Army facing huge cuts after withdrawal from Afghanistan The Army is to be cut by up to 20,000 troops, leaving it at its lowest level since the 1820s, under secret Treasury plans. The reductions would make the Army the smallest since the reign of George IV Photo: REUTERS By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent 9:00PM GMT 19 Feb 2011 98 Comments Senior defences sources have said that the Chancellor, George Osborne, supported by the Prime Minister will demand the cuts in a bid to substantially reduce Britain's defence budget. General Sir David Richards, the chief of the defence staff, fought off Treasury demands for a 20 per cent reduction in the size of the Army during the frantic negotiations which preceded the publication of the Strategic Defence and Security Review last October. However, the financial crisis engulfing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is now regarded as so severe that, following Britain's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2015, the size of the Army will be reduced to "circa 80,000", according to one senior defence source. This would make the Army the smallest since the reign of George IV, when troop numbers were drawn down after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Mr Cameron accepted Gen Richard's argument that the Army could not be substantially reduced in size while troops were still fighting in Afghanistan, but there is now a growing acceptance within Whitehall that troops numbers will have to fall when the next defence review takes place in four years time. Sources have disclosed that following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, defence chiefs will be under pressure to have a "fundamental look at Army manning given that the manpower is the main driver of expenditure". One defence source said: "When Britain withdraws from Afghanistan in 2015, the Treasury will be knocking on the door of the MoD with a very big hammer – there will be a substantial reduction in troops numbers leaving an Army with a strength of circa 80,000. We will be moving into an era of sharing capabilities with our European allies. The days of being able to do everything are long gone." However, another senior officer said that the cuts would be hugely damaging. He said: "Effect on morale? In my judgement it is enormous. If you survive an operational tour you will possibly lose your job post 2015, or your chances of promotion will be reduced in a smaller Army." The funding crisis surrounding the MoD has in part been brought about by spending cuts and what defence secretary Liam Fox has described as a £38 billion "financial black hole" of unfunded equipment programmes. More cuts and delays to existing equipment programmes will be announced in the next few weeks as part of the Planning Round 2011 (PR11). The cuts could see projects like the Warrior Armoured Vehicle Upgrade Programme being delayed further to save costs while other projects are cancelled or shelved. Details of the new cuts can be revealed as the MoD starts to seek 17,000 redundancies – already announced in October's Strategic Defence and Security Review – across the three armed services. The RAF, which will reduced its strength by 5,000 from 44,000 to 39,000 personnel, will be the first service to begin the process. Pilots, air staff and ground crew will be told who will and who will not be eligible for redundancy packages, which in many cases will be worth tens of thousands of pounds. As with all the services, the size of the financial package will depend on a number of factors including length of service, pay and current engagement. The Royal Navy is to cut 5,000 sailors from its ranks, reducing the service to around 30,000 personnel, and its redundancy details will be announced in early April. A large number of sailors who served on Type 22 destroyers and the aircraft carriers HMS Ark Royal and HMS Illustrious – which will be decommissioned in 2014 – are expected to apply for redundancy. It is understood that no Fleet Air Arm pilots will be forced into redundancy even though the entire Harrier force has now been scrapped. Every serving soldier will be allowed to apply for redundancy when the Army releases details of its programme at the beginning of May. Around 7,000 soldiers will be axed through natural wastage and both voluntary and compulsory redundancies, a move which will reduced the strength of the Army to 98,000 troops, its lowest level for more than 150 years. Members of the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery, Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers as well as staff officers from the rank of captain to colonel in regional divisions and brigades are expected to be among those facing compulsory redundancy. The Sunday Telegraph understands that defence chiefs will attempt to manage the process by seeking the cuts in multiple "tranches" of redundancies, between now and 2015 to lessen the "shock". A spokesman for the British Armed Forces Federation, said: "The government needs to recognise that if it takes the Military Covenant seriously, it needs to treat members of the Armed Forces with fairness and consideration, taking into account the sacrifices that service personnel and their families make for their country. "The Conservatives made a lot of noise before the election about how they would treat the Armed Forces if they got into government but so far all this talk has proved hollow. "The Armed Forces need a clear and unequivocal statement about redundancy policy and we need it soon." Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former infantry commander, added: “In the early 1820s we made the mistake of reducing the armed forces to a dangerously low level. "Within a few years we were having to recruit and retrain to deal with the expansion of the empire - do we learn nothing from history? “How many times has Afghanistan been “dealt with” before? The one thing we can be certain of with the Middle East imploding and threat diversifying, day by day, is that we will need more troops not less.” An MoD spokesman said: “As announced in the SDSR, there are plans to reduce the Armed Forces by 17,000 personnel; 7,000 from the army, 5,000 from the RAF and 5,000 from the Navy. “These reductions will be driven by the structural needs of the three services and will be achieved through a combination of natural wastage and statutory Armed Forces Redundancy Schemes. “Work is still ongoing to determine from which areas of the services these reductions will come but there will be no impact on operational capability.” * The last time the strength of the British Army hovered around the 80,000 mark was in the early 1820s. The Napoleonic Wars had ended and the country, under George IV, entered a period of relative calm in international affairs. However, there were still demands on defence resources. The British East India Company, which garrisoned the subcontinent, became embroiled in a series of clashes in Burma which became the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826). Although this conflict was largely fought by the East India Company, around 13,000 British troops were involved. As the decade progressed a series of extra infantry battalions were also raised for the garrisoning of the colonies, primarily in the Caribbean and Canada. The period of peace was not to last long – and was broken by a campaign in a now familiar part of the world. At the end of the following decade, the First Afghan War had begun – a conflict which ended in disaster when a 16,000 contingent of the British Army, the East India Company and civilians were attacked at the Gandamak pass, as they retreated from Kabul. The only Briton to reach the safety of Jalalabad was Dr William Brydon. Army facing huge cuts after withdrawal from Afghanistan - Telegraph
