As HMS Prince of Wales prepares to sail east on Operation Highmast, senior personnel have underscored the deployment’s significance—not only as a high-profile show of strength for the Royal Navy, but as the moment the UK’s fifth-generation F-35B stealth jets reach full operating capability (FOC) at sea.
According to the Lightning Air Wing Commander, Group Captain John Butcher, the deployment marks “a major milestone for the Lightning Programme,” enabling the UK to deploy two F-35B squadrons globally from either land or sea.
“In 2025, F-35 will declare full operating capability,” he said, “culminating years of effort and giving the government more choice in delivering air power in contested environments.”
HMS Prince of Wales will lead Carrier Strike Group 25 (CSG25) through the Mediterranean, Middle East and into the Indo-Pacific, operating closely with NATO allies and key regional partners such as Japan and Australia. The deployment is as much about testing tactics as it is about interoperability. The UK’s F-35s, said Butcher, are “procured globally,” meaning they can “fly and fight seamlessly” alongside allied nations operating the same platform.
He added that the UK currently operates 35 F-35Bs, aiming to grow that number to 47 by year’s end and eventually to a total fleet of 76 aircraft. These jets, capable of electronic attack, long-range strike, and stealth operations, will now be deployed at scale from the UK’s flagship carrier.
Operation Highmast will also see the first operational deployment of 809 Naval Air Squadron, newly recommissioned in December 2023. Commander Nick Smith, the squadron’s commanding officer, called it a “truly joint team,” with personnel drawn equally from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The unit, he said, is now ready to “operate independently anywhere around the world” and deliver air power at sea as part of the UK’s front-line combat air force.
809 NAS will be joined by its partner unit 617 Squadron—The Dambusters—aboard HMS Prince of Wales. Together, they form the backbone of the UK’s fifth-generation strike capability. The deployment will also test the Carrier Strike Group’s full operating capability, integrating not just fast jets but naval escorts, submarines, and support elements in a fully deployable maritime task force.
Lieutenant Colonel Mike Carty, the first Royal Marine to command a UK fighter squadron, called the deployment “an incredible privilege” and a chance to demonstrate “the potency of UK combat air.” He added that operating the F-35 from land and sea gives the UK “reach and flexibility to deliver effect around the globe, at a time and place of our choosing.”
Strategically, Operation Highmast is about more than readiness. It’s about deterrence. As global threats mount, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, the UK aims to prove its ability to project air power from the sea and reinforce its alliances with NATO, the Quad, and beyond.
“Operation Highmast,” said Carty, “lets us hone our skills across a variety of mission sets and deepen our operational integration with other nations. It’s a clear signal of the UK’s commitment to global security.”
For HMS Prince of Wales and the squadrons aboard her, the mission is a proving ground—not just for platforms, but for the UK’s role as a modern maritime power.
The interviews above were conducted by Squadron Leader Amy Casey.
It’s unfortunate that so many defence debates especially in the main stream media are so bogged down in the army. As if the army having 100,000 soldiers as opposed to 70,000 would magically make Europe safe from Russia.
Symbolism really matters a great deal in deterrence and diplomacy which is the biggest part of defence policy. Demonstrating the ability to deploy a fleet of ships independently of the USA to the other side of the word matters a great deal. Demonstrating that you have multiple Allie’s other than the USA who can and will support such deployments really matters. Showing you have the ability to deploy 24 fifth generation fighters to a theatre really matters.
Working with a wide range of Allie’s is soemthing the UK does better than any other country on the planet by a long way and it’s more important now more than ever.
But it is our experience, enablers and mass that make us an attractive core to such alliances.
If we don’t deliver on mass, by which I *do not* mean 250k troops then others will become sceptical of the benefits.
At sea or in the air we can achieve mass but we are never going to be able to have a peace time force than can achieve significant mass on land. Even at the height of our status as the world sole super power we never had anymore than a token land contribution to any coalition.
Really? BAOR was only a “token” force!In the 70/80/90s we had during that time a strat reserve force in the UK ready to go where needed and 3 brigades in Ni! Not to bad for a token force eh?
Yes the BOAR was a token force, it was described at the time as little more than a speed bump. It was a force of around 55,000 facing a Warsaw pact force of 3.5 million.
The BEF in 1914 was also a token force even though it was 6 divisions and the BEF in 1940 was also a token force even though it was made up of 12 divisions.
In all instances the enemy had an army ten times our size, this is the very definition of a token force and all these army’s were described at the time as token forces by us, our Allie’s and enemies.
The BAOR was not a token force, that’s a pretty shitty line that gets trotted out acting like, as you seem determined to, that it was the BAOR against the entire Warsaw pact on it’s own. Within the wider context of the CENTAG and NORTHAG it was actually a pretty substantial force, even if it was by no means the largest NATO formation on the border. A Corps is nothing to sneeze at (Reminder that Germany, the largest NATO army in Europe had 3 Corps, and the US had 2 marked for fighting in Russia. So a British Corps was far more than a “token contribution” but hey, facts are hard. I get it).
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
I agree Jacko -the BAOR in the late cold war comprised 3 armoured divisions and a mainly reserve infantry division, which is a significant contribution. I get Jim’s point though re ww2 BEF that in comparison to the French and German, it was a modest force level
Um no? Two divisions is well within the capability of a peace time British Army, and that’s a significant force. By comparison the Polish peace time Army is 4 Divisions, the French is 2, the German 3. The UK deploying 2 Mechanised Divisions is not “a token land contribution” by comparison.
Hi Dern.
OT, but something ourselves and J have discussed many times.
RAC X feed reportedly is now saying KRH will remain a MBT Regiment, and another article I read states the Army will now form three Ajax Regiments, not four.
Significant. Type 44 incoming? DRSB reduced to one Armoured Cavalry? The other two are surely still needed for 12 and 20x.
