NATO has announced that member states will be increasing troops and equipment available to defend the Alliance in light of recent Russian actions.
According to a statement:
“Today, NATO leaders agreed that we must and will provide further support to Ukraine.
We will continue to impose unprecedented costs on Russia. And we will reinforce Allied deterrence and defence.
Leaders approved our four new NATO battlegroups. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. These are in addition to the four already in the Baltic countries and Poland.
So we have eight multinational NATO battlegroups now. From the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Across Europe, there are one hundred thousand US troops supporting NATO efforts. And European Allies and Canada have also stepped up.
We have 40,000 forces under direct NATO command, mostly in the eastern part of the Alliance. Backed by major air and naval power. Including an unprecedented five carrier strike groups from the High North to the Mediterranean. Today, NATO leaders agreed to reset our deterrence and defence for the longer-term. To face a new security reality.
On land, we will have substantially more forces in the eastern part of the Alliance, at higher readiness. With more prepositioned equipment and supplies. In the air, we will deploy more jets. And strengthen our integrated air and missile defence. At sea, we will have carrier strike groups, submarines and significant numbers of combat ships on a persistent basis.
We will also strengthen our cyber defences. And enhance our exercises, focusing on collective defence and interoperability. I expect we will decide on the details at our next Summit in Madrid in June.”
Recently, Strategic and tactical air transport aircraft including C-17s, C-5s, A330 MRTTs and C-130s from multiple nations have been busy moving units from the NATO Response Force along with national contributions to locations across NATO’s Eastern Flank.
“Allied Air transport aircraft are key in enabling the rapid movement of troops and supplies, allowing NATO to position its forces effectively during the evolving crisis,” said Lieutenant General Pascal Delerce, Deputy Commander, Allied Air Command.
Makes a mockery of the decision to cut the C130s. Bet they are glad that Tonto invaded before the cuts were made? It also puts into question the Army’s ORBAT and the rational behind dropping troop strength even further. Could this be the moment where continuous cuts are stopped and perhaps reversed? The issue we have, is that if we need to keep a battle group (I won’t call them a division, because in reality they are not!) in the Baltics indefinitely. Do we have the numbers of men and material to keep rotating them? I suggest we may struggle… Read more »
Do we have the numbers to rotate a battlegroup? I should think so, we have got plenty of them mate!
A Battle Group is just that, a mix of combat, CS and CSS troops under an infantry battalion or tank/cavalry regiment CO, and is about 800-900 strong. It is of course not a division. To keep a BG on station indefinitely, ie an enduring operation, we need to roule every 6 months and would need 5 BGs to make that work and preserve harmony guidelines of Tour Interval. The army has got enough troops to do that – it is a very small level of effort, after all. Also, the BG in Estonia includes a Danish rifle company and some… Read more »
And to think up to 2015 they worked to the rule of 5 at Brigade level. The 3 AI Bdes in 3 UK Div and 2 more deployable Bdes in 1 UK Div.
Now we cannot do an enduring brigade level operation.
Scandalous.
True Daniele, We could no longer do Op HERRICK (Afghanistan) or similar on that basis.
With a tank fleet heading down to 148, we could no longer do Op GRANBY (Gulf War 1) or similar, where we deployed 221 tanks.
Why would one call it a Division when it is not even a Brigade? Seriously, Labour are calling for a reversal of cuts, it’s got that bad.
Labour are the hypocrites behind a lot of the issues that the u.k has today
Davey, I wonder if the MOD might reverse their decision on the C130 cuts , given current events? Possibly the same thinking being applied to the Tranche 1 Typhoons? It seems logical and practical to maintain existing assets.
Im flabbergasted we are going ahead with 10,000 cut to Army. Tranche 1 Eurofighter typhoon going. Hawk T1s going (they have a useful secondary fighter bomber role).
C130s etc wtc. We need some common sense uegently installed into the government. At a time of conflict you fight wars with the weapons you have to hand. Not what you are bringing into service some time in the distant future. If the MOD dont stuff up the procurement project.
With inflation so high, any increase in defence spending would not have the same impact when inflation is lower. And we need every penny to be useful.
As far as I’m aware the army numbers being cut are only on paper and the real number of troops is actually the reduced number. I don’t think the T1 hawks would of ever been much use in an air defence role. The plan originally was to pair them up with a radar equipped jet. Low range, no radar, ecm, and a sidewinder L. Maybe could of hit a few Russian bombers back in the Cold War. So long as there roles can be filled by other means I’m ok with the hawks going. That money can be put into… Read more »
“As far as I’m aware the army numbers being cut are only on paper and the real number of troops is actually the reduced number.”
Yes, the army is way below the established strength of 82,000 already, getting to the 73,000 total will not be a 10,000 cut, far far less.
