British Military Current Events

[FJAG]

Several hundred 40mm Aussie grenade/drones included in the Brits' load-out to Mali

Hand launched, UGL launched. Reusable. Video. EW. Swarming. Individual. HE. AP. AT. Flash-Bang.

British Troops Get Small Swarming Drones They Can Fire From 40mm Grenade Launchers

The tiny drones can carry various payloads, including video cameras and explosive warheads, and fly together as a swarm after launch.

www.thedrive.com

Interesting video of how Brit light troops now operates with Jackals and Foxhounds (Light Dragoons and Anglians) .... and the aforementioned Drone40

Very interesting developments.

I do wonder about recovery of unexpended ones, their attractiveness to children and the whole cluster munitions debacle of decades ago.

While these wouldn't technically fall under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to be considered a practical alternatives which wouldn't attract a similar ban, they would probably need the same fail-safes etc.

 

[FJAG]

Major General who fraudulently claimed £48,000 to pay his children's private school fees is jailed for 21 months after becoming highest ranking Army officer to be convicted at court martial for 200 years​

• Major General Nick Welch claimed £48,000 to pay for boarding school fees
• Became the most senior officer to be convicted at a court martial in 200 years
• Caught after neighbours said he and his wife were never at their London home
• Retrospectively dismissed which means he can no longer benefit from his rank
• The 57-year-old was also ordered to pay back the fraudulently claimed money

By AMIE GORDON FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 10:54 EDT, 26 March 2021 | UPDATED: 13:02 EDT, 26 March 2021

Major General Nick Welch has been jailed at Bulford Military Court for 21 months
The highest ranking officer to be court martialled for more than 200 years was today jailed for 21 months after cheating taxpayers of nearly £50,000.
Major General Nick Welch has been jailed at Bulford Military Court for 21 months after he was convicted of fraud by falsely claiming more than £48,000 in allowance to pay for his children's school fees. ...

Major General is jailed for 21 months

 

[daftandbarmy]

Major General is jailed for 21 months

He is the very model of a modern Major General

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If he was claiming it on advice from a tax specialist and being accurate in his declaration, is it a crime? I suspect more to the case.

I should have read the full article:
From the judgement:
The higher your rank, the more important it is that you uphold the values and standards of the Army in which you serve and when an officer of the rank of major general offends as you have, the potential to erode discipline and undermine morale is considerable.

'We have no doubt you understand that your rank of major general and role as the assistant chief of general staff are factors which aggravate the offence and require recognition in the sentence.

'You ignored multiple warnings which aggravated your offence; your good character and exemplary conduct mitigates the sentence.'

 

[daftandbarmy]

 

[Kirkhill]

Some interesting videos

A statement on the Army's Future by CGS

Britain becomes the world's fourth largest defence spender

And a highly informative 30 min analysis of the Azerbaijan-Armenia war by Shekhar Gupta emphasising the impact on the Indo-Pakistan theatre and, curiously, Canada's role in Turkey's success..... You need to watch to the end for that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Brilliant, of course.... especially the title

"It Reads Like Daleks Speaking At A Management Consultancy Conference" - Thoughts On The Defence Review Paper​

The MOD has published its long awaited Defence Review document, intended to support the findings of the Integrated Review, published on Mon 15 March. The new MOD document sets out the role of the armed forces in trying to deliver the Defence part of this strategy.
The document is designed to set out what Defence will do, how it will do it and with what equipment and forces against various roles. On paper this is supposed to be the biggest change to the British Armed Forces since the Cold War.

Does it work though, or is it missing something?

"It Reads Like Daleks Speaking At A Management Consultancy Conference" - Thoughts On The Defence Review Paper

A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.

thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Very interesting developments.

I do wonder about recovery of unexpended ones, their attractiveness to children and the whole cluster munitions debacle of decades ago.

While these wouldn't technically fall under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, to be considered a practical alternatives which wouldn't attract a similar ban, they would probably need the same fail-safes etc.

With all the talk of how drones might handle situations here is a clip of how things are managed without drones. Where's my shovel?

 

[Kirkhill]

From the Modern War Institute as West Point.

A critique of the Defence Command Paper and the references to Special Forces.

