Senior UK defence officials faced scrutiny from MPs during a Defence Committee session, discussing the feasibility of doubling the Army’s fighting power by 2027 and tripling it by 2030.
The ambitious target, set by the Chief of the General Staff (CGS), hinges on prioritising lethality, integrating advanced technologies, and making tough financial choices under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
Lieutenant General Sir Robert Magowan, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability), emphasised the necessity of the goal to maintain the UK’s deterrent capabilities.
“If we’re going to deter as an alliance, whether we deter as a nation as part of that alliance, we’ve got to demonstrate that we have the lethality and the resilience to stay in the fight,” Magowan said. He described the CGS’s target to double and triple the Army’s capability as a shared aspiration supported by the Defence Secretary.
The committee raised concerns about the retirement or transfer of key equipment, including AS-90 artillery systems sent to Ukraine. Magowan explained that Sweden’s Archer system is expected to be operational by early 2025, while negotiations continue with Germany and Rheinmetall over the RCH 155 system.
“Part of that deterrence is industrial resilience,” Magowan noted. “If it comes to fruition fully, [the RCH 155] will see significant investment by Rheinmetall, further investment in the UK to support that programme.”
Andy Start, Chief Executive of Defence Equipment and Support, highlighted NATO cooperation and the benefits of standardisation. He stressed the role of shared platforms like the Boxer vehicle, built in both the UK and Germany, in boosting NATO’s deterrence and industrial strength.
“NATO maximises its deterrent when it standardises its equipment and it’s interoperable and interchangeable,” Start said. “This collaboration strengthens NATO and our industrial resilience, enabling us to sustain the fight for longer.”
When pressed on whether the goal is achievable within three years, Start acknowledged the challenges but pointed to opportunities in digitisation and integration.
“Chief of General Staff’s ambition is achievable,” Start stated, “but we can certainly make a massive difference in quite a short period of time through digitisation, integration, and ensuring the sensors we have can trigger effectors… without having to have huge amounts more kit.”
Magowan added: “To achieve that doubling by 2027 and tripling it by 2030 is a choice that means prioritising lethality… from a military capability perspective, lethality is at the top of the prioritised list.”
Start concluded: “Technically and programmatically, yes, but it’s part of the wider SDR choices that they have to make in terms of where they choose to put the money.”
It seems very obvious to me that, if you want to double the lethality of the army, then you need to double the budget.
You can’t double their lethality on the cheap. More money is required to acquire more and more-lethal units, and to increase numbers of practically everything.
The idea is to double lethality per head, so that one of ours can kill two of theirs. That’s a productivity thing and like all productivity these days, it’s done by investing in infrastructure and buying tech. I’m guessing there’s computer modelling that says it can be done. It’s a shame we can’t just let our computer simulations fight theirs, because in the real world we’ve seen that the tech wars cycle generations in a couple of months. So even if we did double our lethality, it would only work for a very short period of time.
It is also a question of having munitions depth so we can keep fighting with the high tech edge rather than starting with a high tech edge and being dragged into WWI when we run out of the smart stuff.
TBH building more stockpiles of what we have doesn’t double costs. The problem is that if you buy a massive stockpile in Y1 then in Y1+expiry date then all of those munitions either need to be rectified. So usually you have an age spread that is proportionate to training usage volumes so you keep cycling through the munitions. If you have a bigger stock depth you end up having to expend more in live fire [a good thing some would say] or remanufacturing munitions to deal with the EoL issues.
Then you have to feed into that how much can we rapidly dynamically manufacture on lines that are warm and ready to go with bins filled with parts so you are not cranking up a just-in-time behemoth and discovering the vital XYZ widget that costs 20p and is irreplaceable in the design is on a 9 month lead time from somewhere we shouldn’t be buying defence bits from!
That’s great but with our numbers of everything so depressingly low, we’d need every one of ours to kill twenty of theirs.
It’s a logical impossibility that per head our soldiers could be 3 times as lethal as a peer enemy, say Russia or especially China, I very much doubt they could even be twice as lethal. China has many weapons that though not proven in combat are as capable or more capable than ours. It’s all pie in the sky, fantasy thinking. Like comparing our 6 state of the art to china’s many destroyers that have double tge number of missiles ours do.
Hot take of the day to the point where that sounds like scaremongering.
