Army ‘to be cut by 20,000’ if No 10 plan is approved

Fingers crossed 32 reft RA becomes something useful

A regiment toting around mini UAVs that could be deployed by the recce platoon or indeed Coy HQ of every regiment in the Army - strikes me as a waste of manpower.


Re role it (best - ) or disband and if required provide a small uplift in other formations to provide operators - saving a lot of bodies in HQ and support roles )
I’d question why specialise at Regt level for what are really manpack sized UAVs, could understand if it was a larger one like Watchkeeper but not one deployed down to Coy/Pln level, just give them to Inf Recce Plns and Coy HQs
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
I’d question why specialise at Regt level for what are really manpack sized UAVs, could understand if it was a larger one like Watchkeeper but not one deployed down to Coy/Pln level, just give them to Inf Recce Plns and Coy HQs
Even then, I'm not convinced...

At the risk of yet another comparison with them over the pond, the US Army operates the similarly sized RQ-7 Shadow at platoon level (28 pax, 4 airframes) as part of the MI Company within the Brigades

But that's several battery HQs and a regimental command team's worth of cap-badge slots you realise!
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
I would be devastated, as a warmed over 8x8 with a MG is not in the same league as a fully modernised IFV.
While we wait for the publication of the cuts, sorry review, we may as well indulge in a bit of thread drift.

Currently about half our infantry is "light role" which means they go to war in 4 tonners and fight on their feet with whatever firepower, ISTAR and CSups they can carry. This didn't always work in WW1 or WW2. It barely worked in Falklands.
This problem was noticed in Cold War, which is why UK based but 1 BR Corps committed units got Saxon - whihc was more or less protected against arty fragments, which meant that 2 Div had a chance of getting to wherever it was to dig in immediately prior to Armageddon.

I have no problem with Boxer in this context; it delivers mobility to what would otherwise be a bunch of Tommys looking for body bags. I have absolutely no problem with putting a MG RWS on it (I'd have one at the back too). If you went for a turret, some fool - possibly with more stars than understanding - would believe it was a tank.

I have a bit of a problem with Strike Brigades as their raison d'etre is to have a lower logistic demand than a tracked equivalent. It seems to me that deploying a strike brigade rather than an armoured (or even mechanised) one is sending the strategic message that UK wants to be involved, but does not care enough to expend the necessary treasure to deploy a powerful force.

Next problem is the anti armour bit. Clever ATGW are fine and dandy, but lets not pretend that in any direct fire battle the MBT will destroy anything that isn't an MBT. So I suppose a Boxer brigade could just about cope with an MBT equipped enemy provided it had the freedom of movement and training to remain out of direct fire combat. I seriously doubt whether that is achievable today - and suspect that in anything other than desert terrain it would be impossible. Moreover, if there was some vital ground knocking about any halfway competenet enemy would get all Soviet and launch themselves at that. The UK commander would then have the choise of watch his Boxers die, or watch them abandon the dismounts - unlikely to end well.

So we come to AJAX - supposedly its miracle CTA40 mm gives it an anti armour capability. Outside of the rarefied environments of Whitehall I suspect few Ajax crew will enjoy trading KE shots with anything more Ally than a base model T55. Oh, and Ajax has tracks, so it needs a fiar bit of support.

Enter Rheinmetal with versions of Boxer sporting turrets a /a Centuro (120mm, but lower velocity). But thin, thin armour. And even bloody bigger than Boxer. I think not.

Enter any pundit with a swarm of killer drones, pretending that top attack is new. Deploy active protection systems and ERA on roof. Problem solved.

So:
Yes, Boxer is a huge improvement on 4 ton GS in a gazillion ways and
Yes, there is a useful capability there
BUT if it meets a tank it's toast.
WORSE on a bat day it's going to come 2nd to a 14.5mm or 23mm toting Hi-Lux (technical)

The failing states are awash with things that can kill Boxer (and we haven't yet got to the EFP bit).

Much more thought was required decades ago. I did tons of work on CVRT replacement, and "something biugger than a tank" was NEVER the answer - let alone "oh, without the firepower or the protection."

Swap Saxon for Boxer - sure, no brainer. But now what are you going to do with it?
 
While we wait for the publication of the cuts, sorry review, we may as well indulge in a bit of thread drift.

Currently about half our infantry is "light role" which means they go to war in 4 tonners and fight on their feet with whatever firepower, ISTAR and CSups they can carry. This didn't always work in WW1 or WW2. It barely worked in Falklands.
This problem was noticed in Cold War, which is why UK based but 1 BR Corps committed units got Saxon - whihc was more or less protected against arty fragments, which meant that 2 Div had a chance of getting to wherever it was to dig in immediately prior to Armageddon.

