The Joint Expeditionary Force has “increased military activities to provide greater levels of security assurance to members”, deploying military forces to provide assurance to Finland and Sweden during their accession to NATO.
Defence Ministers and senior representatives of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) – comprising Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom – met recently in Edinburgh.
The #JEF has increased military activities to provide greater levels of security assurance to members. JEF has deployed military forces and provided practical assurances to 🇫🇮 & 🇸🇪 through their accession to @NATO, steadfastly supporting them becoming full members of the Alliance pic.twitter.com/AjRTVXJP3P
— The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) (@JEFnations) January 30, 2023
According to a statement:
“JEF members have made significant provision of military aid over the last eight months. This support will also now be built upon through the International Fund for Ukraine, which will finance new contracts for the provision of vital equipment for Ukraine’s fight.
The JEF has increased its military activities in Northern Europe in 2022 to provide greater levels of security assurance to our members and the wider region. As we meet, Joint Protector 2022 is concluding in Denmark, through which JEF members have exercised our collective responses to the newly emerging threats and potential crisis scenarios. This year the JEF has also deployed military forces and provided practical assurance measures to Finland and Sweden through their accession to NATO, and we remain steadfast in our support of them becoming full members of the Alliance.”
The grouping describes itself as “A coalition of like-minded nations who share values and common focus on security & stability in the High North, North Atlantic & Baltic Sea Region.“
That’s a chilly Chally.
I think we are all aware of this already, but its still painful to hear.
https://www.forces.net/politics/us-general-warns-british-army-no-longer-among-worlds-top-level-fighting-forces
Well as he considered the Orcs a tier one army? Mind you who do they come to time and again for support?
Err, barely Tier Two? Russia is Tier 1?
Nice intervention by the General before a revised defence budget, but, I’d love to know his criteria given the logistics support we gave France, the fact our carriers would carry the fight in Northern waters and an SSBN tootling around.
What’s letting us badly down is the state of the Army.
I took it as a reference to the state of our army, not the rest of our armed forces.
Yes, our navy and Airforce remain top tier. Our army is only there to support US operations and surprisingly after following America round the mountains of Central Asia for 15 years it’s not in its best state. Worst still America surrendered that war so the entire exercise was for naught.
“our navy and Airforce remain top tier”. Not wanting to be argumentative, but I respectfully disagree. The issues seen by the other services are just as bad. In reality, we cannot hold our own. Could we do another Falklands if it was an opposed fight? Royal Air Force: Cannot train new fast jet pilots, not enough fighter squadrons to engage in an attritional war. Not enough planes to fulfil strikes in a war where the UK is fighting a near pier power. Not enough ability to fight outside of our own geographic region and leave sufficient cover at home.… Read more »
Very well said indeed. For a nation trying to recover some global reach following Brexit. Great Britain is in a shocking state. Hardly worth the name. Maybe we should be thanking Putin for at least reminding our woke politicians, that the world has not changed. It is still a very dangerous place. Walking softly without a big stick is asking for trouble. A little more than one hundred years ago, how do you think the admiralty would have solved the Somali pirate debacle or the illegals crossing the channel. By feeding them to the fishes and not a single nation… Read more »
The Army does have capability, but it does not have mass. Why is mass important in this day and age, where technology works wonders. Well that’s easy, once you’ve fired off you precision guided weapons, what are you left with? How quickly can these stocks be replenished? But perhaps more importantly do you have sufficient reserves to replace your lost forces of men and vehicles. The Ukraine War has shown how devastating modern precision weapons are. But it has also shown how quickly these weapons are used up. Tied into that are the losses and damages to equipment, plus the… Read more »
To be totally fair it was the state of the army he was bemoaning – particularly equipment programs.
Although calling Russia Tier 1 army did lessen the credibility of his remarks……
But look at it another way. NLAWS did stop the tanks without RAF or Apache….Chally2 is relevant…..AS90 is relevant……
I think the army was equipped about right for the Bear tbh.
I think it is more an argument about conventional deterrence really. If the army was better equipped, given how well the kit has showed in Ukraine, then I don’t think anyone would try it on.
SB, pretty much spot on. As an ex-gunner though I’d like to see an improvement on AS90 though it looks like thats already been looked at and hopefully we’ll see some upgrade in the next couple of years.
It seemed to be a series of uk experts who referenced him from what I read. A few arguments were spot on ie the lack of military combat vehicles which is certainly a low point at the moment and the fact (deeply embarrassing but often expressed on here) that we could not possibly defend our skies against missile attack in the way that Ukraine is doing. He/they is/are right we have virtually nothing to do so. That said priorities are a little different in our location than that say of Poland but it’s still painful to hear. Also it was… Read more »
Well if we’re not Tier 1 it’s odd the USA always like us Brits to fight along side them ,however agree with you I would say the conversation was probably about size and numbers rather than how good our Troops are.🤔
The point is that we were Tier 1, but now we are not.
I read one news report that suggested it was nod nod wink wink friendly plant to help the Army out during the spending review.
If said in “jest” ….it might “jest” do the trick then and get some increased spending on the Army. Sorry, pun intended.
A few years back, we nearly ran out of HESH shells for Challenger. As BAe stopped the production. It became too costly to make for too little return. Thankfully a company in Belgium was making HESH for the L7 105mm derivatives. They managed to scale up the shell to 120mm and problem solved. Thankfully the CHARM Fin rounds were still being produced by BAe. But there hasn’t been a development of CHARM for a decade, which is shockingly bad.
Whatever it is, it would be 1 tier better than British Army due to “quantity is a quality of its own” and some equipment that BA lacks.
Lets make an exercise:
If British Army was in Ukraine and with current NATO support until now and assuming a mobilisation its performance would be inferior to Ukraine army.
