General UK Defence Discussion

[mr.fred]

Clearly that’s a contractual matter between contractor and client.

Yet you wish to base a plan upon it being resolved in the least likely way?

However, hypothetically speaking, how would future MoD procurement decisions be influenced by a contractor who walked away with £5bn for a vehicle program that failed to meet minimum requirements and was abandoned due to it being unsuitable for use with the British Army?

Probably less badly than it would if the MoD cancelled a functioning program and spent millions on lawyers failing to get money back?
Even if they succeeded it would make all future MoD-industry relations somewhat fraught. Plus I remain skeptical that you'd get anything comparable cheaper or quicker than Ajax from where we are now.

[Poiuytrewq]

Yet you wish to base a plan upon it being resolved in the least likely way?

Is Ajax really fixed? Or is it just easier to say it’s fixed?

That remains to be seen because if it turns out to be a bag of spanner’s then it should have been cancelled years ago regardless of the amount of money sunk into it.

Regardless, this must be a watershed moment for MoD procurement. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that such a fiasco is impossible to repeat.

Probably less badly than it would if the MoD cancelled a functioning program and spent millions on lawyers failing to get money back?
Even if they succeeded it would make all future MoD-industry relations somewhat fraught. Plus I remain skeptical that you'd get anything comparable cheaper or quicker than Ajax from where we are now.

Fraught industry relations?

Since when did the MoD become a hostage to industry?

[mr.fred]

Since when did the MoD become a hostage to industry?

Since they sold off all of their ability to design and build new equipment.

Is Ajax really fixed? Or is it just easier to say it’s fixed?

More that at least half the money has already been agreed upon and paid out at given milestones. It may have been wrong to do so, but it is done so I don't think it possible to recover it.

That remains to be seen because if it turns out to be a bag of spanner’s then it should have been cancelled years ago regardless of the amount of money sunk into it.

Sunk costs work both ways. How much would it cost from here to finish deliveries and make fixes compared to buying new.
Buying new would cost £6bn or so to replace the vehicles, £3-4bn has already been spent and some of the remaining £2-3bn is likely already committed or would be lost if you cancelled the contract. The Ajax contract could grow to £9bn-odd before it becomes cost-neutral to cancel it and start new from here. i.e. the £3-4bn already down is the starting point for either route.
Assuming that a replacement buy was a similar size to the Ajax buy.

Regardless, this must be a watershed moment for MoD procurement. Safeguards must be put in place to ensure that such a fiasco is impossible to repeat.

Can't really disagree with that.
Not committing to production until you've ironed out the bugs on prototypes would seem a good place to start.

[Poiuytrewq]

Since they sold off all of their ability to design and build new equipment.

That wasn’t smart and it should be seen as a sovereign national security necessity and therefore reinstated but that will take time.

Procuring low risk vehicles that are easily upgraded whilst building back skill sets in the U.K. is the ultimate answer along with watertight contracts to ensure if any dispute resolution mechanism is weighted heavily in favour of the taxpayer.

The Ajax contract could grow to £9bn-odd before it becomes cost-neutral to cancel it and start new from here. i.e. the £3-4bn already down is the starting point for either route.

That is the same argument that manages to prolong the agony of HS2. Unfortunately sometimes the most rational solution is to cancel the contract and take the hit. Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 was an UK procurement disaster but it was the right call as was buying the P8.

Ajax should have been culled 4-5 years ago. Now more money has been spent and therefore it could be argued either way from a financial viewpoint but if there are more issues and delays to come, continuing with such a troubled program will have been the wrong decision.

However my opinion hasn’t changed, I would swallow hard cancel Ajax, delete Warrior and build 900-1000 CV90 in conjunction with a mixed procurement of Boxer, Patria 6x6 and SuperCat HMT.

[mr.fred]

That is the same argument that manages to prolong the agony of HS2.

With HS2 I think you could cancel it with no replacement without really affecting anything other than those directly involved.
I've not been involved with discussions on it so I don't know what arguments get advanced, but I hope no-one is suggesting that taking an alternative route would somehow be able to leverage funds already spent on HS2 to-date.

Unfortunately sometimes the most rational solution is to cancel the contract and take the hit.

Maybe it is, but it doesn't change the numbers. Cancelling Ajax will not bring the funds expended back, so any subsequent procurement will be an additional cost.
If it cost £1 more to bring Ajax into service, fulfilling all contracted requirements the rational choice is to root around the back of the settee and find the £1. If it would cost £6bn then the rational choice is to give that even consideration to cancelling it and buying new. The latter case has the advantage that the "buy new" option allows you to change the mix, specification, and quantity of the vehicles
That's why I caveat my observations with my assumptions.

However my opinion hasn’t changed, I would swallow hard cancel Ajax, delete Warrior and build 900-1000 CV90 in conjunction with a mixed procurement of Boxer, Patria 6x6 and SuperCat HMT.

That's because you apparently have access to a magic money tree that would cover the £10bn+ just the CV90 procurement would cost, and think that the Ajax programme is an irredeemable failure.
I don't have such an entertaining arboretum and am not so convinced that Ajax is a dead duck.