Yes, but the PIDs could have been given to Royal and RN, sodding army playing Top Braid game… we have 750 *ranks… or another way, a 1* plus for less than a 1000 soldiers each.
No, it is wrong. We need boots not braid.
I agree David. 👍
You know my views, RN, RAF first, and that includes the RM.
The army numbers being cut are rwal, nor just on paper. 2 Mercian being axed is 600 infantry out, the 4 battalions being converted to Rangers adds anothet 1,200 out, and that’s just infantry. The previous re-roling of 4 infantry battalions as SFABs cost another 1,200 personnel. Basically, the army was close to its establishment of 82,500, about 3,000 short. But the numbers have been swiftly reduced by slowing recruitment (as if Capita could go any slower) and redundancies as above. So today’s figures are heavily massaged, about the only thing the MOD is any good at. The issue about… Read more »
In quite a few areas of the forces we have assets but they are either wrongly configured or in the wrong place everyone knows that the batch 2 rivers could be unpinned so too the archers with the Russians trespassing into u.k waters with impunity the archers with say a single anti submarine torpedo tube, acting with a frigate in squadrons could be useful tools especially in littoral waters most nations are flexible and think outside the box asymmetric warfare needs new thinking we have more assets than we think we have, most nations include missile, torpedo boat’s plus corvettes… Read more »
Mate, you certainly have my vote!
The numbers of soldiers is certainly a store point I would give this observation. The 20000 Nepalese competing for a paltry 400 places in the British army will still be there as a pool for larger recruitment the failures could be offered a place in the R.N. MAYBE EVEN name a frigate H.M.S GURKHA.
“Could this be the moment where continuous cuts are stopped and perhaps reversed?”
I fully expect planners to double down on Jam Tomorrow™.
After all we’re again seeing the disruptive power of unmanned systems and the weakness of armour against light forces equipped with cutting edge AT equipment.
I fully expect to see a debate on replacing all British armour with STRIKE 2.0 and the RAF with drones. None of this will be delivered of course but much money will be doled out on studies to price ‘prove’ the idea.
That’s the question.
This is not integrated armour against light troops with ATGM, this is armour against motivated troops with tactics.
Armour will have a negative exercise outcome.
Simple lessons are obvious and the need for RRA to provide overhead is crucial.
Vthis Ukrainian situation will definitely bring the u.k forces and their strength and abilities into the public domain which could be the chance our forces have yearned for for all the time since the Falklands conflict
Is there no chance of a modern day BAOR albeit on smaller scale and based in the Baltics? Permanent bases and infrastructure, forward deployed equipment and service personnel with their families based for the mid/long term? This threat isn’t going away any time soon.
It is looking more likely, especially after the comments made by Boris and Biden on the news.
I’d imagine that the BAOR battle plans are dusted off at the moment the scenario is almost too similar to the risk that NATO geared towards in the cold war. So preparation for the possible onlaught from the East would already be there
I’m a little surprised that the queen Elizabeth strike group is not deployed. This is one of the task’s she was built for
And 4 mote type 45’s maybe the navy would love that one
and HMG increase spending on defence by…….nothing…….it seems massive geopolitical shifts seem to happen to other nations, in the U.K. we cut a few tax’s to deal with the cost of living crisis…while singing around the campfire and ignoring a world transformed into a playground for totalitarian regimes.
Hi Jonathan, Compared to his response to Covid Sunak’s response to the Ukrainain War and the cost of living crisis is well MIA… Even his tax cuts will likely be wiped out by wage rises or inflation or both. The former because he has already stated that he will freeze the tax threshold for the next 4 years so as wages rise over that time period more people will find themselves back above the tax threshold. Inflation will also see a higher tax burden thanks to VAT..! So not good on the cost of living crisis… As for the changed… Read more »
All the unrealistic expectations don’t help though. Asking for 3% of GDP right off the bat is probably completely unworkable. But an increase of 10% to 2.2% of GDP gets you an extra ($60 bill x .1) 6 billion USD a year which is a massive amount. You could buy 18 extra Sky Sabre batteries with that money and still have $4+ billion left in year one. That is game changing money.
Ron Stateside, In many ways I agree. The government can increase defence expenditure far quicker remove the ssbn/Trident cost from the MoD and put it back into the treasury where it used to be. Possibly other measures such as this one could also be done, an example military pensions under the cost of the DWP, humanitarian aid missions under the International aid budget etc. Possibly even remove VAT on MoD expenditure. This would give a good increase in the MoD budget whilst not increasing the overall GDP percentage.
Pandemic, plus Furlough and also plus the additional cost of supporting Ukraine, we simply do not have the money.
Borrowing is great but it has to be paid back and we cant keep borrowing as we had been.
Sadly the fantasy world of Corbyn and his money tree is not reality. As much as id love a big increase in defence spending the reality is we cant afford it.
