What's new

Ex-British DM: MoD May Cut Army to 60K Troops

Gabriel92

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,307
Reaction score
22
Country
France
Location
France
There will be more and more conflicts and this is sad to see european countries cuting troops...

@Steve781 @mike2000

LONDON — A former British defense minister has claimed the Ministry of Defence is looking at options to reduce the British Army to 60,000 regular troops to meet possible heavy cuts to military spending as part of continuing austerity efforts after the upcoming general election.

Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat member of Parliament who was the armed forces minister in the early days of the Conservative-led coalition government here, told Parliament that "paper exercises are already being done looking at what an Army of just 60,000 would look like because of the financial crunch the Department [the MoD] will face."

The MoD dismissed Harvey's claim.

"There is no change to the Government's existing plans for a [regular] Army of 82,500 while increasing the number of reserves [to 30,000]. And there is no work underway to look at further reduction," said the MoD in a statement.

The MoD is already slimming the regular Army from 102,000 to 82,500 as a result of a 2010 strategic defense and security review that was not very strategic but largely dictated by the need to balance the books in the face of substantial budget cuts and over-commitments on equipment programs .

Maritime patrol aircraft, the Harrier combat jet fleet and warships were among the capabilities cut along with dozens of programs sidelined as part of a 7.7 percent budget cut and reductions of a £38 billion (US $57.5 billion) black hole in defense spending commitments .

Now, said industry executives, analysts and others, the government could be looking at a similar bloodbath if defense is faced with further big spending reductions, particularly with the replacement of the Trident missile submarines due to swallow a large portion of the equipment budget over the next few years.

A decision on moving to the demonstration and build phase of the program to build four submarines to replace the Vanguard-class of boats, at an expected cost of at least £25 billion, is scheduled for next year.

With the Air Force and the Navy already pared to the bone, the Army may be in the firing line again if the MoD needs to lower personnel costs as part of a wider move to accommodate budget cuts in a new defense and security review expected to take place after the general election in May.

Analysts said they expect the review to be short and sharp if the Conservatives form what is expected to be a coalition government, and longer if a Labour–led coalition comes to power.

"I would expect a Conservative led government to complete the SDSR by the end of the year but it could take Labour between 12 and 16 months. If there is a minority government in power a formal review might not even immediately get underway at all," they said.

Both main political parties here are signed up to substantial budget cuts to help restore public finances.

Last year media reports said Treasury officials had already started discussions with the MoD concerning a potential cut of around 7.5 percent.

Harvey said that any cuts on a similar scale to those suffered in 2010 would see Britain unable to meet its NATO commitment of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense.

"If defense were to face another cut comparable to that which it took in 2010, which seems entirely possible, the proportion of our gross domestic product that we spend on defense, which is already destined to go below 2 percent next year, will make rapid headway down towards 1.5 percent," he said.

The government has committed to meet the 2 percent mark next year but has refused to make any promises beyond that.

At the moment, only health, education and overseas aid spending are ring-fenced from cuts and there is no sign defense might be added to the list.

The actual size of any defense cuts are impossible to say ahead of the election of a new government followed by the setting of departmental budgets for the financial year 2016/17 and beyond.

The British defense budget for the 2014/15 financial year stands at £34.1 billion and that falls to £33.4 billion next year.

Overall, Britain is set to spend £162.9 billion on its 10-year equipment plan out to 2024.

Harvey, in a parliamentary debate on the renewal of the Trident missile nuclear submarine fleet Jan. 20, said there is a series of big procurement projects that will come under the microscope in the coming SDSR.

"On the table for discussion in this summer's SDSR is a whole series of big procurement projects. The two new aircraft carriers are due to have joint strike fighter aircraft flying off them — we do not know how much their unit cost will be or how many of them we will be able to afford," he said.

"The Type 26 frigate is due to be built in the next few years, but it is very difficult to know how much that will cost. We need more helicopters and more intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance assets. We need another generation of remotely piloted aircraft. The existing amphibious shipping is due to become redundant in the latter part of this decade and will need replacing if we are going to sustain that capability. The Army's vehicle crisis remains unresolved after the collapse of most of the future rapid effect system program," Harvey said.

Ex-British DM: MoD May Cut Army to 60K Troops
 
. . . . .
Looks like USA will be fighting the next major war alone as other NATO members will be busy protecting their own country.
If the US asks then our sycophants in parliament will send our troops abroad regardless of whether they are needed to protect us at home or whether they have the right equipment.
 
.
Europe has no regional threat to its existence anymore (Russia is no match for a unified Europe). I see the logic in this. But it will cost Europe power and prestige, whether we like it or not the country with the biggest guns carries the most clout on the international stage.

Maybe Japan can fill the void the UK is leaving in the Nato alliance?
 
. .
@Gabriel92
I read that even France is planning to cut down its troop number by next year ?
is it correct ?

Yes,for now it is planned to cut 7500 soldiers fewer than planned (actually,18.000 jobs are planned to be cut by 2019,military and civilians out of 278.000),but in June,there will be a new white paper on defence and national security,and we will see if we will definitely abandon the cuts and give more modern materials to the armies.......
(I'm so happy about that i even whant to tank the Kouachis ....)

Une nouvelle loi de programmation militaire pour juin
 
Last edited:
.
Yes,for now it is planned to cut 7500 soldiers fewer than planned (actually,18.000 jobs are planned to be cut by 2019,military and civilians),but in June,there will be a new white paper on defence and national security,and we will see if we will definitely abandon the cuts and give more modern materials to the armies.......
(I'm so happy about that i even whant to tank the Kouachis ....)

Une nouvelle loi de programmation militaire pour juin

7500 ?
thats like cutting down the whole FFL
 
.
We dont really need a sizeable army anymore really, who does? you threaten us we threaten you with nuclear war, besides I see recruitment adverts everyday and army events recruiting in town centres so I feel its not quite correct and even if it is, its not hard to recruit people en masse and there are alot of combat veterans out there.
 
.
I don't see why this is bad, my tax money then won't go to unnecessary amounts of ground troops. It also means we're less able and willing to involve ourselves in a war in far away lands. Also, Britain does not require a large army any more.
 
.
I think it should be disbanded altogether,and more money spent for welfare.War is a thing of the past.

 
.
I think it's not the bad decision for the country which is not currently involved in any war or had any warmongering neighbor hood for which it should be afraid of.
If uk spend the money on increasing and upgrading its missile system or drones etc rather than spending on troops, which are not even required, then it will be worth spending for.
 
.
I think it's not the bad decision for the country which is not currently involved in any war or had any warmongering neighbor hood for which it should be afraid of.
If uk spend the money on increasing and upgrading its missile system or drones etc rather than spending on troops, which are not even required, then it will be worth spending for.

I Agree. Though it might sound like a bad move, but it isn't all that bad. Tomorrow's war will be mainly fought economically, cyber space, high tech equipments etc, the U.K and Europe doesn't face any immediate thread in our neighbourhood. Moreover there won't be any massive invasion/full scale war against Europe anytime soon, more like small flash point/conflicts which requires small special ops/soldiers intervention. So we should invest more in upgrading or equipments/hardwares/nuclear sub's/missiles systems/electronic and aerospace industry etc than on maintaining a large ground force which isn't needed at all this moment nor in future.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom