General UK Defence Discussion

[Poiuytrewq]

So the Army it self said it has a need for 190 CH3 but HMT will not fund them in the same way that they have a need for 90 M270a2 but will get 76

Exactly.

It’s defence up to a point and down to a price.

If the UK is to step up and do more then those requirements will need to be further upgraded.

Clearly funding will never be infinite so the priorities will need to be establishes and hopefully sufficient funding allocated but by SDSR25 both the elections in the U.K. and the US will have be concluded and a clearer picture of the political landscape will have emerged.

If the U.K. election turns out to be May rather than November then it could yet be SDSR24.

[wargame_insomniac]

Whethet it ends up being UK SDR 24 or 25, the Armed Forces need to consider target audiences.

If it was the Tory bunch of bankers (pun half intended) i.e. MOST UNLIKELY as of early March 2024 and current opinion polls, then it would need to be PowerPoint presentation with small packets of data in bite sized chunks, and tell them the same thing three times in forward / contents / summary but trying to make the same points sound different enough so not seemingly repititive.

Keep the acronyms like the audience i.e. nice and simple. Buzz words have a shelf life but hopefully you can get out of the prrsentation and even the building before audience learns this fully.

And in classic Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister, slap enough hidden messages and criteria that desired conclusion seems obvious, but most importantly, convince them it was their brilliance that came up with such an idea in first place.

In core of presentation want to start with what all the core Defence Respnsibilibilies and Missions are that can be afforded by current budget.

But put in at least 1 or 2 optional upgrades because you don't want your target audience thinking you had forgotten it. (i.e. Senior Conservative MP's so even Marc Francois somehow stands out as beacon against the Defence Darkness).

Then as you progress upwards through the sacred NATO Spending Percentages , you would include optional upgrades including enough of what any sane person to be key UK Defence Respsponsibilities (don't forget increased audience participation worth double the points,

Now I suspect that none of the above is going to accomplish half as much against what I suspect is the likeliest audience for any UK SDR 2024 / 2025 pitch as that, according to opinion polls as of early March 2024 is still most likely to be New - New Labour, possibly with a sprinkling of Minority Governement with the as yet undsicovered Lib Dems or those members of SNP that have not yet been jailed for err borrowing the SNP Motorhome sitting on Mr Nicola Sturgeon's driveway.

So the point is that to suceed at UK SDR 2024 /25, the MOD won't be reliant on memories of classic 80's sitcoms, and some of the shocking tripe I have seen presented in many an annual Finance Budget Redorecast Proposal which feels to have as much originalitiy as the NOW pop classic CD's.

Hopefully you'll take most of the above as what my brain counts as light hearted attempts at humour at this time of the evening.

But more importantly and seriously I hope that MOD is spending this time pre-Election and pre-open conflict with China / Russia / North Korea (shudders) and Iranians, along with their various henchmen and proxies, for thinking through

firstly on immediate improvement in staff recruitment / training /retention together with rebuilding of stores and production chains munitions / spares / maintenance parts (no more Just- in-Time ordering of parts please).

secondly to recognise it feels like its 1938 but that General Public still thinks its 1928 in the runup towards WW2. The point is that US, UK & EU are nt set up as if it is wartime production. And so many of our weapons and platforms are high quality, state of the art, amazing bits of kit under certain scenarios. But what resilience do are Armed Forces have. What sort of mass or durability for fighting in real world conditions? If an escort or fast jet gets sunk, how long willl it take to make a replacement? And not for some Mid30's Defence Paradise, what About in the next year, 18 months max.

Each of the 3 UK 's Armed Services has a huge number of current and upcoming projects. I am not going to attemt to re list them all today. I just hope they (The MOD) do it in a way that maximises what UK Labour Party can be persuaded to do in the immediate here and now.

[wargame_insomniac]

E.g. I gather we have contractually have to pay for all 5*E7 Wedgetail radar systems.

If true it is even more short sighted that UK MOD is only going ahead with 3*E7 Wedgetails to save money.

If The Idiot does win Republican nominations and then the 2024 US Presidency elections, and then goes ahead with US unilateralism, and shiftUS Armed Forces focus from NATO to Western Pacific, then IMO it is all the more important that UK takes a lead role in European theatre-wide AWACS, RC135 Rivet Joint ELINT aircraft and to be able to at least contribute our share of P8 Poseidon, Strategic Airlift and tanker refuelling.