Ark Royal to be heliport City tycoons could helicopter into London and land on the Royal Navy aircraft carrier, axed in October’s defence cuts, under plans to save the ship Michael Smith Published: 20 February 2011 HMS Ark Royal, currently in Portsmouth, could become a Thames helipad (James Glossop) Defence chiefs want Ark Royal, the retired Royal Navy aircraft carrier, to become a floating heliport on the Thames serving City tycoons. It will be manned by an estimated 150 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a number of disabled servicemen. The 693ft long carrier, axed in last October’s defence cuts, could be operating as a heliport by May 2012 in time for the London Olympics. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the navy, told The Sunday Times last week that the plan could safeguard the ship’s future. General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, added: “The idea of re-using HMS Ark Royal on the Thames is interesting, particularly if it supports veterans. I would be delighted in principle to see her in London.” The carrier, currently in Portsmouth and due to be decommissioned next month, would be moored in the Royal Docks near City airport to ensure that a heliport does not breach noise pollution regulations. It is three times the size of the capital’s only other heliport at Battersea, in southwest London. The heliport would provide quick links from the City to the main airports at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It will be a short ride by river boat from the City and Westminster. General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the army who is now chairman of the Homes for Heroes charity, said it was a “very exciting project which represents the holy grail for us in that it gives 150 veterans both jobs and housing”. Paul Beaver, a director of the firm behind the bid, said: “It is much more than a commercial venture, it is inspirational. We’ll be providing work and housing for veterans and at the same time we will be saving one of the Royal Navy’s most iconic ships for the nation.” Ark Royal was accepted into service in 1985 and served in the Iraq war. Attempts by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to sell the vessel as a working carrier had failed to attract a bid from overseas navies. The MoD’s disposal services authority, which confirmed this weekend that it was considering the heliport plan, is also examining other offers to pay £2m for the vessel as scrap or to buy it as a floating hotel or tourist attraction. The heliport is expected to have start-up costs of £25m, rising to £100m over five years. The taxpayer would receive about £3m for the carrier. A spokesman for Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said he was “receptive to anything that would save Ark Royal for the nation and certainly anything that would help veterans”. Fox will be consulting Stanhope and is expected to make a decision shortly. The Ark Royal is named in honour of the galleon that led England to victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588. Five Royal Navy ships have carried the name. Beaver, a director of the heliport firm, which he refused to name, said it had received backing for the plans at a meeting in mid-January with Sir Simon Milton, the deputy mayor of London, and the Port of London Authority. Talks have also been held with the navy to determine the best way of converting the carrier into a heliport. It could provide a base for police helicopters and for the air ambulance, which is currently stationed at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel. The Port of London Authority confirmed that it had held discussions with the company to ensure it would not cause navigation problems for other vessels using the river. The Civil Aviation Authority said it had had discussions with the company over the possibility of using Ark Royal as a heliport but no application had been received. Basing it on the Thames would give it immediate access to the main H4 helicopter route through London which runs along the river. Single-engined helicopters are restricted by air traffic control to flying along the Thames for safety reasons, while twin-engined helicopters have much more freedom. • The Royal Navy is looking to buy a fleet of maritime patrol aircraft for up to £1 billion just weeks after the MoD scrapped the new Nimrod aircraft at a cost of £3.6 billion. The MoD confirmed last week that the navy wanted to buy its own maritime patrol aircraft to track enemy submarines replacing the Nimrods, which are being broken up for scrap. The new RAF Nimrod MRA4s had not even come into service when the prime minister announced last October that as part of the strategic defence review he was scrapping Nimrod. The navy, which was furious that RAF bosses had agreed to get rid of Nimrod, has already set up a team to buy a replacement and ensure that it is flown by the Fleet Air Arm. The programme is being run by Commodore Simon Kings with a team made up of naval officers. Navy chiefs have expressed concern about the loss of a maritime surveillance aircraft at a time when many countries, including China and Iran, are increasing their number of submarines. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article555764.ece
Never mind, we may not have the troops to punch our way out of a paper bag, but we can go straight from "strong letters of protest" from the PM, FS etc to nuclear devastation from the Trident boats we have kept and are replacing. Seems to be a bit of overkill with that level of escalation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Still I'm not a politician, although I do vote for them to govern in my name with the taxes they take from me and the decisions they take. Mmmmmmmmm better think that one through next time I'm at the ballot box?
