In a powerful demonstration of its commitment to NATO, the United Kingdom is leading the way in Exercise Steadfast Dart 25, a large scale exercise taking place across Romania and Bulgaria in January and February 2025.
The UK is providing the largest contribution of forces, with over 2,600 personnel and 730 vehicles deploying to NATO’s eastern flank. This exercise will focus on the rapid deployment of NATO’s newly established Allied Reaction Force, an effort aimed at reinforcing the Alliance’s defensive capabilities and ensuring a rapid response to any threats.
The UK’s 1st Division will take command of NATO’s land forces throughout the exercise, continuing Britain’s long-standing leadership role within the Alliance.
As Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, stated, “Exercise Steadfast Dart demonstrates our unshakeable commitment to NATO and highlights the UK’s key leadership role in the Alliance.”
This marks the first major exercise under the new Allied Reaction Force, showcasing NATO’s readiness to quickly mobilise and deploy forces to defend its borders. The UK’s involvement will help set the standard for cooperation among NATO Allies and strengthen the Alliance’s ability to operate together seamlessly.
The exercise, set to coincide with the three-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, underscores the importance of continued NATO cohesion and the need to deter further aggression. The rapid deployment of NATO forces is increasingly vital, as the Alliance works to deter and counter new and evolving threats.
The UK’s deployment will also focus on testing the interoperability of NATO forces, ensuring that various military units can operate cohesively across land, air, and sea. This capability is essential for strengthening the Alliance’s collective security, particularly as tensions continue to rise in Eastern Europe.
According to Pollard, “As we approach the three-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we must continue to strengthen our collective defences together to deter Putin effectively.”
The exercise will also see British forces work alongside NATO personnel from ten other countries, conducting two exercises before returning to the UK by the end of February. Among the 730 vehicles deployed, the UK will bring specialised equipment, including Foxhound and Jackal vehicles, to demonstrate its advanced military capabilities.
The exercise is also about demonstrating NATO’s continued commitment to collective defence. The successful execution of Exercise Steadfast Dart will ensure that the new Allied Reaction Force can quickly mobilise, integrate with other NATO forces, and reinforce the Alliance’s eastern border if needed.
This capability is critical as NATO aims to strengthen deterrence against adversaries, including Russia.
“1st Division”? Thanks for the chuckle.
It is in a better place than it was when it had its ridiculous post 2010 ORBAT, but yes, still some way to go.
It is not yet a full Division with 3 all arms Brigades and the usual divisional supports.
Needs some serious rejuggling and new formations stood up to ever get to that, not likely with this lot in charge on their performance so far.
I agree, however do you not think it’s potentially better for us to focus on the Divisional enablers for 1st UK division and let others provide some of the maneuverer eliminates.
In my mind this could be a major asset incorporating other JEF formations with one or two UK maneuverer brigades.
Assume it could, much like the UK as a nation does with the ARRC.
It’s enablers consist of a small Logistic Brigade, a Signals Regiment, and Intelligence Battalion. Engineers are missing, AAC extinct, Artillery only with its Brigades and no Divisional assets.
It’s 4 Bde is a paper Brigade, as oft mentioned.
It’s only been given a “shine” of respectability by placing 16AA in it which was in FAT previously.
Both our Divisions are lacking.
Given our nations size and out of a 70k army, two 3 Brigade Divisions should be possible if organised correctly from that headcount.
I find it scandalous the army has got itself in such a pickle post General Carter.
And despite my RN, RAF priority, I believe the British Army needs to be 2 full Divisions size to be of real relevance.
Hi Dan, Happy New Year by the way bud.
Personally, I would prefer 3 full time “brigade” divisions. Using the traditional rotation method of one deployed, one in training and the third on other duties/stand down. But that would require both an increase in head count, in addition to enablers and materiel. Which for this Country should be more than doable.
I still feel we are missing something with our reservists and how they are set up. The Finish and Swedish model for reservists has I believe some merit worth doing a deep dive on.