BA long ago would be without Challengers for example. So now there will be no tanks.
So you work that out how? Answer in plain English please.
What is the difficulty? Ukraine have more 500000 mobilised men, had more than 1000 tanks plus other AFV’s
Tell how an armored division with a mere 200 tanks plus maybe 2 wheels only divisions could have stopped the Russians?
Sorry but you seemed to miss out the major point of troop quality and training which as this war has shown Russia’s military seemed to of skipped on troop training and its quality is utter dire, degraded to doing human wave attacks like its logistics of WW2 era , UK in its own sector of theater would wipe the floor with Russia’s peasant army lol.
Sector of theatre? the exercise is to defend whole Ukraine, if BA is incapable then it has an army inferior to Ukraine & Russia. Quantity matters.
Thats because the UK being a NATO member will not go in alone, if it was not a NATO member the UK army would no doubt be larger, quantity matters only to Russia because its military in tactics have not evolved since WW2 , as 50,000 Wagner enlisted convicts with 2 weeks training trying to take Bakhmot for months have found out quantity is not helping them lol
That is not the discussion. You cannot say that British Army is tops when it is inferior in capability to Russia, Ukraine , i can include Poland, Greece, Turkey, France. Maybe Egypt, Israel. Probably also inferior to Italy same number of tanks and while Ariete is an inferior product to Challenger, but they have tank destroyers, proper wheel born brigades, proper land air defense. Modern SP artillery.
I think that is a fair point tbh.
Hi Alex, I am going to play devil’s advocate and agree to an extent. I would agree if the UK’s Army as it is currently, was placed in Ukraine, it would soon be overmatched. The reason is simple, Russia could attack on to many fronts, for UK to be able to counter in force. Thankfully we have the RAF, with Typhoon and F35s, that overmatches anything Russia can put in the air. However, the context is wrong. If the UK was in Ukraine’s position with a belligerent neighbour constant threatening your borders, leading insurrections and invading and annexing part of… Read more »
I hope not, but the US general did not judged an “What If” British Army, but what Army exists today.
Side note:
I posted elsewhere here in this topic, of 1212 modern vehicles that it ordered (Ajax, Boxer) aren’t enough to equip 2 brigades with them…
They can’t can they you muppet🙄 but the BA will never be in this position will it?
Exactly David.
Maybe this general would be making better comments if he had gone to a tier 1 school
Reminds me a bit of that USMC general who said a few years back, “warriors don’t do peacekeeping”. Some of them are real penis heads.
‘Jarheads’ are a socially acceptable moniker; ‘penis heads,’ not so much. 🤔😁
Ok then, dickhead, I was being polite!
😂👍
“ top-level military power such as the United States, Russia, China and France. “ Politics, just like the “T32 cancelled shipbuilding wrecked” leaks. The article lists countries like a game of Top Trumps. USA, of course, bar none. China has vast size and yet no experience. Russia?? Seriously? Size and intent yes. France is more tricky. Larger in numbers, but it is all relative. How do you define a top tier military? They lack things like we do. These comments are more relevant to the British Army regards some of its equipment, particularly Armoured Vehicles, its firepower regards the RA, and its… Read more »
Well said
Well said and indeed these comments have been picked up and used by uk military voices to put pressure on the Govt. I think we should see this as a positive as difficult as it is to take because it’s really saying our troops deserve better as virtually everyone with military experience I hear be it from Germany to the US talk about out military are the best and most effective anywhere as actual as fighting troops.
Hello Daniele, Would it not make sense to opt for a suitable deal with Hanwa Defence which includes a workshare for the UK? I remember hearing Mark Francois suggesting to the Army top brass it would be better to cancel the Challenger upgrade due to cost and time scale, Ajax is yet another example of this, time and money wasted. ‘It’s time for everyone to be put out of their misery, time to take [Ajax] or abandon it,’ says Taylor. The programme’s critics suggest it has become too big to fail. ‘It has now become a £5.5 billion game of… Read more »
Morning mate. I hear the K9 could be the front runner for MFP and that they are offering substantial UK build content, which makes it a no brainer really. On Ajax, who are these sources saying it is doomed? The usual anonymous ones? I prefer to hear from IanM myself who might actually know a bit about what is really going on down at ATDU. And that Telegraph article you link is so last year daaarling! They’ve moved on to RGT now after improvements were implemented, so, hopefully, things are moving forward. But yes, politically, with the money at stake,… Read more »
I think you mean so last eight years and counting!
Let’s wait and see what IanM has to say.
“4: PAC recommendation: As a matter of the utmost urgency, the Department must establish whether noise and vibration issues can be addressed by modifications or whether they require a fundamental redesign of the vehicle.
If the latter, the Department must decide whether the right course is to proceed with General Dynamics or if it should opt for an alternative.
We will expect an update on this when we next take evidence and an answer by December 2022.”
We have waited decades for an upgrade to CR2, and now it is actually happening, you want to stop it! First MoD would get billed a swingeing cancellation charges. Then you would have to scrabble about to decide what to do instead. Sounds like your favoured option is to have a British factory build a Hanwha Defence product – all I can see Hanwha make is a light tank they build for India with a puny 105mm gun – or have I got that wrong? Ajax – you reference a 16 Oct 22 Telegraph article – I am not sure… Read more »
Definitely would not cancel Challenger. I would go a step further and upgrade more than 148 hulls. There’s very little point in keeping Challenger 2 as is. Different ammo and different training. Just upgrade the rest as funds allow.
But perhaps more significantly, I would be actively looking at replacing Challenger. But it has to be built in the UK, plus we can do better than the KF51, good gun though!
Need to upgrade more than 148 CR2s – that just gives us enough for 2 armoured regiments and only a modest attrition Reserve, once you have taken into consideration the tanks in the Trg Org and Repair Pool.