And on Naval side bringing at least one carrier in turn with Fleet Tanker and AAW Destroyer (i.e. get T45's through PIP and add additional VLS ASAP) given how useful they seem go be proving in practice even for the USN in the Red Sea / Sea of Oman at this.moment in time.

[Repulse]

What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

I can understand why you say this but it’s completely the wrong way to look at things IMO - defining our role by the amount of money that is available is ok up to a point, but it’s exactly this that is causing the over extension whilst the basics are ignored.

The UK is not a superpower but can afford to be a regional power with global reach. Next we need to work out what our interests are and prioritise them - the budget will then define how far the list can be afforded.

If HMGs ambition is to have one deployable Division that’s not always reliably guaranteed to be deployable then the U.K. role in Euro NATO is going to continue to diminish especially if other members really start to step up.

When it comes down to it I think HMG will step up and do more but it will be tough love from the US that will eventually kick start the process.

Much better to be proactive and start now before the rug gets pulled.

Assuming that globally supporting allied nations is on the list then this does need to be considered. However, there is zero appetite and need to deploy anything larger than a sustained contribution of a brigade outside of the defence of the UK and our BOTs. I include NATO in this. No one wants to see a repeat in the Middle East and like Korea anything in the far east will be brigade level support by naval (carrier task group) and air assets (RAF surveillance aircraft, tankers, transport and perhaps a squadron of Typhoons). It needs to be capable to do this in an alliance that does not contain the US.

The Falkland was a two brigade affair, along with a two carrier task group, that would be the limit but would have to be done independently.

The UK does need to be smart though and putting it in a rather frank way, it needs to support others to do the fighting. Ukraine is a good example of this, plus with the option to strengthen with SFs/RMs/Paras/Rangers along with air / sea assets. This is why the UK needs to make better use of its BOTs.

Above and beyond all of this the UK needs to have capabilities such that even superpowers would avoid a direct conflict with us - nukes, cyber, A2AD, BMD, SFs, regional sea control are all part of this.

Just my two cents

[Poiuytrewq]

Just my two cents

IMO it is all the more important that UK takes a lead role in European theatre….

Perhaps the U.K. should now aspire (once again) to be the most capable military in Europe, with global reach but not necessarily comprise the largest in terms of armour and massed ground formations.

The U.K. could and should at a minimum continue as the leading partner in the JEF region with the military capability to allow the US to safely withdraw the bulk of its forces from the JEF region without compromising the security of those countries.

Just to fill the vacuum caused by even a partial US withdrawal from Europe would be a huge undertaking for Euro NATO.

Perhaps the foundations for SDSR25 should begin from that starting point.

[Tempest414]

Just my two cents

IMO it is all the more important that UK takes a lead role in European theatre….

Perhaps the U.K. should now aspire (once again) to be the most capable military in Europe, with global reach but not necessarily comprise the largest in terms of armour and massed ground formations.

The U.K. could and should at a minimum continue as the leading partner in the JEF region with the military capability to allow the US to safely withdraw the bulk of its forces from the JEF region without compromising the security of those countries.

Just to fill the vacuum caused by even a partial US withdrawal from Europe would be a huge undertaking for Euro NATO.

Perhaps the foundations for SDSR25 should begin from that starting point.

So to be clear the army will have or has funding for 148 CH3 , 589 Ajax , 1000 Boxer , Jackal , Foxhound , Archer SPG , 76 M270a2's , Sky Sabre for the next 2 to 3 decades plus under FS it will have 20 infantry Battalions , 2 Armoured regts , 7 Cavalry regts , 6 Artillery , 7 Logistics regts , 6 REME regts & 11 Engineer regts in the Field Army.

It will also have HQ-ARRC with the 104th Theatre support brigade & 1st Signals brigade plus the 6th Div with the Special Operations Brigade ( Rangers ) and 77th brigade ( Cyber ops )

On top of this we have the 11th Security Force Assistance Brigade , FS units , RM and RAF regt

so this is what we have to work with

[jonas]

Another UK footprint in the Gulf :-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/he ... -air-base/

[downsizer]

Another UK footprint in the Gulf :-

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/he ... -air-base/

We've been at Minhad for decades, not exactly a new footprint.

[Repulse]

Perhaps the foundations for SDSR25 should begin from that starting point.

IMO forget waiting for a SDSR. The last thing defence needs is more fluff and unfunded aspiration - it just needs to get on with the inevitable required changes quietly and without the unnecessary political spotlight.