@DaveyB
Our reserves are in a really weird afterthought position, and it’s clear we view them as nothing more than BCR formations, not actual fighting units. 19 Brigade is the epitome of this thinking. 8 Reserve Infantry Battalions and 2 Yeomanry regiments mashed into a single 1* formation with no enablers. Split it in half, you get 2 Light Infantry Brigades of 4 Battalions with a Recce Regiment attached, and you can bring reserve enablers out of 102 and 101 brigades into (and if you uplift the number of artillery regiments that the regular army has, 103 and 105 RA and in theory the British Army would have 2 Army Reserve Brigades that could either form a bare bones follow on Division or provide the existing two divisions with additional light maneuver elements.
A Finnish or Swedish style conscription reserve however isn’t on the cards for us. Those systems are great for generating large numbers of bodies that do not need a lot of mobility, which is definitely what Finland needs, but any British forces need to be mobile, which means that spending more on smaller numbers of reservists is better for our needs than being able to call up large numbers of them.
Foxhound and Jackal – advanced military capabilities! Who writes this stuff? Led by the ‘1st Division’ but brigade strength.
Trump’s rumoured Ukraine peace plan apparently assumes that the UK will be one of the European countries that will each provide a full strength combat ready division (about 20k troops when essential supporting elements are included) to robustly hold and defend a 600 mile long (!) buffer zone between the Russian and Ukrainian armies. It will be embarrassing for Starmer and General Walker to have to admit to Trump and the world that a maximum British effort will be one composite Brigade of c.5k, and that assumes that allies will provide extensive logistical support and it can downsized if the deployment lasts more than a year. By contrast, the French – whose army seemed to be just as much in decline as Britain’s, made a very timely decision last year to re-organise the French Army to provide two quickly deployable divisions, and increased their defence budget to fund this.
Trump can fuck himself, if he want’s to roll over to Putin he can put up the troops to enforce his collaboration.
You really are sad pathetic individual. Ignorant. Jingoistic. If you truly are serving soldier Lord help us that things have fallen so low that individuals such as you are on strength. What don’t you go to the Ukraine yourself and fight Putin if you think he such a threat? GIve your head a wobble.
Bore off you pathetic troll.
That comment Stephanie hardly gives the impression you yourself are the epitome of adult enlightened debate.
Oh look a Vatnik… Stephanie…. A NAFO Fella here( yes I am ;)…Unfortunately UKDJ… won’t tolerate any BS on here. So I will have to be polite (unlike on Twitter)…. We are here to engage in sensible debate over British and related military issues. Why don’t you crawl back to moscow. Oh and as you know your comrades are making very little progress!
Dern, myself and the others can fight from the armchair and still be helping Ukraine and debate here on British issues
Slava Ukraini
Dern hardly deserves that, Stephanie?
She’s a valued member of this site to me and stated her opinion.
Personal attacks are unwarranted and unwanted. We can all have our own opinions and debate our opinions.
Agreed.
It is insane that a self confessed fan of a dictator that invaded a peaceful neighbour seeking to annex it is now POTUS, again. Seems he’s considered above the law too. Nothing we did deterred Putin from invading nor continuing his occupation. Our forces & the rest of most of European NATO were already run down to levels Putin could dismiss. The best place to deter Putin was & is within UKR on the front lines, telling him we do actually have the resolve to stop him. Instead we give UKR barely enough to withstand Russian forces, steadily getting exhausted & driven back.
I think the line will be more ‘UK led’ peacekeeping force with numerous other nations from Nato supplying a split of the required forces.
Russia may simply refuse the suggestion as it would allow the west to move in a huge amount of advanced equipment into Ukrainian borders including offensive weapons.
How can the UK lead, when in recent memory, they have never led, a Division?
James, old chap.
DB. You do realise that the UK provides the commander of the ARRC and is its framework nation?
Surely, it would be wiser for the UN to be the prime controller with NATO forces on immediate readiness. If NATO is solely responsible for policing the buffer zone, Russia could judge that as the wolf guarding the chickens?
Our budget for 2025 lacks 3 Bn Euro, because the government has been censored. So we may be in a tough spot to meet the exact figures you mentioned.
