I had the same thought. The UK is wide open to attack from the air by missiles and drones. The RAF lacks sufficient planes to stop everything that might come at us from the north and east. We need additional land-based AAW capability to defend the UK homeland, spread across the whole country. The right place for these assets is with the Army;, though the RAF and RN should be responsible for the air defence of their own main bases. Experience in Ukraine indicates that a mix of missile, AA gun and drone jamming defences can reduce an enemy's airborne attack but can't eliminate it entirely. The new directed beam weapons should also offer a cost-effective defence solution.
@@peterdavis7579 This is a force structure on the British Army not air defence of the British Isles. What is the threat to the British Isles?? Russia has 57 TU-22m/m3 and 20 TU-160, at best they will be able to sortie 45 TU-22 and 12 TU-160 probably half that from the showing of what’s happening in the Ukraine. On top of this they have to get past all the NATO countries before launching there missiles at the U.K. Then what is left is going to be few and far between for the two Squadrons of Eurofighters with full load out of Meteors Missiles with ECRS Mk.2 Radar with a 100+ Mile range 20 planes with 4 x Meteor 80 Missiles. Russian Fighters do not have the legs to reach the UK. I haven’t mentioned the TU-95 bears (55) as these won’t even get past Poland. The Air Defence Units are for the British Army for an Organic AAW umbrella when deployed. This is met by 2x Shorad and 1 x Medium Anti Air Warfare (CAMMS) Regt. Mainly protecting Corps/divisional Assets, the U.K. has never had the ability nor wanted to field AD until at the FLOT even Cold War days. It has always been felt that NATO airforces would give the Air Cover. Also there is some talk that if push comes to shove the Royal Navy would provide ballistic missile defence with Aster 30NG missiles, 2/3 Type 45 destroyers with 100-150 missiles is better than the SHORAD/CAMM capability that the Army could provide. Plus it’s the RAFs job to provide AAW defence to the U.K. and not the Army.
So glad I’ve done my time now. I found it difficult with the changes happening in the 90’s and 00’s. So much poor planning in rolling out comms and new IT systems. Most young people would benefit from an incentive driven two year service contract. Just so we can build a reserve. We’d lose the vast majority of regular formations within a few months. The system for mobilising reserves is absolutely broken and would rely on the goodwill of reservists stepping up. Tragic
Like you, I served mid eighties to mid 90's, taking third phase redundancy as part of the Options for Change reductions in regular service numbers. When you look back you can see that we had already seen a significant decline in capacity and ability to conduct to battle operations- look specifically at Op Granby and how we had to beg, borrow and steal ( aka cannibalise) from across BAOR and U.K. to get enough battle worthy equipment together to make a battle group deployment to The Gulf. How they coped in Afghanistan is beyond me. The questions I ask myself are... do young people of today have the same inclination to join the armed services as we did 40 years ago and would I offer my services if the Government asked the public to mobilise due to conflict that directly threatened the U.K? Interested to read your thoughts....
@@stevei0220 if there was a genuine existential threat to the UK I do think young and old people would flock to the colours and step up. The problem with this would be how do you process and train/equip such large numbers of people quickly enough? The professional army would quickly degrade in high intensity conflict and we’d have a small window of opportunity to mobilise reserves and train up replacement volunteers. I can’t see how the system would cope in its current form. That’s why we need a short term contract of say two years where there is an incentive to become trained and part of a ready reserve, not based on conscription but with similar training and skill levels.
Right. So that's 2% more income tax for the numbers, another 3% for the industrial capacity, and 2 % on interest rates for the debt. How will you be paying sir? Smaller house, sell a car or cancelled operation?
I watched this twice to clarify. Excellent work sir even this humble and simple poster understood it eventually. Only one problem with your summations. If we have taken X amount of X assets out of service without waiting for their replacements to be delivered ready to go then X amount of your eventual wish sheet is blank 'cos the kit has not yet been delivered. There is little about governmental and my experiences of it - whether civilian or military thinking which leads me to think those spaces will be filled prior to the disposal of the outgoing or the expedient delivery of such to shorten the time the blank spaces will remain blank. It is not difficult to understand the despair and disbelief so many of our Armed Forces are subjected to at the sheer lunacy and/or simple incompetency of far too many of those involved in the decision making processes. It is that sort of thinking which had British tanks being sent to equip the BEF and turning up with only drill rounds to be employed. How is it we can still be thinking in this manner no matter how many times we are caught with our trousers down?
Very concise and quite correct, I disagree on a few structures in the force, but overall well organised. Sadly sir starmer and the hm treasury will probably just be reducing it all more and asking for more tasks to be done with less while spinning the narrative to say we’re amazing fighting t90s with jackal and a 50cal
Oh you might enjoy this... I signed up Feb 2022... Army (Capita) lost my application... twice. 6 months later I get an email apologising and asking me to apply AGAIN. Trust an org with my life when they can't run a job application website. Nah.
@@paulhudson8342And that is what happens when you outsource and privatise public services! You have seen the incompetence first hand, I have seen it first hand with what has happened to the British emergency services, the Criminal Justice system and NHS. Some cats have certainly become very fat from it, leaving Joe Public in a very poor predicament.
Excellant and very well thought out and concisevideo Which shows how easy IT COULD BE TO SOLVE THE ARMYS SHORT COMINGS IN A very short time span.We will see if our INCOMPETENT POLITICAL MASTERS acrually do what is suggested and is needed or again push the problem further down the road Personally i would actually like to see a 2nd HEAVY DIVISION and a increase in the numbers of tank and artillery MLRS, ,battalions and more air combat support [attack helicopters] and specialised UCAV battalions for reconnaissance and ground attack/ defence support
@@DavidShort-q1d why would we need all that? Days of the British Army being expeditionary are over. A 2nd heavy armoured division would suggest unilateral operations. At best I’d go for an extra Armour Brigade for 3 Div so we could have 2 Brigades up and the 3rd being in reserve to reflect traditional Heavy Armour Divisions. We would still need 200-220 Chally 3’s though. To have a 2nd Division would entail an extra 100+ Ajax, 100 Chally 3’s, 200 Boxer/Ares Turreted, 40-50 Additional MLRS and 100 Boxer 155 Arty. Not including service support vehicles and Equipment, then 10-15 Thousands squaddies to man it. The British Army struggle to man its current force manning levels at the minute. The priority should be a balanced Army that meets its NATO and National requirements, but with a more heavier focus on the Navy and RAF
@@nigelrendall You already mentioned why we need a 2nd heavy division A STRATIGIC RESERVE to replace casualties suffered in action and god forbid as a defence if the 1st heavy division gets obliterated
@@Wobbler619 but why? What is the need?? NATO is much larger now, let those countries look after continental Europe. Britain should bring Naval power and Air power to the party. The Army should be supplemental to those needs and our NATO commitments (ARRC HQ plus 1 Heavy Division)
No, the army is not the focus of the UK. We're an island..... What has been outlined here is perfect for protecting our interests in Europe as the army always has. The navy and RAF have the responsibility of being our main soft and hard power forces.