You can, over the years we kept more infantry and lost lots of artillery. It’s pretty cheap to double or triple the artillery. You don’t need 80,000 more bodies to do it.
Doubling artillery, MLRS, Heavy mobile mortars and introducing concepts such as overwatch and more mobile GBAD…does not require double the budget. It would be a fraction of that if done right.
Simple question- if you think you can double,triple lethality over such a short timescale without massive additional expenditure, why haven’t you done it already?
Isn’t the reality that the army will have far fewer MBTs with a slightly better gun, no IFVs when Warrior goes out of service, reduced numbers of SPGs for years to come.
Increased lethality seems the exact opposite of what current plans are delivering.
Or it means we will see a Britsh version of the French Scorpio programm.
Better technology, PRSM, HIMARS, RH 155 etc.
You can now hit a lot more targets much quicker for lower cost with a lighter logistics foot print.
It took 500 B17’s to put one bomb in a factory. One F35 can now put 8 bombs in 8 different factories at the same time.
What changed?
Same for both combatants in any war.
This is still a numbers game. The old adage of boots on the grtound being essential to control territory and manage the environment will always apply. Our dependence on increasing lethality is laudable but can it actually be achieved in the long term over any extended campaign? That is the big unanswerable. It implies an increased capability in resupply. Which counters this comment (from the article) “Chief of General Staff’s ambition is achievable,” Start stated, “but we can certainly make a massive difference in quite a short period of time through digitisation, integration, and ensuring the sensors we have can trigger effectors… without having to have huge amounts more kit.”
Since this ‘kit’ takes a long time to manufacture it means we have to have huge amounts ready in stock and the ability to backfill. The concept of making each individual more lethal implies kit, and probably in the bean counters mind increasing the effective firepower per person. There is however a flaw in this thinking. If one person can now do the work of say 10, then the loss of one person means an immediate reduction of 10% of the available effect! So instead of small losses there will be more bigger losses overall and less flexibility. In an evenly equipped or matched fight it probably makes little difference but seing as Russia and Korea are now resorting to meat grinder tactics numbers of boots will tend to prevail even if rthe lethality of weapons employed is better.
And the big reason for reducing manpower remains as always tax cuts and austerity.
Another point of contention that hasn’t been raised. Is how do you measure that we’ve become twice as lethal, let alone three times as lethal. Also, by inference, you are suggesting that your peer enemy has not moved on technologically. So if they do move on, how do you maintain the lethality gap?
I think somebody has come with a new catchy idea, where we don’t need to have a massive army, as technology can bridge the gap. It’s all very 1950’s Defence White Paper technobabble. We will invent a golden bullet and our enemy will have no answer to it. Forgetting that first you have to prove the concept and then make sure it works. But not taking into account the enemy also gets a vote!
Industrial capability, a large initial depth of ordinance, and the ability to quickly arm a large body of manpower, that has had basic training, plus sufficient reserves to replace equipment lost in the first 2 to 4 weeks of a conflict. I think is significantly more important, that stating we will achieve twice the lethality by x date and triple the lethality by y date.
Correct , I raised this when this trite sound bite was first spouted a couple of months ago.
What metric are you going to use to measure ‘leathality’ …and then how do you know you have double.
The statement is -as you allude to – sufficiently ambiguous to warrant it moot.
It’s easy to double when the starting point is firepower that’s probably no greater than the Spanish.
Should not be too much of a problem, considering that the British Army hardly exists at the moment. No modern tanks; no modern cavalry capability; no modern fighting vehicles; no artillery to speak off and what there is is out of date;, helicopters either not ordered or being prematurely scrapped and enough materiale to last about a week.
Add in the fact that the army is 3000 understrength and 4000 of the establishmnet are off sick and senior NCO’s are leaving at a rate of knots you can see how our fighting capabilty could be improved some.
3,000 understrength?!
More like 30,000 under!
True, but I’m only counting what we have, bad though it is.
Generals can say what they want – if only!
This all comes down to money – or lack of it. Without HMG ring-fencing defence, how can the Armed Forces effectively plan and budget for programs? HMG still can’t commit to when they will increase to 2.5% of GDP and now Rutte is talking about increasing the NATO commitment to 3% (which I believe is absolutely the right thing to do). I have ZERO confidence that 2.5 lest still 3% will ever materialise.