Though, with the end of most military bases in Africa, we should be able to deploy 5000 troups easily and 10000 with a bit more difficulties. 20000 seems impossible at the current force structure. It could only be doable if my country do reintroduce a form of conscription. I wish we pick up the Norvegian model. Though at the moment, we have just decided to double the operational reserve, from 30k to 60k which won’t be usefull to guard a foreign border. It is only good to get half prepared troops.
Constription is not seen as acceptable by the British public in peacetime even as far back as the days of Empire
Knight, we only have ever intiated conscription during the two world wars to boost the army to several million. I am sure that thinking continues to prevail, so for WW3 we would introduce conscription. It remains to be seen if an armed conflict with Russia was Total War and so could be called WW3.
RB, Where did you hear such details? Trump is clearly no military planner. It takes far more than five divisions to robustly hold and defend a 600-mile buffer zone. It would take 25-30, or less if a trip-wire philosophy is adopted. UK could not roule a division and would only be able to roule a brigade if a good number of AR are called up and/or RM contributes manpower.
We’re either in NATO or in the European defence force. We can’t be in both, otherwise we end up (as usual) doing all the work.
Hello Comrade, how’s Moscow today.
You seem to forget that Biden is the one that said during a press conference that he was
“OK” with a limited invasion of Ukraine by Russia. That’s all that Putin needed and he invaded days after that statement was made. Since Biden made that statement the never ending war has cost over 100k+ lives, 100s of billions of dollars, most being paid by the American taxpayers, untold suffering, ect all because Biden wouldn’t stand up to Putin. Most Americans have had it with the war in Ukraine. They will NEVER get back all the land they claim is theirs no matter how many trillions we send them. They should have NEVER trusted Bill Clinton when he told them if they gave up their nukes America and the West would protect them…..
Another Moscow troll… and this one seems to think it can read minds.
He does raise an interesting point with regards to the nukes Ukraine gave up as part of that Treaty.
If Ukraine still had nukes would Russia have invaded? I honestly think Putin would have called Ukraine’s bluff on using them. He would still have taken Crimea as they did in 2014 and waited to see what Ukraine would do. Would Ukraine have used nukes in its own territory? I really don’t know, as at that point the mass of Ukraine wasn’t under threat.
The big difference in Feb 2022 was that Russia were driving towards the Capital to take out the Government. I feel there would be case to use smaller tactical nukes, especially on the Chernobyl invasion forces. This land is not usable for human habitation or farming. So what’s a few more rads going to do? The East and Southern invasion forces, I doubt there be stomach for using nukes, as these are prime industrial, farming and population areas.
I very much doubt Ukraine would have used nukes against Russian forces building up in Belarus, as that would definitely invite Belarus to join Russia in the invasion. I’m not sure if they’d risk using them on Russian soil either, as Russia would immediately reciprocate.
Still a scary “what if” scenario though!
@DaveyB
Nope, not interesting, rather a Crimlin talking point, intended to self deter the supporters of Ukraine.
Chairman xi has not authorised nuclear weapons so kaputin only has empty threats.
Global mercantile dominance is the CCP strategy, and no one dictator is allowed to threaten that.
Unlimited friendship means RF buy all the conventional weapons they want and pay with oil and gas that CCP knows RF can’t sell elsewhere.
Talk of nuclear weapons is just FSB PsyOps.
@DaveyB
I don’t see anything he says as particularly interesting, just a rant aimed at trying to convince us in the west to give up supporting Ukraine by saying the word NEVER over and over again, and acting like Russia’s victory is somehow inevitable.
As for Nuclear arms, Ukraine didn’t really have a choice, and contrary to your counterfactual, those nuclear weapons would never have been used, as Ukraine lacked the technical know how to maintain and employ them.
Dan, this from Turkish trtworld.com, some 3 years ago: “US President Joe Biden made a telling statement during his press conference on Wednesday, suggesting that a small-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine might not lead NATO to respond with full force. This is in stark contrast to previous guarantees from Brussels to Kiev.
“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera,” the US president said, openly disclosing NATO’s disunity over Russian actions in Ukraine.
While White House spokesman and other American officials ran to “clarify” what Biden meant with “a minor incursion” after the briefing, the president’s loose language might persuade hardcore policymakers in the Kremlin that Russia can invade some portions of Ukraine without meeting resistance from NATO.
