So, the morning after the leaks and briefing had been concluded we will have the results later.
OBSERVATIONS
A few of observations before getting into the details…
ONE – Did we Actually Need to Make Any Cuts At All?
There is absolutely no question in my mind that without economic security there can be no other security so the need to address the deficit as the overriding strategy of the coalition government was a sound one. However, that does not mean that it should automatically follow that defence should be subject to any budget reductions whatsoever.
There is equally a need to address the profligate MoD that have wasted money on a biblical scale but successive Governments have written cheques the emaciated and inefficient MoD and Armed Forces were unable to cash. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures of resourcing as much as one might argue they were failures of anything else.
The current SDSR argues that significant reductions, and they are significant, can be achieved without strategic shrinkage.
That is clearly nonsense of the worst kind and the equivalent of putting ones fingers in your ears and shouting la la la la.
Setting the armed forces up for failure in the future by pretending all in the garden is rosy is fundamentally dishonest and it needs to be said.
TWO – Backbone; or Complete Lack of It
One of our commenters made the very valid point that the armed forces are political and should always be, so it is inevitable that politics would play a large part of the decision making. Instead of looking at the Household Division, Gurkhas or other untouchables the government has tied the hands of those trying to deliver the reductions.
Timing is always an interesting point but I also wonder if these announcements could have been made earlier, avoiding keeping people in uncertainty.
Getting the Jubilee and Armed Forces Day out of the way seems like a bit of cynical PR to me, should we be suprised?
THREE – Leaking, Spinning and Vested Interests
When is the leaking culture going to stop?
The MoD and political leadership in Government needs to get a grip of this, it is wholly unhealthy and breeds a culture of mistrust. No matter what the justification there is no excuse and it is pretty saddening to be honest that those in positions of trust feel they are justified in undermining the process.
When I read about either cap badge or service special pleading and corrosive politicking by the higher echelons of the forces I despair. All of them seem to be guilty of it and this is yet another failure of political leadership.
FOUR – Speculation
Having looked at this for a while now I came to the conclusion that hanging on to every leaked report and breathlessly pronouncing on the future of individual units really was unhelpful to those that might be looking at a very uncertain future.
I also have a bad taste in my mouth when I read people being critical of those making these incredibly difficult and detailed decisions from a position of zero experience or access to anything beyond a leaked report, Wikipedia and copy of the Soldier magazine.
If anyone thinks those that will be affected by this already know and therefore it doesn’t matter clearly have no clue whatsoever of how these things work and little regard for the indviduals involved.
So, in general terms, I have stayed away from that, apologise if you were expecting different.
FIVE – A Sudden Interest in ‘Homeland Resilience and Security’
When the Conservative Party released its pre-election defence strategy I covered in some depth its focus on using the Armed Forces to deliver against an increased obligation for homeland security and resilience.
Oh, stop there a minute…
Anyone who uses the term homeland in relation to the UK should be taken outside and debagged, it’s a pathetic and demeaning display of a slavish devotion to US military and security fashion, like warfighting, it needs expunging from any British defence language.
Rant over
For several years the Armed Forces had seen civil contingency support as something they should do as a last resort and rightly so. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and subsequent guidance shifted the relevant responders away from any form of reliance of the Armed Forces but as the end to operations in Afghanistan is in sight it seems that they are now all over the ‘mission’
Like the ‘security theatre’ and anti-aircraft missiles on rooftops for the expensive summer sports day that are part of the new found interest we need to have a very long think about this, not sure we are travelling the correct road.
SIX – The Reserves
There is an almost religious belief that the reserves can make up the short fall in regular force numbers and whilst it should be obvious to all that there exists a tremendous reserve component across all three services without any change in primary employment legislation are we just hoping for the best?
SEVEN – Its Not Just About The Infantry
Most of the press has focussed on the infantry but the cuts in the combat support and combat service support (if rumours are true) seem more disproportionate, perhaps the strategy is to rely on the reserves and contractors for some of these functions, if so, that is equally worthy of debate.
PREPARING THE GROUND
Writing in The Times newspaper, Chief of the General Staff General Sir Peter Wall has outlined the thinking behind the changes to be made to the Army in today’s Army 2020 announcement.
General Wall writes:
Today the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond will set out what the Army is for.