My summary of the critique.

"You would think that after five centuries of "covert meanes" the Brits would have figured this stuff out. I mean, they don't define roles, what their intentions are, who their friends and enemies are, where and how they are going to be operating. How are we supposed to keep track of them? They can't even get straight the difference between clandestine and overt.... And yet they continue with this cheap strategy of smoke and mirrors. ... And they don't get the blame that the US does."

I can't help but sense that the author in particular, and the US in general, fails to appreciate that their "bugs" are Brit "features".

Five hundred years of ups and downs but still here, while making a profit.

The United Kingdom Doubles Down on Covert Operations - Modern War Institute

Two weeks ago, the British government published its most significant review of defense, security, and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It will likely usher in a new era of British covert interventionism. The 114-page integrated review, titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age,�?...

mwi.usma.edu

 

[Weinie]

From the Modern War Institute as West Point.

A critique of the Defence Command Paper and the references to Special Forces.

My summary of the critique.

"You would think that after five centuries of "covert meanes" the Brits would have figured this stuff out. I mean, they don't define roles, what their intentions are, who their friends and enemies are, where and how they are going to be operating. How are we supposed to keep track of them? They can't even get straight the difference between clandestine and overt.... And yet they continue with this cheap strategy of smoke and mirrors. ... And they don't get the blame that the US does."

I can't help but sense that the author in particular, and the US in general, fails to appreciate that their "bugs" are Brit "features".

Five hundred years of ups and downs but still here, while making a profit.

The United Kingdom Doubles Down on Covert Operations - Modern War Institute

Two weeks ago, the British government published its most significant review of defense, security, and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It will likely usher in a new era of British covert interventionism. The 114-page integrated review, titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age,�?...

mwi.usma.edu

Interesting articles. I can't help but wonder if the Brits are putting most of their eggs in the clandestine/covert basket, and whether that will cause angst/embarrassment, or outright inability to act down the road. Perhaps the Israelis have got the balance right, to paraphrase "walk softly (but effectively, in the darkness) but carry a big stick.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting articles. I can't help but wonder if the Brits are putting most of their eggs in the clandestine/covert basket, and whether that will cause angst/embarrassment, or outright inability to act down the road. Perhaps the Israelis have got the balance right, to paraphrase "walk softly (but effectively, in the darkness) but carry a big stick.

I think it has been argued that since at least the days of Burghley and Walsingham Britain has relied on Covert Meanes and the power of the Exchequer and the Bank of England to provide Foreign Aid. It had a large navy and a small army - both focused on home defence. It also empowered its commercial interests to look after themselves. In the 18th century it put the RN on the offensive internationally and substantially increased the number of marines serving with the navy giving it a raiding capacity. Foreign ground was still held by armed commercial interests.

European involvement was largely limited to hiring and funding Europeans to fight Europeans. Foreign Aid.

That built an empire.

 

[daftandbarmy]

From the Modern War Institute as West Point.

A critique of the Defence Command Paper and the references to Special Forces.

My summary of the critique.

"You would think that after five centuries of "covert meanes" the Brits would have figured this stuff out. I mean, they don't define roles, what their intentions are, who their friends and enemies are, where and how they are going to be operating. How are we supposed to keep track of them? They can't even get straight the difference between clandestine and overt.... And yet they continue with this cheap strategy of smoke and mirrors. ... And they don't get the blame that the US does."

I can't help but sense that the author in particular, and the US in general, fails to appreciate that their "bugs" are Brit "features".

Five hundred years of ups and downs but still here, while making a profit.

The United Kingdom Doubles Down on Covert Operations - Modern War Institute

Two weeks ago, the British government published its most significant review of defense, security, and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It will likely usher in a new era of British covert interventionism. The 114-page integrated review, titled “Global Britain in a Competitive Age,�?...

mwi.usma.edu

Interesting articles. I can't help but wonder if the Brits are putting most of their eggs in the clandestine/covert basket, and whether that will cause angst/embarrassment, or outright inability to act down the road. Perhaps the Israelis have got the balance right, to paraphrase "walk softly (but effectively, in the darkness) but carry a big stick.