“The US is clearly not ok with small-scale Russian incursion into Ukraine. When President Biden made that comment yesterday, it was a mistake. I think he was tired and confused and he simply messed up the message. He did not know exactly how to respond to the question and he should have,” says Matthew Bryza, the former US ambassador to Azerbaijan.
Bryza underlined that following Biden’s strange remarks, White House and US National Security Council spokespersons alongside the Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasised that any Russian attack will be met with a “swift, severe” response from Washington.
Interesting reference, thanks.
In Afghanistan the panic exit was caused by #45 doing a “really great deal” with the taliban not the national government and Allies, to demonstrate his incompetent diplomacy.
That low reliability gave kaputin permission to invade Ukraine in the knowledge that the Budapest memorandum would not be honoured.
The terrorist state has been able to mislead with misinformation and attack democracy and defence spending that should be strong enough for freedom to endure. They know that removing political will is better value than a shooting war. Slow walking support to Ukraine proves them right.
#45 Giving permission to be our worst selves enables division and discord, which makes the FSB happy. They thrive on chaos.
The FSB kompromat is going to plan as #45 will do whatever they want, including capitulation in Ukraine.
A bit repetitive aren’t you Marky. Non sensical comments of this nature really deserve the contempt they are getting.
Well when they have to follow the Kremlins playbook there’s only so many things they can say.
Marky, We can be in as many military groups and organisations as we wish. NATO would take primacy. We are also lead of the JEF. Not sure if this European defence force is an organised entity….is it?
This focus on “defending eastern Europe” is likely to be the focus of the defence review, principally because it can be made to like something when it fact it is very little.
All one needs is a small army able to deploy a few symbolic contingents together with allies. In the meantime, the navy, the RAF and any serious army expeditionary capability simply rots away. But it’s all great for press releases.
Once an army gets too small it becomes very limited and inflexible. Currently with c.73,000 we can no longer deploy a regular army brigade on an enduring operation.
Your problem with having a small army is that if the situation gets beyond symbolism and into serious warfighting, then you can’t defend the ground properly and you cannot mass to go on the offensive except against very small elements. You also can’t deal with trouble in 2 or more areas of the globe.
2.300 personnel!!!
Quite. Not even a Bde contribution but, commissioned officers can claim experience of command on their CVs.
Dear Graham, notice, I didn’t mention ‘Braid’
The Polish Army can do both. So, perhaps young officers awaiting command experience can resign their commissions, and seek real world experience and the British Army… command… can stop bullshiting they have something to offer the world… perhaps? Maybe?
So many talking heads on YouTube and Barren of Ideas at HoP Select Def hearing blustering his knowledge about his insight into the SDR and what insight he could bring…
God in Heaven help us.
Happy New Year DB! I don’t recall officers getting excited about going on a mere exercise overseas to ‘boost their CVs’! You boost your CV by commanding effectively on deployed kinetic operations; even better if you bag a gallantry gong!
I have seen these Hearings and they are grim. Very little being revealed. Refusal to answer straight questions about sustainability and deployment issues for 3 Div, in an open session.
Sadly you are probably correct but of course it is a cheaper policy than one where you maintain a credible maritime, airborne and expeditionary force, which is what our Island nation actually requires.
Unfortunately, Mr Starmer being the good European will want something to show his commitment to the EU with the forthcoming Defence and Security deal.
That our new continental posture will not actually be in our or Europes best interests is well beyond the grasp of most here today and gone tomorrow U.K. and EU leaders.
My recommendation is to let the Germans spend their money and do some heavy lifting in Central Europe instead of relying on others before we offer to do more.
They will be doing far more than us in reality. As a comment piece in the Times recently said if a credible Ukraine fails to materialise out of this and falls then European credibility goes with it and will be a political, economic and likely military playground for Putin’s machinations that will open the present cracks far and wide. The likes of Farage may welcome that as it will no doubt benefit his plan to turn us into the 51st State though in reality it will probably be more like that of Costa Rica and the contemptuously framed view MAGA has of them. But then a banana republic leader is probably about his level and I’m sure will pay well enough while it lasts.