It’s how you choose to spend your money. I’m not sure a universal tax break is the right way to go. Personally I’ve just had been given a tax break I don’t need, I would rather it was spent on either the defence of the nation or healthcare.
Yes we needed to ameliorate cost of living on low income families…but not a universal tax break.
If you don’t want the tax break you can always send the money saved to HRMC as a donation. They do accept them.
If I could mark it for defence spending then I would, as is I will give it to charities, by upping my charitable donation allowance.
I don’t disagree you can’t just throw money at something as it cannot suddenly be spent ( they have done this with the NHS, given us the opportunity to bid for loads of in year money..but we can’t spend it because healthcare is all about staff and it’s not long term funding for training pipelines). But they are making cuts and delaying capabilities coming on line, so these should be funded…….
Sorry, why reference Corbyn when he is not even in the loop? Where’s your linky that we don’t have the money? Indeed, Rushi has said hey peeps have a tax cut before the next election.
Your sound bites are pretty poor, must try harder.
In the mid 1980’s the top rate of tax was 60%, basic rate 30%, that paid for defence at 5% of GNP, we were still of in Cold War time then!
Hi James,
I think we can if we cut the overseas aid budget. Now, I am not against overseas aid but what I am against is the ringing fencing to 0.7% of GDP. Seriously, that budget is so bloated the government can’t spend it quickly enough! Do we REALLY need to spend that much on overseas aid when defence is woefully underfunded? I think not; diverting cash from overseas aid to defence would help solve the problem an appreciable amount with no net increase in government spending.
If everyone googled u.k. Foreign aid and how much and where it goes to made my blood boil
The MOD didn’t request any additional fund’s. And nothing announced today is going to help Ukraine. We spent 2.3% of GDP last year. But this conflict will change the longer term view on defence spending. I would expect another strategic defence review before any increase in defence spending. Don’t lose hope just because nothing was announced yesterday.
6000 missiles won’t help Ukraine ? Ask a Ukrainian what they can do with them or perhaps ask a Russian BMP driver whether he wants the Ukrainians to get another resupply of ATGMs.
That wasn’t what I meant Jack. I meant any increase in defence spending, such as ordering more Typhoons or Challenger 3 upgrades for example isn’t going to help today. 6000 anti-tank missiles will definitely help them.
We could order a mass of new stuff but it’s no good if it takes years to arrive our infrastructure isn’t geared to production it took the CLyde yards 4 years to produce a patrol ship, the wait for a frigate doesn’t Bear thinking about, but I’m not bashing the Clyde it was neglected for years when it should have been a priorityplace to be invested into
I do hope something will come down the line Robert, But I think we need a strong statement now, even if it was a statement that there would be a timely defence review, say over the next 6 months or so that will look at defence programmes, timetables and spending in light of the new world order. It not so much about today I worry about ( I know we can’t just throw a ton of money). Its about the future and how our geopolitical enemies may take a lack of statement as weakness ( and those totalitarian nut jobs… Read more »
I agree with what you are saying, but we are apart of NATO, and NATO had sent a very strong and unified message to Russia. And after seeing the mess the Russians are making of it’s military campaign in Ukraine, I think NATO could wipe them out on the conventional battle field. And all the talk of big numbers have meant nothing without the logistics and capability to match it.
I do agree, russia is not really up to a conventional land campaign Against NATO. it’s not in anyway close to the USSR and to be honest would clearly not be able to act offensively against any NATO or close peer nation ( Finland or Poland’s military would have probably kicked Russia back over its borders on present performance. But I think the risk is in the causing of pain to key western nations and Putins willingness to risk as well as his perception of the willingness of key NATO nations to accept risk or pain on their home soil.… Read more »
Oh please, the MOD are run by the Cons with an orders abiding, low ranking, short commissioned, Tic Toc at the head of the tree. Did you really expect this Rupert to rock the boat? Heavens, tic toc Ruperts preferred their blokes get roasted alive on a boat in 1982 against the advice of a senior Royal Marine. A reversal of the cut to PIDs could have seen them allocated to Royal and Royal Navy not forgetting the RAF, that could have been immediate and allowed a training pipeline for fully manned Cmdo and Navy. Opportunity wasted by a Con… Read more »
Except, maybe they wouldn’t want to serve in the RN or RAF. They aren’t robots. They are people, with lives and loyalties.
8 ‘battlegroups’ sounds lovely to the ill informed but in reality it is still a token tripwire force as it is spread across half a dozen or so countries. It is not anywhere near a war fighting force.
The whole idea of Western NATO ‘tripwire’ forces deployed in paltry numbers to Eastern NATO countries is moot. The countries they are deployed in are NATO members themselves and as such, serve as the tripwire for wider escalation.
