General UK Defence Discussion

[Repulse]

Not really. See here.

Those numbers include funding for Ukraine, reserve monies and also other factors that are being spun.

That’s exactly how it works now.

Write a report including threat assessments and make recommendations. HMT refuses to fund the recommendations so review is rewritten and recommendations are diluted again and again until the funding required hits HMTs acceptable level.

Thats how the MoD is in crisis mode and has been for decades. It needs to change for SDSR25.

The first draft is pointless and any rewritten version is not a ground up re-review of what can be achieved with the available money, it’s a salami slice of capabilities not a full adjustment of ambition based on priorities. Political interference, inter service arguing and sheer incompetence then ends the process into what is then spun in a glossy 100 page document that says very little.

Peace and prosperity through deterrence.

Agreed, no one can argue with that - it’s how you achieve it where we all differ.

Forget mediocre and slow Army divisions, more tactical nukes / long range strike, cyber, ISR combined with capable allied forces in region.

Anything else is failure and a couple of small but perfectly formed Brigades will do nothing to deter any potential peer adversarie(s).

Disagree, having small self contained and rapidly deployable units, flexible highly trained and equipped gives the ability to quickly support and influence events. They are the perfect addition/support to JEF or globally.

There is no priority for an expensive Division, at best it makes up numbers when the resources can be used much more wisely.

What is missing is an admission that 2010 was a mistake, the Integrated Review lacked scale and the current funding allocation is insufficient.

The problem with the SDSR 2010 was not mass, it was it incoherent nature with fundamental decisions driven by short term cash savings, last minute political interventions and the distortion of Blair’s wars in Afghanistan/Iraq.

What was the legacy? Key capabilities removed which now money has been wasted to rebuild or reversed - MPAs, Carriers, JHF, Sentinel R1 are just a few.

[Repulse]

Is 2% enough?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP | 8 Mar 2024

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2-enough ... n-mp-ojade

Two ministers didn’t get the memo.

[Poiuytrewq]

Those numbers include funding for Ukraine, reserve monies and also other factors that are being spun.

It’s not a cut. There is just no additional funding.

It will just be short term sticking plasters to keep the wheels turning until SDSR25.

I’m not sure why everyone is acting so surprised.

Forget mediocre and slow Army divisions, more tactical nukes / long range strike, cyber, ISR combined with capable allied forces in region.

Two things.

• How does all this amazingly expensive technology reverse a major incursion without mass behind it?

• Is the British Army now just designed to lead other nations armies and provide the finest SF in the world?

It’s time for a rethink.

Disagree, having small self contained and rapidly deployable units, flexible highly trained and equipped gives the ability to quickly support and influence events. They are the perfect addition/support to JEF or globally.

Absolutely as a blocking force but what next when up against a peer?

Against a peer the Army needs a blocking force capable of slowing or stopping an incursion. This blocking force then needs to be urgently reinforced by mass to consolidate the maximum extent of the incursion. Then an offensive force needs to have the capability to swiftly reverse the incursion without suffering unnecessary losses.

The low cost counter insurgency model is unfortunately no longer viable for the foreseeable future.

There is no priority for an expensive Division, at best it makes up numbers when the resources can be used much more wisely.

The U.K. needs at least 3 deployable Divisions for the reasons listed above.

The problem with the SDSR 2010 was not mass, it was it incoherent nature with fundamental decisions driven by short term cash savings, last minute political interventions and the distortion of Blair’s wars in Afghanistan/Iraq.

The lack of mass is evident everywhere. The headcount issues are never ending due to the cut in mass.

It will take a lot of funding to fix and the reversal of 2010 is inevitable.

It’s just a question of what a suitable structure is going forward as the pre2010 or pre1991 structure wasn’t perfect either.

SDSR25 is only a year away now and the mainstream commentariat is still arguing over fractions of percentage points on spreadsheets.

It’s not exactly inspiringly proactive.

[Repulse]

It’s not a cut. There is just no additional funding.

It will just be short term sticking plasters to keep the wheels turning until SDSR25.

I’m not sure why everyone is acting so surprised.

I’m not surprised, but the defence budget has not increased with inflation over a long period now.

Two things.

• How does all this amazingly expensive technology reverse a major incursion without mass behind it?

• Is the British Army now just designed to lead other nations armies and provide the finest SF in the world?

It’s time for a rethink.

To your first point, the UK will not be reversing a major incursion on foreign soil by itself. The only time this could be a potential scenario is if the UK itself was invaded or another Falklands - that is very different. Out side of this the UKs role is for us to define, and the more valuable role is to offer capabilities such as dead strike and destroying supply lines than it is to just pitch up with an average mechanised division.

On your second point, to a degree absolutely - maybe more than just SFs but small elite / highly capable units providing top tier capabilities yes.

Absolutely as a blocking force but what next when up against a peer?

Against a peer the Army needs a blocking force capable of slowing or stopping an incursion. This blocking force then needs to be urgently reinforced by mass to consolidate the maximum extent of the incursion. Then an offensive force needs to have the capability to swiftly reverse the incursion without suffering unnecessary losses.