After the experiences of the past ten years there is unlikely to be much of a national appetite for protracted war. Yes, the United Kingdom faces new threats from terrorism and cyber attack. But in an era where there has been no threat of conventional invasion since the end of the Cold War, some might ask why we can’t shrink our Army by even more than the significant numbers already announced.
Fighting wars through precision attacks from air and sea has obvious political as well as military attractions. And if that won’t work then why not rely on our allies to do the hard yards? Or support a local proxy force to deliver ‘boots on the ground’?
The answer lies in the level of assurance that we as a nation require when our interests are being threatened and we are vulnerable. The world is not going to be any less confrontational just because of its economic plight; in all probability it will be more so.
Some threats we face will come from well outside the military sphere: challenges to our economic interest, to our values and beliefs, to the conditions that underpin stability around the world. Diplomacy and negotiation will always be our first resort. But the credibility of these approaches often depends on the implicit understanding that military options exist – and that, when the preferred means aren’t working, we may need to turn to them.
And that when we do, they must work.
Increasingly that means forming coalitions that include regional partners as well as our traditional allies. They are becoming ever more important in political and military terms, but also to confer international legitimacy on our actions. We should only commit forces when we have a clear understanding of the nuances of the situation at all levels – including the human terrain. Understanding that is critical as both Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated. Such a level of clarity is hard to come by.
We have designed Army 2020 against this backdrop. Our future force will be structured around three core purposes. The first is intervention and conventional deterrence; the second is overseas operations in multinational alliances to prevent conflict at source; the third purpose is activity within the UK – partly to make us more responsive to domestic operations such as flood relief and the Olympics and to improve homeland resilience, but primarily to ensure that we can sustain the reformed Army Reserve that will be a key element of our new forces.
The Army Reserve will include armoured forces and light forces, intelligence and surveillance. It will work with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as well as government departments and NGOs [non-governmental organisations]. It can be adapted to handle smaller operations, or configured as a full-scale brigade for a sustained period, as we currently operate in Afghanistan. Given warning it will field a division for even larger challenges.
Despite a reduction of 20 per cent in our regular manpower, our future capacity will not be far short of its current level. We have managed this by building a high dependence on the new Army Reserve, and a support network of specialist contractors. This is a groundbreaking change. But I am confident that with imagination and the help of employers and industry – supported by changes to legislation – this will work.
Relocating the Army from Germany calls for some focused spending on new bases – and the sooner we can do this the better. We will have important new equipment, including the excellent capabilities returning from Afghanistan.
But what of our officers and soldiers who are so critical to this venture? They are to be found in the warrior generation that has fought courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need them to soldier on into the new era, and we need people of comparable courage, talent and commitment to join them.
After our departure from Afghanistan in 2014 life in this new Army is going to be different for sure; but it will be just as challenging. So we will look after them and their families. The ongoing redundancy programme is unavoidable. We must do everything possible to support those soldiers making the transition into civilian life. Equally we need to ensure the military continues to attract the best.
Change is always difficult, and for an organisation as mindful of its history as the British Army this is especially so. I am confident that Army 2020 is imaginatively configured and properly resourced to meet the future demands of this uncertain world, manned by soldiers of the highest quality.
THE DETAILS
Apart from the sacred cows I think we might be surprised by how well thought out this will be given the poison chalice the Army had been handed and political meddling that s only too obvious, we might only get the general announcements later with details following.
Watch live here
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11031
Bullet points from Phil Hammonds statement to the House of Commons and associated releases
Army 2020 announcement confirms Army to be reduced by 23 units
The Army is to be reduced by 23 Regular units since the Strategic Defence and Security Review as part of Army 2020. The changes are due to be implemented by 2015, with the overall mandate to reach the capacity of 82,000 for the Regular Army and 30,000 for the Reserves by 2018.
The announcement came today in the House of Commons by Secretary of State for Defence the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP after months of work by the Army to create a modern force for the challenges of 2020 and beyond.
The changes to the Order of Battle (ORBAT) will include:
Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps
The Queens Royal Lancers will amalgamate with 9th/12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales’s) upon completion of scheduled operational commitments and not before October 2014.
[TD: The new unit will be called The Royal Lancers (RL)]
The 1st Royal Tank Regiment and the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment will merge upon completion of scheduled operational commitments and not before April 2014.