If that third MBT Reg remains…..?
If no increase in personnel numbers happens? I recon three AI brigades but one with AR enablers. But that’s just a guess.
@Daniele, that would good news, just need to keep warrior alive and keeping actual armoured infantry and turn DRSB into an independently deployable brigade and jobs a good one for 3rd division.
@Jonathan.
Yes, would still need to find an extra RA Reg, RAMC Reg, RS Reg, RLC Reg. A 3rd CS Eng Reg already exists in 25 Group.
This news, if accurate, has really got me intrigued at what is cooking.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
Hi Dern. A good point re the BAOR -in the late cold war I recall it comprised 3 armoured divisions and a mainly reserve infantry division? That strikes me as significantly more than a token force.
@Klonkie
It changes a bit over the course of the cold war, but yes in 1989 the I BR Corps (the main fighting strength of the BAOR) was 3 Armoured Divisions in Germany, plus 2nd Infantry based in the UK which had 1 Regular and 2 TA divisions, plus the Artillery Division/Brigade (the HQ size was altered from time to time but the constitutent units didn’t vary much). There was also an independent TA Para group, and the Berlin Brigade.
For comparison, I GR Corps (the German Regular Corps that would have been deployed to on 1 BR Corps Northern Flank) was 4 Armoured Divisions and an Airmobile Brigade.
To the South under Centag the two American Corps (V and VII) each consisted of 1 Armoured and 1 Mechanised Infantry Division, with a Mechanised Infantry Division each based in the US. (If that sounds like a low commitment, there where also two US corps, the III and XVIII airborne in America that where meant to support Northag).
Baisically, 1 Br Corps was a pretty standard size for a NATO Corps.
You really are clutching at straws aren’t you? 1BR Corps a token force speed bump🙄 just how big does a formation have to be for you to NOT describe it as a token force? Do bear in mind that this ‘speed bump’ was supported by Dutch,Belgian and German forces as well as anther British Div coming from the UK! We all knew we could hold the WP up long enough for them to go nuclear if they wanted to continue to advance!
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝟒𝟒.𝐂𝐨𝐦
Oh and Jim, you need to also get better at understanding History:
In 1914 one of the reasons the BEF was only six divisions was because the TA couldn’t be fully mobilised and sent to France until early 1915, 6 months after the war started.
And as for 1940? The BEF in that war was 12 Divisions because (surprise) it left most of it’s TA divisions back in the UK as they couldn’t be equipped and trained to an adequate standard in time.
According to the National Army Museum, by May 1940, five regular and five TA divisions comprised the BEF, w/ a total of approximately 390,000 personnel. Uncertain whether all were actually deployed to France. Nonetheless, still a relatively impressive number. The BA evidently had approximately 750K trained regular and reseve troops at the commencement of hostilities. What would be a feasible upper bound of personnel for the current BA, nine months post commencement of hostilities? Assuming conscription is approved, of course. 🤔😱
@FUSAF
All 10 of those divisions where deployed to France, additionally there where a couple of TA divisions that where deployed but where only allowed to engage in rear echlon security duties because they didn’t have artillery or vehicles, or at guns. But at the outset of the war the British Army had about 20 TA divisions (which is where the balance of your 750k troops comes from). Obviously industrial strategy has a role here, but it’s worth imaging what might have happened if the funding had been allocated to give the BEF 1-2 Armoured Divisions in 1940 instead of 15 TA divisions that couldn’t deploy.
The issue is the same as it was in WW2. Yes, in theory the British Army could have 750,000 soldiers between the Army Reserve and the Regular forces, but it would have the same issue: It would be unable to deploy (bearing in mind that the equipment needed for a TA division in 1940 is considerably less than what a modern one needs).
Oh, and Jim! Tell me your a bell without telling me you are a bell.
May I weight in here?
BAOR was, very often, described by top brass and politicians as a speed bump. Look in Alan Clark’s diaries for instance.
I personally don’t agree with that description as it profoundly understates the effectiveness of the forces and kit.
IRL I think BAOR would have had a similar effect on the Russians as the Ukrainians had on them recently. Stall them totally but the difference was that we would have had air dominance and Harrier/Buc/Jag/Tonka to come in a mash up the stalled formations.
It would then have turned into attritional warfare.
Given the rail dependence of Russian forces and lack of logistical enablers I could never see them in a blitzkrieg campaign?
Yes calling the BAOR a speedbump was always an understatement, it along with the other corps, were designed to drag the forces of the USSR into meat grinder and delay as long as possible the inevitable nuclear exchange, as France always made it clear it would being the strategic level nuclear exchange when the forces of the USSR concentrated on its boarder. BAOR was there to die to create time for the Soviet Union to reconsider mutual death and retreat. But and this is important the UK did know it was never getting its army back in case of WW3.
I have earned and received $19,683 by working online from home. In previous month i have this income just by doing work for 2 hours maximum a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and regular earning from this just great. Now everybody can now get this job and start making real money online just by follow instructions on this website… ——–>> 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝟓𝟒.𝐜𝐨𝐦
I very much agree Jim. We are after all an island. The Royal Navy has always been our first line of defence and needs to be maintained at a high level still, certainly better than it has been in recent years. The Royal Air Force, which is in a reasonable state, needs needs additional AEW/ASW assets and I would like to see more Typhoons. The army should surely be about J.E.F and provision of special forces capability We cannot do everything.
The army having 100,000 instead of 70,000 would mean we could deploy both our divisions, and provide an effective framework for a NATO Corps, and two divisions is actually a pretty sizeable mechanised force. So you’re wrong there.
I agree army needs to be a bit larger somewhere around the 110k mark feels sensible to me.
With that you can backfill properly.
One of the issues around civilianisation of roles is that you can send those in to fight. However, it does mean that a greater % of force is fighting force as opposed to admin and support.