Look to replacing CR3 in the 2040-2050 timeframe – and to make it revolutionary, rather than evolutionary – and built in Britain, as you say.
Also need to fix the IFV, Recce veh and artillery (tube, gun and AD) issues.
Good morning Graham, as you quite rightly say, we have waited decades for an upgrade to CR2 and it would appear we still have a while to wait which is my concern. Hanwa can deliver at the pace we might require it. They seem to be able to work well with Poland, so why not us? I’m sure a suitable deal could be put in place that benefits the UK workforce. Challenger 3 “The initial operating capability for the upgraded tanks is expected by 2027, with full operational capability expected to be declared by 2030.” I’ve included links to the… Read more »
K2 is made by Hyundai Rotem, not Hanhwa. Anyway – CR3 deliveries are scheduled from 2027 to 2030 although Wallace is making efforts to shorten that if he can. Even if Hyundai could deliver 148 K2s in 2024, I don’t see that we would cancel the contract with RBSL -there would be swingeing cancellation charges for MoD to pay – and they would get back a lot of CR2s that were in various ‘states of undress’ – what would they do with them? We always have to wait years for equipment – that is nothing new, but I am disappointed… Read more »
Poland will receive 980 K2 tanks from Hyundai Rotem which was developed by the South Korean Defense Development Agency and Hyundai Rotem, and 648 K9 howitzers from Hanwha Defense. The MBT features a Rheinmetall L55 120mm smoothbore gun, and an auto-loading system, which fires at a rate of 20 rounds per minute. Norway has shortlisted the K2 for its armed forces as well, down from 9 to 2 with Nammo working on modern 120mm ammunition for the MBT. I believe the Chunmoo K239 will start to replace the US KL270 MLRS currently in service with the Polish armed forces. The… Read more »
A lot to chew over here. The CR3 contract has been signed and is a legal document committing both parties to a transaction which if voided requires cancellation charges to be paid. We are contractually committed to CR3. The South Korean K2 looks very good on paper and in some areas may trump the CR3, but it has no combat experience, I am not sure if the armour is as good as CR3 (it is certainly a very much lighter tank, hence my suspicions) and the autoloader is unproven. How many years would we save by switching from CR3 to… Read more »
What would you do with all the hulls that have been prepared for CR3 project. If AJAX fixed would they not have an in service date ?
Not sure I follow your CR3 point. I am not advocating anything other than RBSL continuing to adhere to the contract and converting 148 CR2s to CR3 spec (nice if they could do more, though). I pointed out the pitfalls of changing tack and cancelling the programme and buying some foreign kit. AJAX, according to Ian M and finally confirmed by MoD, completed its User Validation Trials following rectification for excessive noise and vibration and is now on its Reliability Growth Trial. Not sure how long this RGT is for, but for some projects they can take a year or… Read more »
Good Afternoon, Daniele. I’ve just caught up with last evening’s debate on Sky News – In full: Is the army fighting fit? Cannot link it (via You Tube), but anticipate you’re likely aware. Regretfully, must recommend any who have not to give it a view, though I was left depressed:- Consisted of four guest military contributors – three civilian women and Richard Shirreff, the ex-General (& NATO Cdr). The lasting impression was that that, whilst the three Civis focussed upon what many may consider the core questions, Shirreff came across (to me – others may disagree) as petulant and determined… Read more »
I did not see Shirreff as petulant – he talks with an upper-middle class clipped accent which comes across as unfriendly – but he was not being defensive about ‘the Generals’ and did not criticise the other contributors. His answers covered a lot of ground. I thought it reasonable that he said there should be a debate about the very expensive Dreadnought SSBN programme. I thought Lucy Jones was a little disappointing, making the odd flippant remark – and not being very perceptive or deeply analytical. The debate made me think that there is no clear prioritisation at wrork. It… Read more »
Just goes to show how perceptions are – perceived, Graham. I’d be disappointed if an Adm started defending the RN by slagging an army project i.e. along the lines of ‘what’s the point of tanks’ rather than calmly elucidating the RN’s rationale. Thought Shirreff squandered his opportunity on a national, and therefore ultimately international, stage. Nothing to do with accent. Haines kept to the Land Forces brief, Jones probably didn’t expect her eye-raise to be shown as she was not the subject of focus at the time, and the US rep was partly desperate not to add more offence after… Read more »
Thanks Gavin, I think your perceptions are better than mine having thought about it. Shirreff should certainly not have said the carriers were white elephants and nor should he have called Ajax a tank!
The presenter could have made things very uncomfortable for Shirreff if he had majored on very poor army AFV procurements.
I had not heard the NATO position statement on eastern maritime activity – I will look it up.
Just discussions, Graham, but KRs.
NATO Sec Gen Stoltenberg recently. Not someone who comes across as gung-ho, exactly. Our friend was NATO 😐
Rgs
I actually doubt the “no named” US general said anything of the like. I’m sure it’s much more likely it was made up by one of our Generals who want more money to cover up for their own sheer incompetence. I’m not sure how spraying them with money will make them not pick defective overly complicated procurement process’s. Indeed it may make them worse.
Agreed. These are all well timed leaks ahead of the review when the reality is it is THE ARMY itself which is to blame with the then CGS, then CDS Carter the main architect.
The Army wrecked itself by prioritising Strike which ate up yet more CS and CSS, Artillery, and Tanks in 2015 and is now crying wanting yet more money.
Sadly, as you say the Army has not helped itself over the last 15 years
Agreed, I doubt any serving US general would be stupid enough or so indiscreet as to make comments like this. In legal terms, this is hearsay, with no credibility.
