Yet more leaks from the Ministry of Sieves and Agendas…
I think we all knew it was coming but if the latest from the Telegraph is to be believed, no real surprises.
Combat Support, Combat Service Support and the less fashionable Regiments get hammered in favour of the ‘untouchables’ in the Household Division. The infantry will then be down to 25 battalions, with significant chunks of the armour, armoured artillery and armoured engineers going into reduced readiness or farmed out to the TA. Expect plenty of discussions about whether the county regiments will go before the Gurkhas.
Again, no surprises.
The trendy new buzzword for conflict prevention, mentoring or forward presence, if the article is to be believed, is upstream engagement, expect to be seeing a lot of that.
The article in the Telegraph talks of a change in approach from enduring operations to contingent operations but then goes on to mention the Multi Role Brigades, those MRB’s that are predicated on maintaining enduring engagements.
Libya is now to be the model for the future, the same for every single operation we have ever done, until the next one that is.
We have discussed the MRB concept quite a few times, this was our last go at it, wonder what structure will shake itself out or of the enduring deployment MRB will remain. Getting a quart out of a pint pot was always going to be impossible, the extra Army reductions post SDSR made sure of that.
After a decade of doing the hard yards on operations those left in the Army now face a peace dividend and future filled with driving petrol tankers and filling sandbags, or homeland resilience as it is now seemingly called, cheers Dave.
Homeland has such an American ring to to it, why not got the whole hog with our slavish devotion to US buzzwords and call the British Army, the Homeland Warfighter Service.
Puts a lot of what we discuss here into perspective, I was going to do an April Fools post about flying surplus to requirements South African Air Force Searchwater and refueling pod equipped Turbo Dakota’s off a CVF ski jump but can’t be arsed now, someone else will probably do something similar 
The only thing one could realistically wish for is that any reductions are made without political interference or undue lobbying from the various tribes (Regiments and Corps) within the Army but perhaps that is asking too much.
I am probably being over sentimental and after decades of grueling operations and financial mismanagement these reductions are necessary to coincide with stepping out of the limelight for a period of regeneration, but which ever way you look at it, sad times.
Well, Telegraph knew of the Chally numbers well ahead of anyone else… there must be something to their (army) articles
5 MRBs out of 82k (instead of 95.5k)?
- may be only 4 (in Parliament questions I seem to remember that the plans for the number of beds in Catterick had been pulled back somewhat) REF “Army brigades currently stationed around Catterick and Salisbury will make up threeof the five multi-role brigades.The other two MRBs will be basedinthe eastof England, centred on Cottesmore, andin Scotland, centred on Kirknewton, south-westof Edinburgh.” – this is TD’s chosen quote from the basing review
The problem with reduced numbers would also “go away” if you have one of the three infantry bns in the MRBs from the TA (as we have discussed)
- the mentioned reduction between the two plans is 14% in overall numbers
- if you count in the RA Rgmnt as a bn, going down from 6 in each, in total, to 5 also makes a very near number (-16%, but that is for the combat elements, so support elements would get off with a slightly less drastic reduction… this of course runs counter to the commonly accepted/circulated speculations). And so they should, because a fully mobbed bde would be the same strength as before, with less support – except if that gap can be covered from TA, too
“Homeland Warfighters” – I don’t know which is more depressing, this phrase showing how close we are to being a 51st state or the continual erosion of UK defence capability in the absence of a coherent strategy.
Let’s atleast call it the “Home Guard” for godsake – least that way we know who we are and what we’ve got. “Don’t panic!”
What’s wrong with “Territorial Army”? “Home Guard” sounds so under-trained, under-equipped, it was basically a Volkssturm…
Hey, I have it. “Guards of the Realm”!
Seriously I was closing in to depression when I read the headline here. Buzzword epidemics are horrible. They’re an excuse for not thinking any more; ‘See? I am up to date with the military of tomorrow, even speaking like it!’
