Tag Archives: British Army

Britain, Defence, Military, National Security

Recce-Strike: A new concept in warfare

DEFENCE

Colonel de Bretton-Gordon who commanded the 1st Royal Tank Regiment has written on the new concept of warfare known as “Recce-Strike”.

The former commander, and now a writer and author, says the British Army has finally planted its flag in the ground over the future of land warfare, embracing the Recce-Strike doctrine laid out in the Ministry of Defence’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR).

In many respects, this is being seen as one of the most important conceptual shifts in British military thinking since the end of the Cold War. Crucially, it recognises the brutal realities of modern combat, witnessed daily on the battlefields of Ukraine, where drones, sensors, and rapid precision strikes have fundamentally changed warfare.

Defence has judged that future lethality will come roughly 80pc from drones and autonomous systems, and just 20pc from traditional armoured platforms and artillery. The Colonel says this is both bold and correct. The evidence from Ukraine, he says, is overwhelming. The side that can find, identify, and destroy targets fastest is the side that survives. The Ukrainians, despite chronic shortages in ammunition and equipment, have become masters of this new form of warfare and remain streets ahead of most NATO armies in understanding its practical application.

Had Ukraine received the military support it requested earlier and in greater quantity, there is little doubt that Putin would now be in a far weaker position and considerably more enthusiastic about genuine peace negotiations. That lesson should not be lost on Britain. Defence cannot once again become the sacrificial lamb of domestic political turmoil. At a time when global instability is increasing, any government distracted by internal political warfare risks placing the defence of the realm in jeopardy.

Recce-Strike itself is deceptively simple in concept but revolutionary in execution. It integrates surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike assets into a single digital ecosystem capable of identifying and destroying enemy targets within minutes, sometimes seconds. The aim is to collapse the traditional “kill chain” through the use of AI-assisted targeting, drones, sensors, electronic warfare, and long-range precision firing.

The concept comprises three principal components. First, rapid targeting, drastically reducing the time between detection and destruction through AI-enabled decision making. Second, persistent battlefield surveillance using drones, sensors and electronic warfare to create a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. This is precisely where the much-maligned Ajax reconnaissance vehicle becomes absolutely critical. Critics have spent years deriding Ajax, but they fundamentally misunderstand its role. It is not merely a reconnaissance platform; it is the digital nerve centre of the future battlefield. Third comes long-range firing, combining intelligence and precision strike through artillery, missiles, and loitering munitions to hit enemy formations deep behind the front line.

The announcement that Britain will acquire 72 new self-propelled 155mm howitzers is highly significant. Mounted on the Boxer chassis, the RCH 155 represents exactly the sort of long-range precision capability Britain desperately needs. The systems will be manufactured in the United Kingdom under a contract valued at just under £1bn, strategically vital at a time when sovereign industrial resilience matters more than ever. The remotely or manually operated howitzer can fire eight rounds per minute at targets up to 70 kilometres away and can even operate unmanned when required.

Together with Ajax and Challenger 3, Britain is beginning to assemble the foundations of a genuinely modern, digitally integrated land force. Challenger 3, in particular, will be the Army’s first truly digital main battle tank and a formidable asset if fielded correctly. Combined, these systems could provide the British Army with a highly credible Recce-Strike capability suitable for surviving and winning on tomorrow’s battlefield.

However, time is not our side. The current ambition to have these capabilities fully operational by the end of the decade may simply be too slow given the pace of global instability and military innovation. There is no doubt that integrating Ajax, RCH 155, and Challenger 3 into a coherent fighting force presents enormous challengers in training, logistics, and doctrine. Nonetheless, these are solvable problems, provided the Treasury delivers sustained funding and political leaders maintain focus.

That, ultimately, is the key issue. Defence requires long-term national resolve, not short-term political calculation. The danger is that political chaos in Westminster, and any further lurch to the Left should Sir Keir Starmer lose his grip on Labour, could once again see defence spending sacrificed in favour of ever-expanding socialist commitments.

Today, Russia remains aggressive, China increasingly assertive, and conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilise the international order. Against such a backdrop, weakening defence spending would not simply be irresponsible. It would be reckless.

Without national security, every area of public spending is meaningless. If Britain cannot defend itself, debates over welfare and health budgets rapidly become academic. History repeatedly teaches us that freedom, prosperity, and stability are only preserved when nations possess the will and the capability to defend them.

– Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon’s next book ‘Tank Command’, to be released on June 4, is published by Headline, 320pp

His previous memoir, Chemical Warrior, was published in 2021. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a world-leading expert on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government, Military, National Security, Politics, Society

New round of British Defence Cuts…

DEFENCE

Intro: Our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere standing defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough at present to deal with the most basic of future threats

The announcement from Whitehall that there is to be further cuts to Britain’s already shrinking Army, albeit on grounds of economy rather than strategic priorities, is deeply alarming.

The new rounds of cuts are aimed, primarily, at Britain’s elite rapid reaction force – the most unwarranted target for making economies and savings through cost-cutting. A prime target earmarked is 16 Air Assault Brigade, a core component of which is Britain’s elite Parachute Regiment. It is to be stripped of half its regular infantry battalions, as well as reductions in some of its helicopters, artillery and armoured vehicles. The Royal Engineers, who support our elite forces through maintenance of equipment and servicing, are also to suffer wide ranging cuts to its budget. 16 Air Assault Brigade is to be reduced from the current level of 8,000 troops to 5,000 by the end of this year. Such a scaling-down is difficult to discern given Britain’s post-Afghanistan strategy. This was meant to be focused on our military capability deemed agile enough to respond and execute contingency operations as they arise in the future. A diminishing capability raises fresh concerns over the Government’s overall defence policy.