But it’s guaranteed clickbait for newspapers and websites…
i stopped reading at ‘US General’ & ‘stupid enough’….😄
Unfortunately click bate seems to be all the media can do these days.
I doubt this General expected his private remarks to BW to be leaked.
Oh I doubt someone who has reached general, which requires a certain amount of political astuteness, would make such comments even in private. He would know that the would get published, just without his name against it.
The inaccuracies also makes this story highly dubious. Putting the Germany military on par or better than British is utterly laughable and shows whoever said this doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Not all Generals have such mistrust that their private conversations would be leaked.
I agree that it is laughable that the Germans could be rated higher than the British Army given that their readiness has been criticised for years, due to the mal-administration of Ursula von der Leyen and Christine Lambrecht.
However the British Army is still in ‘rag order’ but our fighting spirit should be higher than the German’s.
Generals who want don’t want a black mark on their service records Will have that mistrust.
Oh the chaos dates back even before Von der Leyen’s maladministration. Read the article in Der Spiegel early this month and you’ll see even the Salvation Army would have a decent chance in a rumble against the Germany Army. (It was after that was published that Christine Lambrecht resigned.)
It’s not like the first time they’ve done this. Both the US Navy and Airforce have done something similar in the past.
Rubbished the U.K. military in a comparison with another countries, here Germany?
Feel free to provide links.
If you follow some outlets you find (mostly) ex US military personnel giving their opinions about just about anything for money especially on Ukraine. It’s why even the UG Govt has pressured them to shut up as it only benefits the ‘enemy’. The Russian mouth pieces love to quote them selective when it suits their meme. There is one rentamouth who conveniently has done much work in Russia, who has been preaching Ukraine’s imminent fall for 10 months now and writing off any of their successes, geez even Putin and MK would blush. It’s rather like listening to Alan Sugar… Read more »
You miss the big, crucial difference. Ex servicemen commenting on social media internet is not the same as a serving general talking to the defence minister of an allay. Huge difference, the biggest one being a serving officer is not going to do something that endangers his career.
US Generals have said similar in the past.
Also Admiral Mike Mullen, ex-chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest ranking US military officer between 2007 and 2011, said the expected cut of 10,000 Regulars is a ‘huge concern’.
The Generals do not set MoD Abbey Wood’s procurment processes – they are tri-service processes.
Well as I state above the way I read it it was a debate amongst uk.voices that quoted the US General during their debate for effect no doubt to try to grab media attention to put pressure on those in power to correct the situation.
Not sure why everyone is getting defensive. The comments were made to the Defense Secretary and leaked by someone on the UK side of the pond. The complaint was most of our equipment is obsolete, which it is, we would run out of ammunition in days, which is true and we would be unable to deploy a fighting Division with the necessary support, artillery and equipment, which is also true. He also pointed out we would not have sufficient AD to deal with the kind of air bombardment currently being seen in the Ukraine. Which is also true. Last but… Read more »
Shane, I have not heard of you on these pages before. Welcome to the ‘club’. I totally agree with you. BTW, do you have a military background?
Yes, 9 years Army. A ranker, nothing special. I post occasionally.
Indeed the general is correct.
In Ukraine British Army would already resorted to guerrilla because conventionally it would be already defeated unless NATO would have sent many more equipment.
There is no size to defend such a long front and no depth for replacements.
Why would the British army be defending Ukraine? Your statements don’t make any sense are you saying the Ukr would just leave it to the British?🙄
It is an exercise. if you say the general is incorrect then at least the British Army should be able to defend Ukraine against Russia and do abetter job than Ukraine Army.
Even an uninformed lurker such as I can see that a small island on the eastern edge of the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Europe, surrounded by friendly nations isn’t going to have the land army and as many tanks as a country with a large land border with Russia and Belarus. For the same reason Ukraine did not have aircraft carriers, destroyers or frigates. If the U.K. had a land border with Russia or still had responsibility for defending West Germany from hoards of Soviets bursting over the East German border then I would expect us to have… Read more »
That is the partial correct reasoning of course, but then it can’t act like headless offended chickens like many here by the American general words. UK being an island naturally have justifiable bias towards Navy and Air Force. The partial above is that the British Army made a mess of procurement in last 20 years. Part of Boxer project . get out of it, then go in check book in hand buying it. Nothing came out of FRES after billions. The tracked Challenger now have no tracked IFV to go with it so risk being employed like the universally criticized… Read more »
To add Gabrielle Molinelli adds in Twitter that between Ajax and Boxer British Army have 1212 very expensive vehicles on order that are 50t class level bridge. But those 1212 vehicles are unable to build 2 infantry brigades because most of them have myriad of capabilities like transporting a SATCOM, ambulance, dozens of pc posts etc etc. His post: If you have 1212 MLC50 armoured vehicles on order, of the most expensive types on the market, and yet you can’t even build up 2 decent brigades with them, it means two things: 1) you are not poor. It’s a 10+… Read more »
Hmm, Ajax is a recce vehicle (or recce/strike, to be pedantic), a replacement for CVR(T) Scimitar and is mostly operated by the RAC – it has very little role in a standard inf bde. [Of course recce tps/platoons of armd regts/mech inf bns will be equipped with Ajax, but this is small numbers, 8 per unit].
He makes a better point with Boxer – there are relatively few in the infantry carrier role.
Bridge class – a different point – what is his point? that Ajax and Boxer are heavy vehicles? Yep, we know that.
Sadly armour comes at a cost.
…as does SSBNs, aircraft carriers, F-35s etc. Very true.
Yes it is but why BA needs ~500 “recon” Ajax? That is one of the questions.
The other are the myriad of Boxer versions at expense of infantry transport.
The bridge class means that these are heavy hence expensive vehicles and British Army issue is not lack of money.