12:54 slight discrepancy here in the military police component. Like the rest of the services, the RMP no longer have an special investigation branch. All 3 services amalgamated their SIBs into the defence serious crime unit which sits under the defence serious crime command (and so is directly run by the MOD and not army HQ)
The 19th Light Brigade currently is a reservist brigade, so where would the manpower come from in your model that places it as a Regular Army Mechanized Division.
@ ok but in the Field Army there is only 3 Regt (1 x Wildcat, 2 x Apache, 1 x Reserve Service Support), 5 Regiment is virtually non-existent (6 x Dauphin
Last time I visited Wallop there were hardly any uniforms to be seen. Just dozens of civil servants and a load of civvy contractors. How on earth can they all it 2 Regt AAC?
What's the rationale behind 4 light mech infantry battalions rather than 1 light cav and 3 light mech? Do the light mech brigades not need a light cav regiment to carry out their role?
4 light mech battalions instead of 3 such battalions plus a light cavalry regiment reflects the UK's new approach to multi-domain war fighting. Jackal equipped regiments cannot provide direct fire support. Instead they are used to deliver loitering munitions and act as surveillance and drone reconnaissance assets. Thus, they are attached to the artillery brigades. Each light mech infantry battalion would be much more lethal and self-contained than before.
I'm concerned that the view of Hybrid War is woefully narrow. At a guess the definition given here only covers 5-10% of what the threat really is. Please, someone get a grip on the real danger, we're currently losing this battle hands down.
I have for years contemplated this and yes, you're right we being beaten here without even fielding a team - unforgiveable lack of foresight and inability to smell any coffee. There is the potential for a civilian grouping here (probably under the guidance or even as an integral part of GCHQ - Matters not at this point who runs it just that we have a capability and somebody runs it. It can be evolved as lessons are learned. Let's just call it Hybrid force for the sake of this post. The army is losing a great many youngsters for a variety of reason (beyond the scope of this post to rectify any of them) but does the country need to lose these, once so motivated and now trained individuals, simply because they are pissed off beyond salvation by the Ivory tower dwellers and bean counters? Whether they come from the ranks of the infantry. SF element or tech elements (R/Signals) etc if they have the IQ, the desire and the option they can still be put to enormous use in the defence and safety of the nation. How many good people on reaching their 22 year point are just lost to further employment/deployment for the defence of the nation, its interests and it's long swept under the carpet requirements? Some will happily go into the reserve, some may wish to continue their own dream - some may wish to be considered of further use to their country (yes that desire really does extend beyond the 22 years pension in some!) Utilize these options with those of the civilian world who may wish to just have a slice more akin to the gig economy and give a couple of years of their lives toward something greater than the next spliff or piss up or sexual encounter! How many ex police/fire/prison/customs/Border force etc etc etc may be happy to extend their useful years in return for a decent wage and a whole new interesting and oh so useful/required force for good rather than slipping away to grow Dahlia's/breed budgies/get bored shitless in the furthest reaches of the UK? I would call in the last head of the SIS - the most recently retired one and ask him/her to ruminate/pioneer this idea and then crack on with giving it birth. The leader of this would be answerable to ??????? Anyone but a solely political animal. I have ideas on how to make it attractive to those it should be attracting and how to loosely organize it initially but it would take a far greater brain than mine to implement it to the point it is meaningful and effective. There is also an idea of greater complexity which I have nurtured to increase the numbers militarily at minimal cost and the greatest benefit of the nation (and beyond) Nobody to bounce these ideas off of who has any sort of credibility/connections/voice in the matter though - shame because it is an idea whose time has come and should be evolved into something productive by again an expert in the matter.
The biggest non nuclear budget was cyber warfare budget pre labour. Something like £4 billion a year was going to be spent over the next decade in the consecutives plans
@@Scaleyback317I have often thought that we ought to have a national, multi- faceted Civil Contingency Force that is able to be deployed in response to major incidents - anything from an crashed aeroplane and flooding to infrastructure failure or logistic support to our full time emergency services and armed forces. Like you, the idea is there but bringing it to fruition and to the right ears is a different matter.
@@stevei0220 I had considered similar mate but with teams of volunteers from military backgrounds and under the instruction of the UN (though of course could be amended easily enough. I had considered a military force to be based somewhere a little more centrally and Cyprus sprang to mind as an ideal location. This force to be made up of a squadron of Royal Engineers, a logistics troop, signals troop, a medical troop, and an infantry company. To be split into for teams each with a medium lift helicopter and a transport aircraft dedicated to each team (retiring C130's could fit the bill). This would remain as an integral part of the British Forces but under the direct control of the foreign office rather than the MOD. The bill for this to be met from the foreign aid budget and not the MOD. Civilians - ie fire/police/interpreters/legal advisors/ to be included in the make up of the teams and maybe even commanded by an official from the Foreign Office in order to accentuate the civil use to which these military personnel would be deployed in time of emergency. If other nations would consider similar then we could have a quick thinking, quick acting professional plane load of people (with more to follow if required) to be deployed to wherever in the world they may be required and even doing it under the auspices of the UN if necessary. We're not a million miles apart in this thought which tells me it's probably not as idealistically foolish or accomplishable or even less required than we have each envisage - merely a different slant in the make up of the force. Armed infantry to be deployed either as such if the security sit calls for or an additional manpower/back up for the specialists. Now how do we make the bean counters listen???? An idea I've had to address the hybrid threat as outlined in the video is a lot more convoluted/far reaching/expensive - which right there means it's not something any British Government would wish to give birth to - no matter how much money it would save in the long run - it's only up to the next voting opportunity which attracts the attention of those in the decision making processes unfortunately.
