I agree. But there is this perception that senior officers spend a fantastic amount of time lobbying to preserve their capbadge when cuts are looming, to the exclusion of all else. In reality, most senior officers know not to be difficult, negative or obstructive and that they will be ‘marked down’ if they bang on about this.
It’s because it’s the old retired guys with nothing else to do, who write their MP’s, and get on the case of their old buddies who are still in. “I can’t believe you’re letting them disband the old regiment!” XD
Yep, its the old retired Generals – and they get nowhere with their letters to The Times and the Telegraph.
I heard it was 1200 MoD requirements not 1200 contract amendments.
I’m not sure where the responsibility lies, but 1200 changes to a contract are almost inevitably going to foul it up, whoever initiated them. Like everyone else I am all agog to find out if it works and who pays the excess.
Nick, I said that it was (allegedly) 1200 MoD requirements not 1200 Contract Amendments – a massively different thing. I only ever heard of one sizable Contract Amendment (CA) for Ajax, that being in 2016, but there may have been some smaller ones too. When I was a PM at AbbeyWood, my own Project, admittedly a piddling little £60m project, had no Contract Amendments. If a CA is proposed by MoD, then MoD pay any extra costs arising. Rare for a Contractor to raise a CA, but if they did, they would pay any additional costs. Having said all the… Read more »
I think we are both on the same page in that too many changes to a contract, or too many requirements in the original contract agreement, are almost inevitably going to lead to problems. I have never run a UK MOD contract, when I was in the business all mine were for export, so I bow to your knowledge. It is interesting to see that Wallace now says that the changes made mean that the beast will be allowed to go ahead, although Francis Tusa reckons all they are doing is mitigating the symptoms rather than actually fixing the cause… Read more »
I don’t think we have yet heard the full story of MoD allegedly setting 1200 requirements at the outset and whether the inexperienced contractor found that a help or whether it stifled their initiative and creativity. I have not heard of a raft of contract amendments over the years, just the big one in 2016. The technical fixes to alleviate mainly noise and vibration problems are a different story – we have heard nothing about how GDUK solved the problems, just that they seem to have done so, otherwise the vehicle would not have been allowed to resume User Validation… Read more »
Re Tusa, I haven’t read his piece in full, I must subscribe to whatever website he is on. He was quoted by both the Times and the FT.
And for the full story I think we have to wait for the results of the investigation currently being fronted by a KC.
PS. Tusa’s website is Defence Analysis, I must give it a look.
The KC’s enquiry is focussing on the legal issues as I understand it.
I would be interested to hear about the 1,200 MoD requirements that were set out at the outset.
MoD chose a really useless company to make Ajax family.
Totally John, said the same. No time for wasteful idiots.
CR2 was introduced into service in 1998. Since then many parts suppliers have ceased trading or no longer make a certain part. Its a massive problem. It’s why there is recourse to cannibalising of out-of-service tanks.
But the reason for that is stealth cuts. Unless something has gone seriously wrong at the MOD, they should have the original technical diagrams for all the parts, which means they can be built if funds were used. Might not be cheap but possible. However much easier to just cannibalise parts and hide the problem.
MoD is unlikely to have tech diagrams for parts of a tank. MoD off-loaded its Design Authority role to the OEM way back, probably about mid-80s. So BAE will have this. Obsolescence management is part of the responsibility of the MoD Equipment Support Manager at DE&S and it is quite an art. There are several options to dealing with the situation whereby a part that is no longer/can no longer be made by the original supplier: a. Delete the part from the build standard if it/the capability that it supports is no longer required – and amend drawings. b. Seek… Read more »
It’s also worth remembering that the British Army ordered neraly 400 CR2’s and now operates only about 227. When you have nearly as many tanks in storage as you do in service using them for spares isn’t as mad as it might seem when compared to the difficulty of keeping a buisness running just to supply spares for one brand of vehicle.
Yep. We ordered 386 CR2s to form the tank fleet for the post-Cold War army – that was judged to be the right number. – as was an army strength of 120,000 (a reduction of 40k on the Cold War numbers). Then Cameron cut Defence massively in the 2010 review diue to the global financial crisis – there was no reduction of the threat, just a ‘need’ to save money, hence the tanks cut to 227 (and AS90 numbers and troop strength……). Those 227 became the active/in-service tanks – and the balance (386-227) were shoved into hangers at Ashchurch; later… Read more »
4 challenger 3 regiments equals 232 tanks, to let’s equip 4 and not 2 or 3 and a bit!
But only 227 CH2 are in service and with 14 off to Ukraine we will only have 213.
4 regiments would require 300+CH2/3 which we don’t have.
With respect we don’t have any C3’s at the moment. You don’t need 300+ tanks to field four regiments. We had 15 in 1990 and six not so many moons ago. Four is the minimum if we want to match our neighbours. But why just seek parity with our allies? Send a message to the tyrant! Tanks, ships, aircraft. We’re ready.
The 3:4 ratio of tanks in the frontline regiments to total tanks is something the MOD have come up with not me.
2x T56 regiments has a total fleet of 148 and 3 regiments have a total fleet of 227. Both figures are roughly 3/4.
Last time we had 6 Tank regiments was almost 20 years ago and even then half of them were T44.
I understand CH3 isn’t in service but CH2 numbers directly correspond to the max number of CH3.
In addition to tanks at UE you need tanks for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
CR3 isn’t in service, as you say – it has only been 18 months since Contract Award – first tranche come off the line in 2027 and all fielded in 2030.
We have 227 CR2s (less 14 to UA) – we are having just 148 converted to CR3.
To field four Type 56 Regiments you need 224 tanks at UE and a good number for the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – say 290-300 in total.
We could supplement those orders by buying the new panther tank or that tank that south Korea has which is fairly new 100 of those would be enough
We re committed to 2 regiments of armour (which recent events in Ukraine have shown to be too few) We will field a force of less than 150 tanks which once you account for training vehicles and stuff would leave us lucky to deploy operationally 120 or less into a warzone. We are in some ways lucky… it looked very much like we were going to do away with heavy armour at the last SDR (or was it the one before?) The war in Ukraine has quickly dispelled the arguments proposed by those that believed armour was no longer necessary… Read more »
Agree for the most part, but you’re a glutton for punishment. Given the strain on the fiscal budget we will find ourselves in for the next decade, I suggest the best option is to forego more development programs and buy of the shelf. Tempest will suck up a lot of the defence procurement energy available, so ready made will provide cheaper and faster alternatives, with no loss of quality. Let’s save ourselves years of arguing, wasted opportunities and potentially a poorer outcome by buying Korean or German.