But even after making numerous cockups the British Army is still in far better shape than Germany’s… tho use this imaginary US general disagrees with that fact.
Bad cop (unnamed US general)/good cop (Big Ben) routine; generally regarded as an effective maneuver to extract additional coin of the realm from ye olde Treasury.
Ohh, you have been around the block before!
😂😁👍
As veterans with skin in the game. We collectively sat back and let this happen. Senior officers and the entire veterans community. Should have been taking to the streets in the runup to general elections, highlighting the state of our military. Particularly the decline of the army. Blockading Westminster if necessary and asking the public for support. Do you remember the joint letter of complaint the French forces top brass sent to their politicians. It worked because the people supported the military and the government knew they were not joking. Yes, I know that sounds radical and extreme for us… Read more »
It’s good that we can do this but, the numbers of troops and equipment are the bare minimum required. Our forces are stretched to the bare bone with no possible chance of reinforcements if it ever came to war? The Americans have already said that the UK is no longer a fighting force, when will our Politicians realise just how bad our reserves are? After all they will be the ones who blame our armed forces for not doing enough if there are loses etc? There is no way that the UK can sustain any conflict across more than 3… Read more »
https://news.sky.com/story/treasury-signals-no-new-money-for-defence-despite-recognising-need-to-rearm-amid-ukraine-war-defence-sources-say-12804037 Unfortunately (at least in my book) the army has been left at the back of the queue when its come to dishing out the porridge, rather like oliver. Dont get me wrong [I was rather slated earlier] I think man for man we are the best fighting force in the world. Our training is second to none and having been a product of it albeit in better times the British Army has excelled in recent theaters, but I do believe they have been let down by senior military generals who at every cut in force numbers dont have the… Read more »
Is the UK running out of MBTs? Considering the public profile of a battle tank and just how demonstrative it can be in reassuring the population, we have precious few of them. I feel we are spreading them very thinly at the moment and it’s a point we constantly bang on about on this site. Maybe the Government will listen to the MOD and create a sensible future MBT strategy that results in more than a few hundred hulls.
We bought 386 CR2s barely 20 years ago to meet the threat(s) deemed to be posed in a post-Cold War world.
It is now judged that just 148 tanks can meet the threat(s) deemed to be posed in a post-Cold War world.
As the Yanks would say…’Go figure’. I have tried but I can’t. It makes no sense – if anything the world has got more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.
The currently available vehicles (excluding those earmarked for CH3 upgrade) are in much demand and I believe there are moves in the MOD to address the issue. We may (but I stress may) witness some lease plan with the US for five-year retention of M1s. That said, the most likely outcome is an extra 40 CH2 to CH3 specification. All that is dependent on how the Ukrainian war progresses and if further demands are placed on the UK to expand its support, which can’t be ruled out. As far as I’m concerned the MOD should have immediately approached the US… Read more »
Maurice, sorry but whaaaat?!
We (UK) don’t want M1s, either to buy them or lease them. They are no good to us – they are gas guzzlers of the first order and are very maintenance-intensive which is why we rejected them for the (Half-fleet) Chieftain Replacement competition in the 90s. Many have been destroyed in combat often by mere insurgents, so the armour protection is suspect.
We need more CR3s. If we wanted to lease anything foreign to augment our home-grown numbers it would be the most recent versions of Leo2 – a truly exceptional tank.
The idea that we can obtain L2s when they are at a premium could be an issue, where there are many more M1s. As for the downside of M1s, the Ukrainians will have a dam sight worst problem keeping them in good order. I trust the lads and lassies at Tidworth and Bovingdon to take good care of the M1 and make it work for the UK. The M1s would ostensively cover for CH2s deployed abroad and not be fielded in Europe. As for fuel, you know as well as I do that it’s not an issue for our UK-based… Read more »
Why would we have any more chance of getting M1 off the cousins any time soon than anybody else? Even IF we wanted them they DO NOT export tanks with DU mesh in the armour package so we would have to wait ages for any!
Confused, we could get the M1 just as Poland is and probably from restored reserve stock. The US is keen to see the much reduced British Army back in tier one again and I’m sure would lease M1s if asked.
Export M1s to any nation do not come from US stocks! As has been explained in other threads the DU mesh in the US tanks Is not exported so any tanks coming our way would have to be reworked or new build.As to the logistics that would come with them it would probably be too expensive to just lease them for a short time.(stand to be corrected)
Correct, but US regulations are occasionally revised; revisions to facilities AUKUS would be the most example.
…facilitate…🙄 (autocorrect 🤬)
…most (current) example…🙄 (that one is all my fault.)
I doubt we would lease tanks – we are building 148 CR3s and BW may ‘up the figure’ – thats the way the cookie crumbles. If there was ever a requirement to lease foreign tanks, I would prefer L2 over M1 any day. If we ever resorted to leased M1s due to L2s not being available, the REME (my old Corps) will of course be able to maintain it, but may need an uplift in personnel numbers, however that would pale into insignificance in terms of the extra number of fuel tankers we would have to buy and extra RLC… Read more »
Hi Graham, We went from 386 C2s to 227 to now 148 C3s. Does anyone know what happened to the 159 initially and then the follow on 79 (excluding the 14 earmarked for Ukraine)? Some I’m sure were used for parts but if they were stored instead of scraped, surely we can increase the C3 number substantially north of 200? I always thought 148 C3s just simply wasn’t enough and if anything, Ukraine has shown this. I even thought it would be worthwhile asking Oman if we could buy back the 38 they purchased. I’m not sure they are even… Read more »
Hi David, the 159 (386-227) were the victim of the 2010 defence review and were stored at the Vehicle Depot in Ashchurch. As they were out of service they were not maintained. Then someone decided to scrap 80 of them – it received no publicity and it was only found out about in 2018 when a written reply was made by MoD to an MP. Unprecedented to scrap equipment that has not been formally declared ‘Obsolete’. So there should be 79 out-of-service tanks stored at Ashchurch. Of course we have not gone down to a figure of 148 yet. Those… Read more »
Why do they store tanks in leaking sheds at Ashchurch when one tank costs more than replacing all the roofs ? Think someone’s chum wanted to buy the land for housing which is why it was neglected. Asbestos contamination has removed profit from this idea !