It is all political spin. Deploy in depth & with teeth, or why bother.
Agree otherwise you are potentially leaving forces the west cannot afford to loose at significant risk.
What exactly can Russia do against 8 very well trained and equipped battlegroups? Not a lot really after being engaged in Ukraine.
So yes its a good enough border force to have in place, unless Russia want to go non conventional then that opens another chapter in the history of this planet.
Disagree. That’s the point though isn’t it. The 8 battlegroups are all isolated from each other across 8 countries. Just try and grasp the span of territory those 8 battle groups are covering. With none being significant enough alone to slow a purposeful and intentional invasion. I can’t see Putin opening up 8 fronts simultaneously to go easy on us can you? RF in Ukraine started softly softly, miscalculated and under prepared massively assuming they would face little resistance with one eye on retaining a functioning society and infrastructure for a post invasion puppet regime. We are now starting to… Read more »
Not so is it? These BGs are backing up the national forces of the country they are in! So not there to confront the Russians on there own.
The thing about a tripwire force is, faced with any evolving threat, you need to back them up pronto with substantial reinforcements. We do not have any substantial forces to send and Germany and France are not much better. So the tripwire will be pretty much on its own and highly vulnerable. You are relying on the ‘national forces of the country they are in’. The problem is that these are small countries with limited forces. Our UK population is around 67 million. Bulgaria is 6.7, Slovakia 5.4, Estonia 1.3, etc. The Estonians are making valiant efforts to raise a… Read more »
You are utterly correct. Those 8 battlegroups are spread across what was the entirety of ww2s “Eastern front”. A front the German Whermach couldnt garrison with 200+ divisions. These are very much token forces. From the Baltics to the black sea is a distance of 1600 miles. Thats a large landborder with Russia…or least it will be if Russia defeats Ukraine, which fantastically is by no means certain.
So by your logic the Russians will attack along the whole front of 1600 miles? As far as I can gather we knew where they were going to go into the Ukraine, I am fairly positive we would notice any build up at certain points along that border with the NATO countries and act accordingly.
Well said! I’m all for increasing our military support but lets be realistic; Putin has just shown the world what a 1980’s military looks like. Is Putin capable of taking and holding even a small east European state at the moment?
Russian forces A team could mallet them.
In Eastern Estonia and Eastern Latvia the local pop might well welcome RusMil.
2 things about this.
First up Russia isn’t using the A team In Ukraine? Why ? They want to look weak for some reason ?
Secondly. The East of Ukraine isn’t welcoming RusMil. So why should Estonia and Latvia welcome being invaded by “their mates” in Russia.
Disagree mate, the Russkies don’t really have an A team, they bought some good kit, but in small numbers operated by conscripts. Poop Tin has no reason to show they are weak for a reason, they are becoming a laughing stock! But we should always still be prepared for the unexpected!
They do seem more organised and successful in the south. I do think the land corridor is the ultimate goal & has been all along for Putin. It wouldn’t surprise me if all this talk of Kyiv this & Kyiv that, is all a distraction so when they eventually get what they want in the south – Putin can say we’ll back off Kyiv and people will jump on the band wagon as that being a success. Poop Tin (love that by the way) will tell the RF population he got what he wanted all along and be celebrated at… Read more »
Restrict and reduce any access for Ukraine to the Black Sea? That’s been my thought for a while mate! But whatever Poop Tin is, at this moment he may be a physco but you can’t call him crazy or mad, as you don’t hold on to power this long by being a certified loon. Like you I suspect he does have an alternate agenda, and he is prepared, as all Russkie and communist leaders do, to throw as many expendable people into the breach to get it. Cheers mate.
There is meant to be quite a sizeable unit inside Belorus up against the Suwalki Gap at the moment – do you have any open source links as to its intent?
Not at this time mate soz.
I’m not sure – if they were you might expect a different outcome.
Point I made on another thread; of the school children I taught just a few years ago, they wanted to be part of Russia, none of them have shown any sympathy tobthe Ukraine by adopting the Ukrainian flag emoji.
Telling? Older Russian Latvians are also staunchly neutral, but then, they have foreigner passports issued by the Latvians.
The Ukrainians have their own passports and are welcomed openly by the EU, if not by the UK.
If they are watching this war with the same horror as the rest of us then IF they still want anything to do with Russia they are pretty damn stupid!
They are listening to Russian Channels.
About time Signals turned up the ampage and blocked the b*****ds.
Just my opinion.
Unlikely, those populations are enjoying living in wealthy democracies. They’re unlikely to trade that for an impoverished totalitarian regime simply because of language.
Hi Sean
I’ve answered in thread.
It’s a conundrum but the Latvians give them ‘foreigner’ passports and bar them from working in the Civil Service…
Latvian Latvians don’t do themselves any favours.