The reality of no new funding and in fact cuts to capital expenditure in defence following the budget should hopefully bring a close to the end debate of all the new things we can afford. It should be how can we become war-ready with what we’ve got, what clear lines need to be drawn on ambition and what cuts are needed to pay for anything that is essential or to ensure that it’s a reality and it has real sustainable depth.

I’m sure we can come up with a list but these are the top 5 for me.

1) If it can’t be sustained it’s unaffordable - we need to get real about depth both in people and supplies. Stopping trained people leaving is worth the price of a few tanks / jets / frigates.
2) We need to enable others to do the fighting when it’s not a direct threat to the UK. Training, ISR enablers and providing kit with associated supply chains should form a core part of our defensive strategy.
3) Stop any ambition of any large scale ground expeditionary interventions anywhere (yes and that includes within NATO). Anything larger than a reinforced Battlegroup deployment is a thing of the past. Also think light - if you can’t fit 3+ of them in a C17 or put in / sling it under a helicopter or land it via a LCVP it’s too big and heavy. Equally, stop trying to police the world’s sea routes EoS - and yes that means stop Kipion. By all means have ships EoS but nothing significant permanently forward based - an OPV or two plus a commercial HADR/SF platform operating out of Diego Garcia should be it.
4) Start taking the defence of the UK and BOTs seriously - A2AD (in all domains) and BMD are glaring holes, as are equipped defence forces that can scale.
5) Focus on high end offensive air and sea capabilities that can be deployed and sustained at range from the UK - long range missiles / aircraft / UAVs, SSNs and CEPP. On reflection, linked to #3, I would cut LSDs and light frigates, to get both LPDs active to sail with the CSG.

I’m sure others will have different views

[Poiuytrewq]

so this is what we have to work with…..

So what needs to be added to ensure the U.K. has 3 deployable Divisions with all necessary enablers? Could it be achieved with a headcount below 100k? Should this now be the scale of the ambition. It was a totally different security landscape back in 2010.

Even with a headcount of 73,000 it should be possible to form two genuinely deployable Divisions…..a Rapid Expeditionary Divison plus a fully resourced 3rd Division. This should be the absolute bare minimum from a nation with a £50bn defence budget.

What could 1st Division add to an Expeditionary Division to make it more deployable without a vast increase in capital expenditure?

Can the Rangers fit into 16AAB?

Can the Gurkhas scale up to a fully formed Brigade if the headcount needed to rise?

Does the Army need an Arctic/Mountain Bridgade?

Is increased funding more important than increased headcount or vice versa?

[Poiuytrewq]

The reality of no new funding and in fact cuts to capital expenditure in defence following the budget should hopefully bring a close to the end debate of all the new things we can afford.

The chancellor said today that everyone realises that more money must be spent on defence but first a plan must be formed on how to spend it.

Confirmation that there is no idea where to efficiently spend it so HMT is refusing to fund it.

Exactly as previously discussed.

No coherent plan, no more money. No surprise.

Stop any ambition of any large scale ground expeditionary interventions anywhere (yes and that includes within NATO). Anything larger than a reinforced Battlegroup deployment is a thing of the past.

So over the next decade the U.K. will spend more than one half of a £Trillion on defence and the best that can be expected is to deploy a reinforced Battlegroup?

Bonkers.

I’m sure others will have different views

Variety is the spice of life.

[wargame_insomniac]

The chancellor said today that everyone realises that more money must be spent on defence but first a plan must be formed on how to spend it.

Confirmation that there is no idea where to efficiently spend it so HMT is refusing to fund it.

Exactly as previously discussed.

No coherent plan, no more money. No surprise.

That would be true if cuts weren’t needed to live within current budgets - it is not. I’m all for prioritisation and making the most of the money being spent, but the chancellor is playing a dangerous game of misdirection.

Stop any ambition of any large scale ground expeditionary interventions anywhere (yes and that includes within NATO). Anything larger than a reinforced Battlegroup deployment is a thing of the past.

So over the next decade the U.K. will spend more than one half of a £Trillion on defence and the best that can be expected is to deploy a reinforced Battlegroup?

Bonkers.

Should have said the UK should have the ability to deploy multiple reinforced battlegroups simultaneously globally, but yes I think a statement of intent as clear as this is required.

The money is irrelevant - it’s about prioritisation, there are plenty of other things that are needed, or if they aren’t we do not need to spend the money on defence at all.

