>Ben Wallace will resist pressure from senior generals and push ahead with cuts to the army as part of an overhaul of the armed forces next month, The Times has been told.
>Next month the Ministry of Defence will publish its defence command paper, which sets out the government’s long-term ambitions for the military. Under the plans being drawn up in Whitehall, the army will be rebalanced to reduce the number of infantry in favour of more artillery.
>In 2021 the defence secretary announced plans to reduce the number of tanks from 227 to 148 and shrink the army to 73,000 troops, its smallest size since the Napoleonic era.
>The decision was made before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and proved controversial with Tory MPs. General Sir Patrick Sanders, the chief of the general staff, said that pursuing the cuts at a time of war in Europe would be “perverse”.
>But with Nato allies including Poland, Germany and Finland increasing spending on their land armies, ministers believe that Britain is not under significant pressure to change course and can modernise the armed forces with investments elsewhere.
>The MoD is facing a squeeze on its budget because the Treasury awarded the department a £5 billion increase in spending over the next two years, about half of what had been requested to manage inflation. Of that figure, £3 billion has been set aside for Britain’s nuclear submarine programme, limiting resources for the army and the RAF. The remaining £2 billion will be used to replenish stocks of weapons given to Ukraine.
>“The defence secretary has directed that the army is to be protected from further reductions and it is for the other services to manage their finances,” a defence source said.
>Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.
>“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
>There are 75,710 full-time and fully trained troops in the army, and Wallace has previously admitted that it is unable to deploy a war-fighting division. In a private meeting last autumn, the US commander of Nato forces in Europe warned that the British army was no longer regarded as a tier-one fighting force. Senior army figures have argued that planned cuts to the number of tanks and troops would be a mistake.
>“The main lesson from Ukraine is you need mass,” one army source said. “The truth is we don’t have enough infantry and we don’t have enough artillery.” The source also said it was naive to think that the war in Ukraine justified the decision to cut tanks and suggested poor Russian tactics explained why the Kremlin had lost over half its operational fleet in Ukraine.
>“If you’re being hit by Nlaws in an urban environment, your tank is probably in the wrong place,” the source said.
>As part of the military overhaul the army is expected to field more assault groups armed with drones, reflecting the important role played by artillery spotters in Ukraine.
>The plans are a continuation of tactics from 2021 when the army established the Rangers, only the third regiment created since the Second World War. Deployed in small units before the main battlegroup, the Rangers can pinpoint enemy targets and relay information to drones for further reconnaissance or to artillery for a strike.
>An MoD spokesman said: “Through our updated defence command paper, we will set out defence’s vision and prioritise our activities to ensure the UK remains ready to deter adversaries.We will not be drawn on speculation ahead of publication.”
The Tories should just change their motto to ‘making you poorer and less safe since 1834!’
Utterly shameful. But it’s on brand for the tories. Big up the Military whilst continuously cut it year after year.
Obviously the armed forces should have more funding, but all that equipment sent to Ukraine that’s got to be replaced, which budget will it come from?
It’s frustrating, but I suspect not necessarily Wallace’s call – or at least, not his preference. The funding settlement given to him earlier in the year by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor was less than half of what he said was the minimum required just to cushion inflationary pressures. This is before we get into thinking about what might be needed to start repairing some of the hollowing out in UK defence which has been taking place ever since the tail end of the Cold War.
The MoD and Wallace are having to cut their cloth accordingly. It’s an unenviable position but will not change until both the funding settlement that defence gets is substantially improved and the MoD/service chiefs make better use of said funding.
These are the consequences of a 30-40 year problem in the making, that being a lack of political interest in defence. There just aren’t any votes in it, and so, with the supposed end of the Cold War, politicians had even less interest in funding defence adequately than they did before. Much of the money that was already there was quietly cut over the years as part of the peace dividend. The problem is, we’ve overdrawn on that massively – the peace dividend has been taken out of UK defence spending multiple times over and the chickens are coming home to roost.