@ Sven
Many of the UK population don’t really connect with the idea of monarchy or associate much with the country’s history. “Guards of the Realm” would go down well here just as say “Guards of the Republic” would go down in the modern US. I will give you rather odd technical examples. Often here the members of the country’s population are referred to as UK citizens. Yet legally and rather quaintly we are all still Crown subjects.
Back on topic I am still trying to take it all in. It looks they are going to do to the Army what they did to the RN in the immediate post-Cold Wa years. And we all know how well that has turned out.
The worst “they” ever did to an armed service was certainly Jones’ missile craze of the 60′s that almost killed combat aviation…
So a fag packet calculation if every regiment was reduced to no more than two battalions. That does not add up to the required reduction. Take away
2 from the Scottish Regiment, 2 Rifles, 1 Yorkshire, 1 Mercian, 2 Gurkha equals 8 not 11. So if they are
right there will have to be some amalgamations or doing away with the large regiment system.
The Gurkhas may be finished anyway Nepal is making noises about sending their men away to fight in other countries armies.
Still early in the morning of course it would be 3 each from the Scottish and Rifles but that still only makes 10 not 11.
Odd when you consider they are reactivating the 2nd battalions for the Guards regiments.
“The article in the Telegraph talks of a change in approach from enduring operations to contingent operations but then goes on to mention the Multi Role Brigades, those MRB’s that are predicated on maintaining enduring engagements.”
There was always going to be a switch away from stabilisation to intervention, it is merely a question of how far the balance betwixt the two will shift.
I know that limited-stabilisation and punitive-intervention are not UK terms, and should be used advisedly, but does anyone not recognise them when reading the above in addition to the hundreds of other reports, leaks, briefings, etc?
Pre SDSR, at the height of afghanistan, we did i believe have ten brigades in roulement.
6x mech/armoured (stabilisation)
2x Cdo/AAB (intervention)
2x Light-Inf (to make up the numbers)
That is a ratio of either 4:1 or 3:1 in favour of stabilisation over intervention, depending on how you want to count it.
Speculation:
Presuming one of the four MRB’s goes, and presuming 16AAB survives in some form or other, then post SDSR2015 you have changed to a 2:1 ratio.
That is all. That is what it means when they talk going from enduring operations to contingent operations.
Britain still needs mech/arm, and it still needs [persistence], but what is apparant is that it wishes to keep a [permanent] ability to intervene in a contingency at a level that can achieve strategic effect.
Thus, when scaling back the army the latter gets let of lightly, and its importance as a ratio against the former climbs.
It does however make a kind of sense 25 Battalions. Gives us
3 Public duties London
1 Public duties Scotland
2 Cyprus
1 Brunei (presume it will be a British posting if the Gurkhas are disbanded)
Leaves 3 battalions per brigade for 5 Multi Role and 16 Air Assault.
it is only a leak so doesn’t need to be exact. It does seem, to me a crab, that the this capbadge interfighting/obsession can be quite a millstone. Before any change in structure it seems to take importance above all else and paralysise any discussion/decisions that need to be made.
I have never heard a British person use the term Homeland for Britain….but can anyone think of a less painful term that clearly refers to the same thing?
Sticking a big chunk of the heavy stuff in the TA is what many have been suggesting on here isnt it? Seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Saving cap badges is just sensible pragmatism unfortunately. If you want to get the cuts done quickly then dont fight battles that will be too costly to win.
It is a shame but I really can’t see any point in keeping the Ghurkas any more. Joanna Lumley has finished them off with her shallowness.
The Gurkhas have provided valuable service over the years, but the writing appears to be on the wall. A recent report, endorsed by a Nepali parliamentary committee, advocates an immediate ban on the recruitment of Gorkhas by foreign armies.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NC28Df01.html
@ Topman re Cap Badge Poltics
No the RAF has what-did-you-fly? politics instead.