I am not convinced that Germany wants to do anything under its current Government that might really upset Russia. Having talked to many Germans in recent years they talk about Europe as a whole but are very focused on their own economic well-being, which I think pretty much trumps everything else.
Whilst I don’t like Trump nor Farage it is no good blaming them when the problem sits squarely in Europe’s in tray and the collective nations including ourselves still do the absolute minimum to present a credible threat (more than just a deterrent is needed) independent of the US to Russia and others.
We have had an invasion of a sovereign European nation, domestic aircraft shot down, electoral interference, people assassinated on our soil, disruption to undersea infrastructure and threats to use nuclear weapons on our country and we are still debating when we might increase defence spending to 2.5%.
We are still actually cutting capacity and capabilities in our forces, which beggars believe and proves we still do not have any grown ups in charge.
Sorry rant over.
BOOM.
On a slight tangent – rumour has it Lord Robertson provided his initial SDR recommendations to HMG but was told to go away and make it ‘fit’ only a 2.5% spend on defence. Apparently his initial recommendations require a 3% of GDP spend to make it work.
If true, then the SDR is a pointless waste of time as it is Treasury driven and not needs driven.
What a surprise…….
Why don’t he quits?
At which point in the last 40-50 years has it not been treasury driven?!
Very true James, sadly very true…
1997 was not really treasury led.
No, but it was not enacted, so in the end, it’s the same.
I remind everyone.
SDSR mandated 35 escorts. Ended at 23.
Around 23 Fast Jet Sqns, ended at 12.
Most army projects cancelled that were not sandbox COIN, DIRECTLY contributing to the mess the army is in now.
In the end, HMG always mess it up to prioritise their social and ideological priorities.
The usual.
I’m sure I’m missing something so forgive my naivety but why is the UN not even a factor in this conflict? Are their hands tied because Russia would negate any actions they could take, if there are any?
Yes and anyway you only have to check out their performance in Lebanon (brave as they have been) to see how ineffective they would be in this scenario even if my some miracle they were to be given a mandate. I guess we will see how weak Putin is (or at least recognises) as I guess that would be more acceptable than a non UN force in Ukraine as he could at least frame it in some warped logic as a victory to his own people, whereas non UNtroops would surely be the very thing he was claiming he was fighting to avoid, even if he something of an acquired buffer zone.
Well the main reason is that Russia has a Veto that will literally kill any motion in the UN to do anything, so yeah, any actions the UN takes would have to be amenable enough to Russia to stop them vetoing it, and amenable enough to NATO to stop France, Britain and the US vetoing it.
In other words, pretty unlikely to happen.
(And as for “if there are any actions the UN could take”, sure there are, at the extreme end the Korean War was not fought by NATO against North Korea, it was fought by the UN against North Korea. The Soviet Union was boycotting the UNSC because Taiwan was sitting in China’s permanent UNSC seat, so neither the PRC nor the USSR could veto the resolution that created a coalition to invade North Korea under UN command. In more recent times the UN has had a tendency to pass a resolution on military intervention and then just turn to NATO and go “can you guys please deal with it for us?” eg Libya in 2011… which obviously has some issues when we’re talking about a shooting war with Russia….)
Thank you, I thought as much. In a better world the UN would have some clout but its a political organization with all its faulks, sigh. Watched The Seige Of Jadotville for the second time yesterday, the troops on the ground try but nothing to back them up I guess.
As a permanent member of the UN security cpouncil they can veto any UN resolution they don’t like.
Russia a permanent member of the security council, one of the five holding a veto. Essentially the UN is completely toothless against a permanent member as they can simplify veto any and all security council resolution.
I was set up that way so as not to get in the way of the major military powers.
Lord Robertson told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee on 2 December 2024 that the SDR team was given parameters to ensure that its results were “deliverable and affordable within the resources available to defence within the trajectory of 2.5%”. … The reality is, we all have to live within certain envelopes.”