I think Warrior, plus any Scimitars remaining, plus all stocks of 30x170mm should be sent to Ukraine

[Poiuytrewq]

The latter case has the advantage that the "buy new" option allows you to change the mix, specification, and quantity of the vehicles
That's why I caveat my observations with my assumptions.

Don’t forget operating costs and commonality with Allies. Those considerations are important also.

That's because you apparently have access to a magic money tree that would cover the £10bn+ just the CV90 procurement would cost, and think that the Ajax programme is an irredeemable failure.

I don’t like Ajax and the whole gradual creep of added requirements and weight, higher cost and endless delays. IMO the CV90 was the one that got away, at least temporarily.

Boxer should be a great procurement decision but it’s too expensive and being built too slowly to give the Army the required mass and therefore the Patria 6x6 is a great alternative at a lower cost. The HMT is an amazing platform at a great price.

I don't have such an entertaining arboretum and am not so convinced that Ajax is a dead duck.

Why are you so convinced based on the programs performance to date? Is it just blind optimism?

Magic money trees aren’t required. It’s government policy to increase defence spending to 2.5%. That amounts to around £1.5bn to £2bn extra for the Army per annum.

If the funding doesn’t materialise then it’s a non-issue but if it does appear then the Army had better know where it is going to be spent.

I think Warrior, plus any Scimitars remaining, plus all stocks of 30x170mm should be sent to Ukraine

When? Now or 3, 5 or 8 years from now?

How can you argue that there is no money for extra kit and then suggest the UK goes for maximum largesse and gives away the Warriors?

[mr.fred]

Why are you so convinced based on the programs performance to date?

I look at the information presented. At present I think let it run with increased scrutiny.

Is it just blind optimism?

I'd like to think it's no more that than your opinion is based on pure spite.

When? Now or 3, 5 or 8 years from now?

If Warrior is going out of service in 2025, we should be able to start drawing down now or soon. The reversing camera contract is for slightly over half of the original fleet.

How can you argue that there is no money for extra kit and then suggest the UK goes for maximum largesse and gives away the Warriors?

Because I think there is more to be gained providing them to someone who can use them than holding on to them for two more years.
It costs us very little, once disposal costs are accounted for.

[Poiuytrewq]

I look at the information presented. At present I think let it run with increased scrutiny.

I very much hope your faith in the program is proven correct.

I'd like to think it's no more that than your opinion is based on pure spite.

Pure spite isn’t fair but my concern is that the Army won’t learn their Nimrod/T45/T26 lesson.

It can’t be business as usual.

If Warrior is going out of service in 2025, we should be able to start drawing down now or soon. The reversing camera contract is for slightly over half of the original fleet.

Thats years away. We need to be pragmatic.

Originally I would have suggested donating virtually the entire inventory and using the opportunity to rebuild the Army from the bottom up. Even though much of the kit is old and obsolescent it would have made a real difference.

Unfortunately the political rhetoric and the funding released by HMT has not aligned so nothing further should be donated until funding is secured for the replacements.

The state of the Army is a critical national security issue now.

Because I think there is more to be gained providing them to someone who can use them than holding on to them for two more years.
It costs us very little, once disposal costs are accounted for.

To be replaced by what?

Where is the mass?

Current planning is effectively un-mechanising the British Army. The entire justification for reducing the headcount is to provide more kit, not put them afoot.

That is why the DCPR was such a pathetic waste of time. Where is the new and improved ORBAT? Everyone’s guessing but nobody knows.

THAT is a major problem as vehicles are due to be deleted and the replacement numbers, timescales and procurement schedules are not matching.

Blaming everything on no more money simply isn’t good enough anymore.

[mr.fred]

Pure spite isn’t fair

Nor blind optimism.

my concern is that the Army won’t learn their Nimrod/T45/T26 lesson.

It can’t be business as usual.

If we expect industry to be held to its contracts then I think that should go for MoD as well.
If they aren't held to account and just handed more money to fix their mistakes, will they learn from that?

Thats years away. We need to be pragmatic.

Two.
While we're only using half the fleet.
And the Scimitars are being replaced sooner.

To be replaced by what?

Where is the mass?

Replaced by whatever they are going to be replaced by in two years' time.
Isn't the Strike concept supposed to do away with the need for mass?

[Poiuytrewq]

Nor blind optimism.

Agreed.

If we expect industry to be held to its contracts then I think that should go for MoD as well.
If they aren't held to account and just handed more money to fix their mistakes, will they learn from that?

Its a balance. Lots of mistakes have been made and lots of lessons learned but the main cause is underfunding. Over optimism from both client and contractor propagated by a desire to achieve more with less or pack too much into a program due to declining mass elsewhere is the fundamental problem. It can be fixed.

- Over optimism and unrealistic targets much be met with unmovable firewalls going forward.

- Funding must match ambition or a tripwire mechanism should be unavoidably activated to stop the program at the outset. The program must not commence until funding criteria is fully met including baked in contingency funding.

- Auditors outside of the programme management must assess the risk levels in terms of timescale, capability and budget. If the level is too high the program must not commence.