I think the ideal structure would be 3 Armoured, 3 Mechanised, and 1 Airmobile brigade + LSOC and SF providing a Armoued Division, a Mechanised Division and a Rapid intervention force, which I think is managable within a 100,000 headcount, but obviously 110 would give more headroom. 72,000 is too small, and at the barest minimum the Army needs to get enough Enablers to allow all six current brigades to be deploy-able, and give 1 UK division a decent IDF capability.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
I’m not wrong, you’re not looking at the strategic effect. What strategic effect in a European theatre of war does Britain having 100,000 vs 70,000 soldiers have.
What military objectives could be achieved? Would this for instance allow us to capture St Petersburg un assisted? Woukd it mean that Britain could save the Baltics falling un assisted?
Is it worth gutting the navy and Airforce to get this 100,000 strong force?
On the flip side putting the extra money to the Airforce and having 100 more F35’s would have a massive strategic effect. That would give us an Airforce big enough to fight the Russians solo.
A 100,000 man British army doesn’t let you do anything solo. A 1 million British army doesn’t let you do anything Solo either. Ukraine has a million man army and all it can do is hold a line.
We have the carriers because of the switch to expeditionary warfare in SDR 1998. But unless you have substantial ground forces to project, you can’t do expeditionary warfare at scale. In which case you don’t really need 2 large carriers. Smaller, cheaper carriers that focused on air defence, like WW2 escort carriers, would make more sense.
Current UK force structure is unbalanced and illogical, a result of poor decisions and inadequate and misdirected funding.
Wow. Congratulations Jim this is high level stupidity from you. Given that both my replies to you explicitly explained how an increase in army strength would means the ability to actually deploy 2 divisions, and how a 2 division force by European NATO army standards isn’t something to sneeze at… yeah.
Oh and given that I was talking about how it would enable two UK divisions to form the basis of a NATO corps you’d think I wasn’t talking about taking on Russia on our own, which no matter how we balance the force is not happening, so another incredibly stupid point. (And no, 170 F-35s is not enough to take on the entire Russian Airforce on their own, thanks for showing you don’t know the size of the Russian Airforce)
But you won’t bother to read any of this, and just, as always, proceed with your own BS talking points.
Please don’t stop him from posting though…. I look forward to each and every comedy gold moment !
I can’t stop anyone from posting.
Oh never mind…… it was just a bit of humour.
Honestly Dern, I am writing about strategic effect at a European theatre level and your writing about brigades. I will try one more time based on your ideal force level.
What strategic effect can 3 armoured and 3 mechanised and 1 air mobile brigade achieve that 2 armoured 2 mechnaised and 1 airmobile brigade can’t?
Why would that strategic effect be worth severe cuts to the other forces?
Keeping up the stupid I guess.
We don’t have 5 deploy-able brigades at the moment. At best effort we’d get a division with 3 Brigades out the door, because, if you ever bothered to read anything anyone said that didn’t fit into your preconceived narrative:
The army lacks the support formations to deploy anything more.
That is the main reason the Army needs an uplift in personnel.
At present the Army can field 1 under-strength Division. It could easily field 2, and yes that does represent a significant strategic increase. It means the Army would be able to deploy out of area in strength with a Mechanised Division, it means it could maintain tripwire forces in places like Ukraine (oh has that been in the news a lot recently) or Estonia, while still maintaining a cohesive armoured force for a NATO corps (again I’ve mentioned multiple times how the UK being a credible core of a NATO corps is a strategic effect but you choose to ignore that).
People here love to talk about how the UK should focus on fighting in the high north, well 2 Divisions provide a mobile mechanised force that can enable manuever for the much more static Scandinavian defence forces. In effect Britain deploying 2 Divisions to Finland would more than double the Finnish manuever forces, and provide divisional structures which Finland lacks (Finland maneuver forces boil down to 3 Brigades and a couple of independent battle-groups). In terms of effect, that’s the difference between being able to seize the initiative fight offensively on one hand and having to resort to localized counter attacks on the other.
And the cost of getting the army to 100,000 is nowhere near the cost of say… spending 11 billion on an American fighter jet. Especially given that most of the uplift would be CS and CSS formations (as, AGAIN, mentioned several times, but you know this is my surprised face).
Oh and Jim:
2 Divisions are more than just the combat brigades that form their manuever elements, which is why I specify deploying 2 Divisions, not 7 brigades. But you knew that and just choose to ignore that fact.
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝟒𝟒.𝐂𝐨𝐦
(Oh and btw 100 extra F-35s? 11 billion quid, or 4 QE class carriers, which given that the personnel increases would mostly be going to enablers is significantly more than an army increase would cost).
Funnily enough Dern you might be aware there is another F35 variant called the F35A which does not require 4 aircraft carriers to operate it.
My reference to 100 F35’s is the leaks coming out of the SDR last week suggesting an increase in the F35 force of 100 more jets and a switch to the F35A to save money and increase the usable weapons.
Thanks for proving that reading is a bit beyond you with that 4 aircraft carriers bit.
Oh and yeah because bringing a whole new airframe into the RAF with different training requirements and a new OCU and new maintenance requirements is also going to be oh so cheap…
especially one that can only operate from fixed airbases and that doesn’t use RAF refueling probes… ah well.
Thanks for not replying to anything I wrote again and going off on a tangent.
FYI please see 5 deployable bridges listed by the British Army currently.
16 AAB
7 light Mech
4 light Mec
12th Armoured
20th Armoured
Literally directly addressed your point about F-35A and why it’s still going to be expensive as fuck. Not my fault you are too stupid to understand it.
Oh and Jim:
4th Light Brigade is not a deployable formation due to, (and this will shock you because it’s only been mentioned 5 times) the lack of enablers.
