"U.K. Ministry of Defence's Command Paper Calls For" Topic

… Drastic Cuts In the Army

"The former head of the US military today warned the UK will be 'getting very close to not being able to contribute' on the world stage if it goes ahead with a 10,000 troop cut to the size of the British Army amid mounting fury over the Government's defence shake-up.

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 is a 'huge concern'. He said slashing troop numbers by that much would leave the British Army 'pretty small' and roughly the same size as the US Special Forces…"

YouTube link

Main page
link

Armand

We now have NATO armies that have barely enough combat troops to fill a high school gym (to paraphrase a comment made years ago about the Canadian army's cut backs).

Hurrah, this means the end of wars, right?

Peace in our time

Retirement of 53 Typhoons is suss. 53 is the number of Tranche 1 Typhoons that were meant to be retired last time. 16 pf these have already been broken down for spares, leaving 37.

Unless they are retiring Tranche 2 jets whiwhich would leave force well under 100 jets.

In an aviation source I read 24 as nimber of Typhoons to be scrapped.

As for early retirement of Type 23s that would gut the RN and compromise planned ship building plans (esprcially in terms of trained crews).

Unilateral disarmament works…………………….usually to the benefit of your enemies. Of course, other than perhaps Spain, over the Gibraltar issue, I think the UK is pretty safe from external attack.

I don't see any mention of cuts to the F-35 force, though I thought that was under consideration too, which makes those two new aircraft carriers rather suspect. Of course, there aren't really enough escort vessels to adequately protect them, so perhaps they can be used for Red Bull Flugtag launching events again, in order to bring in revenue, and not make them totally useless.

Might be some issues on the high seas, and littoral ones, over fishing too.

Faslane could get interesting if the northern territories decide to secede, though of course if you don't have a navy, you no longer need the naval base there.

Perhaps they can dredge a river or two, or a small bay, if they lose that and decide to keep their ballistic nuke subs, which IIRC are way behind on construction anyway.

I'm sure Britain will never be called upon to defend its Allies and interests ever again! Never more a Falklands crisis, Russian stare-down or war or fray…must feed the ever rapacious social welfare beast with a peace dividend, huzzah!!

NATO ill-prepared for large-scale war in Baltics, finds Swedish report

NATO members are ill-prepared should a large conflict arise, according to the Swedish Research Agency's findings assessing the military power of the Alliance and their partners in comparison to Russia.

According to the findings published on March 11, Russia would overtake the Baltics within days since NATO would be too slow in its retaliation. Russia would have an advantage since NATO forces are too spread out, too varied in their military capabilities and their training together is insufficient.

link

Thresher, there no explicit cuts to F-35 but no commitments to additional aircraft after initial 48 (of ehich only 42 were ordered so far that I am aware of).

Yep, I suspect those little Baltic states could be re-absorbed into "the Motherladn" in 36 – 48 hours, with little combat of any consequence – just minor skirmishes here and there.

Back that up with the threat of nukes if anyone tries to liberate "sovereign Russian territory" and it'll be a fait accompli.

Thanks for the info on the F-35s.

Looks like even we are growing weary of ALL the issues with them, and the vast cost overruns.

The post headline and many of the subsequent comments seem to be missing the reality of what is happening.

UK defence spending is being increased, not cut. An extra GBP 24bn over the next 4 years.

The number of people in the army isn't being reduced by 10,000. The authorised strength (target number) is being reduced from 82,000 to 72,000 but they had not been able to recruit 82,000 – current strength is only about 76,000. In particular there are a lot of understrength infantry units and nobody seems quite sure why we have so many light (no AFV) infantry.

The fighters being cut are the old Tranche 1 Typhoons that were retained for longer than planned to keep squadron numbers up whilst F35 was brought in.