On the Gurkhas I think it would be a mistake to remove the 2 battalions. There very gd probably the best mountain and jungle warfare troops we have. They have no problems with recruitment and the offer a culture and language skill set for operations in Mid and far east Asia that will be hard to recreate will a uk battalion provided we think those areas strategically vital. I don’t see a huge problem going down to 25 inf battalions our scale of effort would reduce to French German levels.. What I would like to see is the battalion deployed to the far east and Cyprus being given more combat support to allow them to operate more freely in those theatres more like a fwd deployed us marine expedition unit to support allies in those regions.
Mark re “best mountain troops”
A certain outfit I know based largely in the South West may argue that one.
If the Ghurkas do go I can see an opening for the RAF Reg to pull up the slack. After Afghanistan I am not sure what they will have to do unless they end up rotaing through Cyrpus and FI perpetually.
X Good point with a third of the infantry going, who do the RAF need their own foot soldiers.
At this rate the RAF Regiment will be bigger than the Army!
Their role is surely the defence of main operating bases at home or abroad which, lets be honest, is not a growth industry.
If we are cutting the infantry does it make sense to keep the RAF Regiment at current levels?
I tend to think there is still a role for them but at what scale ?
Theoretically shouldnt the RAF Reg be a great mentoring resource? Isn’t their expertise patrolling, local community contact and ground domination, a more defensive model particularly relevant to peace-keeping/stabilisation? We dont necessarily want to go round training everyone in the Paras way!
And in response to TD:
Defending main operating bases – isnt that a lot like defending a port/airfield being used for humanitarian/peacekeeping work?
Almost an ‘intervention’ force, but a lot more low-key and defensive looking than sending in hard bastards with an internationally known aggressive reputation like the Paras
Raf Regiment from Wiki
8 Field Squadrons
2 CBRN Squadrons
1 HQ and 8 Force protection wings
6 Auxiliary squadrons
Remember when they used to have their own armour and aa missiles. Their role is specialist airfield defence, which could be easily done by an expanded RAF police.
I think the Regiment and even the Marines survive because they are efficient at producing infantry not because of their specialist roles per se. I won’t be surprised if Cyprus SBAs disappears within the next decade. If the RAF need good weather for flying there are French and Italian bases to use. And as for the “spooky” stuff well I suppose a pair of ships could do that up to a point. Only up to a point because “eavesdropping” installations can be quite large.
“Defending main operating bases – isnt that a lot like defending a port/airfield being used for humanitarian/peacekeeping work? Almost an ‘intervention’ force, but a lot more low-key and defensive looking”
Tend to agree ChrisM, i see a role for them in future.
Dont the Marines survive because they are semi-SF, a brand that attracts and encourages the better, more aggressive soldier? And they are a bit more flexible – “you joined the marines son, you signed up to do crap stuff in crap places and not just sit in barracks”
I cant see us ever giving up the SBAs completely, though I wonder whether we can shrink them without creating a precedent that they arent permanent. They are just too flexible, in too crucial an area, and getting rid would be incredibly short-sighted.
Numbers wise the RAF Regiment is around the same as three infantry battalions. Which would you rather have.
Probably the RAF regiment, as they are specialists and can be infantry.
If you are adding battalions it would be different, but if you are cutting it seems better to cut the “run of the mill” infantry.
If we are just doing small interventions now then their force protection specialty will be highly relevant.
I don’t think politicians see specialist roles. Many of them have an Army shoots guns, RAF fly things, and RN does ships model of understanding defence. That is if they care at all.
I see the RM specialists and something different to the RM.
But I don’t see how defending a fixed point can be specialism so I don’t the RAF as specialists.
What I was saying was that, courses provide by the Army to one side, the RM and RAF produce what additional 8,000 or so (?) additional infantry for the UK. That is nearly a third of what the Army provides at 30,000. Dismantling that capacity to produce 8,000 extra means extra capacity would have to be found within the Army system. That would cost more money that would save.
something different to the Army.