Wow 4th light mechanised is not a deployable bridge. You better go and tell the Army, the defence Secretary and NATO that because 4th light mechanised brigade is on high readiness rotation starting 10 weeks from now.
Clearly someone thinks it’s a deployable brigade.
I disagree with your point in F35A being expensive. Three other militaries operate the B and A model and two of them have smaller fleets than ours.
Okay Jim.
Lets actually have a talk about this because unlike you: I actually know what the fuck I’m talking about (no use of course because you won’t read it):
Each Brigade to operate as a Brigade needs it’s own organic support elements, what is commonly referred to as CS and CSS (combat support and combat support services). Typically this means: Artillery, Engineers, REME, RLC and Med. 12th and 20th Brigades theoretically have their full set of CS and CSS and, because 3rd UK division actually has a full set of Divisional Enablers, can actually deploy as formed Brigades and as constituent parts of their Divisions.
16 Air Assault has a full set of enablers, so it can deploy as a fully formed Brigade (although it rarely does as it’s state of high readyness means it’s battalions rotate through recovery periods), but not as part of it’s division because 1 UK Division lacks it’s divisional enablers.
7 Light Mech can theoretically deploy, but pushing it and the two armoured infantry brigades out the door at the same time would probably be a G1 challenge, it can not deploy as part of it’s division for the same reason 16 Air Assault cant’.
4 Light Mech does not have any enablers. You can be a sarcastic little prick all you want, but that is a fact and it doesn’t change. It can deploy individual company groups at high readiness, but organically it does not have a supply of artillery, or engineers, or logistics, or any med beyond battalion aid posts.
“Waaah the army etc thinks it’s a deployable brigade.” No they don’t. Being held at readyness does not mean the entire formation is deployable. Which would be blindingly obvious if you knew what you where talking about (and well get into other options if the entire brigade is needed in a second). Supplying and sustaining small numbers of troops on low intensity ops is much easier than supplying large numbers (this is why for example ASOB doesn’t have enablers; you generally don’t need dedicated CSS to support a deplyoment of a 12 person team, that can be covered by organic battalion assets and the occasional civilian contractor/local support). Your Brigade is on high readiness and surges a company group forward? Not a huge deal. Doesn’t mean the Brigade is a deployable formation. (Again, once upon a time I was in a Brigade that didn’t have enabling assets, and yes we did push troops out on small deployments, but the Brigade was not a deployable combat formation, the fact you seem not to grasp this shows you don’t know what a we are talking about when we are talking about deployable formations). This is the most likely use of the formation and it lets the army say big impressive things like “Army’s 4 Brigade to be held at high readiness,” while actually masking the lack of deployable formations.
Now as promised: Can the Army get 4th Light Mech out the door if it doesn’t have CS and CSS? Yes. If it absoultely had to. And the answer to how is really f*cking obvious if you stopped and though about it for 5 seconds: They do it by using 7 Light Mech’s CS and CSS. Congratulations 4th Brigade can now go out the door, but 7th is now non-deployable, so all you’ve done is rob peter to pay paul and the total number of deployable brigade formations has not gone up.
Anyone know if we can fight on two fronts at the same time?
Agree on most points. RN RAF Intell first for me.
However, the Army is still too small, needs a bit more mass.
Going to a force of 80,000 regular with 40,000 reserve and adding in an extra armoured infantry brigade seems about right to me. This is the figures that were being banded about by the Army before the prospect of lots more money appeared.
The previous obsession with keeping the army at 100,000 and saving cap badges is one of the main reasons the equipment plan is in such disarray.
If the army is really saying we need a significantly larger (war fighting) force then what we need are more reserves and even a partial draft. That’s what Poland and everyone near Russia is doing.
Our army only wants more bodies when they translate into more regular and a corresponding increase in cap badges.
Our army has always been obsessed with being a highly trained colonial policing force for its entire post 1815 history. It’s always treated reserves and conscripts with distain even though it’s never won a major war since the 19th century with a regular force.
“Major Wars” are never just fought with “Regulars”…… Even a quick search of your beloved Google would tell you that.
That’s exactly what I said.
If you gave me the choice of extra F35, P8, Typhoons, Frigates, Merlin, the MRSS, SSN, or an Army of 100k I will choose those instead.
I prioritise enablers.
The army needs more CS CSS over everything else, to enable what it has.
Can’t have more CS or CSS without extra army size.
Sadly. I hoped that some infantry Bns and “rebalancing” existing as poliicians call it might be used for the manpower….but, we’ve been through that one. They’re pretty much committed save 3 of the smaller SFAB ones.
29 RA and 24 RE at least are available, if the RM actually decide what they want to be.
Would have been rather unlikely to be enough pids anyway. You need about 8-10 units worth of CS+CSS to enable 1 and 4, you’re not getting that from 3 SFAB’s.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
HI Daniele – a question re your comment, is your preference the first item or an army of 100k?
“Corresponding increase in cap badges” what a pathetically ignorant point. Increase in personnel would in no way equate to an increase in cap badges. Adding a new brigade would mean for example, 0 new capbadges: RLC, REME, RAMS, RA, would form new battalions, not one new cap badge needed. Mercians, Lancs, Fuisiliers, Rifles, PWRR, Scots, all of these Regiments are missing numbered Battalions, which would be reinstituted in order to fill out any infantry gaps without a single new cap badge being created.
In fact the only new cap badge that the Army created since WW2 that wasn’t the direct result of an amalgamation was the creation of the Rangers, and that was following a CUT in infantry personnel numbers.