48 F35s have been ordered, including test and development aircraft. There is a mention of these all being delivered by 2025 and more to follow but no hard numbers. I agree 48 is too few ato make the most of the new carriers, even with recent announcements about adding medium-capacity catapults and arrestor gear to operate mid-sized UAVs (35,000 pound class, IIRC). I'd really like to see a plan for the third and fourth F35B squadron rather than the 2 plus an OCU that we have so far. I guess that would need about 70 aircraft in total. The expectation is for about that number but I'll be happier when this is official.

The two oldest T23 frigates are going, leaving only 11 (plus 6 T45 destroyers) but the building plan is increasing to 8 T26 + 5 T31 + 5 T32 to give 18 frigates plus the 6 T45s and studies are starting on the T45 replacement.

The scandal for me is the army. This has been run into the ground over the last 20 years, despite absorbing the greatest share of the budget because of the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions were spent on equipment for which has no use now (and much is apparently worn out anyway). Another couple of billion has been spent on AFV programmes that delivered no vehicles, like FRES and, most recently, £200.00 GBPm on Warrior upgrades just before announcing it would be withdrawn. Another GBP 15bn is to be spent on AFVs in the next few years and there doesn't seem to be a lot to show for it. It looks like we will have a good army for deploying light armoured forces around the world to deal with militias and insurgents but completely incapable of facing a peer enemy with lots of armour, fires and air defence.

Correction to the above. I wrote that the T1 Typhoons had been retained to keep squadron numbers up until F35 came in.

Page 61 of the report says that there will still be 7 Typhoon squadrons, plus the F35 squadrons and that the number of F35 aircraft will grow beyond the current 48 on order.

The (pretty much single role A2A) Tranche 1 Typhoons are being replaced in those squadrons with later model multi-role Typhoons.

Interesting.

Surprised they're ditching the Typhoons so soon, since those seem like they'd be very capable aircraft, even the first production models.

You're going to need lots of F-35s, since their serviceability rate is horrendous, 50% or lower, and it seems, or seemed to average somewhere between 30% – 50% depending upon the time periods, models, and units, with US forces.

Thresher01: "Surprised they're ditching the Typhoons so soon, since those seem like they'd be very capable aircraft, even the first production models."

Yes, seems like the RAF either keeps aircraft for ever or retires them early with no happy medium!

Checking, the T1s entered service in 2006 and the plan is to retire them by 2025 so only 19 years. On the other hand it is quite a small sub-group and (I am told) has substantial differences to the Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft, can't use the latest weapons, little or no air to ground capability, isn't going to get the radar upgrade and have been run quite hard to keep the hours off the later aircraft.

72,000 army troops for a country of 68 million? Subtract non-combat troops and you have what (I'll guess 72,000 is roughly 4 divisions worth, so about 20,000 riflemen)?

It is probably closer to 10,000 combat arms, 9 battalions or 3 brigades with a 7 to 1 ratio.

However on paper I am willing to bet it is far worse with skeleton formations made up of a handful of men clutching the regimental colors so they can say the unit still exists…

Yea, I think DG is closer to the mark, given all the support and logistical tails of various units.

If they're smart, they'll hold marksmanship refresher course for the office clerks and drivers, and ALL the other troops too, just in case.

Might want to invest in some extra picks, shovels, brooms, and pitchforks too, in case a militia, or citizen army needs to be raised quite quickly, like they did back in WWII, before and after Dunkirk, in order to nix the hopes of any would-be invaders.

Extra plastique to blow the chunnels might be a good idea too.

The British Army's problem is almost exactly the opposite of what you two think: too many riflemen and not enough usable AFVs, fires, helicopters, etc. 30+ regular infantry battalions (and, no, they aren't just "a handful of men clutching the regimental colors"). Whilst the infantry have been really good at holding on to cap badges, the armour and artillery have been cut in numbers and left with obsolescent equipment.

Thank you I stand corrected.

I was just commenting on how many actual combat troops, infantry, artillery, armor, etc., that actually are armed, equipped, trained and expected to fight. Used a wild eyed guess that the average combat division is roughly 15-20,000 men and usually only about 25% of those are combat troops.