It was a huge mistake to close the A Veh site at Ludgershall in 1997 – it was large, not far from Salisbury Plain and all the armoured units nearby and had a railhead. The A vehs were sent to join the B Vehs stored at Ashchurch in rural Gloucestershire. None of the hangars at Ashchurch were designed for A Vehs – and I am not aware of any new ones being built to cope with the hundreds of A Vehs which arrived. Its a quart in a pint pot. Plus the sheds are mostly very old; as you say,… Read more »
About 5 years ago the US Army trialled a M1 with a diesel engine. I don’t think it was a MTU, but something US made. It did alright and was significantly more fuel efficient as expected. But come the M1 Sep 3 upgrade, they are keeping the gas turbine, why? Honestly I don’t know, I can’t find statements to say one way other other.
I do recall the diesel M1 trial and assumed that it was so they could offer a diesel tank to export customers who were more mindful of the logistic burden imposed by the GT engine.
Good article at:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-was-once-tested-with-a-diesel-engine-that-replaces-its-thirsty-turbine
Don’t know why they have not sold any with diesel engines.
Inertia, logistics, Congress.
Note that hundreds of M1 have been build despite US Army saying it do not need them.
Very true 👍
Are the 14 CR2 destined for UKR being requisitioned from the operational fleet, or others in storage? Any guesstimate available of the number of CR2 in storage which could conceivably be refurbished given sufficient time and funds? Big Ben has speculated re increasing conversions to CR3; not certain there will be sufficient margin to increase conversions and fulfill inevitable additional UKR requests, solely from the currently iperational pool. 🤔
We bought 386 CR2 tanks. I am told that the 14 CR2s destined for Ukraine is coming from the 227-strong active fleet which comprises: 168 tanks assigned to our 3 tank regiments 59 tanks split between: the Trg Org, the Repair Pool (in storage), the Attrition Reserve (in storage). There should be 79 tanks in storage that are on the non-active list (taken out of service following the defence cuts of 2010) I am told that 80 tanks were scrapped sometime prior to 2018 – this information was only made public when an MP put a formal question to the… Read more »
So, a percentage of those 79 tanks MIGHT be recoverable, given enough time, money, TLC, an occasional prayer, etc. Hmm…not noting an overabundance of platforms, at this point the maximum number assuredly available for conversion is 212, and UKR will request more in future months. Guaranteed. Not great news. 🤔😳
Thanks GM for the response, thorough and understandable, as per usual. 👍
True, some of those 79 will be in better condition than others.
The top figure available for conversion to CR3 would be 213 (ie 227 (all those on the active list) minus the 14 to UKR) plus any of the 79 (inactive list) that are not totally stripped vehicles.
👍, it is reassuring that you believe some combination/permutation of the ‘hangar queens’ are salvageable. You are probably singularly well qualified to render this opinion re CR2.
Thanks. I was well qualified 20 years ago when I was an Equipment Manager in the MoD. I try to keep up to date but it is not always possible as I have no contacts now and the subject matter often does not get into print, as it is not newswrthy. Cannibalisation was always frowned upon and regarded as the very last resort, so done sparingly, however CR2 was fielded from 1998 and many suppliers of parts have ceased trading or have shut down production of low-volume, highly specialised items. Equipment managers have to ‘manage obsolescence’ and there are many… Read more »
Thanks. Believe you may have bounded the ratio of salvageable tanks from ‘hangar queens’: optimistically, (1:2); realistically, (1:3), pessimistically, (1:4). Still may be worth the effort expended, depending upon future UKR/UK requirements. 🤔
Thanks. Of course we have 227 good in-service tanks so could convert them all to CR3. That alone is a significant step up from 148. I could not see the Treasury agreeing to any higher figure, so perhaps those ”hangar queens can carry on rotting..
Thanks mate. Speak to any British politician whose party is in power and their view of army future requirements is that the British Army needs to be smaller, better, more agile, more expeditionary, more high tech, have more drones and cyber gadgets, rely less on ‘sunset’ equipment, with modern British made equipment, a more diverse recruitment policy, must be as ‘woke’ as possible – but most important of all of that is that it should be smaller!
‘Do more, w/ less,’ huh, somehow that statement has a familiar ring. 🤔😳☹️
Wonder whether anyone has considered possible reclamation of Omani CR2s? Desert environment, but perhaps significantly lower tempo of ops. Would probably have to underwrite L2 or M1. 🤔😳
A matter for Oman of course. I hear they are considering buying K2 Black Thunder MBTs but this may be to replace just their M60s – and I don’t know when. They have just 38 CR2s and I guess they will be in good shape due to the climate, no operational deployment etc.
American arrogance sometimes knows no bounds. That said the majority I know are good folk. Just one mouthy West Point idiot and all this fuss?
Yes if they said it I would agree, just as likely to be a Sandhurst idiot making shit up, like some how if the American are not happy with our army we need to cut the NHS and start building tanks.
I can tell my nan she not getting her hip replacement because General whatsimibob not happy. 😀
I hope you don’t think I am a Sandhurst idiot, Jim!
No-one is making shit up about what a parlous state the British Army is in.
More likely made up and not said by an American general.
I think he has a good point. Do you think the British Army is in good shape? Really?