But 2.5% of GDP (when eventually reached – 2030?) equates to just an extra £2-3 billion a year – that could all easily be used up just upgrading and replacing badly run-down infrastructure, base facilities and accommodation; improving readiness, and rebuilding munition stocks. Any increase in for example missile defence systems, tank regiments or fighter squadrons will require cuts elsewhere – with the RN’s “expensive” aircraft carriers consistently suggested as the prime candidate.
If [as widely reported] Lord Robertson submitted just before Xmas draft recommendations that needed 3%, he knew that these would be rejected immediately. But it does now allow him to cover his own back and say “I tried to get more money” when the final review gets torn to shreds by the opposition, professional analysts, and arm-chair generals on boards like this. We can only hope that he also isn’t able to say in a few years “I warned the government that this could happen … but was ignored”.
In my opinion it’s not Lord Robertson’s job to try to get more money; it’s his job to report out to HMG what is needed to provide a viable defence strategy. HMG has the responsibility to provide the necessary resources to properly fund their own SDR (which by the way, we all know won’t happen).
Better to reduce the armed forces to a minimum at once instead of doing it step by step.
They,re doing it more than 30 years ago.
I expec nothing from SDR other than more cuts as usual.
Many believe we passed below absolute minimum a good many years ago. Putin no longer found them a credible deterrent & invaded UKR, yet we’ve no concrete plans to actually increase already inadequate force numbers. Always plenty of hot air empty platitudes/excuses to decieve the public though.
Frank, a senior US General told Ben Wallace in Jan 2023 that the BA was no longer a Tier 1 army when the army was at 82,000 Regs. It’s now heading rapidly down to its new 73,000 figure.
Micki, as with every defence review there is a mixture of cuts and enhancements.
I do struggle to see how the Army can realistically manage all its present commitments with what it has.
1) OPP Cabrit as an enduring deployment of a 1000 strong armoured battle group and cs,ccs
2) Falklands as an enduring deployed of a strengthened company
3) Cyprus as an enduring operation with its 2 infantry battalions , cs and ccs
4) bruni as an enduring opperation with a infantry battalion
5) BATUK, with around 230 mixed trainers, engineers and security/stability
6) British army Germany 200 mixed staff.
7) and small but still there Belize with 12 trainers
8) UN peace keeping missions 250-300 troops
That’s close to 4000 permanently deployed troops across the globe in enduring operations. As it seems the UK is committing to a British Corps (ARRC) of 2 divisions as a NATO strategic reserve that can be rapidly deployed it’s also now meant to be providing NATO with two divisions, .. I’m not sure it’s got the armoured regiments, infantry battalions and CS,CCS to do that even before you add in its enduring operations.
After all if there is the equivalent of pretty much a heavy brigade dedicated to ensuring an armoured battle groups is parked in Estonia on permanent deployment along with a permanent deployment of one of the armoured cav regiments from its DRSB ..I’m not seeing how 3rd division can be considered a an armoured division for rapid deployment as part of NATOs strategic reserve ? And If there are around 4-5 bastions of infantry on enduring operations at all times that pretty much removes the entire 1st division from being a strategic reserve…
Seems to be that much of the British army has now been double counted for two jobs at that same time.
Exactly as I’ve been saying. It cannot be, as it is committed in furnishing the BG for Cabrit.
A Reserve is a Reserve….until we get into HMGs world and double hat everything for grandstanding purposes.
Would it be sensible to form an independent armoured battle group that is permanently station in Estonia.
The agreement NATO had with Russia for not permanently basing forces in Eastern Europe is null and void now that Germany will be permanently basing a brigade in Lithuania from 2025.
Forming a Garrison vs a Roulement will involve extra cost.
Might as well make it a Brigade.
And still the basic stumbling block remains. Our “warfighting” Division, so 3 UK Div, which provides this BG, is so small at just 2 Armoured Bdes that providing that commitment, be it roule or as a garrison, means it cannot be SACEUR reserve, it is committed.