My guess is that this is a good example of how a country's military can be adapted to align more effectively with its foreign policy. Viz:

Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy​

The Integrated Review is a comprehensive articulation of the UK’s national security and international policy. It outlines three fundamental national interests that bind together the citizens of the UK – sovereignty, security and prosperity – alongside our values of democracy and a commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and faith, and equality.

The Integrated Review concludes at an important moment for the United Kingdom. The world has changed considerably since the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review, as has the UK’s place within it.

The document, which is the product of over a year of work across government and of consultation with a wide range of external organisations and thinkers, sets out a vision for Global Britain. This includes:

• an emphasis on openness as a source of prosperity
• a more robust position on security and resilience
• a renewed commitment to the UK as a force for good in the world
• an increased determination to seek multilateral solutions to challenges like climate change

It also stresses the importance of deepening our relationships with allies and partners around the world, as well as moving more swiftly and with greater agility.

Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Global Britain in a Competitive Age, the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, describes the government’s vision for the UK’s role in the world over the next decade and the action we will take to 2025.

www.gov.uk

 

[FJAG]

Interesting articles. I can't help but wonder if the Brits are putting most of their eggs in the clandestine/covert basket, and whether that will cause angst/embarrassment, or outright inability to act down the road. Perhaps the Israelis have got the balance right, to paraphrase "walk softly (but effectively, in the darkness) but carry a big stick.

Agree entirely. All the special forces skills in the world won't help you if that's all that you can bring to the table when the other guy shows up with heavy metal, long range rockets, missiles and drones and a full suite of cyber weapons. They're good for hunting second and third world terrorists and doing hostage rescues but ...

Special Forces are not cheap. Man for man they are quite expensive. What makes them affordable is their array of comparatively less expensive equipment. Heavy equipment needs to be maintained and periodically upgraded. There is a hidden expense in special forces which is that it needs a large pool of trained soldiers to draw on for its recruiting. If special forces become too large (or conversely, the pool becomes too small) you risk making the remainder in the pool become ineffective. Just what is the ratio of Paras, Marines, SAS, SBS, Special Forces Support Group, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and now the Rangers and the Security Force Assistance Brigade to the rest of the pool and will the pool become largely ineffective because of its need to constantly feed and replenish the "special" folks?

 

[Weinie]

I think it has been argued that since at least the days of Burghley and Walsingham Britain has relied on Covert Meanes and the power of the Exchequer and the Bank of England to provide Foreign Aid. It had a large navy and a small army - both focused on home defence. It also empowered its commercial interests to look after themselves. In the 18th century it put the RN on the offensive internationally and substantially increased the number of marines serving with the navy giving it a raiding capacity. Foreign ground was still held by armed commercial interests.

European involvement was largely limited to hiring and funding Europeans to fight Europeans. Foreign Aid.

That built an empire.

Agreed, but perhaps in an age where Naval might, economic leverage and mercenaries were enough. I am not arrogant enough to describe the UK's future approach as faulty. Economic aid is no longer the purview of empires or Western nations;, the standard of living and economic subterfuge has increased to the point that funding can be found for the host of ideologies and intents that exist. As well, where once information and intelligence were the domain of a significant minority of countries/groups, the reach and power of the global info environment has changed the calculus.

And the number of players, and their potential reach/impact has grown exponentially. The Chinese curse has manifested.

 

[reveng]

Agree entirely. All the special forces skills in the world won't help you if that's all that you can bring to the table when the other guy shows up with heavy metal, long range rockets, missiles and drones and a full suite of cyber weapons. They're good for hunting second and third world terrorists and doing hostage rescues but ...

Special Forces are not cheap. Man for man they are quite expensive. What makes them affordable is their array of comparatively less expensive equipment. Heavy equipment needs to be maintained and periodically upgraded. There is a hidden expense in special forces which is that it needs a large pool of trained soldiers to draw on for its recruiting. If special forces become too large (or conversely, the pool becomes too small) you risk making the remainder in the pool become ineffective. Just what is the ratio of Paras, Marines, SAS, SBS, Special Forces Support Group, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and now the Rangers and the Security Force Assistance Brigade to the rest of the pool and will the pool become largely ineffective because of its need to constantly feed and replenish the "special" folks?