With a strategy to train and equip others to fight and no appetite for nation building, then I see absolutely no need to do more. The UK needs to be able to defend itself, but by having a clear scope for expeditionary land warfare it has a clarifying effect across a number of areas.

What I would spend the money on instead? I’ve already given my view - increased stocks, better conditions, plus top end capabilities (A2AD, BMD, long ranged missiles and bombers/UAVs, SSNs, ISR/MPAs, more T26s).

[Tempest414]

so this is what we have to work with…..

So what needs to be added to ensure the U.K. has 3 deployable Divisions with all necessary enablers? Could it be achieved with a headcount below 100k? Should this now be the scale of the ambition. It was a totally different security landscape back in 2010.

Even with a headcount of 73,000 it should be possible to form two genuinely deployable Divisions…..a Rapid Expeditionary Divison plus a fully resourced 3rd Division. This should be the absolute bare minimum from a nation with a £50bn defence budget.

What could 1st Division add to an Expeditionary Division to make it more deployable without a vast increase in capital expenditure?

Can the Rangers fit into 16AAB?

Can the Gurkhas scale up to a fully formed Brigade if the headcount needed to rise?

Does the Army need an Arctic/Mountain Bridgade?

Is increased funding more important than increased headcount or vice versa?

As I have said in the past we need to rework FS into 3 new Divisions

The New 1st Div with 16AA Brigade , 2 x Light Mech Brigades 1 x Reserve Light mech brigade =

1 x Cavalry regt , 3 x infantry battalions , 1 x Close Combat logistics regt , 1 x RE regt

New 3rd Div with
1 x DRS
3 x Type 46 Armoured brigades + 1 x Reserve Heavy Mech brigade =

1 x Cavalry regt , 1 x Armoured regt , 2 x Infantry regt , 1 x CC Logs regt , 1 x RE regt , 1 x REME regt

New 6th Div with the

11th Security Force Assistance Brigade , Ranger brigade , 77th brigade , New SF Brigade

The new 6th Div would be the UK's first line in global effect by training and supporting allied nations with this in turn supported by the 1st Div

this would leave the 3rd Div to get on with JEF and NATO

[sol]

Can the Rangers fit into 16AAB?

Why would anyone do that? They have different roles.

Can the Gurkhas scale up to a fully formed Brigade if the headcount needed to rise?

If there is a need, 3rd Battalion could probably be reformed in some way (It was already in process of reforming as assistance battalion but its two formed companies were used to bring Ranger battalions to strength instead). But there is no need or reason to have fully formed Gurkha Brigade, not since UK withdrew from the Far East and Hong Kong.

Does the Army need an Arctic/Mountain Bridgade?

3rd Commando usually covered Arctic area.

New 3rd Div with
1 x DRS
3 x Type 46 Armoured brigades + 1 x Reserve Heavy Mech brigade =

1 x Cavalry regt , 1 x Armoured regt , 2 x Infantry regt , 1 x CC Logs regt , 1 x RE regt , 1 x REME regt

No chance for 3rd armoured brigade to be formed, there is neither enough support or RAC units for that, unless you cut somewhere else.

[Poiuytrewq]

That would be true if cuts weren’t needed to live within current budgets - it is not. I’m all for prioritisation and making the most of the money being spent, but the chancellor is playing a dangerous game of misdirection.

The RDEL budget was always due to contract in 2024/2025. It’s nothing new.

The Defence Select Committee raised it after the last spending review.

The issue is the lack of a cash boost to offset inflation and not enough resource to replenish stockpiles and replace military aid faster.

Should have said the UK should have the ability to deploy multiple reinforced battlegroups simultaneously globally, but yes I think a statement of intent as clear as this is required.

IMO the Integrated Review is now obsolete and the review refresh was a bad joke. All of the assumptions need to be revisited and HMT needs to stop insisting that the SDSRs are written within a budget envelope. The security landscape is too dangerous and volatile now.

The reason so much more needs to be spent now is simply due to the realistic plausibility of a peer on peer clash. That requires mass that has been incrementally removed over the last 20 years. It will be expensive to reinstate but it’s inevitable that the process will begin.

A few battlegroups simply won’t cut it. That is a peacetime luxury that isn’t impressing anyone anymore.

3 deployable Divisions should be ambition by 2030 with 2 truly deployable Divisions ready within 2 years. There is no time for a 10 year plan any longer.

3rd Division is a mess. It can and should be fixed hopefully within 2 to 3 years but it will take the Boxer, AJAX, Archer, increased MLRS and CH3 to start arriving in numbers to truly make it fit for purpose against a peer. It’s an absolute priority that this happens asap.