Frankly, your proposal is excellent and if the parasitical vermin that infest our London establishment composite were even marginally responsible and competent, would very much be a "no brainer"... Alas, however, they are not, so there are also two other yet more severely butchered services and the analogous restoration of both must ultimately be our number 1 priority. Not full, comprehensive re-growth of our army. For the simple reason that we're an island, so the basic essentials of what OUR nation's defence requires are innately pre-determined by Geography. Thus, two things are simply non-negotiable.. 1) Our capacity to control what were once termed "The Narrow Seas" (the C21st equivalent might be expressed as all areas of the UK's EEZ bordering our south and eastern coasts AND insofar as is feasible, those adjacent EEZs of continental polities too; PLUS increasing presence in the air above, reaching sustainable primacy over our own waters and complete command over the UK itself) 2) Capacity by sea and air to also control the Western Approaches, be able to interdict opposed forces transit of other vital choke points and, re more distant waters ensure our essential trans-Atlantic supply routes are not closed. Thus, what our land forces are also capable of delivering must of necessity be consistent with these prerequisites. So, apart from their other vital role (which you do also address and which must still be assured by army reconstruction) as one essential component of an integrated all-services ability to deliver ongoing global expeditionary capability on the level you define above, then over the pre-2030 period at least, our NATO obligations may NOT include the guaranteed deployment of ONE, SINGLE UK land force unit to any part of NW Europe south of Scandinavia, which region is what should define the exclusive current focus of our land force contribution to NATO defence.
I'm an old veteran from 1974-1985. The UK is too small to have a big well equiped military. We totally need the USA and NATO. We're outdated and outclassed. The special forces are excellent, but that's it.
Never going to happen Nick. The country isn't worth fighting and dying for, either. That piece of the moral component is being consistently ignored by all major commentators.
@@Whiskey2shotshave a look at the video results after entering into the search criteria: would you fight for the UK. By age, almost all respondents below 35 said no. Almost respondents above 60 said yes and that conscription should be implemented. As a nation we have spent the last 20+ years being told our country and history are bad in schools. This is the result
@@justindylan4984 What age range do you fit in to? What a massive surprise that the people who wouldn't be sent to fight in a war are pro sending others to fight in a war. Of course most people aren't interested in going and dying for their country in peace times, I would wager these statistics only change in times when genuine threats to people's lives such as Nazi Germany, or from the perspective of rebels in the middle east "the west" exist. Tbh, as far as I'm concerned an overwhelming majority of people wanting to go and die for their country in peace time is a good indicator of a fascist society because fascism is fundamentally built on fear of outsiders as a fact not genuine threats. People aren't taught our country and history are shit in schools, whoever has told you that has an agenda. There are bad things in our history and people should be taught about them and why they are bad. But, there's also good things in our history.
UK should be incredibly grateful to Ukraine. Russia attacking (if they wanted) nato is delayed for at least a decade while the uk picked this decade to rebuild everything from jets to ships and armour fighting vehicles
Nothing we didn't already know but it is very grim when laid out. We don't just need a large overhaul in structure. We need a wholesale purge on Woke, DEI policies, from the Army. Sadly this mindset has permeated to the highest levels and these senior officers prioritising "diversity" over delivery of lethality on the battlefield must be retired out of service. We need a return to strict meritocracy and a focus on what works rather than making the right political noises. The burden of women in contact line units needs to be alleviated. Doing the job is difficult enough without carrying a not insignificant percentage of decidedly less effective troops who also demand care privileges not afforded male soldiers. There are far too many non British soldiers in the Army We must improve terms of service until we can again recruit and retain the required numbers from with our own country, with foreign soldiers again being a noteworthy rarity.
Yk initially i was against this, but leaving coloured people and women out of the frontline and just sending english boys to die for their country doesnt sound too bad.
Nick I agree on most things in this Video apart from. 3rd U.K. Div 4 x Mech Arm. Inf. Battalions would these be Turreted versions of Ares? If so you do not discuss these in your Additional budget. Currently for the Ajax program 93 Ares are to be procured I am assuming with currently 4 Medium Recce Regts (Armored Cavalry) 4 Sqns per Regt with 1 Troop (4 Ares) giving total of 64 Ares for Cavalry, leaving 29 for training Units and Artillery FOO duties for the Artillery.
So for 4 Armoured Infantry Battalions you would need 45 Ares per battalion plus reserve/training that’s an additional 200+ Ares Turreted. I believe we have already paid for 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannons for the failed Warrior WSCP program. These are not mentioned in your additional budget comments.
Splendid video. The Russians are right about something. Throwing-away old assets claiming "they are old" is not very valid when you are throwing away those capabilities altogether with that hardware.
Except usually our old stuff are costing more to maintain than buying new stuff. Some of the type 23 frigates were costing hundreds of millions to maintain
@Cav-z1y I won't believe this until I find it out the hard-way. The real problem here is that testing & maintenance on individual parts just isn't done frequently enough. And also, there's a huge cost to having shit parts compatibility, which is something Bri'ish people love trashing across every type and generation of vehicles.
@@mashpotaeto the difference between the uk and many other countries except USA I suppose is the uk is constantly using the equipment in training and exercises. This means we have some of the best trained crews around but also means the equipment takes a beating and need retirement much sooner. See how Germany still operates tornados that we retire a decade ago, because the raf is flying those daily while they just sit on German air fields
@@mashpotaeto The cost of a type 31 frigate is £250 million built from scratch and modern, HMS iron duke (type 23) cost £100 million+ just to fix up into useable condition with older equipment So you can keep this going till 2035 have either 1 type 31 (root uk usually takes) or 2 fixed up old type 23 (what other countries like Russia does) and then on paper Russia out numbers Uk by 2:1
This is bloody brilliant, I love all the icons to understand what I'm seeing. & Yes get rid of the "1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade Combat Team" I mean what idiot came up with such a mouth full? No mention an obvious give away to the enemy as to what their job is.
