SDR is coming; lose 10000 troops

#1
ok, so its a hypothetical question but i'm sure with some pretty auster PR10/11 measures about to be imposed and the imminent SDR what would you do?

bear in mind sp to COE ops but also the ability to regenerate to future WFE ops what would you do?

here's a few ideas: (sensible comments only pse)

review OF5/6 employment
review civil service employment, seek to make some drastic adjustments
RLC (my own CB): tpt regts, scope foe efficiencies, review force enablers into a leaner oerganisation...do we really need a pnr regt and 2x mov regts? posties, WTF.
Engr, Armd engr capabilty, lean it to a force capability
RAC, do we really need 5 x Armd regt?
Arty...rationalise dowe still need hvy arty?
REMES. savings measures taken against allof the above!!
 
#3
:? Mission impossible !

But it matters not what we envisage, as soon as Gordie and his gang are given a fresh mandate to ignore the views of the electorate , EU army here we come.

Reduced to providing admin support to the eyties :?
 
#5
tally_target said:
We cuold put the savings into RLC spelling classes I guess.
cheers ballbag...that's 3 quid saved!






(my keyboard is fecked BTW....apologies!)
 
#6
It was said back in the 70's, re NI, that for each unit in theatre you'd also have it's replacement undergoing training, and the unit it replaced having post tour leave before retraining for whatever role it had before it deployed; thus the KGB et al were quite happy to cause mischief as it reduced BAOR's capability enormously. Your 5 armoured regiments, therefore, would include 3 out of role just for 1 theatre. Doesn't leave you a lot to play with for other eventualities, does it?

Armoured engineers will happily tell you they can do anything the field oggies do, but the reverse can't apply if you minimise your armour numbers.

Posties also become part of the supply chain at times, a jiffy bag of tels stuff doesn't need an armed convoy when it'll fit in a pocket.

Pioneers traditionally get used as engineer support, guards for HQ's and loggie installations, etc. get rid of them and you instantly throw more work onto infantry.

Movers may not be anyone's favourite people, but you won't get far without them.

"Heavy artillery": define heavy?

One possible way to improve things may be to look at combined arms "regiments" a la Bundeswehr: Captains as Coy/Sqn OC, Maj as Bn co, Inf bn includes a tank sqn, arty bty, engr tp etc. It wouldn't go down well with the officers, but it works well for the Germans, Americans and Russians?
 
#7
O1W,

all valid points but who do we offer up instead?
 
#9
The more we cut the greater the gamble for the next big event! Cries of front line first trace a direct line to the rear where troops are training to get ready for the aforesaid front line. What we need to look at - and re justify to ourselves - is some of these over priced projects we have . Big question - Do we really need some of the capabilities being delivered by a certain project or does that capability already exist so what we would do is seek to build that item under licence with a clause allowing us to improve it. That would give us savings.
End state is its all about money!
 
#10
Some measures that the politico's can get away with, without being seen by the civpop as hurting the army:

* Cut training budget for the TA.
* Reduce training time before deployment.
* Reduce courselength for recruit training.
* Postpone replacement of vehicles / kit / various equipment items.
* Give military jobs to civilian subcontractors (don't be surprised when your wagon is kept in business -because it's replacement won't be bought, see above- by a guy in civvy coveralls with a commercial logo on his left tit. The RAF and RN know all about this.).
 
#11
oscar1whisky said:
One possible way to improve things may be to look at combined arms "regiments" a la Bundeswehr: Captains as Coy/Sqn OC, Maj as Bn co, Inf bn includes a tank sqn, arty bty, engr tp etc. It wouldn't go down well with the officers, but it works well for the Germans, Americans and Russians?
Ha ha. A lot of the problems we currently have seem to stem from maintaining the older style of formations and rank structure. And of course reducing any number of personnel will cause ruptions.

My favoured methed at the moment is a top to bottom reshuffle.

It would result in Land being refromed as the 8th Army (4* HQ) with all the giblets it requres. Under these 2 Corps HQs, 1 BR Corps (ARRC) and 30 Corps.