Two regiments is 112 tanks, assuming they are Type 56. I don’t recall heavy armour being nearly disposed of at SDSR or Defence Command Paper although there were some who were talking along these lines to the media, including Ben Wallace. We have 227 CR2s less the 14 going to UA, therefore we have a pool of 213 tanks from which we convert 148 to CR3. Don’t know why you are saying there are not enough CR2s for conversion – there is a substantial surplus (213-148). We will not buy Panther KF41 – we are buying CR3 – am I… Read more »
Hi, I agree would it not be better to just decide to change platforms/tanks and not upgrade challenger 2 and move over to the Panther KF41 and hopefully we will not be the only operator of it .
it is a shame they did not look at the lynk instead of Ajax !
Issue is per unit cost, and it was worked out and compared. if you took the CH3 Budget you would get 50 New Tanks of Lep 2 status time you get parts and service kit. and we could continue to upgrade other Ch3s as and when a Budget arrives.
If, and only if, there is an increase in the Defence budget, where are the recruits coming from? I don’t see people queuing at recruitment offices round here. Those eligible and interested have already signed up so who is left?
Disband some of the ” historic” infantry battalions and re role the existing men for additional artillery, engineer and logistics units. Reduce the number of men and horses guarding the royals to about 200 men, and a few officers,just enough for a bit of pomp. CTA40 seems a duff idea to me, only the French are using it, and unless Ajax works or the turrets fit on Boxer it looks a dud. Just fit 30/35mm or 40mm bofors ( with 3P that the RN is using on Type 31) to an off the shelf turret. If ( if ) Ares… Read more »
The Lithuania army has a useful looking Boxer IFV with a 40mm canon. Or we could get a tank destroyer variant with a 105mm gun and ability to transport 6 troops. Useful capability. Both would be off the shelf and add some fighting power to armoured infantry units.
Mate, I couldn’t agree more we need lots of it and as soon as possible. We should definitely increase the number of conversions too every chassis that is capable of being upgraded (maybe we could field 3 regiments then though I doubt it) and we should consider increasing the rate at which we purchase F-35B’s (leveraging our Tier 1 status for quick delivery) and perhaps most of all we must make GDUK meet their contractual obligations in regards to AJAX. It must be delivered in working order or our money back which amounts to billions of pounds? Ajax has left… Read more »
why would you want more f35b that will cost a fortune to upgrade and cant use uk future weapons?
ARES only takes 4 dismounts and has no cannon and no turret. It would cost a lot of time and money to convert it into an IFV for an infantry section.
Makes you wonder what the hell Ares is for? Seems too small and useless and unnecessary.
It is to carry small specialist teams in forward areas where protection is required, such as Engineer recce, anti tank missile teams, AD missile teams etc.
Thanks Graham. Hope it’s got some decent storage space in it and on top of it for those missile teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_Reconnaissance_(Tracked)#Spartan
It’s a replacement for this thing. It’ll have enough storage in it for the blokes kit.
Only 4? I thought it could carry 7, as an APC rather than IFV…
Ajax family replaces CVRT.
Ares replaces Spartan.
Spartan was used to carry specialist sections like engineer recce, air defence, anti tank, and small groups of infantry in the recce regiments.
Ajax isn’t an IFV.
Thanks, yes, I knew that Ajax isn’t an IFV. My IFV comment was in reference to Ares not having a turret but carrying (I thought) 7 personnel, and therefore being an APC. I didn’t realise it was only carrying 4!
Some reviews are badly written leading people to think it can carry 7 dismounts. No it is 4 dismounts plus vehicle crew, presumably of 3 (commander, driver, MG gunner/rad op). It is described as the APC of the family as that is what it is – it is armoured and it carries personnel. But it is not an infantry APC carrying a section (thats where Boxer comes in). It is a recce vehicle variant not an Infantry Troop carrier. The 4 dismounts are specialist teams such as Engineer recce, AD missile team, A-Tk team. ARES replaces Spartan, the APC variant… Read more »
Thanks for clarifying, I was indeed reading an article that claimed 3 crew and 7 dismounts- leading me to believe it was a “full-size” APC.
Given the vehicle’s size I’m amazed there’s only room for 4 dismounts- they must have a LOT of armour and gubbins inside. They’re about the same size as Warrior in terms of external dimensions, I thought?
Correction – crew is 2 not 3, according to GDUK.
ARES (L7.6xW3.35xH3.0) externally is bigger than WR!(L6.3xW3.03xH2.8). Clearly the ARES armour is probably a lot thicker.
We are buying wheeled Boxer as our future APC, unless it comes with a cannon in which case it will be an IFV.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160417113941/http://www.generaldynamics.uk.com/AJAX/imggallery/Newsletters/GDUK2962%20-%20AJAX%20Super%20Photo%20diary.pdf
Wow, and I thought that Military Today wasn’t too bad a website..! I am baffled how we managed to take an APC/IFV platform (ASCOD) and somehow make it that much smaller on the inside that you have to remove 3 people- even with extra armour. What would the British Army’s new tracked IFV look like if we’re taking that approach?! We’d need a Namer-style thing based upon CR2 hulls… Yes, I’ve heard that Boxer will fit into our mechanised infantry units, which isn’t the worst thing that could happen in my view. Especially if we can get a turreted version… Read more »
I like Military Today website – but I think they have copied in some duff info from somewhere. I am as baffled as you as to how a large vehicle can only take 4 dismounts, not that has been procured as an infantry carrier – perhaps there is a lot of internal stowage. The army’s new tracked IFV? Are you saying we have contracted for the Tracked Boxer IFV for our Armoured Infantry battalions? I had not seen a press release to that effect. I still think we should have persevered with Warrior upgrade – it was at least 80%… Read more »
I think I may be using wrong terminology and suchlike. There is currently no new tracked IFV as far as I know, but I expect the army to want one. I don’t think they’ve gone for tracked Boxer, and I remain to be convinced by that to be honest. All I was saying was that if, when funds and opportunity allow the British army to go shopping for a tracked IFV, they put that much armour on it that a Warrior-sized vehicle can only take 4 dismounts- an IFV capable of carrying a section would be massive! I wasn’t against… Read more »
Joe, don’t worry about getting the terminology wrong – not everyone was in the army! Our future IFV was to be the upgraded Warrior but that plan was cancelled (bad decision in my book). So Boxer is to be procured to replace Warrior in the armoured infantry battalions. [Boxer was already on order for other parts of the army]. I have no info on the type of Boxers that are replacing Warrior – ideally they should be tracked Boxers with a 40mm stabilised cannon, but I doubt that is what we’ll get. The worse case scenario is that they will… Read more »
Mate there is no such thing as a tracked Boxer it is a wheeled armoured vehicle which will be the new workhorse of the infantry. The new tracked armoured vehicle platform is Ajax or at least it is meant to be Ajax. Now someone in chat has suggested that Ajax is back on track. I really really hope that is true as our heavy maneuver elements will be in a total mess without it. I have not heard any good news on the Ajax program and had pretty much given it up for lost and was looking at possible alternatives.… Read more »
Hi Stuart, I had not heard of tracked Boxer until a couple of months ago – here is few links: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/eurosatory-2022-new-kmw-boxer-variant-adds-tracked-mobility/ https://www.kmweg.com/systems-products/tracked-vehicles/boxer/boxer-tracked/ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/boxer-tracked.htm however it is a Private Venture by KMW, not ARTEC, and has little to nothing in common with ARTEC’s wheeled Boxer. We have ordered a large number of wheeled Boxers to meet the MIV requirement, but I am not clear as to whether we have yet ordered the tranche of Boxers which replace Warrior – so no idea whether it wlil be the wheeled ARTEC product (and no idea if it has a stablised cannon etc) or… Read more »
Actually there is a tacked Boxer variant:
https://www.kmweg.de/systeme-produkte/kettenfahrzeuge/boxer/boxer-tracked/
It’s still a prototype and hasn’t been bought by anyone yet, but it’s definitely a thing that exists.