I think we also need a clear definition of what is meant by ‘increasing lethality’. What does this mean? How is it quantified by 2027 and again in 2030? The comment given regarding Archer replacing AS90 reads as though it’s a one-for-one replacement – which we all know it’s not. The Army only acquired 14 Archer tubes whereas we had over 80 AS90. Sure, there will also be RCH155 but when? How many?
The government needs to waken up and acknowledge that much more money is needed for defence and quickly but I fear the upcoming SDR no matter how honest it’s being constructed, will be swept under the carpet and forgotten by the Treasury. The SDR is simply a way for Starmer to kick the can down the road and ignore defence.
I’d be happy with 2.75% defence spending having a bit of insight into the numbers from the other side of the curtain.
Given how much is spoken for in CASD, nuclear submarines and large capital projects going from 1.9%, which is where we were, to 2.75% would be absolutely massive. We are only at 2.2(ish)%, minus some accounting so really 2%, now.
As I have said before the main thing is to stop it all being sucked into mega projects but to keep most of it for relatively small projects like rapidly backfilling munitions and not being tempted to go after the next new-shiny.
I think that what will also be needed is much more transparency as to where and on what the increased budget will be spent. Pensions are included, but make no contribution to war fighting capability. Let’s have a defence budget that actually reflects the need to be spent on the sharp end.
We procured 179 AS-90s.
The MOD’s budget is ring fenced along with education and health. They got £2.9 billion increase in last budget.
“Jaw, jaw, jaw”. Lets hope there is no war.
Jaw, jaw, jaw is absolutely correct. I think it is fairly safe to predict that the only thing that the army will double by 2027 is the number of press releases it issues.
CGS assumed his appointment exactly 6 months ago. By now there really does need to be a firm, credible and costed plan in place to achieve doubling of lethality by 2027 (which starts in barely 2 years time), and tripling by 2030. Some ‘early days’ actions should have been put in place by now, with endorsement confirmed in the SDR report.
No matter that efficiencies can be achieved by smarter sensors, quicker ‘sensor to shooter’ times, more precision munitions etc, however more weapon systems (a lot more) will also be required.
A nudge up to 2.5% of GDP spent on Defence, even if achieved next year, will surely not be enough, by a long chalk.
Absolutely. If budgets remain broadly flat and you want more lethality, what do you give up to achieve it? There doesn’t appear to be a lot left to cut in any of the services.
Enough for what? What is the threat we are spending money against? If your planning to rebuild the British Empire then 40% won’t be enough. If you’re defending Estonia against Russia as part of NATO then 2.5% is plenty.
Deterrence is a great deal cheaper than warfighting.
The threat has been clearly set out by Putin: demographic imperialism likely to trigger NATO’s Article 5, requiring UK deployment of our one Brigade to Central Europe.
What if you’re defending the Baltics as a framework member of JEF and NATO is a paper tiger?
It seems to me many of your posts underplay any threat and overplay our capability or requirement to counter it so I would be interested to know what and where YOU think the threat is and how we would be best placed to counter it ? if you believe any exists at all of course.
‘double fighting power’
Show us a solid plan with concrete outcomes and goals, otherwise it is all just political spin.
“Show us a solid plan”, that isn’t the point of the statement to double lethality, it’s for the mainstream media to plaster on articles so the majority of voters think that defence is being taken care of as they won’t read into it beyond that, like people here do and assume the U.K. armed forces can take on anyone backing up the tough talk from politicians.
I can’t imagine there is any actual intention to make real changes, this is the same army cutting a turreted IFV for a non turreted APC and has almost no artillery and no actual timeline to replace it, will be cutting MBT numbers as they upgrade to CH3, all whilst stating they plan to double lethality with a straight face with most of the programs not really being delivered fully until well after 2030, it’s hard to see much credibility with these statement or the people making them, as you say it’s all just political spin with no outcomes, the SDR will not change anything as it’s really treasury dictated rather than responsibility vs resources needed.
Note I ended my comment with ” it is all just political spin”
Yet to see any example of how these clowns propose to achieve this.
Sensors, technology, imagination, magic, increased dividends for defence contractors, nothing of substance for the actual forces that will be sent into conflict, but it doesn’t sound as good when you admit your forces will be sent under equipped in dated equipment.