And no, we don’t need a huge reserve and draft, but again you don’t know that because you don’t bother to actually look in detail at what is required and just go with your vibes:
Reserves in countries like Poland and “everyone near Russia” work BECAUSE THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE MECHANISED. A Estonian Reservist can be called up, grab his rifle and go into his trench in his back yard and fight with minimal support and the advantage of local knowledge. A British Reservist requires vehicles, and a logistics train, in order to deploy from the UK to the Russian border, and a coherent orbat because they aren’t just going to go to their pre-determined trench and hold it until other forces can support them. So you want to bitch about how expensive a relatively small increase in Regular personnel would be? Can’t wait until the bill for having a fully mechanised reserve and draft army gets handed to you (or I’m guessing you’d rather put your fingers in your ears and just have reserves that can’t be used for anything outside the UK).
Just another thought to my post above re difficulty in finding bods if there is no increase in overall establishment.
The new Gurkha subunits of the RA forming might have enabled another GBAD Regiment.
It’ll be interesting to see what Wavell reveals.
@Daniele, well since apparently I need Jim to tell me what the deployable formations within the British Army are, maybe you should ask him. I’m sure you’ll get the finest nonsense blathering.
geez Mate -you have much patience (and persistence) replying to Jim. Interesting analysis though, thank you for the detailed insights.
@Dern
Good morning. Like many who post here I am impressed with your military knowledge – and that you are prepared to engage with ignorant trolls such as Jim. Like all trolls, he posts crap to get a reaction and desperately wants followers to agree with his idiot sayings. Everyone who posts here has to deal with Jim and his bollox.
I think that you deserve a gong for your superb effort on this topic to put the litte shit in his place.
@Dern
Good morning. Like many who post here I am impressed with your deep military knowledge – and that you are prepared to engage with ignorant trolls such as Jim. Like all trolls, he posts crap to get a reaction and desperately wants followers to agree with his idiot sayings. Everyone who posts here has to deal with Jim and his bollox.
I think that you deserve a gong for your superb effort on this topic to put the little twat in his place.
@Klonkie @David Lloyd
Thanks guys, it’s draining as hell for sure. TBH it’s clear that Jim won’t actually bother reading, let alone understanding what I’m saying, but if you guys get something out of my replies then it’s a win as far as I’m concerned.
This thread system is hopeless.
To Klonkie.
I was preferring the RN RAF assets in that list to army.
But I support the army growing at the same time.
I know…..we’re too small, mate.
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝟒𝟒.𝐂𝐨𝐦
You seemed to imply that the UK was alone in this situation.
That was to Jim…. Not sure how to interact on here anymore.
At present I think the most important thing the UK really needs to develop is its capability to do significant harm to Russia. That’s a priority need around deterrence, because I think at some point we are probably going to have some level of conflict with Russia and Putin would try to hurt the UK directly to force it out or keep it out of any fight. If we develop our conventional capabilities to meaningfully hurt Russia it’s far less likely to directly attack the UK and risk conflict with the UK. For me that’s
Deterrent
1) increase our fast jet squadrons to 12 ( typhoon because it’s more mature weapons wise)
2) increase the arsenal of airlaunched cruise missiles to 1000 and have an open cruise missile product line.
3) Buy Martel antiship missile
4) more air to air refuelling
5) big stock of cruise missiles for SSNs
6) immediately put tomahawks in any frigates that are commissioned with mk41 silos
7) effective carrier battle group that can attack from and threaten in the high north.
8) move to a fleet of 20 frigates ( 10 ASW 10GP) all with long range strike capability in the form of tomahawk until that can be replaced.
Defence wise
1) uk based iRBM defence
2) uk based multi level GBAD
3) ASW investment for escort fleet ( 10 ASW frigates min all escorts with hull sonar).
4) more ASW aircraft
5) more AEW aircraft
6) fleet of infrastructure patrol vessels
7) meaningfull civil defence structures.
The UK can best help deter Russian by showing it can meaningfully keep on hurting Russia hard by attacking its infrastructure and destroying its northern bastions and Northern fleet.. all the while being resilient to itself taking a pounding
Assuming that’s Marte, the Italian missile, rather than Martel, the out of service UK one?
That list sounds great and if the SDR makes an honest case for prioritising the Navy, actually quite achievable. Apart from the 10 T26 thing, where are the 2 extra hulls supposed to come from?
SB…. same place the rest of that list will come from !
Tacked on to the end.. for the changes needed you are looking at a decade long plan.
Hi Daniele, your point “However, the Army is still too small, needs a bit more mass” this would be great, but at the moment it would be good just to see the Army get a coherent direction and equip the current force in a balanced way, with the necessary equipment to make even the current smaller force as effective as can be with the obvious programs that are already under consideration but not ordered I.e GBAD, Boxer B2, AFV, LMP, RCH155, relevant drones.
An increase should be a target for the mid term as a follow on to fixing the current issues, I’m not sure they could handle re-equipping, fixing gaps and increasing mass all at the same time, especially considering funding levels. Generally the RAF/RN seem to have the right direction and mostly just need funding for the increase in mass and to fix recruitment and retention.
Hi John.
As I’ve been going on about for years, and which Dern has just taken Jim to task on above, what the army lacks and needs to prioritise at this moment is more CS CSS, Combat Support and Combat Service Support.
This needs attending to more than anything else.
On kit, GBAD will I’m sure increase in the SDR, and another Regiment may form. There are only two currently, It was stated a few years ago by the CGS, SHORAD, so Starstreak type, would triple, and MRAD, so Sabre, would double.
Agree with you. The current assets it has need enabling before we dream of size increases.
4 Brigade is the biggest bugbear.
Ironically we had the CS CSS for 5 Brigades, plus 16AA, plus 3 Cdo, up to 2015 and General Carter’s Strike Brigades plan.
I’ve gone into considerable detail on that before how it stripped CS CSS and the army lost its rule of 5 ability, do I cannot face typing it all out again!
Ita a pity the comment history function is no longer here, one could check previous posts that way.
A big problem for the Army is that it goes through never ending reorgs that are never fully completed before the next wave of cuts and reorganisation occurs.
