Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Robotics The Military

British Army To Be Reduced By About 10,000 Soldiers As Part of Move Towards Robots, Drones, and Cyber Warfare (bbc.com) 73

Posted by BeauHD from the anticipating-robot-soldiers dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The size of the Army is to be reduced to 72,500 soldiers by 2025 as part of a move towards drones and cyber warfare. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said "increased deployability and technological advantage" meant greater effect could be delivered by fewer people. He set out plans for new capabilities such as electronic warfare and drones in a command paper in the Commons. Labour has warned that "size matters" when it comes to defence.

Announcing a major overhaul of the armed forces, Mr Wallace said it marked a shift from "mass mobilization to information age speed," insisting they must be able to "seek out and understand" new threats to the country's security. A cut to the size of the Army had been anticipated -- with a reduction of 10,000 widely trailed. What Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced was a cut to the target for the number of fully trained people in the Army, from 82,040 today to 72,500 in 2025. The changes set out in the paper -- titled Defence in a Competitive Age -- include 3 billion pounds for new vehicles, long-range rocket systems, drones, electronic warfare and cyber capabilities. The UK is putting more resources into cyber warfare via the creation of the National Cyber Force based in the North West of England. It's also putting more resources ($6.6 billion for research and development) into space that may function similarly to the U.S. Space Force.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Army To Be Reduced By About 10,000 Soldiers As Part of Move Towards Robots, Drones, and Cyber Warfare More

British Army To Be Reduced By About 10,000 Soldiers As Part of Move Towards Robots, Drones, and Cyber Warfare

Comments Filter:

  • Press a button, do you even need permission? War becomes easier when you don't have to lose your friends when politicians don't have to answer to families.

    • Re:Video game war (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Monday March 22, 2021 @07:17PM (#61187268)

      Understand history, and you'll know that this is nothing new.

      The UK was traumatized by the horrific losses of their young men in WW1. Even going into WW2, they were determined to keep their army on the smallish size, and utilize technology and industry to enhance their power instead of vast armies. A common mantra was "steel not flesh", which was why the UK had a small but almost 100% mechanized army at the start of WW2. The Germans, which were commonly perceived as being highly mechanized, in fact, only had a small percentage of truly mechanized forces, and relied on massive conscript armies with horse-drawn artillery, right up until the end of the war.

      During peacetime or periods of relatively low intensity threats, a smaller army that relies on very high-tech weapons and technology makes the most sense. If you need to scale up case it hits the fan, there's always conscription (known as Selective Service in the US).

      • You are pretty much spot on - there was a massive rearmament push in the 1930s however, which led to a renewal of most of the British forces equipment in the opening stages of WW2, albeit the forces that made up the British Expeditionary Force in 1939 was woefully underequipped.

        Britain started WW2 with an airforce which largely consisted of fabric-winged aircraft that were a half step on from bi-planes (the Spitfire was only just coming into service in any decent numbers in 1939 and was still hugely outnumb

        • Britain started WW2 with an airforce which largely consisted of fabric-winged aircraft that were a half step on from bi-planes (the Spitfire was only just coming into service in any decent numbers in 1939 and was still hugely outnumbered by the Hawker Hurricane, itself a derivative of the Hawker Fury bi-plane)

          The Hurricane is much maligned, though in practice it was substantially better than has often been made out. It doesn't help that the German pilots shot down never admitted to being shot down by a Hurr

    • It's a droid's life in the new British Army!
      • they ARE british droids so whenever one of them is about to take action... . âoeHello! Iâ(TM)m Triple-Zero and Iâ(TM)m looking forward immensely to torturing you today.â â" Triple-Zero (starwars)
  • People seem to still be stuck on the old fashioned perception that today's 'soldiers' are all out dualwielding machine guns in the swamps of Nam. But more and more only robots and a handful of increasingly elite operatives do the actual fighting. The bulk are more typically mechanics or filing paperwork in germany. The closest some may get to danger is being on a gigantic ship or in a maybe being in some hotspot but for the majority in most times its no more dangerous than many civilian jobs. Thats why its

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      The bulk are more typically mechanics or filing paperwork in germany.

      The idea is that those doing desk jobs are back-up soldiers if more people-power becomes necessary. Things like safety and compliance inspections can be reduced if things get so bad that "desk soldiers" have to be called to the field. If your country is on the brink of dying, then investigating whether Bob touched Martha's breasts at the water cooler is no longer a top priority. (Bob probably did, by the way, the perv.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )

        The idea is that those doing desk jobs are back-up soldiers if more people-power becomes necessary.

        No, the idea is that the combatants on the front line need support. Or do you think they can fight on without food, fuel, medical care, and ammunition?

    • The robot dual wielding machine guns will be more like the Oshkosh TerraMAX Unmanned Ground Vehicle [oshkoshdefense.com] , they can make convoys, mounts for heavy machine guns, active armor systems, boat hulls anti-ied design, pretty much a war wagon, an autonomous war wagon.... in the field right now

    • I'm always amused when people that have never been in the military try to tell everyone about military life. If you think the majority of service members are wrench turners or paper pushers, you have a lot to learn about the military.

