I could agree on that as I don't think that UK is able to project heavy or medium brigades beyond Europe.Repulse wrote: ↑29 Dec 2022, 08:57 Feels to me we are stuck in a loop of endless discussion of what the Army should look like that fits a traditional view rather than stepping back devising a strategy then matching equipment / force structures to that.
My view is that UK is and wants to continue to be a global influencer, whilst protecting its territory (to which there is very limited real threat currently).
Without a real threat to its territory the UK must remain vigilant to incursions and growing threats, but it does not need a large standing army.
This is better suited to a larger more capable reserve force than a small regular force.
To influence global events it needs to be able to act quickly to mitigate emerging threats, but as importantly it needs to be an enabler for allies to allow them to defend themselves through complementary capabilities that they do not have. Long gone are the days of large army forces deployed to war zones - they are both unaffordable for the UK and as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated do not work.
This lends it self more to the SF/FCF/Ranger structures being discussed coupled with highly mobile battlegroup sized specialist forces providing artillery, surveillance, air defence and other first tier capabilities. Alongside this is the engagement in training and supplies as proven in the Ukraine conflict.
I’d argue that none of this requires regular heavy or medium brigades.
Therefore we should be working on the assumption that we are reinforcing our NATO allies, and most likely on Northern flank with fellow 9 members of the Joint Expeditionary Force (Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway) and myabe Poland.