The situation is unlikely to change barring some horrifying disaster (by which time it’s likely too late) or the British public reevaluates their own political priorities and bumps defence as an issue higher up the political pecking order; which itself seems unlikely given the lack of general understanding/awareness of the importance of defence policy and people’s preoccupation with issues they consider, rightly or wrongly, to be of more immediate concern (like health etc.)
Bargain-basement Britain continues to be closed for business; unless, of course, there’s a coronation to be paid for..
There are nations that are not friendly to us increasing their military spending year on year. The idea of cutting at this time will be a problem we have to face probably around 2028-2030. Nobody can look at the current situation and be certain you need less military equipment and personnel
My thoughts for anyone that cares.
1. Cutting the infantry in favour of artillery is probably a good thing overall. We’re not, and don’t want to be, locked into a counter insurgency operation or a war of attrition on the continent. Also, home defence is something that has been forgotten about since the Cold War.
2. The number of tanks the UK is probably too few to do anything useful with. Maybe main battle tanks are obsolete to us as an island nation, and they should go all out and get rid of them completely to use the money and resources elsewhere? Even an enemy with hordes of tanks massed in Europe still would not be able to cross the Channel with them.
3. It depends where the axe falls when cutting the size of the army by a couple of thousand. I know from experience that the armed forces have plenty of desk jockeys that would need to dragged kicking and screaming into an operational unit. That figure of 75,710 is not all fit men and women.
Obviously, the UK is an island, and more should be invested in maritime and airborne defences. The Royal Navy is in desperate need of increasing the quality and numbers of destroyers, frigates, and submarines. The RAF needs more fighter aircraft, and more maritime patrol aircraft.
Start with taking your thousands of squaddies out of Ireland. C’mon, it’s a tad Russiany.
9 comments
>Ben Wallace will resist pressure from senior generals and push ahead with cuts to the army as part of an overhaul of the armed forces next month, The Times has been told.
>Next month the Ministry of Defence will publish its defence command paper, which sets out the government’s long-term ambitions for the military. Under the plans being drawn up in Whitehall, the army will be rebalanced to reduce the number of infantry in favour of more artillery.
>In 2021 the defence secretary announced plans to reduce the number of tanks from 227 to 148 and shrink the army to 73,000 troops, its smallest size since the Napoleonic era.
>The decision was made before the Russian invasion of Ukraine and proved controversial with Tory MPs. General Sir Patrick Sanders, the chief of the general staff, said that pursuing the cuts at a time of war in Europe would be “perverse”.
>But with Nato allies including Poland, Germany and Finland increasing spending on their land armies, ministers believe that Britain is not under significant pressure to change course and can modernise the armed forces with investments elsewhere.
>The MoD is facing a squeeze on its budget because the Treasury awarded the department a £5 billion increase in spending over the next two years, about half of what had been requested to manage inflation. Of that figure, £3 billion has been set aside for Britain’s nuclear submarine programme, limiting resources for the army and the RAF. The remaining £2 billion will be used to replenish stocks of weapons given to Ukraine.
>“The defence secretary has directed that the army is to be protected from further reductions and it is for the other services to manage their finances,” a defence source said.
>Senior figures in the MoD believe the war in Ukraine has exposed the vulnerability of tanks to shoulder-launched weapons such as Nlaws and Javelins, justifying the original decision in 2021 to upgrade only 148 Challenger 2s to Challenger 3s.
>“We have too much infantry — a legacy of the counter-insurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need more artillery. The jury is out on whether you need main battle tanks,” a Whitehall source said.
>There are 75,710 full-time and fully trained troops in the army, and Wallace has previously admitted that it is unable to deploy a war-fighting division. In a private meeting last autumn, the US commander of Nato forces in Europe warned that the British army was no longer regarded as a tier-one fighting force. Senior army figures have argued that planned cuts to the number of tanks and troops would be a mistake.