      Approximately 30% of the enlisted force has an Associates degree or higher; a far cry from the 'dumb grunt' portrayed in the movies. The diversity of jobs in the military is surprising, from cooks, instructors, programmers, radio, radar, sonar, and satellite specialists, res
      • Sounds like your second paragraph contradicted your first and agreed with the OP. If 30% of personnel have a degree or higher, probably over 50% are not primarily combatants. I have been in the military BTW, though over 20 years ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )
      It been that way for millennia. The soldiers engaged in combat are outnumbered by their support about ten-to-one.

      • It been that way for millennia. The soldiers engaged in combat are outnumbered by their support about ten-to-one.

        Can confirm. In the US Army there are about 11 support people for every infantry soldier.

    • All this is true only because we haven't really fought a large scale war with a capable adversary in a long time. If we were to go to war with Russia or China all of the technology would still be used, but you'd see massive "boots on the ground" ramp up too.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
        So all of your 68 million UQueendom folks against 147 million Russians leave alone 1.4 billion Cheen? LOL.

  • Seems odd to me (Score:3)

    by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Monday March 22, 2021 @07:21PM (#61187282) Homepage

    Why would they be reducing forces when they can't just holler to the EU to help them out militarily? Sure there are NATO commitments, but Trump showed them how much they were worth.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
      Europe's infrastructure, army, and even lifestyle is deeply embedded in the expectation that America will defend it. One 4 year trump term is not enough to shift that immediately if at all. There are some pretty funny tales floating around about how unfit and lazy the average Germany soldier is. Its not something you reverse overnight. The urban European sophisticate is going to be in for a rude awakening if a gigantic portion of his countries budget is suddenly going to have to go to the military once the

      • Europe's infrastructure, army, and even lifestyle is deeply embedded in the expectation that America will defend it.

        Many believe a giant military is unnecessary. Russia is roughly a third of the threat the Soviet Union carried (except for maybe nukes). And China would have to cross a lot of land to invade Europe. And outside of those two, no country can match the collective force of the EU.

        And many believe that if it degenerates into WW3 and nukes fly, then mere survival becomes far more important than wh

        • China would have to cross a lot of land to invade Europe.

          Looking around here in the UK, a lot have already made it here anyway. And there is always the biological warfare which seems to be working well.

      • Europe's infrastructure, army, and even lifestyle is deeply embedded in the expectation that America will defend it.

        Who is America defending Europe from? The USSR doesn't exist, and Europe is Russia's biggest customer so they're not killing the golden goose.
        China? How, also why?
        Thailand? No.
        Australia? Ok, maybe Australia. You can't trust those dirty bastards.

        • China has stated goals of reversing the century of humiliation by western and European forces... The war with China began years ago. Chinas economic coercion against multiple countries in Europe (such as Sweden, uk and Czech Republic), ip theft and cyber attacks against everyone arenâ(TM)t some script kiddies being curious.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jbengt ( 874751 )

            China has stated goals of reversing the century of humiliation by western and European forces.

            They've already done that.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by RevDisk ( 740008 )
          You realize Russia annexed part of the Ukraine because it was maybe, possibly going to either join the EU or move in that direction?

          And the consequence was... the EU left Ukraine to defend itself against Russia's invasion. Because the EU gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia. And that number may go higher with Nord Stream 2 coming online soon. And with Russia is increasing their supply to China as well, EU doesn't have nearly as much leverage as a customer either. Russia has grabbed the Crimea, annexed

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Mmm... The US is the country that had a defence pact with the Ukraine. In exchange for the Ukraine surrendering their nukes, the US swore to protect them. Guess that worked out well.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Agripa ( 139780 )

              Mmm... The US is the country that had a defence pact with the Ukraine. In exchange for the Ukraine surrendering their nukes, the US swore to protect them. Guess that worked out well.

              Do you mean this one? It has no requirement that the US defend Ukraine militarily.

              https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                Yeah. Sneaky hey? Bet Ukraine is wishing they'd noticed the agreement completely lacked any enforcement and kept their nukes.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Agripa ( 139780 )

                  Yeah. Sneaky hey? Bet Ukraine is wishing they'd noticed the agreement completely lacked any enforcement and kept their nukes.

                  I suspect it was the best offer they could get under the circumstances. How realistic is it that others would commit ahead of time to go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine? I think Taiwan is in the same situation if China plays the long game.

                  I wonder why they could not have kept their nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Did everybody else threaten them with crippling sanctions or worse?

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                    I think you're right. At the time, it was also generally accepted that both the US and Russia would abide by international law in general, and the Budapest Memorandum specifically. The west did absolutely make clear to all the breakaway republics that if they did not join the non-proliferation treaty and give up their nukes they would be subject to isolation, sanctions, and possibly withdrawal of recognition of their independence. Ukraine really didn't have much of a choice, unless they wanted to go North K

    • Modern international incidents can be handled with diplomacy and "low grade conflicts" ie air strikes, missile strikes, and special operations efforts. That creates a stick that diplomats can use to influence other nations; they can offer simultaneously a stick (we'll blow up some installations) or a carrot (we have a good economy and we'll buy exports from you or lend you money via the IMF). That is a very low-cost way of achieving your nation's aims with other countries without having to get into a seri

      • Re:Seems odd to me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by isomer1 ( 749303 ) on Monday March 22, 2021 @08:09PM (#61187430)

        Modern international incidents can be handled with diplomacy and "low grade conflicts" ie air strikes, missile strikes, and special operations efforts.