Thanks for the clarity, that’s relaly helpful!
Well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what we actually get. In some ways, with Russia expending so much of its military force in Ukraine, they’re less of the threat to us for now (converntionally), however this makes it the perfect time to re-generate the Army, with the lessons we’re learning from Ukraine.
Good point about Russia being less of a threat to us – story goes that they have suffered 60,000 killed and 140,000 wounded and have lost thousands of pieces of major combat equipment. But Russia has a habit of bouncing back after a poor cpmbat experience such as their experience of warfighting in Afghanistan in the 70s. We need to regenerate the army and make it much stronger in terms of quantity and quality of manpower and heavy metal platforms.
But at present the light protected mobility battalion’s are running around in foxhound that takes for 4 dismounts, so they are actually configured for this. It’s just at present they would be going into a peer conflict in a vehicle designed to protect against IEDs and be used in asymmetrical type conflict. Not saying the way the light protected mobility battalions are set up is any anyway idea…infact it’s forced by a less than ideal vehicle…
Foxhound is a light protected mobility vehicle that replaced Snatch LR. It is therefore well suited to light protected mobility battalions…and it is ‘only’ £925k a copy. Those battalions will not be at the forefront of a peer-peer armoured conflict (thats the job of the warfighting div with its two armoured BCTs and the Deep Strike/Recce BCT) so do not need to be provided instead with much heavier, tracked, more expensive vehicle. Horses for courses. We have: armoured infantry (currently in WR) for warfighting alongside tanks; infantry in PM vehicles for lower threat environments and light roledd infantry for the… Read more »
I suppose the question is do we need a balance of battalions which is 18% peer war fighting for a modern battlefield, 27% low intensity, 36% not deployable in any risk environment, 9% ceremonies and 6% parachute.
not saying we don’t need light roled infantry and protected mobility, we do, but that balance is pretty off kilter at present, with only 18% of the infantry battalions focused on peer high intensity conflict. Do we really want around 66% of our infantry battalions focused around low intensity security and stability ?
Well done for working out the ratios. I guess a lot depends on cost of equipment and likelihood of use. Money. Armoured Infantry units cost a lot more to equip than PM units which cost more than Lt role Inf to equip. Money is tight so only a few bns will be AI. Likelihood of use. In the last 30ish years the army deployed armoured forces on kinetic operations warfighting against armoured units twice – Gulf War 1 and GW2. All other campaigns were largely stabilisation, counter-insurgency and peace support operations which did not require the heaviest of AFVs. You… Read more »
To be honest Graham I’m a firm believer in the best way to not have to use an army is to have a very good and bloody obviously good army with clear intent. so I think especially is a man that looks at intent and how much he can get way with. Let’s be honest most European nations show little intent….Italy..bugger all..Germany ifffy at best…France once even stuck its fingers up at NATO of the major European powers the UK has alway been the NATO that showed the most intent to defend against first soviet and now Russian aggression. But… Read more »
I agree with your view on the larger European nations being less than wilco on more than one occasion (and the smaller ones being insignificant in a big fight). Our warfighting division has a glaring weakness – it does not have three true and similar manouevre brigades. 12 and 20th Armoured BCTs are OK (but odd that 20x has three mech inf bns and 12x has just two), provided they get IFVs to work with tanks and not some feeble Boxer without a cannon. But the third brigade, 1st Deep Recce Strike Bde has no Infantry! Unbelievable! So it cannot… Read more »
DSR isn’t a fighting Brigade, it’s a divisional Artillery and Recce Group, with some similarity to the old American Armoured Cav concept + a lot of arty.
(See the old Orbat before they went Combined Arms Medium Wheeled Stryker forces here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/11th_ACR_Vietnam.png )
*Edit* Remember that the US calls it’s Cavalry Regiments “Squadrons” and it’s Cavalry Brigades “Regiments”
There are no PM battalion in 12 and 20 under Future Soldier. Just the 5 Boxer Battalions and the AR Battalions supporting them.
Thanks Dern. DSR might like to think of themselves as a fighting brigade as they have weapons and the means to bring them to bear, but they are not a manouevre brigade, as the other bdes in the warfighting div are – that was my point. It is a structural weakness. DSR can only be used for one purpose – it lacks flexibility and without infantry it cannot seize and hold ground or even protect itself from enemy infantry adequately. I favour three manouevre bdes (although four would be better!) and Strike assets being allocated to each manouevre brigade to… Read more »
It’s not a question. The version of Boxer that is being bought is this version: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Boxer_MIV_on_2019_Army_Combat_Power_Demonstration_%28ACPD%29_-_10.jpg That was decided ages ago. Again what do you mean by “Strike” Assets because that can be taken in about 4 ways. Especially since you seem a bit inconsistent in your own use of the word, arguing that “strike” asets need to be distributed among other units, but also that Ajax, the main vehicle in the DSR Brigade, doesn’t have enough Punch. I also disagree about DSR isnt’ a one trick pony, it’s a very heavy divisional screen with a lot of deep fires… Read more »
That version of Boxer with a Kongsberg RWS PROTECTOR RS4 was announced on 22/12/20 for the MIV programme. https://www.joint-forces.com/defence-equipment-news/38805-kongsberg-protector-rws-for-uk-boxer-miv What I am talking about is the question of the weapons fit for the Boxers that are replacing Warrior. Strike – I have certainly misunderstood Carter’s concept. Thanks for your other post that explained it so well. I clearly have my own idea about what Strike should be – and perhaps I am in a minority of one! If the DSR is employed as a Divisional screen, and only as such, that sets and locks its position in the battlespace –… Read more »
The version that was announced for the MIV program is the version that is replacing Warrior mate. The only units in the British Army that will operate Boxer are the five Armoured Infantry Battalions in 12 and 20 X. It’s not so much a one trick pony, as a heavy recce screen that can also do some heavy fighting, and, since it also has *all* the divisional aritilery has some serious fires punch. It’s a novel idea, and excatly how the British Army would use it is open to debate but, not to flog a dead horse, the US Army’s… Read more »
Thanks Dern, I thought that we were still waiting for the order for those Boxers specifically to replace Warrior. Kongsberg’s data sheet show the following as possible weapons fits for the RS4 RWS: Browning M2 and WKM-B (12.7 mm), M249 (5.56 mm), M240, UKM-2000C and M134 Gatling (7.62 mm), MK19, MK47 and H&K GMG (40 mm grenade launchers with airburst option), various Non-Lethal effectors. The RS4 allows for M240 (6.62 mm) coax kit or various ATGM integrations. Any idea which weapon(s) we will get? Certainly each Inf section has lost its 30mm cannon (and the prospect of getting a 40mm… Read more »
NP.