Royal Regiment of Artillery
39 Regiment Royal Artillery and 40 Regiment Royal Artillery will both be removed from the ORBAT by October 2015.
Corps of the Royal Engineer
24 Commando Engineer Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before April 2013.
[TD: Reverts to 59 Independant Commando Squadron RE and 131 Independant Commando Squadron RE (V)]
25 Engineer Regiment and 28 Engineer Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before October 2015.
[TD: 25 squadrons moved to 39 a while ago]
38 Engineer Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT.
[TD: Already disbanded when 19 Lt Bde disbanded]
67 Works Group will also be removed from the ORBAT not before April 2015.
Royal Corps of Signals
7th Signal Regiment (Allied Rapid Reaction Corps) is to be removed from the ORBAT.
Infantry
5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders,) will be reduced to form a Public Duties Incremental Company on completion of current task and not before August 2013.
2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will be removed from the ORBAT and absorbed into the rest of The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers upon completion of scheduled operational commitments in the autumn of 2014.
The 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment (Green Howard’s) will be removed from the ORBAT and absorbed into the rest of The Yorkshire Regiment on completion of their Cyprus tour and not before the Autumn of 2013.
[TD Edit
Message from the Colonel of the Regiment –
We have been directed to form two regular battalions in Autumn 2013. We shall therefore merge the current 2nd Battalion into the current 1st and 3rd Battalions. The 3rd Battalion will become the 2nd Battalion. The 4th Battalion will remain as a TA Battalion. We shall not retain the names of our antecedent regiments in our battalion titles.
This is a change that affects the whole Regiment, not merely one battalion of The Yorkshire Regiment. This is a merger, not a takeover or disbandment. The priority is to ensure that our people are managed properly. All directly affected individuals will be consulted and kept informed. The chain of command will work closely with the Army Personnel Centre to manage careers. The Executive Committee of The Yorkshire Regiment chaired by a senior member of the Board will oversee the merger.
We do not like losing a Battalion from the Regiment’s Order of Battle. But for this change to work, we must accept and embrace it. Resistance to the merger will be an unnecessary and destructive distraction – the Regiment will not engage in special pleading or lobbying. We will make this merger work
After the merger, we will have two fully manned regular battalions of The Yorkshire Regiment supported by a reserve battalion. These battalions will not be PWO, Dukes or Green Howards. They will be YORKS. Hence the removal of the antecedents from our regular battalion titles. The Executive Committee, having consulted widely, will recommend how we are to retain the ‘golden thread’ connecting us to our antecedent regiments for endorsement by me and approval by our Colonel in Chief.
]
The 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment (Staffordshire) will be removed from the ORBAT and absorbed into the rest of The Mercian Regiment on completion of Op HERRICK 19 and not before October 2014.
2nd Battalion the Royal Welsh (The Royal Regiment of Wales) will be removed from the ORBAT and absorbed into the rest of The Royal Welsh Regiment not before Autumn 2013.
1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment will join the Prince of Wales’ Division.
Army Air Corps
1 Regiment Army Air Corps will merge with 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, bringing the Wildcat force under a single HQ based at Yeovilton not before October 2015.
Royal Logistic Corps (RLC)
1 Logistic Support Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before April 2015.
2 Logistic Support Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before October 2014.
23 Pioneer Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before October 2015.
8 Regiment, 19 Combat Service Support Battalion and 24 Regiment RLC will be removed from the ORBAT.
Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineer
101 Force Support Battalion will be removed from the Regular Army ORBAT not before Autumn 2015, and will transfer to the Reserve.
Royal Military Police unit
5 Regiment Royal Military Police is to be removed from the ORBAT as part of the drawdown from Germany. The three remaining Regiments will be re-organised.
All SIB capabilities will be reorganised under one headquarters, while the Military Provost Service will be increased, and a specialist Support Operations group will be created.
The Royal Gurkha Rifles are to remain with two Battalions to sustain their capability and meet their unique operational requirement in Brunei.
The current Regular and Reserve structure for the Army Medical Services will remain largely unchanged with three Regular and ten Reserve field hospitals.
The Intelligence Corps will retain three Regular military intelligence battalions.