- Dispute resolution needs to be clear at the outset and heavily weighted in favour of the taxpayer. If the contractor over promises, under delivers and blows the budget then a clear mechanism is in place to deal with that.

Bleeding edge tech is vastly complicated but the procurement contracts shouldn’t be complicated at all. If the MoD wants to save real money, start here.

Two.
While we're only using half the fleet.
And the Scimitars are being replaced sooner.

Another gap?

Perhaps following the Poles example would be a better idea.

Replaced by whatever they are going to be replaced by in two years' time.

What kind of a plan is that?

I know there is a war on but that isn’t good enough.

How can the Army not produce a clear plan of what we can expect to see in 2025, 2030 and 2035?

It’s total chaos.

Isn't the Strike concept supposed to do away with the need for mass?

Does anyone really know? I don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily illustrated as to the real nuts and bolts of the formation.

The Strike concept always seemed extremely risky against peer opposition with a lack of air support. The weight of Ajax make’s recovery difficult especially if widely dispersed and if damaged as such high value vehicles need recovered as a priority. I never felt comfortable with the British Army’s lack of deep fires to support Strike but perhaps due to the fact that it is going to take a quarter of a century to implement there is still plenty of time.

IMO Ukraine is making the case for going back to the future extremely compelling provided the drone threat is factored in.

I am not advocating a return to BAOR but establishing 3 war fighting divisions (Rapid Expeditionary, Light Mechanised and Armoured) is proportionate for the UK to achieve as a baseline.

Ukraine has exposed the ludicrous level of the cuts and now the cost of reinstatement has gone mainstream. The peace dividend was always going to bottom out eventually and just recently I think we heard the thump.

[mr.fred]

- Dispute resolution needs to be clear at the outset and heavily weighted in favour of the taxpayer. If the contractor over promises, under delivers and blows the budget then a clear mechanism is in place to deal with that.

All things come with a cost and if you place more risk on the contractor then they will increase their costs to accommodate this. Other governments manage to avoid an adversarial relationship with their industry, so we could look at that?

- Funding must match ambition or a tripwire mechanism should be unavoidably activated to stop the program at the outset. The program must not commence until funding criteria is fully met including baked in contingency funding.

- Auditors outside of the programme management must assess the risk levels in terms of timescale, capability and budget. If the level is too high the program must not commence.

Fine aspirations, but how do you determine these parameters? Who do you bring in to audit?

Bleeding edge tech is vastly complicated but the procurement contracts shouldn’t be complicated at all. If the MoD wants to save real money, start here.

Up until you start trying to work out how to deal with risk, then it becomes really complicated. I don't know if there is a way to save real money in defence procurement, in the long run, other than to stop doing it.

Ukraine has exposed the ludicrous level of the cuts and now the cost of reinstatement has gone mainstream. The peace dividend was always going to bottom out eventually and just recently I think we heard the thump.

There's probably something to that. Let's hope it's there and not in the middle of a conflict that affects us more directly. I'm a little concerned that the Ukrainian situation will turn out in our favour and we'll have another perceived "peace dividend"

What kind of a plan is that?

I know there is a war on but that isn’t good enough.

How can the Army not produce a clear plan of what we can expect to see in 2025, 2030 and 2035?

It’s total chaos.

I confess I remain somewhat bemused with the army's procurement decisions in the last decade.
Strike did away with the fighting capability at the front lines on the basis that artillery would cover the firepower gap except for the slight issue that the necessary artillery didn't exist.

[Tempest414]

Nor blind optimism.

Agreed.

If we expect industry to be held to its contracts then I think that should go for MoD as well.
If they aren't held to account and just handed more money to fix their mistakes, will they learn from that?

Its a balance. Lots of mistakes have been made and lots of lessons learned but the main cause is underfunding. Over optimism from both client and contractor propagated by a desire to achieve more with less or pack too much into a program due to declining mass elsewhere is the fundamental problem. It can be fixed.

- Over optimism and unrealistic targets much be met with unmovable firewalls going forward.

- Funding must match ambition or a tripwire mechanism should be unavoidably activated to stop the program at the outset. The program must not commence until funding criteria is fully met including baked in contingency funding.

- Auditors outside of the programme management must assess the risk levels in terms of timescale, capability and budget. If the level is too high the program must not commence.

- Dispute resolution needs to be clear at the outset and heavily weighted in favour of the taxpayer. If the contractor over promises, under delivers and blows the budget then a clear mechanism is in place to deal with that.

Bleeding edge tech is vastly complicated but the procurement contracts shouldn’t be complicated at all. If the MoD wants to save real money, start here.

Two.
While we're only using half the fleet.
And the Scimitars are being replaced sooner.

Another gap?

Perhaps following the Poles example would be a better idea.

Replaced by whatever they are going to be replaced by in two years' time.

What kind of a plan is that?

I know there is a war on but that isn’t good enough.

How can the Army not produce a clear plan of what we can expect to see in 2025, 2030 and 2035?

It’s total chaos.

Isn't the Strike concept supposed to do away with the need for mass?

Does anyone really know? I don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily illustrated as to the real nuts and bolts of the formation.

The Strike concept always seemed extremely risky against peer opposition with a lack of air support. The weight of Ajax make’s recovery difficult especially if widely dispersed and if damaged as such high value vehicles need recovered as a priority. I never felt comfortable with the British Army’s lack of deep fires to support Strike but perhaps due to the fact that it is going to take a quarter of a century to implement there is still plenty of time.

IMO Ukraine is making the case for going back to the future extremely compelling provided the drone threat is factored in.

I am not advocating a return to BAOR but establishing 3 war fighting divisions (Rapid Expeditionary, Light Mechanised and Armoured) is proportionate for the UK to achieve as a baseline.

Ukraine has exposed the ludicrous level of the cuts and now the cost of reinstatement has gone mainstream. The peace dividend was always going to bottom out eventually and just recently I think we heard the thump.

We might have heard the thump but I fear there is still a bit more of a slid down the hill

I feel with the manpower and money that we face at this time 3 divisions is maybe a step to far. For me right now we need to ditch the Deep fires BCT and make sure that all the Brigades have the Artillery support they need for me 2 division's with 3rd made up of 4 Brigades 2 x Armoured and 2 x Mechanised with the 3rd division having

4 x Cavalry regts
2 x Armoured regts
10 x Infantry battalions
4 x Artillery regts
4 x Logistics regts
4 x REME regts
4 x Engineer regts

And then the first division being made up of 2 x Rapid response brigades the SFA brigade and 4 x Long Range Reconnaissance Battalions with the 1st having

3 x cavalry regts
14 x Infantry battalions
2 x Artillery regts
3 x Logistics regts
3 x REME regts
3 x Engineer regts

this would allow the 3rd division to be all about NATO and JEF and the 1st to be about Global out look

[mrclark303]

Nor blind optimism.

Agreed.

If we expect industry to be held to its contracts then I think that should go for MoD as well.
If they aren't held to account and just handed more money to fix their mistakes, will they learn from that?

Its a balance. Lots of mistakes have been made and lots of lessons learned but the main cause is underfunding. Over optimism from both client and contractor propagated by a desire to achieve more with less or pack too much into a program due to declining mass elsewhere is the fundamental problem. It can be fixed.

- Over optimism and unrealistic targets much be met with unmovable firewalls going forward.

- Funding must match ambition or a tripwire mechanism should be unavoidably activated to stop the program at the outset. The program must not commence until funding criteria is fully met including baked in contingency funding.

- Auditors outside of the programme management must assess the risk levels in terms of timescale, capability and budget. If the level is too high the program must not commence.

- Dispute resolution needs to be clear at the outset and heavily weighted in favour of the taxpayer. If the contractor over promises, under delivers and blows the budget then a clear mechanism is in place to deal with that.

Bleeding edge tech is vastly complicated but the procurement contracts shouldn’t be complicated at all. If the MoD wants to save real money, start here.

Two.
While we're only using half the fleet.
And the Scimitars are being replaced sooner.

Another gap?

Perhaps following the Poles example would be a better idea.

Replaced by whatever they are going to be replaced by in two years' time.

What kind of a plan is that?

I know there is a war on but that isn’t good enough.

How can the Army not produce a clear plan of what we can expect to see in 2025, 2030 and 2035?

It’s total chaos.

Isn't the Strike concept supposed to do away with the need for mass?

Does anyone really know? I don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily illustrated as to the real nuts and bolts of the formation.

The Strike concept always seemed extremely risky against peer opposition with a lack of air support. The weight of Ajax make’s recovery difficult especially if widely dispersed and if damaged as such high value vehicles need recovered as a priority. I never felt comfortable with the British Army’s lack of deep fires to support Strike but perhaps due to the fact that it is going to take a quarter of a century to implement there is still plenty of time.

IMO Ukraine is making the case for going back to the future extremely compelling provided the drone threat is factored in.

I am not advocating a return to BAOR but establishing 3 war fighting divisions (Rapid Expeditionary, Light Mechanised and Armoured) is proportionate for the UK to achieve as a baseline.

Ukraine has exposed the ludicrous level of the cuts and now the cost of reinstatement has gone mainstream. The peace dividend was always going to bottom out eventually and just recently I think we heard the thump.

We might have heard the thump but I fear there is still a bit more of a slid down the hill

I feel with the manpower and money that we face at this time 3 divisions is maybe a step to far. For me right now we need to ditch the Deep fires BCT and make sure that all the Brigades have the Artillery support they need for me 2 division's with 3rd made up of 4 Brigades 2 x Armoured and 2 x Mechanised with the 3rd division having

4 x Cavalry regts
2 x Armoured regts
10 x Infantry battalions
4 x Artillery regts
4 x Logistics regts
4 x REME regts
4 x Engineer regts

And then the first division being made up of 2 x Rapid response brigades the SFA brigade and 4 x Long Range Reconnaissance Battalions with the 1st having

3 x cavalry regts
14 x Infantry battalions
2 x Artillery regts
3 x Logistics regts
3 x REME regts
3 x Engineer regts

this would allow the 3rd division to be all about NATO and JEF and the 1st to be about Global out look

The true planned capabilities are always buried in the detail, hidden under the bullshit spin.