Carter did huge damage with the last one, as the Army literally mutilated itself and lost one of its 3 Armoured Brigades, which it had CS CSS for, and which was mandated by HMG in 2010 SDSR, to chase Boxer and Strike which wasn’t meant to be started till 2027 as MIV.
Warrior was lost because of this.
Thanks for the response Daniele, I understand with the comments section, even the base system can be hard to follow and respond to people, I’m not sure why they took the ability to look at posting history away as that was like you say pretty useful for finding previous posts with useful information.
It seems with the Army in particular so much is resting on the SDR to confirm their direction, at some point the “waiting on the SDR” line has to end. In the last couple of days there’s been posts on X indicating it is done but not being released yet due to looking quite negative. So likely many issues not to be fixed due to funding.
Hi Daniele, I have noticed that you have given this prioritisation several times before. Might I ask you for your underpinning logic? Most seem to agree that Russia is the main threat to our continent, and by association, to the NATO alliance that we are members of. Russia has a track record going back decades of agressively deploying large numbers of ground troops across borders, so NATO needs strong forward-based armies, supported by air power, in deterrence, and if necessary to fight.
To me that means that the UK should have a strong, rapidly deployable army with RAF assets that can deliver effective CAS and can effectvely attack second echelon forces and enemy military infrastructure.
Of course AD of the UK airspace is also very important, and needs a reasonably strong RAF presence (and GBAD) .
What then has the RN to contribute to European defence? Particularly if the Russian Navy is so ineffective that it can be severely degraded by a country without a conventional Navy.
The Navy’s key AOs are perhaps further afield than Europe against foes of lower capability, unless you include China of course.
Also worth bearing in mind that the army has been near-constantly engaged in kinetic operations since WW2 in many different locations, not just in Europe, and that is not so often the case with the other 2 services, and we have in the past committed a large chunk of the Field Force at times.
The army revolves around its manpower, (the old phrase springs to mind – ‘the army equips the man, the RAF and the RN man the equipment!!) somewhat more so than the RN and RAF. Limiting manpower ie cutting from 120,000 to 72,000 in the post-Cold War era drastically limits what our army can do, in the UK (MACC/MACA/MACP), in Europe (facing Russia) and elsewhere (brushfire wars etc).
I’m not really able to speak about Orbats, but I certainly agree with you about naval blindness in the media.
So much of the talk the decline in Defence uses the words “generals”, “soldiers” and “tanks” much more than “admirals”, “sailors” and “ships”.
I imagine it is a result of American cultural influence, where the Navy is rarely mentioned, but Britain has a unique relationship with its navy and that closeness has been lost.
Just listen to anyone my age talking about ships and the sea, the ignorance is pitiful even among supposed military enthusiasts and Navy cadets.
It may be because, whilst current numbers (T23/Albions) aren’t a good look, current (T26/31) and future RN programs (MRSS/T32 other lower profile programs) seem to mostly be moving in the right direction with a more coherent strategy to fix this even with potential to increase mass in the mid term. The rate of delivery and numbers are mostly a funding issue but generally there are positive headlines.
The Army as had a lot of negative press with a number of programs and obvious key capability gaps and people see a land war in Europe and hear about the Land Forces potentially be committed despite significant capability gaps and this seems to gain attention.
I agree, but even that perspective ignores that the Navy is already actively counting undue Russian interest in the Atlantic and is thus permanently on a higher state of alert than the Army, which only ever comes into play in a war, apart from Checkpoint Charlie shenanigans.
I for one would happily throw the Army under a bus if it meant a properly resourced and armed escort fleet.
SailorBoy, that’s inter-service rivalry carried too far! The army only comes into play in a war? Seriously? Do you want a list of Operations Other Than War (OOTW) that the army has undertaken in the last 30 or so years? Op BANNER would probably be at the top of the list.
I’ll believe it’s the right direction when I see the new SDR, maybe. The rest of this decade will be tough.
If we still have more than 20 commissioned ships over 100 tons at the end of the decade, we’ll be doing well. Seven frigates, six destroyers, seven patrol/survey and two carriers should make 22, but with possible frigate delays and T23s going early, and will Scott really make it to 2033? I only hope we’ll get our SSN fleet into better shape.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝟓𝟒.𝐜𝐨𝐦
Is that a miss quote about eventually having 76 F35’s? I thought we were having 48 in the first tranche and 26+1 for the lost one on CSG 21 in the second tranche which makes 74
Mid seventies is a sensible and useful number!
I agree 74 was the previous number if it is 76….that may be to do with the two early orange wired units that are harder to upgrade to Blk4 spec [OK I know that since Blk4 became such a hot potato it has been sliced and diced].
Yes, it’s a mis-quote….. It’ 138.
It has never been 138 in service at a single moment in time.
138 was the total projected buy keeping F35B in service for the full life of QECs.
Humour never has been your strong point !!!!!
Actually that’s not quite true, 138 was the new 150 at the time of potential commitment. All other figures have come along since. figures come and go with the Seasons.
JOIN US Everybody can earn 250/h Dollar + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 Dollar a month or even more if you work as a part time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ Www.HighProfit1.Com
It was 138 to replace 400+ sea harrier, GR Harriers,, GR Tornados and Attack ver Jaguars operational at end of the 90s.
Reconnaissance Jaguars and F3 being replaced by EF.
Correction…checked history. It was at least 120 up to a nax of 150 to be ordered between 2002 and 2012 with tail end orders to match Tornado out of service date in 2017.
The general thrust is correct though, Pete.
Though I recall, initially, EF was to replace the last of the Phantoms and the Jags, while some F3 remained.
Tornado GR4 was to be replaced by the FOAS.
Buccs just went.
F35 was to replace Sea Harrier FA2s and Harrier GR9s.
With all the cuts, we have lost whole fleets of aircraft replaced by a handful of F35.