Now, combine that with their mindsets – totally different to ours, and, you have a problem.
I don’t see why people are so concerned about the threat of Russia as a conventional force after all this. Ukraine has fought them to a stalemate within less than a 100km of the border in most places.
How are they suddenly going to sweep through eastern Europe with all of NATO’s backing? It’s not the same ball park at all. Nuclear weapons is the only thing which puts Russia on the same scale as the other countries in any form.
He wouldn’t sweep anywhere. But if he thinks he can then he my take the risk. When he grinds to a halt that is when the nuclear option becomes the only option.
Hence why our conventional response should be so significant it makes him blink.
Had we reacted more robustly when he invaded Crimea this latest road trip may not have happened. How people can’t see that baffles me.
Good points on having an upfront strong conventional deterrence and a nuclear deterrence in the background. I/we hope Ukrainian forces can counter attack in around Mariupol and even Crimea, hopefully with the Russian’s looking the other way. All those tanks, vehicles, launchers with a “Z” need to be “zapped”! Good to see Russian ships in southern ports getting knocked out or damaged. Long may it continue. Looks like 1000s of Mariupol residents have been taken as hostages/slave labour so Russian war amorality is seeping ever lower. Hope they are held accountable for everyone of those Ukrainian souls. They don’t seem… Read more »
2014 was our Czechoslovakia moment.
Had we reacted then the way we are doing now, Putin might never have started this war.
Absolutely Sean. Ukraine is like watching the sequel of valiant Poland being crushed while the West looked on.
At least we had the bottle then to warn Germany off and, when that failed, to go to war on principle, while rapidly rearming.
Contrast Boris and other Western leaders hiding behind gestures. Boris is pretty much unique though in cutting defence capability while everyone else is rapidly waking up and increasing defence spending or force levels or equipment stocks.
To be fair Boris announced a big increase in money for the military last-year, whereas others didn’t. Germany is simply catching up to where the U.K. and Eastern European nations have been for years with a 2% spend.
The U.K. was also doing far more shipping NLAWs etc to Ukraine before the invasion began, ensuring they were in theatre and ready. Most countries waited until after the invasion. The Kremlin earlier this week labelled him as “the most active anti-Russian” leader for good reason.
The one big difference between 1939 and now, nukes…
Not wrong. There is no reason why we should not of exercised at scale with UkrMil in the Ukraine, would have staved off this shit show.
It is not a warfighting force because we are not going to war with Russia.
Article 5 may decide that for us. I admire your confidence. Or is it ignorance.
If you believe in the nuclear deterrent then you should also believe in a conventional deterrent. And that isn’t 8 ‘battle groups’ thinly spread over thousands of miles or borders.
Estonia 87.000 Armed Forces
Latvia 17.500 Armed Forces
Lithuania 125.000 Armed Forces
Poland 214.000 Armed Forces to be almost doubled
Ukraine 200,000 Armed Force… Didn’t stop Putin having a go…
Do you see my point?
Er… where did you get your stats from? A wish list. Latvian number is an order of magnitude wrong.
If you have included their ‘Landguard’ in there, they are woeful in their tactics and just cannon fodder.
If they all came from Daugavgriva then it would be a different matter… and they don’t.
Latvia is the one that surprised me the most by being so small. As to find. Search Wikipedia or Google numbers very similar.
I lived there and taught them; sorry, my unfair advantage.
I don’t much like it being suggested that I am ignorant. Durimg my 34 years in the army, I spent long enough in Germany (BAOR, then BFG) to have some understanding of the Soviet/Russian psyche. Russia has its hands full in Ukraine, having committed most of its army – and it is not doing well, a month into a supposed Blitzkrieg. It is hard to see that Putin would win against Ukraine, then turn (with a demoralised army with depleted manpower and materiel and pathetic tactics) to attacking a NATO country, perhaps in the Baltics. Article 5 would be triggered… Read more »
I’ll put it down to confidence then! No offence intended. In my 12 years I came to understand a lot including stagnation of equipment and reduction of deployable assets. I’m sure you’re the same in your 34 years but that’s not really what I’m getting at. Russia invaded Ukraine with fewer blokes than the standing Armed Forces available to Ukraine of circa 200,000 solders/airmen/sailors etc knowing they have significant reserves that they can also call up on. Madness really, but they did it anyway. Regarding Russian psyche, I expect they did so as they expected a quick easy fight. What… Read more »
Its purely political, NATO reassuring eastern states that we have their back. Rest assured US/UK intelligence will know Putin’s plans a few milliseconds after he’s decided them and will get the correct assets in the right places.
Agree it’s a political gesture. I hope you’re right that we can reinforce more quickly that Putin can pivot West should he choose to.
I just feel the decision/deployment should be more pragmatic and deterrence based rather than back patting and symbolic.