I focused on on 60 sets of Trophy systems being procured for Chally 3, this tells you that the army has no future plans for deploying anything more than one Tank Regiment.

So, we will be looking at future deployments of a re-enforced Brigade tops, talk of deploying a division is just political spin.

They can't even figure out a way of stopping the continuous slide in Army personnel numbers, by 2030 it will probably be about 60,000 anyway.

Forming and deploying a division will be purely reserved for general war, or grave threat of general war, nothing more.

[Poiuytrewq]

As said, the ludicrous levels of cuts is daily mainstream news now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... ence-buck/

The comparison with Poland isn’t going away anytime soon.

The UK is not getting enough bang for its defence buck. Let’s learn from Poland
The Army’s serviceable tanks now number in only the tens. Yet Warsaw is rearming quickly, at lower cost


Ben Wallace is to bow out, having had a good war. The pivot of that reputation is that he got the big question right: he saw what was unfolding in Russia in 2022 and reinforced Ukraine in a meaningful way. Not well known is the force of the opposition he overcame from some of our allies – and our own officials – who feared Russian escalation.

It is also true that he made a strong case for defence and got extra funds from a Treasury not minded to be generous. At the same time, he has championed modernisation of the military and been critical of the failings of the Ministry of Defence.

The ability to ride these two positions is probably why Wallace has maintained his status at the pinnacle of ConservativeHome’s table of ministers’ approval ratings: he is an insider/outsider, simultaneously credited with being decisive on defence while usefully distancing himself from the MoD’s bureaucratic shortcomings. A clever trick, but is it fair given the threadbare state of the UK’s forces?

One can give credit while also asking some difficult questions. Wallace has now been the Secretary of State for four years. Can one continue to point the accusing finger at something you have owned for that long? The MoD and the three Services continue to grind through ever more money even as the front line shrinks.

The importance of supporting Ukraine has muted any questioning of what that effort has revealed. It appears that the Army’s front line had serviceable tanks and artillery numbered in the low to medium tens; not the hundreds that the “fourth largest defence budget in the world” might be assumed to have bought. Who was supposed to be husbanding this equipment? Did the MoD know its parlous state?


In 2019 Wallace is known to have put the new RAF Chief on notice to address as his priority the chronic failings of the Military Flying Training System. When he left four years later they were worse. Wallace’s Command Paper emphasises a persistent presence overseas. Yet the RAF has prematurely scrapped its most useful air-lifter – the Hercules – as deleting a whole fleet reduces support costs.

The Royal Navy had declared plans to put more frigates to sea in future. It had been “radical” in its reforms of Navy HQ. But it has run out of money for the ship refits, and the fleet has had to shrink further to afford the plan.


Despite all the evidence from arming Ukraine about the need for weapons stockpiles, it has taken 17 months to place a contract for more ammunition. Logistics and supportability concerns remain across the board – we operate very small fleets of expensive, bespoke kit. None of this has been lost on our allies, who raise eyebrows in our direction.

As both the Sheldon report into the Ajax fighting vehicle programme and the House of Commons defence committee’s report into acquisition demonstrate, an unreformed MoD exhibits labyrinthine, unaccountable processes that overcomplicate and extend programmes at hideous expense.

The game for funds played between the Services causes many delays and itself consumes much of the money. In contrast, the Polish buy of an extra 980 tanks should complete within four years, in 2026, or just before we take delivery of the first of only 148 tanks. This is after a programme that will have taken between 16 and 25 years – it is hard to be definite given the continual programmatic rejuggling.


Nor are the new forms of warfare we are now seeing in Ukraine news. The MoD’s own think-tanks were forecasting such advances in integrated warfare – via drones and automation, cyber, data and cloud-based computing – since before Wallace took over. But it is not in the interests of any Service to volunteer to lead the changes necessary to achieve the integrated force that our emerging doctrine calls for. We have sat on imaginative blueprints for three years; the Ukrainians have radically reformed in one.

The UK’s intelligence agencies are racing forward with the digital possibilities that moving to cloud-based computing confers. Defence Digital, a punchy rebrand of what was previously the MoD’s Information Systems & Services, continues to punch below its weight.

There are legitimate questions over what the Army is for in the current epoch, and so how it should be configured to fight a modern war. It is understood that the Army still hasn’t furnished a compelling vision in answer – which is one reason it has not made the case for being bigger. And the Treasury can point to the Poles and credibly ask why we struggle to get a single division from 70,000 troops when they get four from the same number, and from an overall budget 40 per cent of our own.

Wallace’s MoD appears to have accepted without question that a properly equipped unit of force will always cost a certain amount, and so the only way to get more force is to demand a bigger budget, or cut the number of units. Hence his comment about not building a bigger army only to arm it with “pitchforks”. We could, instead, ask why our allies appear to get more bang for their buck.