For those wondering how Ukraine has stopped and repeatedly stopped the largest and most equipped conventional Army on Earth now well North of 1000 Days continous to include outright Victories at Kyiv, kHarkiv, Kupiansk and kHerson the answer to me anyways is *"infantry, infantry, infantry, infantry."* Yes a clearly flawed Russian strategy of attacking everywhere all at once which continues has been an enormous benefit to Ukraine so too has the persistent entrance of modern western weapons, training, logistics, intelligence and comnand and control so too of course has been dumb luck and godly interventions as is the case in all Wars but in the end man for man, person for person at every level Ukraine has simply outfought the Russian military. How does not just Great Britain but any other Army stand itself up knowing this? Learn from how the Ukraine people fight simple as that. *"Your job is not to die for your Country but to see the other damn fool dies for his."* George Patton. I can't think of a better example of this than what Ukraine has done to Russia 2022-present now more than ever. *"Go there and learn and you will have your Army."* 😊😊
How Ukraine fight is not how NATO or US fight wars, we are designed to get air superiority and not fight along a massive 1500 km front line like some WW2 eastern front shootout, massive artillery duel, where neither side have close air support. US and Europe ain't even able to produce enough shells for this, so we busy ramping up production as Russia have depleted our stockpiles of artillery shells. The west wins by controlling the air and sea, as a former Norwegian ranger trained to operate in the Arctic wilderness near Russian border, the mission was clear, do as much sabotage as we could and die. No point kidding yourself when operating 500 km away from your own division HQ and being long range recon of the first NATO ground force tasked to stop an attack. Hold out until NATO reinforcements arrive against huge odds. Only army corps in Murmansk peace time, but would be a field army there if things was hot. Air defence and power is the key, do not need to go to Ukraine to know this, was so in 1940 and been so ever since. Then we need to secure supply lines at sea, nothing new under the Sun, lessons learned from land-locked country ain't that relevant to UK.
The UK needs a large navy. Historically its army has always been small if you remove former imperial obligations. We need an army that can compliment larger European forces .
HIMARS would be an awful choice for the UK. Can't sling it under helos but doesn't use any less aircraft needed than just sticking with M270 that is already budgeted and existing, while having half the firepower. If there's to be a wheeled one, make it something like LIMAWS that can actually gain some strategic mobility and share a platform. HIMARS is a pointless platform for the UK given the chassis its own.
Part of the reason LIMAWS(R) failed was due to the Chinook lifting requirement. In order to reduce the size and get the weight down to ~9 tons, they had to significantly lighten the vehicle by fitting a smaller engine, smaller wheels, downgrading the suspension, omit an APU, and other modifications that led to an overloaded chassis with lacklustre off-road performance. It certainly wasn't unfixable, but would have required a lot more money and resources invested into a platform that wasn't needed at the time.
@@twarvg8562 Even if it can't do that you can still get 2 in an A400 and have the same effect as a HIMARS as it is. HIMARS is just an objectively poor option for the UK with no real benefit.
Excellent video, slight problem, the army, navy and air force during the 'Cold War' was inadequate had the war turned to hot. Ergo the 2030 prediction is still inadequate by a Looooong Waaay. FACT : Our enemies are more numerous, more powerful and have active 5th columns within our country, within our government, education & just about everywhere else.
Fact is that a diverse country isn't going to do well in a full scale war. The thinking seems to be that war will always be on someone else's land and that the troops can come home for a cuppa, but not in their uniforms as that might upset folks back home with a different opinion of the people being fought against. Diverse nations in full scale conflict have been seen already with Iraq and Afghanistan, you can probably include Syria now too. Internal divisions manifest, different groups have ties to different outside groups, it becomes Balkanised very quickly. Trying to sabre rattle while promoting diversity is a fools errand. Even the Soviets pushed ethnic consciousness for propaganda purposes during WWII.
Why have a large standing army on an Island though, it has balance as part of NATO, what it needs is more helicopters and special forces, we dont need tanks and we dont need infantry. Too over analysed.
What was mentioned in the video was not a large standing army, it's a small one designed to be easily deployable. If the UK wants to be able to protect its international assets and dissuade others from taking advantage then it needs the ability to deploy a fighting force on short notice. Not having infantry or tanks would massively limit the operation capability of the UK meaning even a rogue african nation could take advantage of it. Remember NATO only covers the north Atlantic thats why article 5 was not triggered from the Falklands. Just having the capability will deter most from risking it, one of the reason the Falklands war happened was because the UK govt decided to reduce their military and withdraw the one ship they had in the area. Making it a juicy target for a desperate country.
@@lewisallan9963@lewisallan9963 Hi mate, I did not aim that statement at you. Please allow me to explain. The equipment drives its specification. Warrior was never designed to carry out role of an a RECCE vehicle. The exchange rate is SCIMITAR out, WR in? So, where are the Crew? CVR crewman are going to need double training - CVR trained crew, retrained to WR for a while. And ultimately RETAINED to AJAX some when. 30mm gunner retrained to WR, theb to 40mm. We have been told the answer for RECCE is AJAX, because it MUST be, but we can use WR to do that?? What is the gap analysis?? Because there is one! Perhaps we can prove that a 30 odd tonne WR can fill the role? For how long and at what% of AJAX capability reduction? The COC have accepted reduction of Capability, for how long? This has long been accepted as coming - and we have told 'them' that the King has no blaster clothes on, to no avail. This is, I am afraid, BOLLOCKS! You took risk on CVR, on WR, instead of converting CVR to uncrewed and now find yourself unable to convert because you took risk and ended up without tge ability to remotely operate! I would have been LAUGHED out of the room!
my left ear enjoyed this
An interesting exercise, but am I missing where an air defence capability is hiding within that force structure?
field army troops -> artillery brigade. 2x short range regiments and 1 medium ranged regiment
I had the same thought. The UK is wide open to attack from the air by missiles and drones. The RAF lacks sufficient planes to stop everything that might come at us from the north and east. We need additional land-based AAW capability to defend the UK homeland, spread across the whole country. The right place for these assets is with the Army;, though the RAF and RN should be responsible for the air defence of their own main bases.
Experience in Ukraine indicates that a mix of missile, AA gun and drone jamming defences can reduce an enemy's airborne attack but can't eliminate it entirely. The new directed beam weapons should also offer a cost-effective defence solution.
@@peterdavis7579 This is a force structure on the British Army not air defence of the British Isles. What is the threat to the British Isles?? Russia has 57 TU-22m/m3 and 20 TU-160, at best they will be able to sortie 45 TU-22 and 12 TU-160 probably half that from the showing of what’s happening in the Ukraine. On top of this they have to get past all the NATO countries before launching there missiles at the U.K. Then what is left is going to be few and far between for the two Squadrons of Eurofighters with full load out of Meteors Missiles with ECRS Mk.2 Radar with a 100+ Mile range 20 planes with 4 x Meteor 80 Missiles. Russian Fighters do not have the legs to reach the UK. I haven’t mentioned the TU-95 bears (55) as these won’t even get past Poland. The Air Defence Units are for the British Army for an Organic AAW umbrella when deployed. This is met by 2x Shorad and 1 x Medium Anti Air Warfare (CAMMS) Regt. Mainly protecting Corps/divisional Assets, the U.K. has never had the ability nor wanted to field AD until at the FLOT even Cold War days. It has always been felt that NATO airforces would give the Air Cover. Also there is some talk that if push comes to shove the Royal Navy would provide ballistic missile defence with Aster 30NG missiles, 2/3 Type 45 destroyers with 100-150 missiles is better than the SHORAD/CAMM capability that the Army could provide. Plus it’s the RAFs job to provide AAW defence to the U.K. and not the Army.
