UK Armed Forces Structure

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by mick_sterbs, Nov 16, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As UK PLC is broke, and all military expenditure has to be 'value for money' or some other bureaucrat speak, How would you restructure HM Forces to meet the perceived threats in the next 2 decades.

    Just a thought, but do we really need Challenger MBT sitting in Germany , being run up for a couple of hours a year?
    Not like the Soviets are coming west, so why do we have them?
    Big shiny toy, admittedly, but not much use on COIN

  2. I had a similar conversation with the missus in the pub last night.

    Typhoon..hmmm.why do we need an extremely agile fighter when none of our "enemies" have an airforce to speak of.

    The answer is Procurement. It takes many many years for any new item of kit to be planned, designed, built, tested and then deployed.

    SA 80 designed for street fighting against enemies that actually looked after there wounded. (1960,s)

    Typhoon, thought about when we where having to "fight" against Soviet Migs. (1980's)

    Challenger, again to be pitted against advanced armour and superior numbers. (1970's)

    I would love to see the "Cost per death" in say Afghanistan just now. I bet the Taliban is runing at about £5 per dead British soldier whilst we must be running at tens of thousands of pounds per dead Taliban.

    Our "ememy" has changed significantly in the last 20 years and therefore any decisions made now about our "future enemy" will not actually happen for 10-20 years yet.

    Or so I believe.
  3. So how do we (the Government/MOD) go forward
    I know they have battalions of civil serpents planning this stuff
    but a bit of left field thinking wouldn't go amiss.
    Why do we need all those Admirals/Generals/Air ranks when we have 3 dozen bases and about 170000 bods in uniform?
  4. Must be all those important posts that need 2* or better tosign off the expenses chits for.

    C in C - Defence Housing or C in C - BMH Woolwich perhaps?

    Its not just the army thats overly top heavy, all 3 branches are the same. How many Admirals do we need to control UK waters? Surely in a modern era we don't need C in C Channel and C in C Portsmouth?
    Or RAF 2*, most of whom command a desk at Whitehall, looking after a role thats obsolete.
  5. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)

  6. Given senior officers (bar Dannatt who is a leeetle happy clappy) don't as a rule fall on their swords until after they have collected their pensions, why is it not logical to conclude they most surely will be concerned with jobs for the higher ranking boys (including themselves) when they are still serving.

    Makes a bit of a mockery of Values and Standards/Selflessness that senior managment ( I deliberately don't use the term "leaders") hasn't taken a proportional numbers cut in line with those endured by the forces as a whole since 1997
  7. The logic of this argument is, that as long as there are plenty of bayonets with a bit of support everything is hunky. Bit blinkered, no?

    Do you think that CR2 could not be used in Afg? You have no use for a 120mm direct fire weapon out to say 10k?

    Is not WR a better piece of kit than snatch/latest uparmoured 'B' vehicle?

    Better still, reverse your argument, twenty years ago, did we need 3 battalions of unarmoured infantry with a never used, airborne capability? Or an Amphibious Assault capability?

    I'm not saying that Afg requires an armoured division but look at the huge costs both in personnel and monetary that has been paid for insufficient forces, with the right equipment, on the ground. It's somewhat akin to policing London with PCSOs for the Olympics.

    What is required is a balanced, way less top heavy, properly equipped Army.
    I often think that we waste the resources we do have.

    Warrior is, IMHO, one.
    Change the turret for something using the 40mm gun that uses telescoped ammo, put RAC crews in the turret and driving slots. Use it as an recce/armoured taxi not an item that gets, to all intents and purposes, discarded as soon as the section dismounts.
    In this day and age there should be no problem providing screens in the back from fixed cameras in the vehicle or an input from a panoramic sight or similar.(1)

    Smart munitions. 81 mm and 120mm(mortar) 155mm. These are, IMO, force multipliers at sect/Plt/Tp level

    We are, or certainly were, quite good at manoeuvre warfare. To someone not exactly in the loop we appear to be doing Trench Warfare Plus at the moment.
    Outside of 81mm range then it appears the next choice is 250/500kg smart bomb. I omit 155mm simply because I do not know how it is deployed, but I don't see much in the way of arty on the web, and without smart, would understand why.