Sadly no. Or more accurately yes, as they are being bought in batches as per our other thread below, but Boxer is only going to AI, nowhere else.
I suspect HMG, GPMG and GMG will be fitted but that’s just a guess based on existing inventory. As for what the infantry think? I don’t know, I don’t imagine they’re pleased but I don’t know anybody in AI atm.
I’m sure they have, especially with 1 DSR. If there’s one thing the British Army loves it’s planning and wargaming.
Hi Dern,
The original 2019 order for Boxers had only 85 Infantry carriers. Assuming about 13 wagons to Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve – that is 72 going to units. Assuming the PC has an infantry carrier and not a C2 vehicle – that equips just 18 Platoons ie two battalions.
There was an order for a further 100 vehicles placed in Apr 22, said to be split into Inf carrier, C2 and more ambulances.
They haven’t ordered enough for 5 AI bns.
Hey, That’s right, they haven’t ordered enough for 5 AI Btns yet, the plan is eventually for 650ish Boxers split between the four types (PM, C2, Ambulance and Recovery). As you alluded to they’ll be ordered in batches, rather than as a whole, so there is hope that maybe one or two of the battalions further down the line might end up with a 30mm on Boxer, but at present, alas, no plans for that, just more of the agreed on MIV-PM spec, and given the MoD’s finances I don’t see that changing any time soon. (Hopefully we get enough… Read more »
To be fair, there’s almost no Light Role Infantry left in the British Army. I think it’s 8 Battalions, of which 2 are in 16 AA and 2 are on Overseas Postings, leaving only 4 Light Role Battalions in the Field Army by my maths.
But if you look at the way the Ukranians are fighting, LPM Battalions are actually a good idea:
Disperse, hide, with lots of small fast vehicles, then if you need to move, concentrate, pile into your light vehicles, floor it, then disperse. If you loose a vehicle it’s only 4 blokes not a full section.
…I’m sure they’d prefer IFV’s, but it goes to show that it can be made to work with vehicles designed for Afghan and Iraq.
It can carry 7:
1 Driver
1 Gunner
1 Commander
4 Passengers.
Let’s form a Johnson Group and hit HMP’s!
A start can be eliminating pointless job roles in the armed forces and civil service and making companies pay for their mistakes. I know the former will only be a fraction of the budget, but it is still a start.
There can always be “efficiencies”, but if you wait for them, you’ll wait forever. And efficient can be bad. Efficient means well tuned for what we think are the current needs. No slack means no redundancy if anything goes wrong and nobody to try different things out when current needs become future needs.
So who decides which are the pointless jobs? It’s really not a start. We need to state clearly that efficiencies aren’t an excuse for not properly funding the military.
So who decides which are the pointless jobs? Very true. I was thinking about jobs like diversity and inclusion staff and reducing, and consolidating departments to reduce managers in certain organisations.
Yes, there does seem to be a bit of a problem at the moment with government “woke” agenda (apologies for use of the word, but for me it encompasses a lot of things that sit outside the armed forces primary aim of either preventing or fighting and winning a conflict). The question is, for the armed forces, how significant is the “woke” element. I suspect we don’t know the half of it but I also hope that it is just a smattering of topping and of no particular substance. It was somewhat alarming to read about the female RAF officer… Read more »
The Peace dividend was taken 33 years ago under Options for Change. Bit odd to take another one during the biggest war in Europe since 1945.
Female soldiers who get pregnant do not have to leave the army.
You seem to misunderstand what I’m saying. There was talk of “clawing back” the peace dividend, as opposed to taking another one. I was speculating on the feasibility of this. Although I have read papers that essentially argued that the “peace dividend” never actually existed, for one reason or another. You are partially right, female soldiers who get pregnant do not have to leave the army, but they are not allowed to serve in active warzones. I couldn’t find the article which mentioned the medical issue being under different terminology to hide the scale of the problem, but did find… Read more »
John, thanks for this. I am still reeling from your comment that some say the peace dividend didn’t exist. I lived through Options for Change (1990) which re-set our armed forces following the end of the Cold War, generating a very tangible peace dividend. Total manpower was cut by approximately 18 per cent to around 255,000 (120,000 army; 60,000 navy; 75,000 air force). The UK’s nuclear civil defence organisations, the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, and its field force, the Royal Observer Corps (a part-time volunteer branch of the RAF), were both disbanded between September 1991 and December 1995.… Read more »
Yes the idiot end of history brigade have a lot to answer for….if the west had not been up it’s own we are so brilliant arse it could have looked back and seen that the greatest time of risk it’s after the collapse of big multi ethnic empires. The collapse of the USSR was always going to end in blood and war it was inevitable as it always has been in human history. The west should have been getting ready for the inevitable.
…and yet it has been said by the well-informed ever since 1991 that a resurgent Russia would be the most troubling threat for Europe.
Diversity for sake of pleasing someone’s political agenda, that way of thinking vastly lowers standards by deliberately overlooking competent candidates in favour of some ‘under-represented’ demographic, pure madness.