Much more Air Defence clearly needed.
@@nigelrendall GBAD is the responsibility of the Army, thanks to Reichskommissar Bliar disbanding the RAF Regt's AD squadrons.
Brilliant Video. Great work. Thank you.
So glad I’ve done my time now. I found it difficult with the changes happening in the 90’s and 00’s. So much poor planning in rolling out comms and new IT systems.
Most young people would benefit from an incentive driven two year service contract. Just so we can build a reserve. We’d lose the vast majority of regular formations within a few months. The system for mobilising reserves is absolutely broken and would rely on the goodwill of reservists stepping up.
Tragic
Like you, I served mid eighties to mid 90's, taking third phase redundancy as part of the Options for Change reductions in regular service numbers. When you look back you can see that we had already seen a significant decline in capacity and ability to conduct to battle operations- look specifically at Op Granby and how we had to beg, borrow and steal ( aka cannibalise) from across BAOR and U.K. to get enough battle worthy equipment together to make a battle group deployment to The Gulf. How they coped in Afghanistan is beyond me.
The questions I ask myself are... do young people of today have the same inclination to join the armed services as we did 40 years ago and would I offer my services if the Government asked the public to mobilise due to conflict that directly threatened the U.K?
Interested to read your thoughts....
@@stevei0220 if there was a genuine existential threat to the UK I do think young and old people would flock to the colours and step up. The problem with this would be how do you process and train/equip such large numbers of people quickly enough?
The professional army would quickly degrade in high intensity conflict and we’d have a small window of opportunity to mobilise reserves and train up replacement volunteers. I can’t see how the system would cope in its current form.
That’s why we need a short term contract of say two years where there is an incentive to become trained and part of a ready reserve, not based on conscription but with similar training and skill levels.
Sadly it's an exercise of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Excellent video!
Glad you liked it!
Excellent breakdown both visually and verbally!
We need numbers and our industry needs to be able to mass produce equipment to replace losses.
Right. So that's 2% more income tax for the numbers, another 3% for the industrial capacity, and 2 % on interest rates for the debt. How will you be paying sir? Smaller house, sell a car or cancelled operation?
Excellent video.
I watched this twice to clarify. Excellent work sir even this humble and simple poster understood it eventually. Only one problem with your summations.
If we have taken X amount of X assets out of service without waiting for their replacements to be delivered ready to go then X amount of your eventual wish sheet is blank 'cos the kit has not yet been delivered. There is little about governmental and my experiences of it - whether civilian or military thinking which leads me to think those spaces will be filled prior to the disposal of the outgoing or the expedient delivery of such to shorten the time the blank spaces will remain blank.
It is not difficult to understand the despair and disbelief so many of our Armed Forces are subjected to at the sheer lunacy and/or simple incompetency of far too many of those involved in the decision making processes. It is that sort of thinking which had British tanks being sent to equip the BEF and turning up with only drill rounds to be employed. How is it we can still be thinking in this manner no matter how many times we are caught with our trousers down?
Very concise and quite correct, I disagree on a few structures in the force, but overall well organised.
Sadly sir starmer and the hm treasury will probably just be reducing it all more and asking for more tasks to be done with less while spinning the narrative to say we’re amazing fighting t90s with jackal and a 50cal
100% I'm literally holding off joining the reserves till I see this country earns me.
Oh you might enjoy this... I signed up Feb 2022... Army (Capita) lost my application... twice. 6 months later I get an email apologising and asking me to apply AGAIN. Trust an org with my life when they can't run a job application website. Nah.
@@paulhudson8342And that is what happens when you outsource and privatise public services! You have seen the incompetence first hand, I have seen it first hand with what has happened to the British emergency services, the Criminal Justice system and NHS. Some cats have certainly become very fat from it, leaving Joe Public in a very poor predicament.
Really good video!!
This keeps me awake at night.
Need to sort out MoD procurement as a pretty early task. And Defence Estates.
Excellant and very well thought out and concisevideo Which shows how easy IT COULD BE TO SOLVE THE ARMYS SHORT COMINGS IN A very short time span.We will see if our INCOMPETENT POLITICAL MASTERS acrually do what is suggested and is needed or again push the problem further down the road Personally i would actually like to see a 2nd HEAVY DIVISION and a increase in the numbers of tank and artillery MLRS, ,battalions and more air combat support [attack helicopters] and specialised UCAV battalions for reconnaissance and ground attack/ defence support
@@DavidShort-q1d why would we need all that? Days of the British Army being expeditionary are over. A 2nd heavy armoured division would suggest unilateral operations. At best I’d go for an extra Armour Brigade for 3 Div so we could have 2 Brigades up and the 3rd being in reserve to reflect traditional Heavy Armour Divisions. We would still need 200-220 Chally 3’s though. To have a 2nd Division would entail an extra 100+ Ajax, 100 Chally 3’s, 200 Boxer/Ares Turreted, 40-50 Additional MLRS and 100 Boxer 155 Arty. Not including service support vehicles and Equipment, then 10-15 Thousands squaddies to man it. The British Army struggle to man its current force manning levels at the minute. The priority should be a balanced Army that meets its NATO and National requirements, but with a more heavier focus on the Navy and RAF
@@nigelrendall You already mentioned why we need a 2nd heavy division A STRATIGIC RESERVE to replace casualties suffered in action and god forbid as a defence if the 1st heavy division gets obliterated
Trebling it in size would be a start.
@@Wobbler619 but why? What is the need?? NATO is much larger now, let those countries look after continental Europe. Britain should bring Naval power and Air power to the party. The Army should be supplemental to those needs and our NATO commitments (ARRC HQ plus 1 Heavy Division)
No, the army is not the focus of the UK. We're an island..... What has been outlined here is perfect for protecting our interests in Europe as the army always has. The navy and RAF have the responsibility of being our main soft and hard power forces.
12:54 slight discrepancy here in the military police component. Like the rest of the services, the RMP no longer have an special investigation branch. All 3 services amalgamated their SIBs into the defence serious crime unit which sits under the defence serious crime command (and so is directly run by the MOD and not army HQ)
@@dailygurrilavideos Thank you for that clarification.