When you say "rest of the pool", are you referring mainly to Armd Inf/Mech Inf?

Just trying to make sure I follow. Thanks.

 

[Ostrozac]

will the pool become largely ineffective because of its need to constantly feed and replenish the "special" folks?

This has been argued in the UK for a long time. Field Marshals Alan Brooke and Bill Slim both warned of it. Brooke called constant recruiting for special units ‘a dangerous drain on the quality of an infantry battalion’ and Slim observed that special units ‘lower the quality of the rest of the army, especially the infantry’. And note that both made this observation of a conscript army of 2 million men. The new targeted size for the Regular British Army is 72,500 — the ratio of specialized to general purpose units has to be considered.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Agree entirely. All the special forces skills in the world won't help you if that's all that you can bring to the table when the other guy shows up with heavy metal, long range rockets, missiles and drones and a full suite of cyber weapons. They're good for hunting second and third world terrorists and doing hostage rescues but ...

Special Forces are not cheap. Man for man they are quite expensive. What makes them affordable is their array of comparatively less expensive equipment. Heavy equipment needs to be maintained and periodically upgraded. There is a hidden expense in special forces which is that it needs a large pool of trained soldiers to draw on for its recruiting. If special forces become too large (or conversely, the pool becomes too small) you risk making the remainder in the pool become ineffective. Just what is the ratio of Paras, Marines, SAS, SBS, Special Forces Support Group, Special Reconnaissance Regiment and now the Rangers and the Security Force Assistance Brigade to the rest of the pool and will the pool become largely ineffective because of its need to constantly feed and replenish the "special" folks?

This article on the UK's 'under the counter' support of the Omani military is probably a good example of what they are likely proposing to extedn to other friendly countries through this new 'Green Beret Like' program. Loan service Officers and NCOs aren't part of an OMLT, they actually fill line leadership positions and lead Omani troops, even into battle, as required. Navy and Air Force personnel fulfill similar roles. I know several soldiers who went off to Oman on contracts for awhile, only to return to regular army employment at their previous rank... albeit with a few more quid and a nice tan

"The British delegation of “loan service personnel�? to Oman, which includes a two-star general, is the largest the UK provides to any of its allies around the world, freedom of information requests reveal.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) loans 285 personnel to 15 different militaries around the world, but nearly a third of the personnel are based in Oman. The supply of British forces to the sultanate dwarfs its nearest rivals – Saudi Arabia receives 33 British personnel in this way, Kuwait 30 and Brunei 27.

Rooted in an agreement that has endured for half a century with little or no public scrutiny, UK forces wear Omani uniforms, are funded by the sultan but remain part of the British military."

Revealed: How the British military supplies ‘mercenary’ forces to a Gulf dictatorship | AOAV

Britain has 91 troops ‘on loan’ to Oman, where serving UK military pilots are flying Omani fighter jets, helicopters and military transport planes under a secretive scheme designed to bolster the repressive monarchy.

aoav.org.uk

 

[reveng]

This has been argued in the UK for a long time. Field Marshals Alan Brooke and Bill Slim both warned of it. Brooke called constant recruiting for special units ‘a dangerous drain on the quality of an infantry battalion’ and Slim observed that special units ‘lower the quality of the rest of the army, especially the infantry’. And note that both made this observation of a conscript army of 2 million men. The new targeted size for the Regular British Army is 72,500 — the ratio of specialized to general purpose units has to be considered.

Perhaps general purpose units will increasingly see concepts such as manned-unmanned teaming take hold in order to address this? Leaving humans to conduct tasks that are more surgical in nature, or tasks in which human qualities & abilities are essential?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Perhaps general purpose units will increasingly see concepts such as manned-unmanned teaming take hold in order to address this? Leaving humans to conduct tasks that are more surgical in nature, or tasks in which human qualities & abilities are essential?

Yes, like the strategically important 'Changing of the Guard' at Buck House, and the all important cocktail parties

 

[reveng]

Yes, like the strategically important 'Changing of the Guard' at Buck House, and the all important cocktail parties

You're right, I forgot about real defence priorities. My bad.