Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Armed forces will be cut by up to 50% after GE under Tories says Cable

So expect to see a reduction to 18 Infantry Battalions then.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a reorganisation around 4 Deployable Brigades and 9 month tours*.


* I have heard from various people and online sources that a lot of criticism is levelled at the operational inefficiency of the 6 month tour system. If this allows longer tours enabling manpower cuts to be spun as a positive, I suspect the treasury will leap on it like a cat.
 
Last edited:
I have heard 62,000 bandied about from perfectly reputable sources.

I was serving at a Crab-air CHQ in the late 80's and there was a paper circulating which forecast a Crab-air manning level of circa 32,500 - the paper also forecast reduced infrastructure and weapon system levels . It caused howls of derision from the high-ups as in "It'll never happen" - but look where it's manning levels are now. Somewhere in the corridors of power was playing the big picture long game and I'm pretty sure their plan would also include the Army and the Navy. I suspect the targets for reduced manning levels across the services were identified a long time ago and not just since May 2010.
 
Believe it or not, one of the justifications for a figure of 62,000 was 62,000 Regulars + 38,000 Reservists = 100,000 strong Army.

I can hear the politicians' argument now..."No of course we haven't reached the recruitment target because we just increased it"
 
I think it will be the VSOs that lead with that line.

"Words spoken by actors" is the phrase that sprang to mind when thinking about lines to take.
 

Gunner82

War Hero

I have no marker in place for Cable, but Defence is not a ring fenced budget and cuts are highly likely; have the Conversatives on several occasions said they will maintain 2% funding of Defence in the next Parliament or not? (Quote)

And you believe what Dave and chums say?
 
(Quote)

And you believe what Dave and chums say?


Not really they are politicians on the other hand I trust them more than I do Milliband and co, after all only 1 party had the decency to go into the last election and say we will cuts.

Labour went in stating they wouldn't cut (yet) and denounced opposed and obstructed every cut post election.

Best scam they ever pulled that every one remembers their opposition, nobody has or will remember their tacit admission they would have to have done the same nor the fact they wont change any of these policies if elected.

Whoever gets in were shafted, but I,d rather they owned up to pissing in the pool rather than telling me its free (socialist) champagne
 
I have no marker in place for Cable, but Defence is not a ring fenced budget and cuts are highly likely; have the Conversatives on several occasions said they will maintain 2% funding of Defence in the next Parliament or not? (Quote)

And you believe what Dave and chums say?
Yes he did say he had committed to 2% of GDP, but he didn't say exactly what he'd spend it on!

Edit - to qualify that, he didn't cite whose GDP that 2% referred to at the NATO summit
 

Doc1701

War Hero
Much as I fully agree that Child benefit should be capped at a maximum number, at least 3 and maybe only 2 for all new claimants as of a fixed date. It's never going to happen....

No, you don't keep it and introduce more bureaucracy, you simply close child benefit to all new claimants nine months from the announcement (so that you don't get a sudden burst of chavs getting pregnant to claim it) and then keep it like that. Paying people to breed when we have too many is just plain stupid.
 

steptoe

Old-Salt
They may scrap the RAF. Which to be honest isn't exactly a bad thing when the Navy ande AAC can do the job, why have a 3rd service? Pilots and Ground crew etc would stay in the Mil.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
So expect to see a reduction to 18 Infantry Battalions then.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a reorganisation around 4 Deployable Brigades and 9 month tours*.


* I have heard from various people and online sources that a lot of criticism is levelled at the operational inefficiency of the 6 month tour system. If this allows longer tours enabling manpower cuts to be spun as a positive, I suspect the treasury will leap on it like a cat.
Corps of Infantry? With Bns just numbered 1-18; it would be easier for politicians just to close down number 18, then 17. No cap badge wars then.

This has been mooted before, but with savage cuts, allegedly, in the pipeline it could be seen as the way forward by some.
 
Corps of Infantry?

The Canadians seem to manage with three Regular Infantry capbadges - RCR, R22eR and PPCLI. We could manage with half-a-dozen, the anomalies being the Parachute Regiment and the Brigade of Guards. We already have the RIR, RRS and RWR, so it is now just a matter of creating a Royal English Regiment or similar...
 
They may scrap the RAF. Which to be honest isn't exactly a bad thing when the Navy ande AAC can do the job, why have a 3rd service? Pilots and Ground crew etc would stay in the Mil.
facepalm.gif
 
. We already have the RIR, RRS and RWR, so it is now just a matter of creating a Royal English Regiment or similar...

Never happen that wouldn't be inclusive enough and could perhaps be considered discriminatory, However it may be acceptable to create a Royal British Regiment to go alongside the (all inclusive ) Royal Scots / Welsh and Irish.
 

S0I

LE
RAF and RN will take a bit of a hit, but not by much, they are currently delivering what Pols like, TV News effects without enduring entanglements.

Army? The equivalent of BFG is going to get the chop. You can't lose two wars on the trot and expect to remain on the PM's Chrimbo card list.
 
RAF and RN will take a bit of a hit, but not by much, they are currently delivering what Pols like, TV News effects without enduring entanglements.

Army? The equivalent of BFG is going to get the chop. You can't lose two wars on the trot and expect to remain on the PM's Chrimbo card list.

And completely fail to deliver on a much vaunted promise to recruit the reserves back to 38,000 after being made to re show plans by the PM.....
 

FHA

LE
They may scrap the RAF. Which to be honest isn't exactly a bad thing when the Navy ande AAC can do the job, why have a 3rd service? Pilots and Ground crew etc would stay in the Mil.

Bollox. It's bad enough with RAF stations seeing visiting squadrons as an inconvenience. Can you imagine how the army would see them?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And completely fail to deliver on a much vaunted promise to recruit the reserves back to 38,000 after being made to re show plans by the PM.....

I contemplated going back to the TA, but having seen the hassle and huge wait experienced by friends who did the same at the same time, I decided not to. Wasn't worth the hassle.
 

FEASG

LE
The Canadians seem to manage with three Regular Infantry capbadges - RCR, R22eR and PPCLI. We could manage with half-a-dozen, the anomalies being the Parachute Regiment and the Brigade of Guards. We already have the RIR, RRS and RWR, so it is now just a matter of creating a Royal English Regiment or similar...

I fully expect the Queen's Div (Currently 2 Bns PWRR, 1 Bn RRF, 2 Bns R Ang) to be a 3 (Reg) Bn New regiment, by 2020, I expect the Kings and POW Div to be the same the old Scots and Light Divs are there already in the form of RRS/ Rifles, But I expect that they will both be down to 3 Bns each as well. The Paras already fit that model, the only sticking point will be Bde of Guards and RGR.

I could see the Bde of Guards going along the route of HCR/HCMR with two multi cap badge ceremonial Bns and a couple of fighting Bns. I can't see a corps of Infantry just yet, it would be a bridge to far.
 
Last edited:

jim30

LE
"And completely fail to deliver on a much vaunted promise to recruit the reserves back to 38,000 after being made to re show plans by the PM....."

I think that is the absolute crux of the matter. If Dave is re-elected and the Army fail to deliver what they promised, then they have reason to be afraid. Dave has invested a LOT of his own capital in getting the AR uplift, and I am left with the impression that failure will result in some very nasty conversations along the lines of

"since 2010 the RN and RAF have won me a war in Libya, given me the ability to achieve effect in Iraq, given me options for Syria and helped in me Sierra Leone among other places. The Army has given me multiple political headaches, and damaged my standing. Explain again why we need an army of 82000 when you've failed to deliver the success you promised you could do.'
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top