Such a good video, important video, but unfortunately one channel audio makes it almost impossible to sit through.
Had to mute and read subtitles
When you're not listing warfare as the first job of the army then you're not going to even win during it
The 19th Light Brigade currently is a reservist brigade, so where would the manpower come from in your model that places it as a Regular Army Mechanized Division.
Those Challenger 2s are still deployable!!! Same with the warriors!
Thanks - well laid out but depressing. We seem to be a complete joke at the moment.
Nick where do you get 4 Aviation Regiments from? Only 1, 3, 4 Regiments have combat coded aircraft are you counting 2 Regiment (Middle Wallop)?
@@nigelrendall There should be 5 aviation regiments in total. I didn’t include 2 Training Regt.
@ ok but in the Field Army there is only 3 Regt (1 x Wildcat, 2 x Apache, 1 x Reserve Service Support), 5 Regiment is virtually non-existent (6 x Dauphin
Last time I visited Wallop there were hardly any uniforms to be seen. Just dozens of civil servants and a load of civvy contractors. How on earth can they all it 2 Regt AAC?
What's the rationale behind 4 light mech infantry battalions rather than 1 light cav and 3 light mech? Do the light mech brigades not need a light cav regiment to carry out their role?
4 light mech battalions instead of 3 such battalions plus a light cavalry regiment reflects the UK's new approach to multi-domain war fighting. Jackal equipped regiments cannot provide direct fire support. Instead they are used to deliver loitering munitions and act as surveillance and drone reconnaissance assets. Thus, they are attached to the artillery brigades. Each light mech infantry battalion would be much more lethal and self-contained than before.
the main problem is nobody wants to sign on,im Ex sigs an would never re-sign id rather go to prison than serve under our leaders
I'm concerned that the view of Hybrid War is woefully narrow. At a guess the definition given here only covers 5-10% of what the threat really is. Please, someone get a grip on the real danger, we're currently losing this battle hands down.
I have for years contemplated this and yes, you're right we being beaten here without even fielding a team - unforgiveable lack of foresight and inability to smell any coffee. There is the potential for a civilian grouping here (probably under the guidance or even as an integral part of GCHQ - Matters not at this point who runs it just that we have a capability and somebody runs it. It can be evolved as lessons are learned.
Let's just call it Hybrid force for the sake of this post.
The army is losing a great many youngsters for a variety of reason (beyond the scope of this post to rectify any of them) but does the country need to lose these, once so motivated and now trained individuals, simply because they are pissed off beyond salvation by the Ivory tower dwellers and bean counters?
Whether they come from the ranks of the infantry. SF element or tech elements (R/Signals) etc if they have the IQ, the desire and the option they can still be put to enormous use in the defence and safety of the nation. How many good people on reaching their 22 year point are just lost to further employment/deployment for the defence of the nation, its interests and it's long swept under the carpet requirements? Some will happily go into the reserve, some may wish to continue their own dream - some may wish to be considered of further use to their country (yes that desire really does extend beyond the 22 years pension in some!)
Utilize these options with those of the civilian world who may wish to just have a slice more akin to the gig economy and give a couple of years of their lives toward something greater than the next spliff or piss up or sexual encounter! How many ex police/fire/prison/customs/Border force etc etc etc may be happy to extend their useful years in return for a decent wage and a whole new interesting and oh so useful/required force for good rather than slipping away to grow Dahlia's/breed budgies/get bored shitless in the furthest reaches of the UK?
I would call in the last head of the SIS - the most recently retired one and ask him/her to ruminate/pioneer this idea and then crack on with giving it birth. The leader of this would be answerable to ??????? Anyone but a solely political animal.
I have ideas on how to make it attractive to those it should be attracting and how to loosely organize it initially but it would take a far greater brain than mine to implement it to the point it is meaningful and effective.
There is also an idea of greater complexity which I have nurtured to increase the numbers militarily at minimal cost and the greatest benefit of the nation (and beyond) Nobody to bounce these ideas off of who has any sort of credibility/connections/voice in the matter though - shame because it is an idea whose time has come and should be evolved into something productive by again an expert in the matter.
The biggest non nuclear budget was cyber warfare budget pre labour. Something like £4 billion a year was going to be spent over the next decade in the consecutives plans
@@Scaleyback317I have often thought that we ought to have a national, multi- faceted Civil Contingency Force that is able to be deployed in response to major incidents - anything from an crashed aeroplane and flooding to infrastructure failure or logistic support to our full time emergency services and armed forces. Like you, the idea is there but bringing it to fruition and to the right ears is a different matter.
@@stevei0220 I had considered similar mate but with teams of volunteers from military backgrounds and under the instruction of the UN (though of course could be amended easily enough. I had considered a military force to be based somewhere a little more centrally and Cyprus sprang to mind as an ideal location. This force to be made up of a squadron of Royal Engineers, a logistics troop, signals troop, a medical troop, and an infantry company. To be split into for teams each with a medium lift helicopter and a transport aircraft dedicated to each team (retiring C130's could fit the bill). This would remain as an integral part of the British Forces but under the direct control of the foreign office rather than the MOD.
The bill for this to be met from the foreign aid budget and not the MOD. Civilians - ie fire/police/interpreters/legal advisors/ to be included in the make up of the teams and maybe even commanded by an official from the Foreign Office in order to accentuate the civil use to which these military personnel would be deployed in time of emergency.
If other nations would consider similar then we could have a quick thinking, quick acting professional plane load of people (with more to follow if required) to be deployed to wherever in the world they may be required and even doing it under the auspices of the UN if necessary.
We're not a million miles apart in this thought which tells me it's probably not as idealistically foolish or accomplishable or even less required than we have each envisage - merely a different slant in the make up of the force.
Armed infantry to be deployed either as such if the security sit calls for or an additional manpower/back up for the specialists.
Now how do we make the bean counters listen????
An idea I've had to address the hybrid threat as outlined in the video is a lot more convoluted/far reaching/expensive - which right there means it's not something any British Government would wish to give birth to - no matter how much money it would save in the long run - it's only up to the next voting opportunity which attracts the attention of those in the decision making processes unfortunately.
It puts it in perspective when you see Russian casualties are 4 times the size of the British army.
That’s not the size of the army, that’s the entire military. The British infantry army is actually just below 20,000
Frankly, your proposal is excellent and if the parasitical vermin that infest our London establishment composite were even marginally responsible and competent, would very much be a "no brainer"...