Sustaining cap badges
Addressing questions about specific unit reductions, Chief of the General Staff (CGS) General Sir Peter Wall KCB CBE ADC Gen, said the units to be lost from the Royal Armoured Corps were selected on the basis of armoured corps principles and to sustain as many cap badges as possible.
“We will still have three heavy armoured regiments equipped with an upgrade of Challenger 2, which will satisfy our requirements for the future. This is based on analysis that sees tanks being used less in a mass armoured role but still playing a very important role in terms of supporting the infantry.”
The five Infantry Battalions were selected based on a number of factors including their ability to recruit over the last ten years, and the demographic projections about the population in their recruitment areas over the next ten years.
The six RLC units to be disbanded were selected based on future projections for logistic requirements, and were also those that provided a role that could be fulfilled by the Army Reserves and contractors.
“The RLC will still remain a critical part of the Army and one of considerable size. But we needed to find places where we can employ Reserves and contractors to alleviate some of the high costs of military manpower, and the RLC is an area where that works well,” he said.
Fair distribution of resources
On the subject of the Reserves, CGS confirmed there were very few adjustments being made but until the laydown of the Regular Army is confirmed there would be no further announcements on how the Reserves would be recast to partner and complement Regular units in their areas.
“I appreciate that it is a difficult day for those people who have heard that the Regiments they have fought in are going to be amalgamated or disbanded, but in the round it is a good day for the Army as it gives us the clarity and springboard to shape the Army to confront the challenges of the future.
“This is fair to the country as it delivers the very best capabilities that we can with the resources that we have been given. It rebalances the Army to the demands of the future with a fair distribution of resources and manpower across all of the cap badges. And it it is fair at the soldier level where we shall we doing our utmost to make sure that everybody gets the best chance of being re-employed in the Army.
Re-employment possibilities
CGS was keen to stress to soldiers serving with the units to be disbanded or merged that they were no more or less likely to be selected for redundancy that others with similar skills and service record.
“Your prospects of redundancy are no greater by dint of being in a Regiment that has been selected to be removed from the order of battle,” he said.
When units are withdrawn, their personnel will be reassigned to other units – where possible, within the same regiment or corps.
Although the majority of the changes are due to be made between 2014 and 2016, there may be some unit reductions before 2014, dependent on force levels in Afghanistan.
Optimistic for the future
“Overall I am optimistic that this will work well and has used the best of the resources that have been afforded to us by the country.
“Army 2020 is an ambitious vision for unprecedented times. It will demand resilience, flexibility and genuine adaptability from talented and committed officers and soldiers. In return it will provide challenge and opportunity in abundance. Soldiering in this Army will continue to be an exacting and rewarding vocation,” CGS concluded.
QUICK THOUGHTS
- Given the crap hand it was dealt, I think we need to show some humility and congratulate the Army on coming up with a sensible proposal
- Hammond needs a good shoeing for using the term warfighting in his speech
- I don’t for one second think the Army’s hand wasn’t forced on Gurkhas, ceremonial, Guards and Scottish units which made the outcome less coherant than it might have been. craven political cowardice on the part of the Government
- Concentrating on cap badges and regiments, listening to vested interests but lacerating those units with one cap badge i.e. the CS/CSS shows a distinct lack of moral courage on the part of the Government
- Lots of work to do in the future, especially with the Reserves and contractors, the outcome of which is uncertain in the extreme i.e., this is a calculated gamble
UPDATE
More information from the MoD
Army 2020 sets out plans for transformation of the Force
The Army of 2020 will be an adaptable and integrated structure that is broken into two forces: a Reaction Force and an Adaptive Force that are both supported by Force Troops.
The Reaction Force will provide the lead Armoured Infantry Battle Group and the lead Airborne or Air Assault Force to provide a rapid reaction war fighting/deterrent capability.
It will consist of three Armoured Infantry Brigades and 16 Air Assault Brigade under the command of a divisional headquarters. Each Armoured Infantry Brigade will have three manoeuvre units: a type 56 tank regiment and two armoured infantry battalions. They will also have a heavily protected mobility infantry battalion, and an armoured cavalry regiment which will be able to task organise with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
The Reaction Forces will also have 101 Logistic Brigade under their command for logistic support.
