UK military faces major overhaul

[pinkeye]

UK military faces major overhaul

The UK's top military officer has indicated a major overhaul of Britain's armed forces to respond to the demands of combating international terrorism.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Michael Walker signalled cuts in warships, aircraft and heavy armour.

The general - speaking ahead of Thursday's Defence White Paper - warned of "tough choices" ahead.

He said the plans had the backing of military top brass and were not being driven by politicians and accountants.


Adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made
General Sir Michael Walker

But Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson warned against cutting troop numbers.

"With the Army already under strength, and committed from Northern Ireland to Iraq and relying heavily on reservists, it would be highly irresponsible to cut the strength of the Armed Forces further," he said.

In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Sir Michael cautioned that there must be "no change for the sake of change".

He added: "But this White Paper is about building 21st century armed forces."

Changes were being driven by the need for a more "flexible and agile" armed forces to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to tackle international terrorism.

"Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world," he said.

Fleet 'adjustments'

"This places a premium on the agility, deployability and sustainability of our forces."

With the Type 45 destroyer and two planned new aircraft carriers coming into service some of the Royal Navy's older warships would no longer be required - giving space for "some adjustments" within the existing fleet.

And new technology including the latest precision missiles would allow the RAF to achieve its military objectives while deploying fewer aircraft.

In the army, a new generation medium weight armoured vehicle would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery".

"Significant" amounts of cash would be invested so that weapons such as unmanned aerial drones could help spot and attack "targets of opportunity".

Large-scale operations

"It is inevitable that this will mean change - adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made," he said.

"It would be quite wrong for us to retain systems, within a finite budget, which we know are no longer effective."

The restructuring, said Sir Michael, would enable Britain to mount "limited national operations" unilaterally or take the lead in small to medium operations in international conflict.

UK forces would also retain the capacity to undertake large-scale operations but the "most demanding expeditionary operations" could only be "plausibly" mounted if the US was involved.

"Consequently, our Armed Forces will need to be interoperable with US command and control structures, maintain the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US," he said.

Polarisation warning

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also stressed the importance of British forces being able to operate alongside the Americans - something which he acknowledged was both "technologically challenging and financially expensive".

Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.

"In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door," he said.

"The dangerous consequence of this is that it can feed misunderstanding and encourage isolationist tendencies on both sides of the Atlantic."

It was important both to Europe and to the US that there continued to be an "effective and sustainable transatlantic alliance", preferably via Nato.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3304867.stm

Published: 2003/12/09 20:22:51 GMT

[martinexsquaddie]

cut cuts cut cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts cuts :(

[Chris1]

http://members.aol.com/ebvanness/graphics/axe.gif

[Tane Angle]

Take this as you may, but you Brits might want to see how our Stryker fairs before you make the leap to a medium weight vehicle. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[marktigger]

yep usual labour Jam tomorrow. They'll cut now and when the armed forces want the money for all the new kit they've promised it'll be find the money from existing budgets.
Eurofighter will be laughing all the way to the bank cause the penealty clauses allegedelly are so bad its cheaper just to get the aircraft and mothball them.

[Pille1234]

yep usual labour Jam tomorrow. They'll cut now and when the armed forces want the money for all the new kit they've promised it'll be find the money from existing budgets.
Eurofighter will be laughing all the way to the bank cause the penealty clauses allegedelly are so bad its cheaper just to get the aircraft and mothball them.

Maybe the Brits can sell some of their Typhoons to Singapur and Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, maybe we bomb the Sauds in 4 years - that would be galling. Typhoon vs Typhoon no fun at all.

[Marxist203]

From the looks of it...the UK is adapting the military to be a niche force to operate inside the US command structure. Good bye UK sovreignty!

[Whistler]

I hear you Brits... our (Canadian) Govt has done the same thing. Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut.... then they say the only function of our military is to be a highly mobile support force to operate with the Americans :( .

