Armed forces to get smaller still

#1
Given the masses will have forgotten the draw down of BritMil from Afghanistan in 2014 by 2016, what are the chances should they remain in power of the Cons further reducing the Armed Forces budget by

Budget 2013: tax rises likely after 2015, warns IFS - Telegraph

...If the additional austerity falls entirely on spending, it would mean that by 2017/18, departments would suffer unprecedented cuts of... 18pc...

Certain equipment budgets are ring fenced according to some on here, but manpower is not.

Anyone got figures on the manpower budget and the numbers needed to achieve a reduction of 18pc?

Krom
 
#3
...Anyone got figures on the manpower budget and the numbers needed to achieve a reduction of 18pc?...
much more importantly, does anyone seriously believe that after the debacle of the last 10 years of land-centric combat, there will be any senior politician of any party in the next 15-20 year who would even consider the possibilty of undertaking a large scale, long term land campaign?

so, given that we're an island, can't be invaded and therefore any large scale, long term ground campaign would by definition be a war of choice, rather than a war of neccesity - why have an Army capable of undertaking a long term, large scale land campaign?

if the pols took the Army down to a handful of light, airmobile Bde's, they could afford do the kind of combat they like - from the air or with SLCM's that involve no risk to plucky brits....
 
#4
My bet would be down to an Army of 40 or maybe 50k. If we're lucky we'll get a 1:1 increase in the TA so keep at least a semblance of capability around.

I'd see the only possible ray of sunshine for the RN; we are an island and it is arguably too small at the moment.
 

Schaden

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
*shrug* The old SADF had I think 30,000 regulars and about 70,000 combination conscripts and the equivalent of the TA with reserves of about 300,000 - fought a long war - you boys have a way to go on the cuts to numbers side.
 
#7
Or perhaps they will simply raise income tax as the article states. Austerity cuts appear to be reaching the end of their shelf life and there is a limit to the number of potential voters you can repeatedly piss off if you are even remotely interested in reelection.
 

DangerMouse

Old-Salt
Moderator
#10
My bet would be down to an Army of 40 or maybe 50k. If we're lucky we'll get a 1:1 increase in the TA so keep at least a semblance of capability around.

I'd see the only possible ray of sunshine for the RN; we are an island and it is arguably too small at the moment.
Yes, I agree - see the two related threads on ARRSE about this:

The reputation of the British Army is at an all-time low, and getting worse: UK Armed Forces: Plummeting International Reputation Deserved? Does it Matter?

The Land component (i.e. ground forces) have ever-diminishing utility, and will be cut further: LAND Component - Main Effort or Not?
 
#12
#13
Or perhaps they will simply raise income tax as the article states. Austerity cuts appear to be reaching the end of their shelf life and there is a limit to the number of potential voters you can repeatedly piss off if you are even remotely interested in reelection.
That's excatly why any further cuts are likely to be in defence. It really doesn't lose you any votes.

It would have before Ivan packed it in, now... Almost nobody cares.

And (I know I keep harping on about this) we simply do not need large standing armed forces currently. Nothing, nobody anywhere on Earth threatens us. Nobody anywhere on Earth can threaten us without the creation of a power projection capability, which isn't something you can do overnight or in camera.

We're no longer a global power, we have little to concern ourselves with on the defence front other than the home islands which are more than adequately protected against all current threats. The only thing we really could be doing with currently is fixed-wing MPA.
 
#14
Thames river police pick up 2 dusky chaps in a rowing boat... "What are you chaps up to?" They ask "invading Britain" they reply (rofl) "what, just the 2 of you?" "Nah, we're the last, the rest are already here"


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
Reminds me of the old joke about Paddy being frightened he'll get the sack when called into the boss's office after running over a dozen illegals who'd swam ashore while he was tarmacing the road.

When he asked his boss if he was being sacked his boss said; "Don't be so stupid..... you're the only person I know who can lay tarmac & cat's eyes at the same time".
 
#15
Can anyone remember a sustained period since 1945 when we have had less than a brigade deployed on some Op or other?

The world must be safer place now eh?
 
#16
The country can manage with a smaller military, as long as the politicians don't get us embroiled in another bloody stupid campaign. let the yanks do what they want, but keep Britain out of it. won't happen of course the politicians want to crawl up America's backside. The other solution would be to attach 5 MP's to every group of soldiers on a 5 to 200 level. Guess what! NO MORE WARS
 
#17
Can anyone remember a sustained period since 1945 when we have had less than a brigade deployed on some Op or other?

The world must be safer place now eh?
Yes, yes it is. Much safer.

If we undertake not to embark upon elective expeditionary campaigns then it can be safer yet in less than a decade.
 
#18
much more importantly, does anyone seriously believe that after the debacle of the last 10 years of land-centric combat, there will be any senior politician of any party in the next 15-20 year who would even consider the possibilty of undertaking a large scale, long term land campaign?

so, given that we're an island, can't be invaded and therefore any large scale, long term ground campaign would by definition be a war of choice, rather than a war of neccesity - why have an Army capable of undertaking a long term, large scale land campaign?

if the pols took the Army down to a handful of light, airmobile Bde's, they could afford do the kind of combat they like - from the air or with SLCM's that involve no risk to plucky brits....



We can't be invaded??? like your confidence!!!!
 
#19
Who has the capability to invade the UK?
Who is likely to?

The Yanks, might be able to manage it. There isn't another power on Earth with the capability to do it in any meaningful fashion and few who will be able to create the capability in anything less than several decades of military expenditure.

Then you get to the "why?" of it.... Let alone the "oh look we've just lost several populous and economically quite useful cities to a spiteful retaliatory nuclear kick in the arse!"

Do they still publish Boys Own Stories?
 
#20
So to put into perspective we may have an army that just about fills a football stadium, say the Emirates? Or even less?

Makes you think doesn't it...
 

Latest Threads

Top