The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has said that he believes the British Army is too small to effectively tackle threats to British interests.Asked by Soldier Magazine if the conflict in Ukraine has put a spotlight on the size of the British Army said:“It’s certainly highlighted the fact that mass and size are important. I’m not comfortable with an Army of just 73,000. It’s too small. That was never part of our proposition going into the review. In fact, I was working to direction that we regrow the Army to 82,000 – and we have done… Read more »
I know General Mark – he was my last boss in Colchester years ago when he commanded 16 AA Bde.
He has handed over CGS role to Gen Sanders but his comment of just 8 months ago still stands. I am afraid he is right.
Also there are far too many who think that 73,000 is the deployable number – no way, not by a long chalk. The deployable figure is far less.
Sadly for the Army, they spent 15/20 years fighting “Counter Insurgency”, and both the Generals and HMG took their eye of the ball in regards to peer to peer warfare. The demise of Armour, both Tanks and Artillery has been brought about by lack of a clear focus, a constant change in requirements, and constant budget cuts to fund other programmes/departments of HMG. Whilst it was important to get suitable MRAP vehicles into the two theatres of operations, not enough focus was placed on the “what comes next”, resulting in the current situation where we have little to no modern… Read more »
All very true – 430’s still in service over 60 years from their ISD, because they were not fully replaced by Warrior in the 1980s. No new tracked vehicles fielded for over 20 years. Major upgrades not delivered for Warrior, CR2, AS90. Warrior to be replaced at great cost by a wheeled vehicle that may not even have a cannon. An ageing suite of small arms. The army cut once or twice every decade since the end of the Korean War. Warrior having to be converted into an interim recce vehicle because Ajax is 6 years late and (arguably) still… Read more »
Well put, and rather sobering Graham.
What a mess the Army’s equipment procurement has become.🙁
Daniele, I am depressed by this sorry saga, but I have a very good bottle of red wine at my side!
I’m not surprised, as an army and REME veteran.
Respect.
Both Labour party and conservative have done nothing but cut ✂ since end of cold war it’s sad to see how small we are in Troops and Equipment .But if you let your guard down as HMGs have done then troubles come along. 🙄
Very true. Incredible that Governments ‘of both stripes’ cut manpower and platforms yet our defence budget is the highest in Europe. What’s happenig? Can it all be down to procurement cock-ups?
I wonder how BW feels now, post the Russian invasion, of presiding over a 10,000 troop cut?
I honstly don’t understand it Graham like you say highest budget yet less Boots and platforms .And when we have strikes floods ect we call the the forces ,and for this 10,000 troops cut can’t get my head round it.🙄
Yes…its mad. Having 70,000 regular troops of course does not mean we have 70,000 troops that we could deploy – hopefully everyone realises that?
Francis Tusa and Gabriele Molinelli on Twitter explain why the Army is where it is and the people responsible better than anyone i’ve seen. If anyone feels optimistic about the Army’s future. Learning about the current CGS will cure that.
Agreed. Gabriele knows his stuff. He’s been warning about this imminent car crash since 2015 when they prioritised Strike.
David, I joined the Regular Army (REME) in 1975 and left in 2009, having served in 5 continents and the Middle East – and seen some massive changes – and have followed my old Service in the news ever since. It is extraordinary to see what has happened to the army over this timescale, and it is disheartening that there have been as many, if not more, negative changes than positive changes. It was often said that the most significant enemy was the Treasury – and often that was the case, except when they were funding the UOR projects of… Read more »
It must be heartbreaking for you Graham to see what an organisation you gave most of your life to serve has come to. It’s a problem in all walks of life but far too often it’s the wrong people who reach the top. People with little love for the organisation they work for. Who are simply motivated by ambition and ego. I can agree with all your ideas but I would add that the people at the top both past and present have to admit their role in where the Army finds itself. That may not make any difference or… Read more »
Thanks David, its not just the Generals at the top that has caused the procurement cock-ups – blame should also attach to the Treasury, certain civil servants & politicians and certain Industry companies (eg GDUK!).
Have some faith in General Sanders. But we need more than a good CGS at the helm for 2-3 years. The army needs tens of £billions and 10 years to get into shape – and some decisions need to be reversed or reviewed by SofS.
‘back on track’…not where Boxer is concerned…nor AJAX (well not at the moment anyway)…
I’ll get me coat …
Well done to the outspoken General. Will anyone in the UK government take any notice? No chance, as it never has done before.
Frankly we have heard this time and time again. The British Infantry’s fighting strength is at least 10,000 short of what it should be. It’s not going to change in a hurry as, lets be frank, they cannot even retain trained soldiers, let alone recruit more.
The British Army needs a huge cash injection, treat them better, feed them batter, pay them better, and fix their housing!
So Warrior, Challenger 2, AS90, Ajax, Strike Brigades 20 years of effed up programmes billions flushed down the toilet. Every CGS since 2000 loaded with honours and fat pensions pontificating to anyone who will listen how ‘it wasn’t me guv’ it was the MoD, the Treasury, the Navy and their carriers. Nothing learned no blame accepted same bullshit forever and ever amen. 😡😡
Exactly. Run into the ground, short funded, obsolete equipment. Billions spent on garbage designs. Private business/government ministers pilfering taxpayers money.
Mention arm forces contracts, and lots simply see pound note signs, with (in lots but not all cases) rubbish being foisted off as stuff the army needs. Same ol same old
Our whole system in this Country is set up this way it’s about enhancing, engrandisinb and expanding the bank balances and pensions of aging elite, actual end product is just the necessary visual excuse… and you don’t need that many to fool the public, just run them around twice. After all we all (certainly in their view) lap up how the Princess of Wales is immensely talented at photography, tennis, painting, playing the piano and any number of other inherent skills automatically picked up apparently the moment she became a member of the Royal Family, or how Liz Truss became… Read more »
Tom, I think the cookhouse feeds them batter anyway!