[Royal]

Take this as you may, but you Brits might want to see how our Stryker fairs before you make the leap to a medium weight vehicle. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

We've had CVR(T) since the early 70's at least. It's crap; under armoured, ****e to mine strike, poor crew protection antiquated weapons and target aquisition systems etc. BTW it's just completed yet another mid life upgrade :cantbeli:

[Royal]

I agree with most of what Gen Walker says; Eurofighter is a total waste of money (a cold war dinosour), the Royal Navy is still not geared for expeditionary warfare (Ocean is a start, but we need proper carriers).

As far as the Army is concerned; regardless of what anyone says, we still have a commitment in Northern Ireland; Armoured units at less than Brigade size are a waste of time - armour has to be concentrated for maximum effect. AMS needs a major overhaul to reduce it's reliance on the NHS. ISTAR assets need to be beefed up and coordinated across the three services and we've got to stop paying lipsevice to the requirement for Linguists/HumInt Operators - too much of that capability is being supplied by ageing reservists, an issue that should have been adressed two years ago. The Int world has to get away from it's Northern Ireland mindset.

But the bottom line is that we cannot afford to cut any more infantry - at the end of the day, when we've played with all the whiz-bangs and gucci stealth kit it requires an infantryman to take and hold ground.

[Nizark]

Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.

"In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door," he said. "

Well f**ckin A!

[Roger Rabbit]

I see a problem with cutting the size of the Navy. Mobility. However you move troops then you need to protect them. If they are moved by sea then you need to protect them by sea. You always need to patrol the waters to prevent anybody else from using them.

Get rid of the older ships by all means but they need to be replaced.

[Steve Andrews]

As the poem goes:
"That ground isn't ours till he's there in the flesh
Not a gadget, or a bomb, but a man. "

[marktigger]

the amphib fleet is looking good though a 2nd LPH would be useful.
Albion & Bulwark are nearly deployable, the bay class are comming along and the point class ro-ro's did great work on telic.
But could we deploy it with reduced numbers of frigates and destroyers? cut the type 45 order to less than 12 and the type 23's to 12 with no type 22's remaing. Take out of that ships in refit and deployed and the Amphib fleet will do well on exercise with notional escorts but can't be deployed except with US or Euro Naval assets to escort. The Carriers will end up like CVA01 programme suffering death by 1000 cuts till the won't be worth having (its already started treasury want them smaller)
The EuroFighter is the classic all eggs in 1 basket approach taken by modern airforces. The first tranches are optimized for air defence so replacing the Tornado F3 (good). The Tornado GR4 will soldier on and will be like Canberra be refurbished again and again. Jaguar will disappear and the Harrier Fleet will ??? be replaced by F35 stovl if the programme survives(the USMC want it but the USN who control the purse strings don't as it threatens their big carrier concept) The next Demmocrate govt will probably cut it. And as we are relying on it for our big carriers well i don't think we'll see HMS Queen Elizabeth(also a name picked fo CVA01) and HMS Prince of wales in service.

With regards to the army it is hugely out of balance we have 3 Heavy Bdes 3 Medium bdes and 2 light role brigades(including 3 cdo bde). to send 1 armoured bde to the gulf we had to rape the other 2 of men and kit. the medium bdes are now spending time in bosnia and iraq. FV432 is long overdue for replacement, saxon is a death trap and needs replaced, CVRT is over due for replacement and the programme to find a replacement for thease was binned. 432 is to get a 'MID life update'. CVRT ahs just completed project zimmer frame. and Saxon is still being used in roles it was never designed for. The promised brigade roations between ops,training and stand down have never been delivered guy from the support arms are leaving in droves as they are deployed most often and the MOD is looking at cutting the logistic services even further to remove 'Duplication and excess capicity'(which are essential for military logistic ops). Defence Medical services is a shambles with huge numbers of soldiers awaiting medical care those urgentley needed are being treated by BUPA. The Contracts for the MDHU's do not mention soldiers at all. The number of bed nights the MOD pay for is not acheived Yet the MOD still has to pay for them. Soldiers are persistantly cancelled by the civilian managers so NHS patients can be treated. And the trusts squeal when they army tries to deploy doctors and nurses on operations.

[marktigger]

The other main message of the CGS speach was for closer interoperability with US forces which is interesting as the Prime minister wants us to integrate with european forces. So are we now going to see he armed forces split in 2? 1 to wok with the Americans 1 to work with the europeans.
Obuviously joined up government isn't working either.