Again, the UK can provide a lot more than just mass here - continental forces will always need to do the heavy lifting here.

The low cost counter insurgency model is unfortunately no longer viable for the foreseeable future.

COIN is dead, but if you think the grey war isn’t getting more significant you’re not paying attention.

The U.K. needs at least 3 deployable Divisions for the reasons listed above.

Different views, but I don’t think there is a case for this at all. The UK would make up less than 10% of deployed ground fighting troops and tanks even with three divisions and that’s excluding the US.

The lack of mass is evident everywhere. The headcount issues are never ending due to the cut in mass.

Yes the lack of personnel is evident, but we aren’t talking the scale you are talking about. It’s about paying and treating people properly, it’s about having the resources to support what we have and it’s about capability above numbers. The drive for mass could just kill of the UK armed forces as a serious fighting force.

It will take a lot of funding to fix and the reversal of 2010 is inevitable.

It’s just a question of what a suitable structure is going forward as the pre2010 or pre1991 structure wasn’t perfect either.

SDSR25 is only a year away now and the mainstream commentariat is still arguing over fractions of percentage points on spreadsheets.

It’s not exactly inspiringly proactive.

The next SDSR will be as damaging as all the rest until a clear strategy is defined and funded. This will stop the stupid inter service rivalry. Also, to pretend that the armed forces will be significantly larger than they are now is just a dream that needs to die quickly.

[Caribbean]

until a clear strategy is defined

So what, to your mind, constitues a clear strategy? Perhaps that's where we should all start, with agreement on that

[new guy]

HMS Richmond has done things:

[SW1]

until a clear strategy is defined

So what, to your mind, constitues a clear strategy? Perhaps that's where we should all start, with agreement on that

There is no vision or strategy being offered by either of the main political parties for the country no goal to aim for and work toward, so defence does not have a viable strategy to support a vision that does not exist.

The last 2 years has provided a little more clarity on who we might need to be equipped to fight but not how we might have to fight them. Which is why the last 30 years of procurement choices have left so many contradictions in what is being bought and said.

[Tempest414]

until a clear strategy is defined

So what, to your mind, constitues a clear strategy? Perhaps that's where we should all start, with agreement on that

For me it is hold a tire 1 fighting capability ready in to fight in the Euro Atlantic region plus remain capable of deploying light mech fighting capability by air and sea globally

As said when it comes to the Army the 3rd Div should be the UK's main means of land fighting in the Euro Atlantic with the 1st Div holding 16AA and 2 x Light Mech brigades and the UK's main means of Global response alongside 3Cdo brigade.

The 6th Div with the 11th Security Force Assistance Brigade , 77th , Rangers and SF would be the UK's first and main means of global engagement backed up and supported by the 1st Div

[Poiuytrewq]

You are going to have to spell out how you see that working against a peer with possibly 5 million men at arms within 3 years.

The rest of Europes armies are in a similar state to the U.K. so placing complete confidence there may be unwise at this stage.

Much depends on a US contribution and that is also less than assured.

[Repulse]

There is no vision or strategy being offered by either of the main political parties for the country no goal to aim for and work toward, so defence does not have a viable strategy to support a vision that does not exist.

Absolutely this - without stated a vision and goals everything else is rudderless.

Whilst plenty will disagree, I would say Brexit actually did give pointer to a vision.

In my worlds,

Our vision is to be “a leading independent democracy that can nimbly build alliances that support our global interests and wealth creation, capable of walking with superpowers but not be consumed by them.”

Our goals are to;

- be strong enough to independently defend ourselves from superpowers with less than 1% of the world’s population
- build alliances to create stability that protects and maximises wealth creation and deters / counters competing nations

[serge750]

You are going to have to spell out how you see that working against a peer with possibly 5 million men at arms within 3 years.

The rest of Europes armies are in a similar state to the U.K. so placing complete confidence there may be unwise at this stage.

Much depends on a US contribution and that is also less than assured.

Russia is struggling to recruit to fight a limited campaign in Ukraine, let’s not overdo it. If there was a general mobilisation, it would still take years to equip and build enough supplies to launch a credible campaign. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen but with the EU population being 3 times that of Russia it works both ways. 3 Divisions will be irrelevant in this case.

Your point however on the US is valid, and if there was a conflict in the east between the US and China, then Russia (and others) will try to take advantage and this is the likely scenario. The EU once awoken will not lack mass, it lacks the other things that the US brings, things that fit well within a broader UK strategy.

[SW1]

There is no vision or strategy being offered by either of the main political parties for the country no goal to aim for and work toward, so defence does not have a viable strategy to support a vision that does not exist.

Absolutely this - without stated a vision and goals everything else is rudderless.

Whilst plenty will disagree, I would say Brexit actually did give pointer to a vision.

In my worlds,

Our vision is to be “a leading independent democracy that can nimbly build alliances that support our global interests and wealth creation, capable of walking with superpowers but not be consumed by them.”