So the question that arises from last week’s refreshed Command Paper is not necessarily related to the detail therein. It might be to ask whether Wallace has found it easier to challenge the MoD as a semi-outsider rather than grip it firmly and force the level of painful reform it so badly needs.

Whoever his successor is can build on the positives of Wallace’s reign, but there are some fundamental problems that have hardly been touched at all.

[Poiuytrewq]

I feel with the manpower and money that we face at this time 3 divisions is maybe a step to far.

Perhaps but it should be the ambition. What is the ambition for 2.5% GDP?

If the Army, RAF and RN can’t clearly illustrate that then why would HMT even consider it.

If £55bn to £60bn per annum can’t deliver 3 war-fighting Divisions something somewhere has to change.

2.5% by 2025 followed by 3% by 2030 is a proportionate goal for the UK but the three services need to provide clarity as to how it would be spent and provide confidence it won’t be wasted.

One thing Ben Wallace has achieved is to showcase how low the UK’s military capabilities actually are now. I think this was the right approach. Continuing to pretend that everything is OK is bonkers and now he has formed a sustainable force structure that can achieve very little, has no strength in depth, can withstand virtually no attrition and can’t be sustained for anything other than very short durations.

That isn’t a criticism, it’s the only way HMG will take notice.

In simple terms could the UK contribute to the same level in Korea, Falklands, Gulf, Afghanistan or Iraq?

The simple answer is no and all the jargon filled reports in the world won’t change that.

[Tempest414]

But until we get a force structure that works we can't really know what to buy right now the army claims to have funding for 1000 Boxers but I can only see a need for 800 with only two armoured brigades with 5 battalions. Now if it true that the army has funding for 1000 Boxers then with money so hard to come by we really need to cap Boxer at 800 this would free up 800 million to buy say 800 Bushmasters these along with the 500 jackals and 350+ Foxhound's could make up the 2 x Mechanised Brigades and 4 x Long Range Reconnaissance battalions

[Tbenz]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

[SW1]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

[Tempest414]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

For this we would need another 100 Ares to bring the buy up to 690 Ajax along with the 800 Boxer

As far as Artillery goes if we made the DRS BCT smaller with 2 x Cavalry regts and 2 x M270A2 regts plus a Reserve M270A2 regt this could free up 2 x SP Gun regts to join the Boxer based Mech Brigades

For me the 3rd division is just a case of moving kit & formations around it is the 1st that is in need of a real shake up as I said maybe the best move is to bring 16AA in to the 1st and then turn the 4th brigade into another rapid recation brigade with 1 x cavaly regt , 3 x Infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt , 1 x Logistics regt this would leave 4 Infantry battalions which I would turn into Long range Recce battalions using Jackal and Bushmaster this could leave the 1st looking like

2 x Rapid reaction brigades
4 x Long Range Recce Battalions
1 x SFA brigade

This could mean these formations could be globally deployed by air to ares of need I think with Africa becoming the new grey zone for ops the LRRB's would be a good forward deployed groups along side Ranger battalions and SFA battalions

[SW1]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

For this we would need another 100 Ares to bring the buy up to 690 Ajax along with the 800 Boxer

As far as Artillery goes if we made the DRS BCT smaller with 2 x Cavalry regts and 2 x M270A2 regts plus a Reserve M270A2 regt this could free up 2 x SP Gun regts to join the Boxer based Mech Brigades

For me the 3rd division is just a case of moving kit & formations around it is the 1st that is in need of a real shake up as I said maybe the best move is to bring 16AA in to the 1st and then turn the 4th brigade into another rapid recation brigade with 1 x cavaly regt , 3 x Infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt , 1 x Logistics regt this would leave 4 Infantry battalions which I would turn into Long range Recce battalions using Jackal and Bushmaster this could leave the 1st looking like

2 x Rapid reaction brigades
4 x Long Range Recce Battalions
1 x SFA brigade

This could mean these formations could be globally deployed by air to ares of need I think with Africa becoming the new grey zone for ops the LRRB's would be a good forward deployed groups along side Ranger battalions and SFA battalions

Why would we need more Ajax for that configuration?

It’s about 90 tanks and about 200 warriors /Ajax total for armoured brigade add some for training and attrition. If you have to change the configuration of vehicles on order so be it.

[Tempest414]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

For this we would need another 100 Ares to bring the buy up to 690 Ajax along with the 800 Boxer

As far as Artillery goes if we made the DRS BCT smaller with 2 x Cavalry regts and 2 x M270A2 regts plus a Reserve M270A2 regt this could free up 2 x SP Gun regts to join the Boxer based Mech Brigades

For me the 3rd division is just a case of moving kit & formations around it is the 1st that is in need of a real shake up as I said maybe the best move is to bring 16AA in to the 1st and then turn the 4th brigade into another rapid recation brigade with 1 x cavaly regt , 3 x Infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt , 1 x Logistics regt this would leave 4 Infantry battalions which I would turn into Long range Recce battalions using Jackal and Bushmaster this could leave the 1st looking like

2 x Rapid reaction brigades
4 x Long Range Recce Battalions
1 x SFA brigade

This could mean these formations could be globally deployed by air to ares of need I think with Africa becoming the new grey zone for ops the LRRB's would be a good forward deployed groups along side Ranger battalions and SFA battalions

Why would we need more Ajax for that configuration?