As usual, sheer twaddle.
Overall, lose 6 Regiments of AS90 SPG, point instead to 14 Archer and repeat the waffle about RCH155 and lethality, without any confirmation the funding is there for things like PGM for MLRS.
It’s a perfectly reasonable statement to make and fits in with the announced future plan. We have 14 Archers, so add 14 RCH155 by 2027 doubles it, add another 14 by 2030 and hey presto. Announcement made and the bar has been set !
HMG and the Treasury have absolutely zero interest in spending money on Defence, in fact it is a deeply held mantra. Lord Macpherson was chief secretary to the Treasury for 3 different PMs and he has actually confirmed that on more than one occasion.
The only way it will change anytime soon will be if NATO ups the Ante to 3% and President Tango reads the riot act to Starmer.
Lord Macpherson was the arch acolyte of Brownian motion of money….
Problem has always been that defence spending is largely wasted consumption. The UK for 300 years has always benefited from spending more on infrastructure and debt maintenance to allow the ability to deploy a war chest in times of war. Every country from Napoleon to the Nazi and the Soviets who over spent on defence lost.
The CCP after playing it wisely for decades is now falling into the same trap as Bismarck Germany.
America played it wisely for a century and spent nothing on defence until 1939 then became the greatest super power in the world in just three years.
Deterrence is a long way from being ‘wasted consumption’. The ‘Long Peace’ in Western Europe guaranteed by U.S. and U.K. armoured divisions stationed in Germany allowed the economic miracle in Germany and elsewhere to proceed in peace.
The delusional ‘peace dividend” since 1991 has led us, expensively, to where we are today, war once more in Europe, hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced.
Artillery is the God of the battlefield. When you have given away a large amount of your hardware and ammunition you better be able to replace it quickly and not be dependent on foreign suppliers. The UK is in the precarious position of being horrifically dependent on non-UK providers.
‘In 2023, Warsaw undertook a reform of the Polish army. The aim was to turn the country into Europe’s leading military power, with the largest army in the European Union. The goal: an active army of 300,000 soldiers by 2035. According to NATO estimates for 2024, Poland’s active forces have 216,000 soldiers, making it NATO’s third-largest army after the U.S. and Turkey.
Until 2022, the Polish army was smaller than those of France and Germany, but Poland now leads both France (204,700 soldiers) and Germany (185,600 soldiers). This represents a significant reversal’
But Britain cannot somehow manage it? HMG has to stop willing the mission without willing the means. Digitisation? Digitisation of what, precisely? One deployable Brigade can be pretty much be run using semaphore.
Britain has the benefit of not having a boarder with Russia and having Poland and a number of other countries between it and Russia. Why start closing hospitals in the UK to over contribute to EU security. We already do more than anyone else in Europe, why do more? What’s the benefit?
There is a great deal of scope for public sector efficiency savings in this country.
As for the rest, deterrence is the only true victory, best achieved, in this case, by forward defence.
The absurdity is that we know exactly what to do. We have done it before. It works.
Well the armoured infantry sections are about to loss their cannons and one of the MBT regiments will move to an armoured Cavalry vehicle..and the artillery regiments are not gaining anything..so not sure where the increased lethality is coming from..improved ISTAR still needs the effectors to be lethal..ISTAR in its own is a self licking lollipop.
These people live in a fantasy world. Do they have war games that play out for a two year period ? Manpower is the biggest goal surely,the Ukrainians have probably lost over 50000 killed in that time. How would we cope with the pathetic size of the army ?
These people actually have much more insight and data than you. They quite keenly aware that Ukraine built an army of 1 million men in just over a year. They could do this because they had the ability to import massive amounts of foreign weapons.
Britain did the exact same thing in 1940 and 1914.
That would be reassuring if we had the stockpiles to last a year
All this talk about double and triple, do we think other countries are going to stand still too! By the time the UK gets there won’t some of increase in a sense be diminished? Why not some common sense incremental increases? Basics like tanks, IFVs, SPGs, helos, drones, shorad, logistics to move and maintain all this, does the Army seriously have enough of these platforms? Is the mix right, the structure right and it’s survivability? Instead of talking the Army “down ” fix it “up”! Good posts above.