1 BR Corps would contain three Divisios each of two regular brigades and one TA (used for IR and support up to whole Coys at a time). These would contain their own Div SDupp Gr (replacing log bdes). It should be able to C2 NATO/European Divs ad Bdes as it does now.

Each Bde be would permantly Brigaded to maintain the golden threads (ever so sparsely) and could be named for example) the 7th (Scottish and Irish Bde). The German based units wold withdraw to UK (eventually).

30 Corps would field 3 divs als. 4 consisting of 4 Bdes of 1/3 reg, 2/3 ta/others for Civil Defence, Home Defence and CIMIC and 5th Div would be 4 Bdes of 3 Cdo, 16 AA and 11 Light. A further TAbde providing spares. And finally a 3rd sub unit containing OAA (brunei, Falklands Gib).

Units such as ATRA or the admin Bdes would slot in where neccesary. ATRA could be fielded by 8 Army HQ. Doing away with these trendy seperate units or works groups and (in ATRAs case merely becoming 8 Army G8.

THat would be an Army fielding 6 Operational Bdes, 3 OpRes Bdes, 3 Light Bdes and 1 Light Res Bde and 4 CivSupp Bdes (if cash and manpower permits).
 
#12
Bin A 400 and F35 and bite the bullet and buy Rafale from the French, we're building the same carriers after all.

I expect the Navy and RAF will get hit the worst now that the pollies think all the military has to do is Afghanistan. Stupid I know, but pollies are stupid.
 
#13
The first step in the SDR process is to identify what your foreign policy is and from that deduce what military capability you need to support it. Add in any internal security arrangements and that gives you your baseline.

That is what we have been lacking for a decade and salami slicing of capabilities to meet a notional and increasingly squeezed budget is utter madness.
 
#14
Wasn't there talk on here recently about having a formal timeline for SDRs?

ie Every 10 years or if needed (whichever is sooner).
 
#15
chocolate_frog said:
Wasn't there talk on here recently about having a formal timeline for SDRs?

ie Every 10 years or if needed (whichever is sooner).
If the useless f**kwits in charge properly defined the tasks Defence has to be able to carry out, we wouldn't need to keep reinventing the wheel every 10 years!

And which f**kwit keeps pissing money up the wall on pointless renaming of everything ? Case in point. ATD- ITD- MATTS... why? It's still a series of tests and training that everybody has to carry out. Some complelely **** bullshite has been trotted out everytime as to why the army wasted money on changing the label.
 
#16
Kitmarlowe said:
If the useless f**kwits in charge properly defined the tasks Defence has to be able to carry out, we wouldn't need to keep reinventing the wheel every 10 years!

And which f**kwit keeps pissing money up the wall on pointless renaming of everything ? Case in point. ATD- ITD- MATTS... why? It's still a series of tests and training that everybody has to carry out. Some complelely * bullshite has been trotted out everytime as to why the army wasted money on changing the label.
SOs and CS need OJAR/(CS equiv) points too.
 
#17
SDR simples.
A large standing military is a luxury that this nation can no longer maintain.
Decrease the size of the regular army across the board, but increase the size of the TA accordingly.
Thereby doing away with expensive MQ's, single accomodation, Medical and Dental services.
You can all live in civvy accom., find your own doctors, schools etc.
Get a job with a firm that don't mind you fu cking off for 9 months at a time.
Mothball all the equipment in warehouses that the military could rent off of Eddie 'fu cking' Stobart.

Now whats the problem.



TAXI PLEASE
 
#18
The ironic aspect to all of this is that a Green Paper was written in MoD Main Building recently by the aptly named 'Strategy Unit' has been sent back for a re-show for being too bland. What the Green Paper seeks to achieve is getting the higher level MoD house in order before any White Paper/Strategic Defence Review.

Commensurate with the Green Paper debacle there has been a review of what Defence is capable of at the present time, mindful of what is going on elsewhere (including Standing Commitments such as manning PJOBs, the permanent nuclear deterrent, and the small matter of what we're doing in Afghanistan). This review has identified what the UK can realistically be expected to do, militarily, in the short, medium and longer terms and whilst the outlook is not as bleak as one would expect there are certain capability areas (or cap badges to take Army parlance) that do not look at all secure post-SDR.