Alas, however, they are not, so there are also two other yet more severely butchered services and the analogous restoration of both must ultimately be our number 1 priority. Not full, comprehensive re-growth of our army. For the simple reason that we're an island, so the basic essentials of what OUR nation's defence requires are innately pre-determined by Geography. Thus, two things are simply non-negotiable..
1) Our capacity to control what were once termed "The Narrow Seas" (the C21st equivalent might be expressed as all areas of the UK's EEZ bordering our south and eastern coasts AND insofar as is feasible, those adjacent EEZs of continental polities too; PLUS increasing presence in the air above, reaching sustainable primacy over our own waters and complete command over the UK itself)
2) Capacity by sea and air to also control the Western Approaches, be able to interdict opposed forces transit of other vital choke points and, re more distant waters ensure our essential trans-Atlantic supply routes are not closed.
Thus, what our land forces are also capable of delivering must of necessity be consistent with these prerequisites. So, apart from their other vital role (which you do also address and which must still be assured by army reconstruction) as one essential component of an integrated all-services ability to deliver ongoing global expeditionary capability on the level you define above, then over the pre-2030 period at least, our NATO obligations may NOT include the guaranteed deployment of ONE, SINGLE UK land force unit to any part of NW Europe south of Scandinavia, which region is what should define the exclusive current focus of our land force contribution to NATO defence.
I'm an old veteran from 1974-1985. The UK is too small to have a big well equiped military. We totally need the USA and NATO. We're outdated and outclassed. The special forces are excellent, but that's it.
GET RID OF THE DISCO!
Never going to happen Nick.
The country isn't worth fighting and dying for, either. That piece of the moral component is being consistently ignored by all major commentators.
too true - nowadays it's weak,broken,defeated by it's own government !
Well i think thats rather defeatist of you.
@@Whiskey2shotshave a look at the video results after entering into the search criteria: would you fight for the UK. By age, almost all respondents below 35 said no. Almost respondents above 60 said yes and that conscription should be implemented.
As a nation we have spent the last 20+ years being told our country and history are bad in schools. This is the result
@@justindylan4984 What age range do you fit in to? What a massive surprise that the people who wouldn't be sent to fight in a war are pro sending others to fight in a war. Of course most people aren't interested in going and dying for their country in peace times, I would wager these statistics only change in times when genuine threats to people's lives such as Nazi Germany, or from the perspective of rebels in the middle east "the west" exist. Tbh, as far as I'm concerned an overwhelming majority of people wanting to go and die for their country in peace time is a good indicator of a fascist society because fascism is fundamentally built on fear of outsiders as a fact not genuine threats. People aren't taught our country and history are shit in schools, whoever has told you that has an agenda. There are bad things in our history and people should be taught about them and why they are bad. But, there's also good things in our history.
bro put yourself in my right ear please
Oh boy, this is even worse than here in Germany.
And which British politician is going to push for this?
Answer: NONE
UK should be incredibly grateful to Ukraine. Russia attacking (if they wanted) nato is delayed for at least a decade while the uk picked this decade to rebuild everything from jets to ships and armour fighting vehicles
Nothing we didn't already know but it is very grim when laid out. We don't just need a large overhaul in structure. We need a wholesale purge on Woke, DEI policies, from the Army. Sadly this mindset has permeated to the highest levels and these senior officers prioritising "diversity" over delivery of lethality on the battlefield must be retired out of service. We need a return to strict meritocracy and a focus on what works rather than making the right political noises. The burden of women in contact line units needs to be alleviated. Doing the job is difficult enough without carrying a not insignificant percentage of decidedly less effective troops who also demand care privileges not afforded male soldiers. There are far too many non British soldiers in the Army We must improve terms of service until we can again recruit and retain the required numbers from with our own country, with foreign soldiers again being a noteworthy rarity.
Fully agree.
Yk initially i was against this, but leaving coloured people and women out of the frontline and just sending english boys to die for their country doesnt sound too bad.
You need to fix your own audio first; turn down background musak, and increase, normalise, and balance the vocal.
Nick I agree on most things in this Video apart from. 3rd U.K. Div 4 x Mech Arm. Inf. Battalions would these be Turreted versions of Ares? If so you do not discuss these in your Additional budget. Currently for the Ajax program 93 Ares are to be procured I am assuming with currently 4 Medium Recce Regts (Armored Cavalry) 4 Sqns per Regt with 1 Troop (4 Ares) giving total of 64 Ares for Cavalry, leaving 29 for training Units and Artillery FOO duties for the Artillery.
So for 4 Armoured Infantry Battalions you would need 45 Ares per battalion plus reserve/training that’s an additional 200+ Ares Turreted. I believe we have already paid for 40mm Cased Telescoped Cannons for the failed Warrior WSCP program. These are not mentioned in your additional budget comments.
Splendid video.
The Russians are right about something.
Throwing-away old assets claiming "they are old" is not very valid when you are throwing away those capabilities altogether with that hardware.
Except usually our old stuff are costing more to maintain than buying new stuff. Some of the type 23 frigates were costing hundreds of millions to maintain
@Cav-z1y
I won't believe this until I find it out the hard-way.
The real problem here is that testing & maintenance on individual parts just isn't done frequently enough.
And also, there's a huge cost to having shit parts compatibility, which is something Bri'ish people love trashing across every type and generation of vehicles.
@@mashpotaeto the difference between the uk and many other countries except USA I suppose is the uk is constantly using the equipment in training and exercises. This means we have some of the best trained crews around but also means the equipment takes a beating and need retirement much sooner. See how Germany still operates tornados that we retire a decade ago, because the raf is flying those daily while they just sit on German air fields
@@mashpotaeto The cost of a type 31 frigate is £250 million built from scratch and modern, HMS iron duke (type 23) cost £100 million+ just to fix up into useable condition with older equipment
So you can keep this going till 2035 have either 1 type 31 (root uk usually takes) or 2 fixed up old type 23 (what other countries like Russia does) and then on paper Russia out numbers Uk by 2:1
How many PEOPLE have been magic
ed up here??
This is bloody brilliant, I love all the icons to understand what I'm seeing.
& Yes get rid of the "1st Deep Reconnaissance Strike Brigade Combat Team"
I mean what idiot came up with such a mouth full? No mention an obvious give away to the enemy as to what their job is.
....1DRS isn't a secret organisation. Anyone can figure that a modern military will want to strike into the deep battle.
Where’s all the money gone that we saved as well?
Welfare and Nigerian underwater basket weavers…..