I heard this on a British TV channel past week, genuinely sorry if anybody is offended by it! It went something like this (no precise citation) "The British Army is to cut their troops by 6 000. This is planned to be done by sending 6 000 soldiers to Afghanistan , poorly equipped."
I don't think that even our politicians are that Machiavellian. Maybe I'm niave (sp)? Len I don't either, But at the time it seemed such a relieving joke. (Please note that I'm due for AFG duty in a month but I'm not British)
"The British Army is to cut their troops by 6 000. This is planned to be done by sending 6 000 soldiers to Afghanistan , poorly equipped." Nothing would surprise me! Roxy
This gover......no hang on I cant bring myself to call them bunch of idiots that is destroying our Armed forces, and how the hell they would expect those same armed forces to fight any war on any large scale with losses of great attrition.......... and im talking far in excess of current losses in Afghanistan is beyond me!!!
That sounds a brilliant use! I'd much rather see it be a heliport than scrapped and chopped on a beach in India or sold to another country at a knockdown price Cant we get it a bit further up the River Lea! Ark Royal to be heliport
Andy, We have enough money to give £250m per year in international aid to India. You know, India, the nuclear power with the space programme! (Albeit they do have a huge number of very very poor people!) Roxy
I missed it; but I can guess what happened. And to get us back on track, I do think that using the Ark as a helo landing pad is better than it being turned into bean cans - especially if it is viable! Roxy
We have enough money to give £250m per year in international aid to India. You know, India, the nuclear power with the space programme! And in the latest figures which are available we gave £8.7 million in development aid to Singapore, whose gross domestic product per capita is the fourth highest in the world, and 46 per cent higher than our own. We also gave in the last year for which figures are available, £380,000 in aid to the enormously wealthy Saudi Arabia. Ask not how much we give but why we give it. I'm afraid it is very much a case of Realpolitik
I missed it; but I can guess what happened. And to get us back on track, I do think that using the Ark as a helo landing pad is better than it being turned into bean cans - especially if it is viable! Roxy Agreed....It would make a nice museum below decks too.
And, hopefully, those involved in our country's heritage will have thought about that and help to implement that! Roxy
Yes,I think we have to review the overseas aid,assisting those who really cannot be helped within their own country.India should be able to look after and improve the standing of those in poverty.It is a growing industrial power. Don't forget that the Indian TATA organisation is expanding rapidly and buying up British assets.After buying Corus,the rump of British Steel,TATA said they would not decommission the Redcar plant if they recieved a British Government subsidy.Tetleys Tea,I see, is now in their empire. Getting to the defence situation,it must worry the military thinkers when we have the present political leadership who appear to put little value on defence,short term or long term and would give the impression that the policy is no different to the behaviour of the banking industry.Best described as the "falling leaf pattern",it may turn out well,or well, it may not.But who cares. I think the good Doctor Fox should resign.This was the man who said we were under manned and under equipped and he would put it right.Regarding his responsibilty for defence,the only retort he has is to blame the so called £38 billion black hole.One thing I noticed during August was that there was never anyone to comment on defence issues and queries from Fox's department.This seems to be a deliberate ploy to quell any media disscussion with the philosophy of if there is no one to question,there can be no possibility of adverse publicity. The man has turned out as I thought,he will keep himself in the political line.I said to my grandson's father at the time when the man took office that all problems and deficiencies would be resolved.It appeared that the good doctor had a magic wand for it seemed that there was a sudden end to bad news from over there.So I am just wondering if young men such as my grandson who have and are putting their lives at risk should do so for politicians such as Fox who appear to feel that their political careers have priority over those of our country. Meanwhile,I see that ACM Glenn Torpy who as top man in the Royal Air Force must have presided over the Nimrod MRA4 programme is now a special adviser to BAE who in turn are receiving £200 million to gut the Nimrod MRA4 fleet.Conflicting view of the new policy,not a hope. Then what is happening to those at Cranwell is a disgrace and is seen by those initiating it as saving money. Surely a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
A mate of mine, a 22yr served bloke (mostly in Intl - so no dummy - apologies to other units!) reckoned several years ago Britain ceased to have an Army per se. By many estimates it should be classed as a 'Defence Force'. Are there official classifications for an Army and a Defence Force? I like the idea of Illustrious or the Ark as a heliport, sound a brilliant solution on many levels but G-HEMS (London Hospital Helicopter) would be too far from it's base I think.