The money is irrelevant - it’s about prioritisation, there are plenty of other things that are needed, or if they aren’t we do not need to spend the money on defence at all.

Agreed up to a point but increasing usable mass and increasingly deployability from the current headcount must be one of those priority areas.

With a strategy to train and equip others to fight and no appetite for nation building, then I see absolutely no need to do more. The UK needs to be able to defend itself, but by having a clear scope for expeditionary land warfare it has a clarifying effect across a number of areas.

Nation building has nothing to do with it.

The British Army has taken the global training provision to the extreme. It’s very commendable but other areas need the investment now. It may be unfashionable but it’s the traditional areas of mass, deployability and sustainability that need the funding prioritisation now.

What I would spend the money on instead? I’ve already given my view - increased stocks, better conditions, plus top end capabilities (A2AD, BMD, long ranged missiles and bombers/UAVs, SSNs, ISR/MPAs, more T26s).

That’s great but commentators are screaming for a massive funding increase now.

How much of your list can be achieved within 3 years or 5 years or even 10 years?

That is reason why HMT is holding out.

Credible, costed and coherent plan first, funding second.

[Repulse]

The issue is the lack of a cash boost to offset inflation and not enough resource to replenish stockpiles and replace military aid faster.

So we are agreed then, by not increasing the defence budget it’s being cut in real terms and savings have to be made.

IMO the Integrated Review is now obsolete and the review refresh was a bad joke. All of the assumptions need to be revisited and HMT needs to stop insisting that the SDSRs are written within a budget envelope. The security landscape is too dangerous and volatile now.

The reason so much more needs to be spent now is simply due to the realistic plausibility of a peer on peer clash. That requires mass that has been incrementally removed over the last 20 years. It will be expensive to reinstate but it’s inevitable that the process will begin.

Agree the SDSR process is the wrong way round. The ambition should be set and then costed, if the ambition cannot be afforded, then it’s reduced until it is.

As I’ve explained “mass” is only one view of what’s needed - IMO given NATO outnumbers Russia and its contribution in numbers elsewhere will be small it’s the wrong view. It should be quality & capability.

A few battlegroups simply won’t cut it. That is a peacetime luxury that isn’t impressing anyone anymore.

3 deployable Divisions should be ambition by 2030…

Depends on what you want to achieve - a few forward based / rapid deployment Battlegroups to combine with larger regional forces is all I think we need to contribute to JEF, especially if that is combined with top tier air, sea and space assets. Why just replicate what others have? The UK does that need a large army to defend itself.

What are needed however are UK focused defence units - call them divisions if you want that could be a seed corn of an expeditionary force if one was ever needed.

What I would spend the money on instead? I’ve already given my view - increased stocks, better conditions, plus top end capabilities (A2AD, BMD, long ranged missiles and bombers/UAVs, SSNs, ISR/MPAs, more T26s).

That’s great but commentators are screaming for a massive funding increase now.

How much of your list can be achieved within 3 years or 5 years or even 10 years?

That is reason why HMT is holding out.

Credible, costed and coherent plan first, funding second.

There is no doubt an increase to 2.5% now could be used to avoid cuts and start longer term procurement plans and transformation programmes - it of course needs to be coupled with a re-org and a crackdown on waste, but it’s misdirection to say nothing more can be spent productively.

[sol]

The UK does that need a large army to defend itself.

UK still have NATO obligations to met. UK also could have engagement outside NATO North or Eastern flank. Both Gulf Wars and Falklands were done outside NATO engagements and there is no guaranties there might be some in the feature. UK could hardly expect to deploy fully formed division on itself, unless it is really necessary, but it should be able to provide one or two fully formed brigade combat team(s). After all, deployable brigade combat team was one of the points of FS. Few battlegroups could only be viable in short terms, for longer engagements UK would need to pull its weight, just like everyone else.

[Tempest414]

Can the Rangers fit into 16AAB?

Why would anyone do that? They have different roles.

Can the Gurkhas scale up to a fully formed Brigade if the headcount needed to rise?

If there is a need, 3rd Battalion could probably be reformed in some way (It was already in process of reforming as assistance battalion but its two formed companies were used to bring Ranger battalions to strength instead). But there is no need or reason to have fully formed Gurkha Brigade, not since UK withdrew from the Far East and Hong Kong.

Does the Army need an Arctic/Mountain Bridgade?