Funny how I posted this today in another thread. I posted this some days ago. I’ve been banging on about the purchase of the K2 Black panther (and partnering with the next-gen K3) along with K-MLRS and to consider the Redback IFV. The workshare alone would make this a desirable option and create a solid base for continued production going forward. Not to mention an earlier entry into service date. After all, there is an ongoing war in Europe right now and NATO is asking them to supply munitions to help restock our dwindling supplies. “Two South Korean defense firms have… Read more »
So an extra £6.2 Billion plus a very possible large workshare for Black Panther, K9A1 self-propelled howitzers, Redback and K-MLRS. We are donating £3.2Billion to Ukraine this year and possibly next, why not give them more Chally 2s and three instead? Ukraine would have a steady supply as we take on UK Black Panthers to replace them. “Hyundai Rotem also passed through the “door opened by Poland” and offered very good conditions to Warsaw. Thus, on July 27, 2022, the Armaments Agency of the Ministry of National Defense in Warsaw signed framework agreements with the Korean Hyundai Rot for the purchase of… Read more »
It’s not an invalid argument that we actually bin that challenger and look for a complete reprocurement. for: 1)we get a whole new tank that will have a long production line for replacement and growth in numbers of needed. 2) we could secure good work share and even get a European production line in negotiations ( although we are a bit player in heavy armour so maybe not). against: 1) sovereignty, we would loss sovereign control of the tanks and design…we would be forced to accept another nations rules…Poland and a lot of other nations found this out the the… Read more »
Also worth noting.
20 FEBRUARY 2023
Indian Army orders 100 additional K9 howitzers
“The Indian Army has ordered additional 155 mm/52 calibre self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) known as K9 Vajra-T designed by South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace, the company told Janes.
A Hanwha spokesperson told Janes that the company has received an additional order of 100 K9s from India, which is in process now.
“[An order of] another 100 numbers [of K9s] is being discussed and can be closed within 2023. We [Hanwha] are already in touch with our partner Larsen & Toubro (L&T) [regarding the order],” he said.”
IMHO this is a smart idea. The UK just doesn’t dabble much in industrial technology anymore since PM Thatcher moved you guys more into financial and business services innovation, thus British land systems, as a whole, as gotten progressively out-of-date, especially in engines, transmissions and suspensions. It would be wise for the UK to partner with countries that have a strong industrial base and there probably isn’t a better non-German partner out there than South Korea. You do have America, but their industrial technology is kinda meh and overpriced. Not in the price range that’s sustainable by a middle country… Read more »
Like South Korea, the UK has a great deal to offer. It would be very wise given the current climate for both countries to work closely together and find a suitable way forward.
£3b to do what though. What is the army meant to be doing. Just it has a couple of useful bits and other units are cobbled together as light infantry is cheap. Support units for them?
That’s the big issue lots of light protected mobility battalions ( that lost their role after Afghanistan) or light role infantry ( role..hanging around in the UK) bugger all armoured infantry for a peer on peer engagement.
The UK government most find the money like now and for God’s sake wake up ⏰
Another one to speak out after retirement and I assume cushy jobs along the way?
It takes money. The UK has donated all sorts of things despite the fact that it is a lot of bespoke stuff that is just going to be a maintenance nightmare in Ukraine. How about we just spend the money to replace our artillery stocks and everything else.
Our stocks? We spend our money? You claim to be from the US! You can’t even troll properly pal! Muppet!
Make your mind up on your nationality 😆
Which country are you representing today Estebaninski?
No cushy jobs ,no retirement hard work all the way pal next time just reply to the name .Believe me I take it on the Chin .
Methinks you have the wrong end of the stick, Daniele is talking about Sir Richard Barrons.
Eh?
Ok let’s take the bull by the horns! Stand by, stand by many may not like my solution! Reduce the “line” aka light role (no vehicles, no plan and no role) Infantry Battalions by at least 5. Concentrate on re filling the CS and CSS, with an emphasis on OS depth fire and AD! Get some depth and sustainability to the formations we have and stop pretending we have 2 deployable divisions!!!!!! Retain the third tank regiment before it changes to irrelevance and sort out the BCT planning! Big supporter of the BCT thought process but a big believer (nowadays)… Read more »
A bit like reinventing the wheel mate! In BAOR each Engineer SQN etc were always attached to a battle group and that’s where they stayed for exercises/ Ops the lot.
Agree the number of infantry battalions is not the issue…it’s the type of infantry battalions we have…as far as I can see is it 11 light role infantry battalion + civil duties battalions what are they all for really ? Even the light protected mobility battalions…almost 200 less soldiers than an armoured infantry battalion and running around in foxhound ( which was procured in reality for asymmetric conflict). Yes you need some light role battalions but really these should be based around your air mobile needs and training needs..with a bit of civil duties. The army needs a bit of… Read more »
2 garrison in Cyprus and rotate with 2 more.
1 is Experimental.
4 are SFAB.
4 ( or is it 5 ) are S Ops Bde.
2 are Gurkha ( one in Brunei one with 16AA )
Others UK Garrison and Public Duties Bns.
Depends how you want to count it. 4 got re-rolled into Rangers, 1 got disbanded and it’s headcount redistributed amoung the other 4.
👍3 RGR never took off either.
3 RGR is the one that got disbanded and redistributed.
What is a civil duties battalion – I’ve never heard the term before.
I meant public duties battalions slip of the keyboard.
OK. I think that only two Guards battalions are on Public Duties at a given time, but may be wrong – the others will be doing ‘real soldiering’.
Its really not surprising that we have a lot of types of infantry – infantry is a very flexible arm and has lots of very widely varying tasks. That is really not a problem.
Yes public duties are 1st bn Cold stream guards, 1st bn Irish guards (both odd sized battalions that don’t fit any of the light role, protected or Armoured battalion sizes at 594 personnel) 5th bn Royal regiment of Scotland ( but it’s a very odd size at 110 personal…then their are public duties companies, Coldstream, Irish and Scot’s guards.
5RRS can’t be 110 strong – thats just a single company.
Bizarre but true. In 2012, Post the 2010 review the fifth bn RRS was reduced to a battalion of 1 company. It even has its own HQ. It was not disbanded and turned into a company to maintain the Argyll and Sutherland regimental traditions. The RRS is a classic cap badge mafia issue. Each battalion maintained their old regimental identifies and regional ties as well is individual uniforms and especially dress uniforms. Just for fun it also maintains not 1 but 3 regimental bands.One of the really big political issue with the formation of the RRS was that it was… Read more »
5th Battalion doesn’t exist anymore, it was disbanded.
Balaklava Company preformes the same function as the Incremental Coy’s from the 2nd Battalions of some Guards Regiments, it does some public duties and maintains the traditions of 5 SCOTS, while personnel rotate through from the other 4 (now 3) SCOTS Battalions.
But Jonathan is right, the Capbadge Mafia in RRS is really strong, that’s why they all still try to keep their old regimental names, while the Rifles did a great job of blending everyone into their new identity. *looks at 1 SCOTS*
I recall this old trick of sometimes reducing one of the battalions in a Regiment to company strength from years back.
