British Army size increase?

[MarkOttawa]

They certainly need it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2208069,00.html

For the first time since the end of the cold war, the government is considering an increase in the size of the army, the Guardian has learned.

With the prospect of British soldiers being engaged in intense operations abroad, notably Afghanistan, for years to come [emphasis added], with training and family life suffering, ministers are coming under growing pressure from military chiefs to reverse the long decline in the number of soldiers.

The army was 150,000 strong in 1990, but now has fewer than 100,000 trained officers and soldiers, according to the latest MoD figures. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, has said there is a case for increasing its size significantly, perhaps by 3,000. He is worried in particular by the impact on training of relentless six-monthly tours by army battle groups in Iraq - though the numbers are being reduced there - and Afghanistan.

The central problem, defence officials say, is that there are not enough troops to allow adequate rest and training between operations. Concern among military chiefs was echoed yesterday at the launch of the UK National Defence Association, which will lobby for an increase in the army and the defence budget.

The group's president is Winston Churchill, grandson of the wartime prime minister, and it is supported by three former chiefs of staff, Lords Craig, Boyce and Guthrie. "The army needs about 3,000 more people," Lord Guthrie said. He added that giving aid now to some countries in Africa, and to Gaza in its present state, was a "waste", suggesting the money could be better spent on Britain's armed forces.

The lobby group also said the defence budget, now about £33bn or just over 2% of national domestic product, should be increased to 3% [emphasis added], or by more than £10bn.

However, Whitehall officials said yesterday there was unlikely to be any increase in the defence budget above this year's settlement, under which spending by the armed forces will increase by an annual average of just 1.5% over the next three years in real terms. The defence budget will rise to £36.9bn in 2011....

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Was it a year ago that 4 battalions were deactivated ?

 

[geo]

Oik... we certainly feel their pain
a 33% drop in personnel - and presumably equipment.... now try to turn that around on a dime...
Turning things around will take years.... and even then, the troops serving are going to have an awful big can to carry around.

 

[tomahawk6]

To compound the problem they have serious retention issues. Unfortunately the government is too cheap to improve the quality of life for their troops so I doubt the flight from the army will continue.

 

[geo]

"British military" & "quality of life", both in the same sentence....

Like military intelligence..... an Oxymoron!

 

[cameron]

Well the obvious wisdom (sarcasm) of Blair's decision to cut the size of HM Armed Forces even while deploying them on more operations becomes ever more obvious by the day.

 

[geo]

Cameron,
Most all western countries are going thru that dance right about now.

Canada gave it's armed forces the chop a lot sooner than most other NATO countries but, the US, Britain, Holland, Germany, France, etc, etc, etc have all cashed in their Warsaw pact peace dividend.  We are all sucking wind big time and, it ain't over yet....

If it wasn't for our current CDS & the last couple of defence ministers seeing the need & their ability to press the need to raise strength and buying gear without going thru the lengthy process of competitive bids, we'd be looking a lot worse than we are at present.

 

[cameron]

You're 100% right Geo.  While i'm not in the military it has always bothered how the Armed Forces and the needs of its men and women are given scant disregard except when it's politically expedient to do otherwise

 

[onecat]

Canada gave it's armed forces the chop a lot sooner than most other NATO countries but, the US, Britain, Holland, Germany, France, etc, etc, etc have all cashed in their Warsaw pact peace dividend.  We are all sucking wind big time and, it ain't over yet....


Your rigt Geo, but think your choppimng started in sometime in 70's, and picked up stream after the wall fell.

 

[daftandbarmy]

In the 80s there was alot of slack in the system under the guise of needing to be prepared for 'the big one' when the Soviets crossed the IGB. The artillery was vast and increasingly distant from the rest of the army, the infantry was at 52 battalions with many of them in one or two Bn Regts that were run like private armies (but tolerated because of the continuous tours in NI), the cavalry was also immense yet creaky and borderline obsolete in many ways. After the Berlin Wall came down they took the opportunity to clean house and made some deep cuts and rationalized along a smaller more focused Bde Gp concept, much like the US Army has done more recently. Savings were poured into new barracks, many of which were beyond awful, and married quarters. The pay was increased, benefits improved (WAY better than during my time there IMHO)

Unfortunately, like most western armies, they didn't see the latest wars on the horizon and got launched into two major, and very distant, campaigns for which they were not well prepared, despite all of their experience in NI and elsewhere. Blair has taken the knock for most of the subsequent problems in funding support but, much like Canada, the UK public was only prepared to support so much. Of course, the Generals need to own up to their part in the problems too and get sorted out. They could learn alot from Hillier.

Now it looks like they've got a chance to get it right. Let's hope they finally do.

 

[cameron]

Now it looks like they've got a chance to get it right. Let's hope they finally do.

Amen! for the sake of the troops and all the rest of us who depend on them to defend us.