The Glosters formed part of 29th Independent Infantry Brigade Group, with 1st Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, 1st Royal Ulster Rifles, 8th King’s Royal Irish Hussars, C squadron 7th Royal Tank Regiment, 45th Field Regiment Royal Artillery, 11th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery Royal Artillery and 170th Mortar Battery Royal Artillery, together with supporting arms and services. The formation was under the command of Brigadier Tom Brodie
How many more times?
Britain is like a broken record. This is what happens to a deployable Brigade, lacking mass:
“. . . These gallant soldiers would not retreat. As they were compressed tighter and tighter in their perimeter defense, they called for close-in air strikes to assist in holding firm. Completely surrounded by tremendous numbers, these indomitable, resolute and tenacious soldiers fought back with unsurpassed fortitude and courage. As ammunition ran low and the advancing hordes moved closer and closer, these splendid soldiers fought back viciously to prevent the enemy from overrunning the position and moving rapidly to the south. Their heroic stand provided the critically needed time to regroup other I Corps units and block the southern advance of the enemy. Time and again efforts were made to reach the battalion, but the enemy strength blocked each effort. Without thought of defeat or surrender, this heroic force demonstrated superb battlefield courage and discipline. Every yard of ground they surrendered was covered with enemy dead until the last gallant soldier of the fighting battalion was overpowered by the final surge of the enemy masses. . . . ”
Good job we are not planning on deploying a solo brigade against the Russian’s or anyone else then.
A solo Brigade is all we have.
Monro, why do you keep saying this? If you are talking about a one-shot ie non-enduring operation, then we have several brigades spread across 1 and 3 Divs, the former now including 16 AA Bde under commani.
To be fair the army could manage an armoured brigade, mech brigade/infantry brigade , strike brigade. The issue is it cannot sustain it.
A 1% or even 2% increase in income tax specifically ring-fenced for defence right now would be quite palatable to the British people I would suspect if politicians chose to wake up and realise chucking money at the NHS/welfare/railways etc firstly doesn’t improve anything and does nothing to stop Vlad the Mad parking his 1955 tanks on Buckingham Palace’s lawn. It would be very difficult for opposition parties to object and it would fit the jingoistic tabloids agenda too.
Problem is that income tax raises £300 billion a year so 1% is £3 billion which is juts one year inflation increase in the MOD budget. If you want to have a noticeable increase in defence spending then you’re talking more like 10% increase in income tax. I suspect you will get a very different answer from the public when you ask that question.
A bit off topic, but reports of a 120mm mortar on Jackal today.
Wonder if this is based on a forthcoming order or just a prototype.
Get a bigger budget first then more numbers of Boots in the services and Equipment then you can start to play MR big I am 🙄 honestly
Sounds all spin to me, I don’t even know about how you measure it anyway. 1 nuclear bomb might double your fire power in explosive capacity but not a lot of use in a real war where your fighting with artillery, so shear explosive power isn’t a measure. If we’re talking about artillery quantity in stock piles again having not having enough mechanisms to fire them will again not really be beneficial in a war scenario and we’re definitely not talking about increasing numbers as the budget isn’t there for that. Accuracy of weapons is again subjective in how much that actually gains in a real war situation and actually hitting exactly where you want to and knowing where that is.
In conclusion I’m seeing this as spin with no real substance
My first thought is that the powers that be believe we need to double or triple our firepower why on earth has it been allowed to get to such a low state in the first place.
Politicians first duty is to protect the citizens of this country. They have failed miserably in the past and continue to do so now.
You ca n only do more with less up to a limit , sooner or later the government are going to have to dig deep and put the mod budget back where it belongs at around 4% of gdp . Yes I know its doubling but we live in a dangerous world and the best way to deter is to be strong . Historically it has been around this level or higher so it is achievable , its just about prioritising whats important for the country and their is nothing more important than defence
Ajax £5.5 Billion, Archer £500 million, AS90 replacement who knows.
But the Army want the Carriers cut to fund troops.
(N.B. Not saying that more funding isn’t needed but the Army pointing the finger at careers is just prime interference rivalry again)
TR, who in the army is criticising the carriers?
I find it very difficult to believe that we can’t maintain current Army numbers (considerably down on just a few years ago) and the carriers whilst allegedly spending 2.5%gdp on defence – something doesn’t add up.