I doubt those Battlegroup Tanks would get a speck of dust on them. F35s and other NATO Air assets would turn the Russian Ground Forces into a steaming pile of junk before they were clear of customs.
I agree that Putin is not rational, otherwise he would not have launched a full invasion into Ukraine. He is very unpredictable. I can’t see how this will end. My best guess is that the Russian Army will fragment – most/some will fight on with ever increasing brutality against the civilian population and infrastructure, some will desert, some will refuse to soldier for a variety of reasons. Putin could face rising anger by those at home who have lost out (oligarchs who have lost assets or who cannot trade; small businesses who cannot trade, Generals who see their army being… Read more »
Could we put to rest that a battlegroup is not a brigade of about a 1000 bods.
Pushing the Brit contribution upto a Brigade would be painful with our numbers – we did that in Afghanistan and needed Royal and the Royal Navy to deliver one tour; we need fleshed out Bns with support, do we have it?
Cat in Hell’s chance of fielding a Division.
Not sure who thinks a BG is a brigade of about 1000 bods. It is a Unit equivalent (not a Formation) commanded by a Lt Col and of 600-1000 bods. Wheras a brigade (or BCT) is a Formation typically 5,000 strong under a Brigadier and might comprise 3-4 manouevre units (BGs) plus CS and CSS. We cannot any longer deploy a brigade on an enduring operation (such as we did in Afghanistan) without recourse to a reconstituted 3 Cdo Bde – and then would have to minimise other land forces commitements elsewhere. We could deploy 1 or 2 brigades for… Read more »
Have a like.
Thanks pal!
Given the Russian military’s performance in Ukraine, those 8 battle groups could probably reach Moscow in a week if they wanted to.
Except of course the Russians would start using tactical nukes.
Nah. Motivation doesn’t resolve lack of training, organisation, logistical support or equipment failures.
And the average Joe in Russia, not even the Russian military, doesn’t hate us.
I’m interested to know what the community thinks of politicians who were in the forces – there seems to be quite a list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_veterans_in_British_politics
I was actually at school with one of the guys on that list! He was quite a decent chap then – seems to be a bit of a raving loon these days
Almost all Army, only a few Navy and RAF, and one failed Marine. And almost all Conservative. I only glanced at the Lords because quite a few have been given honorary ranks and the real action should happen in the commons. What surprises me is that with all that experience the Conservatives appear to have been quiescent when it comes to the reduction in size of the Army, and yet are happy to sign off a report saying we need a bigger Navy. (Which we do) Like many other contributors here I really hope that the end result of the… Read more »
Just shows that back-benchers don’t have any clout.
The 2010 review was a reaction to the global economic crisis to save the economy rather than a measured assessment of threat and response, and was less severe than originally proposed – still was savage, though.
There cannot be a knee jerk response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If there is to be a substantial increase in Defence spending, sustainable in the long term then a new detailed Strategic Defence Review to establish the requirements for a much bigger and more robust Armed Forces is needed, but how long for those results to be realised as actual hardware is all of this going to take in the long term? New equipment, ships, aircraft or main battle tanks for example, and all the extra fully trained personnel needed to operate them all, will take well over a… Read more »
An awful lot has changed, but we do not have the money to do what we need after the last few years.
Reality is we cannot keep borrowing as we have been hence no defence spending increases.
Time will tell. First of all though, I hope that this truly awful war is brought to an end very soon.
And heaven help us if/when interest rates start rising on the level of debt we now have. That’s on top of inflation biting hard.
Are we talking UK or Russian?😂…Roubles looking good at the moment?!…keep going with your tripe…getting angry now more than I should..
Most on here now see your agenda though …every post you make simply undermines your cause and credibility 👍..
However, inflation erodes debt.
I remember that 9/11 caused a ‘New Chapter’ to be written to the previous Defence review. Not inconceivable that the Russian invasion could trigger another ‘New Chapter’, rather than a new SDSR. I am not sure that more ships for the navy would fall out of that, but certainly the RAF and the Army should be beneficiaries. You are right that it might take a decade or more to get all enghancements in place, but some things can be done relatively quickly – you can recruit and train additional infantry in 18 months and buy more kit off the shelf,… Read more »
The military response to 9/11 was groundbreaking – the first time ever in NATO’s history that Article 5 was called. It caused a British commando unit to leave Ex Saif Sareea II in Oman and conduct a combined op with the Americans to find Bin Laden in the Tora Bora caves.Sadly Bin Laden had fled the scene, yet Al Qaeda were hunted down for years later in Afghanistan and elsewhere by a much larger multinational force with some considerable success. I agree that the expansion by Bush to the Global War on Terror was too broad and lead to regime… Read more »
Some people on here are saying the battle group deployments are mere political tokenism, I disagree. These are on top of the national armies along the eastern flank. So, for example, the US led battlegroup in Poland is on top of 120,000 regular Polish troops already there. The key part of this deployment isn’t the battlegroups anyway but rather the enablers, pre placed equipment for rapid reinforcement, the CBRN group and the integrated air defence. There is however a problem with the UK deployment. We have a regular army which can deploy 3 airborne BGs, 9 armoured BGs + the… Read more »
Has the UK committed battle groups to Poland and Bulgaria? Obviously we have two now in Estonia plus half a RM Cdo and light cavalry squadron in Poland but that’s it i thought? i wouldn’t consider the Polish deployment at battle group level or even semi permanent….