[Royal]

With regards to the army it is hugely out of balance we have 3 Heavy Bdes 3 Medium bdes and 2 light role brigades(including 3 cdo bde). to send 1 armoured bde to the gulf we had to rape the other 2 of men and kit. the medium bdes are now spending time in bosnia and iraq.

Mark - I agree with almost all your points, but have to correct a couple of things.

First, although we are a Light Role Bde, 3 Cdo Bde is not part of the Army ;) .

By heavy I presume you mean armoured (Challenger II and Warrior) and by medium, mech (Saxon)?

Other than a tasking as a Balkans Reinforcement Bn (a light role Bn) and some COP/ISTAR elements (BL Ops Coy & EBRC in Bosnia and DivSTA Coy in Kosovo - unless the names have been changed yet again!) there is no UK infantry presence in the Balkans (Bosnia, Kosovo or Macedonia).

[marktigger]

according to the telegraph article in the summer that first leaked all thease cuts 3 Cdo Bde will be transfared from Fleet to Land so will be an Army asset ;)
there is still though substanial command and log assets there. Added to which Iraq will probably be a bde+ o for quite a while.
one bde looses its HQ for 6 months to cover the balkans. is that bde a deployable asset when its HQ is in the Blakans?
Improving ISTAR yes is a great idea but if we have to cut teeth or support assets to pay for it whats the point of having it? As all the int in the world doesn't capture of hold 1mm of land.

[Royal]

The last time I spoke to Bde HQ in BLMF there were elements of 20 and 16 Bde (as it's a multi-national HQ it doesn't pull an entire Bde HQ (although it does pull a disproportionate number, as we double up jobs to cover the f**kwits among our 'allies')).

Try telling someone in an Armoured Recce Regiment/ Infantry Recce Tp/Pl/COP FOO/FAC party that they aren't teeth arms. Hell, you just did :bash:

[marktigger]

no i'm not saying any of those troops aren't teeth arms but when we are so short of personel can we justify cutting further to buy some shiney items for a few troops?
what is needed is cohesive long term planning not 5 year plans.

Improved Istar should come in but not at the loss of any warfighting capability ie no cuts in tanks artillery or support. etc.

But at present the armed forces are a mess there needs actuall to be more investment and no further reductions for the next 5-10 years to allow the military to restructure.

[Royal]

Our ISTAR assets are not 'shiny toys' for the boys - they're a vital requirement.

Decent man/LR bourne radar (not ****e like MSTAR) is a need not a 'gizzit', as is decent TI. Suitable vehicles (like Coyote) could be bought for the Armoured Recce Regiments (and the Recce Pl/Tps of the Armoured Rgt/Bns) for the price of a couple of Eurofighters to replace CVR(T) going through it's 3rd mid-life upgrade.

When money's tight things have to be prioritised and IMHO the 3 biggest priorites are HumInt, ISTAR and AMS (& RNMS).

[marktigger]

yes but eurofighter is in the RAF allocation of budget.
were as the army will have to cut fighting capability to afford it the army is now suffering from years of under investment. Yes we need a cvrt replacement but i would say we need a 432 replacement first

[Royal]

The only places 43's are used in a front line role is Mortar & Signals Pl's, Fitter sections, ambulances and C/RQMS's of Warrior Bns.

Yes, they need replacing but for 'combat edge', CVR(T) is a higher priority.

[marktigger]

yes so your support elements can't actually keep up with the battle groups so you loose your mortars, c3, equip support, med support and log support.
Many of the cvrt series duplicate thease functions so a common replacement would be ideal. Coyote/LAV II/III would imho be a good choice for replacement of CVRT/FV432/saxon but the Cav scream its got to be tracked. Coyote/LAV has proven technology and is in service.

agree with some of your priorities the med services need a huge input of both cash and the whole set up reviewed.

euro fighter by the looks of it will probably only replace tornado F3. Jaguar will disappear without replacement and only the RAF harriers will be replaced by F35 stovl (if it ever comes into service)

[Royal]

Coyote/LAV II/III would imho be a good choice for replacement of CVRT/FV432/saxon but the Cav scream its got to be tracked.