👍
It’s 1 Guards Battalion under Future Soldier, with the incrimental Companies forming a “Public Duties Battalion” alongside it.
Thanks Dern. I had not heard of ‘1 Guards Battalion’.
You speak my language, been asking for this for ages.
CS and CSS all the way, manpower from less LI bns as you say.
Even another single RS, RE, RA, RLC, RAMC Reg and REME Bn equals a brigades worth of CS/CSS for 4 LBCT as just one example.
I fear too many cap badge mafia in the head shed though mate.
I think there are only about 4 or five left anyway: 2 RGR and 1 Royal Irish are Air Assault supporting the Paras 1 RGR and 1 Lancs are Overseas (Cyprus and Brunei) Irish Guards, 1 Royal Anglians, 3 Rifles, and 3 Scots are re-rolling to SFAB 1 Guards unit is on Public Duties 1 Scots, 2 PWRR, 2 Lancs, 3 RGR and 4 Rifles are now Rangers That leaves: Coldstream, Grens, 2 Scots, and 2 Rifles in Light Role in 4 Light BCT, and they’re only Light Role until the budget is found for LPMV’s for them. I suppose… Read more »
I think more like a 30bn boost.
General : Spreadsheet
Hmm.
Cobblers.
For those who want the extra money, make sure you if you get it to do your part and don’t bloody waste it on poor decision making, poor management and carelessness! Basically more upfront ministerial oversight and accountability on everyone’s part. 🇬🇧 needs to get sharp!
Yes have some money as long as its spent in the UK PLC and spent well. The Army is probably the worst offender for buying gucci kit from foreign manufacturers with little if any UK input into design or compatibility. Rumours abound that the Army also wants a new rifle and is looking to buy that in from abroad instead of using a UK manufacturer. WTF! If you cannot buy your own arms industries Small Arms what hope is there? Its appears to be all “We need it now! Buy it from here!” and it happens because the Army leadership… Read more »
The army has always had, and needed, a suite of light, medium and heavy capabilities, and used them all operationally. How does heavy and medium forces move strategic distances? As they have always done. Mainly by sea on RFA or STUFT shipping. As you have said. Nothing new here. You seem concerned at the availability of a HNS port. Why? When has that ever been a problem? I have heard the view that BGs should live together, but not BCTs before. Good idea but the Defence Estate is not configured that way. Much new barracks has just been built with… Read more »
Warwick?! Meant to be ‘way ahead!
Gunbuster. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but apart form a few niche companies making precision or specialized small arms. E.G. Accuracy International. The UK has no companies making small arms. Enfield has gone and so has Stirling Armament. We have no choice but look for foreign options as there is no viable UK PLC alternative. There has been very little incentive given by the govt or the market in the UK to produce small arms either military or civillian on a large scale. Even then if a rifle was produced it sould be some form of… Read more »
When HK does the work on the SA80, is that performed in the UK or Germany? I was under the impression it was in the UK. If so they could probably produce their rifles under license in the UK similar to how it worked for the FAL. I know the contract would be relatively short but I don’t think they employee huge numbers of people to manufacture and assemble the rifles they are so modular these days. The police and a steady pool of upgrades could maintain UK based jobs, I don’t think we will see the UK build a… Read more »
It’s even worse: all planned future naval guns are imports from Sweden or US. Ch3 will have a German gun and the Ajax one manufactured in France. Machine guns that used to be made here under licence are being bought direct from FN in Belgium.
We really do need a UK arsenal capable of making everything from small arms to land and naval artillery. Far too much of the defence equipment budget disappears abroad. Years of poorly thought through privatisation from Thatcher to Brown have led to this absurd situation.
Manroy was bought by FN, so it is not a stretch for Manroy to make a FN design rifle in the UK. Defence contractor Muller, has made Pistols in the past under contract. They could probably churn out a licence built foreign rifle design.
John, you are correct, but I think Gunbuster was referring to a British-designed and made weapon. Not a license-built weapon made in a British factory. Setting up a license production would be relatively easy. But in terms of organic small arms development, we don’t really have anything that can compete. We are completely dependent on European or American small arms manufacturers to sell us items. BAE sold the site, which arguably marks the death knell of British small-arms development. Making the UK dependent on HK for the servicing and development of parts for the SA80. Manroy seems to have been… Read more »
Ted, yes you are correct, when the MOD tenders for a new small arm, the tender goes out to UK importers, Viking Arms, Edgar Brothers etc & not directly to the manufacturer, the importer then is responsible for the export & import licences and arranging for re- proofing for imported weapons from the US, all the maintenance publications (AESP’s) are produced by the importer.
This will be the case when the MOD decides to replace the L 85 towards the end of this decade, so there will be no manufacture in the UK.
In the recent spat with Belgium blocking the sale of a specialized press needed for nuclear components, it was reported that the tit for tat threat by UK to cancel an order for machine guns would cause job losses in Wallonia. But FNUK ( ex Manroy) website lists a number of machine guns and 5.56 rifle amongst its products. An order at scale should insist on UK production.
Quote from today’s Daily Mail who are reporting that Patrick Sanders has threatened to resign if earlier cuts to the army are not reversed.
“An MoD spokesman said: ‘The Defence Secretary has made clear for years now about the need to modernise our Army to ensure it keeps pace with our allies.
‘That’s why at the spending review in 2020 he achieved an extra £16 billion… Reinvesting, learning lessons from Ukraine and growing industrial skills takes time.
‘We are on track to start to see new tanks, personnel carriers and air defence systems by the year after next.’”
That looks like the MoD preparing the ground for no new money for Defence in the imminent budget…
Indeed. What are the new air defence systems?
Not sure of the context of your question. Rapier LLAD GBAD has been (or is being) replaced by Sky Sabre.
Sky Sabre? I thought that was all done?
1st Tranche of Sky Sabre was issued in Dec 2021. Not sure if all elements have been delivered yet. Anyway what other new AD systems are there?
God help us we’re in the hands of Globalists.
😆
“globalists”… it’s a tell-tail sign when someone uses the vocabulary of conspiracy-theorists
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalist
and? 🤷🏻♂️
The only people who witter incessantly about globalists and their NWO are conspiracy theorists.
Are you saying globalists and a publicly acknowledged policy of globalisation is “a conspiracy theory”?
Globalisation is a recognised as the growing interdependence of national economies as consequence of increasing trade in goods, services, and corporate investment. It’s a natural result from encouraging free-trade and not pursuing isolationism.
However, when people starting describing others as “globalists” it’s as an accusation of being part of a plot to remove national sovereignty and to create an anti-democratic NWO: usually references to WEF and Davos subsequently follow.