The Adaptable Force will be a pool of Regular and Reserve forces held at lower readiness. They will provide further capacity when required and be able to generate additional brigade-sized forces for enduring operations. However, more routinely these soldiers will carry out wider engagement overseas to help to build capacity in friendly nations’ armies, and fulfil the UK’s standing garrison tasks in Brunei, Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. In addition, these troops will be responsible for public duties and state ceremonial tasks.
Adaptable Forces will encompass seven Regular infantry brigades, paired with a Reserve unit, reporting to a divisional headquarters. How these paired forces will be deployed will depend on the operational requirement, but the Reserves could make up as much as 30 per cent of a deployed unit in an enduring operation, whereas simple operations could have the Reserves deployed as a complete battalion.
Like the Reaction Force, the Adaptable Force will have its own logistic support provided by 102 Logistic Brigade, which will be predominantly made up of Reserve troops.
Force Troops will support both of these forces. They will consist of an Artillery brigade with supplementary Fire Support Teams, and an Engineer Brigade that will integrate the Explosive Ordinance Disposal squadron in response to the improvised explosive device threat of the modern battlefield. It will also include the Medical Brigade, and 104 Logistic Support Brigade, which might take on the Joint Force Logistic Support role.
In addition, there will be two Signals brigades, one of which will include five multi-role signals regiments providing Information Communication Support, together with a newly created non-deployable Surveillance Brigade under a 1-star headquarters. Furthermore, there will be a newly created Security Assistance Group pulling together the soft effect capabilities of the Military Stabilisation Support Group, 15 Psychological Operations Group and potentially Media Operations Group.
“This is not something that will be delivered overnight, and indeed it is going to take till 2020 for it to be fully implemented,” said Lieutenant General Nick Carter, “but the capabilities of the structure we have created is one that we have measured against the hardest threat we could have to fight in the future.”
Interesting post:
When is the leaking culture going to stop? It’s not. it’s part of the new politics. get used to it.
Apart from the sacred cows I think we might be surprised by how well thought out this will be …. I am standing by to be surprised !
Any thoughts about the CS and CSS cuts ? Apart from the usual wishful thinking on reserves….
NB anyone seen the grauniad today – nice advert for a new Comms Director for the MOD … 120k pa cant be bad ! http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/4475784/director-of-media-communications/
Given the huge number of non-jobs that riddle the public sector, we should have sacked many of those rather than cut the army below 100,000. Or cut the RN below 30 escorts. Or this slow motion cut of over half our helicopters.
Need to save more money? Then cut DfID, EU contributions & stop paying fines to ECHR. Then jail for life anyone who missuses a public sector credit card.
Trouble is old boy the non jobs hang on like rabid dogs and even worse a lot of them aren’t recognised as non jobs but vital posts which only by the grace of God humanity has done without before.
Someone reads the Daily Fail! There are not that many non jobs in the MOD. They learnt a long time ago that putting the military in charge of the contracts was a bad idea, they get fleeced all over the shop. Now the move is to just hand it over to the private sector, something that great bastion of socialism, the USA, is now moving back from due to the horrendous waste and corruption that results! The RN now has 19 escorts (13 frigates, 6 destroyers) so it is already well below 30 (pay attention here otherwise the TD community will flog you!). Not going to bother discussing the EU with you, but in regards to the government credit cards, read the excellent post by Thethinpinstriped line on this issue. Credit card abuse in the public sector really isn’t endemic.
TD is fully right, our strategic aspirations have to match our resources. They don’t and so everything is a fudge. Trying to organise the armed forces as if we are still an empire is not practical and so the goal has to be to focus on keeping and enhancing the things we are good at.
Phil said “Trouble is old boy the non jobs hang on like rabid dogs and even worse a lot of them aren’t recognised as non jobs but vital posts which only by the grace of God humanity has done without before.”
You used that g word with a capital G. Could you rewrite it to be a bit more inclusive of atheists and those from other faiths please?
At least you said humanity and not mankind.
Peace out.
PS: Old boy? You are being ageist and too gender specific….. sorry….peace out again.
TD,
What so wrong with the term “homeland”? I didn’t realise it was American – I actually thought it was more German or Russian?
What phrase should I use to indicate defence of the British Isle and its overseas territories rather than defending the sea lanes and projecting foreign policy to unstable states.