Alarmingly, these latest cost reductions are to be implemented alongside the already massive cuts inflicted on the Armed Forces. The last strategic defence review in 2010 proposed the reduction of the Army’s strength from 102,000 regular soldiers to just 82,000 by the end of the decade. Parallel reductions of 8,000 personnel in the RAF and 5,500 in the Navy were also part of the defence reconfiguration. Not since before the Napoleonic Wars has Britain had such a low level of manning to call upon in the event of defending sovereign interests.

Some £10 billion has already been cut from the defence budget. Whilst understanding the need for austerity and for efficiency gains to be made where they can, of which the Ministry of Defence cannot expect to be excluded given its high wastage rate on incompetent procurement programmes, defence of the realm is a paramount obligation of every government. If that duty is neglected, a government runs the risk of all of its other priorities and government policies becoming compromised in the process. It is crucial, then, that Britain retains an effectively trained army with a full complement of experienced and professional troops. For many, though, our severely reduced military capability amounts to a mere defence force, and one that is barely equipped enough to deal with the most basic of future threats. Yet, the world is a far more dangerous place than it has ever been, and Britain should be punching above its weight: diminution of military resources reduces the UK’s global influence – military cuts which go against the Government’s aspiration of retaining a place at the top table around the world. To have a positive influence, it is crucial that Britain’s Armed Forces are sufficiently maintained if that ambition is to be met.

There is no doubt that Britain’s military Armed Forces have been pared to the bone. It has reached the stage where any further cuts may well imperil national security.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

Intro: On February 8, 2010, the writer penned an article that was visited several thousand times over by interested readers. That article is reproduced here:

ABUSE CLAIMS

A SENIOR JUDGE has told ministers to consider opening an independent inquiry into all allegations of abuse made by Iraqi civilians against the British Army. The move could lead to the biggest investigation into military malpractice ever heard in Britain.

Mr Justice Silbert, in a note written to counsel acting for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has told the Government:

… ‘My provisional view is that I am uncertain what is to be gained by the Secretary of State continuing to contest these claims for investigation.’

The judge, who is responsible for the management of claims before the court, says he is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of hearing 46 outstanding individual cases, and the likely impact this would have on the resources of the High Court. It is estimated that the cases will take a decade to go through the courts at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer and warns that not holding an independent single inquiry could lead to a “further waste of valuable court time”.

Mr Justice Silber says the Ministry of Defence has already shown itself to be “unable to give proper disclosure” in the case of the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 in southern Iraq, where it is alleged that British soldiers murdered Iraqi civilians.

The judge’s note emerged at the same time as the Government was served with the first claim of abuse brought by an Iraqi woman.

Samahir Abbas Hashim, (32), six months pregnant at the time of the alleged assault, claims she was so badly beaten by British soldiers that she lost her baby.

At 2am, on 21 June 2006, Mrs Hashim says she was sleeping with her children on the roof of her home in Al-Zubayr, Basra. Her husband was sleeping downstairs.

She alleges she awoke to the sound of a large explosion which blasted open the front door of her house and heard British soldiers running inside, shortly after. Some of them pinned her husband to the ground while others rushed to the roof top where she had been sleeping. Mrs Hashim says she was frightened and rushed to protect her youngest child. At this point, she declares, a female British soldier kicked her in the back. As a result, she says, she suffered a miscarriage the next day.

Lawyers acting for Mrs Hashim have written to the Ministry of Defence claiming that her case is clear evidence of “systematic and gratuitous abuse and degradation of Iraqi women by British forces”. Further allegations have been made in eight other cases brought by husbands and relatives of women who say they have been assaulted. The allegations include claims that British troops subjected Iraqi prisoners to rape, sexual humiliation and torture.

Public Interest Lawyers, a firm which is representing 66 Iraqis in 46 separate cases, argues that the Government must hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in south-eastern Iraq.

…’There are so many cases and so many have so much in common – similar allegations at similar facilities, often involving the same people. We can’t have these dragged out over 10 or 15 years. This is the only rational option.’

..

TWO public inquiries have already been launched. The first, into the death of hotel worker, Baha Mousa, (26), in British military custody in September 2003, began hearing evidence last July. It is looking specifically at how ‘prisoner-handling techniques’ banned by the Government in 1972 – including hooding, food and water deprivation and painful “stress positions” – came to be used in Iraq.

And, in November, the Ministry of Defence announced details of a second inquiry into allegations that Hamid Al-Sweady, (19), and up to 19 other Iraqis were unlawfully killed and others ill-treated at a British base in May 2004 after the Battle of Danny Boy.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has so far resisted calls for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees by British forces. However, an MoD spokesperson said that Government lawyers were actively looking at complying with the wishes of the Iraqis.

On the claim being made by Mrs Hashim, Mr Rammell said:

… ‘The MoD recently received a letter alleging the abuse of an Iraqi woman, but has not yet been given any evidence. Abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated, as this one will be, and – where proven – those responsible are punished. However, these are allegations and must not be taken as fact.’

Standard