(If you’re ignorant of this, then be thankful that you’ve not run across as many conspiracy nutters as I have.)
the problem comes when the free trade west hits its head against a set of mercantile economies who only play the game of free trade in a skin deep way to win geopolitically. That’s a big problem question to be honest that I don’t think we have any idea how to deal with. The USSR were easy..they just smashed themselves against the free trade west and lost…China and so an extent Russia ( before Putin lost his marbles) found a new way..say the words…smile sell the stuff cheap…rake in the currency…use the market to destabilise western industries and build their… Read more »
Yes the Chinese learned from the West’s defeat of the USSR; that a rich affluent economy can win you a war without firing a shot. So they’ve gone all-out on using the West’s own weapon, capitalism, against it. But not free-market capitalism in a liberal democracy, but capitalism that is subservient to an authoritarian goal. Some western politicians may have believed that this engagement with authoritarianism would slowly undermine it. A larger version of Merkel’s diplomatic approach to Putin’s Russia – how laughable that appears now… and that should serve as a wake up call to our involvement with China.… Read more »
Yes I also think at some point China will do what all authoritarian/totalitarian mercantile states do..they will reach for the sword.
It’s their instinctive reflex solution to everything…
look how peacefully they solved Tiananmen Square
“..a plot to remove national sovereignty and to create an anti-democratic NWO: usually references to WEF and Davos subsequently follow…”
Do you even listen to what being said by WEF?
Yes, and it’s just a talking shop/ think tank with zero power. Like all such organisations it has good ideas and it has bad ideas.
What, are globalists not allowed to call themselves globalists?
Those people who get branded as “globalists” don’t refer to themselves as “globalists”.
They tend to refer to themselves as internationalists or free-traders. Globalism isn’t a policy or doctrine, like socialism or libertarianism, so people don’t identify themselves as “globalists”. In simple terms, I like eating ice-cream when it’s hot, but I wouldn’t call myself a “vanillaist”.
Since when the WEF and Davos crowd are free traders?
It’s a core belief 🤦🏻♂️
Without trying to muddy waters on this issue there are some things that can and should be fixed without too much difficulty especially as we are out of the EU. What ever money is spent on kit is pointless unless recruitment and retention is addressed. One area I believe is more than urgent is promoting the benefits of taking the kings shilling. I can only speak from an army perspective but the same may apply to the other services. When it comes either the trades or professions the training you get really is second to none and of course it… Read more »
The Future Soldier plan looks logical and is already under way. It does make the traditional regiments look an awkward fit. Major upgrades to equipment are in hand and funded: Upgrade of 148 Ch2 to 3 standard Replacement of CVT by Ajax ( payment and growth trials resumed) Replacement of Warrior and FV430 with Boxer( initial order increased but supply chain problems affecting delivery timescale.) These programmes will take years to complete but the organizational structure is planned to happen quicker. So what should the priority be if another £3b could be found? Air defence, static and mobile needs increasing;… Read more »
Awkward fit? Please explain.
For example, the proposed 7th light mechanized BCT has units from 11 different regiments. If the BCT is to be the basic structure of the field army, why retain regimental identities with their top heavy officer hierarchy. The simpler an organizational structure, the more likely it is to be effective.
The BCT is the building block, the smallest formation with mostly all Arms and Services (and self sufficient for CSS) represented and able to conduct combined arms manouevre. 7th BCT ( I make it 12 units) is unlikely to deploy with its ‘peacetime’ Orbat – it will be a pick and mix affair, with some units being detached and some troops being attached if they don’t exist in the peacetime structure (such as scarce specialists). So the Bde will probably never deploy with 12 different units. I am not sure why you think Regimental identities are unimportant – this is… Read more »
He said “Units from 11 Regiments” not units total to be fair but he’s still wrong:
Light DragoonsScots Guards4 SCOTS1 YORKS2 ANGLIANS1 RIFLES4 Royal Artillery/105 Royal Artillery.Maybe he means “Soldiers from Capbadges” in which case you’d add in soldiers from their various corps, but it would be way more than 11 there since in addition to those present on the surface level orbat (REME, RLC, RAMC), you’d also have to factor in all the randoms like AGC-SPS, RADC, Royal Sigs, Int Corps, etc
Battle Captain is indeed still current.
Thanks mate, great answer! I think those who have not served think everything in the army is complicated – structures, atts & dets, AFV terminology etc.
Thanks but apparently my formatting vanished so it’s a mess now. :/
That’s always been the case though? The Regiment never was intended as a unit that deploys as a single force, even in it’s earliest form.
Also there are not units from 11 different Regiments in 7 BCT, it’s 7.
We need to rebuild our defence manufacturing at the same time, relying on long global supply chains is a risk during conflict.
Yet another in a long line of retired brass spouting ‘something must be done’ when they have their feet up at home in front of the fire. Instead of waiting until your pension hits the mat, say something when it might make a bit of difference. You might be banging your head on a brick wall with this lot but most people do not realise the parlous state of our armed forces today, or the appaling conditions of accommodation that some have to live in.
Stick your head over the parapet when you might still have a bit of clout!
Tempting to ask what this general actually DID while still serving to increase defence spending…
Generals can only lobby CGS who lobbies SofS for increased funding.
Damned if he does damned if he doesn’t
Why doesn’t the PM allow the MOD to raid the foreign aid budget to support the fight in Ukraine?