I’m not ranting, I just want something shorter than the above.
Cheers.
Our strategic aspirations have never met our means since the Hundred Years War. People think this is something new. Alliances exist for this reason. There’s one nation on this planet that has the mass to go it alone and even then it probably doesn’t if too many things kick off at once. Really the aim is to have autonomy at the lower end of the operational spectrum and have influence in an alliance at the higher end. We will never do anything alone except fight bush wars if we had any colonies left or do lower level battlegroup operations. The peat bog islands are a vague exception but even last time our alliances assisted us and we didn’t really go if alone completely.
Nothing has changed!
to be fair to john he stated non-jobs in the public sector, i know a council (no names no pack drill) that employs a lot of people with good wages, that quite frankly do the minimum. How many of us get the quartly “info magazines” that are full of non important shite that are written by public sector staff, and printed in glossy colour.
i’m not even going to go down the diversity route, it’s been well documented, i would say out all the public sector departments the MOD get quite good value out of theirs.
Maybe just maybe and i’m clutching at the rim of the half full glass here, it will be easier to increase the size of logistics regiments in the future if the reservists experiment goes tits up. Has anyone seen screaming headlines about a REME battalion being disbanded? No didn’t think so.
As a footnote bob stewart has summed the cuts up in one sentence, “an army of less than 100,000 should be classed as a home defence force not an army”
I prefer home islands…….
If the 175,000 members of the police force carried guns I’d be a little happier.
80,000 is only about 1 for every 800 people in the UK.
This must be one of the lowest in the western world?
x,
“Home Islands” sounds pretty good.
Home Islands – you mean Great Britain. We don’t defend the whole British Isles of course. That large blob to the left have been responsible for their own defence for the last ninety years.
Watch live
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=11031
“When is the leaking culture going to stop? It’s not. it’s part of the new politics”
Not new either, back in 1887 The sinking of the Victoria with the causes and blame game that followed led to deliberate leaks to the Media by certain personell to promote change in policy; sorta kicked off the whole game.
We’ll never see it end, and it can be a double edged sword.
These cuts/changes, I understand, are to occur in a 5-10 year period…so at least it wont be as swift acting as the junior and senior services experienced. Still, I aint happy :c
Jim,
My error. I meant Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Overseas Territories should be called “Greater Britain” – it worked for London
Simon @ 09:10
Thou shalt use the term “defence of the realm”, not “homeland security and resilience”.
BB,
Okay, “realm” – whilst we still have a monarchy
There are tens of thousands of non-jobs still in existence in the MoD, and if that is the case, a million or more across the national public sector.
Those MoD non-jobs:
About 50% of Abbey Wood, allowing for those remaining to work twice as hard and therefore put in a proper day’s work, and 75% to be sacked or whatever the correct HR term is.
RAF Regiment
RAF Movers
Anyone involved in public duties
90% of Retired Officer (RO) posts
MoD Plod
About 50% of the staff of the “Directorates” in the Army (i.e. DRAC, DRA, D Inf, etc). Pretty sure the Andrew and the Kevins are equally guilty of hosting similar parasite organisations.
About 95% of the Joint Doctrine community. Honestly, how many high priced staff officers do you need to churn out bullshit that on one reads?
About 75% of the civvy clerical staff of any single HQ.
After that, there are some fundamental questions about the harmony guidelines and why 3:1 tour intervals is not some law written in stone but appears to be regarded as such, and why on earth we always need to buy 3 ships or even 4 submarines to guarantee one being available.
No cap badges or regiment names to go – battalions to go from multi-battalion regiments; one Scots battslion to be reduced to a company
Post updated
@ Simon; how about “territorial defence”?
There’s some missing info and puzzlement here.
Unless I’m completely out of date, there are currently 5 armoured Regiments, which are to reduce to 3. The current 5 are SCOTS DG, RDG, QRH, KRH and 2 RTR. 2 RTR disappears, leaving 4, so presumably one of the four re-roles to something else.
There are currently 5 recce Regiments (HCR, QDG, 9/12L, LD and QRL). 9/12L and QRL to amalgamate, leaving 4. This is the first time in history (I think) that the light cavalry have outnumbered the heavies. No comment on that – it’s the way of the world. ISTAR over punch.
I see the Brigade of Guards got away with it, yet again.