Indeed at the beginning of CABRIT when it was essentially a light infantry battalion battlegroup of a couple of hundred infantry and cavalry you could have argued it was not a great impact.. now it’s essentially almost 1000 strong with an MBTs squadron, 2 armoured cavalry squadrons from 2 regiments and essentially a Mec infantry battalion.. it’s closer to a permanent deployment of an under strength armoured brigade battle group than an infantry battalion battlegroup and with 3rd division essential only having 2 small armoured brigades.. that’s probably full stretch for the heavy end of the army.. and with 1st division having probably 3-4 battalions worth of infantry on permanent deployment I’m not sure how anyone could ever think that could be deployed to Europe. If they want the UK to be provided a 2 division strategic reserve to NATO, a half strength armoured brigade on permanent deployment to the baltics as well as 2 battalions for Cyprus etc a rethink is needed. Either another armoured regiment and more infantry battalions in brigades with full CS,CSS or a big reduction in UK commitments to either NATO or global deployment.
Great post Jonathan. It’s very rare to see commitments ever reducing. In recent times, apart from the obvious ending of Op HERRICK (2014) and Op TELIC (2011) a good time ago, then the abandonment of BATUS, Suffield by the Permanent and Roulemont personnel is the most obvious example…although that was not a deployed operations example.
It wasn’t that long ago that we declared two credible divisions to NATO (ARRC), both now sadly atrophied, poorly structured and equipped largely with unmodernised kit.
I don’t see a huge problem with some of the ‘Other Tasks’. Two battalions in Cyprus are doing fine training and enjoying a nice posting (Quality of Life is important) and could be deployed to a Marshalling Area in time of tension without leaving a hole in ‘Britain’s defences’. What benefit would be advanced by taking them out of Cyprus away from that good arid area training and plonking them in the UK (once a huge amount of expensive barracks etc have been built for them). You could say the same about BATUK although that is just 230 troops – these guys are getting good ‘expeditionary experience’ in an arid country. Difficult to get out of the Brunei task without upsetting the Sultan and he does pay for the deployment. We could not pull any army personnel out of the Falklands for obvious reasons.
Might have to look at other tasks – Public Duties, Display Teams – to see if anything could be shrunk or cast off but that would not release many people back to the Field Force.
Jonathan, the army presence in the Falklands is more than the Roulemont Infantry Coy. There is also an engineer squadron, a signals unit (part of the Joint Communications Unit FI (JCUFI), a logistics and REME group and other supporting services. Also a number (maybe a Battery?) of Sky Sabre manned by 16 Regt RA and personnel from 33 Engineer Regiment (EOD) and RLC EOD teams in the Joint Service Explosive Ordnance Disposal group.
When tallied up as you have done it does amount to a significant number.
I fully agree that a Reserve should be uncommitted but the BA has always had to do some/a lot of double-hatting due to heavy commitments for the size of the Field Army.
Jonathan, sorry to be pedantic but some of those are enduring Military Tasks rather than enduring Operations.
Fair comment. Graham, nope your having a good new year.
Wow. Another psycopath sending an entire gang of psychopaths to a country full of psychopaths to set up a base to launch nukes at a country they have wanted to take control of for like ever. It’s the psychopaths that put us all in danger of enialattion, not the country they target. Anyone with the mind set that killing anyone can solve anything is in himself or herself or it’s self a moron. God help us all. Yes sir no sir three bags full sir. I’ll get in a plane and drop a bomb coz some mad & @#% in a peek cap told me too. Thanks for the medals. Look at me everyone, I’m important. I killed more fellow humans that anyone else. I’m the elite faggots golden boy. Wow.
You do realise that they are not attacking anyone, they are there to defend a sovereign nation against aggression.. no aggression and they just sit there.
I would explain the evidence of deterrence in maintaining peace and that when nations give up deterrence through a strong military it inevitably leads to huge wars and suffering on a catastrophic scale. Because wars only happen if one side thinks they can win with acceptable losses.
But you keep up your view, the authoritarian dictators supporter and applaud you and would love to govern you.
Hi Jonathan, the best example of weakened deterrence leading to war is the Falklands conflict. The John Nott defence review directly led to the Conflict. The cost in ‘blood and treasure’ was very high.
‘Blood’ – 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel, and three Falkland Islanders were killed. Many more were seriously wounded. Many Falklands veterans later affected by PTSD with many sadly taking their own life (May 2013 MoD estimate was 95).
