Reduction in the size of UK Army

[diy_fun_uk]

What do you think about this (if anything)?

Plans are also afoot to reduce the quantity of traditional hardware e.g. tanks.

The rationale is modern warfare is increasingly not fought with boots on the ground or in tanks, hence a move to drones and concentration on cyber capabilities.

Are we more exposed now we're out of the EU and is the assertion justified that, with a reduction in trained personnel, we could find ourselves spread too thin in the future, putting the nation at risk.

Defence review: British army to be cut to 72,500 troops by 2025 - BBC News

 

[JohnD]

Tory cuts, mate.

They've been in power 11 years.

You can always rely on Johnson to let you down.

What did he say when he wanted your vote?

'We will not be cutting our armed forces in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed services,' Mr Johnson said as he unveiled the Tory manifesto in Telford.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...end-one-Royal-Navys-aircraft-carriers-US.html

"A report in The Sunday Times had claimed that the Tories were scrapping a commitment to 'maintain the overall size of the armed forces' made two years ago by Theresa May. "

 

[ellal]

Increased threats from all over the place apparently, so let's cut out the people that really matter...

It's all very well droning on about drones and 'cyber warfare'...

But when the sh*t hits the fan it's boots on the ground that count!

Unless of course the tories hierarchy can reprogram their AI sex dolls?

 

[conny]

The only way I can see AI being better than boots on the ground, is if one country had the technological advantage to destroy everyone else AI, whilst being able to fully protect their own AI capabilities in the process.
A bit like Cowboys not trading guns with the Indians being able to be the superior in battle. Once you start sharing your weapons with someone, even your allies, you are giving away your advantage.

 

[charliegolf]

It's not cuts, you dimwits, it's 'right-sizing'.

Couple of observations: The C130 fleets are going in 2023. OK, we have the A400M, twice the lift, twice the distance. But how many places can one A400M be at once? How many places can 3 C130 be at once? Get the picture.

Puma HC1 served for 40+ years before an upgrade (rebuild) in 2015. They are being scrapped! V1.0 40 years, V1.1 <10 years. Clever eh?

There's loads of gems like that in the document.

We have forgotten: Quantity has a quality all of its own...

 

[ellal]

Borisconi is of course at the same time getting a second 'official' plane and a £9m bunker...

 

[Bodd]

As in numbers of soldiers, what are they going to do against the numbers of Russia and China... wars will be fought differently..

Who would have thought you can go into a shop, with very few staff and just walk out with what ever you want... the world is changing. Cyber technology is the new cannon fodder.

 

[charliegolf]

As in numbers of soldiers, what are they going to do against the numbers of Russia and China...

Nothing. But it has been proven over and over again, that if you want to play at being one of the world's peackeepers, you won't succeed without troops on the ground. That's a whole other argument. And now there will be c8k fewer.

 

[IT Minion]

Nothing. But it has been proven over and over again, that if you want to play at being one of the world's peackeepers, you won't succeed without troops on the ground. That's a whole other argument. And now there will be c8k fewer.

Really there's no change, the Army has been understrength for decades now.

We're choosing to go big on flashy items but reduce the quantity. That means we're less flexible for low intensity warfare and prolonged engagements but when the Russians pour through the fulda gap all three of our remaining tanks will be very capable.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

It's not cuts, you dimwits, it's 'right-sizing'.

Couple of observations: The C130 fleets are going in 2023. OK, we have the A400M, twice the lift, twice the distance. But how many places can one A400M be at once? How many places can 3 C130 be at once? Get the picture.

Puma HC1 served for 40+ years before an upgrade (rebuild) in 2015. They are being scrapped! V1.0 40 years, V1.1 <10 years. Clever eh?

There's loads of gems like that in the document.

We have forgotten: Quantity has a quality all of its own...

I can't remember the manufacturer and model names, however I think they touched on this on the news last night. They mentioned a tank that's currently in service (with caterpillar tracks) being replaced with a vehicle that has 4 tyres. Granted they'll be whatever the military equivalent of run-flat is, however whilst there will be a strategic reason for this, you'd think tanks can get places 4 wheeled vehicles can't in terms of underlying terrain?

I know diddly squat about military strategy, however rightly or wrongly I think it's imperative that we continue to invest and keep our personnel numbers up, if nothing to show other countries that we are still more than capable. I get that some people think 'waste of money, we should be disarming and pushing for peace' and on a moral level I agree with that. However there are a lot of countries around the world that have no intention of following that mantra.

Ok you might laugh, however do we actually know what the future holds in 10, 15, 20 years time and beyond? Should we ever find ourselves under attack, surely better to be as prepared as possible? There again, if the attack was nuclear ...

 

[^woody^]

It's not cuts, you dimwits, it's 'right-sizing'.

Couple of observations: The C130 fleets are going in 2023. OK, we have the A400M, twice the lift, twice the distance. But how many places can one A400M be at once? How many places can 3 C130 be at once? Get the picture.

Puma HC1 served for 40+ years before an upgrade (rebuild) in 2015. They are being scrapped! V1.0 40 years, V1.1 <10 years. Clever eh?

There's loads of gems like that in the document.

We have forgotten: Quantity has a quality all of its own...

The whole point of the review is to plan for the operations that we may need in the future, not for the ones we had in the past.

As the UK is an island state, the Navy and Air Force are more important than a standing army, so limited resources should be used where most useful. The review has clearly identified the type of conflict that we may be involved in and so the stand-off involvement and use of the expeditionary more mobile force is more important. Any major conflict is going to involve working with our allies and their resources.

 

[^woody^]

I can't remember the manufacturer and model names, however I think they touched on this on the news last night. They mentioned a tank that's currently in service (with caterpillar tracks) being replaced with a vehicle that has 4 tyres. Granted they'll be whatever the military equivalent of run-flat is, however whilst there will be a strategic reason for this, you'd think tanks can get places 4 wheeled vehicles can't in terms of underlying terrain?

Tanks have tracks not tyres.
Armoured cars and troop carriers can have tyres or tracks.

Current thinking is that a wheeled vehicle is more versatile, and most conflicts wont be fought over large expanses of muddy ground like the past wars. In any case, soldiers don't shoot the tyres of opponent's vehicles but will just use a suitable weapon to attempt to destroy the vehicle regardless of it it has tyres or tracks.

 

[IT Minion]

The whole point of the review is to plan for the operations that we may need in the future, not for the ones we had in the past.

The British Army should be a projectile to be fired by the British Navy

Circa 1918 or so.

We do have two shiny aircraft carriers so we're still prepared for Falklands part 2, but we're now accepting our lesser goals for interventional warfare.

 

[^woody^]

still prepared for Falklands part 2

People forever cry "Oh we wont be able to do another Falklands", and that's a perfect example of living in the past and planning for past conflicts. The Falklands are so well defended, and intelligence much improved, that the need to have a massive task force is just not there.

 

[JohnD]

We do have two shiny aircraft carriers

leaky aircraft carriers