I have no problem with Boxer in this context; it delivers mobility to what would otherwise be a bunch of Tommys looking for body bags. I have absolutely no problem with putting a MG RWS on it (I'd have one at the back too). If you went for a turret, some fool - possibly with more stars than understanding - would believe it was a tank.

I have a bit of a problem with Strike Brigades as their raison d'etre is to have a lower logistic demand than a tracked equivalent. It seems to me that deploying a strike brigade rather than an armoured (or even mechanised) one is sending the strategic message that UK wants to be involved, but does not care enough to expend the necessary treasure to deploy a powerful force.

Next problem is the anti armour bit. Clever ATGW are fine and dandy, but lets not pretend that in any direct fire battle the MBT will destroy anything that isn't an MBT. So I suppose a Boxer brigade could just about cope with an MBT equipped enemy provided it had the freedom of movement and training to remain out of direct fire combat. I seriously doubt whether that is achievable today - and suspect that in anything other than desert terrain it would be impossible. Moreover, if there was some vital ground knocking about any halfway competenet enemy would get all Soviet and launch themselves at that. The UK commander would then have the choise of watch his Boxers die, or watch them abandon the dismounts - unlikely to end well.

So we come to AJAX - supposedly its miracle CTA40 mm gives it an anti armour capability. Outside of the rarefied environments of Whitehall I suspect few Ajax crew will enjoy trading KE shots with anything more Ally than a base model T55. Oh, and Ajax has tracks, so it needs a fiar bit of support.

Enter Rheinmetal with versions of Boxer sporting turrets a /a Centuro (120mm, but lower velocity). But thin, thin armour. And even bloody bigger than Boxer. I think not.

Enter any pundit with a swarm of killer drones, pretending that top attack is new. Deploy active protection systems and ERA on roof. Problem solved.

So:
Yes, Boxer is a huge improvement on 4 ton GS in a gazillion ways and
Yes, there is a useful capability there
BUT if it meets a tank it's toast.
WORSE on a bat day it's going to come 2nd to a 14.5mm or 23mm toting Hi-Lux (technical)

The failing states are awash with things that can kill Boxer (and we haven't yet got to the EFP bit).

Much more thought was required decades ago. I did tons of work on CVRT replacement, and "something biugger than a tank" was NEVER the answer - let alone "oh, without the firepower or the protection."

Swap Saxon for Boxer - sure, no brainer. But now what are you going to do with it?

The problem is that, by the looks of it, we are going to swap Warrior for Boxer.
 
Swap Saxon for Boxer - sure, no brainer. But now what are you going to do with it?

Ditch strike and the medium formations idea - Light Forces need to arrive to stabilise somewhere like Sierra Leone - heavy forces to fight a war - Mediums to heavy to get anywhere quick and anywhere it can self deploy to its in trouble

Remove 8 battalions of light role infantry

Refer back to 2010 Plan A (with improvements)

Build an (administrative) Division of 3 (administrative ) Brigades 1 AJax 1MBT 1 Warrior 2 Boxer (accepting short term theres not enough boxer to go round and there wont be enough MBT to equip all to strength)

These provide a good building block for a selection at high readiness, yet be configured for a war (armoured division GW1) to a protected mobility (boxer) Brigade for an enduring operation

Para brigade around 3 Battalions

3 Amphibious / arctic warfare brigade - replacing 3 Cdo Brigade - with 2 Light Inf battalions (Army) and a rotating a CDO regt

6 Battalions - 3 Light cav 1 Light Gun Regt odds and sods work

2 Public duties - (rotate through other brigades)
 
Last edited:
While we wait for the publication of the cuts, sorry review, we may as well indulge in a bit of thread drift.

Currently about half our infantry is "light role" which means they go to war in 4 tonners and fight on their feet with whatever firepower, ISTAR and CSups they can carry. This didn't always work in WW1 or WW2. It barely worked in Falklands.
This problem was noticed in Cold War, which is why UK based but 1 BR Corps committed units got Saxon - whihc was more or less protected against arty fragments, which meant that 2 Div had a chance of getting to wherever it was to dig in immediately prior to Armageddon.

I have no problem with Boxer in this context; it delivers mobility to what would otherwise be a bunch of Tommys looking for body bags. I have absolutely no problem with putting a MG RWS on it (I'd have one at the back too). If you went for a turret, some fool - possibly with more stars than understanding - would believe it was a tank.