So, if the US Army rated 17th in the world in 1940 or so, where does the UK rate today?

Not trying to be offensive, just curious as to what war they might be prepared for, or could handle.

I note the AEW&C replacement fleet is down to a mere 3 Wedgetails (reduced from 5 and represents a reduction from 7 E-3Ds originally acquired).

That means on average only 1 E-3 will be available.

That is a big loss. AEW&C are a massive advantage in air combat, so much that a fighter supported by AEW&C is almost guaranteed to shoot down a fighter without AEW&C support.

And overall numbers of AWACS in decline in Europe:

UK – originally 7 E-3D, planned to replace with 5 Wedgetail. Now down to 3

France – 4 x E-3F

NATO – originally 18 E-3A. Now down to 14 (1 destroyed in accident, 3 retired). Upgraded but no replacement until 2035 (and nothing currently planned). Not upgraded to same standard as USAF E-3Gs.

Turkey – 4 x Boeing 737 AEW&C Peace Eagle

Greece – 4 x Erieye EMB-145H AEW&C

Italy – 2 x G550 CAEW

Only other western operator of AEW&C style aircraft is Sweden which had 4 S100B equipped as AEW&C but now only operates 2!

30+ regular infantry battalions (and, no, they aren't just "a handful of men clutching the regimental colors"). Whilst the infantry have been really good at holding on to cap badges, the armour and artillery have been cut in numbers and left with obsolescent equipment.

Yep – indeed whole of current 1st Division is 28 Infantry Battalions in 4 Brigades with only an Engineering, Logistical and Medical support. There is no air defence, reconnaissance, armour, artillery, air defence, EW, NBC or anything approaching a modern combined arms formation!

Purpose of this formation was to provide a pool of units for expeditionary operations. In essence it was a return to the old 19th century colonial light infantry whose purpose was to garrison the empire, occasionally put down insurgents and guard convicts!

There is no separate active Army recce/armour/artillery units available for this "Division" as they are all concentrated in 3rd Armoured Division.

The 3rd Armoured is the sole conventional force in the British Army. It is arguably over strength in artillery (9 regiments) but understrength in certain other key areas such as air defence (systems are ageing or obsolete and lacking in medium air coverage).

And under this new plan, it's losing more capability than it's gaining – loss of Warrior (Boxer is not in the same class and only wheeled) and further reductions in artillery including loss of armoured tracked AS90 SPHs and reduction in Challenger MBT numbers.

Also given early retirements of Type 23s I doubt full number of frigates (18 = 8 Type 26, 5 Type 31 and 5 of the supposed Type 32) will be built.

Early retirement of Type 23s means lack of ships to maintain crew proficiency. The Navy will have to massively ramp up recruitment to go from 17 (now 19) surface combatants + 1 carrier to 24 larger ships +2 carriers.

In any case the Type 31 frigate is really an OPV with no combat capability whatsoever – it's whole combat capability is a single 57mm gun and a secondary 40mm gun. Calling these frigates is a political expedience.

Given some River/Forth class OPVs are being withdrawn, it makes sense Type 31 replaces them.

----

Loss of C-130J will impact special operations too. French and Germans have figured out A400 is no good for special operations and are acquiring a joint force of C-130Js for special operations (first time ever Germany will operate C-130s).

So Britain will be left relying on NATO partners for this function. Not exactly great as these may not be available.

Note special forces are about the only thing in western militaries that still functions well so losing airlift capability here is a big hit.

Oh and another big loss – Mine counter measure fleet is going!

Apparently they will invest in an unmanned capability jointly with France.

link

Amazing that mine warfare is so neglected in the west yet sea mines are still one of the cheapest and most capable methods to wreak havoc on shipping and China, Iran, Russia etc etc all invest heavily in such systems.

Finally my thoughts are that these changes overall weaken NATO considerably in the key north eastern flank as they reduce ability to reinforce the front.