Our goals are to;

- be strong enough to independently defend ourselves from superpowers with less than 1% of the world’s population
- build alliances to create stability that protects and maximises wealth creation and deters / counters competing nations

The vision should be to become the foremost export orientated trading nation in the world by investing in human capital and infrastructure.

[Repulse]

There is no vision or strategy being offered by either of the main political parties for the country no goal to aim for and work toward, so defence does not have a viable strategy to support a vision that does not exist.

Absolutely this - without stated a vision and goals everything else is rudderless.

Whilst plenty will disagree, I would say Brexit actually did give pointer to a vision.

In my worlds,

Our vision is to be “a leading independent democracy that can nimbly build alliances that support our global interests and wealth creation, capable of walking with superpowers but not be consumed by them.”

Our goals are to;

- be strong enough to independently defend ourselves from superpowers with less than 1% of the world’s population
- build alliances to create stability that protects and maximises wealth creation and deters / counters competing nations

The vision should be to become the foremost export orientated trading nation in the world by investing in human capital and infrastructure.

Happy to blend that but also - though would add world leading technology to the list of investments.

[Poiuytrewq]

Russia is struggling to recruit to fight a limited campaign in Ukraine, let’s not overdo it.

That’s right now today. You can’t make planning assumptions on what you expect to happen next week.

You also have to plan for the best and worse case scenarios and everything in between.

3 Divisions will be irrelevant in this case.

Irrelevant? You must be joking.

If the US pack up and go home every soldier will be relevant never mind British Army Divisions.

[new guy]

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... Jan-21.pdf

good show of future devonport

[topman]

https://archive.is/8wrrq

More issues with recruiting.

[Ian Hall]

[Ian Hall]

[Poiuytrewq]

Extremely illuminating.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... orces.html

• Grant Shapps was offered 2.5% GDP in a decades time! Effectively 3 parliaments away.

• Heappey proposing increase to 2.5% by NATO 75 summit in July.

• Heappey proposing all parties commit to 3% in the next parliament.

• £10bn required to properly replenish stockpiles

• Currently unfunded priorities include:

- Integrated air and missile defence system to protect the UK.

- Increase SSN numbers to 12 through AUKUS

- Further batches of T31 required

- More Destroyers required when T45 replaced

- Get the Army back to having two fully deployable divisions. One should be heavily armoured and the other more mobile

- The current Army strength of 73,000 is too small


It’s amazing how sensible current planning could be if HMT would provide the funding.

[SW1]

Extremely illuminating.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... orces.html

• Grant Shapps was offered 2.5% GDP in a decades time! Effectively 3 parliaments away.

• Heappey proposing increase to 2.5% by NATO 75 summit in July.

• Heappey proposing all parties commit to 3% in the next parliament.

• £10bn required to properly replenish stockpiles

• Currently unfunded priorities include:

- Integrated air and missile defence system to protect the UK.

- Increase SSN numbers to 12 through AUKUS

- Further batches of T31 required

- More Destroyers required when T45 replaced

- Get the Army back to having two fully deployable divisions. One should be heavily armoured and the other more mobile

- The current Army strength of 73,000 is too small


It’s amazing how sensible current planning could be if HMT would provide the funding.

Really is that all sensible on top of everything else?

Nothing on that equipment wish list is not achievable with current funding they just don’t have the chops to make the decision and pick what it does and doesn’t want to do. Because they would buckle in a second to the vested interests of what they deleting to make it so.

[Tempest414]

https://archive.is/8wrrq

More issues with recruiting.

So the problem is not people wanting to join it is the crap recruiting firm

[Tempest414]

https://archive.is/8wrrq

More issues with recruiting.

So the problem is not people wanting to join it is the crap recruiting firm

[Jdam]

The government really has backed themselves into one hell of a corner on this one.

When it comes to funding and what to do with it we have this wonderful catch 22 going on, if they admit they need funding and what they would spend it on the question becomes "why did you cut it in the first place and why has it taken to now to do something about it?" something that won’t go down too well in an election year with current world events.

How the hell do you go to the HMT and put out you case for more money as well it’s such a multi layered issue:

• Can the MOD prove they make the best use of the money they get now?
• The recruitment issues seem more and more to be an MOD issue not a volunteer issue, so that not really money issue.
• Why should we give money to companies when time and again they can’t deliver on budget and on time?
• Is there any long term planning what so ever and what it is, tell us where this money will go.
• When a lot of this money buys foreign equipment, what contribution are these programs making to the economy?

My thoughts are all over the place here and I’m know it’s a lot more complicated than I’m putting down here but I am sure the MOD could have put itself into a much better position to allow themselves to ask for this money.

Russian and other countries have let us know there intentions for the last decade and now we seem to want to react

[Poiuytrewq]

Really is that all sensible on top of everything else?

I think the short answer is, yes, absolutely it really would be sensible.

It’s just time to fund it and do it now.

[Poiuytrewq]

My thoughts are all over the place here and I’m know it’s a lot more complicated than I’m putting down here but I am sure the MOD could have put itself into a much better position to allow themselves to ask for this money.

At least they are starting to articulate what is required that can’t be currently funded.

It’s not much but it is a start.