The Daily Express has invented this story, surely. The SDR is still in progress and Lord Robertson is many months short of declaring his recommendations. It is very unusual for one service to cut capability to maintain (not even increase) capability of another service.
In my opinion. In a conventional war Russia would be absolutely blitzed by NATO. They have not been able to defeat Ukraine who with limited help from the west have held their own against superior numbers and weapons. The only thing Russia ( Putin ) has is the threat of going nuclear. He knows he would not win a conventional war against the west, hence his continuing threat of nuclear. I think we should go into Ukraine and call his bluff, risky, i know but sitting back is worse. Appeasement doesn’t work, has happened in 1939 with Hitler. I am a cold war veteran so maybe my view of things might be somewhat skewed, don’t know but the only way to stand up to a bully is ??????.
James, I read today that SofS is considering a training team going into Ukraine.
We will not of course send troops to Ukraine in a combat capacity.
There are so many issues, with UK not having a viable defence fit for purpose.
1. Recruitment – the time line for applying and joining the armed forces is beyond farcical.
I joined regular service twice, on both occasions within a few months of applying i was in. Walked into a job centre, started the process and never looked back. All this was before the Government decided to out source recruiting to a contractor and we all know, how that’s gone!
Even the promised savings were never there, as neither was the reality of a stand alone recruiting process. We had to throw soldiers at it, just to help recruit, only to see all that effort wasted when the potential recruits, ever give up after a 12 month wait or worse still, get lost in the contractors administration system. This still is a major issue, with 12 month waiting periods still not uncommon. Figures (released this week?), confirming that its still the same. The potential recruits, just give up or move on with there lives. The Services really do, need to take back in house service personnel recruiting
2. The offer, is to be honest not a great one. Low wages, accommodation issues and now, VAT on private schooling to name just a few. The offer really. needs to be revisited, A competitive living wage, boarding school fees, better health care, payment or help, with university fees and a look at the American veterans set up are all examples, of how the offer could be improved. Yes, it will cost money, but so be it.
Finally, the adverts are so poor. Alright if your recruiting for the UN, but nothing sells the image of being a soldier! or the excitement of travel and seeing the world….the adverts are just, bland.
3. Procurement, the timelines of getting the best equipment available into the hands of the personnel who need it and when its needed, is again shocking. Its either obsolete by the time they get it, over priced, or in such small quantities, that all that costly R and D and procurement has cost the MOD a fortune for very little gain.
Procurement, stock levels and pipe time again, is something, that really must be looked at and yes, buying of the shelf from a foreign supply has to be properly looked at, this could be in some cases, a better option if we want it quicker and at a more competitive price, without the risk and expense of developing from scratch. Finally, on a positive, i believe supply and logistics is now very much something that the Government is now trying to address.
4. Boots on the ground, we need mass. As the ongoing narrative keeps telling us, to deploy a Brigade we need to recruit a Division. We would struggle and of course and once deployed who relieves them in place? or rotation and what about over commitments? We needs numbers and the equipment and training to go with it.
5. We have better equipment and technical advantage against our enemies . This argument, is very much outdated now. They can or will be able to match very soon what we have, like to like anything the west can produce in a lot more numbers. With hypersonic missiles, they are properly ahead and we are now playing catch up.
I just hope the defence review and an increase budget delivers.
Reyhan, what is this narrative about deploying a brigade? Who said it? We have a deployable warfighting division, 3 Div, albeit that it has structural and equipment weaknesses. We can also deploy parts of 1 Div, especially 16 AA Bde.
However for an enduring operation we would struggle to roulemont a brigade group over many years as we did in Afghanistan, without recourse to reservists and/or RM.
Briefly getting back to the claimed, targeted increase in ‘lethalty….sensor….effector’ statement :-
-Cta40 on Ajax and lmm on Spanish humvee are confirmed.
– mounting a javelin on all of the Ajax and boxer rws would probably meet the rest of the land power target in short order.
Other reported proposals include, 120mm mortar turrets, brimstone overwatch and the boxer artillery.
Im no mathematician but the statement true and easily achievable through only confirmed orders.
–
It doesn’t matter how soon you “see” something coming with your sensors, if you don’t have something to shoot it with you’re never going to “increase lethality.”