Tragic, despite their capability.
Has the definition of FOC changed? In my day it meant all tranches of the equipment had been delivered and was in service, supported and operators and maintainers trained.
This article states that FOC for F-35B will be declared before even Tr1 is fully delivered.
Yes It’s been mentioned before but this is Political speak.
Any officer at Group Captain or equivalent rank has to lose his grasp of reality and become a political animal if he wants to get promoted further. Similar in any large organisation.
Everybody can earn 220$/h + daily 1K… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a part time Work…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..go to this site home tab for more detail thank you……..
COPY AND OPEN →→→→ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝟒𝟒.𝐂𝐨𝐦
I think the definition of FOC has been adjusted to the reality of what was promised vs what LM & JPO have delivered.
Perhaps:-
1) The SDR will be published by the end of next month.
2) It will lay out a clear ten/twenty year strategy for the defence of the UK.
3) It will specify what equipment, personnel, etc are required by each of the forces to achieve 2) above.
4) Starmer will promptly accept and implement all the SDR recommendations.
5) Rachael Reeves will in a timely manner provide all the money necessary.
How many of you got to the end of 5) without laughing? Not many I imagine – I can’t get passed 1). Starmer will shit himself when he reads the SDR and sit on it (the SDR I mean) for as long as possible in the hope that Ukraine gets sorted in the next few months and as a consequence the ‘Russian Problem’ fades away. He can then argue the SDR is out of date already and spend two years waiting for another.
And thereby hangs the problem; we are led by disinterested, disingenuous donkeys.
It’s easily for everyone to take a pop at the Government but it’s really the electorate that’s ultimately driving things. All Governments are obviously concerned about getting re-elected so if the electorate really wanted to spend 5% on defence instead of increasing spend on things like old age pensions and the NHS, then any Government would do it. They’d be stupid not to.
However, you also have to bear in mind that the electorate will happily tell everyone they want defence spending to go up to 3% but then they will punish them at the ballot box if the NHS still isn’t working properly or potholes haven’t been dealt with. People are fickle and ultimately pretty self-centred when it comes to these things. Labour would be fools to think that the electorate would thank them for spending less on the NHS and more on defence.
The underlying issue we all face is the that the structure of the UK population is not the same as it was back in the 1980s when we spent 5% on defence: the falling birth rate meant that there are now relatively fewer people of working age (the number of live births fell to c.14 per 1,000 in the 1990s vs. c.18 in the 1960). Some but not all of that decline was made good by immigration.
The position we’re in shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone as it’s been visible in the demographics for the past few decades. Some people are desperate to blame immigrants for all our ills but the real problem is that we’re collectively getting older and sicker as a population so we will need to spend more and more on things like old age pensions and health & social care in the decades to come.
As a result of these demographic changes, pensioners now make up a very influential part of the electorate so Governments have tended to prioritise their interests over other groups, hence spend on the NHS and state pensions has been prioritised over areas like education and working age benefits. Governments are just chasing the votes.
Most people will not recognise the impact of old age on things like healthcare spending
There was a very good study done in 2014
At that point the nhs was funded for an average of £2200 per person per year but a man aged 18-40 cost around £1000 a year , by 85 and over they would cost an average of £7900 a year. So it was even then working out that over 65s sucked 40% of NHS resources for while representing 18% of the population.
That is before the around 15 billion pound adult social care bill for over 65s ( the total is 30 billion, but over 65s take 50% of it and 120 billion on state pension.
The big issue is that by 2070 the over 65 population will have moved from 18% to be 27% of the population..
Over 67 might be a better measure as the pension age has risen again and many 65 and 66 year olds will have no choice but to keep on working.
From the point of view of health studies 65 is still the health band used, because 65 was the retirement age for a very long time and is generally considered a key marker, so the data sets use 65 give it a decade the studies may us 68 as that will be the retirement age some time after 2028.
Of course the thrust of what you are saying is right. As long as pensioners vote more than 18 year olds, and demographically, that’s only going to get worse, attempting to reduce the amount spent on them will be difficult. It is necessary though. I’ll be there myself soon and at the moment don’t cost the HMS much more than i did when i was 40. The main difference is they ask me to do screening stuff. Back in my 40s when I gave blood, I got sandwiches, which I don’t anymore, but i doubt that evens out the balance.
LOL. Swapping HMS for NHS might be an oldie thing though. I really miss the edit. 😉
I agree. While the average Joe Public will notionally support an increase in defence spending they will also punish any government at the ballot box if, in any way, it affects the money they are getting from the state or the state services that they have been benefitting from. It doesn’t help of course that the opposition of the day proclaims that it is the end of days and pretends that, if only they are elected, they will both increase defence and spend more on other government departments. Why wouldn’t they? It consistently works. Ah, democracy.
Let me add another issue, which is the rise of the uber-rich and the alow death of the middle class over the last 20 years. The squeezing of the middle has reached a point where fewer and fewer young families can afford their own houses, whereas after WW2 even the top end of the working classes could. That means more money flowing out the the part of the economy, where people spend what they get on everyday stuff and taxes, and is going to the already asset rich, where it does nothing other than inflate stock prices and the housing market (and alters the amount the financial asset managers have on their tax-efficient books). We need to tax our economy better so the rich cease to get any richer, relatively speaking. More taxes on unearned income, less on VAT and NI.
“More taxes on unearned income,….”
I couldn’t agree more. The gap between rich and poor in this country is a serious issue and socially divisive. There were calls for a wealth tax prior to the last budget but the HMT claimed that the rich for run for the hills and we would end up collecting less tax. However, there have been a number of billionaires calling for a wealth tax for years now. Sadly, Reeves listened to the HMT orthodoxy rather than listening to what is really needed by the country.
I believe Spain now has a wealth tax and Norway has a very interesting wealth redistribution tax / rebate system.