Red Trousers,
Your list of non-jobs is a complete load of tosh and shows a complete lack of understanding of the military in general let alone the areas you highlight as non-jobs. Are you in the service? If so which one and at what level? MPGS?
No cap badges or regiment names to go – battalions to go from multi-battalion regiments; one Scots battslion to be reduced to a company
Could some one just get rid of the Argyle & Souther Highlander’s. My TA company was attatched to them. It is a great old regiment that in battalion size was fair enough but reducing it to a company is just adding insult to injury. Just get rid of it. I recon in force 2040 we will be having the Royal Scots platoon part of the Guards company with an attached section know as the Argyle and Southern Highlander’s all inside the POW regiment.
Maybe we should just give all the colours to the OTC and let the students polish them.
Am I right in thinking they have reduced the Gurkhas by one battalion?
Like every other eagerly anticipated army announcement it’s half a story and lacking in detail. Does my head in. And the fact that the reserve integration is saved for another announcement farther down the line. Bah!! Nobody said TA. I guess Army Reserve is its new name. Good.
Bugger off Wibble.
I spent 21 years serving at a variety of levels from Trooper to running the C4ISTAR Branch at HQ LAND, including 4 years in total working alongside the DPA in Abbey Wood, 18 months at DRAC, having operational control within 1st Armd Div of an RAF Regiment Squadron, working alongside Retired Officers, as the Field Army’s interface to the Joint Doctrine community, and a year on JSCSC 3. I’m pretty sure of my ground.
And you?
now, this could be interesting, time to pull up chair. Over to you red trousers, sir (the sir bit is a hint to wibble)
Don’t feed the troll Wibble!
@ Red Trousers: Some of us know how the MOD works (not perfectly, no one knows that) and I personally have seen a wider breadth of the organisation than you, including a large number of teams in MOD centre, various Army stations, Navy Command and Abbey Wood. (not going into details for good reasons) You might personally think senior management a waste of space (don’t we all sometimes), but your pro-green everything else is crap prejudicies are showing! Only someone who knows nothing about what a political mess defence is or the stupidly complicated complexities of defence business would suggest the cuts that you have suggested.
The smart people on this site front up ideas on how to fix things, not make sweaping generalisations that would cause a shedload of other problems. Of course, if you say trim the MOD by 50% and accept that the UK should become a puny self defence force, go right ahead. Just don’t pretend a 200,000+ Armed Forces is going to achieve much without suited movers and shakers backing them up.
So James our resident Cavalryman is now using the handle Red Trousers ???? Confused, CV sounds the same ! James, is it you……
“I spent 21 years serving at a variety of levels from Trooper to running the C4ISTAR Branch at HQ LAND, including 4 years in total working alongside the DPA in Abbey Wood, 18 months at DRAC, having operational control within 1st Armd Div of an RAF Regiment Squadron, working alongside Retired Officers, as the Field Army’s interface to the Joint Doctrine community, and a year on JSCSC 3. I’m pretty sure of my ground.”
If MOD let you anywhere near that lot, no wonder they’re fucked…
Have also hated the term “Homland Defence”. We had a perfect name for it back in the Cold War -”Home Defence”
“The smart people on this site front up ideas on how to fix things, not make sweaping generalisations that would cause a shedload of other problems”
Amen.
Not sure about the changes, no-one screaming blue murder yet?
With the TA/AR(?) integration being delayed for another announcement…kinda sounds like that part hasn’t yet been thought out.
Hmm, not sure the Royal Welsh are gonna be too pleased. Part of the last shuffle that saw them become the “small” regiment to the Mercian’s “large” was the tacit understanding that in the event of future cuts all the “large” regiments would take a hit and the small would generally be left alone, but the Guards and the Rifles get away without being touched? Must be a recruitment issue.
Why 24 Commando RE? Why? WHY? How do 9 Para escape?
Forget the Guards what about the 2300 RAF Reg bods? Why? WHY?
I thought 2RRF was up to strength and nearly all UK nationals?
Crackers.
Of course Red Trousers is no doubt aware that the “Directorates” as he calls them, Arms and Service Directors (A&SDs) to everyone else, have already been amalgamated and replaced by Capability Directors.