        Ukraine and Tibet eagerly await your diplomatic solutions. Also I believe Taiwan is very interested to see the details of your proposal.

        • I'm sorry, but your examples only serve my point. I'm not talking about "good" outcomes or stablizations, I'm talking about how countries can influence their own interests with other countries with low-key militaries.

          Ukraine is an example of this. Ukraine is an open plain with no borders between it and Russia; by definition Russia has interests there because Russia survived the Grand Armee in 1812, World War 1, and Operation Barbarossa in World War 2 by one key tactic: over extending the invader's sup

    • ...when they can't just holler to the EU to help them out militarily?

      Help them against who?

      • ...when they can't just holler to the EU to help them out militarily?

        Help them against who?

        Argentina ... after Boris crowns himself viceroy of the UK trade federation, changes his name to Boris-Gunray and his droid army breaks down due to the reliance on poorly made Chinese servo motors.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      I think you'll find that historically the EU member states have begged the UK to help them out militarily.

      Either that or they've just flat out attacked us. Same result either way now, for centuries.

      However, if we were attacked we could ask the few members of the EU that have a functional military to help us. They're all already part of NATO anyway. Leaving the EU has made no difference at all - the EU is trying to create its own army but even there they were relying on the UK.

      The UK are reducing forces to s

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        No country is going to attack the UK directly. We have nuclear weapons, France has nuclear weapons, we are in NATO.

        What they are going to do is use cyber attacks. Terrorists and criminals too. Maybe some small armed attacks.

        So it doesn't really make sense to have a massive army, that's not what you need for defence these days.

  • 50.000 customs officers still not hired, since these people are specialists in killing people on the other side of borders, they should be able to fill out forms to cross these borders too.

  • I suspect in the next major war, it will turn out everyone has a back-door hack to everyone's weapons, and it will degenerate to face-to-face combat in the end.

    I'm sure each side keeps a list of back-doors and hacks of the others' weapons to use during war time. You can't know what holes they know until they deploy.

    We should keep some analog tanks, ships, and planes around.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by couchslug ( 175151 )

      Not necessarily a matter of retaining fossils, but of making all system we can capable of independent locally-manned operation so all ground units (you control nothing unless Private Snuffy is standing on it with a rifle and perhaps his robot sidekick) have ORGANIC firepower.

      The UK is too poor to maintain something like the BAOR of yore and minus most of the Warsaw Pact Russia isn't in shape to threaten it (conventionally). Further, if you don't have global deployment capabilities to project power you will

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Nah. We just need one battlestar museum ship.

  • While it's a great idea to use machines to do things which would otherwise incur a risk on human life, I cannot help but imagine that doing so in war might inadvertently disrupt the incentive for peace.

    • British Army had 80K people in 2020, all UK armed forces 145K with 45K in reserve... Not seeing how it would make much difference especially the way modern warfare is done.

      • Probably because they get sucked into low grade conflicts through treaties with nations like the US...

        Of course the US training for a super power conflict wasn't much help against an enemy employing mud-hut technology and rifles from some 19th century revolution

        Pretty likely that more than a few Brits are still fumed up over the Falkland Islands and looking to "protect" some far flung territory

        • Actually, super power weapons are extremely effective against the mud hunters and "asymmetric warfare" savages, the only issue is USA lacks will to wage war properly and brutally. That's why it "lost" viet nam, that's why it's been chasing its tail in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wussiness always loses.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      While it's a great idea to use machines to do things which would otherwise incur a risk on human life, I cannot help but imagine that doing so in war might inadvertently disrupt the incentive for peace.

      I agree completely, except maybe the part about "inadvertently".
      This inevitable move to wage war through drones and robots is going to lead to catastrophe and possibly end up in something like one of the dystopias we see in the movies.

  • look at it this way... (Score:3)

    by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Monday March 22, 2021 @08:05PM (#61187410)

    The UK's forces are already too small to make any real difference if a war actually happened, especially with China, Russia or even the USA or EU. There's realy no point in spending more money on something that's already going to be pointless.

  • You win wars by taking ground and holding it. You can bomb from the air all you want, but until you actually take the ground you don't win. Unless you build robot armies, you still need the infantry to meet that objective.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      You win wars by taking ground and holding it.

      Taking ground and holding it is one means to an end. The end goal of war is to make your enemy bend to your political will.

  • I am thankful to be among the last few generations of flesh humans. In the future, we will be a piece of code somewhere. This is the end. Thank you, Universe.

  • EMP (Score:2)

    by zmooc ( 33175 )

    So soon it will be possible to conquer the Brits with just one big EMP and any random 200 year old army :p

  • China isn't afraid of their toy helicopters or magic scripts.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close