We definitely have two in Estonia (Royal Welsh & 1 RTR). A new BG is definitely going to Bulgaria. In Poland we have several sub units but not a complete BG. There are Royal Marines (45 Cmdo) & REs helping the Polish with border control, a Sqn of light cavalry serving within the US BG and a Battery of Sky Sabre air defence from the RA.
I thought we had a single large BG in Estonia plus some Apache – and the light cav sqn in Poland.
No idea on Bulgaria – we have training there.
Poland has 1 or 2 companies – Mech Inf and Recce IIRC
Estonia, our main effort has circa 2000 bods. Not a Brigade.
A BG can be formed based on any Infantry battalion (does not have to be armoured inf/mech inf) or armoured regiment – and we have quite a few of those. I have not heard of airborne BGs – is that ‘a thing’?
Before we put more money on the table we need to sort out our woefully inapt procurement system, getting rid of the reams of middle management in the MoD would be a step in the right direction anouther step would be to make decision makers accountable for those decisions. After 30 years of mis-management we are going to need off the shelf solutions to help fill the gaps in our forces capabilities, but it will not replace the lack in personnel unless there is a push to get some of the older guys who have recently left the forces to… Read more »
To be honest most of the middle management in the civil service is were the expertise and organisational memory resides. This happened to the NHS during the fuck up reform of 2011.The idiot langsley made half the middle managers who new how to run a local healthcare system redundant and for the last 10 years every time work needs to be done we now have to pay the big London consultant firms agencies astronomical amounts of money to get the skills, as all the expert middle managers took their redundancy, dossed around for a year and then got consultancy jobs… Read more »
I do not disagree with what you are saying but there is no accountability within the MoD with people making decisions with no consequences if they f–k up and in a lot of cases they get a promotion to get them out of the way as it is at the moment nearly imposable to sack any one in the CS. Combined the above with the political interference who see the armed forces as a national cost that must be reduced instead of a national asset that needs looking after. After 30 years of mis-management of our defence budget we are… Read more »
I don’t disagree with accountability, a lot of the problem around that resides with the senior management grades and the fast track promotions. I see it all the time, very senior managers just moving about and not really taking any of the flack, with some individuals being fast tracked through junior and middle management roles within a few years with no real understanding of the complexity of the services…they have the gift of corporate presentation, but not profound knowledge. In my own experience of the NHS I’m of the view that promotion should only come from the wisdom of experience… Read more »
If middle managers are not being held accountable, you fire the senior level, not the middle level. But as it has gone on for so long, the problem will be institutional, and it will remain no matter whom you fire. You need to reorganise the top around a cadre of clear thinkers who have carte-blanche to change the way things are done (yes, the vision thing).
If Radakin didn’t neuter himself to get the job, he could be helpful. Quin is a ragdoll who needs replacing first.
Well if it was up to me I would get rid of the lot and close Abby- wood and put in place a joint services procurement department maned by ex and serving military and bring in experts in their field relevant to the kit you are in the process of procuring similar to what the USMC do when they start to look at a new bit of kit. This is not a new concept and in fact it was the UK who first did this under the direction of Lord Fisher back in the 1WW. It worked well right up… Read more »
Spot on!…would be there tomorrow 👍
If you get rid of middle management, either the work they did does not get done or is pushed up a level to the ‘busy people’ who don’t have time to do it or is pushed down to the inexperienced and demoralised low grade people who will do it badly, slowly or not at all. [I experienced the above in a civilian company]
I fully agree that we need more MOTS/COTS solutions.