RAF Regiment are specialists in defending a fixed point an airfield. How is that any different from defending a FOB, bridge demolition, beach head etc. There a bit of a luxury in a time of austerity.
Could the 25 battalions be the brigaded units? Add the three RM Commandos to that and you get 28 battalions; 4 for the 7 brigades, with 16 and 3X keeping the same structure? MRBs become 2+4?
Add in 2 public duties, 1 Cyprus (post-Herrick), and 1 Brunei. down to 29 Battalions. Everyone down to 2 with the gurkhas staying- I really don’t think the government would put its foot in it by getting rid of the gurkhas. They’ll have to wait until Lumley is six feet under before they’d dare.
I’ll also restate that RM + RAF Reg training should be integrated with CIC Catterick. Guards, gurkhas, and Paras manage. Why can’t the maureens and pebble monkeys? Stick in a big swimming pool and a Pizza-hut, they’ll be happy as Larry. No sense in having three separate infantry training centers. Especially when the army’s was capable of maintaining 40 battalions only nine years ago.
Another tactically “leaked” document that the Telegraph is dressing up as fact. What a bunch of muppets. I’d bet the farm its tosh, an options paper, a briefing, a blue sky thinking document, a scenario 1 Alpha or something.
Anyway, the Gurkhas are pointless now.
Methinks its time to bid sweet adieu to them.
As for the Household, I would say that the most radical thing that could happen to them is a Regiment of Foot Guards along the lines of the Scottish regiment.
So you’d have 1st Battalion Queens Footguards (Grenadiers). 2nd Battalion Queens Footguards (Coldstream) etc etc. There is a Foot Guards identity that could have a hat hung on it.
BP
The RM don’t train at Catterick because its not near something they tend to specialise in…
Hence the swimming pool… I know it’s not ideal, but I really don’t think it makes sense having separate infantry training centers. Or at least, it would potentially save a bit of money to be thrown into the foreign aid budget.
So you think practising amphibious assaults can be done in a swimming pool?
BertramPantyshield
The RM are not infantry there commandos and also part of the navy.
There was a hint of sarcasm in there… never translates well through the internet. The same can be said of the Pizza-hut for the RAF Reg’s specific operational requirements.
@x i never said it didn’t happen just that something that people hang their hat on alot can create it’s own set of problems that we are seeing now. My point was more organisational. If we went from 6 small sqns to 3 big ones would it even raise an eyebrow anywhere? Compare that to the wailing when the army did their last inf bts change a few years ago.
@BP
Ah. Forgive me. It’s just that I have heard more bizarre ideas on this blog meant very seriously!
I do agree, I can’t see why the RAF Regiment can’t train at CIC but then on second thoughts it depends on capacity at CIC – how much are you saving if you close down one camp and have to build capacity at another? In the long term probably a lot, but if there simply is no cash to do that in the short term, there’s a problem.
I think the RM training needs to be separate, they have a particular role, particular training needs and they need to be close to the Fleet to do this properly.
A quick bit of research suggests that the Paras etc still have their own seperate infantry training, it is just done in the same place as the army.
I think the RM is all or nothing. Train them with the army and they are the army – you may as well disband them. The RAF Regiment could certainly put their initial training into Catterick.
PS the internet also told me a couple of other things. The Ghurkas do 39 weeks training rather than 26 – sounds pricey, another nail in the coffin. And there is an Army School of Bagpipe Music and Highland Drumming!!
I was thinking that with the levels of reduction suggested, up to twelve battalions, there would ample room at Catterick. Swap one of the line companies for a RAF Regiment squadron.
Perhaps the other infantry arms could have a similar structure to the paras? Separate training company, do 28 weeks CIC at Catterick. Then X weeks jumping out of planes/boats at a different location. Though location will be a bit of a bigger issue for the RM, granted.
I would keep 2 Battalions of Gurhka’s over some of our Line Infantry Regiments. The super regiments were made exactly so it would be easier to chop battlions in future reviews. The Gurhka’s also still find themselves having to form reinforcement companies in many of the Line Regiments, mainly those with names that don’t attract enough recruits.