For those wondering how Ukraine has stopped and repeatedly stopped the largest and most equipped conventional Army on Earth now well North of 1000 Days continous to include outright Victories at Kyiv, kHarkiv, Kupiansk and kHerson the answer to me anyways is *"infantry, infantry, infantry, infantry."* Yes a clearly flawed Russian strategy of attacking everywhere all at once which continues has been an enormous benefit to Ukraine so too has the persistent entrance of modern western weapons, training, logistics, intelligence and comnand and control so too of course has been dumb luck and godly interventions as is the case in all Wars but in the end man for man, person for person at every level Ukraine has simply outfought the Russian military. How does not just Great Britain but any other Army stand itself up knowing this? Learn from how the Ukraine people fight simple as that. *"Your job is not to die for your Country but to see the other damn fool dies for his."* George Patton. I can't think of a better example of this than what Ukraine has done to Russia 2022-present now more than ever. *"Go there and learn and you will have your Army."* 😊😊
How Ukraine fight is not how NATO or US fight wars, we are designed to get air superiority and not fight along a massive 1500 km front line like some WW2 eastern front shootout, massive artillery duel, where neither side have close air support. US and Europe ain't even able to produce enough shells for this, so we busy ramping up production as Russia have depleted our stockpiles of artillery shells.
The west wins by controlling the air and sea, as a former Norwegian ranger trained to operate in the Arctic wilderness near Russian border, the mission was clear, do as much sabotage as we could and die. No point kidding yourself when operating 500 km away from your own division HQ and being long range recon of the first NATO ground force tasked to stop an attack. Hold out until NATO reinforcements arrive against huge odds. Only army corps in Murmansk peace time, but would be a field army there if things was hot.
Air defence and power is the key, do not need to go to Ukraine to know this, was so in 1940 and been so ever since. Then we need to secure supply lines at sea, nothing new under the Sun, lessons learned from land-locked country ain't that relevant to UK.
The UK needs a large navy. Historically its army has always been small if you remove former imperial obligations. We need an army that can compliment larger European forces .
You’ll to equip and train 3 new Medical Regiments
Home Defence? With all these strangers arriving daily, I would have thought that was a necessity too. The police cannot handle it.
Strangers? Oh dear....
HIMARS would be an awful choice for the UK. Can't sling it under helos but doesn't use any less aircraft needed than just sticking with M270 that is already budgeted and existing, while having half the firepower. If there's to be a wheeled one, make it something like LIMAWS that can actually gain some strategic mobility and share a platform. HIMARS is a pointless platform for the UK given the chassis its own.
Part of the reason LIMAWS(R) failed was due to the Chinook lifting requirement. In order to reduce the size and get the weight down to ~9 tons, they had to significantly lighten the vehicle by fitting a smaller engine, smaller wheels, downgrading the suspension, omit an APU, and other modifications that led to an overloaded chassis with lacklustre off-road performance. It certainly wasn't unfixable, but would have required a lot more money and resources invested into a platform that wasn't needed at the time.
@@twarvg8562 Even if it can't do that you can still get 2 in an A400 and have the same effect as a HIMARS as it is. HIMARS is just an objectively poor option for the UK with no real benefit.
Excellent video, slight problem, the army, navy and air force during the 'Cold War' was inadequate had the war turned to hot. Ergo the 2030 prediction is still inadequate by a Looooong Waaay. FACT : Our enemies are more numerous, more powerful and have active 5th columns within our country, within our government, education & just about everywhere else.
Fact is that a diverse country isn't going to do well in a full scale war. The thinking seems to be that war will always be on someone else's land and that the troops can come home for a cuppa, but not in their uniforms as that might upset folks back home with a different opinion of the people being fought against. Diverse nations in full scale conflict have been seen already with Iraq and Afghanistan, you can probably include Syria now too. Internal divisions manifest, different groups have ties to different outside groups, it becomes Balkanised very quickly. Trying to sabre rattle while promoting diversity is a fools errand. Even the Soviets pushed ethnic consciousness for propaganda purposes during WWII.
@@damionkeeling3103take your prejudices somewhere else, it bores. I hear Russia would be ideal for your views.
@@damionkeeling3103 What about America? That is a "diverse" military, if we are talking ethnicity.
Amd the US is famous for not being able to sustain large losses or drawn out conflicts in part because of that.@@theotryhard8651
Laughable......Upgrading should be the priority for Starmer at any expense.
Nothing against video, but can I just say I hate ai generated art.
Why have a large standing army on an Island though, it has balance as part of NATO, what it needs is more helicopters and special forces, we dont need tanks and we dont need infantry. Too over analysed.
What was mentioned in the video was not a large standing army, it's a small one designed to be easily deployable. If the UK wants to be able to protect its international assets and dissuade others from taking advantage then it needs the ability to deploy a fighting force on short notice. Not having infantry or tanks would massively limit the operation capability of the UK meaning even a rogue african nation could take advantage of it. Remember NATO only covers the north Atlantic thats why article 5 was not triggered from the Falklands. Just having the capability will deter most from risking it, one of the reason the Falklands war happened was because the UK govt decided to reduce their military and withdraw the one ship they had in the area. Making it a juicy target for a desperate country.
You cannot nick an Ajax unit and pretend it is a Warrior replacement because it was never specified to be one!
...it literally is replacing warriors in service as we speak.
@@lewisallan9963@lewisallan9963 Hi mate, I did not aim that statement at you. Please allow me to explain. The equipment drives its specification. Warrior was never designed to carry out role of an a RECCE vehicle. The exchange rate is SCIMITAR out, WR in? So, where are the Crew? CVR crewman are going to need double training - CVR trained crew, retrained to WR for a while. And ultimately RETAINED to AJAX some when. 30mm gunner retrained to WR, theb to 40mm. We have been told the answer for RECCE is AJAX, because it MUST be, but we can use WR to do that?? What is the gap analysis?? Because there is one! Perhaps we can prove that a 30 odd tonne WR can fill the role? For how long and at what% of AJAX capability reduction? The COC have accepted reduction of Capability, for how long? This has long been accepted as coming - and we have told 'them' that the King has no blaster clothes on, to no avail. This is, I am afraid, BOLLOCKS!
You took risk on CVR, on WR, instead of converting CVR to uncrewed and now find yourself unable to convert because you took risk and ended up without tge ability to remotely operate! I would have been LAUGHED out of the room!
mid 90;s it started going down hill, I was there and all this DEI nonsense is making it a lot worse and makes young straight guys look elsewhere
Attro-fie? Learn English.