>“The main lesson from Ukraine is you need mass,” one army source said. “The truth is we don’t have enough infantry and we don’t have enough artillery.” The source also said it was naive to think that the war in Ukraine justified the decision to cut tanks and suggested poor Russian tactics explained why the Kremlin had lost over half its operational fleet in Ukraine.
>“If you’re being hit by Nlaws in an urban environment, your tank is probably in the wrong place,” the source said.
>As part of the military overhaul the army is expected to field more assault groups armed with drones, reflecting the important role played by artillery spotters in Ukraine.
>The plans are a continuation of tactics from 2021 when the army established the Rangers, only the third regiment created since the Second World War. Deployed in small units before the main battlegroup, the Rangers can pinpoint enemy targets and relay information to drones for further reconnaissance or to artillery for a strike.
>An MoD spokesman said: “Through our updated defence command paper, we will set out defence’s vision and prioritise our activities to ensure the UK remains ready to deter adversaries.We will not be drawn on speculation ahead of publication.”
The Tories should just change their motto to ‘making you poorer and less safe since 1834!’
Utterly shameful. But it’s on brand for the tories. Big up the Military whilst continuously cut it year after year.
Obviously the armed forces should have more funding, but all that equipment sent to Ukraine that’s got to be replaced, which budget will it come from?
It’s frustrating, but I suspect not necessarily Wallace’s call – or at least, not his preference. The funding settlement given to him earlier in the year by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor was less than half of what he said was the minimum required just to cushion inflationary pressures. This is before we get into thinking about what might be needed to start repairing some of the hollowing out in UK defence which has been taking place ever since the tail end of the Cold War.
The MoD and Wallace are having to cut their cloth accordingly. It’s an unenviable position but will not change until both the funding settlement that defence gets is substantially improved and the MoD/service chiefs make better use of said funding.
These are the consequences of a 30-40 year problem in the making, that being a lack of political interest in defence. There just aren’t any votes in it, and so, with the supposed end of the Cold War, politicians had even less interest in funding defence adequately than they did before. Much of the money that was already there was quietly cut over the years as part of the peace dividend. The problem is, we’ve overdrawn on that massively – the peace dividend has been taken out of UK defence spending multiple times over and the chickens are coming home to roost.
The situation is unlikely to change barring some horrifying disaster (by which time it’s likely too late) or the British public reevaluates their own political priorities and bumps defence as an issue higher up the political pecking order; which itself seems unlikely given the lack of general understanding/awareness of the importance of defence policy and people’s preoccupation with issues they consider, rightly or wrongly, to be of more immediate concern (like health etc.)
Bargain-basement Britain continues to be closed for business; unless, of course, there’s a coronation to be paid for..
There are nations that are not friendly to us increasing their military spending year on year. The idea of cutting at this time will be a problem we have to face probably around 2028-2030. Nobody can look at the current situation and be certain you need less military equipment and personnel
My thoughts for anyone that cares.
1. Cutting the infantry in favour of artillery is probably a good thing overall. We’re not, and don’t want to be, locked into a counter insurgency operation or a war of attrition on the continent. Also, home defence is something that has been forgotten about since the Cold War.
2. The number of tanks the UK is probably too few to do anything useful with. Maybe main battle tanks are obsolete to us as an island nation, and they should go all out and get rid of them completely to use the money and resources elsewhere? Even an enemy with hordes of tanks massed in Europe still would not be able to cross the Channel with them.
3. It depends where the axe falls when cutting the size of the army by a couple of thousand. I know from experience that the armed forces have plenty of desk jockeys that would need to dragged kicking and screaming into an operational unit. That figure of 75,710 is not all fit men and women.
Obviously, the UK is an island, and more should be invested in maritime and airborne defences. The Royal Navy is in desperate need of increasing the quality and numbers of destroyers, frigates, and submarines. The RAF needs more fighter aircraft, and more maritime patrol aircraft.
Start with taking your thousands of squaddies out of Ireland. C’mon, it’s a tad Russiany.