I would like to see the RAF scrapped but this isn’t the thread. On the RAF Regiment, they have ensured their survival via the CRBN role, although I can’t see 2 Squadron maintaining their parachute role, since they have only recently been expanded I can’t see the axe falling to heavy on them.
The article says the Guards are untouchable! I have heard that their three Ceremonial companies; which count as second battalions, will be no more.
Ideally I would like to see things go back to the situation prior to the Options for Change in 1990. Although I can only see the Army shrinking in my life time.
i’m not sure there would be much point in shutting down honington. There’s alot more than basic training there. It’s also pretty big near suitable training areas and has had quite a bit of money spent on it. For example it had a couple of the new SLAM blocks built. In effect it’s raf reg central. Now everything is centralised not sure how much it would save breaking up it’s functions.
I’d rather have raf reg securing airfields in the battlefield and have the “warfighters”(?) infantry belong where they should; at the front, as already commented; the rock apes are more defensive. Much the same as having a Marine section on our ships for the ashore/boat boarding, rather than leaving it to the ships company. Though like the Marines, post Afghan their numbers should come down. I would prefer the RAF reg to take up the lions share of the FI defence post Afghan, seeing that RAF MP is the lynch-pin to their defence (arguably).
Echoing Topman’s comment, been based there for a while and it *is* Raf reg central, its their principle barracks and training base with the pros of having good training areas to use interfereing wih the Army training time on the bigger areas, its also stores central and with STANA close by …though the satellite field at Barnham is closer, but too small, I would say maybe expanding Barnham and closing Honn, but the chance for that has long since passed.
The article reeks of a knee-jerk reaction to not much info. Probs to guage public reation? Or just Army protest we’ve seen the RN and RAF do?
Anyway; what would you prefer for the Army (and this is just RE the Army) – would you slim down or cut?
I mean, that article informs that its the former of some rather key areas, before Afghan withdrawal.
Sounds very unhealthy to me.
Now, back to work – with some probs demoralised army lads :/
ChrisM, Para’s do have their own training, trust me, its harder and faster than anything the standard infantry can do.
If infantry numbers are on the way down the best thing to do is to raise the fitness levels. Then, and maybe then, we can get rid of all the fat knackers that seem to be endemic in certain corps. Fatest bloke I ever knew was in the REME, it was a shameful excercise having to watch them jack up a Gazelle helicopter because he was too portly to get under it. Sad times!
Well, I don’t know about the rest of you but I find the contents of the “Telegraph article horrific. It may very well be that what Phil says is true when he lists the possibilities: “Another tactically “leaked” document that the Telegraph is dressing up as fact. ….. I’d bet the farm it’s tosh, an options paper, a briefing, a blue sky thinking document, a scenario 1 Alpha or something.” I fervently hope that he is right.
However, even if the report even if the report is only half true then what it says is absolutely appalling. If these measures go ahead, then the Army will be left in a seriously emasculated state, unable to fight even the smallest type of sustained campaign. Nearly a decade ago, General Sir Michel Rose warned that if the cuts that were then taking place continued, then the time would come when the British Army would actually lose a battle. I must say that we came pretty close to that shameful state in the against Iraq.
I suppose Phil (who normally talks such tremendous sense) will be along shortly, saying that, well, it doesn’t matter because we shall have 30,000 fit, highly trained and rearing to go TA soldiers with not the vestige of a problem with any employer among them! And that they will somehow compensate. Well, if that comes about, I shall take my hat off to Phil but in the meantime, I can only snort derisively.
The cuts to the Infantry are particularly horrendous. 11 regiments to disappear, more than any analyst or pundit has mentioned so far. Moreover, I find the comments of the General difficult to swallow. Exactly what “enhanced capabilities in a range of priority areas will be achieved through reductions in, for example, heavy armour and artillery.”? In recent years we have seen nothing but a diminution of capabilities in all directions.