Cheers CR
I take the point about an ageing population and voters’ general fickleness in political matters. And let’s not forget the huge cost of COVID and the growing complexities of multiculturalism. But the UK is still a relatively wealthy country and if spent wisely there is enough money to go round, including on having adequate defences.
At the moment, however, a lot of money is being wasted on ideological projects – eg funding a chronically wasteful NHS, how we calculate electricity costs, and achieving Net Zero before anyone else. That is what needs to change. Simples.
James the NHS is not wasteful, its inefficiency is generally related to underfunding… ( the sticking plaster mentality and leaving the core issue for a few years later). You cannot call a service wasteful when you wilfully underfund it by around 50% and have done for a 75 years.. what would happen to Tesco if we simply refused to pay the cost of the food we purchased and only provided it with 60% of the actual retail cost of the food.. Tesco would collapse within months.. the NHS has kept running for 75 years, when we have done the same thing.
In my view at present the UK and our allies are best served by the UK showing it can and will hurt Russia as well as be willing to take the hurt and pain if a conflict starts. At present I think the most important thing the UK really needs to develop is its capability to do significant harm to Russian infrastructure . That’s a priority need around deterrence, because I think at some point we are probably going to have some level of conflict with Russia and Putin would try to hurt the UK directly to force it out or keep it out of any fight. If we develop our conventional capabilities to meaningfully hurt Russia it’s far less likely to directly attack the UK and risk conflict with the UK. For me that’s
Deterrent
1) increase our fast jet squadrons to 12 ( typhoon because it’s more mature weapons wise)
2) increase the arsenal of airlaunched cruise missiles to 1000 and have an open cruise missile product line.
3) Buy Martel antiship missile
4) more air to air refuelling
5) big stock of cruise missiles for SSNs
6) immediately put tomahawks in any frigates that are commissioned with mk41 silos
7) effective carrier battle group that can attack from and threaten in the high north.
8) move to a fleet of 20 frigates ( 10 ASW 10GP) all with long range strike capability in the form of tomahawk until that can be replaced.
Defence wise
1) uk based iRBM defence
2) uk based multi level GBAD
3) ASW investment for escort fleet ( 10 ASW frigates min all escorts with hull sonar).
4) more ASW aircraft
5) more AEW aircraft
6) fleet of infrastructure patrol vessels
7) meaningfull civil defence structures.
The UK can best help deter Russian by showing it can meaningfully keep on hurting Russia hard by attacking its infrastructure and destroying its northern bastions and Northern fleet.. all the while being resilient to itself taking a pounding
Wow.
Jim….Jim, where to start!?
On countless occasions myself, Dern, and Jonathan have talked about the importance of CS CSS, and that 4 Brigade lacks any regular CS CSS save a Regiment of Jackal.
It is not a true deployable Brigade.
And you’re stating the official army list ( which is so crap I never use it for my own research ) that we have 5 deployable brigades as proof that what we’ve talked about for years is wrong.
Dern knows ORBAT. No use going against that, you’ll get schooled.
Mate. Yes, agree with you we need to invest in the RAF and RN rather than prioritising the army.
But the army itself needs more mass, we cannot ignore it.
It needs CS CSS before ANYTHING else.
Also a quick interest piece for anyone who might care:
http s://i.imgur. com/TxVRtN6.png
I made a quick chart to illustrate just how many “missing battalions” there are. The two Greens represent the existing Regular and Reserve formations, the Red bars represent the Battalions in abeyance (eg PWRR has 1, 3 and 4 PWRR, so there’s a gap in the number system for 2 PWRR), or reduced to incremental coys (eg 5 Scots being reduced to Balaklava Company). Long and short just by expanding incremental coys and filling in the “missing” battalions the British Army could increase by 22(!) Battalions before it needed a new infantry cap badge (and even then you can add 9 Rifles, 5 PWRR etc)
I always enjoy these ORBAT charts, when I can see them, as I understand them.
However…as always, I’m unable to access it initially!
What is going wrong?
Probably missing a space I think I put one between http and s and one between . and com.
FFS…you’ve told me that before and I did not think of that. Ok, got it.
Also, in addition to below, now reading LSOF for 11 rather than 1. Interesting.
Thanks Dern, interesting if depressing diagram.
Also, found your posts on here very interesting and informative.
Cheers CR
Also starting to see official refs to 11 Bde changing, which you’ve hinted at before.
Assume a DRSB “light” type of thing doing for 1 what DRSB does for 3?
No the name is confusing. My understanding is it’ll be a formation under LSOC with a role partnering with eastern European forces and providing specialist capabilites, eg Snipers, AT teams, Artillery Observers etc to units that have light infantry mass but not those skills. Think Polish or Estonian TDF.
Thanks. And the wider SFA role? Discarded, or back with BATTs as before?
In reality I think you can say that the army has 4 deployable brigades
3rd division has the 2 Armoured infantry brigades
1st division has 16th air assault is deployable as is 7th light mech.
As you say 4th light brigade is essentially a light role infantry battalion place holder, it’s as far away from a deployable brigade as you can get, for it to be a deployable brigade I believe it’s missing:
1 an artillery regiment for fires
2) engineering regiment
3) logistics regiment
4) medical regiment
5) electrical and mechanical engineering battalion
In reality each of the light role battalions would also need protected mobility vehicles as would all the CS CSS regiments.
1st DRSB, is just a place holder for fires and CAV and not only needs. Logistics, medical, engineering CSS, but it also needs 2-3 Mec infantry battalions to make it deployable.
all in all I believe the army would need to shift in 2-3 infantry battalions and 7 CS,CCS regiments/battalions into 1st and 4th ans have 6 fully deployable brigades.. it could get some of that by being a bit brutal and disbanding 11th security assistance brigade… but a quick tot up still puts the army down about 4-5 thousand people.