Why does the British army always procure pitifully pathetic numbers of equipment? What is the obsession with smaller and smaller numbers of everything?
Mmm small numbers of Boxer,Ajax series of vehicles? CR3 Nos revisited🤞
You only procure equipment to the level of manpower that you have got.
If your new Orbat shows just 2 tank regiments you only buy 148 tanks.
Not saying I approve – I definitely do not.
In 1990 the British Army was about 160,000 strong,not a significantly large number then but now its less than half that,it can only use so much equipment.
And we are not toddling about the North German plain every September/October now are we?
I see where you are coming from, but Options for Change reset the army from those 160,000 to 120,000 Regs following a fairly good piece of staff-work ie that 120k was the number required for the post-Cold War world (and that didn’t even envisage Gulf War 1 and 2 or Op Herrick in Afghanistan, so arguably was too low a figure in hindsight). So why the f**k did the numbers reduce first to 102,000 then second to 95,000 then third to 82,000 and now fourth to 72,000! At least 4 big cuts in 30 years to save money, not because… Read more »
Peace dividend ain’t it 🙄 Wallace was on Sky news earlier and did admit the cuts under Govts in the past twenty years had gone too far! He sees it but if that other shower get in will they?!
Its not just Wallace’s predecessors who need a critique.
Someone should ask BW why he has presided over a 10,000 troop cut, only ordered 148 CR3s, didn’t personally grip the Ajax programme a few years back, and scrapped the Warrior upgrade in favour of buying expensive Boxers without cannons.
We praise him on these pages but he does deserve a bit of a grilling too.
Peace dividend (justified by the end of the Cold War) was the cut to 120,000. Further cuts were not peace dividend – they were just savings measure so that more could go to the more popular causes (Health, Education, Social Security).
Does Wallace include his own cut of 10,000 troops as a cut to too far!
Labour will certanly get in next time – John Healey will make a fine SofS.
you mean instead of the shower that implemented it in the first place?
What planet are you on? Govts of both parties have been cutting back the Forces for years! They are all as bad as each other. That realisation just might be sinking in with this Govt BUT will that be the case after the next election if Labour get in? Ian not convinced it will!
Bravo Graham.
Shocking now mate 😕
Well I agree with you but I was shocked to read France and Germany have similar levels of tanks in service. We are an island so have some excuse they are certainly not.
Sure it’s some virus 💉
A bit simplistic for me to say that the size of the army doesn’t matter but in the end whatever we choose to do our people have to be the best trained and best equipped and they also need looking after, not just as individuals but their families as well.
Geoff, you might have to explain why you think the size of the army doesn’t matter! -If you don’t have 5 similarly structured deployable brigades, then you cannot do an enduring brigade operation, such as Op Herrick (Afghanistan) was. -If you don’t have an armoured division with two armoured brigades (220 deployable tanks) you could not do an operation against a very large enemy force equipped with tanks who had invaded a neighbours territory, in support of the US like the first Gulf War (Op Granby). -If you don’t have an armoured division with a brigade of 120 deployable tanks,… Read more »
A sobering post , puts the recent cuts and their impact on our military capabilty – both offensive and humanitarian -into perspective.
Just read most of the above posts, all a bit of a depressing read. Do the “they”, the politicians and decision makers seriously want “the barbarians to be at the gates” so to speak, before they really take notice?! Surely more forward thinking, forewarned, forearmed, investment, for all services, is required for the country’s sake.
Hope Ben Wallace and Tobias Ellwood and others can give the “they” a bit of a shake. The 🇬🇧 Army needs to get its mojo back!!
Maybe a better phrase would have been “whatever the size of the army” The problem though is that twenty years have been wasted getting to the point where the army will be hard pushed to do any of the things you have correctly listed, if at all.
Assuming that there are no further changes we are going to end up with 150 re-vamped Challengers; supported by enough Ajax for double the number, assuming they work, and hundreds of wheeled infantry tin cans. Planning at it best!
I couldn’t agree more. CR2 should have had regular upgrades (as we always used to do for AFVs) since ISD 1998 and perhaps been replaced by a brand new, somewhat revolutionary, possibly collaborative tank this decade. Warrior should have had regular upgrades since ISD 1987 including the various elements of WCSP and been replaced last decade, possibly by CV90 IFV – for the Armoured Infantry. Ajax by GDUK should never have seen the light of day. The CVR(T) family, ISD 1971 should have been replaced by a family of vehicles (less expensive, smaller and lighter than Ajax), made by a… Read more »
Where you see those hundreds infantry tn cans? 🙂 Most Boxers are not infantry, you can barely support a Brigade with them.
Yep. Your right I checked the numbers out. Enough for about 600 personnel I think.
A battalion is about 550 – I am very concerned now!
I’d be the first to admit that I am not as knowledgeable as many regarding the army but from what I read it appears that we are currently down for 85 Boxer IFV’s and 90 or so Ajax (Ares). Eight personnel for each of the first and seven the second. So 680, Boxer and 630, Ares. There are a lot of valuable support vehicles as well but I was just looking at apc/ifv types.
Geoff, its all a bit complicated and mostly the news is not very good. In the first order for 523 vehicles, we are down (as you say) for a mere 85 Boxer Infantry carriers (they would be termed an IFV if they are cannon-equipped and they may not be, in which case they would be termed an APC). Those 85 could just about carry two mech battalions. ARES, in the AJAX family is termed an APC but it only carries 4 dismounts (plus the 3-man crew) so they cannot carry an Infantry section (8-men). The 4 dismounts are carrying out… Read more »