It’s about 90 tanks and about 200 warriors /Ajax total for armoured brigade add some for training and attrition. If you have to change the configuration of vehicles on order so be it.

Well we would need 3 cavalry regts worth 2 for the DRS and 1 for the armoured brigade and then 4 combined arms regts given a current Armoured battalion has 86 vehicles we would be looking at say 72 Ajax per regts as laid out above which = 288 plus 198 for the 3 cavalry = 486 we will need all the other support types of Ajax which would work out to 200 in my book which would take us to 686 we now have 589 on order

[SW1]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

For this we would need another 100 Ares to bring the buy up to 690 Ajax along with the 800 Boxer

As far as Artillery goes if we made the DRS BCT smaller with 2 x Cavalry regts and 2 x M270A2 regts plus a Reserve M270A2 regt this could free up 2 x SP Gun regts to join the Boxer based Mech Brigades

For me the 3rd division is just a case of moving kit & formations around it is the 1st that is in need of a real shake up as I said maybe the best move is to bring 16AA in to the 1st and then turn the 4th brigade into another rapid recation brigade with 1 x cavaly regt , 3 x Infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt , 1 x Logistics regt this would leave 4 Infantry battalions which I would turn into Long range Recce battalions using Jackal and Bushmaster this could leave the 1st looking like

2 x Rapid reaction brigades
4 x Long Range Recce Battalions
1 x SFA brigade

This could mean these formations could be globally deployed by air to ares of need I think with Africa becoming the new grey zone for ops the LRRB's would be a good forward deployed groups along side Ranger battalions and SFA battalions

Why would we need more Ajax for that configuration?

It’s about 90 tanks and about 200 warriors /Ajax total for armoured brigade add some for training and attrition. If you have to change the configuration of vehicles on order so be it.

Well we would need 3 cavalry regts worth 2 for the DRS and 1 for the armoured brigade and then 4 combined arms regts given a current Armoured battalion has 86 vehicles we would be looking at say 72 Ajax per regts as laid out above which = 288 plus 198 for the 3 cavalry = 486 we will need all the other support types of Ajax which would work out to 200 in my book which would take us to 686 we now have 589 on order

I wouldn’t have the DRS it’s simply 1 armoured brigade and 2 boxer brigades.

The armoured brigade would simply copy the US one eg a cavalry regiment with 3 combined arms battalions with 2 off battalions of 2 tank companies and a single infantry company and 1 off battalion of 1 tank company and 2 infantry companies, plus an artillery regiment.

[Tempest414]

Assuming both that the Ajax programme goes ahead and that the Ares variant can have the internal racks removed to allow for a total of 10 crew and dismounts and be fitted with a RS6 RWS with Javelin & 30x113mm cannon, then would it not be better to create one decent armoured brigade with 1 recce/strike cavalry regiment on Ajax and 4 combined arms regiments?

Each combined arms regiment would have 2 armoured squadrons on CR3, 2 armoured infantry companies on Ares, 1 recce/fire support squadron on Ajax and at least 1 troop with an overwatch variant of Ares with Brimstone. Yes, that would require some ‘reconfiguration’ of the existing variant mix and is certainly not ideal, but perhaps better than what we are currently looking at…

With more than 600 Boxer already on order with the possibility of up to 1,000, then we could definitely create 2 decent mechanised brigades assuming we purchase the right variants/modules, including 120mm turreted mortars, Brimstone, manned or unmanned turrets with decent cannon & ATGW. 800 Boxers should be sufficient for the teeth arms of the 2 brigades if we purchase a cheaper 6 x 6 (Patria?) for other roles.

With planned investments in air defence, tube and rocket artillery, that would give us a decent 3rd Division.

I wouldn’t even over think it at this point start of with a single armoured brigade configure as per a U.S. army one with challenger and warrior migrating to challenger and Ajax

two boxer brigades configured as per a U.S. army Stryker brigade.

For this we would need another 100 Ares to bring the buy up to 690 Ajax along with the 800 Boxer

As far as Artillery goes if we made the DRS BCT smaller with 2 x Cavalry regts and 2 x M270A2 regts plus a Reserve M270A2 regt this could free up 2 x SP Gun regts to join the Boxer based Mech Brigades

For me the 3rd division is just a case of moving kit & formations around it is the 1st that is in need of a real shake up as I said maybe the best move is to bring 16AA in to the 1st and then turn the 4th brigade into another rapid recation brigade with 1 x cavaly regt , 3 x Infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt , 1 x Logistics regt this would leave 4 Infantry battalions which I would turn into Long range Recce battalions using Jackal and Bushmaster this could leave the 1st looking like

2 x Rapid reaction brigades
4 x Long Range Recce Battalions
1 x SFA brigade

This could mean these formations could be globally deployed by air to ares of need I think with Africa becoming the new grey zone for ops the LRRB's would be a good forward deployed groups along side Ranger battalions and SFA battalions

Why would we need more Ajax for that configuration?