British Equipment losses – 2 Type 42 destroyers
2 Type 21 frigates
1 landing ship
1 landing craft
1 container ship
24 helicopters
10 fighters
The full cost of ‘treasure expended’ is very much higher than replacing equipment of course, before, during and after the conflict.
That’ll scare ’em.
When I was serving back in the cold war days. UK had BAOR (British Army of the Rhine) which was 55000 strong. A large scale exercise carried out by the British Army in 1984. Explanatory commentary on the exercise involving movement of 60,000 troops, stores and vehicles through Belgium, Holland and onto the valley of the Rhine in Germany. 34,000 were airlifted from the United Kingdom. The rest followed by sea in 119 sailings.in Lion Heart & 7 Field Force etc exercises in late 1970s to midd 1980s. This was done at time of Cold War. A Democratic Free European Nation (Ukraine) is in a Hot War with their nation being invaded by Russian Tyrant Dictator Putin & his Allied Warlord and Dictatorship military forces. NATO has guaranteed relative peace for its member states & Western Europe. Without NATO the Soviet Union would probably have installed many more proxy Governments throughout Western Europe & civil population being controlled by KGB etc. Without being in NATO, Europe would of probably have had many more such conflicts like the Bosnian war along with its Massacres of Ethnic minority’s also Ethnic Cleansing of areas. USA. UK. France have the Nuclear deterrence of mutual self destruction if Russia. China. NATO or any nation ever used one. They are never meant to be used. Just having them is the deterrence. UK needs to be rebuilding its war fighting mass. Heavy Infantry & Light Infantry with all supporting arms. Off the shelf modern kit also home built kit. UK need 155mm towed Artillery. High Altitude Anti Missile, Missile land defence. More of Everything after 14 years of Tory Cuts. More Fighter Aircraft. More Front line modern RN Ships and Submarines. Re build a new modern civil defence force. All IMO only of course. While Poland etc are on a war footing militarily and industrial base. UK seems to be doing it at a snails pace or even sleepwalking at time of crisis in Europe & Geopolitically. With the Russian Dictator willing to sacrifice 1200 of his military a day with over 120000 killed or wounded many of that number by western munitions. Do you think the Russian Tyrant is going to forget that?. If Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine, all those young Russian troops & Ukrainian Troops / Civilians would still be alive today.
Hi Gemma, I was a BAOR warrior too – 4 postings, the first in 1976 and the last in 1991-1992. [I served 1975-2009 in REME].
We also had the Berlin Infantry Brigade of about 5,000, which was not part of BAOR.
Interesting that we had tactical nukes in those days (Honest John, then Lance…plus the heavy tube artillery) also that every exercise ‘went nuclear’ in the last couple of days.
NATO, largely a British creation, is a massive success story and has grown from 16 nations when I first served, to 32 today.
My concerns focus on the future decisions of Trump and Putin. Both will affect Ukraine obvs but may well affect wider European security. Europe must do far more militarily as we can’t always rely on massive US military support in times of regional war. It is ridiculous that a prosperous Europe cannot fight and win against Russia without US help, if it comes to wider war.
If Putin extricates Russia from his war, then he will still be a threat to eastern Europe militarily and to wider Europe in terms of hybrid warfare or OOTW as we used to say.
Italians are installing this in their new 8×8 VBM’s:
” Leonardo’s new X-GUN 30mm armament capable of using all types of ammunition from 30mmx173 to NATO standards, including the new ABM (Air Burst Munition) ammunition also suitable for anti-drone use.”
Thanks Alex, The UK Defence Drone Strategy was published in Feb 2024 and launched a range of research and initiatives.
So many people think that all you have to do is bolt an anti-drone system onto each tank.
It would certainly be a good start.
.50 cal can fire prox. fuze.
Perhaps it’s time for Russia to get themselves “illegally invaded”…?
🤔 🤷🏻♂️
-Or maybe it’s time or the root of the problem to be “quietly removed” (under somewhat suspicious circumstances if need be) and replaced by someone a little less of an egotistical narcissistic scumbag tyrant?
🤫💯
I’m not saying it’s Putin.
*But it’s Putin.