    The difficulty is we don't know what sort of war the next one may be. So short of doing a 'loony council of the 80s' and declaring ourselves a "Nuclear free zone" Most capabilities must therefore be maintained.

    Don't even start me on 'Special' forces, it's a term that is being used more and more(along with the Red tops 'Elite')

    Seems to me there is more and more 'sensor platform' information available from the top down, probably overly classified, and when it gets down to the sharp end, it's still L/Cpl Fuckdust and his lads that buggar off in some unsuitable vehicle(or on foot) with uncertain comms and a hope that the there's a US gunship in the area for when it all goes pear shaped. He can do this safe in the knowledge that someone in an AC office somewhere, may well get to watch him and his mates cop an IED.

    (1) I understand the problem of integration, but as Arms plot no longer exists then every army base should contain Armour/Inf/Arty who should train and deploy together.
    Pie in the sky?
    Probably, but looking at the the problems from the outside, radical change is needed, just as it was when 'Options for change' failed to bite the bullet in the early 90s. The figures ^^ up there somewhere show we have more generals for less troops.
    Add to that, procurement with contract writing ability of a flid on speed, and the inescapable conclusion is that were all fucked.

    Just a few thought.
  8. Canadian and Danish MBTs have proved useful in southern Afghanistan, as did US and UK MBTs in Iraq. No reason UK shouldn't deploy a squadron of CR2 to Helmand.

    About rearmament of Warrior with 40mm CTW- this is apparently on the cards already, tests done, prototype turrets fitted etc- just remains to be seen whether it will be funded.
  9. explain?
  10. He can't and here we go again.

    DSACEUR - UK - 4* General - do we give the post to say, the Germans?
    UKMILREP NATO - UK - 3* - maybe we should let the Frogs fill the post because they will have our best intentions at heart.
    ARRC Chief of Staff - 2* General - excellent job for an Italian.


    They are NOT fecking section commanders and if we don't fill important Command and Staff appointments at the international level - somebody else will.

    And it will be T Atkins who suffers.
  11. Good point
  12. My own view is that whilst the argument as to 'we don't need pointy fighter jets anymore' or 'why do we need shiny new big f*8off ships' or 'what's with the tanks ?'is relevent due to percieved finantial constraints, I think we should as a nation have it all!

    Why are the Brits the 'poor relation' of NATO. Don't quote me but the percentage of GDP spent on defence in the last finantial year was something in the region of 2.4 %.Why?

    Spend more I say. We should be able to fight anybody,anywhere, anyplace and have not only the best stuff, but enough of it for the best troops!

    Apologies if this sounds jingoistic but why not??
  13. Oh do behave. Just how many of those posts are "International" - and of those how many are real jobs with real influence ?
    But even more fun - 190 1 Star equivalents ? I just plain do not believe that there are that many posts that need that level of "Command".
  14. because its a multirole fighter with significant ground attack capabilities. also because our current airframes are pushing 40 years old.

    well beyond the obvious logistic advantages of the smaller ammunition, we are also using and testing larger ammo types in other weapons (HK416). the debate on this i believe rages on as ever.

    see typhoon point above.

    as baboon6 posts says.

    well if you want we can give you some rags and a AK47 and see how you fair. we'll get the cost per kill down at least.
  15. The Taleban really don't like MBT. I would love to see Chally 2 in theatre and fully support any proposals to deploy it but I can see a few problems:

    Transporting the things out there. The ramps on C17 can't cope with the fully laden weight of C2 because of the number of road wheels and the ground bearing pressure they have.

    Maintenance. We need A mechs, some where to house them when they are in camp, workshops in which to maintain them, extra RLC supply specialists, some where for them to live, another stores area, increased logistical burden getting sufficent stores in place to start off with and the logistical burden of keeping the tanks running.

    Getting around in the Green Zone. With an uparmoured Chally weighting in at some 60 odd tonnes there aren't that many bridges in the Green Zone that could take the weight. That means unless Trojan is deployed (see above for maintenance and transportation problems) we are going to be funneled into the few bridges that can cope with the weight which means there is a huge IED risk.