It’s about 90 tanks and about 200 warriors /Ajax total for armoured brigade add some for training and attrition. If you have to change the configuration of vehicles on order so be it.

Well we would need 3 cavalry regts worth 2 for the DRS and 1 for the armoured brigade and then 4 combined arms regts given a current Armoured battalion has 86 vehicles we would be looking at say 72 Ajax per regts as laid out above which = 288 plus 198 for the 3 cavalry = 486 we will need all the other support types of Ajax which would work out to 200 in my book which would take us to 686 we now have 589 on order

I wouldn’t have the DRS it’s simply 1 armoured brigade and 2 boxer brigades.

The armoured brigade would simply copy the US one eg a cavalry regiment with 3 combined arms battalions with 2 off battalions of 2 tank companies and a single infantry come and 1 off battalion of 1 tank company and 2 infantry companies, plus an artillery regiment.

Then we talking about 2 different lay outs I was talking about the lay out of 4 x combined regts above while keeping the DRS in a smaller form

Maybe the way forward for the UK would a armoured brigade of 5 Combined arms regts with

1 x Ch-3 Sqn , 2 x infantry companies 1 x Maneuver support company

With the 3rd looking like

1 x DRS = 2 x Cavalry regts & 2 x M270a2 regts plus a reserve M270a2 regt
1 x Armoured brigade = 1 x cavalry regt , 5 x Combined arms regts , 1 x Artillery regts
2 x Mech brigades = 1 x Cavalry regt , 3 x infantry battalions , 1 x Artillery regt
2 x Reserve combined arms regts
2 x Reserve Mech battalion battle groups

[SW1]

We are we have over thought/tried to come up with something different for the past 20 years to not much avail.

So keep it simple copy what the Americans have done it lets us to contribute and plug into a large scale U.S. or NATO operation and they know roughly what there getting and so do we.

While it allows the boxer brigades to be our rapidly deployable and or sustained fwd deployment capability across Europe and our near regions hence it gets 2 brigades.

You can then have 16 aab in the role currently envisaged for out of area operations and the army can have a stable configuration going fwd.

[Poiuytrewq]

Moved across.

I was reading a RUSI paper…..

Thank you, interesting read.

Who knows at this point what this newly proposed rapid reaction force will look like and how it will differ from 16AAB but what I am suggesting does not involve CH3, AJAX, Boxer or Warrior.

I am proposing a highly lethal blocking force which is completely self sufficient for 72hrs to 96hrs. Not really an issue for Airborne forces. After that NATO will have the heavy brigades and artillery moving in to support.

The key would be Ambush, Attrit, Redeploy, Repeat. High speed mobility over challenging terrain would be vital. Coalescing around a single vehicle type if possible would allow minimal logistics over that 96hr period.

The SupaCat HMT either in 4x4 or 6x6 is ideal. All of the necessary capabilities can be added as the speed, range and cross country abilities are excellent.

LIMAWS(R) For GMLRS

ED7E7A65-594E-4C8B-9D65-D37A9A8153C7.jpeg

105mm
https://supacat.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... t-2022.pdf

C82EE69D-AA86-4EEC-BE24-927EB8E10DE9.jpeg

Brimstone

4522B1C9-2184-4DAD-AB2F-A7C818F232B8.jpeg

81mm Mortar

3458E865-CBD3-4D74-9DDF-37FD93194C2B.jpeg

30mm and Javelin
https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/ ... .01.22.pdf

8A45134A-9A79-430B-AF21-FF59A834C683.jpeg

Everything needed for the Rapid Expeditionary force can be fitted to HMT platform. All can be transported via underslung Chinook. This can be further augmented with generous quantities of Javelin, NLAW, GPMG, L1A1 and GMG and Starstreak.

We are presently preoccupied with Ukraine but this Rapid Expeditionary force could be used in the Baltics, Sweden, Norway the Middle East or any number of other countries around the world. A thoroughly worthwhile UK contribution which would likely be used much more often than conventional armoured formations.

No country, with exception of US, possess enough heavy lifting helicopter force to enable movements of whole brigade with all its equipment over long distances.

The UK could move a Airmobile Brigade eventually but NATO could move multiple Airmobile Brigades with ease if enough notice was secured. However heavy lift helos and/or drones is one area where Euro NATO needs to invest asap.

But in any case, such force would be really weak, and would only be able to resist for limited time due lack of logistic support and definitely not be able to "cover all avenues of approach".

It’s a short term blocking force against peer opposition but against terrorists or militia operating mainly with large concentrations of pickups and light vehicles it would be devastating. It’s an incredibly versatile force for peer, near peer and non peer adversaries.

And it would hardy be able to achieve heavy attrition without suffering heavy attrition itself.

Again, depends on the opposition. The simple fact is that given the lethality of the modern battlefield attrition is going to be high against peer opposition. It’s unavoidable but remaining rapidly mobile would lessen any loses.

Against non peer opposition it’s likely attrition would be much lower due to the overwhelming firepower within the Rapid Expeditionary Brigades.