X, I think 24 is going but the parts remain, so 59 and 131(V) I think
@ Martin – I believe the two Gurkha battalions have been retained due to the Brunei commitment.
“@ Martin – I believe the two Gurkha battalions have been retained due to the Brunei commitment”
Yeah, they both escaped.
Can we keep the personal attacks to a minimum guys?
@ red trousers? Brown trousers? Can I be yellow trousers? ;p
Just updated the post with a few quick thoughts
My take, over and above leaks & speculation ahead of time:
1. Clear signal that the three Armoured formations would have new/ refurbed wagons (the speculated contracted numbers for them are not far off, so this has been in the works for at least the last two years?)
2. On a 6 month rota, called up reserves might be 10% to begin with, rising to 30% of the fielded force in round 4 or 5
- interesting difference in delivering this message:
–to the politicians and the population at large, a division level commitment would be best effort (implying not for long)
– if a force is still in the field after 24-30 months and reserves make up a third of it, even a formed brigade is hinted at, that is not very short term (and different from an enduring brigade-level commitment)
@ TD
Thank you for that small crumb of comfort.
Still I want to know why my county regiment and 2RRF are for the chop and the RAF Reg remains in tact. One supposes they are sacrificial lambs next time HMG wants to trim something from the RAF proper.
@ Gareth J
You are too young, you can be Short Trousers.
I think that makes TD, Cargo Pants……
Red Trouser is obviously James with all his talk of the Andrew and the floatty boats. Its that or some one has cloned James, scary thought. Seriously though we all know you have a massive amount of experience in the Army but it does not mean you are right in your opinion’s. If the people in charge of the Army knew what they were doing we would not have had all the cluster f**ks we have had in the past several hundred year’s. We can blame politicians however even with today’s weak assed breed I suspect it’s the brass that are more concerned with the cap badges and sacred cows. Dose Dave the rave even know what a Mercian is.
On the face of it there seems to be a decent amount of thought put in to Force 2020 but as with everything from this government we are light on detail. None of it means s**t until we are given an understanding of the Reserve role and exactly how civilian contractors will be brought in. Much of it seems to echo many of the comments from this site so maybe Whitehall do read Think Defence. Maybe TD could take over the role of the Telegraph in determining British defence policy from now on
And as predicted the seven brigades are nothing more than the regional brigades from which forces will be plucked, hopefully there will be some logic to it all. I hate it when they don’t just say how the Army will be organised they just give you selected snippets. It will be months before we know how they plan this to all be organised.
TD, sure is (as you say), but one phrase keeps repeating: “given time”
Do you think the Ready Force can be supported by the “tail” that remains with the regulars?
RE “Lots of work to do in the future, especially with the Reserves and contractors, the outcome of which is uncertain in the extreme i.e., this is a calculated gamble”
Short trousers? Hmmm… I can go with that…
My own thoughts are that I agree with much of what TD has said.
I think the move back to ‘homeland resilience’ will immediately undo much of the good work done by CCA2004 in encouraging local authorities to take charge of their crisis planning. While ‘call in the Army’ always remained an option, at least stepping back from being the 4th emergency service helped get realism in their planning. It remains to be seen what will occur next.
Secondly, I see the emergence of a two tier army, and much like the civil service Faststream has specific ‘plum posts’ I predict the movers & thrusters of each Corps / Regt will be posted to ‘chunky’ Response force jobs. We’ve essentially turned a large chunk of the Army into a bigger version of the Regional Force HQ.
Finally, I think there is a very dangerous planning assumption that we can hit 30K TA, and that they will be at the right rank, with the right training and willing to deploy in the right timeframe. My instinct tells me that we’ll do brilliantly at getting Privates in, and not generating WOs in due course.
I’ll do a blog update on this later today or tomorrow.
Well everyone else is getting leg ware fixated thought I would Join in!
Interestingly the Scottish reg’s seem to be going down to 450 man battalions- does that not make the weak viz current doctrine? how will they fit in with everyone else?
IXION
Could be worse soon the government of Nepal, are making noises about stopping its nationals joining foreign army’s. So take away another two battalions in the immediate future.
If the RAC are going down to nine regiments, three will be in the Armoured Infantry Brigades on CH2. One other CH2 regiment spare and five Recce regiments and do they still do the NBC Regiment role ?