3rd Commando usually covered Arctic area.

New 3rd Div with
1 x DRS
3 x Type 46 Armoured brigades + 1 x Reserve Heavy Mech brigade =

1 x Cavalry regt , 1 x Armoured regt , 2 x Infantry regt , 1 x CC Logs regt , 1 x RE regt , 1 x REME regt

No chance for 3rd armoured brigade to be formed, there is neither enough support or RAC units for that, unless you cut somewhere else.

You are right it would be pushing it somewhat so maybe back to 2 x type 56 regts plus one reserve Sqn also under FS there would be 20 infantry battalions I would be looking at keeping 15 of them in my layout above and rerolling the 5 remaining units

If can say the average infantry unit is 600 troops maybe we could take the 5 units = 3000 troops and split them into 5 close combat Logistics regts of 400 troops and 4 Brimstone overwatch regts of 250 troops

[Poiuytrewq]

So we are agreed then, by not increasing the defence budget it’s being cut in real terms and savings have to be made.

Not really. See here.

Agree the SDSR process is the wrong way round. The ambition should be set and then costed, if the ambition cannot be afforded, then it’s reduced until it is.

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.

Depends on what you want to achieve…..

Peace and prosperity through deterrence.

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

There is no doubt an increase to 2.5% now could be used to avoid cuts and start longer term procurement plans and transformation programmes - it of course needs to be coupled with a re-org and a crackdown on waste, but it’s misdirection to say nothing more can be spent productively.

Fine by me but buying a few more pieces of massively expensive kit won’t make any tangible difference in real terms.

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

The follow-on from that needs to be a new strategic vision concentrating on peace and prosperity delivered through overwhelmingly capable but primarily conventional deterrence.

After that the budget can be set and the shopping list can be drawn up.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why would anyone do that? They have different roles.

Where do the Rangers fit in against a peer?

3rd Commando usually covered Arctic area.

Should they carry on in that role?

If the U.K. is to remain as the leading nation in the JEF region as our main land contribution to NATO why rely on a shrinking 3 Cdo to operate in the Artic and sub-Artic?

Surely the army should do more?

[SW1]

However it’s all the mundane things like wage rises, improved housing, stockpiles and maximising what the U.K. already possesses that would make the biggest difference.

Agree and they definitely resonate, but that’s a reason for inflationary increases combined with a reprioritisation of resources / better management, not for 3%.

It’s totally the wrong way around.

The case for extra funding must be linked to a fully costed proposal to confront a tangible threat or simply shoulder more of the burden going forward.

SDSR25 is the perfect opportunity to make the case for a sustained increase and a reprioritisation of resources.

IMO 3% is simply not realistic in an election year but an increase to 2.5% is becoming increasingly unavoidable so where that funding is allocated is the top priority now. That amounts to an increase of at least £6bn per annum. Enough to solve all the current problems, ease the bottlenecks, reverse the bad decisions brought about by a lack of funding, reset the stockpiles and upgrade and maximise existing platforms.

Allowing SDSR25 to be drawn up within a 2.5% fiscal envelope raising incrementally to around 3% by 2030 would be an interesting read but it really should be based on perceived threats and burden sharing rather than a percentage based calculation.

Where any extra money will go



And if you want to fix something in the next 5 years this would be a good place to start

[Tempest414]

Why would anyone do that? They have different roles.

Where do the Rangers fit in against a peer?

3rd Commando usually covered Arctic area.

Should they carry on in that role?

If the U.K. is to remain as the leading nation in the JEF region as our main land contribution to NATO why rely on a shrinking 3 Cdo to operate in the Artic and sub-Artic?

Surely the army should do more?

By having a new 6th Div with
11th Security Force Assistance Brigade , Ranger brigade , 77th brigade and a new SF Brigade with the SAS , SBS & SRR

This should be the UK's first level global effect training & supporting allies

In war time the 11th could would step in to train new UK troops the Rangers would conduct low level SF ops along the lines of SOE in WW11

[topman]

[

And if you want to fix something in the next 5 years this would be a good place to start

I wonder when it bottoms out.

[new guy]

It's not even a population issue; Its Crapita.

[SW1]

[

And if you want to fix something in the next 5 years this would be a good place to start

I wonder when it bottoms out.

Certainly doesn’t look like anytime soon going by those charts. Maybe if the economy turns. But there is such a shortage of engineering and pilots in the civilian world there won’t be a shortage of opportunities.