Hollowing out our defensive forces us part of the same programme for the NHS, Police and other services. All in the name of ‘austerity’ which itself is a metaphor for allowing the reduction in taxes for the wealthy. Most of whom saw an increase in disposable income since 2008 unlike most of the rest of us. While increasing their taxes wouldn’t necessarily release mountains of funds for our essential services, which should the majority of the country suffer the ravages of effective pay reductions while they get away with exporting billions to offshore tax havens? The armed forces and other… Read more »
I do think the armies organisation issue and what its mission is need sorting out as much as it needs more money if you just pumped in 3 billion at present it would get pissed away. At present and I may be wrong out of its 30+ infantry battalions only four are armoured infantry that you would really want in a peer conflict. The majority’s are light Light protected mobility battalions ( smaller than armoured infantry battalions at 580) that are more protected against IEDs and irregulars than mechanised infantry you would want to deploy In a peer ground war.… Read more »
You say the Army’s mission needs sorting out and rapidly conclude that it is solely warfighting against a peer opponent with a strong armoured division. Yet that is the raison d’etre of just the heavy metal part of the army. There are tasks for troops in protected mobility vehicles and Light role troops. Very hard to craft a single mission for the army, as they have to undertake or be prepared to undertake a myriad of tasks. The high level structure needs to be able to reflect this highly varied tasking and should not continually be changed just because there… Read more »
Hi graham not saying we don’t need light role but is the mix correct only 18% of our infantry regiments are focused on a peer high intensity war. In reality the light role troops cannot be deployed anywhere there is even a moderate asymmetric risk…personally unless a battalion is either special duties, civil duties, air mobile etc I think the lowest level should be protected mobility…if it cannot safely travel what’s the point ? I also think we need a far high number of battalions focused on peer or close to peer warfare..hopefully boxer and the strike brigade concept will… Read more »
Peer high intensity conflict happens very infrequently, the kit is very expensive and many feel the heavy lifting for armoured/manouevre warfare should be done by the US and large continental armies (eg. Poland, German, France). So I am not surprised that 18% of the Infantry is in that category, and hope this reflects that required for a single deployable warfighting division. I was not in the infantry so others are better qualified, but to introduce a historic note – on Op Banner – light role infantry were deployed to this asymetric environment and were often driven about by RCT soldiers… Read more »
“Strike” in the Strike Brigade concept was a very weird thing and definitely not something all warfighting brigades should be able to do. Effectively the idea was that it would be capable of self deploying over very long road marches in semi-hostile territory, it was effectively born out of Nick Carter watching the French Success of their lightning war in Mali, on wheeled vehicles, and wanting to replicate that in the British Army. So he concentrated all Heavy Protected Mobility units, which at the time where on Mastiff, into two brigades, and looked to replace Mastiff with Boxer, that way,… Read more »
Dern, many thanks for this. I have read articles about Strike v1 (ie Strike as per the two Strike brigades concept) and none have explained it as well as you have. Carter has gone down a long way in my estimation – his thinking was unoriginal and his concept (modified from the French version) was unworkable for the reasons you state. My understanding of Strike was clearly very wrong. If there is a Strike capability at work in the DSR (now without Boxer-mounted Infantry but with a shed-load of artillery) it means that Strike now consists of location and identification… Read more »
Better tell the Ukranians that anything that doesn’t have an IFV isn’t suited to fighting the Russians I guess..
if your defending your own dirt light role infantry is actually not a bad option…as a deployable battalion in the army of an island that is away going to do expeditionary type roles…it’s probably not so useful…we do need some but if they don’t have a specific use then they probably need repurposing.
And yet it has proven useful over and over again. We deployed Light Infantry constantly, to Northern Ireland, to the Falklands, to Sierra Leone, to Afghan, to Iraq (yes, there was light infantry in the initial invasion orbat). Light Infantry is *the most* deployable unit type in the Armies Orbat. It has a very light logistical tail, it can be on very high notice to move with minimal prep time, it costs very little to send, and it can deploy by any means: Road, Rail, Air, Sea. From an expeditionary viewpoint, Light Role is incredibly useful. The difference between tactical… Read more »
Do you know why Armorued Battalions have a bigger head count that light role ones out of interest?
I think it’s related to section size depending on the vehicles used. The armoured infantry, light protected mobility ( foxhound) and heavy protected mobility ( mastiff) all have different numbers in a battalion (although I may be wrong)
Kind of, but also kind of not. In a Warrior the vehicle has a dedicated 3 man crew (Driver, Commander, Gunner), that are tied to the vehicle, because the vehicle will go into combat with the section, it’s their main source of firepower. In a Foxhound the vehicle has a crew of 2, but the commander will dismount and continue as the section commander, while the driver may, or may not, stay with the vehicle. So although the Warrior section+crew is 10 people and the Foxhound is 8, the Foxhound actually has a larger dismount. Just to illustrate how small… Read more »
Its Amazing how all these Billy Big Nuts only Moan about the state of the Army, ONCE THEY HAVE LEFT and the mess they helped Create in there Procurement miss management
3% nothing less, 3 billion £ will just get lost in existing black holes.
Is this true-
International Defence Analysis page
It has been confirmed that the British Army has officially rejected several systems, incl. Nexter Caesar, Elbit ATMOS, BAE Systems Archer, & Rheinmetall HX3, from their MFP program, which is meant to replace the AS90. The remaining options are believed to be the K9 or Boxer.
The root of the problem of the UK’s weak defence forces is that the British public have always been anti-military: they like military history, commemoration and all that crap, but have a negative attitude towards having a professional fighting force, as well as the conscription necessary to achieve mass on the battlefield. Hence, British defence policy relies on someone else doing our fighting for us, until we finally get our act together and produce a strong military force. If we lose a war, it’s not remotely an existential threat to us. Like the United States, geographical isolation also means we… Read more »
Firstly, this kind of warning has been ‘issued’ many times, over many years, by many different people. No one listened then, and no one will listen now, gloomy reading, but that’s the gloomy reality. Secondly, the British Army alone, needs that £3bn, which unfortunately they will not get. Thirdly… well there isn’t a third item. There are 1000’s of items and issues, that plague the UK armed forces. None of them will be addressed by the current government, nor by the next government, as the the armed forces have been starved of funding, and plagued with sub-contractors for too long… Read more »
There are no issues with the army, all tou need to do is;
1) wear better ear defenders so you don’t hear the sounds of complaint
2) Isolate yourself from the rumblings of discontent
Then you can’t hear or feel any issues so it’s all sorted.
Pathetic. The troops deserve better
When you think a £3b investment needed, is a near a Months Budget for the NHS.
You Realise that level wont solve the problems which makes the EX numpty a Tool and a Blunt one
“The majority of the Department’s spending (£152.6 billion in 2022/23) is passed to NHS England and NHS Improvement for spending on health services”.
Source: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
Thats a lot more than £3bn per month.
NHS Budget is now around £19B a month and 75% of its operational budget goes on Cancer Treatment, only leaves 25% for everything else. So its to Bring some context to the Conversation when the MOD top Brass Blew £150m on Taxi’s £3b extra would vanish in a Whiskey Glass. and not solve any current issues.
£150m on taxis – really? I am sure that was across all 3 services and all ranks?
I’d really question that. It sounds more like white fleet rentals.
No NAO reported that the MOD had spent £150m on Taxis, not white fleet Taxis for brave little men who cannot get on the Tube, because the Wife has the company car
You must have enjoyed wasting tax payers money from the way you are defending them…
Given this emotional response, I think I can disregard you as a reliable source.
Do what you like Buttercup. how will i survive the rejection
National Audit Office just as you seem to not understand what it stood for.
No I understood, I just think you’re emotionally comprimised and unlikely to be telling the truth.
Errr, what? Who am I defending? I am just questioning the accuracy/source of your comment that this £150m on taxis was spent by senior officers – I am sure you will provide details, now though.
Very insulting that you think I wasted taxpayers money, and enjoyed doing it, in my 34 years service.