Hello Graham, Things have to change, the UK on paper should have an out standing armed forces with all of the latest kit to hand along with the personnel to man it but as I have said on numerous occasions in the past the last 30 years have seen our armed forces decimated with the procurement being fruit and centre as the main problem area with vast eye watering amounts of money being wasted on kit that is either not fit for porpoise or simply dose not work. We expect our military personnel to put themselves in harms way to… Read more »
Hello Stephen, I was an army officer for 34 years, and deployed on operations being very much in harms way, so I very much agree that our forces should have the latest kit. I worked closely with army Requirements Managers when I was at DLO as an Equipment Support Manager. My first jobs out of the army was working on contract for DE&S Abbey Wood – I was firstly in the Armoured Vehicle Support Transformation project, then was a PM in the Operational Vehicles Office (overseeing all UOR vehicle projects), then was a PM for a piece of infantry kit.… Read more »
I believe we have had similar conversation like this before, and I tend to agree with what you are saying but the fact of the matter is there is something wrong at the top or within the CS, yes they do produce a lot of good stuff that goes under the wire and is not seen by the the vast majority of people but the big budget projects that are seen in the news are all over budget and have not delivered, something has to change and as there is zero accountability in the CS then the CS must change… Read more »
Steven, yes we have had similar conversations before. I took much effort to craft a detailed reply from my considerable experience of military procurement which stated that the problem procurements are not simply down to some duff civil servants (CS).
I agree that you cannot lay the blame at the door of one department but there is something fundamentally wrong in our leadership that allows these gross miscalculation and political interference to continue, we have had 30 odd years our armed forces being gutted now we are expecting them to stand up for the country and Nato with what!!! We have ships at sea that have extremely limited capabilities and in the case of the T45’s are prone to brake down, we have an army that will struggle to maintain 1 division in the field and an RAF with 100… Read more »
We agree on the lack of accountability – this is true for all Government fiascos – who is being sacked for buying uselss PPE for the NHS, for spending billions too much money on ‘Track and Trace’, for hospitals with huge numbers of medical deaths, for running childrens homes where abuse was widespread. Closer to home, who was sacked for the Nimrod EEW, Nimrod MRA4 fiascos. This is a trait of Government and it is appaling. Blame is not passed on to Industry where that seems appropriate. I am pleased that there is a fix for the T45s propulsion problems… Read more »
Does anybody know if the Russians are actually bulking thier forces up in the region of the baltics? I would imagine the vast bulk of russian military might is now concentrated around ukraine are they leaving themselves open in other areas?
They brought around 10k plus equipment across the country from the Far East for the Belarus exercise. That is the main long distance troop movement. I don’t know where they are now.
Praying I expect.
👍😂
Ensuring the logistical chain priorities shit role and body bags!
Probably deserted, on the ground half these guys still thought they were on exercise!
On a lighter note John your Dads turning in his grave!. If he indeed did serve, it wasnt for the values you’re purporting now.
On a personal note….drop dead.
Mate he has no real history just a number of made up avatars! But, shhhhhhhhhh he thinks we haven’t noticed 😂👍
Im guessing they will be needed back in the Far East. Russia is massive and I’m guessing does not want empty borders with thinly spread troops. Nobody would of tried to invade russia. I just can’t see what russia gets from the conflict. What does it bring to Russia?
I do wonder how much more equipment russia can keep pulling out before it starts to run low. Also troops loses are massive. Ukraine will be suffering as well but as the defender they will fight until the last man.
Let hope it ends peacefully soon
In refrigerated railcars and trucks waiting to be returned to Russia for burial?
Sad but true!
Brought 10k? Well going on recent combat experience from your blokes in Ukraine I suggest we mobilise the Sea Cadets, Colchester detachment, and send all 24 of them to the Baltic’s, and both adult instructors, as a forward presence, that should be enough don’t you think! And we will ensure they have logistic support, 2 haverbags each, with cheese and pickle sandwichs. Big improvement on your logistics eh Russkie troll!
Looks like quite a bit of kit is wrecked. Russia will not be able to afford to replace what it had lost. It will have stocks of old equipment but when that goes they aren’t going to be able to build 1000’s of new tanks and afv.
I wish Russia would withdraw before anymore die and reassess what it is trying to accomplish and how to do it.
Just now they are just losing soldiers and equipment
According to sources at the Pentagon, between 20% and 60% of Russia’s cruise missiles are failing in a daily basis. Launch failures, going off course, not detonating, etc…
It does make you wonder about their much vaunted Hypersonic missiles and their nukes. Not that we should test the latter!
F-35 JPO Evaluating Spare Parts Following Vinson, Queen Elizabeth Deployments – USNI News
US confirms the faster than expected rusting of F-35 on US carriers doesnt occur on British carriers where it occurs at a slower than expected rate. Finally seems to be recognizing the downside of deck parking.
So exactly where are the five carrier battle groups…. Just curious I count one.
It isn’t referring to carrier battle groups, but army battle groups.
Modern NATO ships up against Russian rust and poor trained crews .
RAF c17 doing runs on teesside Airport near me.
Probably prep work for getting supplies in if used as a dispersed base for typhoons.
There was news release not long ago about the raf practicing dispersed ops again and teeside airport was always classed at a second line base during the cold war.
Surprised that the royal navy carrier strike group hasn’t been deployed