I have a bit of a problem with Strike Brigades as their raison d'etre is to have a lower logistic demand than a tracked equivalent. It seems to me that deploying a strike brigade rather than an armoured (or even mechanised) one is sending the strategic message that UK wants to be involved, but does not care enough to expend the necessary treasure to deploy a powerful force.

Next problem is the anti armour bit. Clever ATGW are fine and dandy, but lets not pretend that in any direct fire battle the MBT will destroy anything that isn't an MBT. So I suppose a Boxer brigade could just about cope with an MBT equipped enemy provided it had the freedom of movement and training to remain out of direct fire combat. I seriously doubt whether that is achievable today - and suspect that in anything other than desert terrain it would be impossible. Moreover, if there was some vital ground knocking about any halfway competenet enemy would get all Soviet and launch themselves at that. The UK commander would then have the choise of watch his Boxers die, or watch them abandon the dismounts - unlikely to end well.

So we come to AJAX - supposedly its miracle CTA40 mm gives it an anti armour capability. Outside of the rarefied environments of Whitehall I suspect few Ajax crew will enjoy trading KE shots with anything more Ally than a base model T55. Oh, and Ajax has tracks, so it needs a fiar bit of support.

Enter Rheinmetal with versions of Boxer sporting turrets a /a Centuro (120mm, but lower velocity). But thin, thin armour. And even bloody bigger than Boxer. I think not.

Enter any pundit with a swarm of killer drones, pretending that top attack is new. Deploy active protection systems and ERA on roof. Problem solved.

So:
Yes, Boxer is a huge improvement on 4 ton GS in a gazillion ways and
Yes, there is a useful capability there
BUT if it meets a tank it's toast.
WORSE on a bat day it's going to come 2nd to a 14.5mm or 23mm toting Hi-Lux (technical)

The failing states are awash with things that can kill Boxer (and we haven't yet got to the EFP bit).

Much more thought was required decades ago. I did tons of work on CVRT replacement, and "something biugger than a tank" was NEVER the answer - let alone "oh, without the firepower or the protection."

Swap Saxon for Boxer - sure, no brainer. But now what are you going to do with it?

my understanding is that the lower logistics tail is due Boxer mounted troops being self sufficient for longer (3? Days) and being less maintenance intensive being wheeled (which of course fails when Ajax is involved). They are also capable of self deployment over longer distances. That means that they can get to the fight quicker and respond quicker.

agree on the rest
 

FEASG

LE
my understanding is that the lower logistics tail is due Boxer mounted troops being self sufficient for longer (3? Days) and being less maintenance intensive being wheeled (which of course fails when Ajax is involved). They are also capable of self deployment over longer distances. That means that they can get to the fight quicker and respond quicker.

agree on the rest
My Bold - To quote Zulu "Well there's Stupid Man! Nobody Runs, to fight a battle"
 

Cyberhacker

War Hero
I have a bit of a problem with Strike Brigades as their raison d'etre is to have a lower logistic demand than a tracked equivalent. It seems to me that deploying a strike brigade rather than an armoured (or even mechanised) one is sending the strategic message that UK wants to be involved, but does not care enough to expend the necessary treasure to deploy a powerful force.
Apologies, but the next installment of our education...

When first rolled out the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams were planned with a lower logistics demand, and hence the battalions did not get a Forward Support Company (unlike the Armored or Infantry Brigade Combat Teams). After a few years, in 2013, this was realised to be a rather stupid idea, and full FSCs added.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a believer in everything that the Septics do, but I'd rather our cannon fodder did not suffer by making the same mistakes... what's that line about those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it?
 
Let's hope he's got his CEA squared away.
Funnily enough it was reported previously he was due to be retired early as Boris has had his fill of him.

Now there is a justification to keep him to transition the Army.

Does this indicate the current CGS isn't up to the job or they are struggling to identify the next CDS given the current crop of Service Chiefs?
 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
Funnily enough it was reported previously he was due to be retired early as Boris has had his fill of him.

Now there is a justification to keep him to transition the Army.

Does this indicate the current CGS isn't up to the job or they are struggling to identify the next CDS given the current crop of Service Chiefs?

hes the fall guy in return for a handsome gong

Arise Sir Nick, Baron Andover
 
hes the fall guy in return for a handsome gong

Arise Sir Nick, Baron Andover
Not looking good then? Everyone else to be issued with one of these and told to bend over?

1614945420817.png

Previously the talk on the street seemed to indicate the job would go to the Andrew? so long as the RAF bloke does not get it after converting the RAF to the Royal Woke Force.
 
Top