Lastly, the article mentions how almost the entire fleet of the Royal Artillery’s AS90 self-propelled guns will be “mothballed or held at readiness” by territorial units and that a similar fate awaits the RAC’s Challenger tanks. How does that square with the idea of the Multi-Role Brigades? Each of those is supposed to have one regiment of tanks and one regiment of artillery. Will the TA then step in to provide such elements in the MRBs?
Then there is also the excellent point made by TD when he says, “The article in the Telegraph talks of a change in approach from enduring operations to contingent operations but then goes on to mention the Multi Role Brigades, those MRBs that are predicated on maintaining enduring engagements.” How do you explain that inconsistency?
Going to say something really controversial, but….
Now the Army is being shredded, surely the time has come when it has to go back to being a male environment? The pink and fluffy E&D gender /race politics and targets have to go, surely.
Whatever stands after the politicians of the Quad (four hearse men if ever there were) have had their way has to be dedicated to deliverance, surely? All the back office jobs have got to go?
@Mike W
Do we really need three types of regular artillary? 105mm Light Guns and GMLRS between them seem to offer a good spread of capabilities. As such the 155mm gun might be seen as a bit of a luxury. Is there anything it can do that the other two can’t? Is it a platfrom with a future development path or it it last century’s weapon?
You could ask similar questions about organic company or platoon level fire support. If kit like Spike NLOS gets into the core budget could we do without the mortars? In an urban battlespace precision is everything, and mortars are not precise.
As for the tanks I would cheerfully see most of them go into reserve if it means we can retain the ability to deploy just 1 regular tank regiment in just 1 armoured brigade when we need it.
If we want the Territorials to be useful either as individuals or as formed units they need to be able to train with real equipment. It should also do some good to the TA’s ability to attract and retain the right sort of recruits if they have some propper warlike armour, and we won’t be buying any new so it has to come from somewhere.
@ Mike W – “How do you explain that inconsistency?”
As noted above:
There was always going to be a switch away from stabilisation to intervention, it is merely a question of how far the balance betwixt the two will shift.
I know that limited-stabilisation and punitive-intervention are not UK terms, and should be used advisedly, but does anyone not recognise them when reading the above in addition to the hundreds of other reports, leaks, briefings, etc?
Pre SDSR, at the height of afghanistan, we did i believe have ten brigades in roulement.
6x mech/armoured (stabilisation)
2x Cdo/AAB (intervention)
2x Light-Inf (to make up the numbers)
That is a ratio of either 4:1 or 3:1 in favour of stabilisation over intervention, depending on how you want to count it.
Speculation:
Presuming one of the four MRB’s goes, and presuming 16AAB survives in some form or other, then post SDSR2015 you have changed to a 2:1 ratio.
That is all. That is what it means when they talk going from enduring operations to contingent operations.
Britain still needs mech/arm, and it still needs [persistence], but what is apparant is that it wishes to keep a [permanent] ability to intervene in a contingency at a level that can achieve strategic effect.
Thus, when scaling back the army the latter gets let of lightly, and its importance as a ratio against the former climbs.
RE “Now the Army is being shredded”
- is it being shredded?
- or is it just the obsession with a 100% pro & standing army?
- which was the first fully mechanised army in the world [but tiny]that was so thoroughly beaten that there was only one regular formation (Canadian) left on these islands?
This last point is just a teaser — what do we need the army for, and then equip it accordingly, with a facility to ramp up the numbers within a reasonable time frame
- a two-thirds formula between regular& full-time vs the other elements?
I think the point I was making was that stepping back from the obsession with equality and diversity and reinstating the recognition that previously existed (the concept of Crown immunity?) that the armed forces are different would not be an unreasonable price for the forces to demand in order to continue to deliver with less dough. Just a thought, you understand, albeit a Neanderthal one that will be totally out of step with the modern MOD.
Perhaps a step back to the 80s?