Already NATO's frontline force in Baltics are regarded as nothing more than a trip wire force.

To stop a Russian incursion into Baltics let alone mount offensive action to retake any lost territory requires reinforcement from western European forces (American forces on the ground are limited and would take much more time to redeploy).

Yet the reserve pool is considerably depleted and these British cuts further reduce the ability to respond in a meaningful manner especially as the British military was still the most potent force in this part of the world regardless of previous cuts.

France's army is bigger but has many issues and is poorly equipped for conventional warfare (2 somewhat defanged "heavy" brigades" whilst the German army is in a pitiful state.

Dutch have 3 brigades but two are light and the third is mechanised but lacking in armour.

Belgians have only a single light motorised infantry brigade left with virtually no support.

Danish military is capable and equipped for conventional warfare but small (a single operational brigade).

This means any real resistance would be by the relatively obsolescent Polish military (4 divisions plus several independent formations) which is also lacking in many key defence capabilities (eg airborne guided AT).

Article 5 is meaningless if NATO partners have nothing meaningful to deploy to defend allies

Again it seems NATO is obsolete a unified EU military is required to properly defend European interests.

Hmmm -seems new Type 32 might also not be a proper frigate:

link

The document also expanded on the plans for a new class of Type 32 frigates that will be used to ‘protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups.' Naval Technology understands that the resultant Type 32 vessel may not be a frigate in the traditional sense.

Also:

link

There are rumours Type 32 might be a drone mothership:

However, defence procurement minister Jeremy Quin – who is in charge of buying the nation's military kit – has already hinted at the ship's future role.
Responding to a parliamentary question, the Tory minister claimed the new warships would be deployed as a floating mothership for drone and autonomous tech, which is currently being trialled by the navy.

‘The programme and procurement strategy for Type 32 will be decided following the concept phase, which has not yet been launched,' he said.

‘Further work is required to develop the operational concept however it is envisioned that Type 32 will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the navy's capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasure.

Sooo not a traditional warfighter and noted as a ship designed for littoral Work which probably means a more COIN/anti terrorism emphasis (remembering the Russian and Chinese proliferation of long range land based anti-ship missiles which are giving everyone headaches and forcing a total revamp of USMC operations).

Indeed both Type 31 and Type 32 are appearing to not be combat vessels but rather support, COIN, presence or even constabulary ships especially for Type 31.

I think the UK is looking towards the requirements of the military in the future not those in the past.

Don't get worked up about an article from the Daily Fail either, it's a newspaper for the mentally deficient.

Newarch, just because the Daily Fail it doesn't mean it's not reporting the truth (or mostly truth).

This news has been confirmed in many other sources including reputable ones.

I think the UK is looking towards the requirements of the military in the future not those in the past.

Which would appear to be a continued focus on low level COIN/policing operations, which is contrary to what USA is doing and what NATO is saying.

If Russia (or China as they're spruicking) was really the goal, then Type 31 and 32s are a waste of time and what is needed is more attack subs and Type 26 frigates.

If the Russia is the goal, then you still need tracked IFVs ala Warrior and armoured SPHs (instead of something like CEASAR which isn't armoured and crew work outside and which is apparently being considered for AS90 replacement).

The reality is the British military is so neglected and procurement so bungled that its cost prohibitive to try to repair existing capabilities. Thus some are being removed entirely.

I don't even expect this new plan to be fully implemented, mainly because previous plans have not been fully implemented except for the cutbacks.

----

Finally whilst I get the need for cyber defence, you still need to maintain robust kinetic capabilities. Cyber defence should not be a military role (except for its own systems), but rather something handled by specialised services operated by intelligence/counter intelligence agencies.

The military needs to focus on kinetic capabilities ie blowing things and killing bad guys.

I was referring to non-combatants, not just riflemen.

IIRC, in many/most militaries, only 5% – 20% ever see combat, so the tail to tooth ratio for non-combatants is very high