My own opinion on Army units, in a similar way to Danny's, sees little appetite for CR2 or AS90 Regiments in the short or medium term, given what we are fielding in AFG and what future operations the Defence Review says we should be expecting to prosecute. Similarly, I do not see an appetite for the delineated battlefield space that defined our 1st to 3rd line logistic units hitherto. The times of 2nd and 3rd line transport units are numbered; instead we should expect to see leaner, more agile and adaptive Logistic Support Regiments allocated to manoeuvre formations providing the totality of the logistic requirement to that formation.

I understand that the RLC has been navel gazing recently and the perennial debate about specialist/generalist has been raising it's head again. One question amongst many is why (less LE Officers) does the RLC not have a specialist supply or transport officers’ course? Not a question that I could answer but I now that this is something that is vexing the current ACDS (Log Ops) in MoD and has also been discussed in the hallowed halls of HQ DRLC.

And what about the other two services? Will the A400M saga continue or will Airbus scrap the entire project? Perhaps the most prudent decision should have been taken 18 months ago when MoD had an option to retract from the contract and buy-up about 12 C17.....again a political imperative overtook the most prudent military decision! Elements of the RAF such as 85 Expeditionary Logistic Wing (85 ELW) should be nervous at the moment as a vast proportion of the capability that 85 Wg brings to the party is replicated in the Army (such as 2 MT) and why should Defence have such repetition in the current financial climate?

The Navy have actually been pretty clever in their dealings over the Planning Round and SDR and given that the RN is cut to a minimum there's only a minimum that could potentially be taken in the SDR. Combine that with current Defence planning focussing on naval/littoral operations and you can see what a blinder the Senior Service has played. Combine this with the influence that comes in MoD from having a greater proportion of dark blue manning the more important military desks at the present time (Capability Areas, PSOs, Heads, Assistant Heads and MAs). I'm not sure that the nuclear deterrent will take a hit......one you've got a capability that powerful then it's difficult to lose it - especially as once it's gone then it's very difficult to resurrect it (cost, knowledge base, training etc).

The one thing that is key to any SDR will be to not loose a capability that cannot be easily regenerated in times of need – corporate knowledge and experience cannot simply be generated overnight, nor can equipment or personnel. Those that wear uniform in MoD are hamstrung between the fantasy world of the Government and the vast majority of our civil servants and the reality of life on the ground.

Let’s face it folks – the country is broke and something’s going to take a hit in Defence (probably quite a bit) and it’s anyone’s guess what it’ll be. The only sure bet is that those hits will affect us all in some way or another!

Oh, and another interesting fact that will have an effect on the SDR……less than 15% of equipment currently fielded in Afghanistan is on the unit’s Equipment Table (meaning the majority is UOR). How does that bode for non-AFG doctrine and the capabilities/equipments that are predicated/purchased on that doctrine? The only sure-fire thing I'll tell you is that this time it'll all be old news.
 
#19
Make me redundant for f***ing starters!
 
#20
General - some very good points there indeed, and I agree with a lot of what you've said.

I think the UOR point is crucial - until recently I used to have to give a lot of presentations on the UOR process, and the key point that I made was that it was great with the Army in HERRICK getting some awesome kit, but we either have to find a lot of money to bring the whole army up to HERRICK standard (thus cutting elsewhere), or bin the kit at the end of HERRICK.

My gut feeling is that we'll see a one off funding package from HMT to try and allow us to integrate 1 - 2 Bdes worth of UOR kit as the 'first eleven' units, and then use the remainder of the Army as the FE@R for less exciting tasks where you don't need high end capability. The days of a two tier army for tasking are rapidly approaching IMHO.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
polar Army Reserve 29
Gas Gas Gas Army Reserve 13
Bad CO The Intelligence Cell 7

Similar threads

Latest Threads