The four Armoured Recce Regiments were quite happy with the joint US/UK wheeled TRACER project until the US pulled the plug. Trust me the Cav guys I work with (SO1's and SO2's) would give their right arms for Coyote.

[marktigger]

had heard that its ment to be the dogs bollocks.
Could it do the chemical recce role as well cause that would give the army an extra recce regt which it needs.

i would say a good way to balance up the army would be to put 16AA, 3cdo and a 3rd light bde in 1 division with div support assets designed to fit into a herc eg things like light MLRS.

[Royal]

It would have been but the plug was pulled a few years ago. The USMC went for LAV and the US Army has gone for Stryker - neither of which are quite right for the role required.

For the little I know, Fuchs is fine for NBC Recce, buying a couple of dozen more wouldn't be a major issue, manning them might be - can't see the RAF Regt handing over more guys and we're not exactly overflowing with buckshee tankies ;)

[marktigger]

true mind you i'm sure the RAF could find bodies. The RAF miss out on empire building ;)

[marktigger]

well to day is D-day we'll find out what buffoon has deceided to day

[marktigger]

its out on the web

http://www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/index.html

[marktigger]

its out on the web

http://www.mod.uk/publications/whitepaper2003/index.html

[Royal]

It looks like the Bufhoon has decided that we will never again have to go to war without our allies. I just hope to God he's right.

Feel like crying at the moment. Everything I've sweated blood for is being pissed away by a bunch of self serving ****ing politicians who wouldn't know the meaning of the words service and sacrifice without a civil servant to point it out to them in a ****ing dictionary :(


Multiple concurrent Small to Medium Scale operations will be the most significant factor in our force planning. Counterterrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects in a range of environments across the world. Regional tensions and potential conflicts are likely to sustain high demand for enduring peace support commitments such as the extended deployments that we have seen in the Balkans and Afghanistan. But our forces must retain the capacity to undertake Large Scale operations at longer notice in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Gulf Region.ort operation, that have become the norm in recent years. This requires the rebalancing of the Armed Forces to enable them better to meet the demands of the more likely Small and Medium Scale contingencies and needs to include the enhancement of strategic enablers – communications, logistics and intelligence. We will maintain a broad spectrum of maritime, land, air, logistics, C4ISR4 and Special Forces capability elements to ensure we are able to conduct limited national operations, or be the lead or framework nation for coalition operations, at Small to Medium Scale. But we will not need to generate large-scale capabilities across the same spectrum, given that in the most demanding operations we will be operating alongside the US and other allies, where capabilities such as air defence and naval escorts are less likely to be at a premium.

3.3 We must therefore plan to support the three concurrent operations, of which one is an enduring peace supp. Multiple concurrent Small to Medium Scale3 operations will be the most significant factor in our force planning. Counterterrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects in a range of environments across the world. Regional tensions and potential conflicts are likely to sustain high demand for enduring peace support commitments such as the extended deployments that we have seen in the Balkans and Afghanistan. But our forces must retain the capacity to undertake Large Scale operations at longer notice in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Gulf Region.ort operation, that have become the norm in recent years. This requires the rebalancing of the Armed Forces to enable them better to meet the demands of the more likely Small and Medium Scale contingencies and needs to include the enhancement of strategic enablers – communications, logistics and intelligence. We will maintain a broad spectrum of maritime, land, air, logistics, C4ISR4 and Special Forces capability elements to ensure we are able to conduct limited national operations, or be the lead or framework nation for coalition operations, at Small to Medium Scale. But we will not need to generate large-scale capabilities across the same spectrum, given that in the most demanding operations we will be operating alongside the US and other allies, where capabilities such as air defence and naval escorts are less likely to be at a premium.

The whole ****ing thing contradicts itself.

[marktigger]

looks like we're in iraq for the forseeable future

Royal if you really want to cry read the NAO report on tellic. pity the MP's won't censure balir for misleading the house with the statements hem made about a well equipped force.

[Roger Rabbit]

Who needs a military anyway?

[marktigger]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/12/14/do1402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportal.html.

Max hastings definitly hits the nail on the head.